AMNA NAWAZ: Well, Harvard University won a major legal victory today when a federal judge said that the government had broken the law by freezing billions of dollars in research funding.

GEOFF BENNETT: As William Brangham explains, it's one of the latest in a series of court rulings putting the brakes on some administration policies, which are likely headed to the Supreme Court.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right.

Harvard's legal win today was a significant victory for the university, which had sued the administration, arguing that its canceling of research grants trampled the school's due process and First Amendment rights.

Separately, a Fifth Circuit panel yesterday blocked the administration's from using an 18th century law to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

And then, last week, another court ruled that the president overstepped his authority by issuing his sweeping tariffs against other nations.

So, for some perspective on these legal developments, we are joined again by Georgetown Law Professor Steve Vladeck.

Steve, thank you so much for being here.

Let's start with the Harvard case first.

The administration had argued that Harvard wasn't doing enough to stamp out antisemitism on campus.

And so it blocked all of these research grants, billions of dollars.

Harvard sued and won.

What did this judge rule that the administration had done wrong?

STEVE VLADECK, Georgetown University Law Center: Yes, I mean, so, William, there, I think, are two different problems here.

The first is that federal law provides a process for revoking those kinds of grants, for bringing claims of discrimination against universities like Harvard.

They didn't follow it here.

And, second, there were the obvious First Amendment issues with going after a university based on what really looks like, for the most part, constitutionally protected speech.

As you mentioned, it's just a district court.

It still has to go up to the federal appeals court in Boston and probably from thence to the Supreme Court, but it's a big win for Harvard and another in, as you say, a number of recent losses for this administration.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: OK, separately, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which many people consider one of the most conservative circuits in the country, said that the Trump's administration's use of this 18th century law known as the Alien Enemies Act meant that the administration could not be deporting alleged gang members from Venezuela.

Again, what did the -- what did this panel rule in that case?

STEVE VLADECK: Yes, so this is a really important ruling from last night.

The panel held that we really just aren't being invaded, and we're not subject to what the Alien Enemies Act refers to as a predatory incursion from Tren de Aragua, from the Venezuelan government.

William, it's a big deal, not just because of what it means specifically for the president's efforts to use this statute for mass summary removals of Venezuelan migrants.

It's a big deal because it suggests that courts, even like the fairly conservative Fifth Circuit, are starting to view with a fair amount of skepticism claims by the president, by this administration that we're being invaded, that there's an emergency, that conditions on the ground are different from what, to all appearances, they really are.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Separately on that same front, again, a different case, the president faced this -- another setback on Friday when a federal appeals court ruled that the administration had overstepped its authority when the president issued these sweeping, vast tariffs against many of our trading partners.

Again, what did the court say as to why the president did not have that authority?

STEVE VLADECK: So this was the full federal circuit here in Washington, and by a 7-4 vote, it held that the tariffs that President Trump had imposed, at least many of them, were not authorized by this 1977 statute, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, William, again, because the court took issue with how the president viewed not just the underlying circumstances, but with how the president interpreted the statute, which doesn't seem to contemplate tariffs at all, let alone tariffs like these.

That ruling is at least on hold for the time being, at least until October 14, but also setting up a major test case for the Supreme Court as recently as in its next term.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Lastly, Steve, in just the last few seconds, I know you follow all of these cases quite closely.

How do you measure how the courts are standing up to or acquiescing to the Trump administration, which has shown that it really wants to exercise executive authority?

STEVE VLADECK: So, I think that the short version is the courts are pushing back fairly aggressively.

They're pushing back on the merits and not just on procedural grounds.

And what this is all really setting up, William, is a series of major test cases for the Supreme Court to confront the Trump administration as early as next spring.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Steve Vladeck of Georgetown, always great to talk to you.

Thanks.

STEVE VLADECK: Thank you.