Will Baude

And then, you know, you kind of offline sort of suggested, well, maybe this language, he said, officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity is the key.

And I sort of wrote a little post playing with that and sort of seeing if we could

you know, come up with some theory where, you know, this is not, this is not, this is interior and Perdomo is interior.

And turns out, you know, if you look at the way federal law defines like border zones, that doesn't work.

Right.

Well, I don't think just made it unclear.

I mean, I went through the precedent, and I think it was actually clear that they could do this, right, based on this case, Brignani-Ponce.

I think it's...

a rule, sort of like a presumption, but that it can be overcome in certain circumstances.

And there's sort of a spectrum

So here you have the district court making a ruling on the issue.

You have amicus squarely putting the issue in mind of the court.

You have the court asking for and receiving additional briefing on the issue.

And you have it – it's the Supreme Court that's going to decide an issue that could matter for the entire country.

I took the position in a blog post that under those circumstances, it seems a little silly to insist on this proposition, that basically insist on that the resolution of this important legal question for the rest of the country should depend on, you know, the vagaries of, you know, the lawyering of one of the particular parties to the case.

Yeah.

And all the things we might be worried about, you know, like, you know, unfair surprise to the litigants.

really aren't presented in that situation where the court has, you know, put everybody on notice.

We're interested in this issue.

Please go brief it.