It's just absolutely shocking, right, that the Solicitor General would put that in a brief of the United States.

Like, we need with the insanity, right?

I'm Scott R. Anderson, Law Affairs Senior Editor.

I could have seen a scenario where, like, if that was the first case that had come up in front of the court,

you might actually have had a quite different argument today. But what they have to deal with

is the fact Trump is in fact using this statute in this incredibly broad, almost unbounded manner.

On November 5th, I sat down with Lawfare contributing editor Peter Harrell and George Allen Law

professors Marty Lieberman and Kathleen Klauson to discuss the oral arguments

in the legal challenge to President Trump's terrorists before there's been court live

on YouTube.

I was just surprised at how much we got into Algonquin and how much that turned out

to be sort of a leading point in the statutory interpretation conversation that justice

is wanted to have.

And we're live. Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us for a very lively afternoon.

We are three hours removed from the oral arguments in the big Trump tariff's case.

One of the most anticipated spring court cases of the term already, and it's only November.

And I would say for some of us who've been studying AIPA for the last 20 years of our lives,

because I never thought Supreme Court was ever going to weigh in on it.

And it's pretty exciting and interesting.

We are thrilled to have completely rated the Georgetown Law Intellectual Trust for purposes of this particular live stream to talk about the oral argument.

We, of course, have for the second time in a week, no less, law professor Marty Lieberman,

also who is our Supreme Court Maven.

...