March 19, 2025 • 6 mins
Sarah Isgur talks with Mendte in the Morning about the amount of power that a District Judge has and how it is affecting Donald Trump’s deportation plans.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let's talk with Sarah Isker, ABC News contributor in Washington
about that. Sarah, we're all getting a civics lesson right now. Like,
for instance, who knew about the Alien Enemies Act until now?
Speaker 2 (00:13):
You probably learned about it back in high school, but
they would have called it the Alien and Sedition Acts
because there were both Alien Enemies Acts, Alien Friends Acts,
the Sedition Act one and two. So this goes back
to seventeen ninety sorry, seventeen ninety eight, the Adams administration.
That's how far back the Trump team is going to
(00:34):
find authority for the executive actions he wants to take
on immigrants who are here not necessarily illegally, who haven't
been charged with crimes, but who, according to Donald Trump,
are part of an invasion. And that's why he's looking
at anyone who he suspects is a member of this
Venezuelan gang, even if they haven't been charged with that,
(00:54):
and even if they're here legally.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
So some of the people that were deported, because I
thought that that was an area of contention, who exactly
they were. Some of the people that were deported had
never been charged with a crime. They just were associated
with Trenday Arragua. According to the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
That's correct, and part of the confusion I think around
some of the hearing that was in court was knowing
exactly who was on these planes being deported and exactly
what time those planes took off, all things that the
administration is now saying they will not answer because of
national security concerns, and they're basically stonewalling the judge.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
If they didn't claim the Alien Enemies Act and they
did pick up someone, let's just say that was a
criminal or with or was with Trenday Arragua, what would
be what would be the normal case? What would what
would they go through to finally be deported.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
So it depends. If you're here unlawfully but you have
claimed asylum, then you are due all sorts of process
before they are allowed to deport you. If you are
here legally, you do even more process, of course, until
or unless you've been charged or convicted with a crime.
(02:16):
What this allowed Trump to do is basically fast track
those deportations without having to look at whether the person
genuinely feared for their safety returning back to their home country,
without having to go through the administrative process within the
Immigration Court. Now, of course the federal judge is saying
that they weren't allowed to skip that process, that in fact,
(02:38):
they needed to wait on him. They got those planes
to pake off at least two of the three planes
before the federal judge issued his order. He's now trying
to look into whether they ignored his court order. President
Trump calling for that judge's impeachment. And then we have
the rare statement from the Chief Justice of the United
States saying, quote, for more than two centuries, it has
(03:00):
been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to
disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process
exists for that purpose, basically saying, if you think he
got it wrong, ask the DC Circuit, ask us, and
we'll review it.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Yeah. I thought it was fascinating when Donald Trump was
interviewed last night on Fox News that this came up
Chief Justice John Roberts. Now, normally if someone would challenge
him like that, he would rip into them. He was
extremely careful with the Chief Justice. I think he knows
that this case is going to end up before him
(03:36):
and he doesn't want to make an enemy.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
There's a lot of these cases involving Donald Trump's power
that are going to end up before the nine justices
at the Supreme Court, and there's a lot of questions
over whether and how much authority they will give him
over the inner workings of the executive branch, over questions
of whether, for instance, they fired two democratic members of
the Federal Trade Commission. Congress had said that there needed
(04:02):
to be democratic members that were only removable for cause,
but they also work for the president. So who wins
in that fight, Congress or the president. Those are all
questions that the Supreme Court will have to answer here.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Yeah, it'd be fascinating to see how many of those
cases there are, because many of his actions, especially with DOGE,
are being challenged in lower federal courts, in district courts,
and it sounds like every one of them is going
to make its way to the Supreme Court. It's got
to be over a dozen at this point. Do you
have any idea?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yeah, it's certainly in a dozen now. Some of those
that we're looking at are at that preliminary stage, which
is why you're seeing quite so many of them. Once
we get down to quote unquote the merits where you
actually hash it out there will be fewer, but you're right,
we're still looking at a dozen or more cases that
they will ask the Supreme Court to review. Now, remember
the Supreme Court doesn't have to take them all, but
(04:56):
in this case by not taking them, they're making a
decision as well well by letting that lower court decision stand.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Do we know if one of the claims that the
Trump administration has on the flight of those being deported
the two hundred and some that were being deported and
sent to El Salvador, was that at that point they
were in international waters and because they were over international waters,
they didn't need to turn around at that point. Is
(05:24):
that legally valid?
Speaker 2 (05:28):
This gets really complicated. So sink back to Guantanamo Bay
and some of those cases where we were keeping in
some way very similar, right, people who had been in
the United States or in a foreign country and then
were brought to Guantanamo Bay, which was foreign soil, but
they were being held by American officials, and obviously the
(05:48):
federal courts there said there is some jurisdiction in federal
court in that case, but maybe not a lot. What
the Trump administration is arguing is that it's a well
settled principal immigration law that a federal judge I can't
require American officials to bring someone who is not an
American citizen back into the United States. So they're claiming
(06:08):
once they were over international water, he just had no
authority over that plane. Yes, no, maybe I'll tell you
the answer. Usually, you know, if you're a lawyer, the
answer is not to try your hand with a federal judge,
you know what I mean. Like you're supposed to then
(06:29):
go to the appellate court and say, hey, we don't
think he has the authority for this. Fix this. You're
not just supposed to like play chicken with a federal
judge unless you're.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
The president, because he has some power too. It's going
to be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Thanks for the civic lesson, Sarah Isker, AVC News contributor
in Washington. Thank you so much for your time. Sarah,
thank you
Let's talk with Sarah Isker, ABC News contributor in Washington
about that. Sarah, we're all getting a civics lesson right now. Like,
for instance, who knew about the Alien Enemies Act until now?
Speaker 2 (00:13):
You probably learned about it back in high school, but
they would have called it the Alien and Sedition Acts
because there were both Alien Enemies Acts, Alien Friends Acts,
the Sedition Act one and two. So this goes back
to seventeen ninety sorry, seventeen ninety eight, the Adams administration.
That's how far back the Trump team is going to
(00:34):
find authority for the executive actions he wants to take
on immigrants who are here not necessarily illegally, who haven't
been charged with crimes, but who, according to Donald Trump,
are part of an invasion. And that's why he's looking
at anyone who he suspects is a member of this
Venezuelan gang, even if they haven't been charged with that,
(00:54):
and even if they're here legally.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
So some of the people that were deported, because I
thought that that was an area of contention, who exactly
they were. Some of the people that were deported had
never been charged with a crime. They just were associated
with Trenday Arragua. According to the Trump administration.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
That's correct, and part of the confusion I think around
some of the hearing that was in court was knowing
exactly who was on these planes being deported and exactly
what time those planes took off, all things that the
administration is now saying they will not answer because of
national security concerns, and they're basically stonewalling the judge.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
If they didn't claim the Alien Enemies Act and they
did pick up someone, let's just say that was a
criminal or with or was with Trenday Arragua, what would
be what would be the normal case? What would what
would they go through to finally be deported.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
So it depends. If you're here unlawfully but you have
claimed asylum, then you are due all sorts of process
before they are allowed to deport you. If you are
here legally, you do even more process, of course, until
or unless you've been charged or convicted with a crime.
(02:16):
What this allowed Trump to do is basically fast track
those deportations without having to look at whether the person
genuinely feared for their safety returning back to their home country,
without having to go through the administrative process within the
Immigration Court. Now, of course the federal judge is saying
that they weren't allowed to skip that process, that in fact,
(02:38):
they needed to wait on him. They got those planes
to pake off at least two of the three planes
before the federal judge issued his order. He's now trying
to look into whether they ignored his court order. President
Trump calling for that judge's impeachment. And then we have
the rare statement from the Chief Justice of the United
States saying, quote, for more than two centuries, it has
(03:00):
been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to
disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process
exists for that purpose, basically saying, if you think he
got it wrong, ask the DC Circuit, ask us, and
we'll review it.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Yeah. I thought it was fascinating when Donald Trump was
interviewed last night on Fox News that this came up
Chief Justice John Roberts. Now, normally if someone would challenge
him like that, he would rip into them. He was
extremely careful with the Chief Justice. I think he knows
that this case is going to end up before him
(03:36):
and he doesn't want to make an enemy.
Speaker 2 (03:39):
There's a lot of these cases involving Donald Trump's power
that are going to end up before the nine justices
at the Supreme Court, and there's a lot of questions
over whether and how much authority they will give him
over the inner workings of the executive branch, over questions
of whether, for instance, they fired two democratic members of
the Federal Trade Commission. Congress had said that there needed
(04:02):
to be democratic members that were only removable for cause,
but they also work for the president. So who wins
in that fight, Congress or the president. Those are all
questions that the Supreme Court will have to answer here.
Speaker 1 (04:12):
Yeah, it'd be fascinating to see how many of those
cases there are, because many of his actions, especially with DOGE,
are being challenged in lower federal courts, in district courts,
and it sounds like every one of them is going
to make its way to the Supreme Court. It's got
to be over a dozen at this point. Do you
have any idea?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Yeah, it's certainly in a dozen now. Some of those
that we're looking at are at that preliminary stage, which
is why you're seeing quite so many of them. Once
we get down to quote unquote the merits where you
actually hash it out there will be fewer, but you're right,
we're still looking at a dozen or more cases that
they will ask the Supreme Court to review. Now, remember
the Supreme Court doesn't have to take them all, but
(04:56):
in this case by not taking them, they're making a
decision as well well by letting that lower court decision stand.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
Do we know if one of the claims that the
Trump administration has on the flight of those being deported
the two hundred and some that were being deported and
sent to El Salvador, was that at that point they
were in international waters and because they were over international waters,
they didn't need to turn around at that point. Is
(05:24):
that legally valid?
Speaker 2 (05:28):
This gets really complicated. So sink back to Guantanamo Bay
and some of those cases where we were keeping in
some way very similar, right, people who had been in
the United States or in a foreign country and then
were brought to Guantanamo Bay, which was foreign soil, but
they were being held by American officials, and obviously the
(05:48):
federal courts there said there is some jurisdiction in federal
court in that case, but maybe not a lot. What
the Trump administration is arguing is that it's a well
settled principal immigration law that a federal judge I can't
require American officials to bring someone who is not an
American citizen back into the United States. So they're claiming
(06:08):
once they were over international water, he just had no
authority over that plane. Yes, no, maybe I'll tell you
the answer. Usually, you know, if you're a lawyer, the
answer is not to try your hand with a federal judge,
you know what I mean. Like you're supposed to then
(06:29):
go to the appellate court and say, hey, we don't
think he has the authority for this. Fix this. You're
not just supposed to like play chicken with a federal
judge unless you're.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
The president, because he has some power too. It's going
to be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Thanks for the civic lesson, Sarah Isker, AVC News contributor
in Washington. Thank you so much for your time. Sarah,
thank you
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.