I'm Alice and I'm Brett and this is the prosecutor's legal briefs.

I'm your host, Alice, and I'm joined as always by my contrite co-host Brett. Never Alice. I regret nothing. I say you regretted it, but you're big

enough of a co-host to admit when you read the tea leaves wrong. And to be fair, I think a lot of

people read the tea leaves wrong based on the oral argument in the Trump v. Casa case,

which is actually not about birthright citizenship at all, even though that's the substance of the

case. The case was about none other than nationwide injunctions, a much sexier topic, don't you know?

Much sexier. And you guys may recall we talked about this case and the oral arguments and were very critical of the government and did not think they had any chance of winning.

And wouldn't you know it?

In fact, what we said is the substance of the legal argument was actually had a good audience.

But the facts of the case was a bad vehicle for what the legal argument was, because birthright citizenship, it's in and of itself you can see how it could lead to a lot of administrative burdens, headaches if each state had a different definition of what citizenship was.

Yeah, and the government didn't really have a very good answer for it.

They didn't want to say you could use class actions or anything like that.

And I'll say this, trying to determine what the Supreme Court is going to do based on an oral argument.

It's kind of like trying to predict juries.

Now, we can usually predict the Supreme Court based on a lot of different things,

but the oral argument itself just seemed like it went completely against government.

It was hard to find five votes, which is what you need.

The United States Supreme Court has nine justices.

So you have to have five to win.

I didn't know if they'd

get to three, but they got to six. They did. They did. And while the opinion came out, was it

the last day of the term? It was the last day of the term, right? So you guys know, each season of

...