Filling in for Joan Esposito, William Muck is joined by Barbara McQuade, legal analyst, law professor, former United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, co-host of the "#Sisters in Law" podcast, and author of “Attack From Within: How Disinformation Is Sabotaging America.”

Muck and McQuade discussed the divergent responses of federal district courts and the Supreme Court to challenges brought against Trump administration actions. Citing a recent study by Stanford University's Adam Bonica, Muck noted that federal district courts have ruled against Trump 94 percent of the time, while the Supreme Court has sided with Trump 93.7 percent of the time.

"I think one of the things that could be driving that is the fact that Trump is taking action that is so far beyond the bounds of established law," McQuade told WCPT. "And so when you're a district court and even a circuit court, you have to follow the law that's listed in statutes and prior court decisions. You can't overrule the Supreme Court. You can't say what the law should be. You can only say what the law is. The Supreme Court gets to write on a slightly blanker slate, and so only they can say, this is lawful. They can expand a president's powers if they believe that that's what the Constitution requires, whereas the lower courts are kind of bound by what has come before."

McQuade highlighted the unitary executive theory, which the Supreme Court has been receptive to, allowing Trump to assert broad executive powers. She criticized the Court's use of the shadow docket for emergency relief, as well as its granting review of emergency petitions "when there's not really an emergency."

Catch "Joan Esposito: Live, Local and Progressive" weekdays from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. Central on WCPT (heartlandsignal.com/programs/live-local-progressive).

And find the Joan Esposito (Full Episodes) podcast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, TuneIn, iHeartRadio, YouTube, and Amazon.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.