Lawfare Daily: The Trials of the Trump Administration, Feb. 13

Hello, I'm Monica Reinagle, host of the Nutrition Diva podcast. Summer is here and with it the hot and sticky weather. A morning working in the garden, or maybe on the golf course, can leave you more depleted than you realize. And plain water isn't always the most efficient way to restore the balance. That's where liquid IV comes in. Its science-backed formula is clinically proven to hydrate faster than water alone. Whether you're exercising, playing outside, or simply surviving a summer heat wave, it's an easy way to stay hydrated. Shop now at liquid iv.com. Liquid iv. Hydration that goes wherever life takes you. Take this as your sign to go. Just get out there and go. This summer at Best Western get 1,000 bonus points and a chance to win 250,000 bonus points. Life's a trip. Make the most of it at bestwestern.com. No additional purchase necessary for sweeps. See bonus points, TNCs, and Sweeps rules for details.

This episode is brought to you by Bill, the intelligence finance platform that helps businesses and accounting firms scale with proven results. When you're growing a business, the stakes get higher. You can't afford infrastructure that breaks under pressure if you care about security, reliability, and scale. I want to let you in on a secret. Bill is the foundational software that nearly half a million businesses and 98 of the top 100 U.S. accounting firms used to automate back office workflows, add secure controls to payment processes. and scale without increased overhead. With AI-powered accounts-payable automation, Bill erases the busy work from capturing invoices, routing approvals, and processing payments, sinking seamlessly with the top accounting software platforms so your books are always accurate. But Bill isn't just accounts payable. It supports the full payments workflow. Bill has processed over $1 trillion in transactions, leveraging that expertise to help you manage move and maximize your finances. Stop the guesswork and start scaling with the proven choice. Go to bill.com slash proven to talk with a payments expert and get a $150 gift card as a thank you. That's bill.com slash proven. Terms and conditions apply. See Offer page for details.

It's the Lawfare podcast. I'm Benjamin Netanyahu Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare with Lawfare senior editors, Eric Columbus, Roger Parloff, Anna Bauer, Lawfare Public Service fellow Troy Edwards, and Lawfare student contributor, Hayton Baker. In the February 13th episode of the trials of the Trump administration, we talked about the arraignment of Don Lemon and his co-defendants in Minnesota. Affidavits released for the FBI search of a Fulton County Election Center and much, much more. It is Friday, February 13, 2006. It is 4 o'clock p.m. in Washington, D.C. And you are watching Lawfare Live. I'm Benjamin Netanyahu Wittes, editor-in-chief of Lawfare, and I am here with Lawfare Senior Editors, Roger Parloff, Anna Bauer, Eric Columbus, Lawfare Public Service Fellow, Troy Edwards, also known as LT, and the rare appearance by a lawfare student contributor, Peyton Baker.

Peyton, L.T., I think this is your first time, too. Welcome to Lawfare Live. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me. So we have a lot to get through today. But let's start with... The latest grand jury that did not do as instructed. And this one, I think, is a first in that not only did it not vote. to indict the people who the president's folks were targeting. It seems to have voted unanimously not to indict them. So, LT, what do we know about this rogue grand jury that has behaved so inconsistently with what was expected of it? Yes. The only premise I'll push back on is I'm not sure which parties acted so impermissibly or uncharacteristically. Well, that was the subtle implication of my question. So just as a framing for those not following carefully, the... Government appears to at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the District of Columbia appears to have presented an indictment to the grand jury for six Democratic lawmakers charging a statute, often known as the Smith Act, which is a relic of the 1940s, which essentially charges folks or prohibits folks from... advising, counseling, urging others to cause insubordination, disloyalty. mutiny or refusal of duty by any member of the military. And if your First Amendment, spidey senses are tingling, there's a significant reason. The underlying conduct that, according to the government, caused this violation was a video that was put out in late 2025 from these democratic lawmakers, all of whom had previously served in intelligence agencies or the military in some way, shape, or form, put out a video that said, you know, essentially don't follow unlawful orders. Don't do it. And so the government appears to have presented an indictment to the grand jury to charge them with doing that. And I think it's been reported, like you said, Ben, that zero grand jurors voted to support this indictment.

It's remarkable, having been before the grand jury a number of times to present indictments. Yeah, I mean, that's a, I want to pause over that because, you know, the grand jury, unlike the pettit jury, doesn't have to be unanimous. It has to have a majority and it has to have a quorum of jurors present. I don't think of them as generally, I mean, unanimity is not something sought in a grand jury. But you do get a... You would want to be able to get at least one vote, you know, just as a prosecutor before the grand jury, right? Typically, that's the goal. Although I will say in nearly a decade with the department, I never spoke about success before the grand jury as getting a vote by a grand jury. When I supervised other AUSA, it was it was. how to conduct yourself ethically and how to present a strong case. It wasn't try and get a vote. Right. Understood. But I mean, if you, if you, I assume you have never been no true build as a prosecutor. Correct. And I certainly, and that's not some proxy on my skill set. Typically, the government does a pretty good job of investigating a robust case before it goes in and presents. Yeah. So before we lose the opportunity. Tell us a little bit about you. You were a prosecutor for the Justice Department until quite recently, not in the District of Columbia, but you've practiced in the district a fair bit. Give us a little bit of your, the L.T. Edwards story. It's your thing. The department flavor is that I Started at Maine Justice, working at the National Security Division's counterterrorism section. I traveled the country and indicted mostly terrorism cases in grand juries across the country as part of the headquarters component at the Department of Justice and eventually wanted to do the field work myself. And so I left and went to the U.S. Attorney's Office that we're talking about here, the District of Columbia. And a lot of folks... poked fun that I had left terrorism for tidepods. And that's because I started in the misdemeanor unit and learned how to try a case. And where that office, when it is operating in a normal capacity, it is one of the premier training grounds to learn how to try a real case because it is uniquely situated in the country such that there's a local side and a federal side because of the nature of how the district is governed. And so I was there.

for four years, four and a half years doing the local stuff and then eventually the federal side as well, doing January 6th work. And then I left to the Eastern District of Virginia in 2023 and was the deputy chief of national security there where I presented my own cases but also supervised others before they went in. And for those who followed the January 6th cases closely, you were part of the trial team in the Oathkeeper's case. That's right. Yeah, there's a number of trials, I think four or four in a row that our team split up and handled. And tell us about the circumstances in which you left the department? Yes. I'm trying to figure out a way to do this without revealing too much of the pain that I feel and still talking about it. But... For anyone who has worked in the department, this will ring true. I hope it becomes part of your DNA. It is not just a job. And so in September, look, you're talking a bunch of crazy government lawyers who have hundreds of thousands of dollars in opportunity costs that they give up willingly because they believe in the mission. And so I worked that 10 years. And in September of last year, I felt that the department had abandoned principles and ethics that underlie everything we did to enact justice. The president had called for the prosecution of... perceived enemies. And within days, the White House had plugged in someone into my office, the Eastern District of Virginia, who then presented to the grand jury and received indictments for some of those perceived enemies, including my father-in-law, James Comey. So by about 11 p.m. that night, I had pucked my office up and sent my resignation letter around to the office so my colleagues would know that I was leaving. Well, welcome to Lawfare and welcome to Lawfare Live. For those who are wondering, LT is here under the Public Service Fellowship, as have a number of people you all know from the show before, Lauren, James Pierce, and... and Mike Feinberg. So we continue to collect people on this show, the government's loss being our gain. So I'm curious about to go back to this. this no bill, you know, sometimes when you get a no true bill in this administration, you go back and try again, particularly if you're Lindsey Halligan, and, you know, the would-be defendant is Letitia James. You just sort of do it over and over again. But if you can't get one vote.

on it like you've got 23 chances and you're kind of 0 for 23 um that seems like a signal do you is your working assumption that this a prosecution is dead at this point or is your working assumption that we'll try again next week Yeah, that's a great question. And my mind has raced to places it's never raced to with some of this because of how out of the ordinary this is. And so let me take a step back and say something that maybe some of our viewers are wondering, but certainly something I hear in the public or my family, right? None of them, none of whom are lawyers, which is, doesn't the grand jury just do what the government asks all the time, the so-called ham sandwich? Part of my pushback on that theory or that... idea of how the grand jury operates, is that what's happening here is the government has a high success rate for sometimes for two reasons in my mind. One is they've investigated the heck out of a case before they get to that stage and they've thought through the questions a grand jury might have. But two is it's a grand jury investigation. You're the legal counsel to the grand jury as a prosecutor. You can say things like, hey, if you have questions, ask. And if you have questions or you see holes and what we're presenting to you, ask and it will inform how we conduct this investigation. And maybe we won't ask for you to issue an indictment today. Maybe we'll go back and continue this investigation. And so you can see how those two factors conjoined would lead to a higher success rate, not just that it's a rubber stamp feature. And I, in fact, this case shows that, right? So to answer your... I think the, you know, I've written this now a few times that the impression of grand juries as a rubber stamp. If you are doing your job as a prosecutor, this is a superfluous civil liberties protection. Just as if you are doing your job as a prosecutor. ethically, the requirement that you not seek cruel and unusual punishments is a superfluous civil liberties protection. But they're not actually intended to protect against the ethical prosecutor who's doing his or her job. They're designed to protect against the malevolent government that is trying to oppress people without evidence. And in that context, the moment you see that arising, you actually see that it's a very real civil liberty as protection. Correct. Right. And it's related to this principle you'll often see in jurisprudence around you know, selective prosecution or vindictive prosecution cases, that there's this presumption of regularity and how the government operates. When that presumption is in play and warranted.

Right, the grand jury serves as a less of a check and more as a procedural step in finding some independent body that agrees there's probable cause. But to get back to your original question, what does it indicate to us? I mean, it indicates two things in my mind that I don't know which way it cuts. One is maybe they're just really bad at this and or the facts in law are just so obviously missing that... there was zero votes. I still, I really can't wrap my head around that because you'd think that if you're going to go before the grand jury, you have some, some tendon to grab onto to say, look, this strand is a better word for it. This strand, right, will lead to some larger rope, but let me, let me present to you one strand. To get no vote shows me there may not have even been a strand. The other thing that went through my mind is, my God, is, is. It's even hard to say out loud because I'm not sure it's right. Is this some effort for Janine Piro and her folks who went in to get the pressure off her back? Get Pete Hegseth and President Trump and others off her back and say, look, we tried, but there was some. I don't know, I'll put air quotes, deep state grand jury that stopped us. And man, we just couldn't present. But the folks who went in presented a weak case and a lot of defenses to then get no-billed and say, wow, we tried. And I don't know. I don't know that that's right. But it's certainly something that crossed my mind when I saw zero votes. All right. Let's turn to the civil side of that same video, Roger. Judge Leon, Richard Leon, now senior judge, displaying his typical penchant for extreme punctuation has ruled with Mark Kelly on First Amendment grounds that the effort to demote him. as a retired military officer, naval officer, and in response to this video, is illegitimate. And first of all, how many exclamation marks did he use? He used 14, Ben, which is a lot for most judges. It's actually less, it's almost half what he used in the Wilmer Hale ruling when he struck down the executive order or barred enforcement of the executive order attacking Wilmer Hale. It's true, although the... It was a much shorter opinion. Exactly. Wilmer Hale was 79 pages. This was about 29 pages. So, you know, when you look at exclamation mark density, this actually had a higher density at about 0.48 exclamation marks per page compared to 0.37. So I assume he was more outraged by this particular set of facts.

I will point out that this. The two opinions had one entire sentence in common, which was, please, exclamation mark, which appears in both. But this one also has horse feathers, exclamation mark, which did not appear in the earlier one. So typographical flourishes aside. Any surprises here? No, not really. Of course, this involves the same, for the most part, it's the same video from November, which led to a letter of censure from Pete Hegseth on January 4th, which was also, although that was not appealable, it also began a process that was obviously supposed to lead to him. losing his retirement grade or having it downgraded. And so he sued to stop that. And he had a number of grounds, but Leon had signaled beforehand. He wanted to focus on First Amendment. And so this was done on First Amendment retaliation grounds. And the key... hurdle is that in the military, there is diminished First Amendment rights for people in the military because of the need for discipline and chain of command. But of course, that has always been applied to active duty of service members. It's never been extended to retired service members. And Senator... Kelly is, of course, a retired. He retired in about 2011. He's a Navy captain, 39 combat missions, four shuttle missions. He was an astronaut. And so that was the key thing. He also, there is a doctrine that he did not get into speech and debate, but there is a doctrine that you get. that legislators get especially wide First Amendment protection. The line from a Supreme Court ruling is, representative government requires that legislators be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. It's actually, that's a 1960 case involving Julian Bond, who... Wow. Yeah, who when I was a kid, I thought that's going to be the first black president. And I was wrong. But what had happened was he was voted into the house, the state house in Georgia, and they wouldn't seat him because he opposed the Vietnam War and he opposed the draft.

And they characterize that much as, it's a close analogy, really. They said, oh, well, that's, you're basically favoring burning draft cards. And it's a little similar to here where the senator was saying, don't obey illegal orders. And you're saying, don't obey legal orders. So it's anyway, that's how it was decided. And it's a preliminary injunction. So the case moves forward. And as I read the opinion, it seems pretty bulletproof on the merits. If the thing has a weakness, it is going to be on the procedural posture and whether. whether the matter is ripe, given that there hasn't actually been any action taken against Mark Kelly yet merely. That's right. There was a so-called exhaustion issue, whether he should have gone through his military, you know, let it play out, see if his grade is downgraded, then go through a military. And the, I'm sorry, did you want to? Well, I was just going to ask, it seems to me that what panel on the D.C. Circuit you get reviewing this question probably really matters for how big a deal the ripeness and exhaustion of administrative remedies question is. Do you agree with that? You know, I think it's pretty strong that when it's a First Amendment right that's being chilled, and it's really not just his right, it's the rights of all retired. I mean, there's, you know, there's millions of retired servicemen that would now have to think twice before, you know, criticizing Pete Hegseth allowed. I think it's a pretty strong irreparable harm right now. You can't just let this. languish while it goes through an administrative process for weeks and months. All right. Let's talk about Mr. Lemon's arraignment, which took place today in Minneapolis. We had our Minneapolis Bureau out there for it. Peyton is a student at the University of Minnesota Law School under the great Alan Rosenstein and is... moonlighted today as our reporter in court in federal district court in Minneapolis for the arraignment of Don Lemon and his co-defendants, right? That's right. How many defendants are there and what did you see at the arraignment?

Well, there were four defendants being arraigned today that were there. Mr. Lemon was at both of his counsel surrounding him at all times, Abby Lowell and the past U.S. attorney Joe Thompson, I believe. And it was packed. The courtroom was packed. I was in an overflow room. We got myself and all other media got an email late yesterday that there would be a lottery for tickets because there were not nearly enough of the available seats in the courtroom. So I did not win that lottery, needless to say, and I was in the overflow room, but it was... Note to all other courts in the country. Follow Minnesota, rather than having the line, capital T, capital L, you'll have many fewer very cold reporters. Yes, I waited inside the courtroom. So I was quite... Quite warm, but even the overflow room was packed. There was many members of the media there, but also the public was there in and outside of the courtroom. There were crowds outside the main entrance. There were protests with megaphones. Several people were wearing bucket hats with prints of lemon on them and signs saying protect free speech. Things along that theme, but it was quite the turnout. Were there any anti-lemon protesters? Or was this a very pro-defendant crowd? It was a very pro-defendant crowd. There were no anti-lemon signs that I saw anywhere, but again, bucket hats with lemons on them dotted the crowd. All right. And normally an arraignment is a pretty uneventful affair. It's pretty scripted. Defendant enters a plea and gets... They check whether he's okay with his counsel, and they do some scheduling items. And, you know, was there anything additional in this hearing that is worth reporting? There are a couple of interesting instances. First, I want to note that the defendants... walked into the courtroom, smiling, shaking hands, flapping each other on the shoulder. It looked like a festive gathering at the defendant's table. On the other hand, there were two government attorneys. And maybe all, guys, when you go on trial.

for a felon, multiple felonies. May you have a festive atmosphere at your trial, at your arraignment. I mean, you know, like, enjoy it. It, I mean, there were moments where it turned tense, but certainly. It was festive as the word to describe it in the beginning. At the government's table, there were two attorneys and they were silent during the entrance buried in their papers. So it was a notable difference. In terms of the arraignment itself, the first sort of notable thing that happened was there was an early dispute about release conditions. The government... said that they wanted to impose a condition that Mr. Lemon would not be able to go to the church. And Mr. Lemon's lawyers sort of immediately raised their eyebrows at that. Judge Miko waved it off pretty quickly. He said he doesn't see any reason for that, and he's going to impose standard release conditions. But it did sort of... give an air of that was where the tension started between these two parties. You could see Mr. Lemon's attorney sort of bristle at that. The reading is the charges against him was very standard. When he was asked about his plea, Mr. Levin smiled, a big smile leaned into the mic and said, not guilty. It was pretty striking in that moment. Beyond that, the other defendants all pleaded not guilty. It was very standard again until a motion or... Mr. Levin's lawyer again stood up to address a missing cell phone that was the cause of, or was debated for five, ten minutes. The Lemons lawyer said that the phone was taken in Los Angeles, that they were told it was going to be sent to Minnesota, but they didn't, they hadn't gotten any confirmation that it was. They didn't know if there was a search warrant executed. If there was not, they demanded the phone be released immediately. If it was a proper search warrant executed, they demanded to get some clarity on where this phone was and what the process was. And Judge Migo asked the government what the status of the phone was. They said that it was currently with Department of Homeland Security and that they weren't able to provide any. More details than that at this time. Judge Miko said that as far as he was aware, in these kind of instances, it's possible for the government to take a forensic image of the phone and then give it back. And the government said that they're not able to do that at this time and didn't elaborate.

Beyond that, he said that they'd hope to get it back within the next couple of weeks, but it was very vague. And was there any resolution of the status of the phone? Not today. The judge said that he was going to resolve this once he's more properly briefed. So this issue has been pushed off. Hey folks, did you know that Senator Chuck Schumer was booed at a New York City Pride Parade? Whether you knew that or not may actually depend on where you get your news. According to ground news, if you primarily read left-leaning or centrist news sources, you're dramatically less likely to have seen that story than if you mostly rely on conservative news sources. That's one of the reasons I use ground news. Ground news, in addition to being the sponsor of this episode of the Lawfare podcast, is an app that lets you jump out of your media bubbles and see the blind spots that exist in whatever media ecosystem you operate. Ground News doesn't just show you what the news is. It shows you who's reporting the news, how many news sources are covering it, and how coverage is distributed across the political spectrum. And it gives you insights into where your own blind spots might be. based on the sources you actually read. The Blind Spot Feed is one of my favorite features because it highlights stories that are receiving disproportionate attention from one side of the media ecosystem relative to others. I also appreciate that it doesn't stop at showing you who covered a story. Brown News also shows how many outlets reported the story, how coverage breaks down ideologically, who owns each publication? and the factuality and bias ratings for those outlets. For example, ground news shows that there are 50 different sources reporting that Oman warned allies that ships going through the straits of Hormuz might have to pay a fee. And the headlines are quite different depending on where you look. From right-leaning news sources, you get headlines like ships face voluntary charges under plan for post-war Hormuz. From more left-leaning outlets, you get headlines like Oman tells allies, ships going through Hormuz may have to pay. And further, Brown News shows that only 19% of the news organizations covering the story are left-leaning, and only 12% are centrist. 69% of the news sources covering it are conservative. In other words, you're much less likely to have encountered that story if you primarily read left-leaning outlets than if you read conservative media.

Ground News helps you jump out of your media bubbles and get closer to the ground truth. It's not a publisher, and it's much more than an aggregator. It's a combination of a rating system and a focused look at who is reporting what. I have to say I was skeptical of it at first, but I've come to appreciate it. Like Lawfare, Ground News is about bringing you high-quality information that you can figure out what to do with. For me, the most valuable feature is simply discovering the stories I probably would have missed because of my own media habits. So check out Ground News and subscribe to the Vantage Plan for 40% off, which gives you unlimited access to a better way to read the news. Visit groundnews.com slash law. That's groundnews.com slash law. One last time, it's really worth checking out. ground news.com slash law.

Marketers, you know that feeling when your creative clicks, when that social post sends engagement through the roof, when your outside-of-the-box campaign hits ROI positive, when a personalized homepage turns prospects into customers. It's utter marketing bliss. Contentful helps you create tailored, omni-channel experiences without working overtime. No stress, no limits, only possibilities. Get the feels at contentful.com. Hello, I'm Monica Rineagle, host of the Nutrition Diva podcast. Summer is here and with it the hot and sticky weather. A morning working in the garden, or maybe on the golf course, can leave you more depleted than you realize, and plain water isn't always the most efficient way to restore the balance. That's where liquid IV comes in. Its science-backed formula is clinically proven to hydrate faster than water alone. Whether you're exercising, playing outside, or simply surviving a summer heat wave, it's an easy way to stay hydrated. Shop now at liquid iv.com. Liquid iv. Hydration that goes wherever life takes you. We all belong outside. We're drawn to nature. Whether it's the recorded sounds of the ocean we doze off to or the succulents that adorn our homes, nature makes all of our lives, well, better. Despite all this, we often go about our busy lives removed from it. But the outdoors is closer than we realize. With all trails, you can discover trails nearby and explore confidently. With offline maps and on-trail navigation, download the free app today and make the most of your summer with all trails. All right. Finally, is there any briefing schedule for any dispositive motions? Or I imagine there's going to be like 20 such motions. I assume there was some discussion of when we should expect them. Well, you know, there was not a concrete date set by the judge, but both parties indicated that they will be filing additional motions and briefing today. The government indicated that later today it was going to file to have this case be deemed complex in order to be able to push some further scheduling down the road. Lemons' lawyers immediately stood up and said they were going to oppose that, which again, Judge Miko said he would resolve that on the briefs. The other indicia of more motions to come was Mr. Lemons' lawyers said they were going to seek compulsion of grand jury to liberations because they think that... They have major concerns about the applicability of these statutes to the defendant's conduct. And so both parties and Lemon's lawyers also reference that there may be other motions to come in addition to that, but that it was going to be expedited. They want to get this thing moving. And the government showed the opposite signs. They want to slow this down as much as possible.

Sorry, that is ridiculous because the government tried to get them indicted and arrested within a span of like two weeks after the event. Sorry, that's what? Man, that's interesting. Okay, sorry, I just had to chime in there. Continue to be in. Well, as I said, that's all. the discussion about what's going to happen next. Both parties are going to file separate arguments about this. And so we'll see what the judge says. All right. So Anna, Eric, and LT, you guys wrote a pair of lengthy articles about this case. And I'm going to throw this question to the lot of you without knowing which of you is the right one to answer it. What do you expect to be the trajectory? I mean, based on your pieces. I expect there will be a whole lot of pretrial action. And, you know, a fair bit of litigation over whether there's even a crime here. What do you imagine the trajectory of the case looking like? Are we talking about... you know, two or three months of pretrial litigation and then a trial? Are we talking about should we expect this thing to disappear James Comey and James like in pretrial litigation? What should we be looking for here? Anna, get us started. Or L.T. wants to get us started. No, I was just going to say there's a couple angles to this. One is what is the culture of the court like? So in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is traditionally called the rocket docket because of how fast they move, it's a culture that the bench buys into and kind of works with. And so if this district operates in a similar playing field. You know, they'll push, right? And the judge, it'll be a lot, a lot of this would be determined on how hard the judge is willing to push. Reverse engineering this to touch in what Peyton explained so well, this speedy trial act, kind of complex case designation request by the government. There's a prong in the speed of trial act, which traditionally the government will use if this is going to be a complicated case factually, legally. There's a ton of classified information. There's a lot of equity holders you have to deal with. I'm struggling to see how any of the normal considerations that make a case complex would apply here.

I think that motion ought to be denied just on the facts that I see from the outside looking in. If that's denied, then we're dealing with a trial date that'll be set pretty quickly, and they've got to compress all that pretrial litigation in the next two, three months. And so it ought to move really quickly. And seeing how Abby has operated in other cases, he will know that. And he'll be requesting to file motions within the next two weeks, is my guess. Just not even touching the statutes of the challenges they'll raise. Do you share my sense that this is a case that a judge is likely to look at and say, let's think very hard about whether a jury should get anywhere near this? I mean, I look at this and I say, this is maybe a state trespassing case. Nobody's entrance or exit was blocked. It's not clear to me that the Base Act really secures any right that these people interfered with. I'm just having spent quality time editing Your All's piece, I'm still struggling to see a crime here. And if I were a federal judge, I don't think I would let this case go to trial. Do you think I'm being unduly optimistic? No, I don't. Look, there are portions of this case that I could see a reasonable judge saying, boy, that seems like a factual question that a jury could look at. For example, intimidation, right? Whether there is some reasonable belief that someone has been put, their bodily harm has been, they've been subjected to bodily harm. There are obviously in the complaint affidavit witness testimony, victim testimony to that effect. Those kinds of questions I could see a judge saying, yeah, traditionally that ought to go to a jury. There's so much before that question that the government has to get through that a judge can reasonably look at this and go, Boy, there are constitutional concerns with the Commerce Clause and the underpinning justifications of how Congress has enacted this legislation. And two, how the government has framed its case with regard to the conspiracy charge and what the agreement is, that any reason we'll judge ought to look at those questions first and say, yeah, this is not getting to a jury. We're going to litigate this. And typically judges are risk averse and we'll say, man, let's see how it proceeds. These are perfectly reasonable grounds for a district judge to say, now, this isn't getting passed pretrial litigation. Can I make the counter argument? Please. Not the counter argument, because I agree with, I mean, we wrote the piece together and with Eric and spent a very long time on that piece. So I hope everyone reads it. But I think that, like, LT mentioned there are some strong arguments. I also think, though, people are really over. um selling or over I don't know what's the word over promising over uh misunderstanding the first amendment uh potential challenges because and part of that has to do with the pleading standard and and the way that on a pretrial motion you have to just look at the allegations and the indictment and the way that the government crafted the indictment is it's like it just does not it like it

it doesn't really comport with a lot of the reality of what seems to have happened, but also it might be sufficient to get through a bunch of these pretrial motions that you otherwise would bring related to, you know, maybe some as applied First Amendment challenges or sufficiency of the indictment for failure to state a claim or an offense. So it's possible that this case goes to trial. But ultimately, like, from what I can tell, these people just didn't commit a crime other than maybe a state law trespassing violation. And so that kind of is the core issue is that they're being prosecuted for not doing what they're accused of doing or for behavior that just does not fit with the statute and the way the government's trying to prosecute it. Yeah, and there's a very good illustration of this on at least two points in the article, which I do commend to people, where it looks at the text of the indictment and then looks at the video and just holds them up next to each other. And it does not seem to, the video does not seem to reflect what is alleged in the indictment. All right, Anna, speaking of actually complex cases, let's talk about Fulton County, Georgia, where the case is so complex that it resides in the realm of fantasy and, you know, non-existent facts. We got the affidavit released for the search warrant in Fulton County, and it was like a bad nightmare of what the... of what one might have thought this affidavit would be. Tell us about it. Yeah, Ben, truly, I almost have no word still. I am speechless how many days later? And I feel like I have been cursed because these niche characters that I've been following for years in my reporting on Fulton County are somehow popping back up again, but in the context of being government witnesses in a search warrant. who are being portrayed as reliable sources of information for election information, when in fact, many of them have been spreading conspiracies for years and things that are provably wrong. But, you know, I think more than that, what's shocking is that I just don't understand. how this affidavit that was unsealed in support of the Fulton County election records search was found by a magistrate judge to have probable cause that there's evidence of a crime in the Fulton County warehouse. So the two statutes, as we've discussed before, one is this retention statute where you have to willfully...

destroy or fail to preserve election materials that are supposed to be preserved for a period of 22 months after an election. And those records are, there's a certain phrase, it's like any records that are relating to an application to vote or any other record. requisite to voting. And I think that's actually kind of... important for one of the main claims that is in this affidavit, which seems to be that, you know, the probable cause for this particular statute, the retention one, is that there were ballot images that were missing in Fulton County from the recount in Georgia. Now, that claim actually is a true one. and it's one that Fulton County has admitted to and is the result of a number of different issues that Fulton County had related to some of its chain of custody issues during the 2020 recount. But those were not issues that A, have ever. had any evidence of intentional wrongdoing. It's a human error type of thing. And for years now, you know, there's been investigation after investigation into this thing, and no one has ever found that the missing ballot images are a result of intentional destruction of records. More importantly, though, The premising a crime in relation to this particular statute on missing ballot images seems to be kind of an issue because a ballot image is not requisite to voting. It is a duplicate of the physical ballot that is the thing that is actually counted when you put it in a scanner after you vote in Georgia. And that physical ballot is the thing that they went and got from the Fulton County warehouse. That is the election record that is actually matters. So the ballot image is just a duplicate. And yes, it is important for certain verification procedures and elections. I don't mean to suggest that it's not. But a missing batch of ballot images is not requisite to voting. And so I think that there's an argument there that from the get-go, you kind of have a problem in crafting or building a case on that. But more so than that...

All of the people who are talking about these ballot images in the affidavit are people who, like, don't have election expertise. It's, you know, Janice Mike Johnston, who's a former doctor, who's the state election board member. It's just a jumble of kind of claims that she's made about how the ballot images are missing. It's kind of secondhand information from other people. It's things that just do not stand out as credible. And that happens. Yeah. Yeah. So where does this go from here? I mean, you have a emotion, you know, What's the state of the litigation over this at this point? Is it just revealed and the investigation now proceeds or is there some active challenge to it? Yeah, so we do have an accident. And sorry I didn't get to the second statute, but it's kind of more of the same in terms of the analysis. So more to come on that, hopefully in written form at some point next week. But in terms of where we're going in this litigation, we do have a motion for a return of property that we've discussed previously that Fulton County filed. And remember, when they initially filed that motion where they were seeking. the return of all the ballots that were seized, they didn't have a good sense of what was in the affidavit and how to really challenge the lawfulness of it because it wasn't unsealed yet. And now that it's unsealed and we have a sense of what's in it, the Fulton County has said that they're going to amend their motion or file something to supplement it. And we have a briefing schedule on that. We expect a filing on Tuesday from Fulton County to that end. And then the judge in Georgia, Judge Bully has set an evidentiary hearing on February 27th. I'm not sure if maybe LT or like if Roger or someone who's, you know, is very familiar with criminal cases, has any experience with seeing a Rule 41G evidentiary hearing because I have not seen one. All of the Rule 41G cases that I am familiar with, which are not. a whole lot, have not involved evidentiary hearing. So I'm very curious to see what this evidentiary hearing even involves. And will it involve something kind of like, like, is it almost kind of like in this case, will it maybe be like a Franks hearing type of thing where you have the, it's about maybe misrepresentations and omissions in the affidavit. It's about.

You know, something to that effect, do you have the affiant testify? Do you, like, who testifies? That kind of thing. I'm not really sure. Roger, L.T., any thoughts on that? Or Eric, as well. Yeah, what does this hearing look like? I'll defer to L.T. on that if he has any experience. No. Look, in my experience, they're not common. And I was not a part of any hearing. Typically, 41G, we can resolve. You know, if you're working together and you're trying to find out how to return property, the government in good faith can often resolve these before it gets to the phase of a hearing. And so I'd be guessing. But, but Anna, I think you're not wrong to say that the defense may, I say the defense, the folks moving, the movements may interspers their arguments with. trying to strip out some of the foundation of the search warrant, I think they may have an easier time by also adding the duplicative nature or the nonsensical reason why the government ought to keep these, right? Because part of the argument, I think, from the movements could be you've taken, you can take digital versions, you've requested digital versions, you don't need these physical ballots. So force the government to be on its toes and justify why the physical ballots are necessary. That is slightly different than... stripping out the underpinning and attacking that of the probable cause and instead just saying, okay, what you've done is not necessary now. I sense that that's probably where they would head if they want the physical ballots back. Yeah, the other thing I will say that I could imagine in terms of an evidentiary hearing is like one of the disputed questions of fact, I think, is how many boxes were actually taken. So it could just be that that's... why we need to have a witness is someone from the government to actually talk about here's where the boxes are and here's how many we've got although I don't see why that couldn't be done by a declaration but um any any indication in the affidavit and uh why the DNI needed to be present at the execution of the search warrant No, and that's, and I was hope, I was, I was being too long-winded, so I apologize to our listeners. I got, I got a way ahead of myself. talking about the retention statute. So I didn't get to the lack of a foreign nexus in which there is none in this affidavit. So it remains to be seen why Tulsi Gabbard felt that it was appropriate to be present for this search where according to the search warrant affidavit, there is...

Nothing there to suggest that there's a foreign interference nexus. Can I just add one thing? Of course. Also, the affidavit, or no, one of the... documents, a declaration filed by Pitts, the plaintiffs by Fulton County, mentions that she shows up about eight hours into the search, an hour before it ends. I mean, it looks like she's there for social media or she's there for symbolism or, you know, she's not a crucial part of this. It's some symbol. All right. Roger, we've had a lot of action. in the field of illegally appointed U.S. attorneys resisting their removals this past week. Give us a round the horn of the rogues gallery of illegally appointed U.S. attorneys. Yeah, I think, and I will go through this quickly, at this point, six people, six. have been found to be illegally appointed. Eastern District of Virginia, Central District of California, that's like Los Angeles, District of Nevada, Northern District of New York, District of New Jersey, District of New Mexico. We had movement in four. We just had the... government filed its fourth amendment, it's a initial brief in the fourth circuit in the Lindsey Halligan case, Lindsey Halligan case. So that's their attempt to reinstate the indictments against Letitia James and James Comey. And so it's both an argument that she was properly appointed. But failing that, it's that it was a paperwork error. And the Pam Bondi's sort of post hoc non-protunct ratifications and supplemental appointments solve any problem, and you can resurrect the indictments. And Lindsay, if you're listening and you have any thoughts, comments, Anna is checking her phone for any comments that you may have by text. Yeah. And then I think yesterday we had the Ninth Circuit heard argument in the case of Segal Chata. She was the one who was.

found to be illegally appointed in Nevada. And actually our colleague, former colleague, James Pierce, I spoke with him. He argued as an amicus there. And he says, on the whole, the argument went well for us, challenging the appointment and not well for the government. One thing that I wanted to know, because the way this is shaking out, Although six have been disqualified, in two cases, in Los Angeles and in... New Mexico, the person was nevertheless found to be properly appointed as first assistant U.S. attorney and therefore could continue supervising all of the, so it was basically the same as even though they can't be U.S. attorney, they can be first assistant. So, And apparently that did not get much attention at the argument. In the Northern District of New York, that's where John Sarkone was disqualified a week or two ago. And there, the district court tried to appoint a new person, a very well-qualified experienced guy.

under 546D, the district court can do that. And he was fired by Trump a few hours later. And Todd Blanche wrote a tweet, said, judges don't pick U.S. attorneys. POTUS does see Article 2 of the Constitution. But actually, Article 2 of the Constitution does say that inferior officers can, if Congress likes, they can. allow for, among other things, judges to choose. So anyway, they have no... It's actually pretty explicit on the point. It's totally explicit. And then the fourth I just wanted to mention, because this New Mexico one, Ryan Ellison, he was found to be unlawfully appointed. That was actually January 14th. And for some reason, I missed that one, and we never sort of caught up. And I thought I should mention that's the sixth one. And it's actually a good opinion by Judge David Nuffer of Utah. he's an Obama appointee. It gives a good historical background on all on on on these statutes. But like I say, it has this sort of frustrating ending where he decides that although yeah, he's unlawfully appointed, but the Pam Bondi did appoint him as first assistant, and he doesn't see how that can be what's wrong with that, and that does seem to allow him to continue to supervise, and it's almost as if he were. And I have a concern that maybe after all the dust settles, that's where a lot of these are going to end up. All right. Eric, let's talk about Judge Kelly on the Supermax. He has blocked transfers of death row inmates whose sentences President Biden commuted to the ad max in Florence, Colorado. I have not read the opinion, but I assume it's because you're not supposed to be using that to punish people. It's a due process issue. And our listeners may wonder why we are covering a death penalty case, which we normally do not. And the reason is that it goes pretty squarely to the politicization of the Department of Justice. President Trump is eager, anything that his predecessor Joe Biden has done, President Trump is eager to undo. And on his way out the door. President Biden basically emptied federal death row by commuting the sentences of, I believe, 37.

inmates who, you know, obviously have been convicted of doing heinous stuff. And one consequence of being removed from death row is that you need to be physically moved somewhere else because there is a death row is a literal physical place in the federal system. It's in the special confinement unit of the penitentiary in Terre Haute. Indiana, if I'm pronouncing the name of that town correctly. And so what that means is that you need to go through an individualized process per BOP Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations about where the best place for you is to go. On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order directing the attorney general to address the facilities where these people should be moved to. And he, I think, had also kind of said some rhetoric about how, you know, we need to really punish these people. And Pam Bondi started the process. That was basically a sham process the Judge Kelly found. And the outcome was pretty much predetermined that they would be going to ADX Florence, which is the highest, the most secure. It's the Supermax. It is a class of one. And you are not supposed to be there unless it's shown that you have no, you cannot be placed anywhere else. It is obviously never fun to be in prison at all, but this is by far the most restrictive environment to be in within the federal system. And the...

plaintiffs in this case did basically receive a process in the sense of a hearing and and written decision, but it was basically all kind of a, the judge found that was basically all kind of, kind of prearranged as to what the outcome would be. And apparently in the, in the DC, under DC Circuit law, there is a, the, a. specific case law about how you have a liberty interest in not being moved to more restrictive facilities within the federal system and that in some other circuits that law does not exist. So if this kind of keeps going up, it's possible that the Supreme Court could rule against them on that ground. But I will note also that Judge Kelly is a Trump appointee. He's someone who I've actually argued before in a case involving January 6th and is very like most of the district court appointees in the D.C. district court, he is not very Trumpy at all. And it'll be interesting to see where this case goes. Yeah, I've always found him an excellent judge, and I have a lot of regard for him. All right. Speaking of politicized machinations at the Justice Department, the Justice Department has moved to vacate the conviction of one Steve Bannon. I don't imagine the defense will have any objection to that. But I also wonder if the judge, and I don't remember what judge this is before. would have any basis to grant such a, such a motion. What's the status of this? It's before Judge Nichols, who is another Trump appointee, who is also in the kind of more traditional Republican mold and is not particularly Trumpy, if you will. He, it's interesting here that, that. Steve Bannon did not receive a pardon at the beginning of the administration. His prosecution was for not testifying before the... January 6th Select Committee. And this is actually another case that I worked on. I was, I represented the January 6th committee and we filed an advocate's brief in Steve Bannon's criminal cases. We were technically the victims of his crime. And why didn't Trump?

Roger, what's the case about and what's the status? This is about refugees. It's an important case, but I spoke about it last week or the week before. I forget. This is Judge Tunheim in a Clinton appointee in Minnesota. Yeah, the policy, it's a change in interpretation. that would apply is being applied to 5,600 refugees in Minnesota. And it means that if you have been come in as a refugee and after one year you haven't already become a lawful permanent resident, which I think is almost always the case, they arrest you. detain you with a war it's a warrantless arrest and they ship you off to like texas or new mexico and um and then they do an examination to see if you've become removable and um it's a language in a statute that says any alien admitted under section blah blah shall at the end of such year period return or be returned to custody for inspection and examination. And in 45 years, it's never been interpreted to mean this. It's been interpreted to mean some sort of encounter. It doesn't have to be detention. It doesn't have to be arrest. You can come in and check in. So he has, he issued a TRO, and this week he also. declined an attempt to dissolve it. There's after getting the government's full argument, he said that to agree with, to accept their argument would mean that the previous administrations had been violating the law for 45 years. All right. JGG, our perennial weekly favorite. What's going on in the J.G? This is a big deal case now. Yeah, Judge Boasberg issued this order yesterday. It actually applies to a fairly small number of people. It's a subset of the 137 that were sent to Saccat under the Alien Enemies Act. And... who were then prisoners swapped to Venezuela, so they're no longer in custody. And some of them managed to escape into neighboring countries. And we're only talking about those, that subset right now. And he's saying, and a lot of them want to get their TDA, this Trend de Aragua designation officially lifted because it makes them, it's very dangerous for them, whatever country they're in.

to have this determination that they are a foreign terrorist organization. And so Judge Poesberg says they can submit written. petitions, basically habeas petitions to him from the third country, the ACLU lawyers will file them. And the expectation is by the ACLU lawyers that these particular ones applying, it'll be so obvious that there's no evidence that their TDA, that the government won't even have anything to. respond and there won't be a need for a hearing. If there were a hearing, it would be an unbelievable logistic crisis. Very difficult. He also as an alternate said, you know, if some of these people want to come back to the U.S., the government has to facilitate their return, but the understanding is they will be detained when they get here. So I don't think anyone's going to. choose that option. The other expectation, I mean, the government had said before this, look, if you do anything at all other than dismiss this case, basically, we're going to mandamus your ass. And it was a very, it was unusual, it didn't say that, but it was an unusual position to take. It just said, we're through, we're not giving you any proposals. You dismiss it or we go up. And so that's what we're expecting. I'm a little surprised it hasn't happened yet. All right. Speaking of things that aren't surprising, the Fifth Circuit has upheld the alien detention policy. I'm not sure which three initials this case is, but what do we know about what happened? Yeah, the defendant is Buen Rostro Mendez, with a hyphen in between. And so this was not surprising, like you said. It was two to one. Edith Jay Jones, a Reagan appointee, but I mean, a real right wing. And Stuart Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee. They were in the majority. Dana Douglas of Biden appointee was the dissenter. And meanwhile, we're waiting for, we might get another, the Seventh Circuit in the Castagnan Nava case might. It's already said it's likely that they will, their position is that the government's position is likely wrong. We might get another way in from them. We're waiting for a case in the Eighth Circuit. Meanwhile, Kyle Cheney published some statistics.

This won't matter. We've seen it before. It makes no difference. But 373 judges so far have ruled against the Trump administration policy on mandatory detention, 284. And of the 28 who are four, 20 are Trump appointees. And even among Trump appointees, they're a minority. 44 Trump appointees have voted against the policy 24. So anyway, Kyle is still pretty on top of this. All right. Eric, remind us who Marimar Martinez is and what's going on with her. So Marimara Martinez is a woman who in early October was shot five times while she was in her car in Chicago by a Border Patrol agent. I got to say from the pictures of her in the Chicago Sun Times, she seems like in pretty good shape for somebody who was shot five times just a few months ago. I mean, Ben, I think you've got a future as a DHS lawyer. No, I'm just like, she's, she's, you know, alive and, and I mean, usually when you hear somebody's been shot five times, they're dead. This is true. This is true. And she should be thankful, I think, then, to the... Yeah, that wasn't where I was going with this argument. I know. So she was shot five times. And as normally happens when you are shot five times, she was subsequently indicted and charged with assaulting federal officers. And she was, the DHS initially claimed that she was blocking agents and attempted to ram them with her vehicle before she was shot. And then.

Text messages that the agent had sent emerged during the case in which he bragged about the shooting and talked about how he fired five times and she had seven holes and how proud he was of that. And the government dropped the case in, I believe, late November. But. She didn't quit at that point. Her lawyers didn't quit. They fought to release evidence in the case, including BodyCam footage, that they felt contradicted the government's story. And the government just last week released a lot of that footage and released messages, including kind of remarkable messages from Gregory Bovino. who had said that, you know, you're to the agent that, you know, you're doing a great job. I'm going to, you know, everyone's on your side, including El Hefe, was the term that was used according to the agent. And he offered to delay the agent's mandatory retirement age. And the...

her release, and the government kind of fought tooth and nail the release of the evidence, but she was, she, it's just a kind of fascinating case study in how the tables turn in some of this litigation. Right. That, you know, first they shoot her, they indict her, and then things beginning to look not so good for them. So they, they, oh, sorry, not only did they shoot her and indict her, but they also called her a domestic terrorist, which is the kind of the, the, the, the, favorite term for DHS when they don't when there is someone is kind of opposing what they do they call them a domestic terrorist like just like they called Renee Good and Alex Prattie after shooting them and But then the tables turned. They eventually, not only did they drop the case, but more evidence emerged about the, about the shooter. And the victim kind of kept litigating, even though the case had been dropped against her. And the district judge ordered them to release things. And the latest development was not only did they have they released evidence that is more exculpatory towards the woman they shot. But. They've announced that they've put place on the shooter on administrative leave. So the entire process has been just complete disaster, whereas if they, for them kind of politically in terms of there of how everything's looking, where they had they just not bothered trying to indict her in the first place, they might have had none of these issues. Well, I mean, it is a shocking case. And I guess it would be, I mean, it. The only, it's, that said, given everything that's happening, it's not surprising. And it is a good thing, I think, that some of these cases are turning around and biting them in the butt, because that may actually provide some useful deterrent value, particularly of some of these. people who are, you know, end up facing charges themselves. And particularly how hard it is increasingly to bring Bivens actions. Exactly, exactly. It provides a remedy. Yeah, and she has said that she's going to be filing a federal tort claims act. All right. So let's talk about California's No Secret Police Act, Eric. What is it and why is it not going into effect? So I should have actually written down. There were actually two pieces of legislation that are involved in this case, the No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act.

The No Secret Police Act attempted is a law like California passed to forbid federal agents from wearing law enforcement officers from wearing masks. And the No Vigilantes Act requires them to display identification that includes their agency and either a name or badge number. So the federal government sued California to enjoin these two laws. This is unusual, but it happens every now and then, federal government suing a state to do something like that. And it often is in the realm of immigration. We saw it a lot under the Obama administration suing off in Texas regarding their immigration policies. government raised a supremacy clause defense. Sorry, not defense, but the federal government is making a supremacy clause argument and kind of specifically the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, which is kind of a court-derived doctrine that is that kind of comes out of these supremacy clause, which basically says that you cannot, the state government cannot regulate. the United States directly or discriminate against the federal government or those with whom it deals. So it's not clear what it means to regulate the federal government. And the district court judge... Christina Snyder, who is a Clinton appointee, concluded that neither requirement, the no mask requirement and the name slash badge requirement do not really regulate the federal government because they do not impinge that much on its activities. And that is, I suspect, is not something that. this Supreme Court would would agree with certainly in the in that not well not certainly but maybe even more likely in the in the in the in the in the mask context uh She found that they had not really made, that the state had, the federal government had not really made its case as to why they can't perform their duties just as well if they're not wearing masks. However, for reasons I don't really understand, the California law applies only to federal officers, not to state officers. And California could not really come up with a good... reason for why it did. I mean, California said, well, only some of our officers deal with the public. And the federal government was like, well, yes, but even for those, a lot of them do. And you would not requiring them not to wear masks. So what the judge said is like, look, you know, this discriminates against the federal government. And therefore, I'm going to strike down the mask, the no mask requirement.

She did, however, allow to go into effect the badge requirement. I would expect that the federal government is going to appeal. I don't think it has yet, but there's a stay. So I think that she will stay imposed by the district court itself. So I would expect to see an appeal very soon. All right. Roger. We have developments in our efforts to make sure that nobody here on temporary protective status gets to stay. What is going on with South Sudanese and Nepalese, Honduras, and Nicaraguan TPS guests? Yeah, maybe I'll explain that, yeah, there were these two developments, and one is pretty ominous, really. You remember TPS, temporary protective status, when there's a humanitarian crisis, it's a program that's been around since 1990, and a country will be designated like for 18 months and that your people, their people can come here and they can get a work permit and they can try to stay. And then the plaintiffs will tell you that the default in their statute says, You know, that will be extended unless there's a finding that conditions have improved. And the secretary is supposed to talk to other agencies, primarily the Department of State. Kristi Noem has stopped TPS for 12 countries. In many cases, it's very obvious that she didn't consult with anybody, not even state. It's, and so... There would normally be a strong sort of arbitrary and capricious quality. They seem like pre preordained results. But there is also a statute. Part of the statute says that there is no judicial review of the secretary's determinations of with respect to a designation, a termination, or an extension of a designation. So that's a big hurdle. And the way these cases have proceeded when they do proceed is that...

The argument is, well, we're not challenging the substance of the determination. We're challenging the methodology. She didn't follow. She didn't consult with anybody. It's not, it's a pretext. It's not real. So those arguments were successful in the case involving people from South Sudan. This is the District of Massachusetts, Patty Saris. That was yesterday. And this does not involve a lot of people. This is, I think, there are 232 TPS holders from South Sudan, 73 applicants, compared to like 600,000 Venezuelans, 350,000 Haitians. But, you know, it is what it is. I think this is a... They call it a stay order. I think it's the equivalent of a preliminary injunction. But the bad ruling for these cases is the Ninth Circuit, which is, and this involves Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua, they granted a stay of the lower court ruling, of the lower court stay. So basically letting the TPS termination go into effect. against people from these countries, Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Why that's especially surprising is that just 12 days ago, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit.

agreed with the lower court to stop a TPS termination involving Venezuela. And they drew a sort of thin distinction. But the Venezuela case, Kristi Noem had tried to not just terminate the designation when it would have naturally ended at the end of 18 months, but... early, a vacator of somebody else's, which has never been done before her. And so they said, that's different. That's ultra-virous. It's beyond your power. The statute doesn't say anything. So it's not even covered by that jurisdiction stripping one. If this is the position of the Ninth Circuit, which is a fairly, you know, left of center circuit. That's going to be a tough one. It would mean, you know, if that's what happens with the Haitians, that would be fatal. No, it's, and these are really disruptive because when you reverse TPS, you basically create illegal aliens. and mass out of people who were moments ago here legally. And so it's a very disruptive thing to do. All right. Quickly, we've got two more cases to mention. Big day for Ramiza Oz Turk, Roger. Yeah, yeah. This was surprising. An immigration judge ruled in her favor. And I think it's a... Soon to be unemployed in a... Yeah. Yeah. This was earlier this week, February 10th. These rulings are not easy to understand. And usually they're not public, but it was made public. And... She basically, I mean, the two district courts had found that there was, it was on, this is the Tufts graduate student. You've seen video of her being arrested. She was arrested for, she co-wrote an op-ed in the Tufts Daily that was pro-Palestinian. And so. Marco Rubio tried, revoked her visa. Her presence in the U.S. was a threat to U.S. foreign policy, I think was the theory. And two judges had said that was unconstitutional. And basically, she sort of followed that. In addition, she seems to say, which is quite interesting, that the mere fact that you revoke somebody's visa doesn't make them illegally here necessarily. as long as they're still fulfilling other obligations to hold that visa. That part was really surprising to me. News to me. Yeah, yeah. So anyway, actually, the DHS spokesperson.

you know, on auto drive, she said, she called the immigration judge a rogue judge. So I guess that's a bad sign for that judge. But anyway, this doesn't mean the end of the case probably. It might mean the end of the case has a Second Circuit appeal. That might be mooted, but I think the habeas will continue, especially because the... government might appeal the immigration judges ruling to the BIA, which where I think they have a good chance of prevailing. All right. Finally, Eric, what happened to the Hudson Tunnel Project and why are we talking about that on Lawfare Live? Infrastructure is not exactly our bread and butter any more than the death penalty is, but this is another example of the president having fits of peak and leading to litigation. The Hudson Tunnel Project is a... effort to build a new tunnel under the, as you might guess, the Hudson River connecting New York and New Jersey to supplement a single two-tube rail tunnel that currently carries 200,000 rail passengers. And there is a deal in 2023 to put this tunnel through. And... However, at the end of September, Department of Transportation issued a letter to the Gateway Development Corporation, which is the entity that is building the tunnel, saying that it had just issued an interim rule, removing... various presumptions of social and economic advantage from its disadvantaged business enterprise program and that you can't do anything else regarding the Hudson Tunnel. And this was basically done at the end of this is not shockingly. It was done at the end of the fiscal year at a time where there were as shut down politics going underway. And this was viewed as a way for Trump to get back at Chuck Schumer. also somewhat oddly timed politically with the New Jersey gubernatorial election looming. But, and this is back story is not really in the, in the case, but. With a lot of these cases, they've been shunted to the courts of federal claims in light of decisions by the Supreme Court on its shadow docket, holding that in contractual disputes and grant terminations.

need to go through that somewhat time-consuming process rather than being adjudicated in district court. But this was a suit filed not by the contract holder, people whose contracts were canceled, but by the state of New Jersey and the state of New York, who basically said, look, we are being very much harmed by the cancellation of this project. The judge agreed. And the judge therefore concluded that there was no, the case could not be moved to the court of federal claims, and it was properly in district court. And she, the government did not really put it much of a fight on the merits. Their main argument was that it needed to be, that it was in the wrong place. And therefore, she issued an injunction. requiring the government to pony up the cash that had been suspended. And the government appears to, as of a hearing today, they said that they've done so. And they're not going to appeal, apparently. All right. We have only one question in the queue. Andrew Steele. Since you are not on the screen, I'm going to read your question. Anna, Eric, and LT in your 211 article. Oh, here you are. Hey, everyone. So you can pose your own question. Great. So this is for the crew of Anna, Eric, and LT. Thanks for the great articles about this case. In the name of it is Minnesota Faceoff article, you posed the question of whether Lemon and the other journalist defendants could raise a First Amendment free press defense. And then you cite three cases in which that defense was considered and denied. But my question is, is there a case where the federal government actually attempted to prosecute a journalist for arguably news gathering conduct and the defense was assessed in that context? Because it strikes me that prosecution for actual news gathering would implicate the First Amendment more than like breach of contract or search warrants or something. It's similar also to vindictive prosecutions that we raised is like a very thin jurisprudence because there hasn't. ever being a successful one against the federal government. So, yeah, just wondering if there is a federal case that's kind of on point about a prosecution of a journalist. Any of you, can any of you think of such a case? I mean, there are things there are, they're prosecution, sorry, the Julian Assange prosecution is arguably on point. Obviously, there are questions about the extent to which Assange could be considered a journalist. Unfortunately for the question, he wound up pleading guilty to a lesser charge, and so the First Amendment issues were kind of untested.

There is another ongoing case involving a guy named Tim Burke, who is a journalist in Florida, who's indicted actually under the Biden administration for, I'm not from getting this precisely, but he acquired some outtakes of. I believe Tucker Carlson interviews and he's charged violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and wiretapping laws. I don't. His case is still in progress. I don't know whether there have been rulings on First Amendment issues. And I don't know Anna or... I'll T. Roger might have some thoughts on the January 6th prosecutions because there were a few people who claimed that they were a journalist or actually were a journalist. I'm thinking like Steve Baker was prosecuted. He pleaded out, though, I think. But then there was, I think, at least one other person. So, Roger, do you have thoughts on that? Yeah, I think you might be thinking of Eddie Block, but he was never. They ultimately never charged him. That was a guy with sort of a photographer for the proud boys. So I don't know, I don't know if it was ever litigated. LT, do you remember any case that was litigated? Partially in one of mine with Owen Troyer from Info Wars. Oh, yeah, yeah. We, the government, charged. Owen Troyer, who was part of Infowars, Alex Jay Jones, somewhat number two man. The government's perspective at the time, all of this is kind of written out in filings is that he was a legitimate defendant and not a reporter or journalist and not operating within the confines of what a journalist does. He ultimately ended up pleading, which seems like a theme in a lot of these cases. And so while some of the public filings initially touched on it, I don't recall there being any. ruling from the judge on some of the constitutional issues. One, I was thinking, too, was Judith Miller back in the early 2000s, but I can't. Oh, that wasn't the prosecution. That was a contempt to matter. That wasn't the prosecution, but it does, I mean, it's still kind of the same point that people have gone to jail. And in her case, it was a civil charge, right? But it's still going to jail because of. What no one disputed were news gathering activities. Well, there have been a lot of those. But I am unaware of any prosecutions.

All right, folks, we got a wrap. Hold on, can I just say, though, like, it doesn't change, like, there's the general principle that, like, there's no special journalistic protection against generally applicable criminal laws. And this is kind of the point I was getting to about the pleading standard is really important to keep in mind here, because it's not like the government is alleging that Don Lemon. was doing journalism and then prosecuting him for it. They are alleging that he did a criminal, specific criminal act, which me from looking at it, I don't think he actually did that criminal act, but that is what the pleading, that's what they're pleading, and that's what the judge has to look at is those specific things in the indictment. So it's kind of... Like, it's kind of hard to say that, you know, I don't know, I just think that the pleading standard here is going to make it hard and the fact that conspiracy law is so broad. So, yeah. All right. We're going to wrap, folks. We're already over time. Thank you to Eric, to Troy, to Roger, to Anna, and to Peyton for joining us today. We're going to be back next week because the trials will keep trialing and the tribulations will keep tribulating. And we will be back next week to chew over it all. Thanks for joining us.

This podcast is part of Lawfair's live stream series, Lawfare Live, the trials of the Trump administration. Subscribe to Lawfare's YouTube channel to receive an alert the next time we go live. The Lawfare podcast is produced by the Lawfare Institute. You can get ad-free versions of this and our other Lawfare podcasts by becoming a lawfare material supporter at our website, Lawfaremedia.org. slash support, you'll also get access to special events and other content available only to our supporters. The podcast is edited by Goat Rodeo, and our audio engineer this episode was Anna Hickey of Lawfare. Our theme music is from Alibi Music. As always, thanks for listening. Hey everybody, this is Knox from the podcast with Knox and Jamie. Back to school always brings a little nostalgia, fresh notebooks, new shoes, sharpened pencils, and trying to remember your friend's home phone number. But today, staying connected looks a little different. Between pickups, practices, and after school activities, kids need a way to reach their parents. And parents need peace of mind, too. That's where Gab comes in. Gab makes phones and watches designed for kids with no social media apps or internet browsers. Kids get the connection they need, while parents get features like GPS check-ins, managed contact, safer messaging, and Gab music. which is Clean Songs curated for kids. This year, skip the adult smartphone and choose a phone made with kids in mind. Use code get-gab to get $25 off at gab.com slash get-gab. That's Gab, G-A-B-B.