← The Lawfare Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:01]
Lawfare Announcer
The Electronic Communications Privacy act turns 40 this year and it's showing its age. On Friday, March 6, Lawfare and Georgetown Law are bringing together leading scholars, practitioners and former government officials for installing updates to ecpa, a half day event on what's broken with the statute and how to fix it. The event is free and open to the public in person and online. Visit lawfaremedia.org ecpaevent that's lawfairmedia.org ecpaevent for details and to register.
- [00:36]
John Albanese
You know what's.
- [00:37]
Lawfare Announcer
Faster than your paycheck? Literally everything. It's time to get your pay up to speed with Earn In. You can access your pay as you work instead of waiting days and weeks for a paycheck. Get up to $150 a day with a max of $750 between paydays. No interest, no credit checks and no mandatory fees. Because I mean, hey, it's your money. Download the Earn it app now to get it and join millions of people making any day payday that's E A R N I N Earn it is not a bank exercise limit are based on your earnings and risk factors available in select states. Expedited transfers available for fee terms and restrictions apply. Visit Earnn.com for full details.
- [01:07]
Sleep Number Advertiser
Why Choose a Sleep Number Smart bed Can I make my site softer?
- [01:11]
John Albanese
Can I make my site firmer? Can we sleep cooler?
- [01:14]
Sleep Number Advertiser
Sleep number does that cools up to eight times faster and lets you choose your ideal comfort on either side your Sleep number setting. Enjoy personalized comfort for better sleep night after and now during our President's day sale, take 50% off our limited edition bed plus free home delivery with any bed and base ends Monday only at a Sleep number store or sleepnumber.com.
- [01:41]
John Albanese
They're trying to get the message to the government that you need to be better prepared and you're holding hundreds of people without any lawful basis. We're going to release them and we expect them to be released and their property returned and we want them to be be released in Minnesota so they're not just left on the side of the road in Texas and told to find their way back.
- [02:02]
Natalie Orpet
It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Natalie Orpet, executive editor of Lawfare, with John Albanese, an attorney at the law firm Berger Montague in Minneapolis, so.
- [02:13]
John Albanese
We would definitely have enough information that we thought was relevant to make the argument they had no detention authority in the the way the government was behaving. Their assertions of authority were so sweeping that it wasn't individualized assessments about Whether this person presents a flight risk or whether this person is a danger.
- [02:38]
Natalie Orpet
The influx of immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota have landed an enormous number of people in detention, which has resulted in an unprecedented number of petitions for habeas corpus, that is people arguing that their detention is unlawful and that they should be released. Today we're talking about what that looks like on the ground and hearing from a lawyer who has actually been representing these clients and litigating these questions in court. We talked about what authorities the government is claiming, how the legal community is coming together to address the needs of people in detention, how government lawyers are faring, and how the judiciary is dealing with it all. So let's start with explaining what is habeas in the immigration context, because I think most people, to the extent they're familiar with it, it is in the criminal context where things are a little bit different. What is habeas in an immigration context?
- [03:36]
John Albanese
Sure. So habeas in an immigration context is really the. If somebody is being held in detainment for immigration related reasons or for purported immigration related reasons, really habeas is the only tool available to argue that their continued detainment is unlawful and that they should be released. So it's what I learned in law school is habeas means like present the body, habeas corpus, present the body. And that, that's, that's what we're doing saying release, release this person because you don't have authority to hold them.
- [04:14]
Natalie Orpet
And is there any tension in that respect with the fact that immigration proceedings happen in immigration courts, which are entirely separate court systems than where one files habeas petitions?
- [04:29]
John Albanese
Certainly I'm not an immigration lawyer, I've never been an immigration court. But certainly in the context in which this has arisen, which is just essentially rounding people up, you know, some of them have active immigration court proceedings, others do not. Some of them, you know, they were going to immigration court when they got arrested and detained. And then immigration courts are very busy and it can be hard to get in front of them. And I honestly don't even know if they have the authority to release someone who's being unlawfully detained. So where advocates have gone is the federal court system.
- [05:12]
Natalie Orpet
Yeah, yeah. We're going to come back to the fact that you are not an immigration lawyer and so are so, so many people who are stepping up to represent petitioners. But can you talk a little bit about, as you were saying, people are ending up in detention for all sorts of reasons. And that's sort of the basis on which they're bringing these cases, but tell me how it's looking on the ground. What sorts of stories are you hearing about how people came to be detained?
- [05:42]
John Albanese
Sometimes they're explicitly targeted. Like one of the first ways I got involved was my three year old, a cook at my three year old daughter's Spanish immersion daycare was arrested right outside the daycare as parents were bringing their children to school. And the parents organized around that to try to make sure that the cook had representation. What peop. What ICE has been doing here has been at least back in November, they would bring people to the Whipple Federal Building, which is by the airport, and they'd hold people in Whipple. But then Whipple got too full and they just started immediately shipping people down to detention facilities in Texas. A lot are in El Paso. So you know, people would get picked up. Either they'd be targeted or they'd just get pulled off the street and couldn't prove that they were a citizen and have documents on them. They'd get shipped down to Texas while that got sorted out. And then one group of people we represent is statutory refugees, people who have been admitted into this country as a refugee. And when you're a refugee, you have a year waiting period before you can apply for a green card. It's called an adjustment of status. And Operation Paris, which is a bit different than the general immigration surge here in Minneapolis was designed to essentially under Operation Paris, they are arresting and detaining all unadjusted refugees, people who don't have their green card for the purpose of conducting adjustment interviews or looking for a reason that they can no longer remain in this country. So those people would get sent a notice to attend an adjustment interview and then at the interview be arrested and detained and shipped down to Texas if we weren't able to get a habeas petition on file within 30 minutes of them being detained. So all, all sorts of stories of US citizens getting detained. That was certainly a lot of lawyers have been representing folks in detainment who are U.S. citizens who just get, you know, rounded up by ICE. So a lot of, a lot of different stories.
- [08:08]
Natalie Orpet
Okay, so am I correct that people who are detained in a non criminal context like this do not have a right to an attorney to be represented in habeas cases in the way that people are, for example example, entitled legally to an attorney in a criminal proceeding?
- [08:24]
John Albanese
I think that's correct. Right. I'm not aware of any. Like you have to appoint me a lawyer because I'm being held in immigration. I'm not aware of any authority for that. Certainly you have the right to, you know, we have the, you have the right to access counsel, but the right to have counsel appointed. I don't think that exists.
- [08:44]
Natalie Orpet
I'm curious about how people get matched up with lawyers. Right. They're all these very chaotic sounding contexts in which people are brought into detention and as you said, you know, then shipped off in short order to a different state. And you know, I've, I've heard and read about real concerns about attorneys being able to even access people and families having a hard time identifying where their loved one is and just the, the chaos of all of it. Right. So what can you say about how people who find themselves in detention are able to actually find lawyers and to what extent that's a threshold problem before people are even able to secure representation.
- [09:31]
John Albanese
It's definitely a problem. Oftentimes it's done by family members. So we've represented folks who were unionized employees right in the union there would step in and find them a lawyer or represent them. So we served as local counsel for various AFL CIO lawyers who were filing petitions on behalf of their members. A lot of it's through just word of mouth, family. So maybe a family member will contact legal aid or a local community organization and asked where can I get a lawyer? So there are some private lawyers that are been filing habeas petitions, especially if they are also immigration lawyers. So a lot of immigration lawyers filing habeas petitions for our refugee clients. They, you know, work closely with resettlement agencies. So the resettlement agencies would contact us when they had a client who was detained or who they were worried about the client being detained. And there have been some efforts to, to more broadly organize, like have a centralized hub that's being run through our legal aid here to intake people, find out if there's a reasonable grounds to file a habeas petition and then find volunteer or other lawyers to, to assist them. But a lot of it's been grassroots there. There was a clinic set up by a local lawyer here who I think she had former clients who had people they knew who would get detained. And she's not an immigration lawyer either. And she just figured out how to do it and started training others how to do it as well. So it's been a lot of different. Certainly was not an infrastructure in place beforehand to, to handle this, but it's, it's a huge problem. Like I've, I think of the people I've represented, I probably only talked to two or three of them. And certainly I didn't talk to anyone before I would agree to represent them. I talked to their family members and things like that, and they. They'd let the person know. But the Department of Homeland Security took the position that we did not have a right to have a lawyer go down and visit people at the Whipple Detention center in Minnesota. And then in Texas, you could set up video interviews to talk with your clients. But that was a fairly cumbersome process.
- [12:07]
Natalie Orpet
Okay, so. And we were previewing before. You're not an immigration lawyer. You're not a habeas lawyer. So start by just telling us what kind of lawyer you were before this and presumably are still trying to do some of. Despite how much habeas work you're doing.
- [12:25]
John Albanese
Yeah. So I work for Berger Montag. We're essentially a plaintiff's class action and complex litigation firm. Our main office is in Philly. But 10 years ago, we opened up a Minneapolis office. We currently have around eight lawyers in the office and about 12 staff. And when Operation Metro Surge started to really pick up and like, another lawyer in my office has a kid at the same daycare and other people who lived in town, there was a lot of community activity going on about the immigration rates. And we felt we needed to do something. People were asking for help. A newer lawyer we had, she had a friend of a friend who worked for the AFL CIO and needed local counsel to file some habeas petitions. And we agreed to do that also. Just started reaching out and saying, hey, we're available to help. Let's do something. And trying to work with the nonprofits in the area and the people who really had the expertise and boots on the ground to. To do this type of work. But we said we were building the plane as we were flying it, and that's. That's basically what it was. So we just thought it was a. Something we felt we needed to do was to. To do this, because it was. I mean, you had the feeling living here that you had an occupying force terrorizing neighborhoods. It was. It was something everyone felt compelled to do.
- [13:58]
Natalie Orpet
Yeah, it's been a really incredible response in particular, because just reading about the quantity of need. I mean, I was reading today that there were more than 900 habeas petitions filed in the District of Minnesota in January 2026 alone, and that that was a higher number than the total number of criminal cases that were filed during the same period. So it's just an astonishing amount of need. And that even leaves out the people like we were talking about that can't access lawyers for one reason or another. I'm curious, you know, given that this is all new, combined with the fact that the administration has been making some really, let us say, novel and aggressive legal arguments with respect to their authority to detain people, not only, for example, removing, you know, the temporary protected status From, I believe, 13, 14 different countries that suddenly render people unlawful by virtue of a declaration. Also the refugees that you mentioned, where previously the year passing didn't constitute a reason to be able to detain someone, but rather just a deadline by which they had to start a process of adjusting their status and all these other. The reporting about the use of administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants to sweep people out of their homes. There are all these really dramatic and novel legal arguments that I'm guessing the government is raising in these habeas cases as their basis for detention. And I'm just curious, coming from the fact that you weren't doing normal habeas cases before, there were these, you know, heretofore unlitigated tests of the legal authorities that the administration is now claiming. What has the learning curve been like?
- [16:06]
John Albanese
Extreme immigration laws are immensely complicated. Once we started doing this work, we quickly decided we should try to just focus on one or two particular things rather than trying to handle it all, because we just simply weren't in a position to get up to speed to handle it all nearly quickly enough. So that's one reason we started focusing on the refugee things, because that's something we could really get our arms around and not. Not do anything unintentionally that would end up harming someone. Because the more we learned about the various statuses people can have and the various detention authorities, and the more we knew, we didn't know. So there were some basic things like, you know, I think the most common habeas issue is that they have arrested someone who's been, who's undocumented, but they've been in this country for more than two years and haven't previously been deported or anything like that. And there's a lot of cases already litigated around the country about that issue, whether they can hold that person indefinitely and whether they, they're entitled to a bond hearing to get released. And that issue, by the time, you know, Minnesota experienced the immigration surge, had been litigated hundreds of times. So there was a wide body of law on that, those particular issues. But certainly the refugee issues that have come up have been novel. Minnesota is where the government's decided to test their positions on their ability to detain refugees, unadjusted refugees. So yeah, I mean, immigration law is immensely complicated. And because there's this administrative process and all sorts of other things, it's not just regular civil litigation where you're learning. Well, this statute says this, these are the damages, that that's how this type of claim works. This was a huge undertaking. So I feel like we've learned something new every day and just try to try to apply it appropriately.
- [18:23]
Natalie Orpet
And are most people who are representing petitioners newly representing petitioners like you, you know, not having previously had this be part of their practice? Is it, is it mostly pro bono work?
- [18:37]
John Albanese
Yeah, mostly pro bono work. You know, some of the people who work in immigration practices I know are charging money as they should, but for most folks it is pro bono work. There is a few shifting component under the Equal Access for Justice act, but I don't know how consistently people are seeking their fees. We have tried it on a couple cases, but don't have any rulings on it yet. But certainly most people I talk to are not doing this for any sort of financial gain.
- [19:12]
Natalie Orpet
So that's a substantial amount of time that you are not billing to paying clients. It's a pretty remarkable show by the legal community in Minnesota.
- [19:23]
John Albanese
Yeah. One thing that's nice about working with, you know, I'm a plaintiffs class action lawyer. I've never sent my client a bill, a client a bill for anything. So I'm used to that getting paid for a while and put on risk. So wasn't that much of a change. And this wasn't a hard sell to the firm that we need to devote a lot of resources to this over the next few months. Everyone understood it and was supportive of it.
- [19:52]
Natalie Orpet
That's great. That's a really impressive showing up by the legal community. It's gives me a little faith after the folding of the big law firms that I have been ranting about for the past lots of months. I'll take the opportunity to remind all of our listeners that my old firm was not one of the ones that folded. Okay, so I want to switch gears too, because you obviously have spent a lot of time in court during this and before this facing government lawyers. And they also are really dealing with major shifts in their practice, let us say. And there's been a huge amount of impact on the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota as well, I think both in connection with the influx of habeas matters, but also other issues that are coming up that have caused. I don't remember the Last number, but some huge proportion of the U.S. attorney's Office of Assistant U.S. attorneys in particular to, to resign, you know, seemingly many of them in protest to, to what they were being asked to do. What sort of impact is that having? I guess both what sort of impact do you think that's having in habeas litigation, but also sort of more broadly for all of the matters that the government is responsible for litigating, a huge impact.
- [21:15]
John Albanese
It's really hard to understate the U.S. attorney's office here, widely respected and widely respected by the judges, but there's no one who works there anymore. Paul resigned their positions. We were mostly dealing with lawyers who were in house at DHS who had been brought in on special assignments. Sure. You saw the news story of Julie Lee, who had that remarkable contempt hearing, asking the judge to hold her in contempt. And I dealt with her a lot. And just the, the volume of habeas petitions, there was just no advance planning for any of this. It was, we're going to arrest people and the consequences would be the consequences. And you know, they didn't have appropriate detention facilities lined up, so they're shipping everyone to Texas. Certainly the U.S. attorney's office and the government in general. DHS was not prepared to deal with the number of previous petitions or really comply with court orders. You know, that's, it's just a mess. And I think you saw, I mean, a lot of that frustration came out and the contempt hearing. But the judges here have really stepped up. They know how important this is, and they're working nights and weekends and issuing orders and rendering opinions and judgments extremely quickly. But I know that they're frustrated with how everything's gone and they don't. They're trying to get the message to the government that you need to be better prepared. And you, you, you're holding hundreds of people without any lawful basis. We're going to release them, and we expect them to be released and their property returned, and we want them to be released in Minnesota. So they're not just left on the side of the road in Texas and told to find their way back. And the government is simply not prepared to do that. And so many longtime people at the U.S. attorney's office have resigned because of this. I don't necessarily think that the judges blame the government lawyers or anything like that, but it's going to take years to rebuild that office. And certainly I think the court system here is, you know, it's, it's going to change the way how everything works for a while. Certainly in the eyes of the judges here about how to respond to what the government says in court proceedings, because there's a lot of skepticism and a lot of distrust.
- [24:00]
Natalie Orpet
Yeah. It does seem, from what you're saying, that it sort of goes to this broader principle that we've been talking about here at Lawfare a lot, which is the presumption of regularity. That it really does seem, from some of these transcripts that I've seen and some of the reporting that judges are starting to really expressly question the government and what they're arguing and the veracity of it. But also just the, and this came out in the, the hearing that you're talking about with Julie Lee, that, you know, if, if who are DOJ lawyers at this point, she's on detail to doj, but if they're not able to get their clients, who in this case are dhs, to respond to them, that, you know, how do you even deal with that? From a sort of presumption of regularity, you know, the philosophy that is traditional in courts, that judges will traditionally believe the government because they're repeat players. And it's just sort of a doctrine that has, I guess, not quite doctrine, but philosophy that has developed over time. And I think you're really seeing the strain of that, and it's really surfacing that judges are not so sure about the applicability of that, at least in these circumstances. Does that sound right?
- [25:20]
John Albanese
Absolutely. Yeah. You have to remember this is in Minnesota, too. Everyone's pretty reserved here, and it can take, it takes some pretty extreme circumstances to get the bench riled up here. And I, I would have never imagined. Yeah, I, I, I'm still stunned every day at how frustrated the judiciary clearly is with the government. And I, I clerked on the Northern District of Illinois, and we had a lot of police abuse cases, you know, involving the Chicago Police Department. And after a while that I know, the judges on the bench from the Northern District just tended not to believe what they would. The official positions of the Chicago Police Department and what happened. And I don't think we're at that point here, but there is a ton of skepticism on the bench about what the government's saying and what's actually happening. So, yeah, presumption of regularity. Nothing's, nothing's regular here right now.
- [26:24]
Ben Whittis
Hey, folks, Ben Whittis here. This episode is brought to you by the folks at Ground News. I want to talk to you about media and trust people. Listen to this podcast and read lawfare's content because lawfare brings people information and analysis of of a particularly high quality and that generates trust in an era when trust in news and media sources is low. Ground News is another organization that is working to create trust in media and media worthy of trust. It's an app that doesn't just bring you news on subjects you're interested in, it curates that news so that you can see information that people of your own political persuasion are likely to miss. It's not publishing its own stuff, but it's also doing a lot more than aggregating. It's identifying stories that are filling a blind spot that is pervasive for the left or for the right. For example, the app also shows you bias ratings and factuality ratings for each news organization covering a story so that you can see whether the story you're interested in is mostly being covered by news organizations of the left, right or center. Let me give you a specific example. I just returned from Ukraine, so I was particularly interested to see how Ground News would handle stories about the war there. It flagged that an important story about deadly Russian strikes in Ukraine is being largely ignored by right wing press. On the other hand, it also flagged that left outlets are ignoring a story about Ukraine Ukrainian nationals in Germany charged with trying to send parcel bombs to Ukraine at the direction of Russian intelligence. These blind spot notices are really useful as a way of seeing what information you are probably not seeing on stories of interest to you. Or consider the recent story about President Trump proposing voting reforms that demand voter ID and proof of citizenship of would be voters. The Ground News app shows 29 media organizations reporting on this story, and it shows radically different headlines associated with it depending on the ideological valence of the outlet from the free press. Washington power struggle Jeffrey's moves to block Trump's plan for federal election oversight. By contrast, the Daily Kos headline Republicans bail on states rights so Trump can rig elections again. You can see information about each news organization's bias tendencies and its factuality ratings. You can even see information about its ownership. I find Ground News an impressive tool for checking my own biases and the biases of the media I consume, and for seeing the news that people like me generally don't see. I encourage you to check it out. You can get Ground News's Vantage subscription for 40% off, which allows unlimited access to the Ground News app by visiting groundnews.comlaw that's groundnews.comlaw one more time. Groundnews.comlaw check it out. I really think you'll be glad you did.
- [29:58]
Natalie Orpet
Your production needs flexibility software.
- [30:01]
Sleep Number Advertiser
Define it with automation, built to adapt.
- [30:04]
Natalie Orpet
And the best of it to boost your ot. Transform the everyday with Siemens.
- [30:12]
Sleep Number Advertiser
Ever wonder why so many people regain weight after stopping a GLP1? Up to 40% of the weight lost can come from lean muscle. This weakens the body, slows metabolism and makes it easier to put the pounds back on, creating a cycle of dependency. Prolon's five day Fasting mimicking diet offers a drug free way to maintain results and support long term metabolic health in just five days. It activates fasting pathways to burn fat, protect muscle and rejuvenate cells, all while letting you enjoy real food. Get 15% off plus a $40 bonus gift when you subscribe at prolonlife.com start that's prolonlife.com/start thank you for calling the Bombas Comfort line. Bombas make socks, slippers, tees and underwear made with the highest quality materials. Press 1 for comfort, 2 for style, 3 for donation. You chose Style Bombas styles for whatever you enjoy. You can run in Bombas lounge in bombas, dress them up, dress them down, but always give back in Bombas because with every item purchased another is donated Bombas Comfort worth calling for. Go to Baba's.com and use code audio for 20% off your first purchase. That's B-bas.com and use code Audio.
- [31:28]
Natalie Orpet
Do you have the sense that that either now is expanding to non habeas matters or will it do you think this will persist as a problem?
- [31:42]
John Albanese
I don't know. I think the judges will continue to trust the DOJ lawyers that are still there that they know and respect. But to the extent that the government's in other areas is going to implement ration chaotic operations like, you know, withholding funding and things like that, you know, I think the judges are certainly going to be very skeptical of stated rationale and briefs and taking the government at its word for things that seem to be, you know, priorities of the administration that what they say in court is not what Trump's tweeting about.
- [32:19]
Natalie Orpet
Yeah, I mean the other thing that I'm not sure it's best described as the presumption of regularity, but it seems to have similar implications. As you were saying that just the capacity question that there are so many fewer people and so much of the caseload and the U.S. attorney's office is dedicated to immigration matters now that even if judges are not assuming bad faith of the ausas that they know from previously and they, you know, believe that they're doing their best, that they're not sure they can sort of afford the presumption of regularity. Not because they think the. The lawyers themselves, the government's lawyers themselves are making misrepresentations or whatever, but rather because they just can't trust that the government is functioning the way that it traditionally has, which has been a separate basis for the presumption of regularity. Besides just believing that individual lawyers will uphold their oaths.
- [33:20]
John Albanese
Yeah, I don't have much, you know, visibility into other matters that the U.S. attorney might be responsible for, but that office has been decimated.
- [33:32]
Natalie Orpet
Do you know what the numbers are? I can't remember.
- [33:36]
John Albanese
At least 17 people have resigned.
- [33:38]
Natalie Orpet
Out of how many?
- [33:39]
John Albanese
I think they had about 80 or 90, you know, maybe a hundred. But like, we filed a fee petition in a habeas case the other day in both the. By the time we filed it, both DOJ attorneys who were on the case were no longer on it. So we, we had no idea who we were supposed to meet confer with at the DOJ about the fee petition. And you just send an email to the general email saying, we're going to file this. If you want to talk about it, someone please appear. So it's just. They just didn't have a terming notice on the case anymore. We still work there.
- [34:20]
Natalie Orpet
That's really remarkable. I wanted to ask about something relatively specific, but it just really stood out to me when I was reading the transcript from the hearing that we. We've been talking about. What I have said is sort of unfortunately become known as the this job sucks hearing, which I think is a real injustice to what actually happened. If you read the. The whole transcript. But one thing that, that the AUSA said there was. The judge was sort of obliquely asking about some argument that the government had been making in justifying or explaining why they hadn't complied with the judge's orders to release people. And it was, as you said, it was a contempt hearing. The judge was saying, why shouldn't I hold you in contempt? I've issued all of these orders that you have to release people. They are unlawfully detained and they are still detained and you have passed the deadlines. And one of the answers that they ended up talking about, as I said, obliquely. So it's not really clear how it appeared in the papers what exactly the government was saying in this respect, but it sounded like he, the judge referenced something about your argument that there would be some danger to the government if we complied with your order to specify when and where someone is going to be released. You know, the judge sort of says, you suggested that there would be some danger in that, and that's why you couldn't, you know, file the information that I told you to file so that this person's family wouldn't know where to find them when they are released according to the order that I have demanded that you release them. And she said something about how she had been instructed by her office that providing that information might be dangerous. I'm going to read from the transcript. I was told that if we provided all information, the protester will show up at the airport and the agent and other people will be in danger. Do you have any sense of either that in particular or what sorts of guidance the government is getting with respect to how forthcoming they can be with information that judges are asking for?
- [36:46]
John Albanese
I don't have any, like, things specific. I mean, the sense I've gotten is the DHS views judges as hostile to them, and to the extent that there's a reason not to do what the judge says, you know, go ahead and try it, regardless of whether it has a grounding in fact or law or not. You know, I think they. They don't take court orders seriously.
- [37:14]
Natalie Orpet
Yeah. So it sort of sounds like it's sort of a. Take the most aggressive litigation stance you can and test the limits of everything, including what the judge tells you.
- [37:24]
John Albanese
Yeah.
- [37:25]
Natalie Orpet
So. And you've talked a bit about how the. How the bench is responding to all of this. But, you know, I'm curious what you've seen beyond things like this hearing that we've been talking about, of demanding the government justify why they shouldn't be held in contempt for defying court orders? What else have you seen judges do to try to deal with whether it's defiance of court orders or just the general chaos of all of this? What are judges doing?
- [37:56]
John Albanese
I mean, first and foremost, they're just acting very swiftly. And we follow a habeas petition, get assigned in an hour, within 30 minutes of it getting assigned. Normally, there'd be a standard order out saying governments to respond by this date. And even in the limited time, we've been doing this since the second week in January. They were shipping people from Minnesota to Texas. And there's an argument that once they're in Texas, the Minnesota courts no longer have habeas jurisdiction over the petitioner. So you really got to get that petition on file while they're still in Minnesota. And when we first started, a handful of the judges would include in their standard order, you are not to remove this person. From Minnesota, if they are still in Minnesota. And we would just call chambers and say will that be part of your standard order? And if not, then we'd move for a temporary restraining order shortly of filing the petition within like seven days. I'd say all but one of the judges would include that in all their standard orders. Like you're not, if the person's still in Minnesota, you're not to move them. And they've just been adjusting on the fly like that. Like we have one case where even when somebody gets released, ICE often maintains control of the property. So like their id, their work permit, a one reason or another, I'm not really sure what the explanation is. They, they keep it and don't give it back. And we had someone who didn't have their driver's license, they didn't have the work permit, I believe. And ICE was claiming they couldn't, they couldn't find it anymore, the person had been released. We had a judge issue, I think it was two or three same day hearings on these things. Like all right, the petitioner filed something in 11 saying they couldn't find their property by 4pm today everyone's going to come in to court and we're going to talk this out. And then, you know, the result of that hearing was we're going to have another hearing in two more days. You know, just really making time for all of this. Things don't tend to move fast here and they've been operating at lightning speed and they're enmeshed in the details of everything. Know they're being very adaptive. Like another example of adaptive things is when we first started we, we would have to ask, you know, please order that they be released in Minnesota rather than in Texas. And the judges quickly picked up on them and that became part of their standard order. And normally they'd, they'd issue an order or judgment within 24 hours of the, the briefs being in so you could get some of them at least, you know, three, four days after filing the abuse petition.
- [40:47]
Natalie Orpet
That's good to hear. To me, it's very important to meet the moment. The legal profession is not always the most eager to change the standard. One follow up question on something you said. Has there been any litigation in the district about the question of work, whether judges there retain jurisdiction for habeas purposes if lawyers are not able to file in that brief couple of hours before people are brought to Texas?
- [41:18]
John Albanese
Yes, yes. We had a judge actually sus monte order briefing on that because we had been told by various advocates that was probably a losing issue and, well, not worth fighting. And, you know, if they had been moved to Texas by the time you filed, just go file in Texas. And we had filed a case, government showed that they were in Texas by the time we filed. So we're like, filed a joint motion dismiss saying, they're in Texas. We're going to move this down to Texas. And the judge Suzponte said, I want briefing from both parties on the jurisdictional issue about whether I have jurisdiction. And we filed briefs. And he ended up saying, yeah, I. I have jurisdiction over this. And I know other judges. Things move slowly in Texas. So I know some advocates who, if things are not moving quickly in Texas, they file a petition in Minnesota and the judges here generally entertaining them in a certain jurisdiction over them.
- [42:19]
Natalie Orpet
So then both sides have to find local counsel in the state in which they're not admitted. If you're having to file for your clients and for you in Texas, for Texas attorneys in Minnesota.
- [42:32]
John Albanese
Yeah. So because our practice is nationwide, we have some attorneys who are at least admitted to the federal courts in Texas, even though we don't have a Texas office. So we've been filing for people down there. But I know a lot of Minnesota attorneys who have been admitted or have admissions pending to the Texas federal courts.
- [42:52]
Natalie Orpet
It's pretty astonishing to think about having to pull together haps petition for individual clients, most of whom, as you said, you haven't even met or talked to within a couple of hours because they might be brought out of state and you would face this jurisdictional question. So are the petitions themselves pretty general in the sense that obviously you don't have all of the facts to start arguing about why the detention is unlawful. So is it just a sort of general petition that says, you know, government, you have to. You have the burden of explaining to us why, because it is not obvious to us why this person is detained. Or what do those briefs actually look like in the absence of information and on the incredibly fast turnaround time that's required, given that people may actually leave the jurisdiction.
- [43:49]
John Albanese
Yeah. So for our refugee clients, we were preparing them prophylactically. Like if they got a notice to a period interview, we'd get all the facts. And the refugee resettlement agencies had a lot of that information already that we thought would be relevant to the petitions. But a lot of them are kind of plug and play with the arguments about why we don't think that they'd have detention authority. I mean, there are certain things, facts that are key to that, you know, whether the person has a criminal record will look them up, you know, see if they have any sort of crime that would subject them to deportation proceedings. Normally, the family member would know whether they had been deported before, how they came into the country, how long they've been in the country, those types of facts. So we would definitely have, you know, enough information that we thought was relevant to make the argument they had no detention authority. And the way the government was behaving, their assertions of authority were so sweeping that it wasn't individualized assessments about whether this person presents a flight risk or whether this person is a danger or anything like that. It's just we picked them up, and we believe the statute gives us nearly a unquestionable right to detain them for as long as we want to.
- [45:17]
Natalie Orpet
That's remarkable. I'm curious, have you dealt with any cases that involve this new interpretation that the government is offering of mandatory detention authority? That's.
- [45:32]
John Albanese
This is.
- [45:33]
Natalie Orpet
We've talked about this. A fair amount at Lawfare. So for those of you following along at home, this is 8 USC1224B2A. This is the. Previously, the government had a much narrower interpretation of on what basis people could be detained, and now DHS is offering an interpretation that basically anyone has to be mandatorily detained if they do not have clearly established immigration status. Have you dealt with any cases in which the government is arguing that as its basis for detention authority?
- [46:12]
John Albanese
No, not that provision in particular. I mean, in the refugee context, they have taken a position that defies 45 years of past practice about whether certain statutory language authorizes detainment. They said, well, Congress could have been clearer here, but we think it clearly authorizes detention.
- [46:37]
Natalie Orpet
Okay, so I want to sort of talk about what you see for going forward. So it does sound like the enforcement actions, the. The actual bringing people into detention might be slowing down. Or is it slowing down after the administration has withdrawn some federal agents from the height of what they called Operation Metroserve? Are you seeing a slowdown in these cases?
- [47:05]
John Albanese
I haven't checked the filings, but certainly just in the amount of chatter and activity we've had, it's slowed down significantly.
- [47:15]
Natalie Orpet
Despite how fast it sounds like judges are moving the release orders. I imagine there's a longer tail of these cases than just everything disappears once there are fewer ICE and CPP officers in Minneapolis, so release orders could come within days. But also many of them, I'm sure, are taking longer to adjudicate. But have there also been appeals from the government of Habeas rulings.
- [47:48]
John Albanese
Yeah. So the one primary appeal I'm aware of, which the government has repeatedly SDA circuit fast track is on that issue of whether undocumented folks are entitled to a volunteering. The same issue that the fifth Circuit addressed a couple weeks ago that has been pending at the circuit since November December, I believe. And I know the U.S. attorney recently asked the A Circuit to expedite oral argument on it because they have so many cases that address that particular issue. But in individual habeas filings I've been involved in, we haven't had any appeals by the government. So I think they were waiting on that one particular ruling.
- [48:35]
Natalie Orpet
Okay, so I think just to wrap us up, what do you see as the overall impact of all of this on the legal community in Minneapolis, the court system in Minneapolis, what is all of this going to do? Is it going to be sort of a permanent shift or is it going to be a blip?
- [48:59]
John Albanese
I think the whole thing's radicalized a lot of people when we just think about the concept of law enforcement. Right. What ICE was doing here was repeatedly adjudicated as lawless. And they are claiming that they're law enforcement, but they're the ones who were detaining people en masse without legal authority. So I think there's just, I think some folks will just say, well, I want Trump's out of office and we have less rash people in there that, you know, maybe some folks would want to go back to, to that presumption of regularity or as you were describing. But I think a lot of people are just going to be, especially in the legal community, deep, deeply skeptical of the government. And I think the respect that the U.S. attorney's office had here, and it's going to take years to rebuild because they're going to have a hard time hiring. You're going to have, they've been decimated by this. They've had a lot of good people. We've. And I think a lot of people are now like a lot of lawyers had been engaged in things now that they wouldn't have thought they would have been engaged in. You know, one thing about Minneapolis is we have some big law firms, but they're not often associated. Like jobs Day has an office here and some of the other big firms have an office here, but they're small offices and most of the weak community here is, is Minnesota based. So we're not, not concerned about retribution. You know, through executive order from the federal government. There's, there's little they can do to us. Our clients are just regular people. So I think a lot of, A lot of people have been activated by this and there's been a lot of organizing within the legal community in the past couple months, including, you know, strange bedfellows at times, constellations of council working together that are normally on opposite sides of the V. And of course, I, I don't think you're going to get a Republican here elected statewide anytime soon for the foreseeable future. So Chris, Chris Matel, who's a prominent lawyer here, probably had a good shot at the nomination, a good shot at the governor's office, you know, stopped his campaign saying, like, I don't agree with what ICE is doing, but more importantly, I can't win anymore because there's just simply no way that any Republicans getting elected here in the near future. So I think the damage has been significant. Significant. And certainly I'd. The level of judicial coordination here in response to this has just been remarkable. I can't imagine another situation like this previously where really it seemed that there was a largely unified effort by the bench in terms of how we're going to handle this and just really, courthouses in crisis, like, how are we supposed to handle all this? They came up with various tools to deal with it in a way that they thought was just and legal. So, I mean, you don't get an order from that, like from Judge Schultz saying DHS has violated orders in 70 odd cases without something truly remarkable happening. I think it helps that all our judges are basically in two buildings here too, that are, you know, 20 minutes away from each other. So there's a lot of collegiality on the bench. I think it. Places like Texas where, you know, the courthouses in the Western District are hundreds of miles away from each other can make it harder.
- [52:49]
Natalie Orpet
Yeah, the stuff like that actually really makes a difference. The proximity, the what's happening on the ground, the how well judges know AUSA is because of the size of the community. I think that's sort of an actually impactful piece of this that sort of gets lost in people's understanding of what all is happening. So I think we'll leave it there. But thank you for giving us a view into what it looks like on the ground with all these practicalities and just to help understand what the environment is like there.
- [53:23]
John Albanese
Happy to do it.
- [53:27]
Natalie Orpet
The Lawfare podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. If you want to support the show and listen ad free, you can become a Lawfare material supporter@lawfaremedia.org support supporters also get access to special events and other bonus content we don't share anywhere else. If you enjoy the podcast, please rate and review us wherever you listen. It really does help. And be sure to check out our other shows, including Rational Securities, Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all of our written work@lawfairmedia.org the podcast is edited by Jen Patia with audio engineering by Hazel Hoffman of Goat Rodeo. Our theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening. Want to turn your timeline into a fast lane digital? Twin it to outpace the field with fast and confident decisions. Transform the everyday with Siemens.