From senior features writer Andy Olsen: Covering a legal case, you consider it a real gift when the court opts to broadcast a hearing. Not only are lawyers and judges highly quotable, but also their deliberations yield important clues about where the case is headed and when the judge might issue a decision. 

On Friday, April 4, I listened over the phone as attorneys for a coalition of Christian and Jewish groups argued before a federal judge that the Trump administration should reinstate a policy it had ended protecting houses of worship from immigration raids. From early on, things weren’t going well for the group. “I guess I’m just still struggling with, what do we have on the record now that demonstrates your concern?” Judge Dabney Friedrich said about half an hour into the DC court hearing. She saw little evidence that the administration was “unleashing agents to act in a way that violates” religious freedom.

After that point, it seemed the judge would rule to leave churches unprotected and would rule soon. In fact, her ruling came a little too soon for me: I was on a spring break trip with family when the decision came out. Which brings me to an even greater gift for a journalist covering a legal case: colleagues who know an important story and when to jump in. Emily Belz’s report on the decision went up so quickly I barely had time to notice I had missed the announcement.