Rachel Abrams

OK, so I want to walk through how we got to this point. So tell us the basics of this deportation case that you just mentioned that have led us to this moment.

So it sounds like there are actually two things that are sort of unusual just right off the bat. One is that the United States is deporting these people to a country that they are not from. And the second thing that's unusual is that he's relying on this law that is not typically or maybe ever used for deportations.

So it sounds like there are actually two things that are sort of unusual just right off the bat. One is that the United States is deporting these people to a country that they are not from. And the second thing that's unusual is that he's relying on this law that is not typically or maybe ever used for deportations.

And Luke, what exactly is the ACLU arguing here?

And Luke, what exactly is the ACLU arguing here?

So what happens with this court case?

So what happens with this court case?

And did they?

And did they?

So, Luke, what happens once the judge hauls the DOJ lawyers into his court on Monday to explain whether or not they defied his order?

So, Luke, what happens once the judge hauls the DOJ lawyers into his court on Monday to explain whether or not they defied his order?

Huh. How?

Huh. How?

Right. I'm not a lawyer, but the idea that you'd tell a judge like, well, you didn't write that down so we don't have to follow it feels tenuous.

Right. I'm not a lawyer, but the idea that you'd tell a judge like, well, you didn't write that down so we don't have to follow it feels tenuous.

And what about the second part of the argument that the planes were already in the air? Like, I mean, planes can be turned around, obviously. Like, what does that have to do with it?

And what about the second part of the argument that the planes were already in the air? Like, I mean, planes can be turned around, obviously. Like, what does that have to do with it?

OK, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that they are correct, that there is a jurisdiction issue here. Do we know if it's true that the planes were actually gone by the time the written ruling was issued?

OK, but let's just assume for the sake of argument that they are correct, that there is a jurisdiction issue here. Do we know if it's true that the planes were actually gone by the time the written ruling was issued?

Okay, so one of the three planes, you could argue, should have been made aware of that order and stayed grounded, right?