AMNA NAWAZ: For more on the legal ramifications of## the Trump administration's showdown with the# judiciary, I'm joined now by Steve Vladeck,## a constitutional law professor# at Georgetown University.

Steve, welcome back.

Let's just pick up where Laura left off# .. between the Department of Justice and# Judge Boasberg here.

The judge wants## more information on the flights.

Department# of Justice has until Thursday to produce it.

When you look at this, does this seem to be an# administration in defiance of the judge's orders?

STEVE VLADECK, Georgetown University# Law Center: I don't know that the## administration really has reached# the point of open de..

I think it's more like what my 6-year-old does,# which is testing the boundaries of the authority,## pushing to see how much they can get away# with, pushing to see sort of where the line is,## but while preserving plausible deniability that# they're not actually saying they can't be bound.

And I think that's part of why you see# this back-and-forth between President## Trump and Chief John Roberts.

And where this ends,## I think is really the big question now.

We have# heard just late this afternoon the D.C. Circuit## has scheduled arguments in the government's effort# to shut down Judge Boasberg for next Monday.

So I don't know that we're at the outright# defiance stage yet, but I do think this is more## resistance from the executive branch than we have# seen certainly in our lifetime and perhaps ever.

AMNA NAWAZ: And seeking to test those boundaries,# let me put to you what the administration says,## because they argue they have# absolute constitutional right## to protect national security, to conduct# foreign policy in the way they see fit.

They see these deportation flights# as part of that effort.

Is that a## sound argument, that the president# has absolute power on this front?

STEVE VLADECK: So, no.

I mean, the Alien Enemy Ac.. take World War II.

I mean, World War II,# a moment where President Roosevelt had as## strong an argument for whatever authority# the Constitution could possibly provide,## and, instead, he relied upon the# statute not just as a basis for## detaining and removing German and Italian# alien enemies, but for holding hearings.

I mean, there are literally hundreds of# reported judicial decisions from World## War II where individuals who were picked# up, who were held as alien enemies said,## hey, I'm not actually German,# I'm Swiss, or I'm not Italian,## I'm actually American.

And courts scrutinized# the basis for the government's behavior.

If that was what was required in# the middle of World War II in 1944,## hard to see how less is required here# in 2025, when it's not remotely as clear## that the president's national security# powers are even that strongly implicated.

AMNA NAWAZ: So you have said it doesn't seem the## administration is an open defiance# of the judge's order..

But President Trump was asked in an interview last## night about whether he would ever defy a# judge's order.

Here's what he had to say.

DONALD TRUMP: I never did defy a court order.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX News Anchor:# And you wouldn't in the future?

DONALD TRUMP: No, you can't do that.

However,# we h.. And these are judges that shouldn't# be allowed.

I think they -- I think,## at a certain point, you have to start looking# at, what do you do when you have a rogue judge?

The judge that we're talking about, he's# -- you look at his other rulings, I mean,## rulings unrelated.

But having# to do with me, he's a lunatic.

AMNA NAWAZ: Steve, what the# president's saying here is,## he wouldn't defy a court order, but some# judges, he says, are bad, th.. What do you take away from that answer?

STEVE VLADECK: I mean, I think we# should point out a couple things.

First, the number of cases President# Trump is losing before the number of## judges he's losing them in front# of, that's an awfully large number## of rogue judges.

Perhaps the real problem# is that we have a rogue administration.

But, second -- and I think Chief John Roberts# chose his words very carefully in the statement## he issued yesterday, which is, the remedy# our legal system provides for individual,## trial level district court judges who get things## wrong is the remedy of appeal.

That's# what the Biden administration did when## so many of its policies were blocked by# handpicked right-wing judges in Texas.

And it's what every president has done# going all the way back to the founding.## So I think part of the problem here is that# you can believe that a judicial decision is## wrong.

You can even believe that a judge is# rogue, although I think the evidence here is## lacking.

But the remedy for all of that# behavior is not to undermine the judge,## is not to threaten his security,# is not to call for his impeachment.

The remedy is to let the legal system do# what the legal system does, which is correct## erroneous rulings on appeal.

And# maybe the judge is actually not## wrong.

And maybe the appellate courts# side with Judge Boasberg in this case.

AMNA NAWAZ: Just to underscore# what we're seeing at this moment,## because you mentioned Chief Justice John# Roberts.

He was very careful in his wording.

Another part of his statement he issued said:## "It's not an appropriate response to# disagreement concerning a judicial## decision" on -- referring to President Trump# and others' calls for judges to be impeached.

For the chief justice to choose to weigh in,# to do so publicly, how significant is that?

STEVE VLADECK: It's really quite# remarkable.

And it's remarkable## both that the chief justice chose# to weigh in and how quickly he did.

President Trump just, I think, first# publicly called for the impeachment of## Chief Judge Boasberg on Monday.

And, by Tuesday,## you have Chief John Roberts, who does nothing# without deliberation, issuing this statement.

I think it's a striking concession by the chief# justice that these are not ordinary times.

And,## frankly, I think it's a message not to# President Trump, but rather to every## district judge in the country that the# chief justice has their back, and to us,## the American people, that whatever you think of# the courts, whatever you think of the Supreme## Court today, our system is predicated on the# idea that the courts get to interpret the law,## and that, if they get it wrong,# the right remedy is to appeal.

And if the Supreme Court gets it wrong, that's# when we talk about what Congress can do.

Can we## amend the Constitution?

The right remedy is not# for an individual president to be able to say,## I don't agree with this decision, so# I'm not going to follow it.

Otherwise,## then you have a government not of laws.# You have a government of one person,## and that's exactly what the# Constitution set up to avoid.

AMNA NAWAZ: Steve Vladeck, professor of# constitutional law at Georgetown University,## always great to speak with you.

Thank# you so much for making the time.

STEVE VLADECK: Any time.

Thanks for having me.