M.SW. Media.

Hey, everybody.

Welcome to a bonus public episode of the unjustified podcast.

Today, Andy McCabe and I are going to read to you and make comments on the Supreme

Court's 7 to 2 ruling in the AARP at all v. Donald Trump case. This is the one out of Northern District of Texas. This is the one that has to do with the Blue Bonnet detention facility. This is the one where the Supreme Court stepped in in the middle of the night because the Fifth Circuit and the district court were too slow and put in a temporary

injunction and now they're filing for they've ruled that there is a full preliminary injunction now

and we're going to talk a little bit just a little bit about how this impacts not just the

putative class here in the northern district of Texas, but how it could reverberate nationwide,

even though it's not a nationwide block.

So, Andy, hi, how are you doing this morning?

I'm doing great. I think this is a really interesting stand that the court has taken in this

very important case. And it's also kind of a,

it's an interesting, I know, we'll talk a little bit about there is one dissenting opinion

attached to this. And we'll talk a little bit about that at the end. It's kind of an interesting

contrast and perspectives on the same issue. I would also point out that this, the court's ruling is what they call a per curiam opinion,

which simply means that this is the statement for the entire majority, all seven justices that

voted for this result, but it doesn't identify exactly who wrote the opinion. That's the

significance of Procureum. That's interesting, too. And we're not going to read all 13 pages of Alito

to you. We're not going to make you listen to that. We're going to feel free to read it, but we are

going to point out some inconsistencies in it briefly so that you can

kind of get the gist of what the dissent is. We will read the very short Kavanaugh concurrence,

right? There is a couple of paragraphs of a concurrence by Judge Justice Kavanaugh. But yeah,

...