In this week’s edition of "How Appealing Weekly Roundup," we delve into a variety of intriguing stories that highlight the ongoing tension between the judiciary and the executive branch, as well as a lighter look at a long-standing Supreme Court tradition.

Judge Takes Firm Stand Against ICE Noncompliance: A recent report from The New York Times reveals a strong stance taken by a federal judge in Minnesota against the Trump administration’s repeated failures to comply with court orders. The judge has pointed out over 210 instances in 143 cases where Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials did not follow judicial directives. The determination to enforce compliance underscores a significant clash between federal judges and executive agencies.

Supreme Court’s Stance on Executive Power: Contrary to some defenders' claims, the Supreme Court has not significantly curtailed executive power concerning recent tariff rulings involving President Trump. Legal analyst Steve Vladeck argues in a detailed post that the data overwhelmingly suggests the Supreme Court is not reeling in presidential powers as much as some might believe. This insight offers a critical perspective on the judiciary's interaction with executive decisions.

Ongoing Tariff Battles Post-Supreme Court Ruling: Following a defeat at the Supreme Court over tariffs, the Trump administration is reportedly exploring legal avenues to retain control over tariff revenues. Sources close to POLITICO suggest that despite the judicial setback, the administration is keen on finding ways to maintain some, if not most, of the financial benefits derived from tariffs, indicating a continuing saga of legal maneuvering and executive strategy.

New Insights into Justice Department’s Prosecutorial Decisions: Alan Feuer of The New York Times sheds light on the Justice Department’s role in the prosecution of Abrego Garcia, providing new details that highlight the complexities and potential overreach of federal prosecutorial power. This report adds another layer to the ongoing discussions about the balance of power and the justice system’s integrity under political influence.

A Glimpse into the Supreme Court’s Stoic Tradition at the State of the Union: Ever noticed how impassive Supreme Court Justices appear during the State of the Union speeches? Jay Willis offers an amusing yet insightful essay on what he describes as the Court’s "silliest tradition." This piece provides a lighter note amidst the more serious legal discussions, focusing on the human aspect of the justices who serve on America’s highest court.

For more detailed stories and insights into the world of appellate litigation, visit Howard Bashman’s "How Appealing" blog. These stories not only reflect current legal battles but also the ongoing narrative of power dynamics in the U.S. government.