Peter Keisler

What's happening now is unprecedented and really serious. I mean, some of the most high profile cases out there the administration's been acting with what could only be described as contempt towards court orders. And that's playing out most vividly in the cases involving their efforts to remove and keep people in the United States in that prison in El Salvador.

And those cases are really, at one level, very, very simple. And that's unusual for a legal matter. Most of them are complex to some degrees, but this one is simple. And just to back up, the administration had what it thought was a good two-part legal strategy for how to get certain people out of the country in ways that would

And those cases are really, at one level, very, very simple. And that's unusual for a legal matter. Most of them are complex to some degrees, but this one is simple. And just to back up, the administration had what it thought was a good two-part legal strategy for how to get certain people out of the country in ways that would

And those cases are really, at one level, very, very simple. And that's unusual for a legal matter. Most of them are complex to some degrees, but this one is simple. And just to back up, the administration had what it thought was a good two-part legal strategy for how to get certain people out of the country in ways that would

not require them to ever go to any court and present evidence or justify the legal basis for what they were doing and part one of that strategy was an internal decision that under a statute known as the alien enemies act they could bundle people into planes without giving them any notice about what was about to happen spirit them out of the country and do that so quickly that as a practical matter they wouldn't be able to get into court to stop that from happening

not require them to ever go to any court and present evidence or justify the legal basis for what they were doing and part one of that strategy was an internal decision that under a statute known as the alien enemies act they could bundle people into planes without giving them any notice about what was about to happen spirit them out of the country and do that so quickly that as a practical matter they wouldn't be able to get into court to stop that from happening

not require them to ever go to any court and present evidence or justify the legal basis for what they were doing and part one of that strategy was an internal decision that under a statute known as the alien enemies act they could bundle people into planes without giving them any notice about what was about to happen spirit them out of the country and do that so quickly that as a practical matter they wouldn't be able to get into court to stop that from happening

And then part two of the strategy is once they are out of the country and in that prison in El Salvador, if they try to file cases to say, well, it's a fait accompli now. They are no longer in our custody. They're in the custody of a foreign government. So there's nothing a court can do.

And then part two of the strategy is once they are out of the country and in that prison in El Salvador, if they try to file cases to say, well, it's a fait accompli now. They are no longer in our custody. They're in the custody of a foreign government. So there's nothing a court can do.

And then part two of the strategy is once they are out of the country and in that prison in El Salvador, if they try to file cases to say, well, it's a fait accompli now. They are no longer in our custody. They're in the custody of a foreign government. So there's nothing a court can do.

So, you know, even though there is a precept which is like deeply wired into the DNA of the country and certainly in the Constitution that Everybody gets their day in court. Under this approach, it would always be either too early or too late for them to get into court. And what happened is the Supreme Court dealt what could only be described as a death blow to both aspects of that legal strategy.

So, you know, even though there is a precept which is like deeply wired into the DNA of the country and certainly in the Constitution that Everybody gets their day in court. Under this approach, it would always be either too early or too late for them to get into court. And what happened is the Supreme Court dealt what could only be described as a death blow to both aspects of that legal strategy.

So, you know, even though there is a precept which is like deeply wired into the DNA of the country and certainly in the Constitution that Everybody gets their day in court. Under this approach, it would always be either too early or too late for them to get into court. And what happened is the Supreme Court dealt what could only be described as a death blow to both aspects of that legal strategy.

The court held with no reported dissent that, no, you can't hustle people out of the country in this way without giving them sufficient notice to enable them to go to court and challenge that if they wish to. And they also held on the other part that a court can direct the administration to do what it is able to do to get somebody returned who's been erroneously removed.

The court held with no reported dissent that, no, you can't hustle people out of the country in this way without giving them sufficient notice to enable them to go to court and challenge that if they wish to. And they also held on the other part that a court can direct the administration to do what it is able to do to get somebody returned who's been erroneously removed.

The court held with no reported dissent that, no, you can't hustle people out of the country in this way without giving them sufficient notice to enable them to go to court and challenge that if they wish to. And they also held on the other part that a court can direct the administration to do what it is able to do to get somebody returned who's been erroneously removed.

Absolutely. We are not talking about weeks long jury trials. We're talking about there's no jury at all. This is before either an immigration judge or it can ultimately be before, you know, a federal judge. But you are the key.

Absolutely. We are not talking about weeks long jury trials. We're talking about there's no jury at all. This is before either an immigration judge or it can ultimately be before, you know, a federal judge. But you are the key.

Absolutely. We are not talking about weeks long jury trials. We're talking about there's no jury at all. This is before either an immigration judge or it can ultimately be before, you know, a federal judge. But you are the key.

The minimum baseline is you have an opportunity both to present evidence, factual evidence, and to make legal arguments that the administration doesn't have the authority to do this. And some independent decision maker. will make a judgment as to whether or not they have a right to deport you.