The courts have actually succeeded in slicing off the low-hanging fruit, and now we're actually

having a serious debate about how much discretion the president has in immigration policy.

Hi, and welcome back to Amicus, late's podcast about the courts and the Supreme Court

and the law and the Constitution and all that good stuff.

I'm Daya Lysweak. I cover the courts and the law for Slate magazine.

And this week, the high court is out still on its long winter break.

But the team here at Amicus thought it might be a good moment to talk a little bit about America.

Just gonna go with that. And this sort of large,

roiling conversations we're now having in the courts around DACA,

around the travel ban, around sanctuary cities. It seems as though there is this new

urgency to figure out who belongs here, who doesn't, and who gets to pick.

And there is no one I'd rather talk about that with then Steve Latak. He teaches law at the

University of Texas. His teaching focuses on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, and national

security. He's also a CNN Supreme Court analyst and co-editor in chief of the Just Security blog.

And so Steve, you've been with us, but it's been a long time. So thank you for coming back to

join us on Amicus. Thank you for having me. So let me ask you that same framing question I just

started with, which is it seems as though there is a tremendous amount of litigation right now in

this country surrounding these existential questions about who is American, who gets to be American,

who gets to pick, who gets to sit in judgment of the kinds of folks that can come either as refugees

or as immigrants or even in some instances as visitors. So can you just talk in, you know, from

way, way, way lofty heights of levels of abstraction about this anxiety and how it connects in your

view to what Trumpism is all about a year in? Sure. I mean, it's funny. I actually had written a

...