Live from Princeton

Summary

Main Justice Podcast Summary: Live from Princeton (April 22, 2025)

Hosted by Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord

---

Introduction

In the April 22, 2025 episode of Main Justice, hosted by veteran lawyers Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord, the discussion was live-recorded at Princeton University—the alma mater for both hosts. This episode navigated through intricate legal battles surrounding immigration, executive overreach, and the safeguarding of constitutional rights. The live audience comprised students, faculty, and alumni, setting an academic tone for the in-depth legal analysis that followed.

---

Key Immigration Cases: The Abrego Garcia Scenario

Violation of Due Process and Supreme Court Rulings

Andrew and Mary delved into the case of Kilmara Brego Garcia, highlighting significant breaches of due process by the government. Garcia was wrongfully deported to El Salvador despite longstanding court orders preventing such actions.

• Andrew Weissmann emphasized, “Mr. Abrego Garcia is in prison in violation of his rights and admittedly by the government mistakenly” (06:19).

Mary elaborated on the Supreme Court's decision, pointing out that the government was mandated to facilitate Garcia's release, a directive they flagrantly ignored:

• Mary McCord stated, “...the Supreme Court has said that the government is required to facilitate his release from that prison” (08:04).

Judge Wilkinson’s Critical Ruling

Judge Paula Zenas Wilkinson of Maryland took a firm stance against the government's handling of Garcia's case. She criticized the government's narrow interpretation of "facilitate," which essentially meant doing nothing until Garcia reached U.S. shores, contrary to the Supreme Court's directive.

• Mary McCord highlighted, “Judge Wilkinson... explained what the government's position is... we have to do something” (10:20).

Contempt Proceedings

The hosts discussed ongoing contempt proceedings, where Judge Wilkinson found probable cause that the government willfully violated court orders, potentially leading to criminal contempt charges. This rare judicial action underscores the severity of the administration's disregard for due process.

• Mary McCord noted, “Judge Wilkinson... found probable cause that the government willfully violated my order...” (44:18).

---

Executive Overreach: Targeting Universities and Law Firms

Threats to Academic Freedom and First Amendment Rights

Andrew and Mary shifted focus to the administration’s actions against prominent universities like Columbia, Princeton, Georgetown, and Harvard. The government threatened to revoke tax-exempt status and freeze funding unless these institutions complied with demands that infringed upon academic autonomy.

• Andrew Weissmann remarked, “...it's extraordinary in what it was demanding...” (48:07).

Government Retaliation Against Harvard

Harvard University stood its ground against the administration's unprecedented demands, leading to legal battles over First Amendment violations and due process. The university argued that the government's actions were retaliatory and lacked legal authority under the Administrative Procedures Act.

• Mary McCord stated, “Harvard said, no, right? We're not gonna do that...” (47:33).

Legal Challenges for Law Firms

The podcast also addressed the government's targeting of law firms, imposing retaliatory measures similar to those against universities. Mary discussed potential class action strategies to consolidate individual cases against the administration's overreach:

• Mary McCord explained, “We have to bring many to come together, even if they're in individual cases, but with sort of holding hands as we challenge this is important.” (53:58).

---

Supreme Court Proceedings: Birthright Citizenship and Nationwide Injunctions

Deadline for Nationwide Preliminary Injunction

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments on the government's motion to limit the scope of a nationwide preliminary injunction against an executive order aimed at denying birthright citizenship unless one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

• Mary McCord clarified, “The Supreme Court had already ruled on an emergency motion...” (25:59).

Implications of the Ruling

This unprecedented move by the Supreme Court could set a precedent for how nationwide injunctions are handled, especially concerning major constitutional questions like birthright citizenship. The decision to address nationwide scope rather than individual cases highlights the urgency and nationwide impact of the issue.

• Andrew Weissmann noted, “So you have this issue of this sort of crazy quilting going forward. And so that's what Mary's dealing with in a really different context.” (59:44).

Justice Alito’s Dissent

Justice Alito dissented from the Supreme Court's temporary order, arguing against the urgency and scope imposed. However, he agreed on the necessity of due process, reinforcing the fundamental constitutional principles:

• Mary McCord summarized, “Justice Alito... does not disagree that these folks should have had due process...” (38:43).

---

Concluding Remarks and Future Outlook

The episode concluded with discussions on potential class action frameworks to combat executive overreach more effectively. Andrew proposed exploring class actions against both law firms and universities to consolidate the fight against unconstitutional government actions.

• Andrew Weissmann suggested, “Is there a way that this as a class action?...” (60:43).

Mary echoed the difficulty but emphasized the importance of collective legal action and solidarity among affected parties to counteract the administration’s tactics.

• Mary McCord affirmed, “I will say with respect to the law firms...” (53:58).

The hosts pledged to continue their analysis in future episodes, particularly focusing on contempt proceedings and the broader implications for academic institutions and legal firms.

---

Notable Quotes

• Andrew Weissmann: “Mr. Abrego Garcia is in prison in violation of his rights and admittedly by the government mistakenly.” (06:19)
• Mary McCord: “Judge Wilkinson... explained what the government's position is... we have to do something.” (10:20)
• Mary McCord: “Harvard said, no, right? We're not gonna do that.” (47:33)
• Mary McCord: “Justice Alito... does not disagree that these folks should have had due process...” (38:43)
• Andrew Weissmann: “Is there a way that this as a class action?...” (60:43)

---

Conclusion

This live episode of Main Justice provided a comprehensive examination of ongoing legal battles against executive overreach, emphasizing the critical importance of due process and constitutional safeguards. Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord's expert analysis offers listeners an essential understanding of the legal landscape shaping American democracy today.

---

Timestamp Reference

For embedded timestamps, please refer to the chronological markers provided in the discussion points above.

Transcript

[Progressive Insurance Ad]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Commercial Insurance. Business owners meet Progressive Insurance. They make it easy to get discounts on commercial auto insurance and find coverages to grow with your business quote in as little as 7 [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company coverage provided and serviced by affiliated and third party insurers. Discounts and coverage selections not available in all states or situations.

[Thumbtack Ad]

Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out indecision, overthinking, second guessing every choice you make in plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out beige on beige on beige. In knowing what to do, when to do it and who to hire. Start caring for your home with confidence. Download thumbtack today.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Hello and welcome to Main Justice. I am Andrew Weissman and I'm here with my co host, Mary McCord. And we have something very, very special for you because the episode you're about to hear was recorded yesterday live at Princeton University, which Mary is your alma mater. It is my alma mater. By the way, do you want a fun factoid about Princeton?

[Mary McCord]

Of course.

[Andrew Weissmann]

It's actually about my class at Princeton. I graduated in.

[Mary McCord]

You don't have to say.

[Andrew Weissmann]

No, you know what? I'm owning it. I graduated in 1980. And do you know who was in my class?

[Mary McCord]

No, I. Is this a trivia that I should.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Know when I teach? I call this the what do I have in my pocket School of teaching, which. Cause it's like, really, Just tell me. In my class was Masha Yovanovitch, who was the former ambassador to Ukraine. She actually had lots of positions.

[Mary McCord]

Yes.

[Andrew Weissmann]

In the State Department, but she's well known for that because of the vilification she had to undergo by Rudy Giuliani and others.

[Mary McCord]

Yep.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And General Mark Miller.

[Mary McCord]

Oh, my goodness. Wow.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So.

[Mary McCord]

And you didn't know then?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Well, we didn't know where you all would end up. Exactly. Anyway, I hope everyone enjoys the discussion we had. It was. It was great to be there.

[Mary McCord]

Yes. We had a live audience of students, faculty and alumni. And no better place to be when speaking about both the rule of law and the importance of academic freedom in this moment. Here's that conversation.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So I have a surprise for everyone here and for Mary, which is. I just think it's great that you all turned out to hear my defense of my senior thesis. That wasn't a joke. I just assumed that since I never really got to talk about it on air, that, you know, it's a very interesting topic. But anyway, I've never had an introduction that was that great. So thank you so much. And will it be in French? It's great to be back at Princeton, which looks fantastic and is beautiful. I have incredibly fond memories. So thanks everyone for coming. This is such a great academic institution that will be part of our discussion. And we didn't plan it this way, but it could not be a better location substantively than to be here at Princeton. And I'm so proud of having been here. I'm so proud of the president for his stance. And we will turn to that. So with that, thanks very much for coming. Welcome to Main Justice Live at Princeton University. And as you know, if you are a listener, I turn it over to Mary to tell us what are we going to talk about? Because the hardest part for the two of us since January 20th is figuring out how to choose and synthesize in our own heads what is going on and then how to figure out the best way to sort of to translate that for people who are not necessarily in the weeds as much as we are.

[Mary McCord]

And needless to say, there's just been a deluge of things to talk about. And oftentimes we'll text each other on Sunday with what we think we're going to talk about. And then Monday everything will change. And so Tuesday morning, right before we record, we're both texting. Well, now we need to talk about this and now we need to talk about that. And protypical, we had a lot of action over the weekend. So we will start today by talking about the continuation of a number of cases involving deportation of migrants, immigrants without any due process. So we'll talk about the status of Kilmara Brego Garcia's case. We'll talk about the flurry of activity Thursday, Friday, Saturday and even into Sunday morning over Venezuelans being bused to flights to be again deported without any due process. And then we'll also talk about the contempt proceedings in front of Judge Boasberg in D.C. so a lot on that topic. And I will tell you that alone we could go on not just for the full hour, but for many hours. There's so much there. Then we do want to turn to talk about universities and the executive overreach that has been happening targeted at Columbia and Princeton and my school, Georgetown and Harvard, Harvard perhaps in many ways most sort of explosively recently, and the threats that that type of action really poses for academic freedom and First Amendment rights. And then finally, we will talk about the Supreme Court's rather, at least for me, as one of the litigators surprised that it was going to have argument on the motion of the government to limit the scope of the nationwide preliminary injunction against the executive order that seeks to deny birthright citizenship to, to children unless one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. And this is not on the merits. And we'll talk about what this means. This is solely about should it be a nationwide injunction or something less than that. So that's a pretty unusual thing for the Supreme Court to have argument on. So shall we kick it off?

[Andrew Weissmann]

So let's go to Maryland, in federal court in Maryland. That is where the case of Mr. Abrego Garcia sort of came to light in terms of our knowing about it as we are all sitting here today. Mr. Abrega Garcia is in prison in violation of his rights and admittedly by the government mistakenly.

[Mary McCord]

In El Salvador.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yes, in a foreign prison. And there was a court order from years ago saying that this is the one country he could not be taken to and that in violation of that court order, he was taken there. In addition, a couple weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued a decision with no dissents, that people are entitled to a pre deprivation hearing. That is, in other words, you get to litigate the law and the facts before you are removed from this country. And Mr. Garcia is a perfect example of why due process matters, because not just you can get the law wrong, but you can also not be in the group, not be the person as to whom the law applies. And so those were at least two law violations. And yet he is still sitting in a foreign prison with the government's position being that they can do nothing about it, even though the third violation, in my view, is the Supreme Court has said that the government is required to facilitate his release from that prison. That's the exact word you have to facilitate it. And then the second obligation from the Supreme Court is that the government has to ensure his due process rights as if he had not been wrongfully removed. That has not happened.

[Mary McCord]

And part three, be prepared to tell the court what it has done to facilitate his release and what further steps might be necessary. That was the supreme court's order on April 10th. So if you've been listening to the podcast, we talked a lot about all up to that point last week.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Exactly. And Mary wrote a really terrific piece in the Washington Post about what she thought should happen when this case was heard by the district judge. And I will, I'm going to say it because you're, you would never say this about yourself. It's exactly what the judge did. So Mary what did you write about and what did the judge do?

[Mary McCord]

Yeah, I call this butts in seats. And what that means is it's time to get some people's butts in, in the witness chairs to answer questions about.

[Andrew Weissmann]

That's so Brooklyn of you.

[Mary McCord]

That's. And I'm not from Brooklyn.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I usually say things like that. You're so much more refined.

[Mary McCord]

Buts and seats. Like when you've asked the government to provide daily updates about what it's doing to facilitate Mr. Abrego Garcia's return, and their daily updates raise more questions than they answer, then that's when you need to have a live person with personal knowledge, a government official, come and swear an oath to tell the truth and testify. Now, what the judge did the day after, actually that published, the day after we recorded the podcast, she had a hearing. She did very much criticize the government's explanation of what they think facilitate means, in their view, facilitate means we won't put up any domestic obstacles to Mr. Abrego Garcia returning to the US but not that they have to do anything to actually get the president of El Salvador to release him so that he can come back. Now, remember, so.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So if he breaks out of prison and somehow gets to our shores, we'll let him in, then. We'll let him in. And that, I'm not joking, that is the government's view of what the Supreme Court meant when it said you have to facilitate his release from prison. I mean, just to be serious, when our government is saying that is what the English language dictates, when the Supreme Court is ordering you to facilitate his release, that it meant only when he gets to our shores, then you have to do something.

[Mary McCord]

And mind you, they also said once he gets here, he will be immediately put into detention to then go through, I guess, the due process that he was entitled to to begin with. But it's the. It's that facilitate that I think, leads us into the Fourth Circuit opinion. So one of the things that the government did right after the judge Zenas, Paula Zenas in the District of Maryland, she ordered that there be rapid discovery completed within two weeks. In other words, she said, plaintiffs, that is Mr. Abrego Garcia's family, you can issue by last Friday interrogatories, requests for production of documents and notice depositions. What does that mean? That's legalese for you can ask questions, up to 15 questions that the government has to respond to. You can request documents for the government to show what they've done to facilitate the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia, and you can depose, meaning take the testimony of certain high level government officials and have that all done by this Wednesday, two days from today, Wednesday, April 23rd. And then if on the 23rd, you think you need some more depositions, you can notice up to two more of those and we'll hear from the government what they say and we'll schedule that order. And she wanted this all to be done within two weeks. Really getting to the bottom of what has the government done to try to get Mr. Abrego Garcia's release. Now put aside for a moment that I think in both of our views, he's still in the US Custody because even though he is in a foreign country, he is there, at least according to the president of El Salvador. He's there because the US Government is paying the El Salvadoran government to house him in their prison, just like you might pay a private prison to house people here in the United States who've been convicted of crimes. We wouldn't say then that those people are in, you know, the legal custody of that private warden. We'd say they're still in the US Custody. The prison's just being paid to house them.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And according to the senator from Maryland, Van Holland, who went to El Salvador, he said that we are paying $15 million to have that country house our prisoners. So just to put on my Brooklyn, you know, I started in the Eastern District of New York, which is in Brooklyn. So just to match you with butts and seats, I would say to the jud, I will give you 15 million reasons why the United States can bring him back to this country and has can exert that authority. Just to be clear, the government has not even said that they have asked to have him returned, that they will have not even represented, that they have asked the president of El Salvador for him to be returned.

[Mary McCord]

And that's exactly what Judge Wilkinson said when the government then went to the 4th Circuit, took appeal and said, stop this discovery. We shouldn't have to do any of this. This is the court usurping its, you know, the executive function. Stop this all in, I think one day's time, the 4th Circuit unanimously, it.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Literally gets the petition. And before there's even a response from Mr. Abrego, Garcia's counsel issues its decision. That's right. And before I because I know you're going to read from it. But just so people know who the judge is who wrote this, Judge Wilkinson is a Republican, very much a conservative jurist. He is sort of a leading conservative light that people look to on the right for certain school of thought that he adheres to. And he's highly, highly respected, but is no deep state. You know, quote Obama judge.

[Mary McCord]

And so Reagan appointee, been on the bench for probably 40 years or close to it.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I mean, for my friends in that world, it's like the Wall Street Journal coming out, which they did, saying, what is happening with Mr. Abrega Garcia is deplorable. Joe Rogan, just to take a different, has said the exact same thing. John Yoo, Jack Goldsmith, these are conservatives in the best sense of the word, who think that they did not sign up for this kind of conduct in this country. Right.

[Mary McCord]

And as to the term facilitate, just as Andrew just said, what Judge Wilkinson said is the Supreme Court's decision does not allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release. And I think even more importantly, Judge Wilkinson, speaking on behalf of a panel of three judges who all were in agreement, explained sort of what the government's position is, and I think it's really stark and worth reading. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our Constitution Constitutional order. Further, it claims, in essence, that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from the courthouse still hold dear. And I think this goes to your point, Andrew. This is not a partisan issue. This is about fundamental due process. Because as Judge Wilkinson goes on to say, if today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? And you know, this is not somebody being bombastic. This is a federal judge, as you just described, saying this path that the executive is on is a dangerous path. Because when you don't give people the opportunity to contest, when the government is taking away rights from them, that could apply to many, many different things. And you'll see when we talk about universities, there are due process claims there, right? When the government is saying, we're cutting off your funding, we're going to review you for your tax exempt status. Well, not review you. I'm going to direct the IRS right to take away tax exempt status. These are things that the government needs to provide due process for. And we see it time and time again in the executive overreach here.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So one of the things Mary and I do is we surprise each other because we each have underlined various pieces, and invariably, it's the exact same pieces. I will say that with Judge Wilkinson's decision, that wasn't hard just because we basically underlined the whole thing.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah, I highlighted it.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I highly, highly recommend reading it. It is written for everyone to read. I'm going to focus on just another piece of it that we've been talking about. Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrega Garcia was wrongly or mistakenly deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong? Right? Which is just, I mean, so simply sad. And then this is the part that I want to make sure we cover.

[Mary McCord]

Is this the constitutional crisis part?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Essentially, I'm going to leave that because the end is dark. But before you get there, one of the things that the judge says is the government asserts that Obrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS.13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. So, as you all know, due process is not a popularity contest. It's not something that you give, if you like, the defendant. Both of us were prosecutors for many, many years. Usually a lot of the defendants who we prosecuted have done particularly heinous things. Organized crime figures, terrorist figures. That's irrelevant to the rights that they're accorded. You would think of all people, somebody who was indicted four times in this country at the federal and state level would understand that they have that due process rights and that that is accorded to everyone and should be accorded. I think one of the reasons I wanted to highlight this is that the administration's tack right now is to go on a smear campaign with respect to Mr. Abrego Garcia to say, he's a terrible person, he's a part of MS.13. Even though, by the way, they in court had not said that they had conceded this was all a mistake. Let's assume that they have found new evidence or they think that he is an Ms. 13. Their new effort publicly is to be, this is a bad person. Isn't it great that we got a terrorist? Pam Bondi, the attorney general, said he has been designated a terrorist, which is technically wrong. He has not been designated a terrorist. And that isn't it great that he's out of our country? And her words are that, shouldn't we be thanking Donald Trump for removing him from our midst? And that is such a dangerous argument for anyone to make, let alone the Attorney General of the United States, precisely for the reasons that the judge calls out, if the government wants to have its day in court, to prove his affiliation with MS.13 and that he can be lawfully removed. There is, and there was at the time, a constitutional lawful path for the government to have done that. They could have reopened the decision that he could not be removed to El Salvador, and they could have presented that evidence. All of this was entirely avoidable and.

[Mary McCord]

Given him the opportunity to contest it with his own evidence, right?

[Andrew Weissmann]

Absolutely. But all of this was totally avoidable. The only reason to proceed this way is to avoid the courts and the people who are being seized, the people who are, as the judge said, being stashed, to avoid them having a day in court, because there is an entirely lawful way to do this. And to have the Attorney General say, because we unilaterally have determined this person is, quote, bad, we can then just do whatever we want with them is anathema to everything that is foundational to this country. And when it's coming from the mouth of the Attorney General, I would say, given that both of us worked at the Department of Justice, for God knows, if you collectively combine it, don't say.

[Mary McCord]

It, don't say how many years.

[Andrew Weissmann]

I don't do math in public. So I'm not going to say there's.

[Mary McCord]

Another part of this that's anathema, which is where I was suggesting we were headed, which is, what is this constitutional crisis? We are really in this case and the other cases we're going to talk about, we're really at that cusp of the government just outright violating court orders and what happens with it. And this is something else that I think is really poignant about Judge Wilkinson's opinion, because he sees what's coming with the executive branch asserting its authority, the judicial branch trying to impose rule of law. And I don't just mean the whole judicial branch, the Supreme Court, they're the ones who said, facilitate his release, and here's what he has to say about that. Now, the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which, by dent of custom and detachment, we can only sparingly reply. Meaning judges don't talk outside of their opinions. Right. So they're left with their opinions and their rulings. And what they say in court, the executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time, history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been. And Law in Time will sign its epitaph. He then says this case presents the executive with the unique chance to vindicate the values that are, you know, core to our Constitution and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time. That's where we're at with Abrego Garcia's case. The government is now did not appeal. To their credit, this is one the one thing they haven't yet gone running back to the Supreme Court to do so. They are now engaged in this rapid discovery process back in the district court and we will see what results from that. I think it remains to be seen what will happen when these depositions occur this week, if they occur, or whether there will be some refusals. But that sort of leads to the next thing. That went up to the Supreme Court over the weekend.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And it's such a, it's so remarkable because this case is now a backdrop to what happened in Texas on Friday and early into the morning on Saturday. It's continuing. But the backdrop from this case is that the courts now know that the position of the United States is even if they wrongly remove someone from this country, there's not a damn thing they're going to do about it that this person is going to rot in that prison and they're not doing anything about it. So it's to me, reminds me so much when I was a very young lawyer and I was on the defense side and doing death penalty litigation. I mean, there's no reprieve. This is once that plane takes off, this is sort of what Judge Boasberg was dealing with. Once that plane takes off, that's it. The government did not turn the plane around in spite of the judge saying, that's what you have to do. And so that is the backdrop to what was then happening with plane loads and busloads of people in Texas. With the court knowing that the government's position is once they leave this country, the view is going to be we're done and there's nothing we can do about it. Even if we concede it's a mistake, even if we did not comply with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision that these people are entitled to a pre deprivation hearing and due process before they're removed, we're going to take a quick pause here, but more from our conversation at Princeton University in a moment. Stay with us.

[Capella University Ad]

At Capella University. Learning online doesn't mean learning alone. You'll get dedicated support from people who care about your success. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella.edu hey guys, have.

[Gold Belly Ad]

You heard of Gold Belly? It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country, anywhere nationwide. I've never found a more perfect gift than food. They ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls, and even Ina Garten's famous cakes. So if you're looking for a gift for the food lover in your Life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code Gift.

[Designer Shoe Warehouse Ad]

Want to pull off the season's freshest trends? You just need the right shoes. That's where designer Shoe Warehouse comes in. Loving wide leg jeans. Pair them with sleek low profile sneakers. Obsessed with the sheer trend. Try it with mesh flats. Feeling Boho comfy sandals. Nail the whole freestyle spirited thing. Find on trend shoes from the brands you love like Birkenstock, Nike, Adidas and more at dsw.

[Andrew Weissmann]

It's such an incredible story about sort of what happened on Friday with the ACLU representing people and going sort of very much like death penalty litigation, going very, very quickly to all these different levels. Mary, try to do it as quickly as possible.

[Mary McCord]

We've got so much substance to get to. And I'll try to give the thumbnail, but recall that the Supreme Court had already ruled on an emergency motion from proceedings in front of Judge Boasberg in D.C. which were about the government violating, as Andrew said, the court's order, not this is back on March 15, right, not to send these planeloads of people to El Salvador under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act. And we've talked about the substance of that. The government appealed those orders up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said from this day forward, that was April 7th, you must not deport anybody without giving them notice and an opportunity to actually file with enough time and in such a manner as they can actually file a habeas petition to contest their removal. And all nine justices agreed with that. So what has happened since then? And we'll come back to the fact that there are contempt proceedings ongoing before Judge Boasberg about whether the flights that went out on March 15 after he issued his own order to turn them around, whether they violate that. But in the Meantime, what happened is really like on Thursday last week, lawyers got wind of the fact that there were hundreds of Venezuelans being moved into a detention facility in Texas that was not already under a separate tro. Remember everyone who learned tro? Temporary restraining order not to deport any of them to El Salvador. And the reason for that is right after the Supreme Court's ruling class action habeas were brought in multiple jurisdictions, including the Southern District of Texas, but there was no such TRO in the Northern District of Texas, a detention center called Bluebonnet.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So this is like whack a mole because the courts have said we're not going to have sort of a unilateral, flat out ruling that covers everything. So suddenly the ACLU and other groups had to sort of go around the country where are to get these orders. And so the government to stay one step ahead, kept moving people. So they're moving people from a jurisdiction where you can't do it to a jurisdiction where there had not yet been an order saying don't remove them, except.

[Mary McCord]

For, of course, the Supreme Court's order. Don't remove them without notice and an opportunity for due process. Exactly.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Exactly. Couple quick things. One, just to go back to Mary's point, that the Supreme Court ruling about the requirement that there be due process, which is notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, 9, 0, if you're looking at what is going on in this administration, nine zero, that is why you have Judge Wilkinson, that is why you have the Wall Street Journal saying this is not right. I mean, this is, it's remarkable. When is the last time you had a 90 decision on something this dramatic and controversial in terms of what the policy is? I mean, it's really quite unusual.

[Mary McCord]

So anyway, and I think that's important, right? We know the justices probably have disagreements about how to handle deportations of those who are here unlawfully, but all of them agree you're entitled to due process. So what happened is these attorneys got wind that there were actually people that had been moved to this detention facility in Northern Texas who were getting loaded onto buses or being told, given a piece of paper in English, not Spanish, that said essentially that they were going to be deported, didn't say where to, didn't say they had a right to seek judicial relief, didn't contact any immigration attorneys, just and asked them to sign these papers, said they were going to be put on flights within 24 hours, maybe less than 24 hours. And some were actually put on buses. So these lawyers ran into court in Texas and said, stop this. Stop this. Even if the government gave this notice, this notice was not what the Supreme Court ordered. It was not sufficient to allow them to obtain judicial relief. It was not even in Spanish, and many of the Venezuelans might not be able to read English or speak fluently English. It did not give them nearly enough time to find a lawyer and file a lawsuit to challenge their deportation. It did not give them even the notice that they had a right to do that. And so that's what happened. That motion was filed a little after midnight on early morning of Friday. The judge ordered the government to file its response within 24 hours. The judge then said he would rule. I think by Saturday. Well, the folks that were worried about this said, that's going to be too late. We are hearing that there are people on buses right now. So when that judge.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And they're thinking, we saw what happened in Washington in front of Judge Boasberg, we saw the planes take off, and once they're in the air, they're not being turned around. We see what's happened to Mr. Abrego Garcia. So once those people get on that plane, it's over. So they're trying to do everything they can to try and get the courts to pay attention. And by the way, there's no rush here. Like, when you think about what is the government interest to race through this? These people are detained. That's not the issue. No one is saying they shouldn't be detained. Their claim is about deportation. There'll be ample time if they're for a hearing of, like, should they be detained? Should they not be detained, that none of these people are out in the populace committing crimes. There's no sort of claim, oh, we need to do this, because there's a concern about these people are, you know, all of the sort of xenophobic language that's been used about immigrants. That's not the issue here. So there's zero reason for the government to be rushing through this other than the same thing that you saw on the east coast, which was, we don't want judicial review and we don't want these people to get to court. There's literally, when you're weighing sort of competing interests, which judges and lawyers do all the time, you can't see what is the weight on the other side here to not say, why are you doing this now? What about giving them a week? Let alone.

[Mary McCord]

Typically, the only other times the Alien Enemies act has been used have been in times of war, and people got 30 days. 30 days, right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

As One court of appeals judge said, in reference to just that, said to the government, do you realize you gave Nazis right After World War II more due process than you are giving these people?

[Mary McCord]

That's right.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah.

[Mary McCord]

And the underlying issues have never yet been fully dealt with. Right. Is it actually legal for the government to rely on the Alien Enemies act when we are not at war with Venezuela? And when Trend, even if it is a criminal gang, which of course it is, and even if it's been designated now as a foreign terrorist organization, that is not the same as a foreign nation invading the United States. So use of that act is very questionable. And then besides that, these people have a right to say, I'm not even a member of Trend Aragua. That's why they need their day in court. So, okay, so this is all happening, like, overnight. By midday the next day, the attorneys who brought this case were worried that there were again, like I said, people being put on buses to go out to the airport. And so they went ahead. Even without waiting for the district court judge to rule, they appealed to the 5th Circuit circuit, and they appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court at midnight, little shortly after midnight, issued one paragraph. You can see it, one paragraph. And the heart of this is, even though this case is still pending in the 5th Circuit, 5th Circuit hasn't ruled. This is how important the Supreme Court thought it was. You know, how normally it's like district court ruling, appellate court ruling, Supreme Court ruling. They said the matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. But then they said the government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court. That means. And then they said, once the Fifth Circuit rules, United States Solicitor General, you should then file your opposition to the application in the Supreme Court. Your opposition to this application for an order preventing the deportation. But even without waiting for the government to respond, the Supreme Court said directed. They do not mince words. The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class. Now, if you're saying, what's the putative class? That means it was a class of all of those detained in the Northern District of Texas that were potentially subject to the Alien Enemies act proclamation and would be deported under its authority. That class hasn't been certified yet as a class. That's why it's called a putative class. But even that, the Supreme Court said, you can't deport any of them. Now, the Supreme Court then noted Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the court's order and the statement of Justice Alito to follow.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So one of the things just about the timing that made this so dramatic, that had a lot of us up late at night, was one of the places that the ACLU went when they weren't getting relief in Texas at the district level and the Court of Appeals level is they went back to Judge Boasberg. And in the course of that hearing, Judge Brosberg ultimately was like, you know, I don't really have jurisdiction here in light of. For a whole variety of reasons, mostly.

[Mary McCord]

Because you're arguing the same thing down in Texas.

[Andrew Weissmann]

But he asks, what is the status? What is going on with these planes? And the government makes the following representation. Same lawyer who's been in front of him, the one saying about the plane's not taking off and don't worry, they'll get returned. I'm just, you know, paraphrasing. So the judge is like, what is going on? And the lawyer says, I can assure you that on Friday, that's the day that he's in court today, there will not be anyone, any planes taking off from Texas. But I am told that I need to make the following representation to you that the government reserves its right to do this on Saturday, meaning 12:01. The Supreme Court decision actually comes out shortly before 1am so you can fly on the wall imagining what's going on in the Supreme Court between 12 and this time, because that is a window where there is no order, and it's.

[Mary McCord]

Not when they usually work.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And in terms of the race, it turns out the fifth Circuit, the Supreme Court didn't know it when they issued their decision. The fifth Circuit actually issued their decision, but the Supreme Court didn't know at that point. And this fifth Circuit, like the district court, sort of punted on this. So it's good that the Supreme Court.

[Mary McCord]

Basically Fifth Circuit, relied on the government saying no flights planned today and tomorrow, which seemed a little untrue.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Right? Exactly. Planned. There's a lot of emphasis on the word planned. And so this was all this very much this sort of cat and mouse or whack a mole and this race. And as I just to beat a dead horse, which Mary has to put up with now. You do. There's no good reason for the race. I mean, there's just no identifiable government interest for doing this other than trying to circumvent what the Supreme Court said or doing it in bad faith. That's the part again, we were talking. We did say this to each other, which is both of us worked under so many different administrations, Republican and Democratic, both of us have been before judges who we agree with and who we disagree with. And none of that matters. It's like when a judge tells you to do something, you do it. And if you disagree with it, you can appeal or you can ask to re argue. That's what the rule of law is. And 99.999% of the people of the Justice Department are trained that way and behave that way.

[Mary McCord]

You also don't then go out and badmouth and the petitioners when you lose at the Department of Justice. You speak through your pleadings.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Exactly.

[Mary McCord]

So people are in bated breath waiting for what did Justice Alito say so that we could talk a lot about the five pages that he put out at like 11pm on Saturday night. All kinds of reasons why this wasn't actually urgent. The Supreme Court should have waited till it worked its way through the district court and the fifth Circuit. And at any rate, the government had represented that there were no planned flights on Friday or Saturday.

[Andrew Weissmann]

No planned flights, that's right.

[Mary McCord]

But we know that that's not the case based on the reporting of what the Department of Justice official said to Judge Boasberg, which is that I've been told to say we reserve the right to have flights take off on Saturday. Justice Alito, maybe he's not aware of that, I don't know. But he's saying no reason to do this, no reason to have this emergency. Bunch of reasons we don't need to get into. But I think what's important is he does not disagree that these folks should have had due process. He says at the very end, both the executive and the judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump VJGG. That is the order we talked about issued on April 7th, where the Supreme Court, all nine agreed you must give notice and an opportunity to actually contest this in court. So even Justice Alito is reiterating that obligation on the executive. I mean, that's the good I can pull from these five pages. Right? On that point, they agree.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So this is now pending before the Supreme Court. They issued this temporary order and they now have full briefing from the government and the aclu. And so stay tuned. We don't know what will happen in terms of whether this will be extended, whether they will give direction to the district judge about the notice and whether it complies with their order, whether they will ask for briefing and direct the issue of whether the alien enemies act, as Mary said whether that even legally can be used here. All of that is something that sort of before the Supreme Court. And I fully expect that sometime this week we are going to get guidance from the court as to what's going to happen. And although it technically is in this case coming out of Texas, it is going to be generally the law of the land in terms of every other court looking to see what it is they have to do.

[Mary McCord]

Indeed, the plaintiffs there, the attorneys for the plaintiffs, those who are part of this putative class in their reply brief just filed this morning said treat this as a cert petition and just take this up on the merits. Supreme Court to answer all of these questions, we'll see what the court will do. We'll continue this special episode recorded in front of a live audience at Princeton University. Back with more in a moment.

[Capella University Ad]

Imagine what's possible in your business career when learning doesn't get in the way of life at Capella University. Our game changing flexpath learning format is available in select business programs and lets you learn at a time and pace that works for you. That means you don't have to put your life on hold while earning your business degree. Instead, enjoy learning your way and earn your degree without missing a beat. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at Capella.

[Gold Belly Ad]

Eduardo oh my God, it's the coolest thing ever. Hey guys, have you heard of Goldbelly? Well, check this out. It's this amazing site where they ship the most iconic famous foods from restaurants across the country anywhere nationwide. I've never found a more perfect gift than food. They ship Chicago deep dish pizza, New York bagels, Maine lobster rolls, and even Ina Garten's famous cakes. Seriously. So if you're looking for a gift for the food lover in your life, head to goldbelly.com and get 20% off your first order with promo code GIFT.

[Designer Shoe Warehouse Ad]

Let's BOGO the hoppin goods sale at Designer Shoe Warehouse is on. Buy any pair of shoes in store or online. Get a second qualifying pair 50% off. Yep, must have sandals, sneakers and more from brands you love. Are buy one get one 50% off at DSWell, but only for a limited time. So hop to it, fill your basket and score BOGO 50% off at your DSW store or dsw.com.

[Mary McCord]

Okay, we can't spend nearly as much time as we would like to on the contempt proceedings, so let's flag that and do a deeper dive on that next week so that we can make sure we talk about universities. Because we are in fact at a university. So suffice to say, Judge Boasberg, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court said the case you've issued your TRO in this needs to be brought by individual habeas cases in the places where the people are detained. That did not end that matter because he still is entitled to determine whether the government was in contempt of court when he ordered them to turn planes around and not deport people under Alien Enemies act without due process. And the government did not turn those planes around. So he issued a 46 page opinion last week that I would love to read from, but we're gonna do that next week where he says, essentially I find a fair likelihood that there's probable cause that the government willfully violated my order and therefore I find probable cause for criminal contempt of court. And I'm ordering the government to either remove the contempt, which it could do by bringing all those it deported in violation of my order back, or to tell me who made those decisions to not turn those flights around.

[Andrew Weissmann]

And he joins other judges who are looking at contempt proceedings. Amy Berman Jackson, who is a colleague of Judge Boasberg in D.C. who, Mary, has certainly appeared in front of us as up high and Judge Zinnis in Maryland. This is again, just to make sure you understand for the two of us, it is remarkable. The idea that there are contempt proceedings with respect to the government not complying with a court order. I just want to make that does not happen. This is so just not something that you see every day. But this is maybe a good segue to the university is because we're going from one admitted mistake where the government said we removed and forcibly took Mr. Abrego Garcia mistakenly to El Salvador where he was in jail. And that they agree was a mistake to let's just take Harvard as an example, not Princeton, where the government now has the remarkable position that when we sent that letter and three of us signed it at a very senior level, and when Harvard said we're not doing that, and we doubled down and said, we're going to look at your IRS status, we're going to take your funding, we're going to want records with respect to your international students. Oh, by the way, that was a mistake. So it's like another mistake. Now that's just not plausible. I mean, again, you want to know sort of what's going on behind the scenes, but it's just not plausible that all of that happened by mistake. It's not like this is a letter where someone just pressed an email and it went it's not like the signal chat, where you just happen to have, by the way, this just to be a dog with a bone in that. When people say that signal chat. The government has been saying that's unintentional. No, no, no. What was unintentional was having the editor in chief of the Atlantic on the signal chat. The signal chat was intentional. They were intending to have the signal chat. That is not some mistake.

[Mary McCord]

Oh, I'm sure somebody just hijacked every one of their phones and created that.

[Andrew Weissmann]

But again, just to focus on Pam Bondi, Pam Bondi has said, well, the reason I'm not looking at that issue is because it's unintentional. That's one of her reason. Reasons. And it's like, that's not unintentional. It is intentional conduct.

[Mary McCord]

And we digress.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Just like.

[Mary McCord]

Yeah.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So obviously this audience knows very well, sort of the state of play, because both the president of Princeton and I will also say the dean at Georgetown have been very, very strong in terms of academic freedom and the First Amendment concerns. That raises a lot of the same issues that we have seen with now four federal judges finding that this administration violated the First Amendment in connection with the executive orders of four different law firms. So there's no stranger to violations of the First Amendment. And those firms have taken those to court. Each of them has gotten a ruling in their favor.

[Mary McCord]

And Harvard has now taken this to court. They filed last week and then they amended, I think, today. Today. Because, you know, notwithstanding that, this letter that went to Harvard was later claimed to be a mistake. And let's just be clear about this letter. This was extraordinary in what it was demanding. Demanding essentially to take over for the federal government to essentially take over faculty hiring, student admissions. What could be taught there? I mean, when I read it, it was really. Well, you can't really say jaw dropping because everything is jaw dropping. Like, I need new adjectives. We need a whole new, like, like, set of adjectives.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Special Trump administration adjectives. Lexicon.

[Mary McCord]

Yes. Anyway, so Harvard said, no, right? We're not gonna do that. They came out strongly. And what happens after that? You know, freeze $2 billion of funding, seek, you know, potentially revoking tax exempt sentence. What does that sound like to you? Sounds pretty retaliatory. And so Harvard has gone into court and said, first, you know, this is a violation of First Amendment rights to freeze this to make these threats. This is a violation of due process. There's no authority under law bringing claims under the Administrative Procedures act, which basically says government when you make a decision, government agencies here, like Department of Education and hhs, when you make decisions, they have to be in accordance with law. They can't be arbitrary and capricious. Multiple, multiple different causes of action. Much like the law firms who challenged the blacklisting, the law firms got decisions in their favor in just like nanoseconds in legal terms. You know, in many cases, a hearing and a TRO the same day they filed their cases. I don't know if the Harvard one will move quite in those nanoseconds, but I do think it will move quickly. And their arguments are very, very strong.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah, I mean, especially the tax exempt issue is one which seems that it may be there as a sort of an extortionist element to have a sort of, sort of Damocles. But the potential for that happening, and this is certainly not my area of expertise, it just seems so remote. And if the law were to change, I mean, talk about a bludgeon, because it's not just going to apply to Harvard, it's going to be like every single 501C3. So that just seems pretty fanciful. And then if this does in fact go forward, although certainly the news reports of this being, quote, a mistake suggests that they're looking for a way out to sort of figure out a resolution where a settlement's always like both sides are either sort of somewhat unhappy and somewhat happy. That sort of is the definition of a settlement. Usually not everyone gets everything they want. It seems like it's going to go that way from the fact that that's now being said and they're looking for a scapegoat to say that we didn't ever really mean this, but assuming it goes to really does get to decision making. One of the issues when it gets to funding, even assuming that the government can meet its factual claim with respect to we're doing this because of a real concern about antisemitism or a real concern about DEI being not just a policy difference, but against the law in other seminars, even if they can meet that, which that's a big if. Just because you give a dollar for X thing to a private entity doesn't mean that you then can ask for things that are completely unrelated. There has to be a fit between the funding and what the remedy is so that you're not just saying, well, I gave you money for your football team and now we want to be in charge of your Middle Eastern studies program and have a monitor over it, just to take a hypothetical from Columbia. So a bigger Picture that this does focus on, though, is, and I'm going to just channel my inner Chris Eisgruber, which is the need for collective action and to be doing things together. Obviously that's gotten a lot of attention with respect to law firms, where people are very much are pointing out the fractious nature and how the administration takes advantage of it. And with the universities, I certainly am not the first to talk about that. So I told Mary I had something I was going to float to her. And I said, we really don't discuss this beforehand, but here's my idea. We just spent the first part of our discussion with you talking about the immigration cases where the ACLU and others are trying to bring class actions because you can't bring them each individually. There's just too many. And you talk about whack a mole. I mean, that is just going to be thousands and thousands of moles. And you have to bring it as a class action to try and get relief for the whole group. And so the question I have is whether you're dealing with law firms or universities, is there a way to bring that as a class action? Now, to bring a class action, the main issue is not every single law point or factual claim has to be the same for every single person. But in the immigration cases, what the lawyers are arguing is there are a sufficient number of identical claims. For instance, how does the Alien Enemies act work? What does it provide when it comes to individuals? Those can be decided individually, but for the common issues, decide them as a class. And my thought was, is there a way to do that with respect to law firms or universities? Because if you don't do that, it allows the administration to sort of have this terrorizing effect of am I going to be next? And maybe I should cave or maybe I shouldn't have solidarity. And it's not clear this will ever get to the Supreme Court, because that's the only other way of sort of putting an end to it, which is the Supreme Court. Assuming that the administration follows it. The Supreme Court says, here's the rule. But until then, you just have too many courts deciding it. Unless you have a class action where you could have a, you know, so what do you think?

[Mary McCord]

So I think it's a tougher thing to do as class action than the cases involving the immigrants. Because the common issues there are what you said, can the Alien Enemies act even be used in a situation where it's not a foreign nation invading this country? That's just a straight up legal issue. It doesn't make any difference which immigrants, which Venezuelans are being subject to it. And so the court could answer that question and then may or may not have to. You know, if they say Alien Enemies act is not an authority for that, then you know, then it's done right. If they say it is an authority, then you'd have to individual cases with each person. For the universities and the law firms, you could certainly say there are common issues of these types of measures. Violating first Amendment rights, violating principles of due process, violating the case of law firms, the right to counsel. But it's a little harder because each one is based on some facts that the government is alleging the law firms or the universities are engaging in certain things or there's things that they're retaliating against. But I do think the need for many to come together, even if they're in individual cases, but with sort of holding hands as we challenge this is important. And I will say with respect to the law firms, ICAP filed an amicus brief now in three of the four cases. We'll file it again in the fourth on behalf of a bunch of legal ethics professors saying that for a firm that capitulates rights, that enters a settlement agreement, that really compromises the lawyers in that firm their ability to fulfill their ethical responsibilities, their duty of loyalty to their client. Because when they're now dealing with the government, are they going to be saying what's in the best interest of their client or are they going to be saying what's in the best interest of the firm to avoid being penalized by the government? These are two, could be two very different things. We also said that settling with the government by offering to provide 100 million or $125 million worth of pro bono services in return for an official act, not issuing an executive order blacklisting, your firm certainly starts to smell a lot like violating the federal anti bribery laws. I'm not about ready to say that they have the criminal intent to do that, but it gives up that appearance. And so hopefully those types of concerns will stiffen the spines of some of the other law firms. I do wanna say. Cause we said we would talk about it. With respect to birthright citizenship, many of you probably did see that the Supreme Court last week ordered argument on May 15 in three cases. There has been some misreporting about that argument. There has been some reporting, including from journalists I respect who just got it wrong. And they think the court is actually going to hear the, the substance of the constitutional question. Does the 14th Amendment really provide for Citizenship by birth? Or is that something that is susceptible to the Executive Order's attempt to sort of redefine what citizenship by birth means and being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereto? That's the constitutional question. That's the question that these cases prevailed on at the district court level. The case we have where we represent five pregnant mothers and two membership organizations, immigration organizations that have many hundreds of pregnant mothers whose babies would be impacted by this order, that's one of the case. We got a preliminary injunction nationwide. The two other cases are on behalf of states. One is four states, and the other, I think, is 19 states who also got nationwide preliminary injunctions saying their standing's a little bit different. They're not. Not pregnant mothers. Right. But there are states that are saying, if a lot of people in our state end up not being citizens, that means we're going to be having to provide benefits that the government, the federal government would oftentimes provide, and that means these states are injured as well. The issue that has gone up to the Supreme Court is not the merits. That has been won in the District Court on a preliminary injunction. That's all on appeal in the federal circuits, the 4th Circuit, in our case, the 1st Circuit, the next 9th Circuit. But what they've gone up on is don't let this be nationwide. So let's just talk about that for one second. That would mean that during this period, while this is all being briefed, if you are a pregnant woman and you are not a citizen, you can be here lawfully on a asylum application, on a student visa, on a work visa, on temporary protected status. But if you're not a citizen or a lpr, and the father's not a citizen or an lpr, meaning a green card holder, your baby would only be a citizen if you happen to live in one of those states, or you were a member of the organizations that we represent, the Asylum Seekers Advocacy Project, or CASA of Maryland, or you were one of the five named plaintiffs. So proving up the citizenship would be incredibly complicated. If you were born in Washington State, you'd be a citizen. If you were born in Texas, you would not. It does not seem sensible. And so the arguments on May 15 are limited to this nationwide scope of the injunction. Ultimately, someday, the Supreme Court will rule on the merits. And if they rule that what President Trump tried to do violates the Constitution, that will be the law of the land across the entire country. But this is all in these interim steps. So if you read something that suggests something else, take it from Mary. Yeah. Unless, of course, the Supreme Court issues a order tomorrow saying, actually now we're going to take this up on the merits. They could do that, but they have not done that yet.

[Andrew Weissmann]

So one form of continuity in terms of our conversation, in terms of relating what Mary is saying is going up to the Supreme Court on birthright citizenship. And our immigration discussion is you can see how some of these technical issues in the law about where do you have to bring the case, what's the scope of the jurisdiction that you have to be in, and then the substantive relief really relate to each other. So in the immigration context, that's why you have the ACLU running all over the country playing whack a mole, because the Supreme Court had said you have to do it that way. You can't just bring this as one nationwide injunction. And so you have this issue of this sort of crazy quilting going forward. And so that's what Mary's dealing with in a really. In a different context. But the same issue is coming up of can't there be nationwide relief? And I would say just to be partisan, because you're my co host and also. You're right. Which is.

[Mary McCord]

That's not partisan.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yeah. Is if there's any case for nationwide jurisdiction, you would think it's birthright citizenship. Where even if you thought in general there might be some issue with nationwide injunctions, which by the way, when it was President Biden, people sued.

[Mary McCord]

Nobody likes nationwide injunctions.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Exactly. The government didn't like them when it was President Biden and the people suing the Biden administration liked them. And now the shoes on the other foot. So the legal issue of nationwide jurisdictions is one that reasonable minds could differ. But I would say your particular context, it makes a whole lot of sense to have the.

[Mary McCord]

And even if the Supreme Court were to limit it more generally, they could still say this is one where the need for that kind of uniformity and to avoid chaos is important.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Exactly. Okay.

[Mary McCord]

And more to come.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Yes. So stay tuned, stay engaged, and thanks.

[Mary McCord]

To all of you. Thank you for hosting us.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Thanks for listening and thanks so much to Princeton University for hosting us us this week. Remember to subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts to get this show and other MSNBC originals ad free. You'll also get subscriber only bonus content.

[Mary McCord]

And to send us a question, you can email [e-mail] this podcast is produced by Vicki Virgolina. Our associate producer is Jamaris Perez. Our audio engineer is Katie Lau. Aisha Turner is the Executive producer for MSNBC Audio. And a special thanks to our head of Audio Production, Bryson Barnes, for his help in recording this episode.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Thank you so much, Bryson.

[Mary McCord]

And before we go, Andrew, we have to thank our loyal listeners for once again voting for us in the People's Voice Awards, the Webby Awards we have won in our category. And we are thrilled and grateful to.

[Andrew Weissmann]

All of our listeners, to the listeners who voted and take the time and listen. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. So the award is really a testament to your loyalty. So thank you again.

[Mary McCord]

And just a shout out to our team as well, because without the team, I mean, you and I could sit here and talk to each other and we probably would, but the team makes it happen. So thanks to everyone.

[Andrew Weissmann]

Thanks to everybody at MSNBC and on our specific team for making this happen. You can search for main justice wherever you get your podcasts and follow the series.

[Capella University Ad]

At Capella University you can learn at your own pace with our Flexpath learning format. Take one or two courses at a time and complete as many as you can in a 12 week billing session. With Flexpath, you can even finish the Bachelor's degree you started in 22 months for $20,000. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn [e-mail]. fastest 25% of students cost varies by pace Transfer credits and other factors. Fees apply.