[SPEAKER_06]: We will hear argument first this morning in case 25, 1083, Mullen versus Doe and the Consolidated Case.
[SPEAKER_02]: Hey everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects.
[SPEAKER_02]: On this week's episode of Five to Four, Peter, Riannon, and Michael are talking about Mullen B. Doe, a case about the Trump administration's efforts to expel immigrants from the United States, including people who are here legally.
[SPEAKER_02]: At issue in this case is a humanitarian program that grants temporary protected status or TPS.
[SPEAKER_02]: The people who have come to the U.S. from countries undergoing severe conflict or environmental disaster.
[SPEAKER_02]: When Trump took office for a second term, the U.S. was home to about 1.3 million TPS holders.
[SPEAKER_02]: People hailing from the list of countries like Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Haiti.
[SPEAKER_02]: Last June, then Homeland Secretary Kristi Nome attempted to revoke TPS for Haitian nationals.
[SPEAKER_02]: The move that was challenged in court on the basis that it was motivated by racial animus, and therefore violated the Equipation Clause.
[SPEAKER_02]: Earlier this summer, Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the government.
[SPEAKER_02]: This is 5-4, a podcast about how much Supreme Court sucks.
[SPEAKER_03]: Welcome to Five to Four, where we dissect and analyze as a pre-emport cases that have embarrassed our nation, like the World Cup Final Half-Time show.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm Peter.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm here with Michael.
[SPEAKER_03]: Hi, everybody.
[SPEAKER_03]: And Rianna.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hey, everybody.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why was Justin Bieber doing MTV Unplugged?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why was there a piece and love sort of aesthetic rainbow that's from the 90s?
[SPEAKER_00]: Why were the muppets playing seven-nation army?
[SPEAKER_03]: When I saw the muppets, I was like, oh, this is looking up actually.
[SPEAKER_00]: from the intro.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, for the Muppets to go over after Madonna was fake driven in by Ronaldinho and Ronaldo.
[SPEAKER_03]: That was confusing because for a few seconds, you're like, is this live?
[SPEAKER_03]: Is Madonna doing this live?
[SPEAKER_00]: And the bowels.
[SPEAKER_03]: That doesn't seem realistic.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then, like, there were a few cuts where you're like, oh, it's not live.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then, yeah, it was just sort of a parade of what felt like cameos.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know what I remind of, Super Bowl commercials these days.
[SPEAKER_05]: Hmm, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: There's no like creativity.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just like, it's just like, and here's another cam.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, yeah, look at this fucking guy.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know the muppets You know the muppets you fucking idiot.
[SPEAKER_03]: Here's Justin Bieber seeing like how aluia we're at the world cup.
[SPEAKER_03]: What are you fucking talking about dude?
[SPEAKER_00]: Silent Stadium.
[SPEAKER_05]: I admit I didn't see the halftime show.
[SPEAKER_05]: I watched all the world cup I didn't see the halftime show, but I did see also that Tom Cruise gave a pre-game inspirational speech to the crowd.
[SPEAKER_05]: That feels like there's something surreal about just that sentence.
[SPEAKER_05]: Tom Cruise gave a inspirational speech before the World Cup final.
[SPEAKER_05]: What are we talking about?
[SPEAKER_05]: Two to crowd.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: To the crowd.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: bizarre.
[SPEAKER_03]: Football.
[SPEAKER_03]: is a language spoken without works.
[SPEAKER_03]: The idea that you need to work Tom Cruise in.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know what I mean?
[SPEAKER_03]: This week's case, Mullen V. Doe, is the case from the end of this past term about temporary protected status.
[SPEAKER_03]: for Haitian immigrants, in particular, temporary protected status is a legal designation that grants temporary protection from deportation and temporary work authorization to people from countries that are experiencing armed conflict or natural disasters or any other type of situation that would make it dangerous for them to remain in their country sort of like a temporary asylum, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Haitians had been granted temporary protected status starting in 2010 following the devastating earthquakes in that country.
[SPEAKER_03]: And last year Donald Trump announced that he would terminate that temporary status, meaning that over 300,000 Haitians in this country would no longer be protected from deportation.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: That decision was challenged primarily on the basis that Donald Trump's
[SPEAKER_03]: which in a sensible and just world would violate equal protection, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: But the Supreme Court in a six to three decision said what's racism really?
[SPEAKER_00]: So let's just jump in and talk about TPS temporary protected status.
[SPEAKER_00]: What it means when you have TPS?
[SPEAKER_00]: Congress created TPS in the Immigration Act of 1990 so that nationals of certain countries that are experiencing like ongoing armed conflict or an environmental disaster or just extraordinary but also temporary conditions can receive TPS.
[SPEAKER_00]: TPS status, temporary protected status as an immigrant in the United States is not automatic.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is something that you apply for.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's something
[SPEAKER_00]: but the theory is that something has happened in your country, in your home country, that is dangerous.
[SPEAKER_00]: And that means that even if you didn't have an immigration status, even if you weren't documented in the United States, if you received TPS, you were temporarily protected from deportation from the United States.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, right, like you're a Haitian, you're here, you don't have any documentation, you're eligible to be deported, and then there's a devastating earthquake in Haiti, and it is at least for some time, dangerous to return to.
[SPEAKER_05]: We're not gonna deport you there.
[SPEAKER_00]: But it's not automatic, you have to apply to get TPS status.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's also not automatic in terms of just because something bad happens in a country.
[SPEAKER_00]: TPS is now applies to that country.
[SPEAKER_00]: The government, in fact, specifically the Secretary of Homeland Security, has discretion to decide when a country and therefore nationals from that country get TPS.
[SPEAKER_00]: the Secretary of Homeland Security designates a country as receiving this TPS status for nationals from that country in the U.S. And the Secretary can undesignate, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: They can terminate that designation which is what is happening here.
[SPEAKER_03]: Exactly.
[SPEAKER_03]: The whole question is what if the reason that you're terminating it is racism, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: What if you're doing it for racist reasons?
[SPEAKER_03]: That would presumably violate the equal protection clause, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Hmm, or so you say, but what if it is perhaps it is so this TPS program affects a huge number of people as of March 2025 there were about 1.3 million people with TPS living in the United States.
[SPEAKER_00]: Haiti was one of these designated countries you mentioned this Peter up top in 2010 that designation came down after earthquakes there.
[SPEAKER_00]: Syria, which is relevant in this case as well, in that country because of the Civil War, Syria was given TPS designation in 2012.
[SPEAKER_00]: But starting early in 2025, early in the second Trump administration,
[SPEAKER_00]: The Trump administration through DHS starts to terminate those TPS designations for certain countries.
[SPEAKER_05]: And Haitians and Syrians aren't the first to lose TPS statuses and probably won't be the last.
[SPEAKER_05]: Trump has been doing this for Hondurans, for Venezuelans, I think in 2025, 700,000 people lost TPS.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, and so like what does that look like when you lose TPS, you return to the immigration status that you would have had in the United States before you were granted TPS.
[SPEAKER_00]: So for example, for many of these people, they entered the United States without inspection, meaning,
[SPEAKER_00]: They weren't interviewed by like an immigration official.
[SPEAKER_00]: They didn't apply for, you know, another kind of immigration status when they entered the United States.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so they were living undocumented in the US.
[SPEAKER_00]: When the TPS designation for your country, that temporary protection from deportation, when that's terminated, you go back to being undocumented in the United States.
[SPEAKER_00]: And therefore you are subject to removal, you are subject to deportation.
[SPEAKER_03]: you're exposed to Donald Trump's immigration apparatus.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, the Trump immigration apparatus that has been announced loudly, proudly and racially since Trump was campaigning for office.
[SPEAKER_00]: In 2024, when he was running, you know, the racist rhetoric about people from these countries that they later removed TPS designation for was, it was like an inundation.
[SPEAKER_06]: I've also announced a permanent pause on third world migration, including from hell holes like Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, and many other countries.
[SPEAKER_06]: in Springfield, Ohio, 20,000 illegal Haitian migrants have descended upon a town of 58,000 people destroying the way of life.
[SPEAKER_06]: They're coming from 181 countries as of yesterday.
[SPEAKER_06]: Right.
[SPEAKER_06]: And we're dumping ground.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're like a garbage can for the world.
[SPEAKER_00]: It was on its face horrible and disgusting.
[SPEAKER_00]: And if you're thinking about the effect on these hundreds of thousands over one million people who have TPS, this is devastating.
[SPEAKER_00]: This has a massive effect, not just on Haitians, not just on TPS grantees, but our society, all immigrants, in fact, the United States as a whole.
[SPEAKER_03]: There are actually two legal issues.
[SPEAKER_03]: The first is about the statute.
[SPEAKER_03]: The statute outlines the process that the Homeland Security Secretary has to adhere to and making TPS determinations, part of which is a consultation with the State Department.
[SPEAKER_03]: It is a pretty plain fact that this did not occur.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's reported by the New York Times that know made the decision without doing this.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: But what the Supreme Court says is that doesn't matter because none of this is reviewable by courts.
[SPEAKER_03]: The law says that the secretaries' determinations are not subject to judicial review.
[SPEAKER_03]: They can't be reviewed.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the plaintiff said, okay, her determination isn't reviewable, but she violated the process leading up to the determination.
[SPEAKER_03]: So that should be reviewable.
[SPEAKER_03]: But Alito writes the opinion says no, that's all part of the determination, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: The process and the determination that is one thing, which doesn't make sense is like a matter of how I use words generally.
[SPEAKER_03]: But also, it's not really practical.
[SPEAKER_03]: I mean, so textually, it hit not Maryman Webster, you know, the determination is the determination.
[SPEAKER_05]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: The process beforehand is a separate thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: But also, one argument that was made to try to appeal to the conservatives was like, look, if you say this is unreviewable entirely.
[SPEAKER_03]: A future administration might decide that temporary protected status can't just be handed out to whatever country they feel.
[SPEAKER_03]: No standards, nothing, and they can just hand it out on a whim, and there's no legal challenge.
[SPEAKER_03]: Like, is that a future you want to live in Samolito where President AOC is giving TPS to all the minorities of the world?
[SPEAKER_03]: Sam?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know, the court doesn't address that argument specifically.
[SPEAKER_03]: I imagine that what Samalito was doing is just saying like, well, if they try to, if they try to pull that, we'll think of something.
[SPEAKER_05]: That sounds like a major question to me.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, exactly.
[SPEAKER_00]: And just back on the definition of the term determination, we know the determination is not just a ship.
[SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't get judicial review.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's fine.
[SPEAKER_00]: It says it in the law.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why would the law then require other rules in the process, such as that the DHS Secretary has to consult with other government agencies in making the determination?
[SPEAKER_05]: Now, I mean, you can't even talk about this in a way that's sensical, like you're saying, the process leading up to the determination is part of the determination, the phrase itself, the process leading up to the determination, clearly delineates them as two separate things, the process itself and the determination that follows the process.
[SPEAKER_03]: The decision is not reviewable, but like there are required steps along the way.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't whatever.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: Somehow the less offensive part of this decision.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_05]: I did want to say I think like there's this idea in legal academia.
[SPEAKER_05]: They talk about what they call like phantom constitutional norms, which are.
[SPEAKER_05]: Certain values that will shine through, even when they're not like explicated, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: Like a classic one that up until recently, I think was pretty common was that courts disfavor indefinite detention.
[SPEAKER_04]: And so that'll come through even in statutory interpretation cases and things like that.
[SPEAKER_05]: And I think what we're seeing here a bit is that in this court, the unitary executive theory has become sort of a phantom norm, where even in a statutory interpretation case like this, it's like, well, no, of course the determination isn't reviewable either because this is Congress doesn't get to tell the executive what to do.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: This is the executive branch, and our God Emperor, this syphilitic spray-tanned freak, gets to say, and do whatever he wants, and what he decides to do with the executive branch, that's final, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: And so if the Congress says it's not reviewable, then it's not reviewable, and that's that, but how he gets there is up to him.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's a good point, Michael, and it's also like an example of how prioritizing or pushing forward this unitary executive theory is sort of contra legal interpretation in general.
[SPEAKER_00]: I mean, the law, as it's interpreted, is often broken down into procedural rules and substantive rules.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: Here it's so clear that like there's a rule about the substantive decision.
[SPEAKER_00]: The making of the determination Congress says is not reviewable by by courts.
[SPEAKER_00]: However, there are procedural rules here.
[SPEAKER_00]: They're distinct in the statue as it's written.
[SPEAKER_00]: Courts take up these questions differently and different interpretation applies.
[SPEAKER_00]: based on whether something is a procedural rule or a substantive rule.
[SPEAKER_00]: And it's collapsed.
[SPEAKER_00]: These categories are collapsed in on one another, because a theory like the unitary executive theory just kind of takes over.
[SPEAKER_03]: So the biggest you hear, though, is equal protection.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: Plaintest argue that the administration violated the equal protection clause here, because their reasoning for ending TPS for Haitians was motivated
[SPEAKER_03]: racism.
[SPEAKER_05]: Ooh, that's a big accusation to make without anything to back it up.
[SPEAKER_03]: How do they come to such an audacious conclusion?
[SPEAKER_06]: Well, Donald Trump, if you recall, has said that in Springfield, they're eating the dogs, the people that came in, they're eating the cats, they're eating
[SPEAKER_06]: they're eating the pets.
[SPEAKER_06]: He said that they are poisoning the blood of our country.
[SPEAKER_06]: That's what they've done.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then when people call them out on the blood poisoning language, he doubled down at another rally.
[SPEAKER_06]: Destroying the blood of our country.
[SPEAKER_06]: That's what they're doing.
[SPEAKER_06]: They're destroying our country.
[SPEAKER_06]: They don't like it when I said that.
[SPEAKER_06]: And I never read mine comp.
[SPEAKER_06]: They said, oh, Hitler said that in a much different way.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm in a much different way like he wrote it whereas me Trump, I'm saying it all up in a much different way is is so fucking good it's so funny also to just deny reading it like how do you you can't prove the negative never read it, but I do know that it when he was saying it was different me saying it yeah it was different folks.
[SPEAKER_03]: By the way, I'm going to read a quote, all great cultures of the past perished, only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.
[SPEAKER_03]: That is by my pronounce in this correctly, eat off him, but I guess he said race.
[SPEAKER_03]: Hitler said race out loud, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: He said race expressly.
[SPEAKER_03]: Trump, of course, did not.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, therefore race neutral.
[SPEAKER_03]: Very sneaky move by Donald Trump.
[SPEAKER_03]: That way you don't know.
[SPEAKER_03]: He described Haitians in Ohio as illegal, despite the fact that they are documented under TPS.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: He asked why we take immigrants from countries like Haiti and Somalia and not Norway and Sweden.
[SPEAKER_03]: Sam Alito says, and I quote, none of the cited statements by either the president or the secretary was overtly racial.
[SPEAKER_03]: And in substance, all expressed policy views that could rest on race, neutral, justifications.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, sure.
[SPEAKER_03]: So Sam, I would love for you to explain what the race neutral policy view being expressed by saying that Haitians are poisoning the blood of our nation.
[SPEAKER_03]: Actually, yes, right.
[SPEAKER_03]: What's the race neutral poisoning the blood policy?
[SPEAKER_03]: Samelito says that these comments are not overtly racial, which is just an insane thing to say.
[SPEAKER_03]: But yeah, I guess what he means is that none of them use the literal word race, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Like, or like say black.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now, you might wonder how Alito addresses these exact quotes, like how does he argue that Haitians poisoning the blood of our nation doesn't have a racial connotation?
[SPEAKER_03]: And the answer is that he does not.
[SPEAKER_03]: He actually does not include Trump's statements in the opinion itself.
[SPEAKER_03]: Instead, he describes like categories of statements by Trump and Chrissy Nome.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's like, there are four categories of
[SPEAKER_03]: Our statements that object to immigration generally, statements opposing TPS, statements denigrating the countries that TPS applies to, and statements quote, maligning Haitians who have come to the United States.
[SPEAKER_03]: Uh-huh.
[SPEAKER_03]: Like those are the categories.
[SPEAKER_03]: Uh-huh.
[SPEAKER_05]: That last one.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: Zona.
[SPEAKER_00]: Let's talk in here, Sam.
[SPEAKER_03]: He basically says, like, making comments about poverty in Haiti is insensitive, but it's not inherently racist.
[SPEAKER_03]: But he just sort of, like, allows the worst statements, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: He, like, literally never mentions the poisoning the blood thing, which, like, I do feel like you kind of need to explain why that's not racist, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: And it doesn't quite fit in any of those four categories.
[SPEAKER_03]: I mean, I guess it's maligning, I guess it's maligning Haitians.
[SPEAKER_03]: Sure.
[SPEAKER_03]: in a racist way.
[SPEAKER_03]: I would say, once you start talking about blood, I feel like you're into what I would describe as overtly racial territory.
[SPEAKER_03]: I also think it can be a violation of equal protection if it's implicitly racial.
[SPEAKER_03]: If the implication is as strong as it is here, shall we say?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: Like if someone's like, I like people from Norway and Sweden, but not people from Haiti.
[SPEAKER_03]: Now I guess you could argue that that's not expressly racial, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: But like, let's
[SPEAKER_03]: Let's not make buffoons of ourselves.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, one brain cell, one brain cell is all it takes.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: By the way, Alito says there's no justification for denigrating the character of Haitians who suffer from and bear no responsibility for their country's ills.
[SPEAKER_03]: And it's like, OK, that's a nice thought, I guess.
[SPEAKER_03]: But like, that is what Trump did.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then he canceled TPS for them.
[SPEAKER_03]: And now the case is in front of you.
[SPEAKER_03]: And you're saying that's OK.
[SPEAKER_03]: So.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is like what conservatism is nowadays like this type of conservatism where it's like, you say it's bad to be racist and then you just do racism like the most obvious racism possible.
[SPEAKER_03]: So, Alito says, look, the motivation isn't racist, they just oppose TPS generally, but as Kagan points out in her descent, that's not how the legal analysis works.
[SPEAKER_03]: The fact that you can identify some theoretical, coherent, non-racist justification doesn't make it legal.
[SPEAKER_03]: If racial animus is a motivating factor in the decision at all, that is supposed to violate the constitution, that is supposed to violate the equal protection clause.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's absolutely.
[SPEAKER_03]: Arlington Heights standard, by the way, if you're a little legal there, but Alito basically ignores that.
[SPEAKER_03]: In the same way that he ignores what Trump said, he sort of ignores the proper legal analysis, and he's just like, look, there's a race neutral justification here.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's like, yeah, I guess so, like you can, you can say, I've thought of a reasoning for them that might not be racist.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's like great, but he also said racist things and then did this thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm now going to read some quotes to you all these quotes are from students for fair admissions.
[SPEAKER_03]: the heart.
[SPEAKER_00]: I was thinking about affirmative action.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, we're the court said that affirmative action is of course too racist.
[SPEAKER_03]: Affirmative action violates the equal protection cloths, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Hmm.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is John Roberts in that case.
[SPEAKER_03]: Quote, eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.
[SPEAKER_03]: and the equal protection clause we have accordingly held applies without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.
[SPEAKER_03]: It is universal in its application.
[SPEAKER_03]: Oh, okay, yes.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, salute to flag.
[SPEAKER_03]: Paul Eagle, crying.
[SPEAKER_03]: Oh my god, beautiful stuff, Mr. Roberts.
[SPEAKER_03]: He says at the heart of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class.
[SPEAKER_03]: When it comes to a striking down affirmative action, John Roberts feels like he's rewriting the declaration of offense.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's right.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's right and with one hand.
[SPEAKER_03]: You know what I mean?
[SPEAKER_03]: But when Trump is like, patience, disgusting poisoning our blood, eating pets.
[SPEAKER_03]: And by the way, they can't come here anymore.
[SPEAKER_03]: And they all have to leave.
[SPEAKER_03]: Roberts is like,
[SPEAKER_03]: Hmm.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: Now, this is confusing.
[SPEAKER_03]: What is this is this racism that I'm seeing?
[SPEAKER_03]: Here's some more John Roberts.
[SPEAKER_03]: By accepting race based admissions programs in which some students may obtain preferences on the basis of race alone.
[SPEAKER_03]: Respondence programs tolerate the very thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: that grutter another case for swore stereo type.
[SPEAKER_05]: Hmm.
[SPEAKER_05]: Oh, we hate stereo.
[SPEAKER_03]: Oh, it's illegal.
[SPEAKER_03]: I mean, there's no way around it.
[SPEAKER_03]: When the government's stereotypes, that is illegal.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then there's one other bit I want to touch on from that case.
[SPEAKER_03]: There was an argument it was made in the desensis made by others that
[SPEAKER_03]: schools could, for example, contemplate race kind of indirectly, if someone, for example, wrote about their experience with race in an emissions essay, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: That could be factored into the benefit of a student, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: So a lot of people are sort of talking about this as a potential sort of
[SPEAKER_03]: and run around affirmative action bands as like someone writes poignantly about their experience as a as a black kid or whatever it might be.
[SPEAKER_03]: Then schools can consider that, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: But the court said no.
[SPEAKER_03]: Universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means.
[SPEAKER_03]: The regime we hold on lawful today.
[SPEAKER_03]: Oh, what cannot be done directly?
[SPEAKER_03]: Cannot be done indirectly.
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh.
[SPEAKER_00]: So you can't just come up with something that looks race neutral.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, you can't, you can't just come up with some fake race neutral justification.
[SPEAKER_03]: And how dare you, we would never.
[SPEAKER_03]: So in affirmative action in that context,
[SPEAKER_03]: the presence of race as a factor in admissions makes the whole framework illegal, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: But here, the presence of a single non-racial factor makes the whole thing legal.
[SPEAKER_03]: It purifies the soul of the whole operation, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: The fact that there might be a race neutral element floating around amidst all the racism.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, that simply has a purifying effect.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's a healing potion for the whole operation to talk about another context.
[SPEAKER_03]: You have something like voting, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: In the voting discrimination context, we've seen repeatedly that state legislatures
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, past laws that look like there's really almost no other explanation other than racism, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: But the Supreme Court said no, it is not discriminatory unless there is evidence of overt racial
[SPEAKER_03]: and yet here they have evidence of overt racial animus and they just ignore it right uh you cannot win you cannot win with these disgusting filthy freaks you can't win with them because they are white supremacists right their segregationists and you're Confederate freaks and they like it
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, yeah, they like it.
[SPEAKER_03]: If like a woke administration was like, white, too much too many whites.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're deluding our nation's diversity or something.
[SPEAKER_03]: I just started terminating TPS status for white countries or whatever, or halting asylum claims from South Africa or whatever.
[SPEAKER_00]: It's gross how much they eat so much mayonnaise.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: They are marinara, saucing up our blood, the Italians.
[SPEAKER_03]: They're reguifying our blood.
[SPEAKER_03]: The Supreme Court would be right back to doing the weepies, suckin and declaration of independence.
[SPEAKER_03]: No consideration of race is justified, sort of opinion.
[SPEAKER_03]: we're breaking out the fountain pen and like a calligraphy signature at the yeah yeah just as a leader actually had an interesting back and forth with the lawyer about the contours of race across Europe and the Mediterranean so let's hear it if you put Syrians Turks Greeks
[SPEAKER_04]: and other people who live around the Mediterranean in a lineup.
[SPEAKER_04]: You think you could say those people are all of them?
[SPEAKER_01]: Are they all non-white?
[SPEAKER_01]: I understand that Syrians, I think, maybe classified as white for purposes of the State Department or for under certain government, you know, certain government programs.
[SPEAKER_01]: But again, I think race is, I think, you know, you'd have to hold a public to know what they think the race of the Syrian is.
[SPEAKER_01]: I certainly think they're not white and all the American people.
[SPEAKER_04]: Well, do they think Syrians are white?
[SPEAKER_01]: I wouldn't think that most would, just as Alito, I really don't know how about Turks.
[SPEAKER_01]: I honestly haven't considered what racial component I would sort Turks in.
[SPEAKER_01]: How about Greeks?
[SPEAKER_01]: I don't know the answer to that either.
[SPEAKER_04]: About southern Italians.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, certainly, certainly 120 years ago when we had our last wave of European immigration southern Italians were not considered white.
[SPEAKER_01]: So I think our concept of these things evolves over time.
[SPEAKER_01]: How about Spangards?
[SPEAKER_01]: I think say an answer.
[SPEAKER_00]: What is happening here?
[SPEAKER_05]: My man says race is a social construct.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, so if you're not following and you probably aren't, you got to be pretty good in the right wing weeds here and lucky for you your boy is all right.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, just as a leader was doing is using the concept of race as a social construct against the lips, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: He's saying, because you can't clearly define where like whiteness ends and non-whiteness begins, then how do you know what's racist and what's not.
[SPEAKER_03]: This is the kind of argument that you need to be doing in advanced level racism to know.
[SPEAKER_03]: Your baseline racism is just like, look, that's that guy's a little bit brown.
[SPEAKER_03]: Don't like the culture that they're fostering in that country, different race than me, boom, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: But Justice Alito is operating on several levels of advanced racism.
[SPEAKER_03]: So he knows about the idea that race is a social construct and he's pointing it right back at you.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's saying, well, then how do you know how do you know that I'm being racist?
[SPEAKER_03]: When you're arguing before the Supreme Court now, you need to be ready for brainworms, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: You need to be so deep in right-wing brainworms that you know that Sam Alito is going to hit you with what race are Turks.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: And the lawyer here by the way reached out to us and was talking about this exchange and I will say the only mistake he made is that he should have he should have been clear.
[SPEAKER_03]: No, so then Italians are not white not Italian you said Italians know definitely not definitely not Turks who knows racist complicated Southern Italians know absolutely not So
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: If you thought that was bad, I know what you're thinking listeners.
[SPEAKER_03]: That wasn't racist enough.
[SPEAKER_03]: What Samelito said wasn't racist enough for me.
[SPEAKER_05]: I need someone who's more racist and boy, do we have someone who's ready to deliver?
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: Clarence Thomas writes a concurrence.
[SPEAKER_05]: It is class.
[SPEAKER_03]: Clarence Thomas, a master class in psychology.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, forthcoming.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_05]: We have a classic Clarence Thomas concurrence here because he's writing for himself.
[SPEAKER_05]: He's taking a batshit crazy position and he's citing all his old opinions, which is always a joy when it's just a string of citations to Thomas, Jake, and Curing, Thomas, Jay, to sent Dean.
[SPEAKER_05]: As I said, and as I've said, how many times do I have to say it before it's the law?
[SPEAKER_05]: Don't you fucking know, I've been telling you, I've been saying, I've been saying,
[SPEAKER_05]: This one, he takes aim at the equal protection argument, and he says, look, the 14th Amendment, which is where the equal protection clause lives, was meant to bind the states.
[SPEAKER_05]: And we've talked about this on the podcast, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: This was, this is an amendment that prohibits the states from denying your equal protection and empowers Congress to pass laws to that effect.
[SPEAKER_05]: So unlike the Bill of Rights, which constrained the federal government, the 14th Amendment is about constraining the states, it does not constrain the federal government.
[SPEAKER_05]: It empowers the federal government.
[SPEAKER_05]: And so he says, look, your saying the government is denying vehicle protection, but the equal protection clause doesn't apply to the federal government.
[SPEAKER_05]: Now, there is a case, there is a case from the 50s bowling B sharp, which said, yeah, that's true, but the fifth amendment has a due process clause that says you can't be deprived of liberty amongst other things without due process of law.
[SPEAKER_05]: And hey, all our conceptions of liberty now include
[SPEAKER_05]: equal protection of the law.
[SPEAKER_05]: It is infused in the law.
[SPEAKER_05]: It is a foundational principle now.
[SPEAKER_05]: And so we all understand part of being free, part of our liberty is not being discriminated against by the government.
[SPEAKER_05]: And so the Fifth Amendment has essentially incorporated the equal protection clause into its protections of liberty.
[SPEAKER_05]: And so, when you wanna say the federal government is not giving you equal protection of the law, you bring that claim under the Fifth Amendment.
[SPEAKER_05]: And Thomas says, well, that's some bullshit because I don't see the words equal protection in there at all.
[SPEAKER_05]: And I think Boeing B. Sharpe was wrong.
[SPEAKER_05]: And I don't think the government has any duty to provide non-citizens equal protection of the law period.
[SPEAKER_03]: He makes this argument that is actually very popular in right-wing circles, which is, you really can't do immigration law without, for sure, discrimination against certain countries, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: So he's sort of like, look, like, this is part of it, discriminating against countries.
[SPEAKER_03]: and people from certain countries based on their national origin is part of immigration law.
[SPEAKER_03]: And so basically, we need like, it's allowed.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: Ignoring the obvious thing, which is animus, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's a difference between treating people from different countries differently and treating them differently because you hate Haitians or whatever, because you think Haitians are discussing an EPEPs.
[SPEAKER_03]: Like those are different things.
[SPEAKER_03]: But not to Clarence Tom.
[SPEAKER_05]: No, no.
[SPEAKER_05]: He purposely collapses the distinction there.
[SPEAKER_05]: But he does, you know, we've talked about this before.
[SPEAKER_05]: I talked about this in the United States V. Vayao Madero episode, and he had a very long concurrence there where he sort of goes into this.
[SPEAKER_05]: But yeah, he has this idea that actually the important clause in the 14th Amendment is the privileges and immunities clause, which is pertains to citizens.
[SPEAKER_05]: And he says that
[SPEAKER_05]: the equal protection clause that do process clause are sort of describing the privileges and immunities of citizenship, which would create a permanent underclass of non-citizens with fewer or no rights, which in this context where you have a president,
[SPEAKER_05]: saying, they're poising the blood of our country, they're eating the dogs and the cats.
[SPEAKER_05]: And so we need to kick them out.
[SPEAKER_05]: If you says they're not sending their best, they're sending their rapists, they're sending whatever, that that's okay because they are not citizens.
[SPEAKER_05]: They are lesser.
[SPEAKER_05]: So the government doesn't have to treat them equally.
[SPEAKER_05]: As a matter of fact, you can racially discriminate against them.
[SPEAKER_05]: He doesn't come out and say that, but that is the clear
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, you're policy implication of this framework, which is that you don't have an equal protection right against the federal government unless you are a citizen.
[SPEAKER_05]: And since immigrants are definitely not citizens, people on TPS, people on Greek cards, people on visas are not citizens.
[SPEAKER_05]: The government can racially discriminate against them.
[SPEAKER_05]: That is the clearance
[SPEAKER_05]: saying, you know, that is wildly dangerous.
[SPEAKER_05]: And we are living in the sort of horror story example you use of why it's so dangerous with the way immigrants are being treated in this country right now.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: And this is why they have constitutional rights.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes, if you look at Clarence Thomas's work like 30 years ago, he was often in he's like 8 to 1 situations where he was the only dissenter or he was like the only person concurring and he was like concurring on some with some weird theory of the constitution.
[SPEAKER_03]: And a few years ago, people started to be like, actually a lot of clearance Thomas's positions are now like the main stream conservative position, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: He was doing, you know, with the Constitution and exile thing.
[SPEAKER_03]: I'm the only one representing the true Constitution.
[SPEAKER_03]: And now you're seeing a lot more conservatives.
[SPEAKER_03]: adopt it.
[SPEAKER_03]: And you know, I think that's where a lot of people sort of left it, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: It's like, oh, now Clarence Thomas is kind of mainstream.
[SPEAKER_03]: What's actually happening is Clarence Thomas, as in a lot of ways, shifted even further right.
[SPEAKER_03]: He actually keeps doing his little right-wing constitution in exile.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just that his personal constitution gets more and more outlandish.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: And he has reiterated a lot of these ideas before, but every time he says them, they just get a little
[SPEAKER_00]: I do think there's an important connection between the majority and this concurrence, though, which is that Thomas is writing in a unique way in an isolated way, in a way that no other conservative will even join onto this opinion, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: It is that radical in terms of kind of like on its face, the language he's using, going back to bowling the sharp, the case that
[SPEAKER_00]: did incorporate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause to apply to the federal government.
[SPEAKER_00]: That decision, a unanimous decision that did that, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Like trusted, relied upon precedent for decades and decades and decades.
[SPEAKER_00]: So Thomas, yes, continuing to write singularly and in this isolated way.
[SPEAKER_00]: But in effect,
[SPEAKER_00]: Just because the majority is saying we're doing the 14th Amendment interpretation, they're getting to the same result.
[SPEAKER_00]: And they want the same thing that Clarence Thomas wants, which is the underclass.
[SPEAKER_00]: They don't want the Constitution to apply to non-citizens.
[SPEAKER_00]: They are racist.
[SPEAKER_03]: His A.B.
[SPEAKER_03]: leads to C. Whereas,
[SPEAKER_03]: Alito's does it, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: But he still gets there, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Exactly.
[SPEAKER_00]: And of course, which is why it's a concurrence.
[SPEAKER_00]: Clarence Thomas agrees, everybody's in agreement about about the result here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, but Clarence Thomas actually has a more, you know, we would say a more accurate analysis of getting to that conclusion than the rest of the conservatives are prepared or have the balls to say.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: To use some legal jargon, I would say the majority is all about legal bullshit over what is de facto segregation.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_05]: Thomas is like, no, we need to jurise like a vision, baby.
[SPEAKER_05]: We need it formalized in the law.
[SPEAKER_05]: If you're like me, sleep is really important for your mood and energy, and there are a lot of scientifically supported reasons to believe that sleeping in a cooler environment will enhance your sleep, make it more restful, and have you feeling better in the morning.
[SPEAKER_05]: But facilitates the body's natural drop and core temperature.
[SPEAKER_05]: It may boost serotonin levels and contributing to improved mood, which is why I have loved sleeping on my cozy girl sheets.
[SPEAKER_05]: They feel great, I sleep well.
[SPEAKER_05]: And so, was devastated when my dog
[SPEAKER_05]: in a failed attempt to bury a biscuit he had stolen, tore up my fitted sheet, my cozy earth fitted sheet.
[SPEAKER_05]: But it turned out to just be an opportunity to learn even more about cozy earth, about their 100-day return and exchange window, about their 10-year warranty that covers defects
[SPEAKER_05]: And so now I have a new set of cozyer sheets and I'm sleeping beautifully once again.
[SPEAKER_05]: Discover how care in every detail transform simple routines and to moments of true comforted ease.
[SPEAKER_05]: Head to cozyer.com and use our code 5-4 all spelled out for up to 20% off.
[SPEAKER_05]: That code is 5-4 all spelled out for up to 20% off.
[SPEAKER_05]: If you get a post-purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about cozyer's right here.
[SPEAKER_05]: Experience the craft behind the comfort and make every day feel intentional.
[SPEAKER_00]: The Liberals are in descent here.
[SPEAKER_00]: This descent is written by Kagan.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is a good descent.
[SPEAKER_00]: You know, sometimes when I see a Kagan descent, I think, oh, we're about to get so technical.
[SPEAKER_03]: Time to be bored.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, we're about to miss what is substantively important here.
[SPEAKER_00]: We're about to miss the real harm and the moral harm that the conservatives are doing.
[SPEAKER_00]: I think Elena actually gets it pretty right,
[SPEAKER_03]: 100%.
[SPEAKER_03]: Sometimes when the technicalities and the morality overlaps perfectly, Kagan is on point.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: She's in her bag.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's when you bring her in and she's top 10.
[SPEAKER_00]: Totally totally.
[SPEAKER_00]: So it's not just about the procedure, which, you know, Kagan is so, like, into.
[SPEAKER_00]: She does start with the procedure here.
[SPEAKER_00]: and how the administration fucked up the procedure, you know, just on this point of like the meaning of determination, remember the procedural argument that the plaintiffs are saying is that the Secretary of DHS, Kristi Nome, didn't do the right procedure in making the determination to terminate
[SPEAKER_00]: TPS status for Haiti and for Syria.
[SPEAKER_00]: The majority saying, well, the process, the steps that they took to go to, the determination, that's all just the determination and can't be reviewed by courts.
[SPEAKER_00]: Atlanticagan is saying, no.
[SPEAKER_00]: read the fucking dictionary.
[SPEAKER_00]: That's not what determination means and she's got a great quote because it's not just the dictionary definition of determination that's different from the majority's definition of determination.
[SPEAKER_00]: This definition of determination is different from the conservative definition of determination in another case.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, she says on the meaning of determination, very broad might be one description for this reading of the term determination.
[SPEAKER_00]: Very strange is another.
[SPEAKER_00]: Just last term, this court observed that the word determination is a term of everyday usage.
[SPEAKER_00]: And then said what it means, the quote, settling and ending of a controversy, the resolving of a question by argument or reasoning.
[SPEAKER_00]: The decision arrived at or promulgated.
[SPEAKER_00]: or a determinant, sentence, conclusion, or opinion.
[SPEAKER_00]: That is from a case last term.
[SPEAKER_00]: So last year, that's right.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's very funny that it's last year, I've got to say.
[SPEAKER_00]: That is from a case last year about the EPA.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, missing from those definitions, Elena Kagan says, or any other that you as an English speaker would naturally come up with is any suggestion that events preceding a determination, including required procedural steps are properly referred to as the determination itself.
[SPEAKER_00]: I love this here.
[SPEAKER_00]: She's by C, she's Sassy, she's like, don't we all speak English?
[SPEAKER_00]: Come on, you know?
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, as always I could use one line.
[SPEAKER_03]: That's like by the way, here's why they're doing this.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course, yes, of course, but I think she gets there on the the constitutional question on the racism question.
[SPEAKER_00]: She's calling out the blatant racism where she's talking about the majority's holding the majority's conclusion that the plaintiffs here have not actually shown, you know, any overt racism.
[SPEAKER_00]: in these decisions about TPS asignations, she says, no, no, no, the evidence they've offered include statements by the president, so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print.
[SPEAKER_00]: And Elena Kagan says, I'm putting them in print.
[SPEAKER_00]: She puts Trump's quotes,
[SPEAKER_00]: In the record of the Supreme Court reporter, she says Trump said, quote, Haitians probably have AIDS.
[SPEAKER_00]: Haiti is a shitt hole country.
[SPEAKER_03]: Correction.
[SPEAKER_03]: He actually said many Haitians probably have a clue.
[SPEAKER_03]: I mean, guys, come on.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just central, central.
[SPEAKER_00]: She quotes Trump, Haiti is a shithole country.
[SPEAKER_00]: Haitians are poisoning the blood of America.
[SPEAKER_00]: Haitian immigration is like a death wish for our country.
[SPEAKER_00]: Just last year, he confirmed the quote that he said during his first term.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why is it?
[SPEAKER_00]: We only take people from shithole countries like Haiti and Somalia.
[SPEAKER_00]: Why can't we have some people from Norway and Sweden?
[SPEAKER_00]: She wraps up here by saying this is racist.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is not race neutral.
[SPEAKER_00]: The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not overtly racial, but it's hard to know what that means.
[SPEAKER_00]: Haitians, Kagan says, are black.
[SPEAKER_00]: Nor regions and Swedes, not so much.
[SPEAKER_00]: The references of filth, disease, and permittiveness are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes.
[SPEAKER_00]: It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any white community.
[SPEAKER_00]: A full.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course.
[SPEAKER_03]: Kagan.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: The accusations you're throwing around here.
[SPEAKER_00]: Mm.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right.
[SPEAKER_00]: More rude than Donald Trump.
[SPEAKER_03]: I almost think she like undersales how ridiculous it is that Elito, it's not just that he doesn't mention these things.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's that part of why he doesn't mention it is so that you don't see him wrong, he is right.
[SPEAKER_03]: But part of why he's so that he doesn't have to address the actual statements, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: He abstracts them into categories, like vague categories so that the reader doesn't actually know what Trump said.
[SPEAKER_03]: And then he's like nothing here is overtly racial.
[SPEAKER_03]: But that's his way of getting around the
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just so transparent.
[SPEAKER_03]: It's just so fucking obvious that, I don't know, I...
[SPEAKER_03]: I wish Kagan said, I wish Kagan was like, one conclusion you could draw from this is that the majority no matter what they said agrees.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_00]: Peter, you mentioned Arlington Heights, it's this case from the late 1970s that's about race discrimination in housing in zoning ordinances about what housing is going to be built and who is able to get that housing.
[SPEAKER_00]: And in that case, there's this standard that's established about racial animus.
[SPEAKER_00]: about if there's racist motivation for a policy and that's standard again having been applied to equal protection claims over decades is that if there is even one racist motivating factor among others it doesn't even have to be the primary one then race is part of the motivation
[SPEAKER_05]: of like taints the entire thing.
[SPEAKER_00]: Right, it taints the entire thing and is therefore a constitutional violation.
[SPEAKER_00]: People are being illegally and unconstitutionally discriminated against on the basis of race.
[SPEAKER_00]: And so she's connecting the facts of this case to this standard.
[SPEAKER_00]: You cannot deny that race with these quotes with all of the evidence.
[SPEAKER_00]: You cannot deny that race is a motivating factor here.
[SPEAKER_00]: And even if it's not the primary one,
[SPEAKER_00]: According to our precedent, according to decades of how we've interpreted these things, if it's even one, as they decided in the affirmative action case, for example, then the policy should fail.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, there's an interesting piece about the Roberts Court jurisprudence in the Atlantic by Adam Cervor, where he pointed out that you can actually see a lot of similarities between
[SPEAKER_03]: He sort of says, you know, the colloquial and also the Roberts Court sort of portrayal of that case is that there were express racist motivations, right, that we were sort of treating the the Japanese as a distinct race and discriminating against them because of that.
[SPEAKER_03]: reasoning the court provides a little veneer of race neutrality.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's sort of like look there are like these overarching national security concerns here and maybe you know there there's sort of a built-in racial element but that's not the motivation here right the motivation isn't racism against the Japanese right it's just that this is sort of the the necessary output of the war
[SPEAKER_03]: This is something necessitated by the fact that we are at warwood Japan.
[SPEAKER_03]: He's just sort of pointing out that the idea that like there used to be this like overtly racist court.
[SPEAKER_03]: And now we've moved past that to racial neutrality is a myth that is perpetrated by the court itself.
[SPEAKER_03]: And in fact, they're reasoning mirrors some of the most terrific decisions of the last century.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, in that case, the justice who wrote the majority opinion in Quaramatsu, who go black, says, to cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice without reference to the real military dangers, which were presented merely confuses the issue, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: Like, don't don't bring race into this.
[SPEAKER_00]: Of course, Quaramatsu widely regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court cases ever,
[SPEAKER_00]: including, like, conservatives who pay lip service to that idea as well, that this was a bad Supreme Court decision.
[SPEAKER_00]: And I think we really should see the cases on race, the cases about equal protection that are coming out of this Roberts Court, as this one, I mean, just on its face, as being progeny of Korematsu.
[SPEAKER_05]: Mm-hmm.
[SPEAKER_00]: This is a core of modern decision for the context of our time, right?
[SPEAKER_00]: National Security is being argued about why the Trump administration is doing this to immigrants.
[SPEAKER_00]: Race is a factor here and conservatives are saying when you talk about race as part of these decisions and part of these policies, you're confusing the issue and you're wrong.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: We talked about this in our Trump fee Hawaii episode, which was about the Muslim ban.
[SPEAKER_05]: That was the case that purported to overturn Kormatsu.
[SPEAKER_05]: It says Kormatsu is in a footnote.
[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: But actually recapitulated, it's reasoning in large part.
[SPEAKER_05]: And I think you see a lot of the Roberts court decisions are just sort of recapitulation of Quorumatsu, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: Like the partisan gerrymandering cases where they say it's okay to racially gerrymandering if you're doing it for partisan reasons.
[SPEAKER_05]: That's Quorumatsu, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: when they allow discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation because of religious objections.
[SPEAKER_05]: That is Kormatsu.
[SPEAKER_05]: You're finding a supposedly neutral or non-discriminatory reason to allow for discrimination, right, over animes-based discrimination.
[SPEAKER_05]: This court engages in
[SPEAKER_03]: I want to point out one thing that you see from the Trump administration's policy that I think is slightly under discussed the right wing talks about legal immigration all the time anyone protected by TPS is a legal immigrant right they are here perfectly legally they are within their rights they're documented trump described patience in springfield Ohio as illegal he was of course wrong about that but
[SPEAKER_03]: The part of the policy of this administration is turning legal immigrants into illegal immigrants, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: You revoke TPS, you revoke visas, you make it harder to get visas.
[SPEAKER_03]: All of these people who are previously here perfectly legally are now here illegally, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't think our audience needs to be told this, but their actual concern is not illegal immigrants, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: There are plenty of people who were here perfectly legally.
[SPEAKER_03]: who they just said were here illegally and then eventually made it so, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: It made it so that their presence was illegal or will be illegal and then they act upon it.
[SPEAKER_03]: And I don't know, I just think it's important to keep in mind because there are 350,000 Haitians protected by TPS.
[SPEAKER_03]: who no longer will be.
[SPEAKER_03]: Right?
[SPEAKER_03]: Right.
[SPEAKER_03]: They have created 350,000 soon to be illegal immigrants, right?
[SPEAKER_03]: This is not people who are concerned with rule of law or process or anything like that.
[SPEAKER_03]: They just want non-whites out of the country.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_05]: During the election we talked about, you know, Trump threw around the number 20 million and a lot of people like nitpicked with that number, but I think we said and correctly certainly not the only ones that the point of that number is not, you know, to exaggerate the number of
[SPEAKER_05]: The point is this statement, you know, a mission statement for ethnic cleansing, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: And you just manufacture the 20 million people you want to kick out of the country.
[SPEAKER_05]: And that's what this looks like, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: And in other examples, something that's happening right now is they're taking people with hearings.
[SPEAKER_05]: Their next immigration hearings are 20, 20, late, 20, 26, or as far out as 20, 28.
[SPEAKER_05]: setting them a physical letter to their mailbox saying, you know, your case is actually next week.
[SPEAKER_05]: And then anybody who misses that because they didn't get the letter didn't see the letter in time, or literally just cannot make time for it for one reason or another gets ordered deported.
[SPEAKER_05]: So these are documented, law-biting, like all the stuff, you know, people claim to want.
[SPEAKER_05]: out of their immigrants, right?
[SPEAKER_05]: They're good immigrants.
[SPEAKER_05]: And the Trump administration is purposely trying to screw them out of their legal status.
[SPEAKER_05]: Because this isn't about legal, versus illegal, documented, versus undocumented.
[SPEAKER_05]: This is about racism.
[SPEAKER_05]: This is a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
[SPEAKER_05]: And that's what's happening.
[SPEAKER_05]: So what we said would happen and it is what's happening now.
[SPEAKER_03]: By the way, guys, I feel like we have to mention this before we sign off here.
[SPEAKER_03]: Amy County parrot has two adopted Haitian children.
[SPEAKER_05]: Right.
[SPEAKER_05]: That's not really intention with signing on to this ruling.
[SPEAKER_03]: Apparently not.
[SPEAKER_03]: Well, I think, I mean, you would, if you had some kind of respect for them as human beings, you would think that like endorsing a policy that was motivated by someone saying that they are poisoning the blood,
[SPEAKER_03]: of this nation, you'd think that someone like Amy Coneybear would have enough self-respect and a respect for children to be like, you know what, maybe that's racist.
[SPEAKER_03]: Maybe that is overtly racial.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: The Amy Coneybearer thing is it's sort of like Clarence Thomas we're like,
[SPEAKER_03]: I don't know what it is, but let's get a psychiatrist in here, you know, the psychology is all over the place.
[SPEAKER_03]: There's so much, Amy Clebert, not even writing.
[SPEAKER_05]: Nothing to say.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, nothing to say.
[SPEAKER_03]: She's just, she's like, I agree.
[SPEAKER_03]: I agree.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah, psychology dudes, psychology is so complicated.
[SPEAKER_03]: And none of the enough of us are talking about it.
[SPEAKER_03]: All right, next week, the premium episode, we're going to be talking about a few things.
[SPEAKER_03]: We're going to be talking about the purchase of Skoda's blog, the preaminent Supreme Court news operation by the dispatch, a weird bunch of conservatives, and what they've done with the place.
[SPEAKER_03]: We're going to be talking about whether Donald Trump can steal midterm elections, is he finally going to do it?
[SPEAKER_03]: We know he wants to.
[SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_03]: But he would love to fully steal an election, is he finally going to do it?
[SPEAKER_03]: And maybe whatever else is in the news.
[SPEAKER_03]: Follow us on social media at 5.4, including TikTok, folks.
[SPEAKER_03]: We're on the way.
[SPEAKER_03]: We're getting started, TikTok, Instagram, we're doing very youthful stuff with our social media.
[SPEAKER_03]: People are saying that I'm not 40, people are saying that I'm a normal age.
[SPEAKER_00]: We out here.
[SPEAKER_03]: Subscribe to our Patreon Patreon.com slash 54.0 to also build down from the access to premium and ad-free episode special events at our Slack on sorts of shit.
[SPEAKER_03]: We'll see you next week.
[SPEAKER_05]: Bye bye.
[SPEAKER_00]: Bye.
[SPEAKER_05]: Five to four is presented by prologue projects.
[SPEAKER_05]: This episode was produced by Allison Rogers.
[SPEAKER_05]: The onafoc provides editorial support.
[SPEAKER_05]: Our website was designed by Peter Murphy.
[SPEAKER_05]: Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chipston Y.
[SPEAKER_05]: And our theme song is by Spatial Relations.