Michael D. Baker
mikebakerlaw.bsky.social
Michael D. Baker
@mikebakerlaw.bsky.social
170 followers 480 following 1.9K posts
Immigration and Criminal Defense Lawyer | Former Cook County Criminal Prosecutor Insights on immigration law, criminal defense, and other areas of interest
 Following, reposting, and replies do not imply endorsement. Visit my website: mikebakerlaw.com
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
“A considerable amount of athletically allergic candidates had been showing up to the academy; they had ‘misrepresented’ their physical condition on application forms,” Miroff writes, quoting an internal ICE email. A deportation surge that can’t run a mile.
As Nick Miroff reports for The Atlantic, the administration’s crash effort to double ICE’s workforce has hit an unlikely obstacle—its own recruits.
Reposted by Michael D. Baker
“What is to stop Trump from making comparably inflated claims about the situations on the ground in other American cities as a pretextual basis for deploying troops? And what’s to stop him from making those claims not tomorrow, but next November—on the eve of the midterms?”

Me, via “One First”:
184. The Massive Stakes of Trump v. Illinois
The Trump administration's 29th emergency application—to let it deploy federalized National Guard troops in Chicago on a profoundly dubious factual predicate—is a make-or-break moment for the Court.
www.stevevladeck.com
Anna Bower’s exposé on Lindsey Halligan’s baffling messages is a masterclass in “Wait, is this really happening?” journalism. Halligan is prosecuting high-stakes cases— under political pressure—but her erratic outreach to the media is a story in itself.
When the prosecutor handpicked by Trump starts texting a journalist to complain about coverage—and then can’t say what’s wrong, or even whether she’s on the record—it’s not just news: it’s a case study in chaos at the DOJ.
"She knew I was a journalist. She approached me. She invited my questions. She even encouraged me to stop chasing other reporters’ stories and focus on my own. Turns out, she gave me a great one." www.lawfaremedia.org/article/anna...
“Anna, Lindsey Halligan Here.”
My Signal exchange with the interim U.S. attorney about the Letitia James grand jury.
www.lawfaremedia.org
His message to America: "A republic, if you can keep it."

238 years later, are we proving him right?
On Sept 17, 1787, Franklin signed the Constitution but warned it would only work "for a course of years" before collapsing into tyranny—not because of the document's flaws, but because "the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government."
5. Prosecute the president for unlawful orders
Blocked: Supreme Court grants President Trump immunity for official acts—even if those acts are illegal.
4. Criminally prosecute individual officers or officials
Mostly blocked: Prosecutions are unlikely while the Justice Department is controlled by allies of the president, and the Supreme Court recently granted sweeping immunity to President Trump.
3. Sue the United States for compensation (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Still viable: Victims can sue the US government directly for abuses, but only taxpayers—not rogue officers—pay, and this rarely deters bad behavior.
2. Sue individual law enforcement officers for damages
Blocked: Recent rulings have shut down most lawsuits against officers personally, even for clear constitutional violations.
1. Seek a court injunction to stop illegal conduct
Blocked: Supreme Court decisions make it nearly impossible to get an order stopping ICE or other agencies from repeating illegal actions—even if the victims have already been targeted.
Three out of five legal options to constrain ICE and federal law enforcement have been shut down by the Supreme Court. The two that remain rarely hold anyone directly accountable or change institutional behavior www.vox.com/politics/464...
How the Supreme Court placed ICE above the law
Broadly, there are 5 ways to constrain rogue federal law enforcement agents. The Supreme Court nuked 3 of them.
www.vox.com
If that’s not a red line for this Court, it’s hard to imagine what would be.”
Otherwise, the Court would be greenlighting pretextual (if not abusive) domestic deployments of the military—whether temporarily (if the justices think they might ultimately rule against the Trump administration on the merits), or … not.
If the justices really want to look at this case closely, they should grant certiorari before judgment and take full briefing and argument before doing anything to upset the status quo.
The real questions in these cases are not about the federal government’s (broad) legal authorities; they’re about the facts. And the absolute last place the Supreme Court should be re-litigating the facts is in the truncated, compressed frenzy of resolving an emergency application.
Trump posted an AI video of himself, crowned, flying a “King Trump” jet over Times Square, dumping feces on millions of protesters. The President is digitally dumping on free speech, ruling by spite and meme. How long can the Court shield him when the whole world sees exactly what they’ve enabled?
Donald Trump posted an Al video of himself in a 'King Trump' jet dumping feces on 'No Kings' protesters.
Claiming wartime authority to kill suspected drug traffickers while ultimately processing survivors through peacetime law enforcement and diplomatic mechanisms.
As Brian Finucane noted, while repatriation avoids detention issues, “If the U.S. government has a sufficient legal basis to prosecute them for crimes in Article III courts, it can do so,” implying that the administration may lack such a basis.