Lawfare Daily: The Thousands of Lawsuits Challenging Pres. Trump’s Mandatory Alien Detention Policy

The revolution against wrinkles has begun. Introducing La Roche-Posay's new Hialu B5 serum and cream. A two-step routine that replumps and repairs your skin faster than ever, with an innovative four-hialuronic acid system. Clinically proven to show a 95% reduction in the appearance of wrinkles in just seven days. Experience the revolution for yourself. Find La Roche-Posay, Hialu B5 and Boots or Boots.co.uk I'm Venisha Rainey And I'm Roland Olyphant As hosts of the Telegraph's new podcast Iran The Latest, it's our job to keep you up to speed on this unprecedented war. Join us every day for in-depth analysis and expert interviews as we ask how long can the Iranian regime withstand Western military pressure? Will the entire region be dragged into a full-blown conflict? And what impact will it have on the rest of the world? Search Iran The Latest and listen every weekday wherever you get your podcasts. It's about 350 or so judges that have ruled against this interpretation in varying degrees. And I think some acknowledge there are nuances, there are complications. It's not a totally frivolous position for the administration. And there's some that just say it doesn't even pass the common sense test. You know, this is so far of a distortion of law. It's the Lawfare Podcast. I'm Roger Parloff, senior editor at Lawfare, and I'm with Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico. In the thousands, now at this point I'm sure it's tens of thousands of cases that have cropped up under this issue of mandatory detention. Almost invariably it's people with either low-level criminal history, you know, parking violations, traffic violations, or misdemeanor type things, or none at all. And increasingly we're seeing people who even had lawful status get roped up in people who are refugees. Today we're talking about thousands of lawsuits across the country triggered by a Trump administration policy instituted last July that purports to deprive the vast majority of detained aliens the opportunity for bail. So Kyle, you've been all over a terribly important story that more than any other reporter I'm aware of that you've written maybe four or five articles about. It's an issue that's generated thousands of cases relating to the detention of aliens caught up in the immigration crackdown. And as I understand it, the Trump administration's position now is that the vast majority of these people are not eligible for bail no matter how long they've lived here, while their cases are playing out no longer how long they've lived here, or how peacefully, or how productively, or how many children U.S. citizens they have or grandchildren. Where does this start? How did we get here? Sure. So you hit it on the head. This is a very complicated issue that still hurts my head when I try to parse every little nuance of it. But it essentially boils down to what you just said. This is that for the last 30 years or more there's been a sort of understanding in the immigration law, which itself is pretty complicated and convoluted and I think needs reform for people to fully understand it. But the understanding has been that if you're apprehended at the border or just after you cross the border, there's sort of a set of procedures for removing you relatively expeditiously, streamline procedures that don't take months or years, but that if you're apprehended in this country and teed up for deportation proceedings that when you've been residing within the interior of the country, that is a different set of procedures that apply. And those procedures entitle you to a bond hearing at the very least. You could make a case to an immigration judge that I should remain free in my community with my family while my deportation proceedings are pending, or while I'm seeking asylum or while I'm pursuing other forms of legal status too. Potentially protection from deportation to a dangerous place, that kind of thing. And what the Trump administration has done is they've come in and completely turned that on its head. They've said, actually, we're going to treat every single person that we tee up for deportation as though they are newly arriving, that's the key word, arriving immigrant and arriving alien. And what that does is trigger the part of the law that requires people to be detained while their proceedings are playing out. So as again, while it typically only applied to newly arrived people or people who had criminal histories or considered dangerous or flight risks, it's now been expanded to essentially encompass anyone who this administration wants to deport. That's an enormous number, millions. And this is because they've started interpreting the statutes differently. Yep. And when did that start? So it's interesting because you can trace it back to a very specific moment. It's a July 8th memo from the head of ICE, Todd Lyons, who said, you know, yeah, every administration for the last 30 years has done it one way. We actually see it differently. And the law, you know, the arriving alien term in the law actually applies to this much broader group. And we're going to just treat it that way. And that means they don't get, not only do we detain them, we have to detain them. It's not even a choice. And they don't get, they don't get an opportunity for bond with an immigration judge. Because this is lawfare, I'm going to give the readers the statutes that we're talking about in case they want to look them up. The one that seems to have mandatory detention is that does have a call for mandatory detention is 8 USC 1225 B2. It says along the lines of in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission. If the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained. So that's the one they're relying on. The other one which used to apply in a lot and a tremendous number of these cases was 8 USC 1226 a says an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States dot dot dot. And may being the key word attorney general may release the alien on bond and so on. So that's that's the thing that they're reinterpreting. And so they are basically saying that everyone, no matter how long they've lived here and where they live is in effect still an applicant for admission. Right. And, you know, you hit it on the head because what we're seeing, you know, and what I've been reporting on is this overwhelming rejection of this new interpretation by the court. I mean, it's just across the, I mean, there's some exceptions. There's a minority of judges out there that support this interpretation, but overwhelmingly it's been rejected. And they key on that phrase seeking admission that you mentioned in the first statute because one of the judges I think put it best. I think it was Judge Ho in New York who said, if you go into a movie theater and you don't pay, you don't get, you don't buy a ticket, but you go sit in there and they catch you. They don't say, oh, you're here seeking admission to this movie theater. You're in, you're in the movie theater. You may not be supposed to be there and we can put you through one set of proceedings, but, you know, but we can't just pretend that you're seeking admission. You're here. So it's the same thing if you've been living in the country for years, you're not seeking admission anymore. So that mandatory detention shouldn't apply. And that's what most courts are saying. And what are the approximate numbers as far as you've been keeping track? You've been trying to keep track. Trying. Yeah. How many cases have there been so far and how are they coming out? I mean, it's exploding. You know, I didn't set out trying to track this vast number. I started, they started to crop up and their judges' opinions were so, you know, alarmed and colorful that I started paying attention to them. And there were a few dozen at a time back in July and August, and that's now ballooned. There's hundreds of Habeas petitions filed every day keying on this issue. And what I've done, what I've been tracking is the number of rulings in these cases. And what I've found is about about 2,600 as of this taping rulings rejecting the administration's interpretation of the policy and either ordering a bond hearing or just outright freeing people who are detained. And these are judges across the spectrum. It's about 350 or so judges that have ruled against this interpretation in varying degrees. And I think some acknowledge there are nuances. There are complications. It's not a totally frivolous position for the administration. And there's some that just say it doesn't even pass the common sense test. You know, this is so far of a distortion of law. And how many have ruled the other way for the Trump administration? As of the morning of this taping, about 21 judges. That's more than, it's increasing. I mean, it is increasing certainly. And actually, it's increased more steadily in the last couple of weeks I've noticed. But what is fascinating is the judges opposing this policy that have said it's not a valid interpretation of the law have been over across the spectrum, presidents of every party, including about almost 40 Trump appointees. On the other side, the judges that are endorsing the policy are almost exclusively Trump appointees. I think there's about, I think it's 15 or 16 out of the 21, whereas it's more of a cross-section on the other side. By the way, can you estimate the number of people that this impacts, if the Trump administration is right, the number of people that are suddenly ineligible that used to be eligible? So I haven't seen a precise figure, but the estimates in the millions. It's essentially however many people have been residing in the interior of the United States for decades. And we're seeing those kinds of cases. Someone's been living here since 2002. They're children or U.S. citizens. They've served in the military. It's like these long, no criminal history. They run a business. It's very elaborate stories about someone who's a fabric of the community. Some other cases, they were brought here as children in the early 2000s in similar circumstances there. But so it really stretches back to an enormous number of people. Wasn't there one guy who was like a superintendent of schools? Is that Ringo Bell? I think that's right. I don't remember that specifically in this context. Right. But again, you name it, the scenario. I mean, there are situations where people who have criminal records are subject to this, and there's a little more of a complicated analysis. But for many of these cases, so many of them, that's not even an issue. So if there's 2,600 cases and more than 360 judges, 70 judges, are all deciding the same legal question. Some viewers or listeners, if they aren't named Samuel Alito, and they probably aren't named Samuel Alito, are probably thinking, is that the most efficient way to handle this? Why not have a class action and then have a ruling and then have that appealed and so on? That's a great question. I get that question a lot from my editors when I every time I write these stories. And for my own mental health and bandwidth purposes, I would love that to get a higher court to rule its way in on this too. But I think what we're seeing is, number one, the Supreme Court has said very unequivocally in other immigration cases arising this term, like the Alien Enemies Act, that habeas cases, cases where someone is detained and so they should be released, have to be decided, one in the venue where the case is filed, and with some exceptions, mostly on an individual basis. There can be class actions and there have been some, but generally, first of all, they're usually filed in emergency scenarios. Someone is grabbed off the street by ICE and they say, I don't want to be detained for a day, let alone months. I'm going to file a suit immediately. There's not this sort of long process where you have lawyers combining petitions. But we have seen them crop up in Massachusetts, in Colorado, and a couple other places. There have been statewide class actions and then, of course, there was one nationwide class action in California that was granted. But we're seeing now because of the way the Supreme Court has treated habeas petitions and the limits of what class actions can do to compel courts and other jurisdictions how to act. And the second piece is another layer of complication is the immigration court system itself, which is run by the executive branch. They have their own set of laws and precedents for how to treat these cases. And the class action that was issued in California, the nationwide one, didn't block the immigration court's own rulings on this issue. So those courts are still saying, yeah, we can still detain, you know, order the detention of people without due process. To be specific, this is the before Sunshine Sykes, is that right? Yes, Sunshine Sykes out in Central District of California. Okay, so that's in the Los Angeles area. I don't know which exactly where we never turned down an opportunity to say her name. I always thought that amazing that he had appointed Sunshine, Joe Biden appointed Sunshine Sykes and Sparkle, Sukhnan and DC to do them together. So what she entered, if I'm correct, it was a class declaratory judgment. Is that right? Right. It's not an injunction. And I think the reason she did that is that there is this jurisdiction stripping provision that bars injunctive relief, a class injunctive relief for certain categories of immigration issue. Is that correct? That is right, yes. Okay. And so what people are grappling with is whether they have to follow a class action declaratory judgment. Is that outside of the district that she did? Yeah, which defeats the purpose of the nation. You know, it's interesting. She's gotten increasingly frustrated in some of her more recent rulings that it's not being followed elsewhere, that she keeps getting even in her own court, she's still getting these petitions because the Trump administration has taken the position that the class action has. Basically has no teeth. And it is a bit convoluted. She kind of backed into it. You know, she granted the declaratory judgment relief just for about this, I think it was six petitioners who had filed in her court and she later certified the nationwide class and said, by the way, that my declaratory judgment for those six people applies now to the nationwide class that I'm certifying. But the way it was structured is a bit complicated. And other judges in Texas and elsewhere have said, we're not bound by that, you know, one court out in California with issuing a declaratory judgment does not bind us. And those decisions about who feels bound and who doesn't, are those, do those show political colors or? It's been less frequent because that issue is just still like newly percolating. People petitioners are even claiming that they're members of the class. And so we're seeing that bubble up. So, you know, Judge Hendricks in Texas, who's in the Northern District of Texas, he's a Trump appointee, and he's the only judge that takes those kind of immigration cases. So he gets every one of them. And he has been one of the few, one of the 21 who sided with the administration. And he has issued a fairly lengthy opinion explaining why he doesn't feel bound by the psychs class action ruling. Not the least of which is that her ruling again, it did not vacate the immigration courts precedent that that upheld the administration's interpretation of the law. And so he said, that's still on the book. So I'm going to defer to the immigration courts on that. The Bureau of Immigration Appeals ruling is that sort of presidential nationwide ruling that they had. And to be clear, all of these immigration judges are, they're not just, it's not like administrative law judges, they are employees of Pam Bondi. Essentially, and more so than ever, like it's always been, they've always been executive branch function. But I think we've seen Bondi and this administration really push to have immigration judges that align with the administration's views on this, on these issues. What about appeals? Where are we in terms of the appellate courts? So that's the right, that's back to your original question, which is when are we going to get to the higher courts here? Which is there are now actually dozens of appeals pending, but the one that's the most imminent is in the Fifth Circuit. And that's, I think by design of the administration, which is, they think they probably have the best chance with the circuit there and they've pushed to expedite some of the appeals there. They've bundled a bunch of them together. And that actually is a hearing. I believe it's next week on that. Yeah, I think February 4th. Yep. Yep. That's right. And I think close behind that is another very, very conservative circuit, the Eighth Circuit. Yes. The Avila case. I don't think there's an argument set yet, but I think it's fully briefed. Yes, it is fully briefed. And that is, I mean, the Eighth Circuit is important for a lot of reasons these days. But there's Minnesotans in there and then there's been enormous influx of these exact cases in Minnesota. You know, again, those aren't the ones that are going to be at the appeals court, but it's very relevant in that circuit right now. Yeah. And just for the listeners, Steve Lodik has mentioned that the Eighth Circuit has 11 active judges, 10 are appointed by Republican presidents, including four by Trump. There's one senior judge who hears cases and he's a Republican appointee too. And so it was the government pushed for expedited appeal in those two circuits is my understanding. Is that? Yes, they pushed and then they've been pushing to stay appeals in other circuits and often, and actually what I've seen even more frequently is the appeal to get dropped. You know, people are deported, you know, while these proceedings are playing out and kind of moots the issue. You know, a lot of them are not, they're not in it to try to get the circuit law, they're in it to either get out of detention or not. And so either if they are on the losing end in the district court and they either get deported or released through some other means, then they may drop the case. You already know this, but finding work can be hard. And a lack of experience as well as not knowing where to start doesn't make it any easier. But what does make it easier is job help, free online support from the government. Get help with your CV, learn to build your skills, find jobs and apprenticeships and stand out from the crowd. Boost your chances of landing your next opportunity. Search Job Help today. Hi, it's Liz Earle from Age Better with Liz Earle and we're sponsored by Ben and Health. Now I know what you're thinking, private health care sounds expensive, but this is different. Ben and Health isn't traditional insurance, it's a monthly membership designed to be more accessible than standard private medical insurance. Now we talk a lot about aging well and life doesn't slow down when our bodies surprise us. With 24-7 GP and mental health help lines and support with diagnostics and selected surgical treatment, they can help you press play on your health. Anyone can join regardless of age or medical history for less than 16 pounds per person per month. So press play on your health and search Ben and Health. UK residents only fee reviewed periodically limits exclusions and wait periods apply to some services. Limited surgical procedures only available after six months membership 24 months Northern Ireland. Full details at benandon.co.uk Hello, it's Anthony here and our podcast After Dark Myths, Misty's and the Paranormal is currently sponsored by Recall, which you can listen to now on Audible. Recall is an Audible original by bestselling author J.D. Kirk. It's narrated by the brilliant James McAvoy. At the centre of the plot is a completely relatable everyman who suddenly finds himself in a terrifying journey into madness. I'm telling you this is a mind bending thriller. A case of Stephen King meets Stranger Things, perfect for all those who are drawn to the darker side of things. Listen to Recall now on Audible. See Audible.co.uk for terms. You have slogged through a lot of these cases now and you've read a lot of the rulings and see the fact patterns. And of course, we've heard from Trish McLaughlin and Kristi Noem that 70% of these people arrested are violent criminals. Is that what you're finding? No, and the opposite. And again, it's always tricky to sort of extrapolate when there's so many cases never reached the courts at all. And that's one of the most amazing things is the just overwhelming deluge of these cases is probably just a fraction of the people who are going through these proceedings, maybe without a lawyer or maybe before they get a chance to file to challenge something. But in the thousands now at this point, I'm sure it's tens of thousands of cases that have cropped up under this issue of mandatory detention. Almost invariably, it's people with either low level criminal history, parking violations, traffic violations or misdemeanor type things or none at all. And increasingly, we're seeing people who even had lawful status get roped up and people who are refugees. Like in Minnesota, there's a judge actually just hours before we started taping this who ruled that the administration could no longer just scoop up lawfully admitted refugees and claim that they were re-evaluating their status and use that as a basis to detain them. And that's coming up in the same context too. Wow. Can you tell us some examples of fact situations, disturbing fact situations you've come across? Absolutely. I mean, it's hard to, when there's so many, recall the specific, but I've seen a number of cases of pregnant detainees and where they're nursing, they have nursing children at home. Again, no criminal record, no aggravating circumstances that you'd say, okay, well, maybe that person should have been detained despite that. No, it's just, and actually, we've seen in Minnesota in particular, a number of cases that really jumped out to me all in a row where you had, that was an example of one. There was a mother who was nursing a five month old, grabbed off the street, I think, while getting her heart medication or something like that. She did have a heart condition too. And the issue is not only are they being arrested and detained, but what the administration is doing to try to defeat the jurisdiction in Minnesota where they're losing a lot of cases is quickly rush people to Texas or Louisiana where they have, number one, they have deportation staging facilities, but also more favorable judiciary. And the judges in Minnesota are responding with sort of horror at you're grabbing people with what we consider an illegal detention. In circumstances where these are pillars of their community, there are people who've been there for 10, 20, 30 years, might have young kids, might have US citizen kids, and not only are you grabbing them, you're sending them across the country without even a chance to challenge that. And so that's where we're seeing the judges in Minnesota, including the chief judge there say, this is unacceptable. Yeah, the chief judge there, Shilitz, I'm not sure how to pronounce it, who was a Scalia clerk. He got a lot of attention recently threatened Todd Lyons, the ICE director with contempt, basically. And it was one of these cases he had ordered release and and it just didn't happen, right, release or bail hearing and neither happened. Right. And that he subsequently the judge that that individual was released but TR but Judge Shilitz just wrote yesterday that there were about 96 violations of orders in 74 cases. Just this month this month. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's the other side of this too. So so you again you have 1000 of rulings where judges are saying this this form of detention is illegal. People are being denied due process. They're, you know, be their rights are being abused essentially constitutional and legal. But then you have the what's what's exacerbating it is even where judges are ruling that the administration is finding you know, technicalities or ways not to comply with the spirit of those orders which is give them a bond hearing or let them out. That's essentially what judges are saying over and over again and what the administration is doing is. Number one, maybe not even complying at all like that's why you had judge Schiltz get so upset was was, you know, we're seeing we're ordering release. And you know what you have judges I think pretty uniformly in every case not just immigration cases understand that taking away someone's liberty is about the most extreme thing government can do. Short of you know death penalty. Yeah. And so even for a day to take someone's liberty away unlawfully is you know again the the the most unacceptable thing a government can do. And so here where you have sort of rampant violation of court orders ordering release where people are losing their liberty, you know, with regularity that's why you saw him react so sharply but we're seeing that all over the country too. I mean you write something imminently on that and how you know it's not just Minnesota but everywhere. And some of it's just a function of how many cases there are because of this indiscriminate mass detention. The administration doesn't have the resources they're not giving the Justice Department the resources to deal with these cases. I don't think they're defying court orders. You can debate this. You know, necessarily because out of malice although maybe they are in some cases, but some of it's just a resource thing they're just not they can't keep up. And in fact, the judge Schillett's order in a in a footnote. He said, this is not the fault of the USA on the case. Anna Voss she's working her butt off basically. This is they're just totally unprepared. The ICE or DHS is just totally unprepared to deal with it. And the question is, is that by design? So as you know, you may say like there's a intentional, you know, strategy of this administration to make this process so onerous and so painful that a lot of people will just not even want to go through with it. They'll agree to deportation. They won't fight it. You know, and I think a lot of immigration advocates will say that it's been successful in a lot of ways. People are leaving rather than risk being detained for months to fight even if they have a meritorious case because of the exactly situations like this. Yeah. And actually in that same vein, you know, when when they change the policy back in July. And as you've said, this is going to impact potentially millions of people. Surely they must have taken steps to obtain facilities to house all of these detainees that have never needed to be detained before. Is that is that how the Trump administration handled it? Yes and no. I mean, I think they would say they did get this sort of unprecedented infusion of funds in the one big beautiful bill act that has, you know, given put ice at unprecedented levels of funding. They've been on a hiring binge. They are talking about building facilities. I don't know how far along they are with those. But I know what you're getting at, which is that a corollary to all of these this influx of cases, is that people have been filing lawsuits about the conditions of their confinement and some of the atrocious conditions of confinement that have really led to second order consequences of all this. And tell us about those cases. Yeah. So we've seen a couple of big ones. The biggest that I'm aware of are in New York and in Illinois, where judges have ruled that the conditions they saw at some of the major facilities are essentially, you know, third world kind of conditions. They're atrocious. People are overcrowded. They're sleeping without, you know, bedding on hard floors with minimal, you know, foil blankets. And, you know, the food is not good. The access to hygiene products is not good. And then more maybe most importantly, their access to counsel is limited. Their ability to converse with lawyers. In some cases, the judges are finding intentionally so that there's not being given their constitutional right to counsel. In other cases, just lack of, again, lack of resources, lack of preparation for the number of people. So those were two big orders in those cases requiring improvements. And now there is a new one that was filed in Minnesota that's still working its way, but it is on a fast track as a TRO filed within the last couple of days. I think the Pardomo Vasquez case had a LA too, right. The case that went to the Supreme Court, a different prong was also focusing on this. Correct. Matt's part's not on hold, as I understand it. The part that's on hold was the roving arrests on the streets, but the part about the access to counsel, I think, is still in force. I see. Oh, and I do want to recommend to viewers and listeners, you did a thread about some of the cases that you had come across in Minnesota that I think just ought to win a Pulitzer Prize. I don't know if threads yet. That's very generous. And was that converted to an article yet? It was partly because of the response to that thread. I think people took note of it because it was happening at a time where there still is this intense focus on the surge in Minnesota, the operation metro surge and the sort of indiscriminate arrests that have led to violent confrontations on the streets in a way that's really reaching a climactic point here for the country. And again, Judge Schiltz is recoiling against his administration. I think shine a light on this too, but amid that, I said, why is Judge Schiltz reacting this way? Well, he's the chief judge in Minnesota. He's hearing from his colleagues who are seeing these cases that are of the same mandatory detention variety we talked about, but they're some of the more extreme examples. Again, I mentioned the nursing mother, but there's other ones too. People are being arrested outside their healthcare appointments. They're being grabbed in ways, they're being again shipped to Texas and the judges are saying, hey, I issued an order saying, don't send the person out of Minnesota. And you did it anyway 12 hours later, like you're violating my order. And Judge Schiltz see that over and over again. That's why he's reacting with heart. So I highlighted some of those cases and I did thread those into a story because the collective response of the Minnesota bench has been so mostly uniform and alarmed. Yeah. And people who have been here 10, 20 years, productive members of society, it's really horrifying. Well, and I should say this too, which is that the Minnesota bench is interesting because it has Donald Trump appointees on that bench too. Eric Toastrude is one of them. And he's been ruling in favor of the non-citizens filing the petitions in most cases. And these judges are getting major, important cases that are not aside from these individual habeas cases, Judge Menendez, a Biden appointee is going to weigh, is weighing right now whether to kick ice out of Minnesota altogether. Yeah, yeah. You know, Judge Toastrude is dealing with the preservation of evidence from the shooting of Alex Pretty. And then there's a couple other cases that are much broader in scope. But I thought it was important to note that these judges, while they're weighing these big issues, are getting this drumbeat of individual habeas cases, some of them really outrageous, that are informing their view of the larger policy questions. Yeah, exactly. It was a great, great point and a great, great thread. One thing, without giving away sources, how did you get onto this? I mean, because you were, I think you were the first to really see that this was exploding. You know, I have to retrace my history on this because I noticed it probably in August that there were some rules. I think we've been writing a lot about the administration's violations of due process in the Alien Enemies Act context. And as we sort of scoured for, you know, cases in that vein, and we saw a lot of judges issuing really blistering opinions about violations of due process on this particular question. I think the Judge Ho opinion I mentioned that where he mentioned the movie theater analogy came out pretty early on. And I said, wow, that's a very colorful example. And I started seeing more of those, you know, similarly pointed and really, again, recoiling kind of opinions. So I think I'm just going to keep an eye on this. And it started to explode once this policy really took root. And then that's why. So I think it was sort of inadvertent that I ended up tracking these. There was no secret tip to watch these cases, but it's now become the heart of so much of these mass deportation policies across the country. So when these cases are being litigated, I know, you know, the attorneys always go for the look for the what is the closest Supreme Court guidance that exists? What what is the key case that they're debating? Yeah. So what we're seeing is one of the reasons that the judges are overwhelmingly siding against the administration is that they, they, you know, very routinely point to the Supreme Court's Jennings opinion, which is a few years old. And I actually don't remember the specifics of the underlying factual basis of that case, but one of the, you know, the least in the least in the dicta, if you can argue, arguably in the holding, but was that the Supreme Court recognized the distinction between 1225 applying to people who were newly arrived and 1226 applying to people who were already in the country. And they treated it like a given that that was the dynamic. And so judges are keep pointing to that say that's the basis to reject this interpretation because the Supreme Court kind of laid it out for us. And we have to, you know, Supreme Court's been pretty, you know, up in arms when people don't don't hear faithfully even to their dicta when it seems clear where they're going. So they're saying they're just we're obligated to do this. It's a requirement here. And now that that minority that growing minority of judges says, well, actually, that's not how we read that opinion. We actually read it a little differently than that. Actually, another thing I should mention too is the Lake and Riley Act, one of Trump's signature signature first law that he signed when he his second term began, which required detention for people who were arrested or charged or convicted of a certain range of serious, you know, violent crimes. The judges are opposing the administration's detention policy say if you could just detain everybody in the country, you know, without bond, if you had to, if it was mandatory, it was mandatory. You had to then why on earth would Congress have passed a law saying you must detain these people who committed crimes, it would be superfluous, it would be meaningless. And we never assume as courts that Congress acts in a superfluous and meaningless way. And again, the judges who have sided with the administration have kind of parsed that and said, you know, we disagree, you know, Congress can do things that are redundant sometimes and it doesn't affect the plain meaning of how we read the law. But most judges are saying, no, that doesn't work that way. Like, why would you Congress, why would they pass something that had no effect? Yeah. And the pro Trump administration rulings, they are, for the most part, they focus on this phrase, seeking admission or and say, well, in effect, you must be seeking admission is right. They say that if you are they actually mostly ignore the seeking admission part of it. They say if you are you're an applicant for admission, it means you whether you're here or you just got here, or you've been here for 30 years, you haven't been admitted therefore you are an applicant for admission. And there is a sort of natural understanding of it that way. You say someone's here, they haven't been admitted, so they want to be admitted. So they're applying for admission. But the judges on the other side, ruling against say, like, there's long understood legal interpretations of these words, applicant for admission, seeking admission that run counter to that. Right. I think the I've heard immigration lawyers referred to the two groups of aliens as the ewe's versus the ERs. Have you heard that? No, that's a new one for me. It's the immigrants entering without inspection. IWI versus the ERs expedited removals. Well, that's where you get a lot of nuances here is like, for example, a lot of the people that are being mandatorily detained are people that came in during the Biden administration and were released on parole. And when they were released, they were said they were whole. Which is different, we should say from bond. It's a different, go ahead. Essentially, essentially, they're people who the administration said, at least at the letter of the law says you can be you're supposed to be detained when you cross the border, but you can be released for humanitarian reasons or emergency reasons. The administration, the Biden administration released a lot of people on parole saying we don't have bedspace. They let them in. And what the Trump administration is doing is basically saying, all of those people must be detained. We disagree, essentially, with the Biden administration's decisions. But what the courts are saying is that's too bad. That was the same agency making a determination and they released them specifically, even in the release form, said you're here under the statute 1226. You're here under this discretionary law. And so when the Trump administration says no, no, no, they're under 1225, the judges say, well, the paperwork says they're here under 1226. You can't just go rewrite history. Right. Interesting. Well, listen, I think we'll have to leave it there. But thank you so much for appearing and for writing about these and bringing all of this to people's attention. It's been a great service. I appreciate it. I'm glad to get to air the nuances because it's very complicated. I don't always get to do that. Thank you. And be sure to check out our other shows, including Rational Security, Allies, the Aftermath and Escalation, our latest Lawfare Presents podcast series about the war in Ukraine. You can also find all our written work at lawfarmedia.org. The podcast is edited by Jen Pacha with audio engineering by Kara Shilin of Goat Rodeo. The theme song is from Alibi Music. As always, thanks for listening. It's a monthly membership designed to be more accessible than standard private medical insurance. Now, we talk a lot about aging well and life doesn't slow down when our bodies surprise us. With 24 7 GP and mental health help lines and support with diagnostics and selected surgical treatment, they can help you press play on your health. Anyone can join, regardless of age or medical history, for less than £16 per person per month. So, press play on your health and search, Benenden Health. UK residents only fee reviewed periodically limits exclusions and wait periods apply to some services. Limited surgical procedures only available after six months membership, 24 months Northern Ireland. Full details at benenden.co.uk.