Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Added 2025-11-18 09:00:10 +0000 UTC** An earlier version of this episode incorrectly referred to the asylum officers who conduct credible fear interviews as border patrol agents. **
If the government is acting all authoritarian-y, detaining you in violation of your rights, there’s a basic assumption in the Constitution that you can use “The Great Writ” of habeas corpus to challenge that unlawful behavior. But Samuel Alito would like to remind you what happens when you ASS U ME. Something something immigrants, something something you’re wrong. So yeah, Constitution HUMILIATED.
Thank you to our wonderful subscribers!
5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. This episode was produced by Dustin DeSoto. Leon Neyfakh provides editorial support. Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations. Transcriptions of each episode are available at fivefourpod.com
Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On BlueSky, find Peter @notalawyer.bsky.social, Michael @fleerultra.bsky.social, and Rhiannon @aywarhiannon.bsky.social.
Comments
I bought a car at a national dealership a few years ago. When I made my online account to set up payments, the loan amount was $12,000 more than what I had agreed to. I managed to get them to print all my docs bc they had only given me digital versions on a thumb drive. But I had to go in person bc they were dodging my calls. That’s when I saw Not My Signature on the contract. First hint it wasn’t my signature: IT WASN’T MY NAME and all the letters were clearly spelled out. Absolutely no one cared. Not the loan company, not the warranty company, cops, state vehicle sale regulators, credit bureaus, no one. It took 3 months just to find a lawyer to take my case. Some don’t answer the phone/return calls, some aren’t taking new clients, some don’t do this kind of law, one ghosted me after the initial consultation. The lawyer I ended up working with recommended I settle for less because it’ll cost me more than it’s worth to go through the whole judicial process. He said he wasn’t comfortable taking more money from me because it was likely the judge would push “compromise” anyway. It took 3 more months to settle and I had to sign an NDA so I can’t even leave a review to warn people. I’m fired up all over again just recapping this. The only response I had at every step was, “WHAT is the POINT of the LAW?!?!?!”
Seancé Knowles
2025-11-23 00:20:04 +0000 UTCLOL sorry meant Josh from the PD episode, not office
Alana McMains
2025-11-21 08:33:07 +0000 UTCAs a lawyer who does indigent criminal defense in San Diego (former coworker of the amazing Josh from the public defender office!), I work with tons of immigrants charged with illegally crossing the border. That’s only a misdemeanor with a max of 6 months prison, but if you’ve been deported before, it’s a felony with a max of 10 years. But the vast majority of my clients don’t even realize they have a formal deportation aka “removal” because the expedited removal process is so fucked up and, well, expedited. People will think that because they’ve never seen a judge, they have no actual removals, they just have been caught at the border and “turned around,” as was the process for so many years. And also, they rarely are actually offered the chance to speak with an asylum officer. The Border Patrol agents often just fill out the paperwork and have them sign without even translating it. Many times they didn’t know they had the right to have the credible fear determination, or they weren’t even asked about a fear of return to Mexico in the first place. Anyway yeah fuck Congress and Bill Clinton for creating this BS process in the first place.
Alana McMains
2025-11-21 08:32:39 +0000 UTCPiling legal nonsense on a specific case by case basis simply to justify your conflicting bigoted policies is really the judicial equivalent of forcing your engine to run on bubble gum, duct tape, and zip ties. I mean... you technically (legally) CAN do that but, good luck everyone else on the road! 😃👍🏼 💥💥💥💥💥
Yassified_Paperclip
2025-11-20 17:43:01 +0000 UTCPeter makes a great point about the fact that to preserve rights you need a larger judiciary. Conservatives oppose growing the size of government so are fundamentally opposed to protecting rights.
Steven Kippel
2025-11-19 15:21:23 +0000 UTCThis originalist or “history and tradition” issue goes back to the original enlightenment ideals the country was founded on: that the people are sovereign and rights are inherent in the people, as opposed to the reactionary belief that rights are bestowed upon the subjects by the sovereign. You know “America for Americans.”
Steven Kippel
2025-11-19 15:09:19 +0000 UTC
