Jack Goldsmith

That sounds good. And the Supreme Court has put up massive, massive barriers to that in the last 20 years. So this might be a case that squeezes in the very narrow exception, but basically it would be hard.

That sounds good. And the Supreme Court has put up massive, massive barriers to that in the last 20 years. So this might be a case that squeezes in the very narrow exception, but basically it would be hard.

I would say yes, and I think that that order was a first effort. I think that their really strongest interest is to try to stop it going forward. Right. I think the court is really trying to lay down markers for the future as much as for trying to fix this case.

I would say yes, and I think that that order was a first effort. I think that their really strongest interest is to try to stop it going forward. Right. I think the court is really trying to lay down markers for the future as much as for trying to fix this case.

I will just say, this is not a happy thing to say, but if the Trump administration plays hardball here and says, we are not going to negotiate and you can't make us, I don't think the court can make them negotiate with the foreign sovereign. Now, there may be some sanctions they can impose. I'm not sure, but I don't think that that's going to be effective. I hope it doesn't come to that.

I will just say, this is not a happy thing to say, but if the Trump administration plays hardball here and says, we are not going to negotiate and you can't make us, I don't think the court can make them negotiate with the foreign sovereign. Now, there may be some sanctions they can impose. I'm not sure, but I don't think that that's going to be effective. I hope it doesn't come to that.

The people arguing the case for... Depending on how they argue it and whether they were being candid. But I want to emphasize that it's going to be very hard to enforce a remedy here, ultimately, if the Trump administration doesn't want to play ball. And I'm not sure that there are five justices on the court that would even try to go there.

The people arguing the case for... Depending on how they argue it and whether they were being candid. But I want to emphasize that it's going to be very hard to enforce a remedy here, ultimately, if the Trump administration doesn't want to play ball. And I'm not sure that there are five justices on the court that would even try to go there.

So much of our law depends on a presumption of regularity in the presidency. It depends on the courts thinking that they can trust the president to comply with orders and to be honest and truthful in court and the like.

So much of our law depends on a presumption of regularity in the presidency. It depends on the courts thinking that they can trust the president to comply with orders and to be honest and truthful in court and the like.

If we got to that situation, the court would have to impose more and more extreme remedies, ordering the government in more and more extreme ways not to take steps to send anyone out of the country They would just have to enjoin the various agencies, and you'd have to get the right kind of case and the right kind of plaintiffs and maybe the right kind of class action, and it might be tricky.

If we got to that situation, the court would have to impose more and more extreme remedies, ordering the government in more and more extreme ways not to take steps to send anyone out of the country They would just have to enjoin the various agencies, and you'd have to get the right kind of case and the right kind of plaintiffs and maybe the right kind of class action, and it might be tricky.

But there could be forms of ex ante injunctions. But again, this is back to the earlier conversation. If the president defies the injunction, and just does it anyway, then the court has not many tools.

But there could be forms of ex ante injunctions. But again, this is back to the earlier conversation. If the president defies the injunction, and just does it anyway, then the court has not many tools.

But then that gets us to our conversation about whether they're going to enforce the law. Right. But, I mean, it's extremely hard to predict how these things are going to work out because we haven't had this before. So I think the only hope is that the court issue is extremely, increasingly stringent. injunctions preventing this ex ante and that the administration complies.

But then that gets us to our conversation about whether they're going to enforce the law. Right. But, I mean, it's extremely hard to predict how these things are going to work out because we haven't had this before. So I think the only hope is that the court issue is extremely, increasingly stringent. injunctions preventing this ex ante and that the administration complies.

But ultimately, this is only going to work if there's public consensus and pressure behind this. You have seen, I've seen conservatives not like, and especially libertarian conservatives, not liking whisking people away and not give without due process illegally. which is what they've been doing.

But ultimately, this is only going to work if there's public consensus and pressure behind this. You have seen, I've seen conservatives not like, and especially libertarian conservatives, not liking whisking people away and not give without due process illegally. which is what they've been doing.

But I just can't emphasize enough that the court can be wise and prudent in crafting remedies to try to constrain the president. But if you have a president that is willfully engaging in bad faith and complying with those remedies, the court ultimately only has whatever support the country will give it through the political process.

But I just can't emphasize enough that the court can be wise and prudent in crafting remedies to try to constrain the president. But if you have a president that is willfully engaging in bad faith and complying with those remedies, the court ultimately only has whatever support the country will give it through the political process.