Andrew Weissmann
speaker
1,068 appearances
9 recordings
5 series
first heard Jan 2025
last heard 20 May
Andrew Weissmann’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 3 in all, peaking in May 2026 with 1.
Appearances
The Bulwark Daily · S2 Ep1018: Andrew Weissmann and Patrick Gaspard: Naked Corruption · 10 Apr 2025
podcast
Sure. I actually think this is, on the whole,
So here's my effort to good news. There is a 5-4 gendered part of this case where the five men said this should have been brought under a vehicle called habeas. And the four said, no, it's fine to have brought it the way it was under something called the Administrative Procedure Act. That is a very technical issue. I agree with the the foreign dissent, about the mechanism.
And the mechanism is important because it leads to sort of what court you have to go to and where it should be. But the main issue was, did the government have to afford all of these people due process prior to moving them out of the country? Nine justices said yes. That part is sort of getting overlooked by the sort of 5-4 split on the procedural issue.
And I'm not trying to say the procedural isn't important. Although, footnote, because the court said you had to do this under habeas, that immediately happened. People brought a habeas case in New York. They brought a habeas case in Texas in front of a conservative judge in Texas, a so-called liberal judge in New York. Both issued stays.
So yes, the mechanism had to be different, but the stay went back into effect by two separate judges. The stay on deporting new people based on that. Exactly. Exactly.
And so the main issue was that the administration, which always could have taken the normal route, which was to give people hearings, and if you can prove that the statute applies and that these people are within the group that can be deported, If you do that at a hearing, you could deport them. But instead, they wanted to just be like, no, we're just going to take unilateral action.
And as one judge said, just scoop people off the street with no legal authority whatsoever and ship them off. And the Supreme Court, nine justices said, you can't do that. So to me, that is sort of the part of the story that people need to lead with, which is, I mean, when do you ever have nine of these particular Supreme Court justices agreeing that due process was violated?
I don't think that is going to work. It remains to be seen exactly what's necessary, but this is one where when you read the Sotomayor opinion, which Amy Coney Barrett joined, you really get the sense that this has to be appropriate to the occasion and with sufficient notice to be heard. Here, it's not clear that the authority, the Alien Enemies Act, even applies.
So there has to be an opportunity to litigate that. What's the invasion? What's the invasion of a foreign country? Then you also have to be able to challenge, are you part of the group? Are you actually in this group or is it a mistake? To quote one of the judges in D.C.
in looking at the precedent, she said, you understand that Nazis were given more process before we deported them than you have afforded these people. It remains to be seen exactly how much there is, and frankly, reasonable minds could differ. But I do think we should take, for now, this is a good decision, saying you actually have to do this.
And it protects everyone, not just people who are xenophobic and thinking, oh, this is just about other people and not Americans. When you don't have any process, this could apply to anyone.
Yeah. So this is a really good question. So the court says under this vehicle called habeas, you have to bring the case where the body is. So if you're detained in New York, you bring it in New York. If you're detained in Texas, you bring it in Texas. So of course, if you're in El Salvador because they removed you, you can't bring it in El Salvador because guess what? There's no U.S. court there.
So you know what the default court is that you can bring a case in? D.C. D.C. So all of this is going to likely for those people who are in El Salvador, they will just bring their case under habeas in front of, wait for it, Judge Boasberg.
So this is another good question. So the case that was filed in New York, because two of the people were, at the last minute, pulled off the plane because they managed to have counsel. So those people had been pulled off the plane and are located in New York. And the day after the Supreme Court decision came out, they filed...
the new habeas petition in New York on their behalves, the two people and as a class action. Oh, okay. If the Southern District of New York certifies the class, which just to be clear, Judge Boasberg had done the same thing and said, I'm going to make this a class action. And this is a case kind of case where it's appropriate. A class action is when there's,
really just the same legal or factual issue that's common to everyone. And here, all of the people have the issue that this law does not apply. The law that the government is trying to use, all of the plaintiffs have the same argument, which is there is no invasion, that this group is not an invading force, is not a government entity. That's common to everyone.
And so that would be appropriate for the court to say, I'm going to apply this to everyone. So all those people in El Salvador... could be part of the class in front of the New York judge.
2,100% in one hour.
Yeah, we're going to do all of that in 10 minutes or less. The fall of Western democracy.
So of all the things that have gone on, all the actions of the FBI, the Eric Adams case, the resignation of the chief of the criminal division in the DCU's attorney's office, all of that, as well as the statements being made by Emil Bove, and all of Pam Bondi's sort of day one memos, at the bottom of the list is asking the... presidential appointed US attorneys to resign.
Showing 881–900 of 1,068 · page 45 of 54
← Previous
Next →