Dear listeners,
In several of the cases brought by people protesting the Trump Administration’s efforts to remove their visas and remove them from the country, there has been a cat-and-mouse game about venue. The Trump administration points out that if you want a court to release you from custody, you generally have to file a habeas corpus petition for relief in the jurisdiction where you’re being held. But they’ve also been making it difficult for immigration lawyers to figure out exactly where their clients are being held.
On this week’s show, Ken and I break down some thorny questions of venue and jurisdiction, such as: if you thought your client was in New York when you filed your lawsuit, but he was really in New Jersey, and now he’s in Louisiana, should the case be transferred to New Jersey, or to Louisiana? It sounds technical but the stakes are substantial — these litigants believe, not unreasonably, that their chances of favorable outcomes are higher in some states than others. As Ken notes, the legal decisions here are difficult calls, and some of these issues are likely to end up at the Supreme Court — with a lot of fighting in the meantime over what should happen to people who sue, as we wait.
That conversation is for all listeners this week.
For paid subscribers, we also have an update on the Trump administration’s war on law firms. Several dozen associates at Paul Weiss have signed a letter to the firm’s chairman, Brad Karp, protesting the firm’s acquiescence to Trump. Ken and I talk about how much it matters to a fancy law firm if its junior attorneys are unhappy, and we also talk about the situation for the firms that are fighting instead of folding. Jenner & Block and Milbank have joined Perkins Coie on the “fight” side, and they all continue to win in court — but how can we evaluate whether their businesses are likely to survive the president’s assault? We discuss.
Also for paid subscribers, we take a look at an analysis from law professor
, who’s looked at the unusually large number of temporary restraining orders entered against the Trump Administration’s executive actions. Trump says this is because the courts are biased against him, but Vladeck finds that it’s quite a broad cross section of courts ruling against him, suggesting Trump can’t even please Republican-appointed judges — probably because he is actually breaking the law a lot.If you want to hear all of that, press the upgrade button and join us! Unlike Paul Weiss, we don’t cost $2,000 an hour, and we promise that we will never enter into a letter agreement with the Trump administration that contradicts our principles.
We hope you enjoy the episode,
Josh
