the government designates you this thing and then they ship you out so you're not seeing an immigration

judge you're not getting federal review no one has to actually even confirm that you're from that

country let alone that you're a gang member they're literally talking about it like these cities are war zones, and that's total propaganda.

Today I walked to the grocery store, and I did not, in fact, have to, like, put on a flack jacket and camo and hide in the bushes.

I walked there in my flip-flops.

Welcome to opening arguments, the podcast that analyzes the law in the news. With me is Matt Cameron, immigration attorney. And of course, this is Janessa Seymour, former scientist,

current voting rights attorney. Today, we're covering some good stuff from courts. This has been

kind of a theme we've been trying to pick up on. Yeah. And we didn't have to try that hard this week to find good news from courts. Like, big, big, good news. We'll see what sticks and what doesn't. We'll talk about that. But across the board, things are working and they are stopping things from happening that shouldn't be happening. We're not going to even have time to talk about the plainlet of Guatemalan children and the government was trying to deport that was narrowly stopped. Oh, nice. And I think that's going to be held up. We're keeping a watch on the Epstein situation. Looks like a lot more might be coming out soon. There's an interesting civil war happening between the Republicans. Hell yeah. And we're not going to talk about it today because I think that by the time you hear this, maybe things will be moving, so we'll pick it up again next week and see where we're at.

Today, we're going to talk a little bit about how things are going to be. day because I think that by the time you hear this, maybe things will be moving. So we'll

pick it up again next week and see where we're at. Today, we're going to talk a little bit about how things are going in D.C. with the different attempts to charge people. In relation to protests, we'll see how things are going with the Alien Enemies Act, which is something I've been following very closely for quite a while. Now I get some amazing news from the Fifth Circuit on the alien enemies act that I have to say,

I don't know that I expected it.

I don't think this is actually what I expected them to do. So it's pretty exciting. And then we've got from Charles Breyer, we talked a little bit about the posse comitatis litigation that was going on in California about the guard. And that's something to keep a watch on because, of course, Trump now wants to send the National guard just about everywhere. And, you know, this is not going to be binding in those places, but I think it's a very good analysis, and I think it should go a long way. Then we'll talk about what is going on with tariffs. Yes. I think you've got some material on that. Yes. Potentially good news. Seems like good news. Please don't run screaming. I'm not going to try to explain economics, but we can explain the decision and its importance.

Well, I think those people already ran screaming last week when we tried to explain the bear reserve, which neither of us really understand. But once again, we are a lawyer, not economists, so don't write. It is very important that we talk about that tariff's decision because it's also good news. I have to say it's pretty much right expected, but we'll see how it's being teed up for the Supreme Court to look at tariffs. And then I've got a footnote on what is going on in Brazil. And I don't mean to make the entire country of Brazil footnote, but this is a little outside of our jurisdiction usually, but it's very good news for justice and potentially a great model for how we should be doing things now that we've got a better taste of authoritarianism. Brazil's already pretty familiar, unfortunately, with dictatorship. So there's a lot to cover, a lot of good news. And, you know, certainly a lot of not great things happening, too. I'm going to acknowledge that. But let's talk about the good stuff. We'll come back and get going on that. All right. Just wanted to pick it up quickly at the beginning.

This joke has already been made so many times, but I'm just going to say it one more time because it's such a good joke. It turns out the Department of Justice can't indict a ham sandwich.

Oh, no.

You probably heard about Sean Dunn, who threw a sandwich at ICE and National Guard officers. Oh, yeah. Forgot about that. In D.C. He's not actually the only thing we're talking about. I just wanted to lead with him because it's the case that most people have heard about. But he was at a protest where he was yelling, you know, why are you here? Don't want you in my city. There's a lot of going on in DC right now. People are not happy with, you know, the guard's not doing anything, and ICE is certainly running wild. And this is a guy who's a former DOJ paralegal. So he's pretty involved in the federal government. And they tried to charge him with a felony for throwing a sandwich at an ICE officer. And let's see, I'm looking for the indictment here.

The video depicts done screaming at V1, the victim in this case, within inches of his face for

several seconds before winding his arm back and forcefully throwing a sub-style sandwich at V1.

I do like how they have to specify the kind of sandwich, right?

Forcefully. Like, what's the other option?

Just a softball underhand, yeah.

I guess you got to make sure it's not like a T-style, you know, mini-sandwich or something. You want to, you know, it also doesn't say if it's a sixth-centre-twelve-inch, I feel like it's really relevant. And, you know, what it was loaded with. Yeah, I mean, like if he filled it with rocks, maybe it would matter.

...