DOJ F-Ups: Michael Flynn, Minnesota, and ICE

Summary

Main Justice Podcast Summary

Episode: DOJ F-Ups: Michael Flynn, Minnesota, and ICE
Air Date: March 31, 2026
Hosts: Andrew Weissmann, Mary McCord

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord deliver incisive, insider legal analysis on three major justice department controversies under the Trump administration:

1. The DOJ’s settlement with Michael Flynn for $1.25 million
2. The DOJ’s obstruction of the Minnesota state investigation into fatal ICE shootings
3. A damaging admission by DOJ in high-stakes immigration litigation

The tone is direct, urgent, and at times incredulous as the hosts expose the erosion of the rule of law under Trump’s DOJ, the threat to government accountability, and places where listener advocacy can matter. They also brief listeners on current legal developments and ongoing cases, including the Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The DOJ–Michael Flynn Settlement ($1.25 Million)

[02:28–24:22]

• Context:
  Michael Flynn, Trump’s former National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador regarding the Obama administration’s sanctions.
• Sequence of Events:
  • Flynn lied to both the incoming Vice President (Mike Pence) and the FBI regarding his discussions with Russia ([11:00–17:09]).
  • The DOJ, under Bill Barr, moved to dismiss Flynn’s case post-guilty plea, a move seen as unprecedented and inconsistent with DOJ standards ([18:59–19:38]).
  • Trump pardoned Flynn; Flynn then filed a lawsuit against the government for “malicious prosecution,” ultimately resulting in DOJ settling the case for $1.25 million ([21:38]).
• Serious Concerns Raised:
  The settlement occurred after Flynn's case had already been dismissed by the court on motion by DOJ; hosts argue this sets a dangerous precedent and appears collusive ([21:38–24:19]).
  • Andrew Weissmann:
    “What is the difference between a quote unquote settlement and theft? Why not just break in to Fort Knox, take the gold and give it to people? If you don't have a good faith basis…” ([23:09])
  • The Flynn case signals potential for similar settlements, including a recent class action by January 6th participants and Trump himself seeking damages for supposed government wrongdoing.
• Listener Action:
  Public outrage is warranted; keep an eye on similar cases for inappropriate payouts of taxpayer money ([24:19]).

---

2. DOJ Obstruction of Minnesota State Investigation into ICE Shootings

[26:04–40:26]

• Incident Summary:
  • January ICE raids in Minneapolis resulted in two deaths (Renee Goode and Alex Preddy) and one non-fatal shooting (Julio Sosa Solis).
  • State authorities (Hennepin County Attorney, Minnesota AG) are being denied access to evidence and information by DOJ and DHS ([26:04–29:56]).
• Importance:
  Normally, joint state-federal investigations share evidence; in this case, the federal government seized evidence and is refusing to share, blocking the state’s ability to investigate potential crimes by federal officers ([29:56–34:28]).
  • Andrew Weissmann:
    “Can people understand how outrageous this is that there won't even be an investigation? ...What does that tell you about not just the accountability for what happened in Minnesota, but if you are a federal officer, what is the message to you?” ([28:20–29:25])
• Filed Lawsuit:
  The lawsuit—filed in Washington, DC, under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution—challenges this DOJ policy of withholding, as a recurring pattern and practice ([35:24–36:40]).
  • Evidence includes federal officials blocking state investigators even after a state judge issued a legal warrant ([32:27–32:45]).
• Legal Falsehood:
  The Trump White House (notably Stephen Miller) claimed agents have “absolute immunity” from state prosecution—hosts confirm this is false ([29:56–37:18]).
• Broader Implications & Action:
  The power struggle has direct relevance to congressional funding; listeners are urged to demand that Congress withhold DHS/ICE funding unless DOJ/DHS cooperate with state investigations ([37:45]).
  • Quote:
    “To me, it is giving de facto immunity. ...If you then have a position which is you are never going to have a state investigation and we're going to block it. It doesn't matter what you put down on a piece of paper. And so it is so dangerous...” ([37:45–39:20])

---

3. DOJ/ICE Immigration Litigation Fiasco

[42:15–55:55]

• Case:
  African Communities Together v. Lyons—challenges DHS/ICE policy of arresting immigrants who voluntarily attend court, then dismissing their hearings and removing them from the U.S. ([42:15–44:53]).
• The Error:
  The DOJ repeatedly told the federal court (relying on ICE assurances) that an official policy constrained courthouse enforcement actions—but last week admitted that this policy never actually applied in these circumstances ([46:33–48:39]).
  • Notable Letter Language:
    “We write respectfully and regrettably to correct a material mistaken statement of fact that the government made to the court and to the plaintiffs.” ([46:34])
• Consequences:
  The court and plaintiffs expended months of time and resources under false pretenses. The presiding judge (SDNY) immediately ordered preservation of all internal government communications and may hold hearings to determine how the government’s error occurred ([49:57–55:55]).
  • Andrew Weissmann:
    “This is the kind of mistake that in a normal time it would be fast and furious. ...One of the reasons we're highlighting it is because this has not gotten enough attention. And just to be clear, people's rights are at stake.” ([54:13–54:19])
• Pattern:
  Mary McCord draws parallels to misrepresentations in other ICE/DOJ cases, including wrongful deportations and secret transfers of migrants ([55:04–55:55]).
• Assessment:
  The fiasco highlights a pattern of government misrepresentation, irresponsibility, and breakdown of checks and balances in high-stakes public policy ([55:04–55:55]).

---

Brief Updates and Other Ongoing Cases

[06:34–09:59]

• DOJ’s flip-flop on four executive orders affecting law firms. Litigation ongoing after government reversed itself twice in court.
• Anthropic v. U.S.:
  AI company won a preliminary injunction after U.S. government “blacklisted” it for its First Amendment activity ([07:50–09:10]).
  • Mary McCord, quoting the judge:
    “Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a political adversary and saboteur... for expressing disagreement with the government.” ([08:52])
• Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenship scheduled for the following day ([09:42]).

---

Memorable Quotes

• On the Flynn Settlement:
  “What is the difference between a quote unquote settlement and theft? Why not just break in to Fort Knox, take the gold and give it to people?” — Andrew Weissmann ([23:09])
• On accountability for ICE shootings:
  “If you don't want to be an ICE agent who has to show their face, you shouldn't be taking that job. Public official doing their job in public should not be masked.” — Mary McCord ([39:20])
• On DOJ's error in immigration litigation:
  “I saved the letter on my computer as ‘f up in immigration case.’ That is how I saved the document.” — Mary McCord ([42:28])
• On government misrepresentation:
  “When you’re in the government, your duty to the court and your duty to accuracy ... the more consequential the area, the more you have a duty of care. That’s a basic proposition in the law...” — Andrew Weissmann ([54:16])

---

Important Timestamps

• Intro & Spring Banter: [01:02–02:28]
• Flynn Settlement Deep Dive: [02:28–24:22]
• Minnesota ICE Shooting Case: [26:04–40:26]
• ICE/DHS Courthouse Arrest Litigation: [42:15–55:55]
• Legal Updates/Rapid Round: [06:34–09:59]

---

Summary

This episode of Main Justice peels back the curtain on what the hosts characterize as a pattern of DOJ collapse, corruption, and disregard for law in the Trump era. From handing a $1.25 million settlement to Michael Flynn after his court loss, to aggressively blocking state investigation into deadly ICE shootings, to court-shaking blunders in immigration litigation—the hosts make clear these are not isolated events, but part of a systemic attack on rule of law and accountability. They urge listeners to stay alert, take action, and keep watch, especially as congressional funding and oversight choices loom large.

---

For More:
See the show notes for Mary McCord’s op-eds and court filings discussed in the episode.

Transcript

[IXL Advertiser]

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up [e-mail] 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the

[Prolon Advertiser]

best price can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet rejuvenates you at the cellular level, lets you enjoy real food and does not require an injection. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraProromo Foreign.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Welcome back to Main Justice. It is Tuesday morning, March 31st. Wow. It's the end of March. I'm Andrew Weissman and I'm here with Mary McCord.

[Mary McCord]

Good morning.

[Andrew Weissmann]

She's dressed in her florals for spring.

[Mary McCord]

It is very spring, like in D.C. today. In fact, it will be summer, like by the afternoon. So gotta pick, show it.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I love the East Coast. The east coast is like, don't close your eyes or sneeze because it's like you go from winter to summer really fast.

[Mary McCord]

Well, we've had gorgeous cherry blossoms here. I was at the Tidal Basin on Sunday along with millions of other people. My backyard is full of pear blossoms that I see right out my window. So this is a very pretty time of year in the D.C. area, but it will be hot and muggy before we know it.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah. I have to say, though, the first time I was in Washington for spring, I was like, wow, this is a beautiful city. So enjoy it for the. Well, how's this for a mixed metaphor? Enjoy it for the New York minute.

[Mary McCord]

Yes, exactly.

[Andrew Weissmann]

That it will be spring. That's about right. So, Mary, I was thinking that it's really good that we just had some light banter because I was reading all morning and I hate to be like a downer, but. But I was thinking about Kellyanne Conway's line about this is alternative facts.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I mean, just from up one side and down the other.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weissmann]

What are we going to talk about?

[Mary McCord]

Yes. Speaking of alternative facts, we will start out by talking about the Justice Department's settlement with Michael Flynn for $1.25 million. This is somebody who had been Donald Trump's incoming and his first national security advisor who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador about sanctions Obama administration had put on Russia given its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. And not only did the Department of Justice move to dismiss that case after he pleaded guilty, President Trump pardoned Michael Flynn after he had pleaded guilty. And now Michael Flynn is getting $1.25 million. So we'll dig in a little bit

[Andrew Weissmann]

to that and there'll be a lot to say about that because we're going to talk not just about Michael Flynn, but as you've written about and we'll put it in our show notes. But it's clear, is there other cases pending? And this is a harbinger of things to come when you've got a collusive Department of Justice with the people who are bringing suit, in my view.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah. Agreed.

[Andrew Weissmann]

What else we got?

[Mary McCord]

Then we will move to Minnesota and talk about the case brought by the Hennepin County District attorney and the state of Minnesota to sue the Justice Department for access to evidence that they need for their state investigation into the two fatal and one non fatal shooting in Minneapolis during the ice surge there in January, which people remember resulted in the death of Renee Goode, the death of Alex Preddy and the shooting and injury of Julio Sosa Sellis. So that's a suit. And in full disclosure, my day job, my organization I kept, we are co counsel with the district attorney there. Really it's called a county attorney. It's the equivalent of a district attorney. And among those who filed that litigation will explain how that works.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And Mary, I want to say something because it's great that you disclose that, but I have to tell you, I really want to focus on this because the number one question that we get is from people saying what can I do? What can I do? And this is one where we're going to talk about how outrageous it is that the federal government is preventing, for all intents and purposes, the investigation into two murders and one shooting by the state and not by all accounts doing its own investigation, let alone an independent investigation. This is so important and this is where Congress can play a role. And that means that everyone who is listening can play a role and can raise this. Because this is one where if I were in Congress, I'd be saying, you do not get a penny from us. You do not get confirmations, you do not get anything unless you give this evidence to the state to conduct a fair and impartial Investigation, which is all they want.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah, no, that's an excellent point. And finally, we will talk about something that has kind of been a little bit under the radar. I mean, it's not a wonder there's so much that's in the headlines every day and we are in a war. But there was a pretty disastrous error that the Department of Justice made in some long running litigation about new policy changes that ICE and DHS have that have resulted in them making lots and lots of arrests at immigration courthouses. When people come to appear for their proceedings voluntarily and then they have those proceedings dropped and they are immediately arrested. And this has been litigated. And the department had to fess up last week that it was just flat out wrong about one of the policies and it had litigated based on misinformation that it does claim it got directly from ICE and dhs. And so they are kind of in a heap of trouble now and need to completely rebrief and re argue a case where they had already gotten an opinion from the court. So we'll talk about how it appears that that happened and what the impact is. But before we get into any of that, we do want to flag some things that we don't have time to dig into. And some of them are ongoing, but they're important and they're things we'll continue to talk about. Andrew, so start us off.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Okay, so we had been covering the flip flop of the Department of Justice saying they're not going to be appealing the four executive orders with respect to the law firms. And they said that on a Monday and then on Tuesday they said, oops, we want to withdraw our withdrawal. And so they did file their papers. Well, now the four law firms have filed their opposition. And so that is something that is ongoing. When there is argument on that, we will come back and talk to you. But the litigation is now sort of, as they say, joined second. We had talked to you about a case that we are deeply, deeply following, which is the Anthropic case. You'll remember. Anthropic is the company that owns Claude, the AI tool that lots of people use. And this is where Anthropic had sued saying, government, you don't have to use us at all, but if you do contract with us, we are not signing and allowing you to use it to do sort of unmanned targeting to kill people. Yeah, in a war, or even not in a war. And then the second thing is it is not a tool to be used for mass surveillance of Americans. So that was the Government's position Anthropic has won a preliminary injunction. It has stayed for seven days to give the government a chance to appeal. But the preliminary injunction has been issued finding that the government took these actions to sort of, as you call it, Mary, blacklisting, which I think is totally right. Blacklisting Anthropic because of its First Amendment activities. And so that's one. We can expect that that will go up on appeal, but we'll be staying tuned. But you should know the sort of round one.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Was won by the company.

[Mary McCord]

And before we move to the last thing, can I just give one sentence from this opinion that I think is so good? I mean, not only did the judge say that, you know, the judge held punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government's contracting positions is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation, which we expected that. But then with respect to the fact listeners will remember, the government both threatened to sort of take over Anthropic under the Defense Production act. Like, we need your services so much to take it over or to designate it a supply chain risk. It ended up going with the designation of a supply chain risk. And we were like, these are so contradictory positions. And the judge agreed these are totally contradictory positions, and said nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a political adversary and saboteur of the US for expressing disagreement with the government. Really, really classic language. I guess.

[Andrew Weissmann]

You and I have been doing this for three years because I'm looking at my screen and I'm looking at the highlighting because it was the judge. It was a terrific part of that. Because we're doing this so quickly, we will put a link to that opinion, her decision, so that people can read it for themselves. And then finally, the third thing we wanted to flag is something that's happening tomorrow. Finally, the Supreme Court is going to be hearing the merits of the case of birthright citizenship, and our own Mary McCord will be there.

[Mary McCord]

Well, to be clear, I won't be inside the courtroom. I will be outside the courtroom listening in real time. But also, we'll see. I'm sure there'll be quite a lot of people on the plaza in front of the courthouse and quite a lot of people protesting and exercising their First Amendment rights.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Love it. Okay, so, Mary Michael Flynn. So you gave a little preview about who he was. And could you maybe go over. I think it's important to know what's sort of the fuss about in terms of what he did. What was the allegation that led the FBI to talk to him. And then also what we now know is that Mike Pence, as the incoming vice president, is deeply upset because of what is reported. He was told by Michael Flynn, who is the incoming National Security advisor. And then, as I understand it, why Michael Flynn was removed by the President of the United States as the National Security advisor. I mean, I think all of that is so important because I think there's been a lot of whitewashing of those underlying facts. And I think it's really important to understand that, to put in juxtaposition with the idea that Michael Flynn has now received $1.25 million from the Trump Justice Department.

[Mary McCord]

Yes, 100%. So people have got to put themselves back in late 2016, right after the election, where Donald Trump had won the election. And at that time, there was a lot that was already publicly known about Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. And certainly much more became known in the ensuing years after the Mueller investigation. Things that you worked very, very closely on, Andrew. But at the end of the Obama administration, President Obama issued sanctions against Russia for some of its attempts to interfere with the 2016 election. And I'm not talking about any alleged collusion with Donald Trump or his campaign. I'm talking about, like, the active measures that they undertook to take over people's Facebook accounts, create fake protests, and all kinds of things actually tried to influence American voters. And this was all coming out of Russia and other things like that. And those sanctions included things like kicking out some Russian diplomats and other types of sanctions. So those sanctions came out right at the very end of the year, right at the very end of 2016. By that time, Michael Flynn had already been announced by Donald Trump that he would be Donald Trump's incoming National Security advisor. It turned out that the FBI had already had Michael Flynn as part of its counterintelligence investigation into this Russian interference. And it was investigating various people. And before what I'm about to tell you happened, they had decided that they would close out that investigation into Michael Flynn in particular. But before they actually got that closed out, there was a bit of a surprise when Russia took no retaliatory action in response to the Obama administration's sanctions. It was largely expected Russia would kick out American diplomats. Right. Russia would do some sort of tit for tat, and nothing happened.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And when the United States and any country takes action like that, one of the things that you factor in and deciding what to do is what you predict the response would be. Because it's not even playing chess at that point. It's like playing checkers. You just have to figure that. And so everybody understood that would be the natural response of Russia to take some kind of action in response.

[Mary McCord]

That's right. So it was a surprise when that didn't happen. And then it came to the FBI's attention that there had been conversations and they had recordings of these conversations, which I can now say, because this is now public, and they had had recordings of Michael Flynn calling the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, and basically saying to him, and you can read some excerpts of this in an op ed that I published on Ms. Now last week. I link there directly to the transcripts. You can read them for yourself. He actually asked Kislyak to convey to Moscow that they not take any action that would escalate on a tit for tat. He said we needed cool heads to prevail and suggests that once Trump takes office, then we can have a meeting and we can sort out our relationship going forward. A day later, or I think it might have been two days later, Kislyak called Flynn back to pass a message to him, quote, from Moscow. And it was basically to say that Moscow had made a decision not to act in retaliation based on Flynn's proposal to let these cooler heads prevail. So people might say, okay, so what? Isn't that kind of like good diplomacy? We're incoming. Don't escalate things. There is a law called the Logan act that says when you are not in the government, you're not supposed to basically engage and negotiate with other governments without authority.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Right. For this purposes, let's just assume that that law didn't exist. And let's assume reeb civil mod could differ and that if you're. This isn't like Michael Flynn was doing it before the presidential election. They're incoming and they're a month away.

[Mary McCord]

And you can imagine there would be some engagement. Exactly 100%. But that's not the problem. Right. So the problem is, and the reason this is so near and dear to me, is I was at the time the acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security. So I was the one who took the call from the deputy director of the FBI who told me we had these recordings that explain why Russia did not take retaliatory action. And we said, okay. And the next thing you know, there is a reporter, and I do not know how the reporter got any of this information, but a week or so later, reporters breaks a story suggesting that conversations had gone on between Michael Flynn and the Russian ambassador about this. And that caused there to be questions asked of the incoming press spokespersons, Sean Spicer, for the Trump administration, as well as the incoming Vice President, Mike Pence. And Mike Pence pretty famously went on to CBS's Face the Nation. Right. A national morning Sunday news program. And when asked about whether Flynn had in fact asked the Russian ambassador not to take any retaliatory actions, Mike Pence said that he had talked with Michael Flynn, and Michael Flynn had told him that he did not discuss anything having to do with the United States decision to expel diplomats or impose censure against Russia. So here we are sitting at the Department of Justice and at the FBI saying, oh, that's not true. Michael Flynn must have lied to the incoming vice president. He's about to be the National Security Advisor. He lied to him about something having to do with Russia.

[Andrew Weissmann]

To be fair, your conclusion about lying, you could sort of make that conclusion that this was not just an error, but to have an intentional, given the importance of the conversation and the timing, because it's not like you're asking, I wonder if he remembers from four years ago what happened.

[Mary McCord]

We're talking a matter of week, week and a half, something like that.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Right. And to be fair, it's also, this is the incoming Vice President of the United States. I mean, you shouldn't be lying to anybody. Even if you're going to make a mistake, you need to be super, super careful that you're not making a mistake, especially if it's something like this. And so that's where you have this huge tension, where you've got the National Security Advisor, you have the Vice president, and Donald Trump has to deal with this.

[Mary McCord]

Yes. Because of course, the Russians would have known that what Mike Pence said on TV wasn't true. Right. Because Kislyak had communicated directly with them. So that made us think Michael Flynn, the National Security Advisor, has now put himself in a compromise situation vis a vis Russia, which could have leverage over him. And so we debated within the Department of Justice whether to advise Mike Pence and the incoming Trump administration about this before they even took office. Before inauguration, we went back and forth with the FBI about it. The FBI took a different tact, went and did a voluntary interview with Michael Flynn. This is where the charges come from, because Michael Flynn told the FBI, no, he didn't have any conversations with Kislyak about the sanctions. So then when this does become known to Mike Pence, because after that, he did get briefed on this, he was able to see that what Michael Flynn had said to Kislyak, what he had said on Face the Nation. And within just one or two days, Michael Flynn was out. And this is in mid February of 2017, less than a month, he is out as National Security Advisor. And of course, Michael Flynn then ultimately gets charged by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He pleads guilty to that charge, and then as that case is progressing towards sentencing, to the huge surprise of many people, under the direction of Bill Barr, the Department of justice moved to dismiss his case, saying that the investigation was never warranted. There shouldn't have even been a counterintelligence investigation or an interview with Michael Flynn. That, of course, at least at that point. I'm a former Department of Justice attorney, but that was not at all consistent with my recollection or understanding of the facts based on the clear counterintelligence threat that Michael Flynn presented.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Can I just say one fact and one law point? A fact point is that Michael Flynn, after pleading guilty, ultimately does make a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He has changed counsel.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

It's sort of a long history. But he does move to withdraw, saying, essentially, I want my ple and I essentially now want to go to trial. And then the law point with respect to Bill Barr is that this raised a lot of eyebrows within the Department of Justice because the point was, in order for something to be false, it has to be also material.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

To the investigation. And he said, well, I don't see how this is material, but that's where anybody in the department, they were seeing lots and lots of other cases where the government was taking a very, very different position on that particular issue. The law point on materiality. So you really had this idea that, oh, materiality is going to be watered down when it comes to a friend of the incoming, now existing administration, but for everyone else, we're going to apply the law as is. And that became a big deal in the court case in this sort of DOJ community reacting to what Bill Barr was doing, saying, that's not how the rule of law works. And now Michael Flynn is in this position of saying that I pled guilty, but I want my plea back. There are lots of lots of moving pieces caused by all of this action and a lot of pushback in various ways.

[Mary McCord]

So you think it's over, Right? Well, it wasn't over 2023. Michael Flynn says, I'm not satisfied with a pardon and my case being dismissed. I'm now going to sue the government for malicious prosecution and try to seek a bunch of money. And that is the case that was recently settled. And let me just say before we end on this, the Department of Justice had been defending against that case. And the last substantive decision out of the court, this is in federal court, was a decision granting the government's motion to dismiss Michael Flynn's case. Let me say that again, granting the government's motion to dismiss Michael Flynn's case. So in that posture, in comes the new Trump administration. There was still some litigation going on because even though the court had granted, the court had said, look, if you want to refile an amended complaint that doesn't run afoul of the rules saying you can't make frivolous arguments or baseless facts, you can try to amend your complaint to fix the problems that caused it to be dismissed. And Michael Flynn did that. And before there was any further action taken by the court on that, that's when we got the settlement. So does raise, like, my little red flags?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah. And the issue is for those people who are outraged that taxpayer money is going to this, keep your eye on pending matters. So who else is seeking money from the Department of Justice for alleged wrongdoing? There is a recently filed purported class action in Florida by people who were part of the January 6th about the sort of demonstration and then actually at the Capitol claiming that the police overreacted and they shouldn't have used force or tear gas and that they were improperly hurt by the Capitol Police and people acting along with the Capitol Police. So they are seeking some unspecified millions, millions of dollars for this purported class action. But remember, the Trump administration has said that what happened on January 6th, and this is a quote, is a grave national injustice. And so what happens when you've got a collusive Department of Justice and they're dealing with our money? This is taxpayer money. Then, of course, Donald Trump has also said that he was the victim of what, a court authorized search, which no judge, not even Judge Cannon, has found that that court authorized search was improper or not supported by the requisite probable cause. But again, my question is, if there is no good faith basis to settle any of these matters, whether it's through Michael Flynn up through the President. Here's maybe a question to leave us on. It's a bit of a rhetorical question. What is the difference between a quote unquote settlement and theft? Why not just break in to Fort Knox, take the gold and give it to people? If you don't have a good faith basis and if you're thinking about this, you're going to look at the myriad cases that Mary and I know about and that the department knows about, where people make these kinds of claims all the time and the Department of Justice is litigating against them. That's right. It's a standard operating procedure to say no, you can't possibly give in to this unless there's actual merit to the case. But this is routinely something that the Department of Justice litigates against. And so that is in striking contrast. And so I don't understand why this isn't just like another exhibit to the graft that we are seeing at all sorts of levels when you don't have a good faith basis to settle these cases.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah, I think it's a dangerous precedent and we will keep up with it

[Andrew Weissmann]

and we will follow it.

[Mary McCord]

Shall we take a break and then we will come back and talk about Minnesota.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Love it.

[IXL Advertiser]

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up [e-mail] 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.

[Prolon Advertiser]

Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet rejuvenates you at the cellular level, lets you enjoy real food and does not require an injection. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute, Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when comb combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com PandoraProMo

[Mary McCord]

Tired of the same old game night?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Switch things up with Chumba casino. Play over 200 free online social casino games from classic slots in blackjack to exclusive in house favorites you won't find anywhere else. However long you got, you can play

[Mary McCord]

your way anytime, anywhere.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Make your next chill night a little more fun with Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary.

[Mary McCord]

BGW group void.

[Andrew Weissmann]

We're prohibited by log.

[Mary McCord]

See terms and conditions for details.

[Andrew Weissmann]

21/. Welcome back. So everyone who is listening to this has known about and many people have seen at least two of the three incidents that we're going to talk about. The shooting and killing of Renee Goode, the shooting and killing of Alex Preddy and the shooting unfortunately without Minimizing it, the injuring but not killing of Julio Cesar Sosacellus. And with respect to those shootings, standard operating procedure at the federal level, when you have federal involvement in shooting, is to conduct an investigation to determine whether it's a good shoot or not. And very often it will be. There isn't a problem with a shoot, but you need to do that investigation. If there is a problem, you need to take action about making sure that you reduce the risk of it reoccurring. Similarly, at the state level, there will be an investigation. And as is alleged in the complaint we're going to talk about, that is usually done, what is it, hand in glove. I mean, people do these things jointly. There's a limited pool of evidence and it's shared, meaning everyone has access to it. And there's no sort of like, that's my toy. You don't get to use it and you don't hoard the evidence, except if there's extremely unusual circumstances, not at issue here where you wouldn't give access to that investigation. So here, as people know, first there was a lot of talk of we're not doing an investigation, then we are doing an investigation. You have the Department of Justice suggesting we are and that we aren't. And then you learn, for instance, that the department's going to do an investigation. When they say they're going to do an investigation of Renee Goode, what they meant was of Renee Goode.

[Mary McCord]

Right. Not of the officer who shot her. Yes, right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And Renee Goode's widow. And so a lot of discussion, and this is where listeners, you play a role has been with people saying, we do not want to fund dhs, we do not want to take other actions as Congress, unless there is going to be full access given to the state to the information that the Department of Justice has. Because the Department of Justice has all sorts of information and evidence. Bullet casings, cars, witnesses, the identity of the people who were involved in the shootings. I mean, just a panoply of evidence. And while the local US Attorney's office started initially to say, yes, of course we're going to investigate together, because they're thinking, well, of course this is standard operated procedure. What clearly appears to have happened is senior people said, no mas, like, full break, we're stopping. And at one point in the complaint, as you know, Mary, a senior person from Department of Justice is referred to as coming and saying, we're not giving you anything. And there have been demands made by the locals saying, we want to access. And it's Basically talk to the hand. Can people understand how outrageous this is that there won't even be an investigation? You don't even want to give the evidence to the state so that they can investigate. It's not to say that they're going to say that something wrong happened. It may be that some of these are right, some of these are wrong. You don't know. But they're saying we're not even willing to have that investigation. What does that tell you about not just the accountability for what happened in Minnesota, but if you are a federal officer, what is the message to you? Which is it's not just we have your back, it's we have your back even if you've done something outrageous.

[Mary McCord]

Well, remember that at the time of these shootings, this is when people like Stephen Miller were saying federal officers have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution by the states for acts that they commit while they are on duty. And that is just not the law at all. So when we talk about the investigations, I do want to be clear. There is an investigation going on. It is a joint investigation by the Hennepin county attorney and the state Attorney general's office. It's just that they're hampered in their investigation because of what you just said. And the way that this developed and this is all set out in the federal complaint that we filed in D.C. and I'll explain why it was filed in D.C. and not Minnesota in just a moment. Is that with respect, first was the Renee Good shooting. You had local police that arrived and the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. That's kind of like the state equivalent of an FBI, but it's at the state level. And then you had the FBI come in and they all started off like we're going to work together like normal, like you said. And then that means that the state officials, they make decisions, assuming they're going to continue to have access to things. Otherwise they might have handled the scene differently. Right. But instead the federal government took the car, shrink wrapped it, took it off in a trailer to a storage unit, they took the weapon of the ICE agent who shot it and then said, guess what? No, we're not going to do a joint investigation. You're not going to have access to this evidence, you're not going to have access to government witnesses, you're not going to be able to sit in on our interview with witnesses and we're not even going to tell you the names of the officers involved. Now people have probably seen the reporting that Jonathan Ross, the DHS ICE agent was the person who shot Renee Goode? That has been widely reported. And in fact, people within dhs, I think the former secretary, I guess she's. Today, I think is her last day. Kristi Noem has used his name. But there's been nothing official to say that that's who it was. And there's been nothing official to say who were those others? ICE officers, because remember, they were all masked. Same thing with the Sosa Solis shooting and then ultimately the Alex Preddy shooting. Right after Sosa Solis was shot, state federal came together, started the investigation, and then feds said put the kibosh on it. Not going to happen. We're not sharing. By the time of the Alex Preddy shooting, it was even worse than that. Federal officials physically blocked the state investigators from accessing the scene.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Can I ask you a question? I was reading the complaint and one of the things that it said is that that was true. Even after they got a state warrant.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Why isn't that a state crime? There was a warrant that allowed them to access this. And what I'm reading is they were told no. Can't that be contempt?

[Mary McCord]

I'm not going to give a legal opinion on that, just given that these investigations are ongoing. But your point, though, extends beyond even just that, blocking. First of all, I have found nowhere in law, because I've looked at this for other reasons too, not just the Minnesota cases where ICE has any authority to block state officials from investigating state crime. And this brings us back to what are the state officials investigating? Under our constitution, the police power is left to the states. And federal government only can bring criminal investigations and criminal prosecutions where Congress has like specifically authorized through criminal statutes. Right. It's a limited authority. Most state crimes, as everybody knows, are investigated and prosecuted by state and local officials. And under the 10th amendment, the powers that are not reserved to the federal government, that includes the police power, which is not reserved to the federal government, are left with the states. And so the state has its own sovereign interest in investigating whether crimes have been committed. And that includes whether these ICE agents, when they committed these shootings, were doing so in a way that you indicated was justified or whether they were actually committing a criminal offense. And that's the investigation that Hennepin county and the state are engaging in. And so what this lawsuit is about is that we've gone through the process that the federal government requires. If you want information from the federal government, you have to file a process called the 2E regulations, and you have to ask for what it is that you need. And here, of course, it's access to the physical evidence, it's access to the federal witnesses. It's things like what kind of training had those ICE agents had, right, for

[Andrew Weissmann]

anyone in the business, this is all standard operating procedure of things that you look at. If you're the state investigators or federal investigators or doing it jointly, this is what is normally done. This is what's usually done. And here, one of the things that I thought was so powerful is not just the story that we are synopsizing here, but the idea that the government at times didn't even respond to me. What you said about Stephen and Miller is such a great way of thinking about this, which is legally, it is simply not true that these officers are immune. Legally, that's right. But this is a way of making them immune de facto, meaning that in fact, fact, because there cannot be an investigation, if you run to the scene, grab all the evidence, take it away, and then basically just like, what are you going to do about it? And so what they're doing about it is they're going to court. Mary, you had said, why dc? Why did you file there?

[Mary McCord]

And I want to make clear too, part of this lawsuit, you know, what happened is basically DHS said, go talk to DOJ about the evidence. And then we heard nothing back with respect to the SO Celis and the Preddy shootings. And so what the complaint alleges is that this is a pattern of practice with respect to these three shootings of DHS doing exactly what you said, blocking any access to the evidence. And so we were able to bring a complaint under the Administrative Procedure act saying this was final agency action by this pattern of practice of not sharing evidence or giving access to evidence. This is also agency action unreasonably withheld, meaning you should have been at least responding and providing something. And if you should be making a legal argument why you can't, and they haven't done that. And finally, also a 10th Amendment constitutional claim. And the reason it's in D.C. is because D.C. is where the decisions were made to shut off this access. D.C. is where DHS and DOJ are located. And the judges in D.C. are very familiar with Administrative Procedure act cases. And that is the legal mechanism that we are in court on and have a history of dealing with different types of Administrative Procedure act claims. So we are in D.C. we are in front of Judge Emmett Sullivan.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And what's the schedule? What should people expect right now?

[Mary McCord]

We have filed the complaint, which means the government has to respond with an answer or a motion to dismiss. I suspect they will probably go the motion to dismiss route and then we will be briefing this in front of the D.C. federal district court. To the point about Stephen Miller's misstatements of law, there is no absolute immunity for federal officials against criminal prosecutions under state law. They do have a form of supremacy clause immunity that they can assert if they are charged with crimes. And we don't want to, you know, that's later.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Right now we're just talking about an investigation.

[Mary McCord]

That's exactly right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

All that about saying, oh, I couldn't be later charged. You don't have a right to not be investigated at this point.

[Mary McCord]

That's right. Like you said, that is light years from now. There are no criminal charges at this point. There is just an investigation. Don't cut the state and the county off at the knees and not even let them investigate. They have an obligation to their citizens, their residents of Minneapolis and Minnesota to fully investigate this.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So there's been a lot of attention on this standoff between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of funding ICE and dhs and with various proposals, but essentially Democrats saying, we're willing to fund everything but DHS and we want policy changes and Republicans saying, no, no, no, essentially fund it all now. But one of the issues for people is if you think this is important, that funding should be contingent on the sharing of information here on these three shootings and two that resulted in death and should be a policy of sharing going forward. That is the kind of thing that people who are representatives in government want to know. To me, it is giving de facto immunity. And the message is so dangerous, whatever policies you're going to create, let's assume they do in fact create new policies. If you then have a position which is you are never going to have a state investigation and we're going to block it. It doesn't matter what you put down on a piece of paper. And so it is so dangerous. And you and I have been in government, and that's where people in government who are there for the right reason understand when you take that job, A, you're a public servant, you work first the people, not vice versa. And two, everything you do is rightly subject to scrutiny. And you may not like that, but if you don't like it, don't take

[Mary McCord]

it, don't take that job. Exactly. Just like if you don't want to be an ICE agent who has to show their face, you shouldn't be taking that job. Public official doing their job in public should not be masks.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And just to be clear, we are not saying that there should be any retaliation, like physical retaliation against anyone. And so we understand the impetus, why people are concerned and we understand the concern about violence out there. But there's certain things that come with the job and that you have to do. And having masked men and women, mostly men, running around with impunity where again, everyone has seen two of the shootings, you really can go to the videotape yourself. And the issue that we are raising and spotlighting is shouldn't there at least be a fair and full investigation, whatever that shows? As you can tell, Mary and I feel strongly about it.

[Mary McCord]

Mary, we're getting triggered here.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yes, Mary has voted with her feet. I'm voting with my mouth.

[Mary McCord]

Oh, yes. Okay, let's take a break there and

[Andrew Weissmann]

then we'll come back and we'll come down and talk about something else that is triggering.

[Mary McCord]

Exactly. Gotta take a beat, take a breath.

[IXL Advertiser]

If you're a parent and want to help set up your child for success, then IXL is right for your family as an effective and affordable online learning program. IXL covers math, language arts, science and social studies using interactive practice problems for kids from Pre K to 12th grade. Listeners can get an exclusive 20% off IXL membership when they sign up [e-mail] 20. Visit ixl.com 20 to get the most effective learning program out there at the best price.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Lifelock how can I help?

[Prolon Advertiser]

The IRS said I filed my return, but I haven't.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

One in four tax paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud.

[Prolon Advertiser]

What do I do?

[Mary McCord]

My refund though. I'm freaking out.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Don't worry, I can fix this.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

Lifelock fixes identity theft, guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

[Prolon Advertiser]

I'm so relieved.

[Andrew Weissmann]

No problem. I'll be with you every step of the way.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

One in four was a fraud paying American.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Not anymore.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com Special offer terms apply.

[Prolon Advertiser]

Busy work weeks can leave you feeling drained. Prolon's five day fasting mimicking diet rejuvenates you at the cellular level, lets you enjoy real food and does not require an injection. Developed at USC's Longevity Institute. Prolon supports biological age reduction, metabolism, skin health and fat loss when combined with proper exercise and nutrition. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you [e-mail] PandoraProMo

[Mary McCord]

welcome back. We are going to close out today by talking about a massive mistake. I call it an F up by the Department of Justice that, wow, wait,

[Andrew Weissmann]

this is so bad. I rarely curse in public and I cursed on this show.

[Mary McCord]

And now, wow, okay, I saved the letter on my computer as f up in immigration case. That is how I saved the document. Okay, so this is about a filing made by the Department of Justice last week on March 24th in a case called African Communities Together versus Lyons. It is a case that had been brought early last year by two organizations that provide direct legal aid and services, non legal services to immigrants who were challenging the government's policy of coming into immigration courts. These are courts that are not Article 3 federal courts with judges who are confirmed for lifetime appointments by the Senate. These are immigration courts with immigration judges who are actually part of the executive branch, part of the Department of Justice, who are appointed to those positions. They're not Article 3 courts. And this new policy was that when people would show up for their required immigration court proceedings, right. They go voluntarily. Many people have been here for a number of years. They've been going to court regularly. They are allowed to go out and work and live here while their cases are proceeding in immigration court. And under these new policies, two things were happening. The government is still, I guess, going in and moving to dismiss the immigration removal proceedings that had been ongoing in some cases for years. And as soon as that case is dismissed and the person is walking out of the court, they're snatching them up, detaining them and putting them in immediate removal. And you don't need me to say this might inhibit people from showing up in immigration court on their court dates if they're hearing that all of their neighbors and friends who've shown up to court have ended up getting arrested and removed from the country just like that, even while they have these ongoing proceedings,

[Andrew Weissmann]

by the way, ongoing proceedings, meaning these proceedings could be about how you can lawfully get from point A to point B and so that you are regularized. And here, let's take the most benign. You're here legally and temporarily and you're moving into a permanent and eventually citizenship status. Or you are here illegally and you're transferring and getting regularized because of various reasons. I mean, there are all sorts of

[Mary McCord]

situations or even you are subject to removal, but you're saying, please don't remove me to this country or that, that country. Right. That's part of these proceedings too. It's due process. Right, We've talked about due process so many times.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Exactly. So these are people, though, by showing up in court, these are people who are doing it the lawful way. Now they're showing up and respecting the judicial process and making their arguments. And obviously, the government can disagree and a judge makes a decision and it can be appealed, et cetera. Instead, this is like, we don't need no stinking judges. We're just gonna get rid of all of that and grab you.

[Mary McCord]

That's right. And so the way the government had defended this case and the judge had relied on this is saying that, look, there is a policy that was issued in first on an interim basis in January 2025, right after the Trump administration took office, and then was later made an official policy in May 2025. And the policy is called civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses. And they said this policy, yes, it did allow immigration actions at courthouses, but it put limits on them and prioritized only people who had outstanding warrants or were a national security threat or things like this. And this was not an arbitrary and capricious policy. It's not contrary to law.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And they also said, it's not bad to be doing this at a courthouse because people have been screened for already for weapons. And it may be something that you disagree with, but at least there was the mind alive thinking about this, even if you disagree with it. There was a policy, and the government relied on this written policy. The written policy, just to underscore what you said, Mary, is called civil immigration enforcement actions. And this is the key part in or near courthouses. That's the title.

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So, Mary, what's the problem?

[Mary McCord]

Yeah. So the judge, in fact, relied on the government's representations last September when it denied the motion by the plaintiffs to stay these policies, meaning just put an end to these policies while the litigation goes on. Because he says, I've looked at this. This isn't arbitrary and capricious. And last week, the government wrote a letter to the judge saying, we write respectfully and regrettably to correct a material mistaken statement of fact that the government made to the court and to the plaintiffs. And then they explained that policy, that policy that we relied on, we have now learned, does not and has never applied to civil and immigration enforcement actions in or near the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Immigration courts. That means these courts that are not Article 3 federal courts, these courts that do nothing but immigration, these courts that are part of the Department of Justice. It says, we learned this basically within, like, a couple of days before they sent their letter, when I sent them notice that this guidance, May 2025, does not update apply to these courts, regardless of Their location, by the way, according

[Andrew Weissmann]

to the government, these are prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. They file this letter with the court on March 24, 2026. So we're talking about, you know, a week ago, and they say they learned that the policy that they have been relying on and brought to the court's attention, basically for the last year.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And they litigated that based on the fact that ICE said, this is the policy that we are implementing. That was the thing that was litigated. That's the policy that the judge relied on in denying the interim relief. In other words, it's not like this happened yesterday. This is a policy that had been the subject of almost a year of litigation. The letter that the government writes, which Mary has just quoted to you, saying that they respectfully and regrettably right to correct a material mistaken statement of fact. They say they learned that mistake of fact that morning.

[Mary McCord]

Yes. So they reinstate to court.

[Andrew Weissmann]

That means you can, behind the scenes, like, just to continue our cursing. That is an oh, shit moment.

[Mary McCord]

That is.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And then you read this letter, and they are, and I have to say kind of correctly, throw ICE way under the bus, saying, we are really sorry, but we have repeated what we were told by ICE that this applies. Now, Mary, the thing that I wanted to raise with you is they say they're really sorry. They say that they were told after a year that this doesn't apply. I think there's a lot that is not said in that letter which is who specifically told them it does apply? What was that based on? What are the facts that led somebody to change their advice to say it's not. Not relied on? And what exactly is the language in the policy that they're relying on to say, oh, this doesn't apply? In other words, it's one thing to just say, oh, the policy doesn't apply, but isn't the natural question is, well, I don't understand, why doesn't it? If you read the policy, you can imagine there's an argument when you read it that it does apply. And so the issue is, who told them this and how did they change their mind and how did this now come up? If I were the judge, this is to me, what the hell?

[Mary McCord]

Well, he put out an order, I guess, was the stated yesterday I pulled last night, saying, the U.S. attorney for this direct district is directed to take all necessary steps to preserve until further order of this court, all communications between and among any person at the U.S. attorney's office and any defendant in this action. Meaning ICE, Department of Homeland Security Enforcement and Removal Operations, including the assigned ICE counsel, the lawyer for ice. Further, the US Attorney shall inform the defendants and their predecessors and successors in office, as well as assigned ICE counsel that they are ordered to preserve until further order of this court any internal or external communications concerning that may memorandum of the policy from Acting Director Lyons or this case, this action. So he's right now on his own saying, I think that's the signal I'm going to get to the bottom of this, how this happened, because you're right, like to SDNY's credit, Southern District of New York, as soon as they found out, they went to the court, you know, that's good. But as you say, and as the judge is, I think now saying, how did this ever happen? Because when the SDNY goes to the court with its letter, they acknowledge that they relied on this wrong ICE guidance as being what justified the actions in briefs. Like they list four different briefs they relied on it in, they relied on it at oral argument. They acknowledge that the court relied on it in the court's opinion in September of 2025. And they say that they recognize they deeply regret this error has come to light at this late stage after the parties have expended significant resources and time to litigate this case. And this court has carefully considered plaintiff's challenge to the ICE guidance. And they say, we know that you will now have to reconsider and re brief all of the claims we've already briefed. So it's pretty shocking. And as you said on the throw the ICE under the bus, which I don't blame them for doing, they talk about the attorneys had been specifically informed by ICE that the guidance did apply to immigration courthouse arrests. They said we had discussed it with we had obtained the approval of the assigned ICE counsel before filing every brief in this case. Remember, they list four briefs that they now incorrectly relied on this guidance. They transmitted copies of the court's orders, the transcripts, all to ICE council. And not until last week did anyone say to them, you know what, actually, that's all just dead wrong.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Mary I thought that was really one of the more damning pieces was that the Southern District was saying, it's not like we kept ICE and essentially everyone in Washington in the dark about what was happening. We would not make a representation. We wouldn't file things without them seeing it beforehand. We kept them abreast of what was said. We sent transcripts, et cetera. And so this is one where this could get ugly fast because you could have The Southern District of New York prosecutors on the case, the ones who filed this letter and others being witnesses to say, no, this is what I was told and this is who told it to me. And you know that they had to have asked the question when someone said, wait, our position changed. Yep, it's gotta be, wait a second. And you also know before you file a letter like this, it's gonna be like, I need to speak to your supervisor. Supervisor, supervisor. It's sort of like, I need to know how this happened and I need to see why what you are now telling me is the truth as opposed to what you told me was the truth before. And I have to say, as I mentioned, these issues of the government really seeming to be out of control, of taking both outlandish positions, as the courts have found, saying things that they think are not true or accurate, and at times being like, wildly, wildly irresponsible on things. I mean, this is the kind of mistake that in a normal time it would be fast and furious. If you remember that scandal, and we're so past that. One of the reasons we're highlighting it is because this has not gotten enough attention. And just to be clear, people's rights are at stake.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weissmann]

When you're in the government, your duty to the court and your duty to accuracy, obviously you can make mistakes, but the more consequential the area, the more you have a duty of care. That's a basic proposition in the law, and this is one where I'm happy. It's before Judge Castell, who's a very serious, very experienced judge in the Southern District of New York. We'll learn more about the Southern District of New York prosecutors. But the fact that they wrote their letter so quickly and got it to the court is a sign of normalcy. So that gives me some, I won't say optimism, but it gives me a little bit of reason to think that the hearing, which is what I think this has to go to, is going to be one well worth our watching. Yeah.

[Mary McCord]

And you know, we've had lots and lots of criticism of DOJ in this last year, but they also, when they're litigating, they have to get information from their clients. And in this case, that's ICE and dhs. And think about other cases where there have been misrepresentations made to the court. And sometimes it's unclear. Was it ICE misrepresenting to them? Think about the planes that took off with alleged members of Trende Aragua for the El Salvador and terrorist prison in the middle of the court saying don't let any planes take off and there were misrepresentations made there. Think about the efforts to, in the middle of the night, remove unaccompanied minor Guatemalan children. And the government came in and said this was about reunification. And a few days later I walked that back. Sorry, that's not accurate. So in this case you can be sure, I think that Judge Kestel will really try to get to the bottom of it.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So more to come, more to come. So very busy week last week and a lot on our plate for next week. Mary, I can't wait to hear your take on the birthright citizenship case which is being argued tomorrow. And in the meantime, thanks everybody for listening to the show. Remember, you could subscribe to MSNow Premium on Apple Podcasts and you can get this show and other MSNow Originals ad free. And you'll also get subscriber only bonus content. And as we mentioned, we are now, as of last week, also available on YouTube. Head to to Ms. Now main justice. That's Ms. Now main justice.

[Mary McCord]

This podcast is produced by Vicki Vorgolina and Donnie Holloway. Colette Holcomb is our intern with additional production support from Rana Shabazzi. Greg Devins II and Hazik bin Ahmad Vered are our audio engineers. Katie Lau is our Senior Manager of Audio production and Aisha Turner is the executive producer for MSNow Audio.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Search for Main justice wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.

[LifeLock Advertiser]

Snoring, Gasping during sleep? Feeling fatigued? Wake up to Zepbound Tirzepatide, the first and only FDA approved prescription medicine for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea in adults with obesity. Zeb Bound is an injectable prescription medicine that may help adults with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea and obesity to improve their osa. Zebound should be used with a reduced calorie diet and increased physical activity. Zebound is Approved as a 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5 or 15mg injection. Zetbound contains tirzepatide and should not be used with other Tirzepatide containing products or any GLP1 receptor agonist medicines. It is not known if Zepbound is safe and effective for use in children. Do not share needles or pins or reuse needles. Don't take Zepbound if allergic to it or if you or someone in your family had medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. Tell your doctor if you get a lump or swelling in your neck. Stop zepbound and call your doctor if you have have severe stomach pain or a serious allergic reaction. Severe side effects may include inflamed pancreas or gallbladder problems. Tell your doctor if you experience vision changes, depression or suicidal thoughts before scheduled procedures with anesthesia. If you're nursing pregnant, plan to be or taking birth control pills. Taking zepbound with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. Side effects include nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, which can cause dehydration and worsen kidney problems. Talk to your doctor, call 1-800-545-5979 or visit zepbound.lilly.com Zepbound and its delivery device, Base and QuickPen are registered trademarks owned or licensed by Eli Lilly and company. Its subsidiaries or affiliates.