Good morning. It is May 15th. It is a dim and damp morning in New York City. And this is your indignity morning podcast. I'm your host, Tom Scocca, taking a look at the day and the news. 

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear emergency arguments this morning about cases involving Donald Trump's executive order against birthright citizenship. That's a slightly complicated, but necessary locution because, as Politico's Josh Gerstein explains, it's not clear what exactly the court will be deciding. “Formerly,” Gerstein writes, “the Trump administration is urging the court to lift or narrow three nationwide injunctions issued by three separate federal district judges that have so far blocked Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship policy. Those judges found that the policy blatantly violates the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and long-standing Supreme Court precedent. But, the administration notably is not asking the court at this stage,” Gerstein continues, “to overturn the district judge's legal reasoning and declare Trump's policy constitutional. Rather, the administration says the judges simply lack the power to issue any nationwide injunctions in the first place.” He continues, “that legal position will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the Supreme Court to analyze the validity of nationwide injunctions in a vacuum, without considering the immediate effects on millions of babies born on American soil. If the justices invalidate the injunctions, Trump may be able to enact his citizenship policy in vast areas of the country, even though every court to squarely weigh the policy's legality has ruled against it.” 

The Supreme Court has previously played along with some of the Trump administration's attempts to turn questions about its blanket lawlessness into questions about the procedural basis for people to challenge that lawlessness, operating, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent last month, “to hand the government an early win, a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle, in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seemed doubtful.” In that decision, the Law Dork blog writes, a 5-4 majority of the court went along with the administration's argument that its arbitrary mass cancellation of grant money should not be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act, but because it involves contracts, it needs to be brought in a different court, which gave the Trump administration room to go ahead and cut off the funding while the case about whether it really had the power to do it was being rerouted to a different part of the system. 

Will they give the same latitude to a completely anti-constitutional attempt to deny American citizenship to people who are American citizens, while pretending that's not really what they're doing? We'll find out soon. 

The front of this morning's New York Times uses another one of its unusual layouts, sliding the art to the right-hand side of the page and putting it underneath a news headline. The photo is another stop on Donald Trump's Middle Eastern tour, a long shot, feet included, of the president sitting with the Emir of Qatar at an elaborate desk flanked by executives of Boeing and Qatar Airways and the flags of their country. “Trump Visit Helps Solidify Qatar’s Image Makeover” is the headline. And then one column wide below the photo, “EMIRATE GAINING CLOUT / Culmination of Efforts to Combat Claims of Ties to Terrorism.” The story says that neither Trump nor Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the Emir, discussed the country's offer of a used luxury jumbo jet as a gift to Trump, but they still seemed to have a good time. 

“The president,” the Times writes, “who's described the Emir as ‘a great gentleman and a friend of mine,’ marveled at the white marble construction, calling it ‘perfecto’ and praised the Emir's work to mediate the wars in the Middle East and between Russia and Ukraine. The presidential visit to Qatar,” the Times writes, “which was to culminate with a lavish state dinner Wednesday night, is a dramatic turnaround for a small Persian Gulf country that Mr. Trump derided eight years ago as a funder of terrorism at a very high level.” The steps that Qatar has taken to clean up its standing, as recounted in the story, include hiring Pam Bondi, now the attorney general, as a lobbyist, hosting the World Cup, in facilities built over the bodies of grievously exploited laborers, selling the United States liquefied natural gas, and spending $8 billion to develop an air base that the United States uses, as the Times writes, “a key part of the American military presence in the region,” plus some real estate deals for the Trump Organization, and some work as an intermediary in conflict negotiations around the wars in Ukraine and Gaza none of which really amount to a repudiation or suspension of support for extremists. The story notes that the business with the free airplane has, as the Times writes, “created a rare rift between Mr. Trump and the people at the heart of his political machine. ‘Like, please define “America first” in a way that says you should take sacks of cash from the Qatari Royals,’ Ben Shapiro, a leading conservative podcast host, said sarcastically on his show, ‘it just isn't “America first” in any conceivable way.’ Laura Loomer, a right-wing influencer who has successfully pressured Mr. Trump to fire aides she deemed disloyal to the president, blasted the idea in several social media posts. ‘We cannot accept a $400 million gift from jihadists in suits,’ Ms. Loomer wrote on Tuesday.” 

Next to that, on page one, under the picture of the desk, The Times carries on its recent welcome habit of writing direct and unmediated assessments of the president's shortcomings, “President’s Opponents Getting Wise to His Ways / A Pattern of Blustering Negotiating Tactics Ending in Retreat.” 

“President Trump,” the story says, “has long reveled in his reputation as a maximalist, issuing a huge demand, creating a crisis, and setting off a high pressure negotiation. But increasingly often, he ends up backing down and simply declaring a win. His opponents appear to be catching on, sharpening their tactics based on Mr. Trump's patterns and his unapologetically transactional attitude toward diplomacy. The dynamic,” the Times writes, “has played out repeatedly in recent weeks as Mr. Trump backed off, to varying degrees, on his plans to transform Gaza into the Riviera of the Middle East, turn Canada into the 51st state, and beat China into submission with tariffs. Now,” the story says, “two very different tests are emerging. One is over where Mr. Trump stands, with America's biggest allies, or with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on preserving Ukraine's sovereignty and safety in any ceasefire deal. The other, with Iran, may determine whether he is really willing to stand aside and let Israel bomb Iran, or join in, despite the risks, if he cannot extract a better nuclear deal than what President Barack Obama got and cut off Iran's pathway to a bomb.” 

Down at the bottom of the page, the Times does another one of its partnerships, where it throws the resources that it has acquired by being a winner, in the winner-take-all business of American news media into a joint project with one of the outlets just trying to survive in the post-apocalyptic reporting landscape. Here it's the Illinois Answers Project, and it's an investigation into the hideous system in the state of Illinois by which people are evicted from their homes for merely running afoul of the law on minor infractions or being arrested for charges that didn't stick, looking at the violation letters, telling people that they were at risk of eviction. “More than 1,300,” the story says, “were for misdemeanors or non-criminal offenses, many never pursued by prosecutors. Most cities have crafted their laws so they can evict tenants even if the renters are never convicted of a crime or never proved to have harmed their neighbors.” This is a strategy created at the turn of the century when Chicago tore down the Cabrini-Green public housing complex, and dispersed its residents, making it easier for the surrounding towns to expel any unsavory elements that might want to move there. Even some of the landlords in the story find the ability of the police to punish people with the loss of their homes without any sort of criminal conviction to be shocking and excessive. One, the story says, “said she had called the police when she noticed a tenant had been leaving dogs caged in the home's garage. While concerned about the dogs, she was shocked when the police ordered her to evict the tenants without warning. She said she felt the offense had not endangered others.” These petty abuses of power, ruining people's lives merely for having a brush with the law enforcement system in the name of zero tolerance for undesirables, are remarkably congruent with the Trump administration's new policy of scooping up people for deportation based on charges for minor infractions or old low-level convictions, or nothing at all. Once you've built the machinery to grind up people without due process, you can apply it to all sorts of situations. 

That is the news. Thank you for listening. The Indignity Morning Podcast is edited by Joe MacLeod. The theme song is composed and performed by Mack Scocca-Ho. You, the listeners, keep us going through your paid subscriptions to Indignity and your tips. Continue sending those along if you're able. And if nothing unexpected gets in the way, we will talk again tomorrow.