Florida Judge Says Congress Can't Make Noncitizen Voting a Federal Crime

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:00 Clip: Thank you.

0:00:03 Matt: Got a $1.82 mIllion dollar fine. She's now a permanent resident, so she's lawfully, and she's stuck with this massive fine. That's actually my gorilla. They're hiding it for me. I'm corrupt and this zoo is corrupt and they're holding onto my gorilla. If you want to buy my gorilla, I've got a deal for you.

0:00:34 Thomas: And welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 1303. I'm Thomas, that over there is Matt Cameron. How you doing?

0:00:41 Matt: You know the thing that happens when you start putting out a fire and you realize the thing you're putting out the fire with is on fire? Ever had that one?

0:00:47 Thomas: I think you're just talking about fire. It's just all everything, all fire, just yeah and

0:00:51 Matt: Just everything's on fire, yes. Just that kind of a day. But very happy to talk to you. And we've got a lot of great stuff to talk about. It's actually good news. We have majority good news today, which I didn't have to try that hard to find some good news, so I'm hoping that helps.

0:01:05 Thomas: It's uh, in fact, so Under the Radar, Matt has sold me on Under the Radar stories. He wouldn't even tell me what they were before we go. So I'm as curious as all of you.

0:01:15 Matt: We got some good ones and a very funny footnote. But let me tell you very quickly, we in time for this major criminal prosecution in Minnesota in which they're indicting a bunch of people for unlawful voting, a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida has struck down the federal statute that makes it a crime to vote if you're not a citizen.

0:01:33 Thomas: What? Boy. There's so many moving parts to that. I'm not sure what I'm rooting for in any of the situations. That's so funny.

0:01:38 Matt: It's really, when I read this, I was like, no, that can't be what he did. He only did it for one person so far. But the logic is pretty hard to argue with.

0:01:48 Thomas: Don't think you can just knock out a law for one guy. Can you? That guy doesn't have to do that.

0:01:51 Matt: Know, I don't really understand that. But yeah, exactly. This person can vote illegally and everybody else. But A great decision. I want to show you what he did here, because it's, it's really something. Then we have another fantastic decision about, I don't know if we've talked about this yet, but something I was very concerned about, because I keep seeing this with clients now, the administration did the thing that the Trump Administration loves to do, where it dredges up some law that nobody's used before, and then just uses the hell out of it. They've been doing is fining people for being in the United States. I don't know if I've told you about this, but And

0:01:55 Thomas: You all though you're under arrest. Fining them? Don't think you have told me about this.

0:02:23 Matt: This is quite an accounting opportunity to figure out the fines as they add up here, because it comes out to $998 a day with inflation. Imagine if you've been here for 20 years and such, we're getting some pretty massive fines. So that was finally stayed. I'm very happy about that because it was one really under the radar. It was one of the ways that they were punishing immigrants that was really devious because it's civil, right? It's just so much easier to do. And it ruins people's lives. Like they really think they're gonna have to pay this money back. If nothing else, it means they can never immigrate because they owe the United States $2 million or whatever. Talking about a single mom with two jobs and two kids. She's not going to come up with $2 million. It's just not going to happen.

0:03:00 Matt: Know it. News on that front. And then I want to talk about the big immigration case for the term. You know, we talked before last week about the third country removals case, which I think is going to be the other one, but the one that is actually going to make the most difference to the most people. And it's an issue that's been brewing since I brought this up with a secret memo that we weren't allowed to read last year. I think we were the first people to report on this. And And now it has become something that the Supreme Court is going to review on cert. So I want to kind of bring it home, explain what's going on, tie it back to the original reporting I did on this back when this was just a fantasy that ICE attorneys had the way back in the midst of 2025.

0:02:59 Thomas: Yeah. No, obviously. There's A sparkle in ICE attorney's eyes.

0:03:37 Matt: Yes, and now it has gone all the way to be reviewed by Samuel Alito. Yeah, I'm not optimistic to be honest, but we'll issue. It is another one of those where the Trump administration has decided that the sky is yellow, and we're just going to go with that. So there's all that. And then I promise for everybody, even though we already got plenty of good news, I found a hilarious footnote, a very, very fun footnote about that involves a gorilla that does not exist, and a federal agent playing the role of a lifetime. And a lot of gorilla shit.

0:04:04 Thomas: What? Okay. Wow. I when you think about it, most stories involve a gorilla that doesn't exist. Just in there somewhere. Yeah?

0:04:12 Matt: I'm not looking at one right now. Just as we speak, there's not one right here.

0:04:17 Thomas: Don't know if I mentioned it. There isn't a gorilla in this story. Yeah. No, I assume it's more specific than that. Sounds fun though. Can't wait.

0:04:26 Matt: It's a good time. Everything's not on fire right now, we're gonna sit and have a good and talk about, that's

0:04:29 Thomas: It was five minutes ago for Matt, but now it's all fine.

0:04:32 Matt: But I am at rest. Here we are, let's do it. Oh

0:04:36 Thomas: Can't wait. All right. Well, we'll take that first break. Let's see what's going down. Do we have anything to announce?

0:04:42 Matt: Have an announcement, yes, uh, so quick book club announcement, uh, we are going to be reading, and I'm sorry for the late start, but it's not a very long book, it's a great book, but it is called Into the Wood Chipper, uh, by Nicholas Enrich, and was a senior people at USAID or he was, and Nicholas Enrich's account from inside of what it was like to be told to dismantle this institution that he loved so much and that he'd had a big part in, um, sort of what the ways that you can, as somebody inside the system when you're being told to do that, do what you can to preserve it for the future, and it's a really interesting look at a good guy trying to do the right thing, um, October, so it's our legal horror story for the month uh literally called Into the Wood Chipper, so I thought that was pretty much yeah

0:05:13 Thomas: Spooky. Yeah now One, I'm probably gonna, I might read that one. Did you say there was an audio book? I think I asked you. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to do that because

0:05:21 Matt: Is yeah Yeah, he'll read it to you, yeah,

0:05:24 Thomas: That's such a, bigger such story than it gets credit for, you but it's everybody you hate against everything that's good, really

0:05:30 Matt: Yeah and you get to hear from somebody who really believes in the institution and like the tragedy of realizing that he's gotten to this point in his career where he's doing really well and suddenly he has to do this. That's an interesting read.

0:05:41 Thomas: That's the monthly book club, of course. And, uh, you don't want to get the usual Law'd Awful Movies coming at you later this month and all that good stuff. patreon.com/law and avoid the ads. All right. We'll be right back. Matt, under the radar story numero uno. Of

0:05:57 Matt: You got it. I'm sure you've been hearing about the Trump administration's absolute obsession, and I'm gonna cross a little bit over into Geneseo territory here, and maybe I think you might talk to her a little about this too, but they're just obsessed with the idea that people are voting illegally. And we've talked about it certainly back and forth. Just read that ICE now is being told with every ICE arrest that they have to ask people a whole bunch of questions about if they've ever voted because, I'm sure that they'll get, know, you honest and not at all coerced answers from everybody that they talk to. Up to the midterms, it's the Trump administration's administration's obsession. I'm Sure they're going to tell us that we're going to have a massive blue wave in November because, you of all of the undocumented who just rushed out to vote because that's what they're here for.

0:06:31 Thomas: Yeah, I mean, they know what's coming, so they've really got to prep the... They've got to do the world building ahead of time.

0:06:38 Matt: Talked last week about the massive complaint that's been filed against pretty much every district court judge in Minnesota. Same time, they were filing that complaint that week. I don't know if I mentioned this, but they also brought a massive voting fraud case. And it's across like multiple years and all these different people. They basically tried to find whatever examples they could, the worst examples of people voting without permission. Nobody had never really questioned the fact that the federal government has the right to charge you with a crime if you vote in a federal election illegally. Have a judge who has not only questioned that, but has struck the statute down. So I'll tell you what's going on here. I'm sending you the decision entered on the 1st of October by David Leibowitz in the Southern District of Florida. And we've got a very good Florida federal judge here. This is USA v. Chelsea Michelle Ann Cox. She is a non-citizen who is alleged to have voted. I believe she's Jamaican. I think the best way to explain this is for you to read the introduction to this order because it's really well written. I really appreciate Judge Leibowitz's commitment to writing something that everybody can read.

0:07:35 Thomas: This is an unusual criminal case. It rests upon a 40-year-old federal statute, blah-biddy-blah, that prohibits the act of voting in a federal election by a non-U.S. citizen. Until very recently, no federal court has been presented with the following question about that statute. Did Congress have constitutional authority to enact it? Huh, that's interesting. That's unusual all by itself. There's a footnote, I

0:07:59 Matt: It's actually, I'm going to have to skip this footnote for once. I know we'll

0:08:00 Thomas: Skip of a foot note, that must be a particularly bad one. But, yeah, do you want to keep going?

0:08:04 Matt: Come back to others, but yeah, Yeah, I know. So that's the setup, is like, did Congress have the power to criminalize federal voting by people who are not citizens like that? You would think that wouldn't even be a question.

0:08:16 Thomas: I would think that wouldn't really be a question. Okay. But this This case is even more unusual than that because the government's principal defense of the statute's constitutionality invokes a single Supreme Court case that is very, very weak. Let me say that a different way. Wow, that's a weird... What the hell is this writing? Okay.

0:08:18 Matt: Keep going. I like it. It's very conversational.

0:08:33 Thomas: Me say that a different way, period. The leading case cited by the government to uphold the statute is of minimal precedential value. That's not my characterization. It's Justice Scalia's. We'll get to that? Was this dictated or something? Thing was This read like it was just spoken, and then some. Okay. And the application of other binding precedent shows that the government's leading case simply does not control this one. So why does the government lead with such a weak hand? Because it's the best hand it can play. And why is that? Because the text, the structure, and... sorry, you said this was a judge no It's weird, sorry, I mean, I get that, like, it's probably because you like where it's going, but it's a weird style for a judge, I

0:08:47 Matt: I like him. Yeah. Isn't it great? I think its very refreshing because he knows that people are going to hear this this holding

0:09:18 Thomas: Guess

0:09:18 Matt: And be like, what are you talking about? Right. I guess they want to read it.

0:09:19 Thomas: Man I don't know asking me rhetorical questions in the middle of this thing and why is that because the text structure and original public meaning of the constitution show that in italics here congress does not have the constitutional power to enact the statute all right uh

0:09:33 Matt: And let's take a look at the statute before we continue. I'm going to send it to you, so of course, as we know, voting is regulated by the states, and that's part of his point, right? Florida already has a state statute that says that non-citizens can't vote in federal elections, but, uh, being charged under the federal statute says of course the state has a right to do this, but the federal government doesn't literally 18 U.S.C. 611 is the statute in question. It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for electing any federal office. Basically they list off all the federal offices, um, just would not think, um, that'd be an issue. Basically the only exceptions are if, um, you know, you might be a citizen by the operation of law, which happens with your parents sometimes, um, if you reasonably believed at the time of voting that you're a citizen, which could happen. You can definitely have had people who believe they're citizens who aren't. It does happen. Those are the only exceptions. And he's going to explain why Congress actually did not have the authority to pass this statute. I really think this thing has legs.

0:10:22 Thomas: Right away when you said, like, well, the states have a law about this. It's like, oh yeah, that's, I mean, isn't that a basic preemption or whatever the heck it's, what is it called? Uh, it's the federalism stuff, right? I mean, there's that stuff where it's like the states can do it or the federal government can do it, but if the federal government's going to do it, it has to, like, specifically preempt the states, right.

0:10:41 Matt: But you'd think this might be a federal preemption, because we're talking about federal elections and federal people. Says it all, right? The Constitution grants the states and not the federal government the general authority to pass voter qualification laws. And what he's saying is this is a voter qualification law because it requires the federal government to go in and look to see if you're qualified to vote. And of course, it's the federal government that determines whether or not you're a citizen. So, you'd think that it might be. He's pointing out that the only case they're citing here, this 1970 Supreme Court case, doesn't really say what they say it says. And that, as he says, even Scalia finds against them, essentially. It's just never been actually full -on looked at. Just thought this was fascinating, because I didn't hear anything about this this week at about about the fact that a federal judge struck down one of the primary tools that the Trump administration is trying to use right now against non -citizens and to put its narrative that all of these people are voting illegally, which we already knew, like those of us who are touch with reality already understood that this is not happening very often at all. Much more likely that you're doing the kind of thing that a lot of Republicans have now been caught doing where they're voting in the wrong state, where they actually are residents of Florida and they vote in Michigan or whatever. He's just going for all the potential constitutional bases that the government is saying they have. They think that they have an elections clause from the Constitution, the elections clause that allows them to, quote, protect the integrity of federal elections, that election clause does not actually allow them to to voter for qualification. And that's that's something that's very important right now, because, you know, we saw what happened with the USPS mess, the idea that they could mess with state ballots. Right. That's just so sacrosanct. You have to let the states do it. And the election cause, of course, says that the time, place and manner of holding elections shall be prescribed by the states. But only Congress can by any time make law or alter such regulations except to the place of choosing senators. Saying this just stretches it way past the textual limits that the states have to be able to say who can vote and who can't. And it's unconstitutional as applied to this one person who's being charged with this one crime, because this is a motion to dismiss in a one criminal case. They're not looking for an injunction to say that the entire thing is struck down. But that is essentially what he's doing for this oneperson in this case. And I I think that this is really helpful. I hope the Minnesota judges are looking at this. And I'm sure that there's going to be motions to dismiss now on every single one of these cases ever brought going forward, because this is pretty strong logic. I love it. I just love to see it, that you have a judge being this bold.

0:12:48 Thomas: And it's just never come up.

0:12:50 Matt: 40 years, because there's a reason it's never come up, because very few people are ever charged with this, because that hardly ever happens.

0:12:55 Thomas: Takes a particular kind of asshole for us to be in this position.

0:12:59 Matt: Exactly. Once again, as with so many other things, the Trump administration has to push it to the limits to have us realize that this is actually maybe something that Congress couldn't do at all.

0:13:07 Thomas: Okay. So which part, yeah, I'm not sure I totally get it. Which part can they not do and which part can, they can do?

0:13:16 Matt: What he's saying is essentially it is this statute, the way it's written, is that it is a voter qualification statute, that you're saying that we're going to exclude kinds of people from voting in federal elections. And he's say that is exclusively the state's job. Can regulate other things about elections. But yeah, no, I know. No, it's an interesting thought because you would just, I wouldn't have given it a second thought that the federal government can say, we determine who's not, who is and isn't a citizen. And therefore we can say that people aren't citizens, don't get to vote and it's a crime. That's part of his point is it's, you know, it'S a crime, itS a pretty serious thing. So, you KNOW, we have to take it seriously.

0:13:48 Thomas: Okay, so to clarify, does that mean a state could say that non-citizens can vote?

0:13:53 Matt: Yep, they can and have. And he said, that's perfectly fine for Florida to do. And he said, if Florida had charged her, yeah, no federal elections. Yeah, because the states have to do it.

0:13:56 Thomas: In federal elections or in huh really MAGA conspiracy theorists are not that wrong when they say that we could, like, California could just be like, all right, all illegals, you get to vote. Am I crazy, how could that be right it's

0:14:11 Matt: In terms of it's not a crime, I guess. I don't know. But yeah, I know. Yeah, we're getting into strange territory. But He's talking about what he considers the worst problem with this section. He says the voter qualification clauses are a foundational limit on federal authority, motivated by the framers' aversion to concentrated power. Know, he says it's first impression, but this is the way it looks. Have to think maybe the Supreme Court would see it differently perhaps uh the way they've been handling the voting stuff but uh you know it's it's just a really interesting out of nowhere left field decision that I did not expect and I thought it was worth talking about

0:14:13 Thomas: Not a crime okay yeah yeah Yeah. Yeah. And it's not like it's, you know, it's a federal judge. It's not like it'S nothing.

0:14:46 Matt: No and then I've got another under the radar unexpected story um as to the fines I was telling you about. I'll tell you a little bit of the history here. Is a statute that, as I said, it's been around for long time, but at least since 1996 when they had the big immigration reform. And at the time, the idea was it was $500 a day. And regulations allow anything in statute to be adjusted for inflation. So unfortunately, $500 per day can now be $998 a day, I the original idea of penalizing people for willfully failing or refusing. Now this is part of the the problem for the purposes of the government here is it has to be willful. And there are people out there who just don't know they have deportation orders. This actually happens all the time. So mail, you didn't go to court. Milo Yiannopoulos, we've talked about just last month, ended up getting deported. He claims he didn't know.

0:15:27 Thomas: Well, he might have willfully

0:15:29 Matt: He may have willfully.

0:15:29 Thomas: Done. Well, we'll see.

0:15:31 Matt: His official story is he didn's know. And some evidence he may not have, but hard to say. Of course, they have to put that in there as well, because what if you're doing 20 years for a bank robbery, right? You've overstayed for 20 years. They can't fine you for that. We did in 1996 in the single worst immigration reform in world history, changes to every part of the system. A lot of the things I complained about in the immigration system were introduced at that point. And one of those things was the set of fines that come with all this. Now there's a criminal version of this, as I said, but there's the civil version. Of course, anything that's civil is much easier for them to enforce and you get far less due process. 1997 until 2017 in the first Trump administration, it was not not being enforced. And even in the first Trump administration, because evil takes a while to get going sometimes, what I saw, they charged like 25 people with it during that time. And the total fines that got paid out came out to something like $4 ,500 or something. Alone, they had whole operation where they were targeting people who were living in sanctuary and churches, just to really stick it to these churches. The time, you had an actual, they had to give you notice, and they had give you a right to an appeal, and you could take it up. The Board of Immigration Appeals basically upheld this. There's a separate penalty for voluntary departure, which makes a little sense, because with voluntary departure you're being told by an immigration judge, you have this much time to leave, if you don't leave it becomes a removal order, you've been given notice, you're in court, like you can't accidentally get get voluntary departure the way you could get accidental removal order. Departure one is also being challenged, and that's also being stayed. I'm going to say right now that the way the District Court of Massachusetts Judge O'Toole did this, I really appreciate it, but I think it's a little too broad, and I think he's going to get punished punished for it. I think he's gonna get slapped down, I should say, because this, to me, resembles a universal injunction for reasons I'll talk about. I, I think it is a little broad.

0:17:03 Thomas: Forgot. Don't have those anymore.

0:17:05 Matt: Biden administration, of course, rescinded this when, after the Trump administration set up this whole whole new rule. And then of course, Trump comes in, signs an executive order that becomes what we call the, interim final rule for the imposition and collection of civil penalties for certain immigration offenses. So thing is harsh because it basically removes the notice, it removes any merit to an appeal, and it makes it extremely difficult to challenge. And of 30 days, you have 15 days, and it raises everything to $998 a day. So I've seen some of these bills. I mean, people have brought these in, and best we could tell them was try to join this class action that's happening right now, this one that is just being settled in Massachusetts, which is now binding on the country, because there's nothing we can do for you. This is going to require impact litigation by the big guys, and that's what's happened. Big civil rights guns have come out. This is just one of so many different immigration programs that most people haven't even heard of that has not even made the news, right? And this has one of the most punishing ones short of actually locking somebody up this is about the worst thing that you can do to them right of putting this thing over their head because you're talking about people to get US citizen kids that might have the right to immigrate in the future even if they have to leave the country now and how are they ever gonna do that if they owe the country this much money they're never gonna get visas and very intentional and it extremely cruel and is a really good decision I really like the way that it's written not quite as conversational as the last one but it's It's very straightforward and it's a little more complicated, but essentially,

0:18:22 Thomas: This one's not, you know what grinds my gears? These fines that they're trying to put on people.

0:18:28 Matt: What's the deal with these fines?

0:18:29 Thomas: Says to my wife the other day, I says, it's pretty much like it was boring

0:18:32 Matt: Yeah, pretty much. I don't know. I'm defending Judge Leibovitz.

0:18:37 Thomas: On that. Yeah. I don't know, man.

0:18:38 Matt: We'll link to it, but you can decide for yourselves, listeners. But I think Judge Leivovitz is pretty cool. I would hang out.

0:18:40 Thomas: It was weird. Yeah.

0:18:43 Matt: The rest of the decision, I will say, is written in a very straight ahead judgeable way. And like, it's

0:18:44 Thomas: Look, I'm not a formal guy. I'm very informal guy, but like, I kind of expected federal judges are going to be that way. Like somebody should be formal, right?

0:18:56 Matt: Though, so this is yet another thing where they're trying to make new law through regulation. And that's what he's finding. They're actually changing the substance, not just the full procedure and removing any kind of notice or appeal rights, essentially. Much like the next thing we're going to talk about, just because you haven't used it, just porque it's been dormant essentially for 20 years, doesn't mean that it's not the law. But it is something you come to rely on and suddenly when you come and just start doing this in massive amounts to the maximum possible to a whole lot of people at the same time it's gonna get judges attention and this rule is pretty strict and as usual they skipped everything and they didn't do the proper notice and comment that just seems to always happen and

0:19:31 Thomas: They ever done a notice and comment?

0:19:32 Matt: Nobody knows the right way, even Obama did it all the wrong, all the time, um Yeah, they had all kinds of issues, um, to some courts, but there's also a weird clash because there's the civil version of it and there's the criminal version of it, and one version doesn't have willful in it and the criminal doesn't, that's... and it's very important because there are lots of ways you could not willfully — gets confusing, but this is a mess. But I was looking around the world and I could not find any examples, like I looked up, like, the UAE, right, because the UAE famously, and a lot of the countries in that region, have extremely strict immigration laws, um, is actually in that Douglas Murray video, the one part that I don't think we watched, this part, but he's talking about how, like, here in Qatar, like, they'll deport you on a dime, right? That's just like this, this is, they have very strict laws here. It's true. But the UAE, even if I'm getting this right, it's about $14 a day for all visa types. And there's no official cap, but I mean, that could be a while, obviously it could add up, but it's nowhere near $998 a day. Other countries, like I found something in Italy that's, there's actually like a fixed range that can't be, I think more than 10,000 euro, right. I mean, again, it makes sense, it's a penalty, you have a remove order, that's civil, you have to have a civil way to enforce it, um, you know, I get all that, but just to make sure the human face is on this, the two big plaintiffs here, they're a Massachusetts nail technician who's been fined hundreds of thousands of dollars under this Section 1324d, which is a civil one we're talking about here, and the other one is just a regular woman working two jobs, she's under an order of supervision, which means that she's already known to the government, she's been allowed to check in with ICE, which makes it extra cruel, right, when you're suddenly saying out of nowhere, because you stayed here, because we let you stay here all this time, now we're going to fine you. She got a $1.82 million dollar fine that was affirmed on appeal, and this is why this is extra important, to her. She's now a permanent resident, so she's here, she's lawfully, and she's stuck with this massive fine. Is really important, and it's such a massive weapon in their arsenal.

0:21:19 Thomas: I see. So they've gotten around the intent thing by having it be a civil thing rather than criminal, is what you're saying?

0:21:25 Matt: When you're under an order of supervision, when you are being allowed to check in, which means essentially they are giving you a break for a while, letting you check in. And eventually they will put you on a departure plan, make you buy a ticket and go home. But the deal you make with an order supervision is I will keep showing up, doing my check -ins. And there is a lot of misreporting on this in the media, unfortunately. I don't know how many times you have seen these stories, but there are so many stories of like, you mother goes to a routine ICE check -in. It's not a routine check -In. She is a deportation order, and they are checking in to make sure that she has committed any crimes and still is at the same address and isn't going anywhere, and then they'll give her another year to come back. That's not the same as an immigration interview where you're trying to get a benefit. That is just them allowing you to stay here. That's an important distinction. And of course, if they're giving you that reliance, they can't just come back around and fine you. Much all of the very cruelest immigration policies. Now, of course, we talked about one last week that is slipping through, but it was stayed for quite a while, third country removals. Worst of them are still being stopped routinely by federal courts and are not in effect. We'll talk about one next that is on its way to the Supreme Court now. But a lot of the stuff has been blunted by good judges like this. Is how it should be. Are real people facing very real situations. Graduations. And understand to a point, again, if you were told in immigration court, you are being ordered removed, you have this much time to leave, you're getting voluntary departure and you have six months and you don't have to go. Understand the point of saying it should be a fine maybe, but we have to cap it at some point. It becomes cruel and unusual at some point when you're talking about millions of dollars for working people.

0:22:48 Thomas: It's not like they're getting this money from anyone. So what do they do? Do they use it to just scare people more, or does it help them get people out of the country?

0:22:55 Matt: Yeah. And keep them out. I going to get that visa. You owe them that much money. I mean, the interesting thing about the order is that it stays everything. It all 65 ,000 of the fines they've already put out. It stays the rule itself. Looks a lot like a universal injunction. I think it's a little much under CASA. I understand that it was good intentions. Because he's going so far beyond these two plaintiffs, I think probably what he's supposed to do was stay it as to these two plaintiffs and say that, you know, we'll see about these previous 65 ,000, but going forward, you have to stay it. The stay in some degree is going to survive, but I don't think the whole thing is. But did a good thing, certainly, by trying to stop all of it. I'm just a little concern about how broad this actually is. It's still a great decision, and I think The First Circuit is fundamentally going to uphold,

0:22:57 Thomas: Because I see, but Importantly, pre that stupid CASA decision, this is fine, right? Right, completely

0:23:44 Matt: This would have been a lot easier. Just to remind everybody, of course, that was the first birthright citizenship decision, which had nothing to do with birthright citizenship, which said that you can't have a universal injunction against one federal rule that just applies to everybody that it might possibly apply to. That you have to narrow it down to the people in front of you. And conceivably, I guess, that you have to have everybody who might be affected come in front of the court at some point, which very stupid. There still was, we've talked about ways to get around that, different kinds of ways to form a class certification, which is what they should do. We should have an actual class certification now and just build that record. There's going to have to be more developed on what willfully actually means for this purpose because it's pretty broad and he doesn't really get into it as much um you is promising I still think it's a great thing and for now just having the stay in effect and not having to have these people worry about it is well worth it and so far I haven't really seen anybody talking about it so I thought we should that's

0:23:45 Thomas: This is routine that's what we do here all right well this is awesome because this was just a really fascistic thing to intimidate people who really already need it and are some of the least privileged people in our society

0:24:38 Matt: Least likely to ever be able to pay it and yeah and meanwhile think

0:24:42 Thomas: Threatening them with bazillion dollar fines is just ridiculous

0:24:45 Matt: About all of the corporate fines I mean I know this is such an obvious point you know but all of the the wage theft from these same people that has never been

0:24:49 Thomas: And and even Even when we do find a corporation, if you were to do the equivalent for these immigrants, the fine would be negative five dollars. It wouldn't even be anything relative to their purchasing power.

0:25:01 Matt: Well first time offense for hiring knowingly hiring an undocumented person I believe is a thousand dollars per person so like ver and that's how much they're paying per day under this order per day so of the law in this country and many places.

0:25:16 Thomas: So you say it's too broad and going to get you worry about this just getting struck down right away, though.

0:25:22 Matt: Yeah, I think it's going to be narrowed down or struck down. Think It's still possible that striking the past ones could survive, but it's going to have to probably come in front of the Supreme Court at some point. As far as I know, this Is the first decision on this point, and certainly it is a national injunction, so I guess the judge thinks so too. Too. But, news for now. And it is once again, the federal court's court's doing the right thing and stopping the very worst of this stuff.

0:25:42 Thomas: Right. Another good news story. Well, we've got to take a brake and we'll be right back to talk Supreme Court. Uh right matt supreme court uh is their time when they're they're on vacation but it's a working vacation you know or whatever or they come back yet I can't remember yeah

0:25:59 Matt: They're still checking their emails. All the way back on July 18th, 2025, a beleaguered younger immigration attorney came to you and you about a new secret memo that he had just learned about. And this was in OA 1174, if you want to go back and listen to that. And that at the time was breaking news that we were getting this confirmation that ICE was making an argument in immigration court that had never been made before.

0:26:23 Thomas: Wow, that feels like yesterday to me.

0:26:25 Matt: I know. And rewriting reality, basically. I went through the complete legal explanation at that time and what was kind of the state of the law and what was going on. And I can give you kind of an update, and I give you a summary here, but it is very complicated. But the essential thing you need to know is that there are two basic statutes in play here. I'm gonna do the immigration lawyer thing. I'm gonna refer to them by their INA citations because this is how we do it, Immigration and Nationality Act. Instead of referring to the actual U.S. Code, Not going to refer to the INA, I'm just going to be talking about the INA because that's how I remember it, but it is still 8 U.S.C. 1225-1226. Not going to go through the entire legal explanation again, but what I will tell you is that there are two ways to treat people essentially when they're being held in custody. There's only one way they're really being treated, but there's two ways legally to treat them. They're going to be eligible for bond or they're not, depending on how they entered. Now there's lots of other factors that determine whether or not they can be eligible for a bond that mostly have to do with criminal charges, but in terms of looking at somebody and saying, does the court have jurisdiction to consider your case at all? You came on a tourist visa, as is about half the people who are here undocumented right now, you came in a tourist or student visa and overstayed it, there's never been any question that the has jurisdiction to consider your release because you were lawfully entered and inspected and you're put into removal proceedings under 1226, the provision that governs actual removal proceedings. Me explain how important this is because the

0:26:47 Thomas: Does that mean yeah uh you right

0:27:42 Matt: Outcome of this case, I'm already getting technical on you. I want to make sure that we get the broader humanitarian view here. The outcome of this case will determine how many people are going to be held in ICE custody. And right now it is a lot, because this has been in effect since the time of the secret memo. This is the reason, just to set this up, this case is the reason why I've had to go get habeas petitions for every single person in ICE custody that we've been working with, except a few that did actually enter in visas.

0:28:05 Thomas: Because it didn't used to be the case that automatically you just get you just go into custody yeah

0:28:10 Matt: That you're held and it's mandatory, right? The way that the law views it is either way the law viewed it, I have to remember this is not the law officially right now for a lot of places. You came over the border without inspection, you are able to get a bond hearing, to get it reviewed, because you're not what's called an arriving alien. You weren't somebody who was seeking admission. But if you were seeking admission, which means if you came in on what's called parole or another form where you're entering through a port of entry, your is determined by ICE and not by the immigration courts. And of course, ICE is not going to reconsider your custody. You can ask, but they won't. They've always had the ability to set their own bond. So and this used to happen a lot under other administrations, where ICE would actually arrest somebody and then give them an order of bond on their own, right, without the immigration courts being involved. They could just say, you can come back if you give us $10 ,000. Has always had authority to set bonds. So the question becomes, who has the jurisdiction? Is it Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or is it the immigration court, which of course are a division of the Department of Justice? Always, it's always been a pretty simple division the entire time I've been practicing right up until last year, that if you came on parole, you're ISIS jurisdiction. And if you came any other way over the border, then you're the court's jurisdiction. It's a pretty easy way to remember it. Again, just remind everybody, this is not like criminal parole. This is just permission to enter the United States. If You walk up to the border and seek asylum, then You're going to be given that. That. A lot of people come seeking asylum over the border because it's the way that they're brought here. And it's easier because of entry have been clogged for a long time with people seeking asylum, and there's been these months -long waiting lists. Comes down to the definition of what's called an arriving alien. And we talked to Aaron Reichlin-Melnick about this as well. I talked about it in this episode I'm telling you about where we first brought it up. But you would think arriving would mean you just got here.

0:28:12 Thomas: Oh what

0:29:48 Matt: But no. new interpretation under this ICE memo has been that it's anybody who's even if they've been in the United States for 20, 30 years, they're still arriving. They're still in the process of getting here. Bought a house, had three kids, got married. Don't have to get a good job, but you're still arriving. Kind of twisted things around and they've looked at some original source from 1996 that tells them that they think that they can do it this way. There is an argument. I mean, I will still man this. I will say that it is possible that there might be some people in Congress who thought that this was what they were doing when they pass this law. I'm not going to say that's impossible. It is not how it has been interpreted for all of this time. Was one habea petition that made some waves, I thing it was Washington state last year, that before all this kicked off where a judge had found this. And then the Board of Immigration Appeals made a series of decisions that made us start to wonder if they were heading this direction, if to get to the point where they're going to say that everybody who came over the border is an arriving alien who's subject to

0:30:34 Matt: What?

0:30:34 Thomas: Do you mean last year? I thought this happened like already. There's

0:30:36 Matt: The beginning of last year. Yeah. So this is the November guys are going in July. I think they got some ideas. This idea had been percolating apparently.

0:30:40 Thomas: See okay so it happened really fast I guess

0:30:43 Matt: Yeah, it this is actually more good news that I want to make sure I mentioned. At the time. I, said huge plans to build these massive warehouses that we've talked about before that you might have seen and they've been stopped. These are things have become like the data centers of immigration. Wants these giant human warehouses. And land deals have been canceled. Protests have worked. This is one place, and I think I said this at the time, where you can have so much local pressure because it's development. Anything that involves local development, you can stop if you get together. This ist one place where people can always organize. And these fights have been winning, even in deep red places. Have not yet had a single one of these massive inhumane warehouses built. We have plenty of other inhumano facilities. We've got alligator alcatraz and such. We 'v e got plenty of of their detention facilities. But I'm going to say it's one of the major wins of the Trump administration so far for the good guys, for regular people, for organizers and the people on the ground, that every time they have fought one of these warehouses, it hasn't worked.

0:31:33 Matt: They were thinking at the time, they're gearing up for, we're going to be doing mass deportation. We're going be holding as many people as possible. And the only way we can do mass deportation is to mess with the law, is to change the law so people can't get out.

0:31:43 Thomas: Wait, I thought we learned on Wednesday that buses really are what you need didn't think of it. They're not smart enough. They're not as smart as your heartthrob boyfriend Douglas Murray

0:31:46 Matt: That's right. Buses are the way. And they not listening, Douglas Murray, my problematic fave and my problematic crush um trying not to get too technical here but I really want people to understand the stakes that are going on because you most of the circuits to consider this pretty much every district court and at one point when I've come back to this topic a few times on the show over the last year uh one point I showed you a footnote in one of Those footnotes that really gets me going one of the very exciting footnot where it's pretty much the whole page which most people hate but I just think is wonderful because I'm just a huge perf um making a point in this footnote of basically like here's every federal district court and every decision that has found this is wrong every we bring this habeas petitions we win because in massachusetts they have no patience for this all over new england we've pretty much never lost one of these habes and this is happening everywhere again even in very red states the judges have found across the board and ice just keeps filing these responses to our habeas that are like, well, you know, you found the same way the last 500 times. You'll probably find it this way too. If you were to find this way, I guess this is what we have to do. Refuse to back down because this is the single most powerful tool in the mass deportation toolbox that they have is the idea that we can't release them.

0:32:53 Thomas: My impression from you too is it's just a numbers game of they're just getting away with what they can get away with right they don't care that the argument's bad

0:33:00 Matt: Exactly, and they don't care if every district court in the country disagrees with them, which is pretty much true. They're going to keep doing it because it means that anybody without a lawyer which is almost everybody is not going to get bond because they're not going able to go get a habeas within the time they need to do it they're not going be able to do their own bond hearing um know you've just added a massive new step a completely pointless step to the process in which you have to go to a federal court and say well here I am here's the thing they're saying and the federal court immediately within 24 hours basically just you orders a bond hearing in some cases orders you released if they really don't like the way that's been done. Is the question. And is why I don't want to get too much in the weeds about 235 versus 236, because it matters so much about next two years, especially when Trump is unleashed and when he potentially has a Congress that is not going to be getting along with him. He's still going to have all of the ICE authority. They're still going to have these detention facilities. Congress can try to regulate them however they can. They can try to shut them down. They try to defund ICE. It's going to be very difficult to do. Hope they do everything they possibly can. As as they have this tool, and I'm concerned the Supreme Court is going to affirm this tool. Have enough tools available on the Supreme Court to

0:34:02 Matt: Potentially do it.

0:34:03 Thomas: Shouldn't they have to recuse because they're tools sorry you're a tool you can't be judging your own yeah

0:34:05 Matt: That's right. It's just too close. That'S right. Circuit, to of course mine has found that this is illegal and shouldn't be happening this way, um, person in question here, Robosa de Cunha, uh, been living here for 20 years. I can you say he's an arriving alien? This is insane and have to mean what they mean, what they actually mean. So

0:34:27 Thomas: You think for those originalists, no one ever would have thought arriving alien means someone who lives here for 20 years? Yeah.

0:34:32 Matt: Right, we've, right, got this mess, of course, because as I predicted, the Fifth Circuit found this was fine. Of course, the Fourth Circuit presently, and probably indefinitely, has the most detention facilities in the country. It is where they are all concentrated, Texas, Louisiana. Doesn't really matter what the rest of the country says if that's where the people are being held.

0:34:49 Matt: And that's the problem. So we have to have the Supreme Court settle it. And of course we have an an unfortunate situation right now in which the Fifth Circuit has found one way and the rest of the country. So depending on where you're being held, you have different rights, right? And that shouldn't happen anyway. So is huge for of the future immigration enforcement and for the Trump plans for the next couple of years and potentially for whatever future Republican administration wants to do anything like this in the future. These kinds of little technical differences about whether your notice to appear is issued under INA 236 or whether that you're charged with arriving alien and are no longer eligible to be, you know, it's just, it's, it'S that kind of thing, right? It's just the stuff matters. It matters a lot. Don't know how to explain to people that it matters, except that this this is how they do mass deportation or not.

0:35:29 Thomas: You're saying the supreme court's looking at this so is this logistic

0:35:32 Matt: Just took cert last week.

0:35:33 Thomas: Cert but is this a shadow docket thing or

0:35:35 Matt: Potentially, yeah, there, there could be a shadow docket stay in I which mean this is my nightmare in which they say that all the other circuits are wrong and they're going to go with the government's interpretation and we can't have any more habeas. I means that's very possible, um don't know if they have enough votes for that necessarily see I really don't now I'm not sure how this one's going to come down it's such a technical point I'm really going to predict right now without having seen the briefing and how it's going to be put together I'd be interested to hear the arguments um how the justices react to this this could be one of those where gorsuch actually ends up being a white knight I don t know I really dont know but

0:35:47 Thomas: Could be really bad yikes that's what we have to hope for this sounds scary matt all

0:36:08 Matt: Right it is yeah that's why I saved it for last year because it's not great news um mean it's good news in a sense that they're taking cert because otherwise we're stuck with the fifth circuit forever having this rule um they detain everybody we got to get a decision on it but it's see we'll

0:36:21 Thomas: Right well we'll keep an eye on that for sure uh on that dismal note let's take a break and then get to the footnote which uh matt's excited about I am too but I don't know what it is so all matt what do you got

0:36:29 Matt: Sure am what if I told you that I had a gorilla that I could sell you would you be interested in that

0:36:41 Thomas: I'd say not again I'm not gonna fall for this again oh

0:36:46 Matt: Because it could actually end up being a guy in a gorilla let's see that could happen and it did in fact yeah it's pretty funny uh think it's funniest sting operation in U.S. history I just learned about this it's actually from 1993 so this is not new news um this is actually a fascinating case in a lot of different ways uh we'll get to the trial part I I really wish that the trial were probably not lost to history I maybe someday I this might be a dream gavel gavel if I could track down the testimony from like three days of this case be very funny um is a weird situation we've got the director of a zoo in Mexico. He's under a lot of pressure because there's some kingpin in Mexico who's very upset that this gorilla died in the zoo. And he's under all the pressure to get into a gorilla.

0:36:51 Thomas: I'll take that that's fine from the gorilla yeah the not gorilla wait I just want to make clear we've had a gorilla story before that was the or no it was a bear I'm sorry the bear okay I just I was like we've had a fake animal story before which is I'm remembering is a different story where it was like the car insurance fraud something trying to pretend to be a bear okay so are we getting another one of those yeah

0:37:32 Matt: It was a bear. We did have a guy in a suit story. Yes. Right? Yes. Yeah. Case, of course, they destroyed their own cars in a bear suit. It was actually a Fish and Wildlife employee reviewing the video that was like, that's not a bear. These people did not have have that kind of expertise. I will just tell you right now. Know, this guy is under pressure, Victor Bonneau, and he is going up and he meets with this guy in Miami who's an informant because he himself has been smuggling animals. He got caught. And so he flips and helps the government and he sets up this crazy scheme where he takes this guy who's the director of a zoo to the Miami Zoo and he points at a gorilla in the zoo and is like, that's actually my gorilla. They're hiding it for me. He took him after hours to meet the gorilla, Moha. I'm corrupt and this zoo is corrupt and they're holding onto my gorilla. If you want to buy my gorilla, I've got a deal for you. This was the sting.

0:38:29 Thomas: This is the new I've got a bridge to sell you or whatever if you believe that I've got a gorilla to sell you

0:38:33 Matt: I've cut a gorilla in Miami. That's right. Yeah. So this guy was a little nuts, the informant, it turns out. Name was Picone and he had a lot of fun playing a character called Jorge Blanco, George White. He was wearing a wire. He was just going off apparently the recordings from this are hilarious um halfway through the sting

0:38:50 Thomas: Wait that's the sting operation is trying to sell a fake gorilla that or a gorilla that you don't okay if it's a sting can't they do something better than that because that's stupid yeah

0:38:55 Matt: Gorilla you don't own uh they know the guy wants a gorilla and also I should make it clear you want there's some other monkeys involved the gorillas aren't monkeys but you know what I mean there's other apes and such uh also kind of a moment that's very funny he's like well this is an illegal permit uh and you can't buy these animals legally he like says it very clearly just to be as clear as possible that like and this is like a forged permit essentially um wired ninety two thousand five hundred dollars um this guy's account and

0:39:06 Thomas: Primates yeah yeah who does this one mark all

0:39:24 Matt: This guy from mexico uh he gets me ninety ninety two five hundred for these apes and customs at the time before we we get CBP. Federal Customs supplies a plane, a cage, and some gorilla manure. That's my favorite part.

0:39:39 Thomas: Some crew you think think they just had that and they're like oh we can like

0:39:43 Matt: Where did you get gorilla manure? So

0:39:46 Thomas: A gorilla took a dump in here and no one's cleaned it up uh and we also have this no

0:39:53 Matt: To sell this, they had to go down to a costume store and buy a gorilla suit. Got a guy who apparently was very good at making monkey noises. That was his qualification they said this yes that's right go for the best that's

0:40:05 Thomas: They got andy circus to like there's like there'S ONLY ONE man for this job.

0:40:11 Matt: Great we played king kong he'd go on to great great things it'd be a really funny anti -circus origin story did

0:40:16 Thomas: Think, yeah, not, not King Kong. The, the, the Planet of the Apes thing, I think you're thinking of, right?

0:40:21 Matt: He also play king kONG in the remake I don't know I I assume he plays every animal but I could be wrong I don' know yeah

0:40:25 Thomas: You know, maybe you're right. I don't know. All

0:40:28 Matt: Who else is gonna do it uh this guy is crouched if you in a cage covered with gorilla dung like and that's my favorite part it's like they're like no we got to sell this you have to smear gorilla dong on you like obviously

0:40:40 Thomas: Oh, you a huge apology. I didn't even know that was in 2005.

0:40:45 Matt: The peter jackson remake right that king kong I did see it I think at the time the

0:40:47 Thomas: I, oh yeah. Wow. A poll. I didn't know that. Wait, is that the one? That The One that had Jack Black in it? Oh, it's that one. Yeah. Okay. I was trying to get Arlo to watch that, but he thinks King Kong's too boring. He's obsessed with every kaiju or whatever, but can't, can't with good old old fashioned American King Kong.

0:41:05 Thomas: What a communist. Um, okay. He played, wow. I did not know that. I owe Matt an apology. That was a, it was, that was a more dated, I think, reference than I was familiar with. I'm, I'm into Andy Serkis' Later Monkey albums.

0:41:05 Matt: Giant ape wow I'm showing my slight older age here uh but yeah I mean you're peter jackson you've got one guy like you're not going to get anybody else for this um know he's your guy for creatures yeah

0:41:27 Thomas: So did King Kong and like the plan of the apes crap and that wow that's interesting yeah

0:41:34 Matt: What a career what a guy yeah this is what he does uh but again this is 1993 who knows what andy circus is doing in 1983 they didn't he wasn't available uh just love this image though of like they're getting this guy ready they smear gorilla shit on him to get him ready like it's it's a great tactic

0:41:38 Thomas: Rules like sorry he's like would I as a gorilla have shit on myself like I don't think I don'T think this makes any sense no you're doing it oh

0:41:54 Matt: If anything not enough more please yeah right no but the idea was and this is pretty smart they didn't want them getting too close so you know that works you know it's the shitty gorilla

0:42:05 Thomas: So they're like hey this uh but what about the part where they still would would want to buy a gorilla that shits itself he's

0:42:10 Matt: That's true I think at this point any girl is gonna do

0:42:13 Thomas: Like do you have a non -shitting one no just this one

0:42:18 Matt: Uh it was also raining at the time so it's perfect you know so like raining and lightning and there's you can just imagine the scene like it's I want to see this movie um they do the exchange on the runway and so they don't get that close they don'T look and the guy's like sitting there you know like doing gorilla stuff.

0:42:30 Thomas: Way the role of a lifetime bows

0:42:32 Matt: And so they immediately arrest him and the guy climbs out of the cage, takes off his head, starts smoking a cigarette. I just think that's a funny detail. This went to trial and they tried to argue entrapment. Literally they had a guy in a trap, I guess, but it was the gorilla.

0:42:47 Thomas: The gorilla did try to order traffic oh

0:42:51 Matt: It actually is an interesting entrapement case. I thought was actually pretty cool about this because I don't like the idea of I'm not like totally making fun of all of this because the guy actually he claims one of the defenses the defendant's claims was that he was told by this nutty informant which I think maybe happened that the gorilla was going to be killed otherwise if they didn't buy him so this

0:43:08 Thomas: Way you get all this and now I'm on the other side you gotta be kidding me

0:43:13 Matt: Had hours and hours of tape this wasn'Ton tape he said it happened but

0:43:15 Thomas: Just made made it up maybe let's let's assume he made it up because otherwise he's a hero yeah

0:43:17 Matt: I might have uh you shouldn'T be smuggling wildlife obviously but this is a little different from the usual. This isn't like you're going to smuggle it to abuse it to sell it to a collector.

0:43:26 Thomas: But if you're like buy this guy in a gorilla suit or else I'll kill him that's a bit of different of a crime yeah

0:43:30 Matt: Put a gun to the gorilla's head. Of can you be convicted of buying a gorilla that doesn't exist is, of course, that is a gavel gavel trial. That just has to be.

0:43:38 Thomas: That's it that's the what's the sound of one hand clapping what can you be it's deep philosophical question that you they pondered forever all

0:43:42 Matt: One missing gorilla. Arranged all this. He knew the permits were bad. He He knew this was illegal. He knew he wasn't supposed to be doing it. But it also is not the typical animal trafficking case where you're selling it to some wealthy collector. You're taking it to a zoo. The guy himself was a conservationist. He was a real zookeeper. This was a Real Thing. Jury basically thought that it was entrapment, but they convicted anyway. They were bound by the instruction. And several said that in the jury room, they said, this feels like in the ordinary sense this is entrapement because they really kind of went out of their way to get this guy to buy this gorilla in no, this is the thing. So this is actually the happy ending, kind of, is the judge did a sentencing departure because this guy should have been doing 24 to 30 months, which just seems like a lot under these circumstances. He gave him 70 days time served, $40,000 fine. And he found specifically that he could do a downward departure in the sentencing because Bernal himself was a conservationist and that he wanted for breeding and exhibition. So not like the usual stuff that you're doing under the Endangered Species Act, you an interesting case, but it presents this wonderful picture of a federal agent crouching in a cage full of gorilla dung making ape noises. Footnote.

0:44:14 Thomas: Well then come on all right yeah I thought you're gonna tell me the happy ending was actually there's a case about a girl in a gorilla suit on the next door and then they they met eyes and that's how andy circus met his wife

0:44:54 Matt: Perfect meet cute. After they both took a shower. Yeah. Try to find the transcript and someday we can do a reading, but

0:45:00 Thomas: That was fun good man that would be really fun good times matt we should you know maybe we do need to get some amount of just wacky stuff because it's always you know for gg it's it's hard though because it is like you want to cover the important stuff but good old horseplay or gorilla play would be a good idea oh

0:45:24 Matt: If only Donald Trump would go on trial again. That was such a good one that was that was the perfect trial nobody got hurt so much fun great characters good writing yeah

0:45:26 Thomas: My god yeah it fun he got convicted in the end sorry spoilers didn't matter at all yeah good times I'll

0:45:35 Matt: And it didn't even matter yeah but it was really proof of concept for gavel gavel and if uh you know if if we could go ahead and charge donald crump with some more funny crimes um they stick or not yeah

0:45:47 Thomas: Take any crime yeah charge him with to anything well

0:45:50 Matt: Conviction yeah at this this point. Let's do it. So yeah, there you go.

0:45:53 Thomas: That was fun all right matt well some good news uh thing we really got to keep an eye on and a gorilla that wasn't there but

0:46:00 Matt: Which you should also keep an eye on.

0:46:02 Thomas: The gorilla was the friends we made along the way

0:46:04 Matt: That's right. Look out for those invisible gorillas, folks.

0:46:05 Thomas: All well thanks for listening we'll see you next time

0:46:12 Clip: This has been Opening Arguments, produced by Thomas and Lydia Smith, with editing help from Peter Baird. The intro is by Thomas Smith. This outro is by Matt Cameron. Support the show at patreon.com/law. Contact us through Patreon or openarguments@gmail.com. Make sure to follow our blue sky at OpenArgs. But most of all, please share the show. Thanks for listening.

0:46:44 Thomas: You know what grinds my gears?

0:46:47 Matt: I just think is wonderful because I'm just a huge perf um

0:46:51 Thomas: Like do you have a non -shitting one no just this one sorry you said this was a judge no it's

0:46:57 Matt: Isn't it great?