[SPEAKER_01]: We'll hear arguments next in Immigration Service against Delgado.

[SPEAKER_01]: Hey everyone, this is Leon from Prologue Projects.

[SPEAKER_01]: On this episode of 5-4, Peter, Reannon, and Michael are talking about INS via Delgado, a 1984 case about the extent to which the Fourth Amendment applies when it comes to immigration enforcement.

[SPEAKER_01]: In 1977, immigration and naturalization service, also known as INS, conducted two so-called surveys of workers' government factories in California, as part of an effort to identify undocumented workers.

[SPEAKER_01]: During these surveys, armed INS agents were stationed at factory exits while others swept the floor questioning workers about their status.

[SPEAKER_01]: If workers admitted to being undocumented or if agents found their responses not credible, they were handcuffed and taken away.

[SPEAKER_01]: Together with their labor union, a group of workers who were citizens or legal residents sued the INS, alleging that the surveys violated their 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[SPEAKER_01]: The Supreme Court sided with INS.

[SPEAKER_01]: This is 5-4, the podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks.

[SPEAKER_04]: Welcome to five to four, where we dissect and analyze the Supreme Court cases that have left our civil liberties, frozen and leaking, like the pipes in my house.

[SPEAKER_04]: I'm Peter, I'm here with Rhiannon.

[SPEAKER_04]: Hello.

[SPEAKER_04]: And Michael.

[SPEAKER_02]: Hey, do you at least have heat again?

[SPEAKER_02]: I know you were out for a long time.

[SPEAKER_04]: Do.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, well, we're back to homeowner's complaints for the metaphors, and this is where I shine.

[SPEAKER_00]: Go ahead and get this one off your chest, Peter, so that I can jump in because I have a story of my own, actually.

[SPEAKER_04]: Okay, I was getting into the car in my garage yesterday and I realized that water was dripping on my windshield and I was like, that shouldn't be happening from the inside from inside the garage.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I looked up and I diagnosed a leak because water was coming out of the ceiling and I'm a bit of a handyman.

[SPEAKER_04]: So I was able to figure out this leak.

[SPEAKER_04]: We eventually figure out that it is the HVAC.

[SPEAKER_04]: like a condenser drain and it's frozen and it's like eight feet of frozen pipe with something outrageous and what that means is that you have to turn your heat off because otherwise the water will just keep backing up all the way to the unit and then the unit will have problems and so yeah I had a guy out [SPEAKER_04]: And I was like, what do I do about the frozen pipe?

[SPEAKER_04]: I honestly thought in that moment that he was going to have an elegant solution, you know, that they were going to be like, yeah, classic frozen pipe situation.

[SPEAKER_04]: We do X, Y, and Z, and we charge you $300 and it's fixed.

[SPEAKER_04]: He was like, do you have like a space heater or something?

[SPEAKER_04]: You can point at it.

[SPEAKER_04]: I was like, okay, well, I don't feel like I needed an expert for this.

[SPEAKER_04]: All right.

[SPEAKER_00]: That would have been what I That's what I told you guys.

[SPEAKER_04]: I think that she's I don't like it when I bring a contractor over and then they tell me that the solution is something that I would have thought of right me the dumbest guy in the world like I don't I don't Even understand pipes, you know what I mean and How does the water flow?

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't know.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't know Gravity, but sometimes the pipes go up.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't understand.

[SPEAKER_04]: I've never I don't want to know you know what I mean [SPEAKER_04]: and yet so that is what I have done and it did sort of work and now the heats back on and as of now, no leaking folks.

[SPEAKER_00]: Great, great.

[SPEAKER_00]: And let's see you listeners since Peter has been a homeowner who got in plenty of these complaints do know that [SPEAKER_00]: to me and Michael, the complaints are even more.

[SPEAKER_00]: Let me tell you guys about a home issue that I had last week, but I didn't even tell you about, but would have laid out Peter for three weeks.

[SPEAKER_00]: My, my refrigerator.

[SPEAKER_00]: The water dispenser on my refrigerator turned on and would not turn off.

[SPEAKER_00]: There was water continuously flowing out of the front of my refrigerator.

[SPEAKER_00]: You guys have been to my house.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's not a big house, open layout, right, living room kitchen dining room.

[SPEAKER_04]: Is this your dresser in, like, on the front of the door?

[SPEAKER_04]: It's on the front.

[SPEAKER_04]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_04]: So she's lasting into the kitchen.

[SPEAKER_00]: Blast in like a geyser.

[SPEAKER_00]: Okay.

[SPEAKER_00]: I could make an adurty joke, and I'm not going to.

[SPEAKER_00]: I'm going to move.

[SPEAKER_00]: I'm going to move forward here and just say water pouring pouring pouring pouring pouring pouring.

[SPEAKER_00]: into into what is actually my living room right because you're sitting on the living room couch.

[SPEAKER_00]: You're eight yards from the refrigerator, okay?

[SPEAKER_00]: The refrigerator also totally flush in its like little hutch.

[SPEAKER_00]: It took forever to pull the refrigerator out to unplug the refrigerator and disconnect the water, which is the only thing that turned it off.

[SPEAKER_00]: We're over a year in here, Peter, but I guess [SPEAKER_04]: Whenever I start telling people about it, whenever I start to complain, people are like, never ends with them, never ends.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's right.

[SPEAKER_04]: So it's something else.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I am fine with that.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's the choice I made.

[SPEAKER_04]: But as with everything else in my life, I reserve the right to complain.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't care if it's my fault.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't care if I put myself in this situation.

[SPEAKER_00]: As with everything else in his life, he's not cut out for it.

[SPEAKER_04]: I first of all, I would have handled the refrigerator's situation with a plum.

[SPEAKER_04]: I would have been, I know you would.

[SPEAKER_04]: Let's cut off that water supply ASAP.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: In the meantime, let's run a hose to this thing.

[SPEAKER_04]: I love the transition from this into, like, anyway.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: The freedom of human beings is at stake in this case.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: All right, folks.

[SPEAKER_04]: Today's case immigration and naturalization service V Delgado, this is a case from 1984 about immigration raids.

[SPEAKER_04]: Specifically, it is about the constitutionality of factory raids.

[SPEAKER_04]: The common tactic where immigration agents raid a factory or another workplace looking for undocumented immigrants.

[SPEAKER_04]: In this case, some agents raid a factory.

[SPEAKER_04]: interrogated various workers about their immigration status and some of those workers said that this violated the fourth amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

[SPEAKER_04]: But the Supreme Court in a seven to two decision said that this doesn't qualify as a fourth amendment issue because it wasn't a seizure at all.

[SPEAKER_00]: Not a seizure at all so let's get into the facts and you trustee smart smarty listener can decide if you think this is a seizure.

[SPEAKER_00]: So we're back in a time before ICE, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: But there is a federal government agency, a law enforcement agency, that was doing the work of ICE before ICE was created.

[SPEAKER_00]: That is the INS, the immigration and naturalization service, just a little bit of history on this agency.

[SPEAKER_00]: It was originally created in the 30s under the Department of Labor.

[SPEAKER_00]: but then from about 1940 until ice was created in 2003, INS was under DOJ, the Department of Justice.

[SPEAKER_00]: So taking us to this story twice in 1977, INS executed two warrants at the Southern California Davis pleading company.

[SPEAKER_00]: This is a garment factory in California.

[SPEAKER_00]: And remember, a warrant allows law enforcement to enter, to search a place or to seize evidence or a person without consent, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Like, the warrant is what lets them go in legally, even if they don't have a person's consent to do that.

[SPEAKER_00]: And how do they get a warrant?

[SPEAKER_00]: They submit it to a judge.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's signed by the judge if the warrant asserts facts that establish probable cause, probable cause of a crime, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Or probable cause of evidence being in their evidence for a crime.

[SPEAKER_00]: So, INS has these two warrants, but what's unique here is that the probable cause in these warrants is not really specific as to any person.

[SPEAKER_00]: no person who is suspected of being an undocumented worker at this garment factory is actually named in any of the warrants, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Rather, there's probable cause supposedly just that this place employs.

[SPEAKER_00]: undocumented people.

[SPEAKER_00]: It is probable that this place employs undocumented people and that's how these warrants were issued.

[SPEAKER_00]: So the action by INS that's described by INS and described throughout this opinion is that INS, quote unquote, conducted a survey.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, let's put this in real human terms like what is actually happening here.

[SPEAKER_00]: This is a raid by federal agents on a factory, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And even the majority opinion describes it like this.

[SPEAKER_00]: At the beginning of the surveys, several agents position themselves near the building's exits while other agents dispersed throughout the factory to question most employees at their work stations.

[SPEAKER_00]: We have agents at the exits.

[SPEAKER_00]: while other agents rush the factory floor and question most of the employees at their workstations, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: The agents displayed badges, carried walkie talkies and were armed.

[SPEAKER_00]: Employees were asked one to three questions relating to their citizenship and then if the employee gave an unsatisfactory response or admitted that he was not a U.S.

citizen, then the employee was asked to [SPEAKER_00]: tons of people are arrested.

[SPEAKER_00]: So two members of the labor union of garment workers sued on behalf of this class of workers, saying wait a minute, the fourth amendment should apply here.

[SPEAKER_00]: This is an unreasonable seizure.

[SPEAKER_00]: You can't have a warrant that just says people in here in general are suspected of being undocumented.

[SPEAKER_00]: You know, the fourth amendment requires something [SPEAKER_00]: Now, the district court, the lower court, doesn't let this case proceed as a class action.

[SPEAKER_00]: These plaintiffs end up proceeding individually.

[SPEAKER_00]: Once they get to the ninth circuit, the ninth circuit does agree that this violated their fourth amendment rights.

[SPEAKER_00]: But of course, IMS appeals, and that's how we get to the Supreme Court.

[SPEAKER_04]: So let's talk about the law a little bit.

[SPEAKER_04]: The broad question here.

[SPEAKER_04]: is whether this all violates the fourth amendment.

[SPEAKER_04]: The fourth amendment for bids, unreasonable searches and seizures, and what the government says in the court agrees is, this can't violate the fourth amendment because it's not a seizure at all.

[SPEAKER_04]: RENQUIST writes the majority here.

[SPEAKER_02]: No did segregationist.

[SPEAKER_04]: Let me correct myself.

[SPEAKER_04]: No did segregationist, well you have RENQUIST writes the majority here.

[SPEAKER_04]: One of the fundamental legal issues in this case.

[SPEAKER_04]: is whether a reasonable person in these circumstances would feel free to leave.

[SPEAKER_04]: That is how the court determines whether there has been a seizure, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Whether you've been detained, it's whether a reasonable person would think that they can freely leave.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: So as a reminder, [SPEAKER_04]: couple dozen INS agents, some of them position themselves at the exits, some of them stormed the four, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: They ask questions to workers related to their identity and their immigration status.

[SPEAKER_04]: They have walkie talkies and shit.

[SPEAKER_04]: They've got guns.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: RENQUIST says well.

[SPEAKER_04]: simple questioning, as long as there's no intimidation, is not a seizure, cops can ask some simple questions of people.

[SPEAKER_04]: They can ask people to identify themselves.

[SPEAKER_04]: He also says, quote, the presence of agents by the exits posed a no reasonable threat of detention to these workers while they walked throughout the factories on job assignments.

[SPEAKER_04]: Likewise, the mere possibility that they would be questioned if they sought to leave the buildings should not have resulted in any reasonable apprehension by any of them that they would be seized or detained in any meaningful way.

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: I'm sorry, but what are you talking about?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: What?

[SPEAKER_04]: that people would be detained, or that they're not free to go?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: When else could it mean?

[SPEAKER_04]: It's hard to imagine that it would mean something else.

[SPEAKER_04]: Imagine that police show up to your workplace and start guarding every exit.

[SPEAKER_04]: Are you saying that it's unreasonable to think that you're not free to leave in that situation?

[SPEAKER_04]: Just you're at work, chilling dozens of police officers, show up.

[SPEAKER_04]: Some of them block the exits while the others run around questioning people.

[SPEAKER_04]: You think that a reasonable person is just like, I could go, I bet.

[SPEAKER_00]: And be realistic about what these circumstances actually included in terms of like specific facts and what was happening.

[SPEAKER_00]: Put yourself in the shoes of a worker that's on the garment factory floor at this time.

[SPEAKER_00]: Do you think that agents rated this place silently?

[SPEAKER_00]: do you think that they did so, you know, like with a sweet and polite tone, they rushed the place, they installed agents at all of the exits and do you think that they like politely walked up to people to ask them questions?

[SPEAKER_00]: No, surely they are barking orders about freeze, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: You need to stay where you are.

[SPEAKER_00]: Everybody listen up.

[SPEAKER_00]: Right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Like the assumption that people do not feel they are free to leave and in fact legally have been seized under the Fourth Amendment is like it's an assumption that can be made on like the bareest effects that even RENQUIST is dating, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: But it is more intense in the moment for surely.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: It really does seem like what Renguis is doing in the opinion is refusing to look at the situation holistically, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: He breaks everything down into its component parts and then he looks at each of them in isolation.

[SPEAKER_04]: So he's like what an officer can ask you a couple of questions.

[SPEAKER_05]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: An officer can't stand in a doorway.

[SPEAKER_04]: You say, and that's against the constitution.

[SPEAKER_04]: Ignoring that if you look at this all holistically, officers have blocked off exits, and they're running around interrogating people, like surely that might make someone reasonably think that they are not free to leave, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: And it's also notable how he aligns the fact that they are blocking exits.

[SPEAKER_04]: He says, oh yeah, officers are blocking the exits, but quote, the mere possibility that you'd be questioned [SPEAKER_04]: should not have resulted in any reasonable apprehension that you'd be sees or detained.

[SPEAKER_04]: But what he's avoiding here, very carefully, is that when federal officers block off the exits at your workplace, you don't know what they're doing.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: You don't know that they're just there to ask a couple of questions.

[SPEAKER_04]: So he's like, look, the mere possibility that you'd be questioned, [SPEAKER_04]: Is that really a constitutional violation?

[SPEAKER_04]: It's like no dude.

[SPEAKER_04]: You don't know what they're there for.

[SPEAKER_04]: How do you know that they're not executing a warrant for something more serious, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: That they're looking for a murder suspect.

[SPEAKER_04]: They're looking for someone who's armed, et cetera.

[SPEAKER_04]: You don't know all you know is what they tell you.

[SPEAKER_04]: He has this sort of credulousness here.

[SPEAKER_04]: Very intentionally, I think.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Where he's sort of like, well, look, all this is, [SPEAKER_04]: is that you might get asked a couple of questions.

[SPEAKER_04]: As if that's what the reasonable person is thinking when federal agents warm your workplace and block the exits.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right, and to that point, he buries this story in a footnote that it's unbelievable.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's unbelievable that he had the balls to even include this to be frank.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like if I were being this dishonest, I would not have even [SPEAKER_02]: In the the footnote, he says, like, yeah, one of the respondents described an incident that that she saw, right, that she witnessed in which quote, an INS agent stationed by an exit, attempted to prevent a worker presumably in an illegal alien from leaving the premises after the survey started.

[SPEAKER_02]: The worker walked out the door and when the agent tried to stop him, the worker [SPEAKER_02]: If the question is, do you feel free to leave?

[SPEAKER_02]: And you see one of your co-workers try to leave, and you see an agent try to stop them, and you see them have to physically assault the agent and run away.

[SPEAKER_02]: Would you feel free to leave?

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Also, are you free to leave?

[SPEAKER_04]: Are you free to leave?

[SPEAKER_04]: Because that person tried to leave.

[SPEAKER_04]: And they tried to stop them.

[SPEAKER_00]: So, and he just shrugs it off.

[SPEAKER_00]: All the while he's calling it a survey.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's a survey.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's a survey.

[SPEAKER_02]: You shrugs that because an ambiguous isolated incident such as this fails to provide any basis on which to conclude that respondents have shown an INS policy entitling them to injunctive relief.

[SPEAKER_04]: How is it ambiguous or isolated?

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't think there's no excuse.

[SPEAKER_04]: Like it's none of the above everybody saw it.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's like, what are you talking about?

[SPEAKER_00]: Everybody saw it was what was happening.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's such a shameless thing to shove in a fucking footnote.

[SPEAKER_00]: This isolating of the details is really important.

[SPEAKER_00]: I mean to like saying that this is isolated, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And then to your point Peter that like all of the agent's activities are just isolated, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Like it's well, you know, oh, they can't come in.

[SPEAKER_00]: They have a warrant.

[SPEAKER_00]: I don't know if you're finger a little bit.

[SPEAKER_00]: Right.

[SPEAKER_00]: They can't stand.

[SPEAKER_00]: they can't stand next to the exits.

[SPEAKER_00]: That's not a big deal.

[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, they can't they can't ask people a couple of questions.

[SPEAKER_00]: That's not against the constitution, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: But it's not taking in the totality of the circumstances.

[SPEAKER_00]: And I say totality of the circumstances because the other way around.

[SPEAKER_00]: in determining whether agents can question individuals, the total totality of the circumstances can be put together in terms of suspicion about an individual.

[SPEAKER_00]: Remember, Nome Veevaskas, the recent case, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Where Kavanaugh goes, [SPEAKER_00]: sick a mode racist to say that somebody's ethnicity, somebody's race, the language that they're speaking.

[SPEAKER_00]: These tiny things can be put all together in the totality of the circumstances, right, to indicate that there is enough suspicion to stop people to detain people, to kidnap them, to put them in ice vehicles, to put them in ice detention and investigate their immigration [SPEAKER_00]: every little tiny thing that a federal agent might do right is just on its own.

[SPEAKER_00]: It doesn't add up to anything.

[SPEAKER_00]: There's no accumulation.

[SPEAKER_00]: There's no totality of circumstances about what they are doing to all of these workers.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Another quote from Rengweiss to really drive home what you're getting at, Michael.

[SPEAKER_04]: He says, it was obvious from the beginning of the surveys that the INS agents were only questioning people.

[SPEAKER_04]: Persons such as respondents who simply went about their business in the workplace were not detained in any way.

[SPEAKER_04]: Nothing more occurred than that a question was put to them.

[SPEAKER_04]: While persons who attempted to flee or evade the agents may eventually have been detained for questioning, respondents did not do so, and were not in fact detained.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right after saying that no reasonable person could think that they weren't free to leave.

[SPEAKER_04]: He's like, well, sure.

[SPEAKER_04]: People who tried to evade the agents were detained.

[SPEAKER_04]: So they weren't free to leave.

[SPEAKER_04]: Not only, not only, was it reasonable to think that they weren't free to leave?

[SPEAKER_04]: They were not.

[SPEAKER_04]: It was in fact true that they weren't free to leave.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_02]: It was like a literal fact.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_02]: It was reasonable to think that because it was true.

[SPEAKER_02]: It was true that they were not free to leave.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm sorry.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm taking it.

[SPEAKER_04]: You're just like, what are you talking about?

[SPEAKER_04]: Dude, how is this happening?

[SPEAKER_04]: I think it's worth pausing here to think about another set of constitutional rights.

[SPEAKER_04]: You're Miranda rights, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: When you are detained for an interrogation, custodial interrogation, please must make sure that you are aware of your fifth and sixth amendment rights, right, to remain silent, right to an attorney, all that, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: The court held in Miranda via Arizona that those rights are so important in this context, that the suspect or the person being detained needs to be made aware of them verbally by the cops, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: So why not do that here?

[SPEAKER_04]: Why do we have to do this thing where we're digging around, trying to figure out whether a reasonable person would think that they could leave?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right?

[SPEAKER_04]: What are the vibes of the factory when the agents are there?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Why do we have to figure this all out?

[SPEAKER_04]: The cops should have to tell you that you're free to leave.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Wouldn't that be simpler?

[SPEAKER_04]: Wouldn't it be simpler if they had to say, like, by the way, you're not being detained?

[SPEAKER_02]: But why don't have to answer our questions and you don't even have to stay in the same room as us?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Why is the burden on the civilian to figure this out?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Some guy in a fucking factory is supposed to eyeball whether the Supreme Court thinks that it's reasonable for him to feel like he can't or cannot leave.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: I don't even know when it's like legal all the time.

[SPEAKER_04]: Uh, you know, if you just put these fact patterns to me and we're like, [SPEAKER_04]: Is it reasonable to leave?

[SPEAKER_00]: I would I would get it wrong a decent amount of the time and I I'd read this shit for a living and this is what's litigated all the time under Miranda right Because like was this a detention was somebody being interrogated and they were not free to go Right and this is the thing is that if somebody has the force amendment protection here right from this kind of seizure Then that would mean also that they have Miranda rights here [SPEAKER_00]: And so the police would have to be doing more, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Renquist the Supreme Court is never going to actually hold their feet to the fire and say, like police officers have to actually do their job.

[SPEAKER_04]: Obviously, the Conservatives don't even like Miranda.

[SPEAKER_04]: And if we have another 15 years of a conservative Supreme Court, they'll probably get rid of Miranda.

[SPEAKER_04]: But it's pretty clear that if people were made aware of their rights in these situations, they'd exercise them.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: And that's why the court doesn't like it, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Because cops wouldn't be able to interrogate as many people and they care about that, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: But I think that just goes to show how important it is, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: You have this like super ambiguous legal situation that happens all the time.

[SPEAKER_04]: Cops are interacting with someone.

[SPEAKER_04]: And the person does not know whether they can leave or what exactly their rights are.

[SPEAKER_04]: Why shouldn't the cops just have to fucking tell them?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, and they're just never going to make a prophylactic rule like that, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: So there are a couple of concurrences in this case.

[SPEAKER_00]: One is by just to Stevens.

[SPEAKER_00]: There's really no use going into it.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's a paragraph.

[SPEAKER_00]: He joins the majority, just says procedurally.

[SPEAKER_00]: We don't need to answer all of these questions, but I agree with the [SPEAKER_02]: Right, and if that sounds weird to you, like, remember this is also the 80s, like Steven's, he wasn't as woke, like the political climate was a little different than our boy was a little problematic and fortunately.

[SPEAKER_00]: Now, Justice Powell has a concurrence.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's also short.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's several paragraphs, but pretty short.

[SPEAKER_00]: Justice Powell agrees with the holding, but says, I would have reached this conclusion a different way.

[SPEAKER_00]: He says, you know, we don't need to ask ourselves whether a reasonable person would think that they were free to go in this situation.

[SPEAKER_00]: He says, actually, I admit that's like a pretty close call in these circumstances, but, you know, no matter whatever, let's do a way with that close call question because we can decide this another way.

[SPEAKER_00]: He says these circumstances, you know, an INS quote-unquote survey of a factory where garment workers are at.

[SPEAKER_00]: He says this is more analogous to a case called USV Martinez-Fuerte, where federal agents have set up checkpoints, you know, some distance from the border.

[SPEAKER_00]: but at those checkpoints every car can be stopped, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And that's without a sort of particularized suspicion about any individual in the car.

[SPEAKER_00]: And the Supreme Court upheld that practice, right, of vehicle checkpoints some ways away from the border in that case.

[SPEAKER_00]: And they did so by concluding like, yeah, this is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

[SPEAKER_00]: These cars, these individuals inside the cars are being seized when they are forcibly stopped.

[SPEAKER_00]: They don't have a choice about whether or not they're stopped going through this checkpoint, but the Supreme Court held, that's a reasonable seizure.

[SPEAKER_00]: Remember the forciement protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And so the Supreme Court in Martinez-Werte is saying there's this huge public interest in controlling illegal immigration and that outweighs in that circumstance, the vehicle checkpoints, that outweighs an individual interest in Fourth Amendment protections.

[SPEAKER_00]: Powell, you know, I think I'm going to talk about this a little bit later.

[SPEAKER_00]: This is a short concurrence and Powell uses about half of it to talk about what a big problem a legal immigration is.

[SPEAKER_00]: And I think that's a justification that's implied throughout the majority opinion and obviously the concurrence here.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's something that's sort of unspoken here, and it's the concept of the general warrant.

[SPEAKER_04]: The Fourth Amendment says no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by author affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

[SPEAKER_04]: So the reason that that language exists in the Constitution is because the founders were concerned about the general warrant, [SPEAKER_04]: called rits of assignment back in the day where the king would basically grant these rits to his agents and the colonies to go search it.

[SPEAKER_00]: Fishing expedition, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Like just go search stuff.

[SPEAKER_04]: It didn't expire.

[SPEAKER_04]: It wasn't limited in any way.

[SPEAKER_04]: It was just the king says that you can search for whatever you want, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Hence the general warrant.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's just like you can generally search.

[SPEAKER_04]: given the power by the king to go, fuck up people's houses, their places of work, etc.

[SPEAKER_02]: Think about it, like James Bond, he gets his license to kill, and then he can just kill whoever you want.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Like you get your license to search, and you get to go just rummage through people's shit.

[SPEAKER_04]: Also British, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: It's not a coincidence.

[SPEAKER_04]: So the founders were like, no, no, no, you have to be specific, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: There has to be a specific reason why you are searching a person or a place.

[SPEAKER_04]: Now, think about what's happening here, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: INS does not have reason to believe that a specific undocumented person is at this factory.

[SPEAKER_04]: They have a general belief.

[SPEAKER_04]: that there might be undocumented people at this factory.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right?

[SPEAKER_04]: So the origins of this case are the respondents here saying, hey, don't you need something specific?

[SPEAKER_04]: Can you really show up out of factory and say we're just looking around isn't this kind of like a general warrant right are you just saying that you can just run around the country going to private establishments and holding them semi hostage.

[SPEAKER_04]: without a specific person that you're looking for, and Powell in his concurrence is saying, yes, that is okay, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: I'd rather not answer that question.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's actually not a seizure, blah, blah, blah.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: But lurking behind all of this is the idea of the general warrant.

[SPEAKER_04]: And this is something that popped up very recently in this ice memo that was leaked.

[SPEAKER_04]: And basically what we know now is that internally within ice, it's been made clear to agents that they're not expected to get warrants and that in fact, they can go door to door, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: looking for undocumented folks.

[SPEAKER_04]: This is quintessential like right down the middle what the founders didn't want, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: But it's so this is sort of you can see it is almost a natural extension of the reasoning here, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: That like if you can just send a bunch of people to a factory because your sword is suspicious that there might be some undocumented people there, even though you don't know who [SPEAKER_04]: Then why can't you go door to door, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: And I don't want to conflate these two regimes, like what was happening in the A's with INS and what's happening with ICE now, it is different.

[SPEAKER_04]: But you can see the sort of little baby steps that aggregate over time.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yep.

[SPEAKER_02]: And that I think is a good lead-in to Brennan's descent, actually.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's an interesting descent.

[SPEAKER_02]: I have my Quables with it, but he makes some good points.

[SPEAKER_02]: But what he opens with something that sounded extremely familiar, sounded like an echo of our modern discussion of like, no, and v-v-asquads, for example.

[SPEAKER_02]: So he says, what is striking about today's decision is its study to air of unreality, [SPEAKER_02]: He says the court's engaged in a slight of hand that turns on the proposition that the interrogations of respondents by the INS were merely brief consensual encounters that posed no threat to respond to its personal security and freedom.

[SPEAKER_02]: The record, however, tells a far different story, which sounds exactly like [SPEAKER_02]: You know, if you're online at all, you've seen the discourse around the quote unquote cavernal stops and the way cavernal described what he imagined it to be brief, low stakes and counters between ice agents and people and then the reality of the violence.

[SPEAKER_02]: of those stops, these lengths of those stops people being essentially kidnapped, dropped off in the middle of nowhere, their possessions taken in the cases of, you know, Renee Good and Alex Pretty murdered the disconnect between, you know, this anesthetic language that the court uses to justify their permissiveness, verse the reality, the violence in the intimidation of, you know, immigration enforcement.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's felt very familiar, just reading the first paragraph, I was like, oh, yeah, it's been 40 years and it's the same shit.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's the same exact shit.

[SPEAKER_02]: We're doing the same thing.

[SPEAKER_02]: You know, one of the issues in the lower court is like, was the entire workforce seized.

[SPEAKER_02]: And so Brennan's decision is concurring in part and dissenting apart because he's like, I don't think the entire workforce disease, but I think these individuals were seized.

[SPEAKER_02]: Like, and he justifies it, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: He goes into [SPEAKER_02]: the details, which I thought were interesting and worth mentioning because to reanence earlier, point about what the reality of this looks like, you know, one of the plaintiffs, Delgado was approached by two INS agents after he had told them where he was born and all that.

[SPEAKER_02]: The INS agents left, but one agent remarked as they were leaving that they would be coming back to check him out again because he spoke English too well.

[SPEAKER_02]: I don't know about that guys, no, it's, you know, you know, and it doesn't even make that, like I'm like, okay, what else?

[SPEAKER_00]: Like, I don't know.

[SPEAKER_04]: No, we, you know, when you, when you talk to someone and there's being English like a little too fluently, and it's, you're like, you know, something's not right.

[SPEAKER_00]: What's going on with this guy?

[SPEAKER_00]: Got to be a criminal.

[SPEAKER_04]: I mean, the average immigration agent, even back then, there's something wrong with the brain.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: Oh, absolutely.

[SPEAKER_04]: To do this job, it's like, it's not like with cops, where you can, at least cops can pretend that they're going to like go fucking save kittens from trees and protect people from bad guys and shit like that, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Immigration enforcement.

[SPEAKER_04]: is just grabbing people who you don't think belong here and removing them, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: And I feel like a guy speaking English too well, who he thinks shouldn't speak English that well.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's almost like he's he's like, are you tricking me?

[SPEAKER_04]: Am I being tricked by someone sneaky?

[SPEAKER_04]: Because it's an entirely this like dominance dynamic, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: If another guy is speaking English, [SPEAKER_04]: is the one who's getting domed.

[SPEAKER_04]: You know what I mean?

[SPEAKER_04]: He's like he's beating me.

[SPEAKER_04]: We're beating me.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: My own game.

[SPEAKER_04]: I'll be back.

[SPEAKER_04]: Motherfucker.

[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I'll be back.

[SPEAKER_02]: I'm going to prove you don't belong.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_02]: You think you're so fucking smart with your correct grammar?

[SPEAKER_02]: And you know what we'll see about that.

[SPEAKER_02]: Brennan also gets at some of the points Peter was making earlier about how the court he says in systemodden considering each interrogation in isolation as if respondents have been questioned by the INS and is setting similar to an encounter between a single police officer and a lone passerby.

[SPEAKER_02]: on a street quarter means like once you like deal with the reality that this isn't what it is, it's multiple INS officers, they're guarding the doors, they're sort of moving through aggressively, they're peppering people with questions.

[SPEAKER_02]: Do you have to deal with the fact that this is quite obviously a seizure?

[SPEAKER_02]: right like and one that therefore once it's a seizure needs to be justified under the fourth amendment as reasonable.

[SPEAKER_02]: There needs to be a showing of probable cause or at least specific reasonable suspicion as to the individual being spoken to right interrogated.

[SPEAKER_02]: He ends on an interesting note, a little policy discussion, again, some things that I like, some things I didn't, but all very familiar where he says, look, the only reason we're having this discussion is because the border is underfunded and under patrolled and therefore people flow through it quite easily.

[SPEAKER_02]: And he says, [SPEAKER_02]: Look, this is an admission that we have allowed border enforcement to collapse, and since we are unwilling to require American employers to share any of the blame, we must, as a matter of expediency, visit all of the burdens of this jury-rigged enforcement scheme on the privacy interests of completely lawful citizens and resident aliens who are subjected to these factory raids solely because they happen to work alongside some undocumented aliens.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I think sending aside the border patrol fund ship, I think that's right and I think this was a point that he probably should have been talking more about, which is that the upshot of this decision is that US citizens and law firm permanent residents have fewer rights if they happen to work.

[SPEAKER_02]: in the same place as undocumented workers.

[SPEAKER_02]: Which means if you are of a lower social class, you are going to have fewer rights.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's the upshot of this decision.

[SPEAKER_02]: Is that you're formalizing a cast and underclass of wage workers who have fewer rights [SPEAKER_02]: and fewer protections against government surveillance and government harassment and government overreach.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's what this decision does.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's the reality that we've lived in for decades.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I think what you're seeing now in modern America is that when you allow an underclass to persist [SPEAKER_02]: You leave the door open for fascists to fully weaponize that, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And start pushing more and more people into that underclass, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: You see this when Ice Agents turns the camera of some random soccer mom was filming them and it's like, you're in a database now.

[SPEAKER_02]: You're a domestic terrorist now.

[SPEAKER_02]: What they're saying is you're in this underclass now.

[SPEAKER_02]: Your rights are now also subject to our whims and no longer protected.

[SPEAKER_02]: Welcome to Life as an undocumented immigrant, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Like, that's what they're saying.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's tricky with some of these arguments because I don't think undocumented people should have to live like this, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: No, absolutely not.

[SPEAKER_04]: We obviously...

[SPEAKER_04]: You know, if you gave us control of policy, the only people who live like this are registered Republicans.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's right.

[SPEAKER_04]: It would only be Republicans who would not be allowed to hold real jobs.

[SPEAKER_04]: But I think it's worth noting that the conservative argument doesn't really hold up under the way of its own logic.

[SPEAKER_04]: You know, the power argument here.

[SPEAKER_04]: uh, is essentially, well, undocumented immigrants get a lesser form of protection, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: And we, we've seen this may argument made pretty explicitly by the Supreme Court, but if you can't know going into it, that someone's undocumented, then necessarily, people who aren't undocumented will have their rights impacted too.

[SPEAKER_04]: There's no way to do it.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's not over broad.

[SPEAKER_04]: And I think at the end of the day, [SPEAKER_04]: what they really believe is who cares?

[SPEAKER_04]: Who cares?

[SPEAKER_04]: These are for people, these are people I don't give a shit about, you know, it's not us who cares.

[SPEAKER_00]: I think that's exactly right.

[SPEAKER_00]: And that's what I mean about like the quote unquote problem of quote unquote illegal immigration without a lot of inspection at all or inquiry being on its face the justification that's imbued through the majority opinion and certainly the [SPEAKER_00]: Discussing this case, we've set it in like a few different ways, but it's something we've said before Which is that there is a carve out to constitutional rights where immigration enforcement is concerned, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Like why does this case matter?

[SPEAKER_00]: This court in this case upholds the questioning of an entire factory workforce [SPEAKER_00]: without requiring individualized warrants, individualized consent or even reasonable suspicion, which is a less stringent, a less strict standard than even probable cause, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And over and over again, you know, we've covered so many cases.

[SPEAKER_00]: This is what we see is that, while immigration enforcement is just different, you have, [SPEAKER_00]: If you were US citizen, you undocumented person have fewer constitutional rights where immigration enforcement is concerned and like you read Powell in the in the concurrence says recent estimates of the number of illegal aliens in this country range between two and 12 million.

[SPEAKER_00]: between 2 and 12.

[SPEAKER_00]: Between 2 and 12 million, one of the main reasons they come, perhaps the main reason, is to seek employment.

[SPEAKER_04]: Ugh, enough said.

[SPEAKER_00]: Factory surveys strike directly at this cause, enabling the INS to diminish the incentive for the dangerous passage across the border and to apprehend large numbers of those who come.

[SPEAKER_00]: This is the justification on its face, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: That law enforcement should be able to question, detain tons of people if they are even suspected, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Often in bad faith suspected to be unlawful immigrants.

[SPEAKER_00]: And you just have to like take a step back and this justification that goes through all of these cases and say, wait a minute, why?

[SPEAKER_04]: illegal immigration is dangerous to who, why is it bad, dangerous to anybody other than the immigrants themselves who make up the underclass not just is it dangerous but like you couldn't do this for murder right like you could not do this legally right constitutionally for things that are dangerous police couldn't run into a factory and be like well we don't have any reason to believe that a murderer is here [SPEAKER_00]: Immigration, even illegal immigration, does not pose this kind of danger to society, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: A danger that is posed by like mass shooters, for example, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And so it's how is this so terrible that it gets a constitutional carve out of this magnitude, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: And everywhere, everywhere in these Supreme Court cases, the justice is just say things like, this is a serious problem, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: and they cite ridiculous statistics, and there's nothing else.

[SPEAKER_00]: And so what is behind all of this, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: It's not said, obviously, is a racism, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: A labor system that creates an underclass and perpetuates it, that, you know, is so awful that actually, like, [SPEAKER_00]: It can't be explicitly stated by these Supreme Court justices, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: They can't say, well, this is the actual reason why I think immigration and undocumented people are so dangerous as such a problem that we have to have fewer constitutional rights to enforce this, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: They couldn't say it because it's so awful.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: I mean, it's very clear that the court has carved out immigration as a special thing, where there are fewer rights.

[SPEAKER_04]: And the implication there is sort of that this is the greatest crime, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: That's right.

[SPEAKER_04]: That's a good.

[SPEAKER_04]: That there's no other way to combat it other than to allow for the frequent loosening of constitutional protection.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's just sort of inherently ridiculous ending.

[SPEAKER_04]: It just like rods at this tension in our system, where we insist that people go through this like increasingly labyrinthian process of trying to be here legally.

[SPEAKER_04]: And if they don't, we are granting the authorities basically permission to violate their rights and dignity.

[SPEAKER_04]: like to what end right to what end it's it's meant to be this sort of self-justifying thing well is a bunch of undocumented people here they're four we need to look for its bad the protections of the constitution yes yeah i mean it's like i explained it to me like i'm five i don't understand i don't understand what the problem that you're stating okay two to ten million two to twelve million okay what i mean the problem [SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I mean, look, the, you'll never see this in like the gun rights context, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: Where it's like look at all of the death caused by guns.

[SPEAKER_04]: Right.

[SPEAKER_04]: So we're going to need to ease up on the fourth amendment protections, right?

[SPEAKER_04]: It doesn't work that way.

[SPEAKER_04]: It doesn't work that way in any other context.

[SPEAKER_02]: So to switch gears a little, I do want to talk a little academically and sort of philosophically about the fourth amendment.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I think you've seen this opinion and in most fourth amendment jurisprudence, very atomized approach.

[SPEAKER_02]: The question, you know, you see it both in the majority and in the descent talking about the individuals, right, you know, [SPEAKER_02]: and Brennan says, well, the full workforce was not seized, but these four individuals were seized.

[SPEAKER_02]: And that's very common, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: That's a very common approach to the Fourth Amendment.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I think it's maybe something we could rethink as leftists.

[SPEAKER_02]: You know, obviously, [SPEAKER_02]: The thesis of this podcast is that jurisprudential, you know, minutia, don't decide these big politically fraught cases, political considerations, too.

[SPEAKER_02]: And so I'm not going to sit here and say, well, if the fourth amendment were imagined more as a collective collectively held right, this case would have come out differently, because I don't think it would have, I think, you know, the dishonesty in the opinion in the majority opinion shows that it doesn't matter what the regime is.

[SPEAKER_02]: They will be dishonest in getting to the ends they want to get to.

[SPEAKER_02]: That being said, I would like to live in a world where maybe in the next 10 or 15 years, thanks to court packing or term limits or a measles outbreak at, you know, the Republican pedophile retreat.

[SPEAKER_02]: Now we're talking, now we're talking.

[SPEAKER_02]: There's a liberal majority on the court.

[SPEAKER_02]: And if there's a liberal majority, I would love there to be a vast literature.

[SPEAKER_02]: of leftist legal thinking on all the amendments, and it contained entirely within this podcast.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's correct.

[SPEAKER_02]: That's correct.

[SPEAKER_02]: But if you are a law student or a law professor, my plea to you is to think about the fourth amendment differently.

[SPEAKER_02]: The text of the fourth amendment doesn't refer to persons.

[SPEAKER_02]: The fifth amendment refers to persons.

[SPEAKER_02]: The fourth amendment refers to persons, you know, you say all persons.

[SPEAKER_02]: born our citizens, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Or no person shall be subject to double jeopardy or whatever.

[SPEAKER_02]: The fourth amendment talks about the people, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: A collective, the people being free of unreasonable searches and seizures.

[SPEAKER_02]: And this atomized approach, I think, is a problem.

[SPEAKER_02]: You see it pop up in all sorts of areas.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think you can see it here.

[SPEAKER_02]: The idea that, well, every individual encounter might not be a fourth amendment seizure.

[SPEAKER_02]: So therefore, if they're all zeros, you can add them up and you still get zero.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right?

[SPEAKER_02]: This was a similar logic when they were attaching GPS devices to people's cars.

[SPEAKER_02]: And they were like, well, [SPEAKER_02]: Look, if we can follow you around in the street, we can see where we're going.

[SPEAKER_02]: So doing it with GPS device isn't a search.

[SPEAKER_02]: And doing it for one day is in a search and doing it for 20 days is in a search.

[SPEAKER_02]: Doing it for one person is in a search with and doing it to 500 people is in a search.

[SPEAKER_02]: They're all zeros and so they all add up to zero.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I think that's wrong.

[SPEAKER_02]: I actually think that's incorrect.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I think if you think about it differently and you think about the fourth amendment as protecting the people, there becomes a small L libertarian idea about [SPEAKER_02]: the relationship between the state and the people who make up the body politic, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: And it's more about limitations on the state's ability to harass people than it is about your individual rights.

[SPEAKER_02]: This is an area that when last time I looked into it was so sorely underdeveloped.

[SPEAKER_02]: And I would love to see more writing about it.

[SPEAKER_02]: I would love to see more thinking about it.

[SPEAKER_02]: Because I think it's needed.

[SPEAKER_02]: I think it's right to be frank.

[SPEAKER_02]: I just think the way we approach the Fourth Amendment is wrong.

[SPEAKER_02]: I just don't think it's correct to think that it's all about these individual interactions.

[SPEAKER_02]: And it's not about the relationship between the state and capital T, the capital P people.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right?

[SPEAKER_02]: That's what it's about.

[SPEAKER_00]: the anti-subordination for some amendment.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, or we need it developed.

[SPEAKER_04]: And maybe maybe someone can take my idea where cops have to tell you that you're free to go and build on it even further.

[SPEAKER_04]: Maybe they have to tell you from 20 feet away.

[SPEAKER_04]: Maybe they can't even get close to you.

[SPEAKER_04]: You know what I mean?

[SPEAKER_04]: Because that's scary.

[SPEAKER_02]: Maybe they have to be like that guy in love, actually, where they just have like a board like a signed hold-up.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_00]: To me, you are criminal.

[SPEAKER_00]: That's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It's too much.

[SPEAKER_04]: It doesn't even make sense in the context that we're talking about.

[SPEAKER_05]: Oh, it's so good, it's so good.

[SPEAKER_04]: Oh.

[SPEAKER_04]: So I think the good part about left is legal thought.

[SPEAKER_04]: Is that the current state of things is so bad.

[SPEAKER_04]: That they almost any ideas and improvement.

[SPEAKER_04]: You know what I mean?

[SPEAKER_04]: Um, cops should have to wear bigger shoes.

[SPEAKER_04]: They should have to wear shoes that are two sizes too big.

[SPEAKER_04]: Well, please pop that in the constitution first.

[UNKNOWN]: Yeah.

[SPEAKER_02]: No, but like think about like something like stop and frisk, right?

[SPEAKER_02]: Like how much easier that is to conceptualize as a as a constitutional violation when you're thinking of the fourth amendment collectively right then having to do this like Ridiculous hundred page opinion getting into the statistics to prove that it's like unequal treatment and all that stuff [SPEAKER_02]: Like it's just like, no, this is clearly just, you're harassing the people, right?

[SPEAKER_00]: Like it's a widespread abuse of the population.

[SPEAKER_00]: Right.

[SPEAKER_00]: It's so clean.

[SPEAKER_02]: It's so much cleaner.

[SPEAKER_02]: And there's just, there's a lot of room for rethinking things.

[SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[SPEAKER_03]: All right, folks, next week, Pulse of Fur V United States.

[SPEAKER_03]: This is a case about the First Step Act, a criminal law reform act passed just a few years ago.

[SPEAKER_03]: The Supreme Court immediately tried to defang.

[SPEAKER_03]: Follow us on social media at 5.4Pod, follow us on patreon.com slash 5.4Pod, all spelled out for access to premium and the ad-free episodes.

[SPEAKER_03]: Special events are Slack, all sorts of shit.

[SPEAKER_03]: We'll see you next week.