Peter Keisler

without giving them anything like the notice that was required. And the ACLU went to the Supreme Court and said, please, as you listen to the rest of this case and get briefing, stop this from happening. And if the administration were a normal administration and had compiled a record so far of being a normal administration,

without giving them anything like the notice that was required. And the ACLU went to the Supreme Court and said, please, as you listen to the rest of this case and get briefing, stop this from happening. And if the administration were a normal administration and had compiled a record so far of being a normal administration,

without giving them anything like the notice that was required. And the ACLU went to the Supreme Court and said, please, as you listen to the rest of this case and get briefing, stop this from happening. And if the administration were a normal administration and had compiled a record so far of being a normal administration,

the court would have said, well, I can be confident they're not going to do this while we are hearing your petition. So let's give the government a chance to respond. Let's see what they say. And then we'll decide what to do.

the court would have said, well, I can be confident they're not going to do this while we are hearing your petition. So let's give the government a chance to respond. Let's see what they say. And then we'll decide what to do.

the court would have said, well, I can be confident they're not going to do this while we are hearing your petition. So let's give the government a chance to respond. Let's see what they say. And then we'll decide what to do.

Because, of course, the government wouldn't spirit these people away while we are actually in the process of deciding whether it can do so on this emergency application you filed. But they knew that the government had done exactly that with the first 200 or so people they had sent away. The case was before a district judge.

Because, of course, the government wouldn't spirit these people away while we are actually in the process of deciding whether it can do so on this emergency application you filed. But they knew that the government had done exactly that with the first 200 or so people they had sent away. The case was before a district judge.

Because, of course, the government wouldn't spirit these people away while we are actually in the process of deciding whether it can do so on this emergency application you filed. But they knew that the government had done exactly that with the first 200 or so people they had sent away. The case was before a district judge.

And they rushed to secretly get the people out before he could issue an order. And they didn't quite succeed on that, which is why you have these issues of contempt floating around now. But at 1 a.m., the court, by a seven to two vote, said, don't remove anybody in the class represented by these lawyers until you hear otherwise from us.

And they rushed to secretly get the people out before he could issue an order. And they didn't quite succeed on that, which is why you have these issues of contempt floating around now. But at 1 a.m., the court, by a seven to two vote, said, don't remove anybody in the class represented by these lawyers until you hear otherwise from us.

And they rushed to secretly get the people out before he could issue an order. And they didn't quite succeed on that, which is why you have these issues of contempt floating around now. But at 1 a.m., the court, by a seven to two vote, said, don't remove anybody in the class represented by these lawyers until you hear otherwise from us.

And that shows that there is a cost to the administration of acting the way it's acting towards the courts. Because if you squander the reputation that governments of both parties have had for credibility and fair dealing and honest brokering with the court, then they're going to treat you different because they know they can't quite trust you.

And that shows that there is a cost to the administration of acting the way it's acting towards the courts. Because if you squander the reputation that governments of both parties have had for credibility and fair dealing and honest brokering with the court, then they're going to treat you different because they know they can't quite trust you.

And that shows that there is a cost to the administration of acting the way it's acting towards the courts. Because if you squander the reputation that governments of both parties have had for credibility and fair dealing and honest brokering with the court, then they're going to treat you different because they know they can't quite trust you.

Well, that's a really good question because look, if you and I were disobeying a court order in a private case, there's a very available toolkit that courts have to deal with that. We would face punishing fines, perhaps daily fines until we comply and we could even be incarcerated. It's much harder.

Well, that's a really good question because look, if you and I were disobeying a court order in a private case, there's a very available toolkit that courts have to deal with that. We would face punishing fines, perhaps daily fines until we comply and we could even be incarcerated. It's much harder.

Well, that's a really good question because look, if you and I were disobeying a court order in a private case, there's a very available toolkit that courts have to deal with that. We would face punishing fines, perhaps daily fines until we comply and we could even be incarcerated. It's much harder.

much trickier to apply that toolkit when the executive branch as a whole, not simply some rogue actor in it, but the executive branch as a whole is the one that's in defiance. And in particular, and I think this is embedded in your question, a particular order that essentially directs the court or the executive branch to conduct diplomacy is especially hard to enforce.

much trickier to apply that toolkit when the executive branch as a whole, not simply some rogue actor in it, but the executive branch as a whole is the one that's in defiance. And in particular, and I think this is embedded in your question, a particular order that essentially directs the court or the executive branch to conduct diplomacy is especially hard to enforce.