Into the Labyrinth (of Texas Immigration Law)

Procedurally confused.

By and
37

Sarah and David dive into the battle (one that at times stumps our resident SCOTUS wonks) between the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court on Texas’ deportation legislation.

The Agenda:
—Texas’ SB4, explained
—Important legal glossary
—The issue with administrative stays
—Why the delay at the Fifth Circuit?
—Opinion in chambers from Justice Roberts
—FBI No-Fly List Case
—First Amendment and Government Coercion
—NRA free speech battle
—Listener feedback

By and
Comments (37)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  2. 698Kroll

    Many thanks, another great listen. The discussions, explanations for my non-lawyer brain and banter are excellent.

    Collapse
  3. D S

    I wonder why there is not more pushback on the narrative of the "Biden Democrats" prosecuting Trump. Fully half (2/4) of the criminal cases are being brought by local (NY, GA) prosecutors. While both are Democrats, and this is a valid information point/criticism, it is intellectually dishonest to conflate prosecution by a local/state prosecutor to a DoJ prosecution in Federal court. The implication is often that it is a vast Biden-led Democrat conspiracy to prosecute his former opponent in as many jurisdictions as possible.

    In fact, I think most honest brokers would argue that it would be highly improper for the Biden DoJ to weigh in and try to influence the local prosecutors either for or against a prosecution that they were engaging in or contemplating.

    I have even heard some things on the AO and non-Flagship Dispatch podcasts that seem to conflate the four cases; I think it is important to make a distinction between the two federal and two local cases. One could even make the argument that the Jack Smith cases, which were investigated by a non-partisan Special Counsel are even less influenced by politics than those brought by two blatantly partisan and elected prosecutors, but that might be asking too much...

    Collapse
  4. Neil Alice

    Does the Assembly Clause apply to the two First Amendment cases?

    The feds in the Missouri case allegedly sought to block not just a post or two, but to prevent discussion on disfavored topics by disfavored speakers, which sounds like an attack on (virtual) assembly. Maybe there ought to be First Amendment right of “the people peaceably to assemble” on social media.

    The banks in New York, similarly, seem like places for peaceable, commercial assembly. Sure, New York can regulate against bank fraud or insolvency and the like. But the government speech in that case seemed aimed at preventing the NRA, due to its disfavored political views, from banking at all, and where a lack of funds would hurt the NRA’s ability to meet or assemble.

    Dunno what the caselaw says, but can the peaceable-ness of the people seeking to assemble, rather than coercion from the government, provide the analytical framework? A focus on peace would mean that there’s little reason protect anything close to political violence, and it’d be fine to ban videos that tell kids to jump from increasingly tall structures. New York can insist that everyone, including the NRA and its members, remains unarmed while talking to a bank teller and even while advocating for changes to the gun-possession laws.

    But the plaintiffs seem to have been acting peaceably and have suffered injury regarding the right to assemble. Frankly, there might be Assembly Clause standing in the Missouri case even if there was no government coercion toward the social-media providers.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ian Fillmore

      I get the sense that the free assembly clause has been pretty neglected. When people assembled, they are usually speaking in one way or another. At this point, free speech jurisprudence is so strong that you're better off suing under free speech grounds than under almost anything else. I thought it was odd that none of the suits against COVID policies were based in the freedom of assembly. Rather, plaintiffs tied them to another clause, like free exercise, that has much stronger case law.

      Collapse
  5. Dave from Denver

    What is the over/under on the percentage of Tuesday’s that will be devoted to discussing the Tennessee Texas game?

    Collapse
  6. Drae4

    0.999 doesn't always equal 1.0 for federal employees (where I learned the following lesson). If a government employee is getting a 6.0% pay increase upon promotion, we were required to "round up,' lest the employee complain about not receiving the full 6% increase.

    For example, if the employee's current base salary is $65,572 x 6% = $69,506.32. Normally, anything less than .50 is rounded down, but if we don't round up to $69,507, the employee has grounds to complain they didn't receive the entire 6% increase ($69,506/$65,572 = 1.059995, or 5.999%).

    Obviously, someone complained or that bit of guidance never would have reached the lower realm of the HR community.

    Collapse
  7. Bard Geesaman

    Sarah looked fabulous on Maher and was as brilliant as ever! How does David focus on the law?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      Thanks for mentioning this! Otherwise I'd have missed it. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfx7PM1VlCg

      My center-square on my bingo card got marked at 1:55 — "Antitrust laws are totally made-up!" with dramatic gestures. This is the planets humming in their accustomed orbits, and I am reassured that entropy hasn't won yet.

      Ms. Isgur set Maher (or anyone else there) up with one of the best straight lines (3:50) I can imagine: "Being Trump's lawyers is the worst job in the country!" How could no one answer: "And you're in a position to know, as a senior Trump DoJ official when Jeff Sessions was AG!"

      Also priceless, Ms. Isgur's reaction shot (4:38) when Maher says, "And Merrick Garland f*cked everything up." That was surely her "please don't pick on me!" face when unprepared in class. (Or maybe I'm just projecting, because I think that's such a silly argument.) EDIT: Not unprepared, but perhaps realizing that she'd be unable to condense the "Man from All Seasons" extended quote in the time available on Maher's show.

      Collapse
  8. Bruce Link

    Sarah said .999 is the same as 1, mathematically speaking. This is inaccurate. For that to be the case you would need an infinite number of 9s. Perhaps we do not go to AO for math information (my graduate math degrees outranks your student in Math) 😊 Love the show.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Juan J

      In the realm of the abstract, 0.999 does not equal 1. When math is applied to the physical world, 0.999 is virtually 1. Depending on the context, the practical effect of 0.999 is the same as 1 or so close that it renders the difference negligible.

      Collapse
  9. Deleted Comment

    This comment has been deleted

  10. SquareRecord

    I had an idea for a topical podcast while listening... where should I send an email with an episode request??

    Collapse
Load More