April 4th, 2025

On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, allowed the Trump administration to temporarily slash hundreds of millions in teacher-training funds as part of its anti-DEI push, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the three radical justices. Roberts’ reliability has become very troubling. This case highlights a jurisdictional issue that poses a significant problem. It appears that the five justices are laying the foundation to reign in these lower courts. Also, Judge James Boasberg is weighing whether to hold the Trump administration in contempt for supposedly violating his order halting the deportation of Venezuelan gang members, but there’s a catch. For contempt to stick, those involved need to have actually received and read the written order, not just heard about it secondhand. When was Boasberg’s order documented, and to whom exactly did he direct it? Later, Marine Le Pen’s situation in France mirrors President Trump’s, where she was leading in the polls and was seen as a threat to Macron, leading to her political takedown. Meanwhile, the media faces a scandal as Hamas admits its death toll numbers—widely reported—were false, exposing the same outlets that lied about Biden, the COVID lab leak, Hunter Biden, and more – sickening. Afterward, the media focuses on grilling Republicans about tariffs but ignores foreign tariffs on U.S. goods, like China’s 67% rates. It’s strange that they won’t dig into that. Finally, WABC’s Sid Rosenberg calls in to discuss the 3 Jewish coaches in the NCAA final four, his morning show in NY, and Trump’s tariffs.

Photo by Samuel Corum

The podcast for this show can be streamed or downloaded from the Audio Rewind page.

Rough transcription of Hour 1

Segment 1
Hello America. Mark Levin here. Our number 877-381-3811. 877-381-3811. The Final four. Saturday and Monday, apparently. And. 6 p.m. Saturday. It’s Florida versus Auburn. And 9 p.m. Saturday. It’s Houston versus Duke. Sunday is clear. Finally, Mr. Bridges. Sunday clear of sports Or maybe not. Baseball knows. So if you can set your DVR 8 p.m. Eastern Saturday and Sunday, you’re in for a treat. I promise you and I see that the media are going around asking Republicans about tariffs and I don’t blame them. But how come they never go around and ask anybody about the foreign terrorists that are on our goods? I’m just curious about that. Seriously. I don’t mind them asking about what Trump’s doing. That’s real news. But why don’t I ever go around and say, Well, what do you think about China’s 67% tariffs? Canada has tariffs on their dairy products into the hundreds. Several hundred percent. It is strange to me. That they don’t. They don’t dig into this at all. But we will, of course. These two shows are going to be great, just like this one is. You ready for this one, ladies and gentlemen? Associated Press. This just came out. The Supreme Court of the United States. At 5:30 p.m. Eastern, granted the Trump administration’s plea to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in teacher training money as part of its anti-Dean efforts. While a lawsuit continues. You know what the vote was 5 to 4. Five the for you were the three so-called liberal justices, the radicals joined by the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, Sir John Roberts, George Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan. Very troubling. Very, very troubling. Then the Associated Press goes on about the cuts to more than 100 programs have been temporarily blocked by a federal judge in Boston that they were already affecting training programs aimed at addressing a nationwide teacher shortage. So what? It’s not a judge’s business. Emergency appeals among several. The high court is considering it, which the Justice Department argues their lower court judges have improperly obstructed President Trump’s agenda. Friday’s order was the first time in three attempts that the nation’s highest court gave the administration what you wanted on an emergency basis. But their John Roberts voting with the three radicals. U.S. District Judge Megan one issued a temporary restraining order sought by eight Democratic led states that argued the cuts were likely driven by efforts from Trump’s administration to eliminate de facto programs. But what if they were? So what? So this is very important to understand. That John Roberts went with the other three. Which is also means that. Barrett went with the. The four. Their separate opinion can Taji Brown Jackson. By my observation, she’s a woman, but she doesn’t know if she is or not because she couldn’t explain it beyond puzzling. And a majority of justices conceive of the government’s application as an emergency. It’s beyond puzzling. Well, you’re beyond stupid then, if that’s what what you conclude. California’s leading the ongoing lawsuit, joined by Massachusetts. New Jersey. Colorado. Illinois. Maryland. New York. Wisconsin. Boston Public Schools already fired several full time employees due to the loss of grant funding. So what? What does this have to do with judges intervening? I mean, this is incredible to me. And there he is. John Roberts, How pathetic. What’s with this guy? Apparently, something’s not right. Listen to this one. New York Post. Trump demands. Harvard University banned face masks, cracked down on anti-Semitism or lose $9 billion in funding. Harvard has an endowment of over $50 billion. Did you know that, Mister Producer? Over $50 billion. Why is he getting $9 billion in federal funding? Why are you taking $9 billion from electricians and truck drivers? From cops and firefighters, whomever. And giving it to an Ivy League. Probably the Ivy League school that has $52 billion in the bank. Government officials set out the terms in a stern letter. They accused the Ivy League of fundamentally failing to protect American students and faculty from anti-Semitic violence and harassment. I want to thank the Trump administration again and again and again for what they’re doing. The Biden administration did absolutely nothing about this. They are really digging in. They’re really fighting it. Forget about Josh SHAPIRO. Forget about this guy Greenblatt, who runs the Anti-Defamation League. These guys try to undo themselves because the radical left wing Democrats that fund the ADL, apparently, and others, this guy, Josh Shapiro’s, a pathetic, sickening joke. They try and have it both ways. You don’t have it both ways. Like Columbia. The Cambridge, Massachusetts campus has been a hotbed for student led anti-Israel protests. They are not anti-Israel protests. They’re not being punished because they’re anti-Israel. They are anti-Semitic, violent harassment activities. They are riotous. Now, Harvard must limit the time, place and manner of campus speech and protests. Review academic departments that fuel anti-Semitic harassment. Notice that anti-Semitic harassment. Those departments are required to address bias and improve viewpoint diversity. The letter, sent to Harvard President Allan Garber, did not specify the departments at Harvard that that need review because all of them do. They are also called for firmer enforcement, the university’s existing discipline policies, as well as a report on all actions taken response to anti-Semitism since the October seven, 2023 attack in Israel. Alexander Metzenbaum, a Harvard Divinity School graduate who is suing the university over campus. anti-Semitism supported the administration’s crackdown. I know, but I don’t think Joshie does the job over there. SHAPIRO in Pennsylvania. He said. In the same way the federal government threatened to withhold funds from racist school districts, they refused to integrate. The power of the purse is the last tool available to cause Harvard to treat all its students with equality and justice. One of the reasons I support this so strongly. Is because it was an idea I wrote about. In American Marxism. I wrote about this idea four years ago, Mr. Produce. Defund the university’s. Defund the colleges. This is the way to do it. And the Trump administration is doing exactly that. And the Trump administration should do. Exactly that the Biden administration refused. And the Trump administration gets no credit from the media, no credit from the Democrats because they don’t support it. They don’t support it. Tell me one major Democrat who supports us. Who are they? Where are they? See? Governor. Senator. Who is it? I can’t think of any. If there is one, it’s one. That’s it. I’ll be right back.

Segment 2
They have in front of me sent to me by. My wife Julie, the order of the court about an hour ago. This case involving the the holding back of these DEA funds were five justices said that there was a temporary stay on what the lower district court had ordered and the three radicals plus Hollywood Johnny, it would be the chief justice ruled the opposite. But they lost. They write. On March ten, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued what it styled as a temporary restraining order enjoining the government from terminating various education related grants. I keep in mind, again, you have one district judge, and in Boston, this is a national restraining order. So the order also requires the government to pay a pass to grant obligations and to continue paying obligations as they accrue. The district court’s conclusion rested on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act on March 26. The government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s March ten order and requested an immediate administrative stay. The application was presented to Justice Jackson and by her referred to the Court. Although the courts of appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from temporary restraining orders. Several factors counsel in favor of construing the district court’s order as an appealable preliminary injunction. And this is a very important point. These lower courts are using these temporary restraining orders, which are supposed to really be like ten days, very limited as temporary injunctions, which are much more substantial and are appealable. Moreover, the district court’s basis for issuing the order is strongly challenged as the government is likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction. To order the payment of money under the APA. So they’re laying the foundation. That is these five justices, hopefully all five, but certainly four, but the five justices to try and rein in these courts. We’ll see. The legal analysts who are reading this are not reading it properly. I am. I’m an analyst. The analysts the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply. If any other statute that grants consent the suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought. Nor does the waiver apply to claims seeking money. Damages through a district court’s jurisdiction is not barred by the possibility that in order setting aside an his action may result in the disbursement of funds. But as we have recognized, the APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money along the way, along the lines of what the district court ordered here. Instead, the Tucker Act grants the court of federal claims. All right. You don’t need to know all this stuff. As for the remaining stay factors, respondents have not refuted that. Respondents would be the the Libs and the government’s representation that it’s unlikely to recover the grant funds once they’re dispersed. No grantee promised to return withdrawn funds should its grant termination be reinstated. The District Court declined to impose a bond. By contrast, the Government compellingly argues that respondents would not suffer irreparable harm. While a trio of state respondents are represented in this litigation, they have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running. So if respondents ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit and appropriate form. If respondents instead decline to keep the programs operating and any ensuing irreparable harm would be of their own making. We construe the application is seeking a stay pending appeal and grant the application. Grant the Trump Administration’s Appeal The March ten, 2025 Order and the 2024 excuse me, in the March 24 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The disposition of petition for a writ associati of such a writ is timely and sought. Should surgery be denied? This day shall terminate automatically. In the event surgery is granted, the state shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this court. So in other words, they can go to appeal to the First Circuit depending on what they do, or they can try and go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on what avenue they try. The court will sit back and wait. But in the meantime, they said yes. Yes, they can stay with the lower court had ordered. And Jan Roberts voted with the three radicals in the court that, no, the money should have proceeded in any way. Is a complete issue about jurisdiction here. I think these five justices, I pray the five certainly for understand that’s a problem. Here you have a guy in Boston making orders affecting the entire country. We see this all over the place and they need to start kicking these things back. And then as they come forward, they can start to address this and fix it because. Apparently John Roberts is deaf, dumb and blind. He doesn’t see the fact. That the political branch, the president and the Republican controlled House and Senate have had about enough of this. And if they step in, they’re going to step in in a way that’s far more drastic than if the court just does its job. But when you have a chief justice like this, I call him a Hollywood John, because he’s very concerned about how he’s viewed by the media, especially the libs. He’s not a William Rehnquist. A man of tremendous principle and stature. He’s almost a Lilliputian as far as I’m concerned. And so when you see. But he does this. So say the chief justice would deny the application. That’s very problematic. So I would encourage the Republicans in the House and the Senate, keep pressing forward, avoid denying the ability of any single court, lower court to have a national injunction or temporary restraining order. But a national injunction, a national order, actually, of any kind. And also, please go forward with defunding this Judge Boasberg district, his court.

Segment 3
Well, let’s keep doing a cleanup job here, as we must Judge Boasberg, this is the notorious radical left wing judge who they pretend is a Bush guy. You’re fairly moderate, don’t you, now? Jazz bows very poised to hold Trump administration in contempt takes down names of DHS officials. Pretty sketchy, he said. What they did. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg grilled Trump administration lawyers over whether they defied a court order blocking deportations under a wartime immigration law, a potential step toward holding the administration in contempt. Then I mention this a week or ten days ago, Rich, that that’s where he was going with this. At issue is the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals. Don’t you love it? Including alleged members of the violent trendy Zaghawa gang. Boasberg pressed Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Henson on why the government appeared to ignore an emergency injunction last month halting those deportations. The administration. There’s appealed the underlying case to the Supreme Court. But for now, Boasberg is weighing whether there’s probable cause to move forward with contempt proceedings, a question that remained open after a tense exchange in court. This guys had to try to hold this administration in contempt. Now he wants the law to be followed because he said, I’m a judge. But when it comes to the Constitution, he’s stomping all over it. Stop it all over. He said he would issue a decision as early as next week on how to proceed if he finds grounds to hold the administration in contempt. During the hearing, Anderson, of the Trump DOJ was repeatedly questioned about who in the Trump administration had information about the flights and when the three deportation flights left U.S. soil for El Salvador. At least 261 migrants, illegal aliens, were deported that day, including more than 100 Venezuelan nationals were subject to removal solely on the basis of the law, temporarily blocked by the court. What is wrong with UAP? Who the hell wrote this? Now you bend over backwards for these people. Sick. During the hearing. Okay. You maintained the government was in full compliance with the court’s order on March 15, correct? Bosma I guess. Denson and said said yes, to which the judge responded, It seems to me the government acted in bad faith that day. He really believed everything you did that day was legal and would survive a court challenge. You would not have operated the way that you did, Boasberg said repeatedly. Question answered about his knowledge of the flights, whether any related materials were classified, which could have triggered state secrets protections. Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights, whether the plane or planes of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge had ordered them not to, citing national security protections. But according to Anson, that may not have been an issue. He told Boasberg the flight information likely wasn’t classified, prompting the judge to wonder aloud why it hadn’t been shared with him in an ex party setting. If you think of one instance where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified information, he asked anyone who struggled to respond. Pretty sketchy, the judge said. Another focus on the hearing was timing, both when President Trump signed the proclamation authorizing use of the Alien Enemies Act and what federal agents began loading planes with migrants bound for El Salvador. Boasberg noted the Trump administration began loading the planes the morning of March, 15 hours before the flights left the U.S., so that it’s not crazy to infer there was prior knowledge and actions ahead of the Saturday night deportations, he asked Denson. The judge pressed the lawyer over the names, locations, agencies of individuals who were privy to the removals, as well as internal conversations with other administration officials. Here’s my question, Judge. How many of these officials received your written order? How many were given proper notice by the court? Exactly. Zero. Because you issued the written order after the planes left. And that’s the point America and I should damn well know, because that was my case 22 damn years ago in that same courthouse. Involving the Environmental Protection Agency. Where was your written order, Judge? When did you write it to? To whom did you issue it? And the reason the court decided Judge Lamberth at the time decided. That he should have put his order in writing was to ensure that people had knowledge and were informed. And he himself realized he needed to do that. If you’re going to help people in contempt of your order, they need to see the order. Not hear about it. Not know about it. They need to have it. Who did you tell about my order? Boasberg asked. Once the hearing was done, who did you tell? You get the point. Who did you tell? They should have had to tell anybody if it had been put in writing and it would have taken no time at all. He could have said, I want the parties to wait. I’ll be right back. Go on in the conference room, write it himself, or have one of his clerks write it. However he wanted to do it. Come back. Here’s my order. Spread the word. Spread the order. It’s a big department. The Department of Homeland Security. It’s a big federal government. And Ted said, is it really the information of the Department of Homeland Security contacts and State Department officials, among others? He listed the names of individuals at both Bird’s request, which the judge then carefully transcribed on a pad of paper and rejected at times to clarify the spelling. And if I were any of those individuals who he seeks to hold in contempt, you should object. You should appeal. You should say the judge failed. Basic judging. One on one, especially in that district in Washington, D.C.. Did you get a copy of his order? No. No, I didn’t get a copy of his order. Why? Because he didn’t put it in writing. Why is that so important? So I know exactly what the hell we’re supposed to do. That’s why. 22 years ago. That’s what that district is now. This should be embarrassing to Boasberg, but I notice the media are strenuously avoiding this issue. And this is even written by. Fox News. This is a very important issue. It’s not a technical issue. If you’re going to be held in contempt. You have to have notice with details about what it is that you were supposed to do. But who did you tell? Who did you tell? Balakrishnan When we went to the State Department. That’s exactly why it needed to be in writing. The judge screwed up, and he’s angry. And what should happen now. That’s the question should be asked. With the Department of Justice should do with these individuals who are named. Did you receive anything in writing? The question is, Judge, when did you write your order and how did you issue it? And then your question should have been, if you had any integrity and you have none. When I wrote my order. Were the planes already in the air? Where they it was. Yes. Because you wrote it, but you wrote it like. Now this is apart from his authority, constitutional authority, which I would argue is none. This is the chief district judge in this jurisdiction, and he doesn’t even know how to put an order in writing. He just chose not to do it. What were the circumstances, Judge? Why didn’t you put it in writing right away? Why didn’t you do it? Why didn’t you say they’re right in court? You could have written, honest to God, he could have hand-written it, but he could have said, Wait 30 minutes, 20. Whatever time you need, I’ll be right back. Bring it back. Here’s my order. I want you to give it to every department and every individual in any department that has anything to do with that. But he didn’t do that. Now, this guy has been a judge for a while since Obama Obama appointed him. He’s been a judge, I think like 12, 13, 14 years. He knows how this works. But to me, if he wants to make a big issue out of this, then a big issue should be made out of this. But the media are not reporting the truth here. And the truth is this. When exactly did you issue your order, Judge? And to whom did you give it? And to whom did you say it should be given? It’s a fair question. Even now, two, three, four hearings on this. Two or three or four hearings on this. I would encourage my brothers and sisters at Landmark Legal Foundation. And the chairman emeritus. Which means. I’m the so-called pretty face from time to time, but they are fantastic lawyers under Pete Hutchison and the guys, They’re just fantastic. To find a way to involve yourself in this. Obviously not a standing issue I’m talking about. Talk about our case. 22 years ago, the Department of Justice did. And I think we should say, hi, we’re over here. That was our case. And you’re going to hold people in contempt and you didn’t put the order in writing, but you put it in writing at a later time. What needs to be determined here? Perhaps I would argue defense counsel should do it because they’re going to need defense lawyers. Is the judge’s conduct. When the judge did what the judge did and how he communicated it and to whom he asked it to be communicated. It’s on the judge. It’s on the judge and it means a lot to me as a factual matter. When he’s asking. When he’s asking who had knowledge of the flights. Who had knowledge of the flights. Okay. And also, who did you tell this to? Did you tell it to? Did you tell it to? Rather than with whom. Did you share my order? My written order. But he can’t say that, apparently. It’s important issue. Be right back.

Segment 4
So Barack Obama’s, by the way, Michelle is never with him now. But you notice that, Mr. Producer, they are never together. Something’s wrong in paradise. I mean, what else do you take from that? I mean, Reagan and Nancy, that is Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan. They were always together. Their hands were like stuck together. These two were never together. Now, that said, apparently Obama and Harris remember them publicly rebuked Trump’s latest actions, according to the Constipated News Network. And going after students don’t you know excuse me? They’re terrorist supporters. No, no, you don’t understand me going after law firms. Don’t you know? Oh, the Lawfare guys owe them to. Really? Barack Middle Benita Obama Really, Really. I seem to recall you went after hundreds of Tea Party organizations. Am I the only one who remembers this? Mr.. But is. He sure as hell did, tried to shut them down. And of course, we know that the Harris Biden regime went after Donald Trump to try to put him in prison. I want to get to this Le Pen thing in France before the end of this program. It is sickening. It is disgusting. They come up with phony charges, convict or put her in jail and she can’t run. Gee, what does that sound like? What does that sound like? And by the way. She was a threat to Mccrone and the other cronies, a threat to meet Krone and the other cronies. Because she was leading in the polls and they took her out. Exactly what they wanted to do to Trump. Oh, and one other thing. We’ll get into all of it. The Hamas numbers used by our media for the last over 500 days that Hamas is now said were wrong. That’s as big a scandal as the cover up on Joe Biden and his dementia. The same media that covered up Biden, his dementia used the Hamas numbers. No matter how much I strained in front of the TV camera, straying behind the microphone, no matter how many experts I read on the air brought on the air to explain these numbers couldn’t be right. They were absolutely wrong. They kept running with them. Lesley Stahl Last Sunday. And Hamas says, Oh, well, actually that’s not correct. And it’s like it never happened. So they just lie. They lied about the lab leak. pre-COVID. They covered it up. They lied about the Hunter laptop. They covered it up. They lie about the Hamas numbers. They lied about Biden. They lie and lie and lie. It’s sickening. Sickening. And then they want you to believe that everything Trump does is unconstitutional. Shut the hell up. We don’t care what they think. What a disgraceful group of miscreants and malcontents. Just Boasberg given his conduct. I’m strongly encouraging the House Republicans in the Senate Republicans to abolish this judgeship, abolish it. Take the funding away. Set an example. Set an example. Maybe you want to use four or five of them. That’s fine by me. But he’s got to be example number one. There’s no reason to be nervous about this, to be scared about it. Use the budgetary spending process. Whatever the rules are, make sure the rules apply. That’s all. It’s got to be primarily a spending issue. Okay? It’s a spending issue. We want to take that money and give it to the homeless people in Washington, D.C. Then I just gave you an answer. Fix this damn thing. It’s out of control. We want our Constitution back. We, the people. I’ll be right back.