← The Lawfare Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript166 lines
- [00:01]
Benjamin Wittes
The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad free version of the Lawfare Podcast. Become a material supporter of lawfare@patreon.com lawfare that's patreon.com Lawfair also check out Lawfare's other podcast offerings, Rational Security, Chatter, Lawfare, no Bull, and the Aftermath.
- [00:32]
James Pierce
Still listing your home address on business documents? Stable gives you a permanent business address, one you can use for the irs, banks, vendors, you name it, so you can keep things professional and keep your personal address private. Stable also digitizes all the mail that comes to that address accessible from our secure online dashboard, which makes it easy to manage your mail from wherever you are now. No P.O.
- [00:54]
Quinta Jurecic
Boxes, no Ms. Mail.
- [00:56]
James Pierce
Just one less thing to think about as you scale. Sign up for a virtual address today@usestable.com pod and get 50% off your first three months of a grow or scale plan.
- [01:07]
Benjamin Wittes
That's usestable.com pod your business moves fast.
- [01:11]
James Pierce
Your mail should too Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start.
- [01:16]
Benjamin Wittes
Thumbtack knows home, so you don't have.
- [01:18]
James Pierce
To don't know the difference between matte, paint, finish and satin or what that.
- [01:21]
Benjamin Wittes
Clunking sound from your dryer is.
- [01:23]
James Pierce
With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on.
- [01:31]
Benjamin Wittes
The app Download Today.
- [01:41]
James Pierce
I found it very interesting that there was relatively no discussion of the underlying merits of the birthright citizenship question.
- [01:49]
Benjamin Wittes
It's the lawfare podcast. I'm Benjamin Whittis, lawfare editor in Chief, here with legal fellow James Pierce and lawfare senior editors Anna Bauer, Quinta Jurassic and Roger Parloff. In a live recording on May 16, we discussed the many legal challenges against President Trump's executive actions, including action in the Supreme Court in an Alien Enemies act case and arguments in the birthright citizenship case, as well as Friday's hearing in the Abrego Garcia litigation. We also talked we also talked about immigration cases, agency dismantling, and so much.
- [02:35]
James Pierce
Like Justice Kagan saying, assume that you are dead wrong on the underlying merits. What does that mean for the universal injunction question?
- [02:46]
Benjamin Wittes
Folks, welcome to this week's lawfare Live. I'm Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of lawfare. Here in the Blazing Sunlight Studio. I'm joined by Roger Parloff in the Sconce Studio, Quinta Jurassic in the Ansel Adams Studio, James Pierce in the Cathedral Studio. Is that what we're calling it? James?
- [03:14]
James Pierce
I like it. Let's do it.
- [03:15]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, the Cathedral Studio. And we are soon to be joined by Anna Bauer, who is dashing out of court as we speak. Guys, we have a Supreme Court opinion which Roger and Quinta are feverishly reading. We are going to deal with that second so that they have a chance between the two of them to read 24 pages. In the meantime, James and I are going to talk about the Supreme Court's completely fascinating oral argument in the birthright citizenship case yesterday, which was not an argument about birthright citizenship. It was an argument about nationwide injunctions, AKA universal injunctions. And I thought it was fascinating, James, how diverse the headlines on this were. Everything from Government Takes a Beating, Trump Administration Solicit General Takes a Beating to Judges. Justices seem Sympathetic to Trump Administration on Universal injunctions. What did you make of it? And do you think there are tea leaves to read here?
- [04:36]
James Pierce
Yeah, I thought it was a fascinating argument and it doesn't surprise me at all. And I've seen some of the reporting that you also mentioned that that suggests kind of all sorts of different readouts of the argument that we heard. A couple of observations, some of which have been widely reported. I found it very interesting that there was relatively no discussion of the underlying merits of the birthright citizenship question. And the handful of times that it came up, there were things like Justice Kagan saying, assume that you are dead wrong on the underlying merits. What, you know, what, what does that mean for the universal injunction question? And there weren't even at least if there were, I missed it. And I think I listened to all of the argument. Any of the justices raising who might, you might be at least somewhat sympathetic raising kind of counter arguments. Now, that's not entirely surprising, as you said, Ben. And as what kind of what as best as we could understand going into an argument with no question presented, what was teed up here was this universal injunction question. I do think that John Sauer, the solicitor General, faced more skepticism. I won't say outright hostility, but more skepticism for his position than I had anticipated. There are some justices, I think, Justice Gorsuch among them, who seem to have been often quite outspoken in their dislike of universal injunctions generally. But yesterday at the argument, you know, just to pause on Justice Gorsuch for a moment, I took him to be engaged in a pretty thoughtful effort to try to parse when under what sorts of circumstances a the kind of broader relief that you, that you see in a universal or nationwide injunction would be appropriate. In particular, he had a kind of couple of exchanges with the Solicitor General of New Jersey, who I have to say, I thought just did an absolute fabulous job.
- [06:35]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah, just I'd never heard him argue before, but, you know, talk about the art of meeting every justice where they are and engaging with them incredibly respectfully with a point to make to each of them that, you know, engages their own writing. I thought it was a particularly artful oral argument. And, you know, for those who want a kind of master class in the art of oral arguments, this was high up there in my book.
- [07:19]
James Pierce
I couldn't agree more. I think he was helped a little bit by the fact that as he quite articulately and artfully said, you know, he could kind of straddle both lines in this particular case. Of course, he was one of those seeking the universal injunction, but recognized that, look, as a representative of a state, he was on behalf of New Jersey, but of course also representing, I think the 22 other states, maybe more than that. I may be confusing that with some of the other state based litigation, but that they also had concerns of under certain circumstances, broad reaching universal injunctions that just got to tie their hands. And so I, but, but yeah, I thought in, to go back to the point, the, you know, so he set out, he being Jeremy Feigenbaum, as someone put in the chat, the New Jersey Solicitor General kind of set out these different categories of cases where a universal relief or universal injunction would be appropriate. And Justice Bors engaged with him in a way that suggested, look, I'm not, you know, as a bright line rule, I'm not interested in the government's position, which as I understood it was essentially to the extent there is ever an opportunity or there's ever, it's ever appropriate for there to be broader relief than just the parties before the court. In fact, it wouldn't really be that because it'd be through class action. And that that would mean that those parties are before the court. And I didn't really hear anybody signing on to that. Even Justice Alito was raising practical problems with that, Justice Kavanaugh as well. And so I, I think some people have commented and I agree that to the extent the court is really just interested on the universal injunction issue, this was a pretty poor vehicle to sort of suss that out because I didn't see a lot of the justices suggesting anything other than, yeah, this is the type of case where such relief would be warranted. I think the other interesting thing or another interesting thing out of the argument were the number of justices that seemed interested in potentially getting to the merits of. They all seem to agree that it wasn't teed up now, neither the parties nor the justices. But again, Justice Gorsuch, I think asked a couple of times to more than one advocate, you know, how can we expeditiously get to the merits here and resolve this question? You know, the answers were essentially things like supplemental briefing and you could set this for argument soon. And I heard Amy Howe on a podcast of SCOTUS blog suggesting her prediction was the court was going to do that and move quickly to merit's briefing. They haven't done that yet, at least as far as I've seen, although we just of course saw them act in aarp. So they are a busy court, as we know. But yeah, I think it'll be interesting to see. For what it's worth, my prediction, you asked about tea leaves, is that the court is not going to try to get to the merits now, at least before the end of the term. And I don't think they're going to come out with some sort of bright line rule about universal injunctions. Always bad. I don't think it was ever. No one ever thought they were going to say always good. I do think, and I think frankly think it will be a good thing that they try to articulate some guidance about the scenarios or the circumstances in which it would be appropriate and it would not. Justice Gorsuch, a couple of times when advocates kind of proposed that path, said, well, we've been doing that. The district courts aren't getting it right. But, you know, I think if, if that's really the focus of the analysis here, that can kind of reset the playing field for, for the district court judges before whom this comes and, and then maybe there's some more clarity moving forward.
- [10:48]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah, so let me read, yeah, so let me bounce my read off you and see if you see what part of it you take issue with. First of all, it seems to me that, that the states at least, and the states had a much better argument than the individual plaintiffs did, in my view. But they, they made some headway with Alito too. And the evidence of that was that Alito seemed to me quite frustrated with Sauer, the Solicitor General, in the sense that he kept saying to him, hey, wait a minute, if, if you can just refile this case as a class and you know, doesn't article, doesn't Rule 22 effectively recreate the exact same issue simply by having a class of everybody who's affected by this? And Sauer couldn't really say no. He also couldn't really say yes because he doesn't want to acknowledge that in fact, a class would be certifiable. But I think if I were Sam Alito, I would have walked away from that argument with, wait a minute, what do we even get by restricting the universal injunction here? They're just going to come back with a class that we're going to have to certify because actually it is cognizable as a class to say everybody who's affected by this, irrespective of other considerations, can be part of the same class. I mean, you're going to get some huge percentage of the, of the people involved in, in that class at some level. So, you know, what do we really win by, by reining in, you know, the universal injunction component if you're merely going to recreate it by other means. And then you get to Gorsuch saying, well, I didn't really mean all bad. And by the way, I love your three part categorization and you clearly fit into exception number one. You know, I just want some help in figuring out how to tell district judges, be more careful with this. And so I actually thought, oh, and then Amy Coney Barrett sounded like she was nowhere in where, where the government would want her to be. And so I left it feeling like, you know, they had made some real progress. On at least three, I didn't get a good read of where either Kavanaugh or the chief was, but on at least three, they didn't seem to be where they should be for the iron wall of the, of the conservatives to line up. How much, what am I missing there?
- [13:54]
James Pierce
So I would sign on to a lot of that. I think a lot of that's right. I would, I suppose, with some caution, offer some, some predictions with Kavanaugh and with the chief that will go in different directions, which is, I think the points you made about Alito pointing out the problems with class actions strikes me as accurate and certainly a bit of a surprise because you might have thought he would be more sympathetic to the position the government was advancing. And I believe, I recall, I think Kavanaugh was quiet during all of Sauer's sort of free time. But then when it came to the seriatim, I think, I think Kavanaugh jumped in with a bunch of questions similar to the kinds of criticism or concerns that Justice Alito had raised, and at some point said, like, look, we got, you know, if we say it's got all the class action, all these class action suits are being teed up right now and they're going to start flooding into the courts, and we're going to have to deal with this, and so will all of the kind of associated problems. So from that, I sort of took that Kavanaugh is not as much in the government's camp as the government certainly would hope and would need to prevail. By contrast, the chief was, I think, relatively quiet, which isn't so unusual for him. I think he has often kind of good questions, but is not as talkative as a lot of the other justices. But at some point he sort of tossed the softball to Sauer, saying something like, so this depends on us being able to act expeditiously. And certainly we can do that. We, the Supreme Court, you know, we did that in TikTok. I think he gave as an example, and I imagine he would probably point to a lot of the work that the court is now doing on their emergency docket, shadow docket, whatever people want to call this, including the opinion that will or the order opinion that we'll talk about next in aarp. So I took that to be a little more skepticism with the position of the challengers, in other words, a little bit more favorable to the government. But, yeah, I agree there's not a lot of data to draw from there. The other interesting thing, I also agree with you with Barrett. I think it's probably worth just touching on lots of reporting as indicated, as focused on this as well. But Barrett really pressed, Barrett and Kagan together really pressed, sour on this notion of so you'll respect a Supreme Court decision, but not so clear you're going to respect if there's the Second Circuit. Right.
- [16:18]
Benjamin Wittes
The Second Circuit doesn't mean you have to not do any stuff in New York.
- [16:22]
James Pierce
Right, right. And so I think that was a telling, telling moment. And I think there's been some commentary suggesting at least Sauer, the Supreme Court got Sauer to say, yeah, we will respect the Court. Now, whether Sauer speaks for the government as a whole and the administration as a whole there. Of course he does. Formally, if he does in practical terms, time will tell. But I thought that was an interesting exchange. And the fact that Barrett was pressing on him, you know, I think also points to some, some generalized skepticism with the government. And I think, I think underlying this and perhaps what we'll talk about next in aarp, though, I say this with having looked at it for all of three minutes, and I'm sure Roger and Quinta will have much more insightful things to say, which is a point that Quinta has been making in some of her work on lawfare and Alan Rosenstein as well, which is like this, you know, erosion of presumption of regularity question. Right. You know, is, is this really still the 10th justice, the solicitor General before the Court, do we have faith that the government is going to act in good faith with sort of the way we expect it to? So obviously not. Not an explicit issue teed up as part of this case, but I certainly saw that as a theme running through the argument from a wider spectrum of Justices than one might have expected.
- [17:39]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, before we go on to aarp, I want to ask about the three liberals, because it seems to me that they seem to be sketching out quite different approaches to this. And I want to specifically highlight the difference between Katanji Brand Jackson and Elena Kagan on this. Kagan sounded very much like Amy Coney Barrett to me. And Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to be going in a different direction, which was, hey, there's nothing wrong with universal injunctions at all. It's not a question of reigning in the injunction. The issue in the injunction is you're telling the defendant to stop doing the thing that you're finding unlawful, and the fact that it's universal is merely a collateral benefit to non parties, but you're actually, as a court, only addressing a party to the specific litigation. So there's something unexceptional about that at all. Sonia Sotomayor, meanwhile, seemed to be suggesting that the problem here is the magnitude of the wrongdoing, that the. The issue is there are. I mean, she kept emphasizing you're violating the law as stated in four Supreme Court opinions, none of which have been overturned, the apparent plain text of the Constitution and a federal statute. And, you know, when do we get to say that's illegal? And Kagan raised a very specific concern that, wait a minute, if you disallow the universal injunction, you. You're never going to appeal these. You're going to lose at lots of different appeals courts, and you're just not going to appeal it because you only recognize the nationwide implications of a Supreme Court. And since you're going to lose, you're the one who has to appeal, and you're just not going to do it. And she was applying a kind of very real politician litigation strategy. I've never heard, actually, a Supreme Court justice discuss the litigation strategy of the federal government with the Solicitor General before. It seems to me these are three very different perspectives, and we group the liberals in together, but I'm not sure they're coming down in the same place. Or at least their reasoning seems different. What do you think?
- [20:33]
James Pierce
So, you know, I think a lot of what you said, again, is spot on. I have a couple of reactions just to what you said and then, and then what that might mean. Right. And I'll go sort of in the opposite order with Justice Kagan. At one point she said something like, if I were in your shoes, I wouldn't bring this case to our court. Now, she has been in his shoes. Of course, she was the Solicitor General for a hot minute or two before joining the court. But, and again, it was sort of a, I think, some insight into her thinking on the merits of the case, which is, which is not particularly surprising with Justice Sotomayor. You're right. I mean, it was interesting. She did seem to suggest, look, if something is so terribly, terribly and obviously unconstitutional. And not only did she, as you say, sort of cite these four cases and a long history of practice, she also tried to flip the kind of political valence of the issue when she kept talking about, imagine, you know, taking away everybody's guns and a president who comes in and says because of gun violence, we're stripping everybody of their guns. Could there be nothing that this court could do about it here? And so, you know, think about this. If the shoe were on the other foot. So Kagan being in your shoes, lots of shoe metaphors. Justice Jackson. Yeah. You know, as Justice Jackson in her, in her time on the bench has shown, she's often kind of coming at this from a different angle that other justices. I had a sort of a hard time following exactly what she was driving at, but it was an interesting idea. And then kind of taking them together, you know, I got the impression, which is not a surprise, that they, that each of the three poor liberal justices were expecting they were going to be having to fight to try to sort of pick apart why a bright line rule doesn't make sense. And so they were coming with different reasons why it doesn't. It just turned out that they were in greater company than they expected. Now, I think Justice Kagan is a tremendously capable strategist on the Court, and I imagine that she, working with some others, will craft something that will perhaps kind of address the concerns that the three liberals indicated or sort of articulated along with the other justices that seem to have skepticism about a broad position. What that will look like, I'm not sure. Maybe it's something like the three buckets we talked about earlier. But I don't, I, I took those, those sort of different ways of coming at it. To be kind of different ways of. Of kind of preparing defensively, even though the terrain turned out to need, not to need that kind of defensive strategy once. Once we started to hear where the other justices were.
- [23:11]
Benjamin Wittes
Interesting. I just to clarify what I think Justice Katanji Brown Jackson was getting at, I think her point was, okay, Sauer is arguing you can't give relief that goes beyond the specific defendants and the specific plaintiffs. That is the litigation is between two parties. There's only an Article 3 case or controversy between those parties. Yes, I acknowledge sometimes relief will have collateral benefits to other people, but a universal injunction always goes beyond the specific parties in question, and thus is an Article 3 problem. And I think what Katanji Brown Jackson is saying is, wait a minute, not so fast. If Ben is suing James and Ben is the federal government and James is the relief James asks is stop. Make the federal government stop doing this illegal thing, then the relief that he. The. The universal injunction is simply the relief that James needs that is federal government stop doing that illegal thing. And it has this collateral benefit for everybody else. But it's not actually an injunction that goes beyond the two parties. Neil Gorsuch and Sam Alito are not going to sign on to that. But it's an, it's an interesting maximalist argument that I hadn't seen the others making, and it's certainly not what New Jersey is asking for.
- [24:52]
James Pierce
I agree with all of that. Yeah.
- [24:55]
Benjamin Wittes
All right. With that, we have sucked up 23 minutes of your time, which has given Roger and Quinta the ability to read 24 pages, which is 20 more than one page a minute. And as a result, we can now talk to you about aarp. Quinta, get us started. Remind us which case AARP is and what question was before the Supreme Court. Supreme Court, before we get to how they disposed of it.
- [25:28]
Anna Bauer
Well, I should say to start off that some of the pages don't have a lot on them. So we're actually reading more slowly than that. AARP is the case in the Northern District of Texas that has actually since had its case title changed thanks to a request from the American association of Retired Persons. So at least in the district court, it is now, I believe, wmm. But at the Supreme Court, for some reason, that did not percolate up. So it is still aarp, that being the initials of one of the plaintiffs.
- [26:04]
Benjamin Wittes
So, and just to annoy the actual aarp, I think we should call the case American Associations for Retired Persons v. Trump, just to be nudniks. Now, I'm joking. We're going to call it AARP because that's what the Supreme Court is calling it. But it is not as the, as the retired persons pound the table and tell us it is not the, the Medicare lobby.
- [26:34]
Anna Bauer
Yes, this is, this is someone's initials. So ARP or wmm, whichever you choose. So this case, if listeners remember, comes out of the flurry of activity from a couple of weeks ago or a month ago May, where a district court in the Northern District of Texas had denied a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the removal of a class of Venezuelan detainees to be removed to Zacat, the El Salvadoran facility, under the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU then immediately appealed to both the Fifth Circuit and I believe simultaneously filed a petition to, to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ended up stepping in before the 5th Circuit. The justices blocked the government from removing anyone. The 5th Circuit then came in behind them saying that they would have denied the motion from the aclu, but because we had that Supreme Court block, no one was able to be removed in the Northern District of Texas. That's important because a couple of days ago, the judge in this same case. So now wmm, I will say he acted very expeditiously to change the case title less expeditiously than the actual issues of the case, once again denied a class certification. And so this was concerning. And I will say there is a great piece from Lee Kovarski and Theodore Rave in Lawfare that just went up the other day explaining the issues here in much more detail than I can give here. But the long and the short of it is that that meant that anybody who was potentially removable under the Alien Enemies act and was in the Northern District of Texas, that that stay from the Supreme Court was the only thing that was preventing them from being removed. And so there was this danger that it was kind of creating an incentive for the government to basically funnel everybody into these facilities in that district so that when the court acted, they could potentially just remove everyone very, very quickly to El Salvador. Now, the Supreme Court has stepped in in the wake of that district court, this denial of class certification, and said, no, actually, this is just for a putative class in the Northern District of Texas, you do not get to remove people, or at the very least, you don't get to remove people without some minimal level of process. So this is a per curiam ruling. The procureum is pretty clear saying we're not weighing in on the substantive issue of whether the Alien Enemies act was properly invoked here, whether you can remove People under the Alien Enemies act, what we're doing is we're actually going to send this back down to the fifth Circuit to weigh in on what the appropriate sort of level of, of notice and process is for these detainees who are potentially removable to sicot. And that is important because one of the games that the government has been trying to play is building on the court's previous, the Supreme Court's previous ruling in jgg, which said that I forget the exact wording, but that detainees were mandated to have some sort of level of adequate notice in order to file a habeas petition. The government kind of took that and was doing, I mean, not even the bare minimum, like laughable levels of quote, unquote notice, you know, handing out forms that weren't in Spanish or were only in English and not in any other languages, offering 24 hours or less to actually go to a court. And so what the procurement is saying here is that that is absolutely not sufficient, but we're going to send you back down to the fifth Circuit to figure out what actually would be sufficient here. And in the meantime, you can't remove anybody. I will say there's kind of a funny note at the end where when the court is setting up precisely sort of the procedural steps going forward, it specifically says there's a specific clause in there that says, and by the way, this, this order that we're putting in this block is going to stay in place until we decide what to do with your petition for a writ of certiorari from the fifth Circuit, which we kind of assume that you're going to file. So, and then they say, or maybe you won't file it. But they're building that in there, I think, because they're assuming this is going to come back to them again, that this was my very preliminary take that I developed while I was reading as I was listening with one ear to you both. So, Roger, I'm very interested in your thoughts and please correct me if I got anything wrong.
- [31:36]
Quinta Jurecic
I didn't hear anything wrong. I think it's being remanded for two purposes. The also the to decide. I don't. You might have said this. The also to decide if the Alien Enemy act can even is properly invoked as well as the due process question. So the two questions there is a little bit devoted. It's surprising in a short decision and then how much is devoted to sort of petty stuff here, which is like, if you remember, this was the case where, you know, NBC, you've seen the NBC footage of the buses being loaded at Blue Bonnet and heading for the airport. And you know, James Hendricks would not rule the judge in Northern District. And so eventually, and he, what he was saying was, we, I, we. I need to provide the government with 24 hours to respond before I will make any ruling. So eventually they went up without him. And so he was. And so there's a dispute here. And the first time around, Alito with Thomas had dissented and said, oh, you know, they only gave the judge 42 minutes. And, and so the majority is saying no, they gave him more than 14 hours. And, and, and so, and a lot of this is back and forth. So all of that is petty and has no relevance at all. By the way, in a footnote, it makes clear that Judge Hendricks's ruling on the class certification is, is vacated automatically. That's just because they granted cert. That happens. So that's sort of officially out of the picture. Kavanaugh then concurs. And if I read it and we all, we all read this really fast, so we're all making mistakes probably. But Kavanaugh, as I get it, he would, he would have just not even sent it back to the fifth. He would have asked for more briefing and just decided these issues. Which is interesting that that only got. Or it didn't get five votes. I mean, I think that I would have thought. Or four votes, I guess, or I don't know how many you would need to, to grant. I guess I think you would need four to grant on that issue. But so, but anyway, he. That's what he would have done. And then the two. The rest of it was Alito's dissent with Thomas joining and, and defending himself about the 42 minutes. And then there's a hyper. A technical argument that if James, once James reads it, he can weigh in on, but about whether there's an appeal from what the fifth Circuit did and which, which was to not. It was a weird posture when the 5th Circuit last got it and they were saying they didn't have jurisdiction. So maybe so. So Alito is saying we don't have jurisdiction. I'll leave it there.
- [35:04]
Benjamin Wittes
So to either of you who wants to take it, what is really, other than the incidental litigation history of this matter, what's really the dispute between the dissenters and the majority?
- [35:23]
Anna Bauer
I mean, one way to put it, to go back to the point that James was making earlier in your discussion of the birthright citizenship nationwide injunctions case is just do we trust the government or not? I think that, you know, one, one Way to kind of read the Alito dissent is he's really saying, you know, well why would this district judge have needed to move quickly? The government said that they weren't planning to do anything which maybe sounds very convincing if you know, you've lived under a rock and just lifted it up right like it or if you were.
- [36:01]
Benjamin Wittes
Appointed by George W. Bush who never misrepresented to a court what he, you know, who never said to this the court we're not going to do X and then turn around and did it. But is completely naive if you're dealing with this administration.
- [36:15]
Anna Bauer
Right, Exactly. It's very specific to the conduct of this administration. And then there's this really striking pattern passage in the perium which thank you to Brad Heath of Reuters for pointing this out on Blue sky where the procurum ruling says we recognize the government has agreed to forego removing the name petitioners pursuant to the AA will their habeas proceedings are pending. We reject the proposition that a class action defendant may defeat class treatment if it is otherwise proper by promising as a matter of grace to treat named plaintiffs to differently. I think that the sort of the matter of grace note there is very telling that they're basically saying like come on perhaps unlike Justice Alito, we do not live under a rock and we can see exactly what you're doing. And I do agree with Roger that this sort of back and forth of defending versus attacking Judge Hendricks honor is just very odd. But it is true that reading the sort of parallel accounts of what happened in the timeline is telling in terms of what is emphasized and not emphasized. And the version in the procurement is just way more skeptical of what it is that the government is saying, whereas Alito is sort of taking that at face value in a way that I think clearly were seemingly seven other justices were just not willing to do.
- [37:43]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, so Roger, for those who did not follow this, the twists and turns here, where does this leave things? It goes back to the 5th Circuit kind of to announce what a process is going to be.
- [38:02]
Quinta Jurecic
To decide two things. To decide is the alien enemies does is the can you invoke the alien enemies act in this situation? You know the is there a predatory incursion? Is there an invasion? Is there a foreign state or government? They're going to decide that. And then if there is if, if the AEA is properly invoked, then what process is due in the first instance?
- [38:36]
Benjamin Wittes
So and do they say why they're going to send that to an appellate court to decide in the first. I mean Usually you remand that kind of thing to the district court.
- [38:48]
Anna Bauer
This is the part where the honor of Judge Hendricks is maybe important.
- [38:53]
James Pierce
No, I think it's a pretty standard part. So the Supreme Court will send it back to the fifth Circuit. I think the fifth Circuit parties may even agree that the fifth Circuit ought to send it back to the district court. I don't stand a procedure that it goes back to the court of appeals, and then the court of appeals can decide whether they in the court, federal first instance should decide to question or kick it further on down the line.
- [39:13]
Benjamin Wittes
I just want really.
- [39:14]
Quinta Jurecic
It really doesn't sound that way in the way this is written to me. I think that, you know, he's had his. He's had his shot. Hendricks, we know what he's going to do. I think they're saying 5th Circuit, you decide these two things. Maybe. I mean, he's better qualified than me. But that's. That's how I read it.
- [39:31]
James Pierce
I mean, I'm just. I'm looking at the disposition on the final page of the per curium. And that language is all pretty standard, including, I think, Quinta, you mentioned the language about, like, you know, we keep this in place pending a writ of cert, Even whether it's filed. That's also pretty standard language that you'll see on their emergency docket. So, you know, I haven't read enough to kind of see the back and forth over the district court judge. But I do think it's this part, the sort of. The disposition is pretty. Pretty much kind of run of the mill, whatever differing justices may feel about the. The bona fides of the district court judge here. And it will be up to the fifth Circuit. I mean, the fifth Circuit will get it. It may or may not ask the parties, should we decide this in the first census, or does this need to go back to the district court for the district court to take a crack at it? I think that would probably be the right and would be the standard procedure. But that. That can be a question that's sort of worked out between the parties and the fifth Circuit.
- [40:30]
Benjamin Wittes
I guess I just want to point out that if memory serves about Boom Ad Yen, Justice Kennedy's opinion ends with, you know, we leave these questions in the good hands of the district court. In the first instance, he doesn't kick it back to the D.C. circuit. Now, maybe that's because it's on the standard docket, not on the emergency docket. But I do think there's something. I don't. I don't know, I've. I've. I've never seen the. The Supreme Court kick a question back to the appellate court that the district court hasn't ruled on yet. I don't know. I.
- [41:13]
Quinta Jurecic
Well, he. He has ruled on. On these. Not. It's a weird posture. He has, in fact, ruled on these.
- [41:22]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, I stand corrected. I'm just saying it weird's weird to me. Not that I've read it. Anna Bauer, fresh out of court in the blue cushion studio with the weird colored walls. Where are you?
- [41:44]
Roger Parloff
This is the Crown Plaza Hotel studio next to the Greenbelt Courthouse studio.
- [41:51]
Benjamin Wittes
Excellent. It's great to see you. It kind of looks like a Crowne Plaza. Um, I hope they have, like, good, like, beer. Anyway.
- [42:05]
Roger Parloff
I haven't tried the beer yet, but, you know, maybe after we're done recording then, because it was a long hearing.
- [42:11]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, so you were in Judge Sini's courtroom until a few minutes ago in the Abrego Garcia case. First of all, remind everybody which one the Abrego Garcia case is, because it's been a couple of weeks since we've talked about Mr. Abrego Garcia, and what's the status and what were they talking about in court today?
- [42:34]
Roger Parloff
Yeah, Kilmar Abrego Garcia is the Maryland man who was wrongfully removed from the United States to El Salvador. This is the case in which Judge Sinis originally ordered that the government effectuate his return to the United States. It then went to the Supreme Court, who said, you know, facilitate his release and, you know, treat his case as if he had not been removed from the United States, and it went back down. She amended her order to say, facilitate his return, and then the government proceeded to do, apparently nothing, it seems. And so as a result, Judge Sini's ordered, allowed discovery, the plaintiff, some discovery around three different questions. One is, you know, what steps have you taken to facilitate his return? What is the status, his custodial status? And then, you know, what steps in the future might the government be willing to take or plan to take to. To comply with the court's order to facilitate his return? Lurking in the background of all of this is this question of whether or not the government is complying with the court's order. And so we're in this discovery process still. That at one point was put on pause for reasons that remain unclear, because a lot of these filings are actually being done under seal. So some of this has been a little bit hard to follow, Ben, because, you know, as you're trying to follow the docket it's like the government's filing things under seal. So are the plaintiffs in some cases. So it's not entirely clear what exactly is happening, but the context of today's proceeding is that plaintiffs were able to depose three people who previously filed declarations in the case. Those were kind of lower level to mid level, you know, people from dhs, from State, although one was the general, I believe one is the general counsel, or I can't recall if it's like acting general counsel or what the official title is, but of dhs. But regardless there, you know, they were able to depose some people and the plaintiffs were able to submit interrogatories that they got responses to. But ultimately the plaintiffs have claimed that they were being stonewalled in all of these responses. You know, the government, in terms of producing documents was invoking many privileges, including deliberative process privilege and state secret secrets privilege. The same in these responses to the interrogatories. And then when it came to the depositions, you know, again, we don't have the content of those because they, they aren't on the public docket, but we do know some things about, about them based on what claims the plaintiffs have made. And then today in the hearing, people have made about the content of those depositions, and it sounds like they basically didn't get much from the deponents. It was a lot of, I don't know, you know, I don't have personal knowledge. So as a result, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel additional discovery. They also requested a discovery conference to hash out some of these issues regarding these invocations of privilege related to state secrets and deliberative process privilege. So Judge Sinis set this hearing for today. The main topic of the discussion was not so much the question of whether they should be allowed to have these additional deponents, but more so on what the next steps are in terms of figuring out the state secrets privilege issues and the deliberative process privilege issues. And so she mainly discussed that with the parties. Who was arguing on behalf of DOJ is a guy named Jonathan Gwyn. And our known quantity, Drew Enzyme, was not there for the government today. It was Jonathan Gwyn. And you know, Ben, even though we were supposed to be talking about these, you know, legal issues of state secrets and delivery process, and eventually it got there. A lot of this hearing was kind of just Judge Sinis arguing with DOJ about like, very basic questions around, like whether or not they have even provided any information and compliance with the court. Court's order Because DOJ continues to say, oh, like the government has given the plaintiffs all the information that they need. And Judge Sinis kept saying, well, I don't think you have. And so kind of there's a lot of back and forth about that. And then on the legal issues, Judge CNI is really focused on the state secrets for much of the hearing. One of the issues there is this question of whether or not the government has supplied sufficient evidence to show that national security or diplomatic relations would be endangered by the disclosure of this evidence in which they're. Over which they're claiming state secrets privilege as a part of, you know, making that showing. The government did supply an affidavit from Marco Rubio. I believe that this affidavit, it might be public now because during the hearing, she ordered it made public. But at the time of the hearing, it was. It was still under seal, but from what she announced from the bench, you know, it sounds like it was very similar to an affidavit that Rubio filed in the JGG case that, that was public. And it. It sounds as though, based on what Judge Sinis observed, it sounds as though it's very conclusory, doesn't really provide much kind of concrete reasons as to why there would be this kind of blanket invocation of state secrets about a lot of misinformation. And so she was kind of trying to get the government to give her anything more, really, that it. That it would might be willing to, in terms of, you know, would you commit to getting more, you know, filing a supplemental affidavit, that kind of thing. The government said it would take it under advisement and work on maybe getting some more information, because she was very clear that she doesn't think at this stage the government has made a sufficient showing of, you know, there being a real danger to national security or diplomatic relations. And then there was even beyond that question, which I will say the plaintiffs were not enthusiastic about giving the government a second bite of the apple of allowing them to supplement. They kind of were like, this is just allowing them to string this along even further. We've seen time and time again they're delaying for delay's sake. But Judge Steeny's, I think, wants to give them a very short window to maybe get some more there.
- [50:21]
Benjamin Wittes
Because she wants to create a record, or she. Or she. She seems to have genuine doubt as to whether they are trying in good faith. What. What do you think she's thinking?
- [50:34]
Roger Parloff
Oh, she. It's very clear to me that she feels they are not acting in good faith. That's the, all of the subtext of this entire hearing. And even at one point she said like, I can't, I can't believe you're sitting here telling me that the government is acting in good faith. But she, I think that she at one point went on a kind of monologue about how she takes her role as a branch, as a person who is a, you know, co. Equal branch of government very seriously. And because she, and she was making it very pointed, right, of like, I take my job as a member of the judicial branch seriously. And that's why I'm, you know, going to give you this opportunity because we've have, as she said, you know, we have other things to work out in the meantime anyway. So I'm going to give you one more shot to kind of give me some more meat on the bone of the state secrets privilege stuff. But, you know, even beyond that question of, you know, supplementing the affidavit, she focuses well on this question of like, well, you know, what if in a case where intent is in question, which in her view, intent is in question here because it's, you know, there's a question of whether or not the government is acting in bad faith and complying with her order, you know, is there some kind of a way in which like even if there is a kind of maybe it's, it's unclear if there's a showing of danger. Then do you go on to look at the need and, and then decide, you know, maybe I need to look at these documents that you're claiming state secrets for in camera and decide if, you know, based on that. Like maybe there's more probing if you can't meet that kind of very minimal threshold of the judge satisfied. I don't remember the language in the case law, but it's like the judge has to satisfy herself that there is reasonable or a real danger to diplomatic relations. And so I think that she's thinking maybe at some point it might be necessary to do some kind of in camera review, if necessary. And also that, you know, there might be a kind of more of a balancing of the equities at that stage than you might usually have in a state secrets case where there's typically like a significant amount of deference. But a lot of the other conversation around the state secrets issue focus too on, you know, fact that this doesn't involve classified documents. One new fact that we learned, I think it's new is that the arrangements between El Salvador and the US Used to be were previously classified. But apparently that has changed. According to doj.
- [53:46]
Anna Bauer
We have they now been disclosed.
- [53:51]
Roger Parloff
So it's. Again, Ben, it's really hard. A lot of these conversations, we're talking about things that we just don't understand or know what they're. Because they would jump around to talk about things like, you know, oh, like. Or they would.
- [54:04]
Benjamin Wittes
Right. They're talking about a complete record. But we don't have a complete record.
- [54:08]
Roger Parloff
Right, we don't have it. And then they would stop midstream and say, your honor, I think this is better in a sealed session. And then the judge would say, okay, I'm going to put that on the list for the sealed session. And then they had like a whole set a list of things that they almost got into or they hinted at getting into, but then they ended up leaving it for a sealed session. That happened after this long, marathon hearing. So, you know, but beyond the state secrets issue, there's also the deliberative process privilege issue. And that was, you know, not as significant of a portion of the hearing, but it led to one of the more interesting parts of the hearing or dramatic, I should say, parts of the hearing, because in the course of talking about the deliberative process privilege, the plaintiffs have argued that there's this exception. Well, there is an exception. They haven't argued there's an exception. There is an exception that they say applies, basically, is that, you know, if government, if there's a showing of governmental misconduct, then this exception doesn't apply. They've also made an argument about this other exception called the compelling need exception. But in the course of this conversation about government misconduct, you know, the government starts talking about because like the plaintiff's argument is like, since the very beginning, this has been a case about government misconduct. You know, go all the way back to the circumstances of his removal. Like, you know, you, you have the government admitting that he was wrongfully detained at that first year, excuse me, wrongfully removed at that very first hearing, and that there, you know, wasn't a basis even for his detention and then removal to El Salvador, all this stuff. And as in response, doj, you know, is discussing this question about whether or not those original circumstances of his removal constitute some kind of, it could imply or suggest government misconduct over the whole case. And remember that the question around whether he was removed, wrongfully removed to El Salvador is what led to a Res Ruini's firing. And some of the admissions that he made in that, in that first hearing is what led him to be fired and Then Stephen Miller went on TV and claimed that there was a DOJ attorney who's a radical Democrat who was sabotaging the case kind of thing. And as we're getting into this subject, the attorney for doj Gwynn will not admit that during that first hearing and during that first initial phase of the case, the government conceded that he was unlawfully detained and removed. And he, you know, at one point the judge said, you know, what about that first hearing with Mr. Rovini? You know, he said this, he said that, there's the ICE agent Cerna who said this. And he said, and in response, Gwen says, well, your honor, I can't speak to what happened on that during that first hearing. And she said, come on, you know, you took over this case. I know you've read the transcripts.
- [57:47]
Benjamin Wittes
Not to mention that the Supreme Court has made as a finding of fact that, that the government has conceded this. So it's the law of the case whether he wants to admit it or not.
- [57:58]
Roger Parloff
Right. And then it was one of the most awkward silences I've ever seen in court, to be honest. It was this very long, drawn out pause in which he just went completely silent and didn't say anything. And it was very uncomfortable. And he eventually, you know, when he did speak up again, he. He said that he would assume for the sake of argument that. That he would had been, you know, unlawfully detained and removed. And then, you know, kind of went from there using the hypothetical saying, oh, but even that doesn't show, you know, government misconduct, even if that's the case. So it was, it was a really kind of astonishing, as in the back of his mind, I mean, I assume in the back of his mind is the fact that his colleagues had been, you know, fired for conceding what he was being asked to concede, to admit that the government had conceded. So that was quite an interesting moment on the deliberative process privilege stuff. Again, Judge Sinis does not seem to believe that the government has met its burden of, you know, showing why the privilege should apply. She did seem into this government misconduct argument and then also to the compelling need exception argument. She over and over again, you know, noted that this is a qualified privilege that, you know, there's a balancing of equities and factors here. And then the way it ended is basically, she didn't rule from the bench. There's a lot of nitty gritty details that the parties wanted to get into in terms of discovery matters that they couldn't speak on publicly. And so she Basically just kind of said, all right, let's, let's get into the rest of this in a closed session, send everyone on their way. And here I am at the Crowne Plaza Hotel after it was quite a long hearing, about three and a half hours.
- [60:12]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, two and a half hours.
- [60:14]
Roger Parloff
Excuse me, two and a half.
- [60:16]
Benjamin Wittes
We have 30 minutes. There have been no questions so far, which is convenient because this is when we turn off the questions. And so we're going to use this, this last half hour of the show today to do a speed through all the other cases. We've used the first 60 minutes of the show to go through three cases and we're going to go through all the rest in the second 30 minutes because, you know, we get to prioritize. So I'm just going to do this in the order in which it's in the document here. Quinta, let's start with tariffs. There was some, there's been this VOS selections case on the tariffs. What's going on with that?
- [61:08]
Anna Bauer
There was oral argument this week in this case the US Elections, which is challenging the IIPA tariffs. They kept referring to them during oral argument as the Liberation Day tariffs, both sides, actually, which I thought was a nice touch, and specifically challenging them on the grounds that the President indicated that the trade deficit was a national emergency that was such that he was able to invoke IIPA to impose these tariffs. So there are, and just to be.
- [61:45]
Benjamin Wittes
Clear, Quinta, that's pronounced ipa.
- [61:48]
Anna Bauer
Yes. Every time I say it, I think that. So there are a range of arguments here. So the plaintiffs are arguing that iipa, the text of iipa, doesn't allow the imposition of tariffs. Even if it does, the President has to make a formal declaration of emergency, which he hasn't done. And even if he did, that, the trade deficit is not emergency under the terms of the statute. I have to say it was an interesting argument to listen to in part because I've never listened to an argument at the Court of International Trade before. It was very collegial. They closed by thanking the work of all of the court staff who had made the hearing possible, which I thought was very sweet. But more on the subject at hand, I think what really came across to me was that the judges, this is a three judge panel, were just really struggling with how to define a standard on this question of emergency and what constitutes an emergency. They really pushed counsel for the plaintiffs on how they would identify that line to the point where the counsel said at one point that he was asking the court to be an umpire and call a strike. That's a direct quote. And that in this instance, the pitch was so far outside the zone that, you know, they didn't need to be specific about, you know, did it, did it graze the edge of. I forget what it's called. The strike box, whatever it is, you know, this pitch was totally wide. I will say the judges didn't seem super convinced by that and did keep pushing to try to identify a judicially manageable standard. Then, of course, when counsel for the government came in and made a range of arguments, but among them, that the existence of an emergency is a political question and that the judiciary cannot weigh in. And that did seem to rankle the panel a bit. So I think at the end of the day, it is not super obvious to me what way the court will come down. They didn't seem super comfortable with being asked to determine the contours of emergency, but they also really did not like the suggestion that the judiciary should. But out here. So we, we will see what happens. I think it's anyone's guess this is.
- [64:22]
Benjamin Wittes
The 4 first case ever in the US Court of Federal Trade to be discussed on lawfare.
- [64:29]
Anna Bauer
They did seem somewhat bewildered by how many people were in the gallery.
- [64:33]
Benjamin Wittes
Just, you know, every now and then, the, the dark, the light of the sun burns into obscure places. All right, Anna, let's talk frog embryos case. It's taken a really dark turn.
- [64:53]
Roger Parloff
Yeah, it has taken a dark turn. There was a hearing earlier this week in the case of. Is it Cassinia? Yes.
- [65:04]
Benjamin Wittes
Okay, it's Cassinia, but pronounce it as one consonant. Ksenia. There's no Ksenia. It's just. There's no vowel. Yeah.
- [65:16]
Roger Parloff
All right, thank you. So this is the Harvard scientist who is from Russia, who was on a J1 visa brought from France, some clawed frog embryos.
- [65:35]
Benjamin Wittes
I, I, as one does.
- [65:37]
Roger Parloff
It's a, it's a case that is very much not funny, but unfortunately, I can't help but laugh when every time I have to say, claude, frog embryos.
- [65:48]
Benjamin Wittes
But I've never seen a clawed frog. I just want to say frogs don't have claws. And so there's the whole, like, clawed frog embryo raises.
- [65:58]
James Pierce
The.
- [65:58]
Roger Parloff
Yeah.
- [66:00]
Benjamin Wittes
Are there unclawed frogs? What is a clawed frog?
- [66:04]
Roger Parloff
I, I don't know. I, you know, Ben, you were asking some of the same questions the judge. You, you and the judge both want to know, but there's.
- [66:14]
James Pierce
Sorry, I think there's one other question is whether a clawed frog gets along with a widow.
- [66:21]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah.
- [66:22]
Roger Parloff
So there, there was a hearing in the case of the Claude Frog embryo detention. Cynia has been transferred to Louisiana. She's been in detention for about three months now. And the circumstances of this case are a little bit like, procedurally, it's like at a bit of a weird place because initially her council filed a habeas petition that made like, a bunch of like, requests for relief that fit with the facts that they thought they were at the time because they, the government said there was an order for her removal. It turns out there wasn't. So they had, they had asked, you know, for various things related to their belief about what they thought the facts were on the ground. In addition to the habeas claim, they made some APA type claims in this petition. So then after the judge sets a habeas kind of initial hearing, the government files a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. We get to this hearing that the judge is kind of like, I don't really know, like what you guys wanted to me to really deal with today, like, are we dealing with everything or just the motion dismiss. They end up discussing the motion to dismiss. I think the. What the judge took it under advisement, but I think what she seems to be struggling with is, you know, this question of like, the weirdness of how the petition as it was filed originally fits with what they kind of seem to want now, which is her release. And, and you know, she has said that she will go back to France willingly because that's where she, you know, was traveling from. But the issue is just that she doesn't want to go back to Russia because of past political persecution there. So it's a. It's a case that has a lot of complicated facts and has a bit of a weird posture. And for the sake of this lightning round, I'm going to speed through it and just say the end result in terms of that hearing is that judge took the motion to dismiss under advisement and set a hearing or said that there would be a hearing within the next few weeks for a bail hearing. The very next few hours, Ben, you know, pass same day as this hearing taking place where the judge says, I'm going to set a bail hearing. Hours later, she is then the subject of a criminal complaint filed by the Justice Department for smuggling under 18 USC 545, the, you know, smuggling of the alleged. The alleged smuggling of Claude Frog embryos. Again, earlier in the day during this hearing, you know, there were a lot of questions about, like, wouldn't this usually be a fine? This is Something that stems. You're not criminally and you have something that is of that nature of what she had. You're. You're fined as opposed to prosecuted. That said, there are some facts in the complaint, that. Which was sworn out, by the way. The supporting affidavit was sworn out like three months after the incident. But regardless, as alleged, there are some facts in the complaint that I think are not like great facts for her if they, if they turn out to be true. They relate to, you know, text message that she sent in which people were asking her, well, what are you going to do about Questa? You need to get permissions for the frog samples. But, you know, again, I plan to do some research in the next coming week about exactly how the law would apply to something like this, because I'm just not sure. But if anyone else has thoughts, then please chime in.
- [70:50]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, so, Anna, you're breaking up a little bit, so I'm going to ask.
- [70:56]
Roger Parloff
Sorry.
- [70:57]
Benjamin Wittes
Yeah, no, it's okay. We just got some background noise and, and some interference, I think from the storm that's passing over. But give us a very quick Remeza Osterk update because that's in your department, too.
- [71:16]
Roger Parloff
Yeah. There was also a hearing this week about whether she'll be subject to ICE conditions during her release. She was previously released. This is the tough student who was taken off the streets in Somerville by Mass immigration authorities after her release. ICE wanted to. Wanted her to be subject to a bunch of conditions. Travel restrictions, notification, registration, all this kind of stuff. Stuff. There was a dispute over this. The parties didn't want any restrictions or the plaintiffs didn't want any restrictions. ICE of course, wanted all the restrictions. The judge presiding over the habeas proceedings had a hearing to sort it all out.
- [71:58]
Benjamin Wittes
Hey, do you insure your car, your home? Do you have a personal liability policy in case someone sues you? Unless you're Elon Musk, it's a good idea because if something bad happens, you want to be protected. But what about you? Are you protected? What happens to your income, your family's future if something happens to you? Hit by a bus, plane crash, heart attack. Stuff happens. Policygenius makes finding and buying life insurance simple. Ensuring that your loved ones have a financial safety net they can use to cover debts and routine expenses. Expenses. You can compare quotes from top insurers and find coverage that fits your needs and your budget. With policy genius. You can find life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage. It's an easy way to protect the people you love and feel good about the future. Okay, this is a true story. A couple of years ago my cabin in the woods flooded and was almost completely destroyed and and the insurance company, my homeowner's insurance didn't pay a dime to rebuild. We were stuck with the whole cost of it. Can you imagine doing that if say you had a mortgage to service on a property and your partner was gone? Life insurance can cover loved ones expenses if something happens to you. Mortgage payments are a common cost that could be covered by life insurance too. So I have life insurance because I don't want my family to have to worry about money after I'm out of the picture. Policygenius is a great way to get the right policy for you. Combining digital tools with the expertise of real licensed agents, you can compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side for free. Policygenius's Licensed Support team helps you get what you need fast so you can get on with your life. They answer questions, handle paperwork and advocate for you throughout the process. Life insurance is not a one size fits all product and policygenius doesn't treat it like one. They lay out all your options clearly. Coverage, amounts, prices, terms. No guesswork, just clarity. So check life insurance off your to do list in no time with Policygenius. Head to Policygenius.com or click the link in the description to compare free life insurance quotes from top companies and see how much you could save. That's policygenius.com.
- [74:50]
Roger Parloff
Imagine waking up to breathtaking.
- [74:52]
Benjamin Wittes
Landscapes, vibrant culture and a welcoming community.
- [74:56]
Roger Parloff
New Zealand is calling.
- [74:58]
Benjamin Wittes
If you are a passionate early childhood.
- [75:00]
James Pierce
Primary or secondary school teacher, New Zealand.
- [75:02]
Roger Parloff
Says Come teach us. With up to 10,000 New Zealand dollars in relocation support, now's the time to make your move.
- [75:10]
Benjamin Wittes
Find out more about moving to New Zealand to teach@workforce.education.govt.nz open to existing qualified.
- [75:17]
James Pierce
Primary, secondary and ECE teachers.
- [75:19]
Roger Parloff
Note that this grant is only dispersed.
- [75:20]
Anna Bauer
After a teacher has arrived in New.
- [75:22]
James Pierce
Zealand and meets the other accompanying criteria.
- [75:24]
Roger Parloff
Optimize your nutrition this year with Factor America's number one Ready to Eat meal service. Factor's Fresh, Never Frozen meals are dietitian approved. Ready to eat in just 2 minutes. Choose from 40 weekly options across 8 dietary preferences like calorie smart, protein plus and keto. Eat smarter at FactorMeals.com listen50 and use code listen50 for 50 off plus free shipping on your first box. Factor meals.com listen50 code listen50 dear old.
- [75:54]
Benjamin Wittes
Work platform, it's not you, it's us. Actually, it is you. Endless onboarding, constant IT bottlenecks. We've had enough. We need a platform that just gets us.
- [76:05]
James Pierce
And to be honest, we've met someone new. They're called Monday.com and it was love at first onboarding. Their beautiful dashboards, their customizable workflows got.
- [76:14]
Benjamin Wittes
Us floating on a digital cloud nine.
- [76:16]
James Pierce
So no hard feelings, but we're moving on. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love.
- [76:23]
Roger Parloff
To use ultimately will be subject to some conditions, but a lot of it will go through the enforcement mechanism of or if ICE wants to enforce an alleged violation of it, it will, there will be a 48 hour, you know, notification to the court, to the judge in Vermont who then, you know, there will be a chance to respond. So he still kind of has some kind of over sight over some of these restrictions and he, he ended up striking a number of the requested restrictions as well. So those proceedings are ongoing. He, he mentioned potentially having the habeas hearing around September. There's also a potential preliminary injunction forthcoming surrounding some of the issues that Austerk was having with her sevis records being deleted or otherwise just removed from the system. That's been an issue we've talked about before. It's very loud, so apologies. I'm going to stop talking before it gets even louder at the Crown Plaza. Who knew that?
- [77:46]
Benjamin Wittes
Hey, it's a happening place. The Green Belt Crown Plaza where everybody goes on a Friday evening for happy hour. All right, we're going to speed through these initials cases. We'll start with James. CHNV and the national TPS issue, both at the Supreme Court. What are we talking about here, James? I literally have no idea what this refers to.
- [78:16]
James Pierce
Yeah, so CHNV is not actually an initial. It stands for four countries. Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. These are two cases that are.
- [78:25]
Benjamin Wittes
We're deporting whole countries now.
- [78:28]
James Pierce
These are, these are cases. I mean, sort of, sort of seems like it, yes. Where the Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noemi in April essentially canceled temporary protected status. That's the TPS case for a large tranche of Venezuelans and in a separate case or a separate administrative action, canceled protected status. Not the T, not the formal TPS program, but protected status for the CHNB large group of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans, more than 500,000. Those individuals and organizations representing both of those groups filed challenges in the district court. The district court in both instances granted relief preliminary injunctions. The government sought stays, pending appeal in both cases, in both cases, the Court of Appeals, I believe they both came up through the Ninth Circuit, denied those. And so as has often been the want of the current administration, the Solicitor General has sought Supreme Court intervention, seeking a stay of the relief granted to the challengers. The very basic kind of dispute here is that the government says, look, this is an entirely a discretionary call for the Secretary of Homeland Security. The statute itself says that in the secretary's discretion, she can or cannot provide that relief. Here, the challengers are saying they're due sort of case by case relief. That's, in fact, not, not an accurate reading of the, of the statute. Challengers come back in and offer a different statutory reading. I should say, as is typical of a lot of the government litigation in this space, they also, they also claim that there shouldn't be. So both under the INA and for other reasons, the district court has, has no, no sort of cause to be adjudicating these cases at all. So it's up at the Supreme Court. The TPS case that is just Venezuelans is fully briefed awaiting Supreme Court action. The other case, the chnv, we got the government response just within the last few days. I assume we'll see a reply. I imagine the court will dispose of these together. I don't have a great read on what the court will do, but when they act, we will let folks know.
- [80:51]
Benjamin Wittes
All right. Before we turn to the initials cases, James, let's talk for a moment about Judge Hannah Dugan, who in Milwaukee, who has now been indicted and has moved to dismiss. You have, she's dismissed on an immunity claim, which is a matter on which you are, have some expertise. So bring us up to speed.
- [81:20]
James Pierce
Yeah, so, so as you said, she was indicted. This is a judge we've talked about. A few weeks ago, I had a piece in Lawfare, kind of looking at her criminal complaint. She's been indicted now for a misdemeanor count of concealing someone with a arrest warrant and then obstruction. The day after her, her indictment, somewhat unusually quickly, she filed a motion that basically says she is immune from criminal prosecution because she, the indictment rests on official judicial acts. And the first case that she cites is Trump v. United States, the case of the former president, which with which I did have some involvement.
- [82:08]
Roger Parloff
You know.
- [82:10]
James Pierce
I don't think that this motion is going to fly. In fact, in that Trump litigation, though, this didn't form a significant part or really any of the Supreme Court's analysis. There was a lot of discussion of immunity from criminal prosecution for Prosecutors, judges, other officials. And the short version is it doesn't exist criminal immunity. And in fact, that is. Well, the judge overseeing the case out of Massachusetts that we've talked about before that had. Has facts that were quite similar to Judge Dugan. The district court judge there also rejected a motion to dismiss on judicial immunity grounds. I think that's probably the right result here. You can imagine a judge who accepts a bribe in exchange for doing something that everyone would agree is a core judicial official act. Right. Ruling in a case, sentencing someone to a more favorable sentence. So. But we'll see. The government hasn't filed its response yet. There's also, I should say, a portion of that motion to dismiss that seems to suggest that there's some kind of a 10th amendment or federalism type problem, which is an odd argument essentially saying that the federal government has sort of invaded the prerogative of, of the state of Wisconsin. That's also not really a thing, though. I understand, I think the rhetorical reasons perhaps behind making that point in these times.
- [83:40]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, thank you, Roger. Let's turn to Gutierrez Contreras. So for each of these, I'm going to name them and remind us what the issue in these cases is and where it is and then give us a brief rundown.
- [83:57]
Quinta Jurecic
Gutierrez Contreras is a one off habeas in the Central District of California, Riverside, and Judge, somebody subject to a Venezuelan that could be subject to the AEA proclamation. And the judge, Sunshine Sykes.
- [84:22]
Benjamin Wittes
Great name.
- [84:23]
Quinta Jurecic
Yeah. Ruled that he gets at least 14 days notice before he can be removed. He actually has already been. Somehow I don't exactly get these facts, but he's, he's moved out of that district and he's in Blue Bonnet in the Northern District right now. But it's only a one, it was never a class action. So it's, it's not that, you know, it. We don't know how much it means.
- [84:53]
Benjamin Wittes
It's precisely the way the, in the case, you know, no national injunctions. They want everything litigated this way.
- [85:04]
Roger Parloff
Right.
- [85:05]
Benjamin Wittes
Everybody's case affects only the two parties in front of them.
- [85:10]
Quinta Jurecic
Yeah.
- [85:11]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, next one. Jgg.
- [85:15]
Quinta Jurecic
Yeah, that's the, the granddaddy of them all this was. But at this point, it's an attempt to bring a class action for the people that were already shipped to Sakat on March 15 under the AEA. And Judge Boasberg today ordered some limited jurisdictional discovery, meaning discovery that will be relevant to whether the US has constructive jurisdiction over those prisoners. So it's going to raise A lot of the same questions that are live in Abrego Garcia. And honestly I think the plaintiffs did not really want to ask for it, but Judge Boasberg sort of hinted he'd feel better if they did. And so we're going through that there. Badar Khan Suri, he is the postdoc, he's an Indian postdoc at Georgetown and he was released from detention. He had been in detention in Prairieville, Texas. His wife is a US citizen, but she spent a lot of time in Gaza and her father was apparently a government official there at some point. So there's there people were saying he has ties to Hamas and that is apparently was the basis for his visa being.
- [86:51]
James Pierce
Pulled.
- [86:52]
Quinta Jurecic
And but so this is he at least gets out of detention for now. That's based on the first and Fifth Amendments, but he'll have to continue this. This is in the Eastern District of Virginia where the judges Alexandria and it's Judge Patricia to Giles ASR. ASR is another Alien Enemies act case in the Western District of Pennsylvania. This had been a class action, but at the TRO stage this Judge, Stephanie Haynes, but she decertified the class earlier this week because the class, the government says there's nobody else in that district anymore who is a ripe for AEA treatment. And in fact even the plaintiffs has again been moved to Blue Bonnet. And she had actually ordered that he not be removed from the Western District of Pennsylvania at the TRO stage, but they moved him the day before the TRO anyway. She said that he gets at least 21 days before removal if, if they're going to try to remove him. And again, it's one of those one offs at this point. So it doesn't seem to mean a lot.
- [88:29]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, that brings us to the last one. Maps.
- [88:35]
Quinta Jurecic
Yeah, that's in the Western District of Texas. That's a class wide TRO against removals under the aea. It was a very short order. He says there's a likelihood of success of showing that the proclamation violates the AEA and due process. But he didn't really explain his reasons. So at this point there are five judicial districts where AEA is blocked. Southern Districts of Texas, New York, Southern District of Texas, Western District of Texas, District of Colorado. All because the judges there have said it's invalid the AEA or the proclamation. And the Supreme Court has, as we know, has barred, barred them from being removed from the Northern District of Texas. The new McCrispy Strip is here. Dip approved by ketchup Tangy Barbecue. Honey mustard. Honey mustard Sprite, McFlurry Big Mac sauce double dipped in buffalo and ranch more ranch and creamy chili McCris crispy strip dip now at McDonald's.
- [89:41]
James Pierce
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. I don't know if you knew this.
- [89:44]
Roger Parloff
But anyone can get the same premium wireless for 15amonth plan that I've been enjoying.
- [89:49]
James Pierce
It's not just for celebrities.
- [89:51]
Roger Parloff
So do like I did and have.
- [89:52]
James Pierce
One of your assistant's assistants switch you to Mint Mobile today. I'm told it's super easy to do@mintmobile.com.
- [89:59]
Benjamin Wittes
Switch upfront payment of $45 for 3.
- [90:02]
James Pierce
Month plan equivalent to $15 per month required intro rate first 3 months only then full price plan options available.
- [90:08]
Benjamin Wittes
Taxes and fees, extra seeful terms@mintmobile.com if.
- [90:11]
James Pierce
You'Re running a business, you know that every time you miss a call, you're leaving money on the table.
- [90:16]
Benjamin Wittes
When every customer conversation matters, you need.
- [90:19]
James Pierce
A phone system that keeps up and helps you stay connected 24 7.
- [90:23]
Benjamin Wittes
That's why you need OpenPhone.
- [90:25]
James Pierce
OpenPhone is the number one business phone system that streamlines and scales your customer communications.
- [90:31]
Benjamin Wittes
It works through an app on your phone or computer.
- [90:33]
James Pierce
So no more carrying two phones or using a landline. Plus say goodbye to voicemail. Their AI agent can be set up.
- [90:40]
Benjamin Wittes
In minutes to handle calls after hours.
- [90:42]
James Pierce
Answer questions and capture leads so you never miss a customer. OpenPhone is offering our listeners 20% off.
- [90:48]
Benjamin Wittes
Of your first six months at openphone.com.
- [90:51]
James Pierce
Business that's O P E N P-H-O-N-E.com business and if you have existing numbers.
- [90:57]
Benjamin Wittes
With another service, Open Phone will port them over at no extra charge.
- [91:01]
James Pierce
Open Phone. No missed calls, no missed customers.
- [91:07]
Quinta Jurecic
Texas.
- [91:09]
Benjamin Wittes
All right, that covers the the initials cases James, we have two new impoundment suits. What's the deal?
- [91:22]
James Pierce
Yeah, so in that, in that red hot funding freeze District of Rhode island, we had two complaints filed earlier this week. They must have been coordinated. They were filed on the same day. Illinois along with 20 other states against FEMA and DHS and a few other agencies was one. The other was California against the US Department of Transportation. Both of the suits basically have the same kind of central claim which is that the government has started, this administration has started to withhold funds from various important programs, you know, disaster relief, that kind of thing. In the FEMA suit, in the, in the DOT Department of Transportation case, you know, various types of road safety, et cetera and has conditioned funding. I'm about to lose power, so yeah, I may lose you, but has conditioned that funding on the states taking certain immigration acts actions. And the states essentially argue that that is either an unconstitutional condition or some kind of effort at commandeering and then makes what we have seen as pretty, pretty typical in these cases, APA or other or claims directly under the Constitution. As I said, these were just, just filed. I believe they're preliminary injunction motions out in each of them. So we'll see how that goes. But yes, added to the list of additional funding freeze litigation, again, that seems to have really amassed in the District of Rhode Island.
- [92:56]
Benjamin Wittes
All right. In the meantime, we don't have major developments on the law firm targeting issue, except one, which is that James, you and Natalie or pet wrote a major piece on this this week that suggests that the law firms who settled may have a real problem or a set of real problems as a result of the settlements. Let's do a little bit of Lawfare log rolling here and talk a little bit about this piece.
- [93:35]
James Pierce
Yes, we just published it today and there's been obviously a lot of reporting about the dynamic of the settling firms and the challenging firms and a lot of I think quite, quite fair criticism of the settling firms that look, they just made this kind of crass business decision and kind of moral criticism of that decision. What our piece tries to do is kind of do an analytical look at is in fact their risk calculus, a fair analysis of the risks that they currently face and could face. And so we walk through potential risks, including look, do the agreements trigger potential criminal liability under, under federal law as essentially a quid pro quo, a bribe in exchange for an official act, either either rescinding in the case of Paul Weiss or foregoing an executive order in the case of the other firms Under UK Law, all of the firms have London offices. There's pretty broad reach of UK Law. Could that come into play? Also looks at ethical considerations, civil law, potential liability. And we talk about both those risks that, that exist now based on the actual the deals themselves as well as the kind of slew of potential risks that may come with conflicts and, and other potential eventuality. So, yeah, if this is a story that folks have been following and are interested in, that's a piece that's up on Lawfare this afternoon.
- [95:17]
Benjamin Wittes
All right. Before we go to our final weekly update, James, there are two oral arguments involving agencies, one in Wilcox v. Harris and one, you know, you seem to be dismantling another federal agency. So what's, what's going on with those two cases?
- [95:42]
James Pierce
The D.C. circuit was busy. These were both today. And in the morning the court not the same panel that had heard this at the motions, which was Judges Henderson, Millette and Walker. This was now Judges Katz, Walker and Pan. And this is the case of what we sort of group as the Humphreys executor cases. The challenge by fired removed members of the Merit Systems Protections Board and the National Labor Relations Board basically challenging their firing argument was spirited and probably what one would have expected there were when the government got up first as the appellant. Judge Pan was, was really pressing the advocate about the kind of unitary executive theory. And in fact the government advocate used the phrase the executive is a unitary energetic kind of channeling hamilton and federalist 70. And Judge Pan had many questions and then when the challengers sat down and the government came up, sorry, they sort of the dynamic flipped and Judge Katz has had more questions. I have to say Judge Katz though had questions for both sides. I think he's probably still going to come down the same way that the emergency motions panel did and probably find that the President has the power to remove these individuals. One thing worth noting, as folks may remember, the Supreme Court actually has administratively stated stayed the actual removals. At this point it's been sitting on their emergency docket.
- [97:24]
Benjamin Wittes
I think we have lost James. The storm finally got him. Which brings us to the last. I love the look on his face in that frozen shot. It brings us to the last question of the day. Anna Bauer, who is the administrator of Doge.
- [97:45]
Roger Parloff
I know I'm cutting out too, so I'm just going to say Amy Gleason might get deposed.
- [97:51]
Benjamin Wittes
Whoa, whoa.
- [97:53]
Roger Parloff
So look, here's what happened in one of the FOIA cases regarding whether or not DOGE is an agency subject to foia. This is the case before Judge Chris Cooper that was brought by crew. There were originally Judge Cooper granted limited discovery that included a deposition of Amy Gleason, the alleged acting administrator of Doge. The government then, you know, challenged this, went up to the D.C. circuit, tried to get a writ of mandamus. The case was the discovery order was administratively stayed. And then just a few days ago the D.C. circuit 3 judge panel lifted that stay and said, you know, nope, the discovery order can go forward. And so Amy Gleason, we might get our first deposition of Amy Gleason and that we have had two depositions previously of Doge people in other cases. Kendall linman was a 30B6 witness for Doge. But Amy Gleason, even though she's filed declarations, she has never been subject to, you know, questioning about some of the statements and her role you know, herself. So that's a big deal. And we might just learn if she really is the administrator of Doge, and.
- [99:29]
Benjamin Wittes
If so, what that means. Does it involve any administration or administering we're going to leave it there. Quinta Jurassic James Pierce, who's back after having been swallowed by the lightning. Roger Parloff Anna Bauer thank you all for joining us. You are all great Americans. Fact we're going to be back next week because neither snow, nor sleet nor hail can keep these analysts who from their chosen paths of bringing you information about these cases. We will see you next time.
- [100:17]
Anna Bauer
The Lawfare Podcast is produced in cooperation with the Brookings Institution. You can get ad free versions of this and other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a Lawfare material supporter at our website, lawfaremedia.org support. You'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. Please rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. Look out for our other podcasts, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation. Our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. Check out our written work@lawfaremedia.org the podcast is edited by Jenkins Patya and our audio engineer. This episode was Ian Enright of Goat Rodeo. Our theme music is from Alibi Music. As always, thank you for listening.
- [101:13]
Quinta Jurecic
McCrispy strips are now at McDonald's. Tender juicy and its own sauce. Would you look at that. Well, you can see it, but trust.
- [101:21]
Benjamin Wittes
Me, it looks delicious.
- [101:23]
Quinta Jurecic
New McCrispy strips now at McDonald's.
- [101:27]
Roger Parloff
Bottom of.
- [101:29]
Benjamin Wittes
The.