Two Audio Interviews About the Alien Enemies Act Litigation

Links to audios of a Cato Institute podcast and an interview with ABC News (Australia).

I recently did interviews about the currently ongoing Alien Enemies Act litigation for a Cato Institute podcast, and for ABC News (Australia). Here is the audio for the Cato podcast:

The audio of the ABC News Australia interview is available here.

I have previously written about issues related to this case here, here, here, and here.

Comments

[Riva]

Given the abundance of posts, the "resistance" seems to be as triggered by the President's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act as it is on birthright citizenship. Sounds like President Trump is on the right path, legally and politically. I hope he doubles down.

[Roger S]

Yes, the Marxist plan to destroy America is to repopulate it with foreigners. They are triggered by a President who wants America for Americans.

[rloquitur]

I think Judge Boasberg is seriously underestimating the blowback that's coming his way. First, it appears that he reached out and grabbed this case. That decision is going to get a ton of scrutiny, especially when you look at some of the unusual actions in the case. Ordering planes to be turned around, via oral order, no less, when they are outside of the United States is out there. Plus, there's the class action certification etc. Finally, his wife's deranged anti-Trump posts are going to be made a public thing.

As a legal matter, he has utterly failed to grapple with the legal authorities cited by the DOJ. He should do that before his judicial fishing expedition into the flights.

[David Nieporent]

Yes, all of those things will be equally as effective as Trump's attacks on Engoron's and Merchan's families.

[Roger S]

Trump did succeed in convincing the public that those judges were biased against him.

[David Nieporent]

He did not succeed in convincing any sane, intelligent person of that.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Sorry, I can point to maybe 50 folks that contradict you and barely any in my day-to-day that don't !!!
And why do you always bypass the stats

The Biden administration also thought universal injunctions were illegitimate. Last October, its Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to invalidate a lower court universal injunction against the Department of Education. Quoting an opinion by Justice Thomas (and citing one by Justice Gorsuch), Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that “universal remedies are ‘inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts’ and impose a severe ‘toll on the federal court system.’”"

You like all that lawyer stuff but most non-lawyers HATE it , having suffered from it for years

"The HLR study reports that federal courts issued 127 nationwide injunctions during the 60 year period. Just over half, 64, were issued in Trump’s first term. In its first three years the Biden administration received 14 nationwide injunctions—a number that, but for Trump 1.0, was the largest for any previous presidential term."

[rloquitur]

I wouldn't be so sure. Assigning oneself a case is a poor look if the case is going to be controversial. The failure to grapple with the authority the DOJ cited regarding the oral order is a real problem. (I notice that you have failed to do so in your comment diarrhea.)

[SRG2]

The Krasnov strategy here is a variant of the meddlesome priest idea. He knows that if he publicly condemns the judges, they and their families will get death threats - but as he won't actually have instructed anyone to make those threats, he can pretend to lack of responsibility.

[rloquitur]

So what you're saying is that federal judges cannot be criticized? This judge should be absolutely pilloried for the irregular actions he has taken.

[SRG2]

Fuckwit, there is a broad range between the kind of excoriating that Krasnov is engaged in, and not criticising at all.

[rloquitur]

Awwww. You upset?

[Riva]

President Trump was the victim of lawfare, not the attacker you dunce.

[SRG2]

You can argue about whether he was, but at present, he assuredly is the attacker, and you approve.

[rloquitur]

Yes, it's nice to see twit judges who think they can issue enforceable oral orders get their comeuppance.

[Riva]

Nope. Federal judges are violating the constitution by interfering with executive branch authority. President Trump is not interfering with the prerogatives of the judiciary.

[David Nieporent]

President Trump is violating the constitution by ignoring judicial branch authority by citing fake executive branch authority.

[rloquitur]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/doj-returning-court-defend-deportation-venezuelan-migrants-due/story?id=120024244

Looks like this twit of a judge is doubling down. Attorneys didn't want to get held in contempt. I cannot believe this asshole judge actually expected to get the planes turned around. And I cannot believe that he didn't grapple with the written vs. oral issue. I would have said, "Your honor, I conveyed what you said. The caselaw we have cited states that an order commanding the government to do something has to be written. The government respectfully requests that, before you command the government to turn over information, that you issue a written opinion regarding the enforceability of your statement."

Ensign also should have said that the government wanted this guys out of the country and wanted to expedite the process. If that meant that your jurisdiction ceased, that's why we did it." Own it.

[David Nieporent]

Looks like you continue to know nothing about the practice of law. Judges issue oral orders all the time, and litigants are required to obey them. There is no "written vs oral issue." And saying "I'm not going to obey your current written order because you haven't satisfied me that your prior order was enforceable" is just a please-disbar-me argument.

[NvEric]

Looks like you continue to know nothing about our system. It works solely by cooperation. The judge in this episode wants cooperation and so to does the executive. The only solution is for the judge to cooperate with the executive so as to learn his place which is a subservient role.

The lesser courts work through the DOJ, not the executive. Lesser courts have no place demanding anything from the executive.

[Thought about __ all my life]

Trump , as right as you can be in this lifetime.

Numbers say that this argument will not go to the lawyers

"Nearly 1 in 3 poll respondents said that recent restrictions on immigration "go too far," while a similar proportion (29%) said the restrictions "do not go far enough.""

The tie-breaker is the President, is why we have a President.
SO the question is framed very poorly. This will not come down to a clear majority and since the President can't sit on the fence, well the answer is obvious even if you dislike it

[Roger S]

For decades, most Americans have believed that immigration levels were too high. They may disagree about what to do about it, but at least Pres. Trump is doing something.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Google: "3076 El Salvador Prison Stock Photos"

[Thought about __ all my life]

absurd to highlight Trump on this

border czar Tom Homan and Attorney General Pam Bondi have also defended the government’s actions after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled the administration could not invoke the 1798 law.