National Constitution Center Podcast on the Alien Enemies Act and Mahmoud Khalil Immigration Cases [Updated]

The participants were Adam Cox (NYU) and myself.

(NCC)

The National Constitution Center recently recorded a podcast on the currently ongoing Alien Enemies Act litigation, and the Mahmoud Khalil deportation/free speech case. The participants were Prof. Adam Cox (NYU), a leading expert on the constitutional law of immigration, and myself. National Constitution Center President Jeffrey Rosen moderated. You can listen to the podcast here or here.

UPDATE: The podcast is now embedded below:

The National Constitution Center compiled this helpful list of links to our writing about these issues, plus a couple cases mentioned in the discussion:

• Adam Cox and Cristina Rodríguez, The President and Immigration Law (2020)
• Ilya Somin, Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (2022)
• Adam Cox and Ahilan Arulanantham, "Explainer on First Amendment and Due Process Issues in Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Student Activist(s)," Just Security (March 12, 2025)
• Ilya Somin, "The Case Against Deporting Immigrants for 'Pro-Terrorist' Speech," Volokh Conspiracy (March 10, 2025)
• Ilya Somin, "What Just Happened: The "Invasion" Executive Order and Its Dangerous Implications," Just Security (January 28, 2025)
• Adam Cox, "The Invention of Immigration Exceptionalism," Yale Law Journal (November 2024)
• Bridges v. Wixon (1945)
• Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952)

Comments

[rloquitur]

There is one thing that people just aren't focusing on--namely, society's right to dictate the terms upon which people join it.

https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Announcements/Report-2-Task-Force-on-Antisemitism.pdf

[David Nieporent]

There's no such thing as society.

[Doug Heffernan]

This episode of We the People is quite informative and enlightening with good depth. Although, there was a great amount of agreement between the two participants. Usually this podcast has a participant defending opposite sides of the issue, with great disagreement. It would be interesting to hear a discussion on an academic podcast such as this, with a lot of formal rigor, to have a participant defend the administration's position. But maybe it was difficult to find a serious participant willing to do such. Still, even with all of the agreement, this episode has a lot of value and is worth the time.

[Roger S]

The Trump-haters refuse to address the arguments in favor of his positions.

[Doug Heffernan]

This particular podcast (We the People) has participants defending the Trump position(s) regularly. Just a couple of weeks ago, Michael McConnell was on to argue in defense of Elon Musk/Doge.

McConnell argued vigorously in favor of Musk, he almost seemed to be more in love with Musk that Musk is with himself.

Josh Blackman has been on the podcast often too, always arguing in defense of Trump positions. Although the episodes with Blackman are always terrible because he makes mostly political arguments rather than legal arguments.

[thesafesurfer]

Presenting the label "a leading expert" smacks of cognitive bias and an appeal to authority fallacy. Just let the argument from Professor Cox speak for itself.