We Need To Talk About Trump’s Maritime Murders

What It Covers

The episode examines Trump administration's maritime bombing campaign killing suspected drug traffickers, featuring legal expert Rebecca Ingber analyzing war crimes allegations, plus Supreme Court arguments on crisis pregnancy centers, internet service provider liability, and immigration law.

Key Questions Answered

• •Maritime Strike Legality: Trump administration conducted 87 killings across 22 strikes since September, targeting suspected drug traffickers without congressional authorization. Legal experts classify these as murder, not lawful military action, because transporting drugs does not constitute armed conflict under international law requiring combatant status.
• •War Crime Evidence: September 2 strike survivors were bombed 40 minutes after initial attack while waving for help in water. Under Uniform Code of Military Justice and international law, firing on shipwrecked individuals constitutes manifestly unlawful order that soldiers must refuse, regardless of superior commands or claimed national security justifications.
• •Crisis Pregnancy Center Standing: First Choice seeks immediate federal court access to challenge New Jersey subpoena without awaiting state court proceedings. Supreme Court justices appear sympathetic despite weak factual record of state hostility, potentially expanding nonprofit rights to preemptively challenge investigations based on claimed First Amendment donor privacy concerns similar to NAACP protections.
• •ISP Copyright Liability: Cox Communications faces over one billion dollars in jury damages for user copyright infringement through file sharing. Justices express concern that broad secondary liability could force internet service providers to terminate service to entire universities, military bases, and communities to avoid crushing financial exposure from user actions.
• •Immigration Judge Review: Federal courts must defer to Board of Immigration Appeals factual determinations about whether undisputed events constitute persecution for asylum purposes. Supreme Court signals this mixed question contains too much factual content for independent judicial review, limiting federal court oversight of administrative immigration decisions despite legal components.