This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Monday, February 18th, 2019.

I'm Caleb Brown.

It may be surprising, but the legal claim that illegal immigration rises to the level of a national emergency

is somewhat distinct from the many claims

that surround illegal immigrants in the United States. In this case, according to Cato's

Will Yeatman and Alex Narasta, the legal claim may be stronger than the factual claims that immigrants

pose some specific danger to the United States.

We spoke last week.

What is the legal justification aside from, you know, whatever qualities this so-called emergency

possesses?

What are what is the legal justifications that either make this a hard sell or something on which

the president is on solid legal footing?

Alas, I submit that he's on a plausible legal footing. I mean it's a fool's errand to prognosticate

with how Article 3 courts are going to come out. But you know the I guess the legal footing would be that Congress gave him this

power I mean this is pursuant to a statutory delegation of authority you know it's

right there in the law I will note that in addition to sort of Congress giving away the farm on this,

that is being at fault, the judiciary has a role to play here as well.

The judiciary has taken a very hands-off approach of oversight for presidential actions pursuant to congressional delegations via statute.

They perform what is known as a facial review of whether or not there's, you know, of the underlying factual matter.

So in this instance, as to whether or not that's a national emergency, precedent suggests

that there's a national emergency if the president says so and that's sort of unique in administrative law that most agencies their actions are

reviewed under a more stringent standard note as quote-unquote hard-look review

...