Asha Rangappa

I wouldn't say that it's not illegal. It means that he's going to be given a lot of deference. He'll be given a lot of deference in terms of factual determinations, for example, factual determinations that we're in a national emergency, perhaps his factual determinations that we're being invaded. or that somebody's actions are intruding on his foreign policy prerogatives.

I wouldn't say that it's not illegal. It means that he's going to be given a lot of deference. He'll be given a lot of deference in terms of factual determinations, for example, factual determinations that we're in a national emergency, perhaps his factual determinations that we're being invaded. or that somebody's actions are intruding on his foreign policy prerogatives.

All of these things are given great latitude. And this is discretion that's been afforded to the executive branch in all of these contexts so far with delegated authority from Congress. So these are actually Congress's authorities that it has given to the executive branch with the understanding that there might be

All of these things are given great latitude. And this is discretion that's been afforded to the executive branch in all of these contexts so far with delegated authority from Congress. So these are actually Congress's authorities that it has given to the executive branch with the understanding that there might be

actual quick decision-making needed by the executive branch in certain circumstances to exercise this kind of authority. It presumes that somebody is going to be acting in the nation's interests and in good faith.

actual quick decision-making needed by the executive branch in certain circumstances to exercise this kind of authority. It presumes that somebody is going to be acting in the nation's interests and in good faith.

I don't know that in this specific case they can force him to do anything. If he says, look, I talked to President Bukele and he said he can't return them or he won't return them and shrugs his shoulders, which he basically did in this press conference, then there's not much that the court can do in that situation.

I don't know that in this specific case they can force him to do anything. If he says, look, I talked to President Bukele and he said he can't return them or he won't return them and shrugs his shoulders, which he basically did in this press conference, then there's not much that the court can do in that situation.

What's interesting to me, Ezra, is that this doesn't really help him in the big picture in terms of the policy. It's in his legal interests to bring Abrego Garcia back and say, look, this is not a big deal. We can correct errors so we can move fast. We can round up all these people and do these summary deportations because if we make mistakes, we can bring them back.

What's interesting to me, Ezra, is that this doesn't really help him in the big picture in terms of the policy. It's in his legal interests to bring Abrego Garcia back and say, look, this is not a big deal. We can correct errors so we can move fast. We can round up all these people and do these summary deportations because if we make mistakes, we can bring them back.

I actually think that would be a stronger legal argument. What's happening here is that this is about a power play. and it's about defiance. So in some ways, the legal interests are working against, I guess, the ego that the administration has. So they might be able to, for example, prohibit further deportations if it becomes clear that this is an irrevocable move and errors can't be corrected.

I actually think that would be a stronger legal argument. What's happening here is that this is about a power play. and it's about defiance. So in some ways, the legal interests are working against, I guess, the ego that the administration has. So they might be able to, for example, prohibit further deportations if it becomes clear that this is an irrevocable move and errors can't be corrected.

But

But

I think that's true. My only point is yes, I think there would be a downside to bringing someone back. But I think if they were operating in a paradigm where they want to be in compliance with the court, they would do that.

I think that's true. My only point is yes, I think there would be a downside to bringing someone back. But I think if they were operating in a paradigm where they want to be in compliance with the court, they would do that.

It's similar. I think that it's more similar to the Bush administration sending people to Guantanamo. So the black sites were instrumental. It was for extracting information that they believed that these detainees had using methods that would be illegal under our law.

It's similar. I think that it's more similar to the Bush administration sending people to Guantanamo. So the black sites were instrumental. It was for extracting information that they believed that these detainees had using methods that would be illegal under our law.

I'm not excusing it, but I'm saying that there was a, you know, I think they thought there was going to be some output that they were going to get that would be legal. useful intelligence.

I'm not excusing it, but I'm saying that there was a, you know, I think they thought there was going to be some output that they were going to get that would be legal. useful intelligence.