You ready?

I was born ready.

Welcome to the Advisory Opinions podcast. I'm David French with Sarah Isger. And we've got

an immigration to cover today. A case that's in so many ways about a theme that we've talked

about before on this podcast, which is Congress is messed up and when Congress is really messed

up, what do you do? So that's a theme today and immigration. We're also going to talk

a little bit about an eight circuit religious liberty case. And this is an interesting

case, although the outcome not remotely surprising. And then we're going to maybe if we've

got a little bit of time, we're going to talk about a or an oral argument yesterday

in the fourth, not yesterday, what I'm talking about Sarah. You're going to hear this on Tuesday.

We're recording on Monday and the oral arguments were not on Sunday. But oral arguments

a couple of days ago and a really interesting racial discrimination claim. It's got some

lessons for it that has some lessons based on some of the things that came out in oral

argument. But why don't we just go ahead and skip straight on to the main event, Sarah.

Do you want to want to intro our case of challenging Joe Biden's immigration priorities?

I do. This is going to be a bit thorny to get into some of the weeds on. Oh gosh.

So we're just going to do our best and forgive me along the way. So the Supreme Court actually

accepted three different QPs here, questions presented, all of which are kind of fascinating

and really important questions for this term, all by themselves. It'll be interesting

to see which ones they actually decide to answer. There's a possibility that we're going

to get more briefing. I mean, this case got it's thick, David.

So the first question is about state standing, something we've had to deal with many times

...