UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (3/17/25): What is the Alien Enemies Act? Did Trump Defy the Court Order? Birthright Citizenship Goes to Supreme Court, What We Know About Presidents Using an Autopen, and More.

Episode Date: March 17, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Columbia University Sanctions Students Who Occupied Hamilton Hall (0:42) Trump Administration Takes Birthright Citizenship to Supreme Court (3:06) Trump Signs Executive Order Virtually Eliminating Seven Entities (12:19) Congress Passes Stopgap Measure to Avoid Government Shutdown (16:41) Trump Invokes Alien Enemies Act; Judge Blocks It; Flights With Migrants Fly Anyway (22:37) Trump Says Biden's Orders Signed With Autopen Are Void; Here's What We Know About the Autopen (31:05) Oracle Reportedly Talking to White House About TikTok Deal (34:07) Officials Say Assistant Brown University Professor Deported Back to Lebanon for Attending Hezbollah Leader Funeral (36:16) Quick Hitters: $70M Contract Awarded for New Border Wall Construction, Man Wins $50M for Hot Starbucks Drink Spill, Astronauts Arrive at ISS, and More (38:14) Critical Thinking Segment (40:11) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE WEEKLY NEWSLETTER. **1/27/25 Episode on Birthright Citizenship AUDIO Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You hear that? Ugh, paid. And done. That's the sound of bills being paid on time. But with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card, paying your bills could sound like this. Earn rewards for paying your bill in full and on time each month. Rise to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. Terms and conditions apply.

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, March 17th. Let's talk about some news. But first, just a little PSA that the first edition of my new weekly newsletter went out on Friday. Everyone loved it. I mean, that's what I expected, but I am really happy with the positive feedback.

The next edition goes out this Friday. So if you're not yet subscribed, I will leave the link in this episode description. Remember the newsletter is a mix of politics, business, pop culture, and health news. It goes out every Friday and it is free. So all you have to provide is your email address. Let's start today's episode with a story out of Columbia University. On

Thursday Columbia University announced sanctions against the individuals that occupied Hamilton Hall last year during the on-campus protests in the wake of the Israel-Hamas War. That statement from the school says in part quote the Columbia the Columbia University Judicial Board determined findings and issued sanctions to students ranging from multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocations, and expulsions. So a little bit of background here. In April of last year, protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, which is on Columbia University's campus. And the occupants included students, staff, alumni, and unaffiliated individuals. They unraveled a sign atop the building that sought to rename the hall Hinn's Hall instead of Hamilton Hall, which was a reference

to honor the death of a six-year-old Palestinian girl named Hinvrijab. The protesters demanded that Columbia divest from companies linked to Israel and cut ties with Israeli academic institutions. They planned to stay occupied in or stay occupying Hamilton Hall until Columbia University agreed to divest. Ultimately, that didn't happen. On April 30th, the NYPD cleared the occupation at Columbia's request and arrested roughly 100 people. Once the hall was cleared, Columbia released pictures and videos from the building, which showed overturned chairs and tables, broken windows, broken doors, and more. So last week, Columbia,

citing violations of school policies, announced this disciplinary action against those that took part in the occupation. Those that are currently still students at the school will either face expulsion or suspension. Those that are alumni will have their diplomas temporarily revoked. We don't know if this applies to all students that took part in the protest or in the occupation because we don't have an exact number of how many students were involved in this decision so we can't you know compare it to the number of students that were arrested last year. Notably this disciplinary announcement came just days after the Trump administration announced that it

would be revoking roughly 400 million dollars in federal funding for Columbia University due to the university's alleged failure to address anti-Semitism on campus. Also on Thursday, the Trump administration went to the Supreme Court with its birthright citizenship fight. So we've talked about this in the past, but I do want to do a quick little recap and explain what the administration is trying to impose, the arguments on both sides of this case, and then what exactly the administration is trying to impose, the arguments on both sides of this case, and then what exactly the administration is asking for in this particular appeal to the Supreme Court.

Upon taking office, President Trump issued this executive order, signed this executive order, which basically says that people born on US soil are not automatically entitled to US citizenship. Currently, anyone born on US soil becomes an automatic citizen of the US regardless of the legal status of their parents. So long as you are born here or born on US soil, you are a US citizen. Under Trump's order though, to gain US citizenship, at least one of your parents has to either be a permanent resident in the United States or a citizen of the United States. That order was to take effect 30 days after it was signed

had it not been blocked by these court orders and it would have applied to all future births. It would not have applied retroactively. So a few different lawsuits were filed arguing that under the 14th Amendment, and I quote, this is me quoting the 14th Amendment, and I quote, this is me quoting the 14th Amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. The controversy surrounds that phrase in the middle

of the clause which says, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, because if you take that out, the 14th amendment just says all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States. In that case, it's a pretty open and shut case. But the question becomes, what does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? And why did the framers include that clause? Does it give additional meaning and additional context? And that is the question that the courts will have to answer in these cases. Notably back in 1898, the Supreme Court said that so long as the parents are permanently

domiciled in the United States when they give birth to their child, that child receives citizenship upon birth. But as we discussed, the plaintiffs have set forth the argument that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment and Trump cannot do away with that right by way of executive order. Specifically though, when it comes to this who is the or who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States question, the plaintiffs argue that so long as you are present on U.S. soil, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In other words, you're subject to the laws of the United States. You cannot come onto US soil, commit a crime, and say, well I'm from Italy so it's okay. The Trump administration, on the other hand, argues that someone is

only subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the purposes of the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause if one of their parents is either a permanent resident or US citizen themselves and those with parents here illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as It is meant in the 14th Amendment. Now, I did do a deeper dive into the arguments and existing case law in an earlier episode so if you do want to learn more about the background of birthright citizenship in the courts and You know more about the arguments on both sides of this, check out my January 27th episode. I will link it in the episode description of this episode.

For today, I want to stay on track with what's going on in the courts currently. Various plaintiffs across the country filed lawsuits challenging Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, specifically in Seattle, Maryland, and Massachusetts. And in each of those three cases, the president's order was blocked nationwide. So not just blocked from enforcement against the parties that filed the lawsuits, but the judges in each case said this order cannot be applied at all to any non-citizen in the United States. In ruling that way, one judge said the president's order was quote-unquote blatantly unconstitutional, running afoul of the 14th Amendment. Another judge said the president's order was quote-unquote blatantly unconstitutional,

running afoul of the 14th Amendment. Another judge said no court in this country has ever endorsed the president's interpretation and this court will not be the first. So the administration appealed each of these orders to the respective appellate courts, and each of the appellate courts rejected the administration's appeals, which prompted the administration to take the issue to the Supreme Court because that's the next and final step in the appeals process. In its filing with the Supreme Court,

the administration is asking the justices to lift the nationwide injunctions that are currently blocking its order. More specifically, the administration argues that the lower courts overstepped their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions rather than issuing injunctions that only apply to the specific plaintiffs involved in the lawsuits. Consequently, the administration wants the justices to limit the scope of the lower court

rulings so the administration can enforce its birthright citizenship order against all those not involved in these lawsuits. Notably, Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch have all echoed similar sentiments about these nationwide or universal injunctions and have wanted their colleagues on the bench to weigh in on the legality of these types of injunctions. In fact, in January, the Biden administration asked the justices to weigh in on nationwide injunctions. The justices chose not to do it at that time.

Just to touch on that a little bit, in the last 10 years or so, these nationwide or universal injunctions have become more common. In 2015, a group of Republican state attorneys general sued the Obama administration and got a nationwide injunction to stop President Obama's DACA program and then continued to get these nationwide injunctions over the course of Obama's administration to stem

Obama's policies. Then once President Trump was elected, Democratic state attorneys general did the same thing in an attempt to stemmy Trump's policies. Republican State Attorney General did the same thing to President Biden when he took office. And now here we are again with President Trump. Now that's not to say that nationwide injunctions didn't exist before 2015,

they did just not at the rate that we see them now. So the main argument for the, and I'm getting a little bit off topic here, but it is relevant to the conversation, so I do want to, I want to touch on it. The main argument for the constitutionality of nationwide injunctions, meaning they are okay out of the district courts, is that Article 3 of the Constitution does not define the judicial power and does not limit the powers that a court has to remedy any given situation.

Other than regulations and exceptions made by Congress, the federal courts can develop and refine their remedial powers over time. So a nationwide injunction can almost be thought of as an evolution of the judicial power on that side of the argument. The main argument against the constitutionality of a nationwide injunction though is that Article 3 says federal courts have the power to hear cases and controversies, otherwise known as the case or controversy clause. In other words, the case or controversy requirement ensures that federal courts only address real disputes between

parties that have a genuine stake in the outcome. This prevents courts from involving themselves in mere hypothetical disputes or hypothetical legal questions. Consequently, the argument against the constitutionality of a nationwide injunction is that Article 3 bars courts from remedying situations which are not before it and consequently for individuals who have not brought suit. The reason that that's important to discuss is because one of the things the Trump administration is asking for here in its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court is for the Supreme Court to resolve this issue of nationwide injunctions. In fact, the administration writes in its filing, quote, This is hardly the first time that individual district court judges have entered injunctions to govern the whole nation

from their courtrooms. Such universal injunctions, through a relatively new phenomenon, have become ubiquitous, posing a question of great significance that has been in need of the court's attention for some time." So there are two things at play here with the administration's emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. One, are these nationwide injunctions allowed from district courts? And two, will the Supreme Court partially lift

the lower courts injunctions so the administration can enforce the order against those not directly involved in the birthright citizenship litigation? Or at the very least, so the administration can begin developing guidance about how the federal agencies would implement the birthright citizenship order if it did eventually take effect down the line, which is something they're currently blocked from doing as well. Now, the Supreme Court won't be making an immediate decision

on this, and we know that because the Court called for the plaintiffs to submit their responses to the administration's appeal by April 4th. So once those responses are filed, the Court will take them into consideration and at some point thereafter issue a decision on the matter. Keep in mind the justices don't have to answer the broader question of whether nationwide injunctions are constitutional. They could just choose to answer the question of what to do with these particular nationwide injunctions and kick the constitutionality bucket further down the road. Moving on to some Friday news, President Trump signed an executive order doing away with the

non-statutory components of seven government entities. In other words, any components of these entities that are not required by law should be almost entirely eliminated, and those components that are required by law are to be reduced to the minimum that the law allows. The affected entities include the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, the United States Agency for Global Media, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences,

the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, and the Minority Business Development Agency. Within seven days of the order, which is this upcoming Friday the 21st, Development Financial Institutions Fund and the Minority Business Development Agency. Within seven days of the order, which is this upcoming Friday the 21st, the head of each entity needs to submit a report to the director of the Office of Management and Budget confirming their compliance and explaining which components or functions of their entity, if any, are statutorily required and to what extent.

So this is of course another move by the Trump administration to reduce the federal government. And the administration gave a few reasons why. It said, number one, cutting these entities will save taxpayer dollars, reduce unnecessary government spending, and streamline government priorities. And two, by reducing the federal footprint, President Trump is, quote, returning power to local communities and state governments. End quote. So what I want to do is briefly explain what each entity is responsible for so you can

understand what the effects of the order will be, starting with the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, which is an independent federal agency, meaning it's established outside of the executive office and the 15 executive departments. It's not directly overseen by a cabinet member or the president. So this particular agency works to prevent, minimize, and resolve work stoppages and labor disputes by offering mediation training and facilitation services to employers and unions. Last year the agency employed 202 people and had a budget of 45 million. The United States Agency for Global Media is another

independent agency and broadcasts news and information in 64 different languages about the United States and the world to audiences abroad. It employs about 3,500 people and had a budget of $886 million last fiscal year. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, also known as the Wilson Center, is a nonpartisan think tank that provides research and analysis on global affairs. Congress does support the Wilson Center, but 70% of its annual operating budget is raised by private donors. The Institute of Museum and Library Services is another independent agency.

It supports libraries, archives, and museums within the 50 states through grant-making, research, and policy development. And in 2024, it received $295 million from Congress. The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness is also an independent agency. It works to coordinate the federal response to homelessness and creates partnerships between the government and the private sector to reduce and end homelessness throughout the country. Last fiscal year, the agency received $3.6 million from Congress. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund is a government department fund, which is part of the Treasury Department. It works to expand economic opportunities for underserved people and communities by coordinating investment networks with development lenders, investors, and financial service

providers. Last fiscal year, Congress appropriated $324 million to the fund. And finally, the Minority Business Development Agency is an agency within the Department of Commerce which works to promote the growth of minority businesses through public and private sector programs, policy, and research. According to the agency, minority businesses are those that are owned by African Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asian Hispanics, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, Asian Indians, and Hasidic Jews. In 2024, Congress allocated just over $68 million. Now, as far as whether President Trump has the authority to issue and implement this order,

that remains to be seen. The Supreme Court has generally recognized that Congress has the authority to establish and shape the federal bureaucracy, but it really depends on how a particular agency is structured. With that said, we will likely see challenges here, so stay tuned. Let's take our first break here here and I'll be right back. Alright, now for some more Friday news. Congress approved the stopgap measure just hours before the government was set to partially shut down on March 14th. Republicans have described the bill as clean without partisan measures because it largely continues current funding levels. However,

Democrats have criticized the bill for giving more unchecked spending power to President Donald Trump and Elon Musk amid spending cuts and increases in line with the Trump administration's agenda. So let's talk about it. And we'll also talk about how we got to the point of passage because the last time we talked about the stopgap measure, it was looking like Democrats were going to vote against it in the Senate, but that obviously changed. So the bill is a 99 page measure that increases defense spending by about $6 billion compared to last fiscal year and decreases non-defense spending by about $13 billion compared to last fiscal year.

The bill includes an additional $485 million for ICE to increase and sustain deportation operations, full funding for veterans, healthcare and benefits, and the largest pay increase for junior enlisted troops in the past 40 years. The measure did not include earmarks, which are initiatives for lawmakers' hometown community projects, but it did include a pay increase for federal wildland firefighters, a $753 million increase in funding for air traffic control systems, a Trump administration request for a $550 million increase in funding for nutrition assistance to mothers, infants,

and children, and more funding for the commodity supplement food program to support low-income seniors. So the bill was first voted on in the House where it passed 217 to 213. That was Tuesday of last week. The bill then went to the Senate where it was more of a question. And that's because the Senate has something called the filibuster. So in the House and Senate, a bill needs a simple majority of lawmakers to pass. In the House, that's 218. In the Senate, that's 51. But before a bill can go to a floor vote in the Senate, 60 senators

must vote to send that bill to a vote. That's what we call the cloture rule. Now, in the Senate, we have 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents. So that means even if all 53 Republicans and both independents voted to send this measure to a vote, it would still need the votes of five Democrats to get there. And until the end of the day, before the potential partial government shutdown, all Democrats were pretty much against passing the bill. And that's because one, they didn't want defense spending to increase without also increasing non-defense spending. And two, they felt the bill didn't provide enough funding for programs that would otherwise receive more funding in a negotiated full-year spending bill.

Some of those programs include election security grant funds, facility construction for Veterans Affairs, programs supporting rural broadband, FEMA, certain HHS programs for mental health and substance abuse, and others. However, the day before the shutdown deadline, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is the Democrat leader in the Senate, said he would vote to pass the measure. He said that a shutdown would give Donald Trump

the keys to the city, state, and country, and that Musk has said he wants a shutdown, and reporting has shown that Musk is already making plans to use the shutdown to expedite his destruction of key government programs and services. So for Schumer, it was more important to avoid a shutdown and that's why he voted in favor of the stopgap measure. Once he was on board, he got a few other Democrats on board, which led to the measure passing the Senate in a 62 to 38 vote. Now, there are two things that I want to talk about before we move on to the next story. Number one,

Now, there are two things that I want to talk about before we move on to the next story. Number one, why Schumer said a shutdown would give Trump the keys to the city, state, and country. And two, how the stopgap measure has to do with tariffs. So first, Schumer's comment. What Schumer was referencing was the potential fallout of a lapse in funding. If the government were to shut down and therefore funding lapsed in the government, Democrats felt this would serve as the pretext for the Trump administration to make even deeper cuts across the federal workforce and quote unquote cherry pick which federal agencies to close

under the guise of saving the government money. So Democrats wanted to avoid that potential possibility. The second thing I want to address is how this bill ties into the tariffs discussion. In passing the stopgap measure, Congress also passed a rule that in part has the effect of revoking Congress's authority to stop Trump's tariffs. What do I mean by that?

Well, as we know, the president has imposed tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico by declaring illegal immigration and fentanyl a national emergency under both the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act. But under the National Emergencies Act, Congress actually has the unique ability to quickly end an emergency declaration, which in theory could mean by ending the emergency declaration, the related tariffs would become void. And Democrats tried to do exactly that last week. But when the House was getting ready to vote on the stopgap measure last week, it first needed to pass what's known as a

rule. It's just a procedural thing in the House. But inside that rule was a provision that says, and I'm paraphrasing here, but it says, at no point this year shall Congress enact a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the president on February 1st. So by passing that rule, Congress now loses the authority to revoke the president's February 1st emergency declaration, at least for this year, and therefore loses the authority to stop the tariffs. So that's how the tariffs conversation plays into all of this. I saw a bunch of headlines about that and I figured it was kind of confusing, so I did just want to lay it out in simple terms. But to wrap this conversation

up, the government is now funded through September, so we'll probably be having a similar conversation come September 30th. Now for some weekend news and possibly the biggest news of the week thus far. On Saturday, the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to carry out deportations. But that's not all we have to talk about because the same day that the act was invoked, a judge said the president could not use the law for deportations. And then shortly after that, El Salvador claimed that it had received or confirmed, not claimed, confirmed, it had received a plane

of gang members from the United States who were deported under this legal authority. So a lot of people have a lot of questions, most notably, what is this law? How can President Trump use the law for deportations? Why did a judge block its invocation? Did the administration defy the court order in sending the planes to El Salvador?

And if so, how is the administration allowed to do that? So let's start with question one. What is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798? This law was enacted as the United States was preparing for what it thought would be a war with France, and it gave the president the ability to deport natives and citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing. Congress granted this presidential power because they felt immigrants in the United

States might sympathize with the French, so under this authority, the president could deport any immigrant that sympathized with the opponent. As you can tell by the name of the law, it was designed to be used when the United States is either at war with another country or amid another country threatening to invade the United States, which is why, prior to this weekend, the act had only ever been invoked by a president three times. Once during the War of 1812, once during World War I, and once during World War II. During these instances, the United States detained immigrants from Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Japan, and during World War II, this is the law that was used to establish those controversial Japanese internment camps.

Now for question two, how is President Trump using this law for deportations? Well, on Saturday, he signed a proclamation which says that all members of the Trende Aragwa gang, which is a designated terrorist organization, are now deemed alien enemies and are therefore subject to immediate apprehension, detention, and removal pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. So to be clear, this invocation only applies to members of the Trende Aragwa Gang. Trende Aragwa is an organized crime group originally formed in Venezuelan prison systems. The Biden administration officially recognized TDA as a foreign terrorist organization in

July 2024, and the Trump administration has already begun cracking down on members of TDA. So again, the use of the Alien Enemies Act, which denies those subject to it the right to a hearing prior to deportation, is only allowed to be used for TDA gang members per this proclamation. And a big part of this, by the way, is the invasion component of the proclamation because the Alien Enemies Act can only be invoked if a war has been declared or if an invasion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the United States. So in Trump's proclamation, he specifically says that TDA gang members have perpetrated an invasion of the United States and therefore the Alien Enemies

Act applies. Now the other interesting aspect of this order is that Trump links the gang to the political regime in Venezuela and we'll talk about that more in a minute. But shortly after this proclamation was signed, the ACLU Democracy Forward and the ACLU of DC filed a lawsuit against the administration, saying in part, quote, the U.S. is not in a declared war with Venezuela. The U.S. cannot declare war against Trende Aragua because it is not a nation. And neither Venezuela nor Trende Aragua have invaded or threatened to invade the United States. The lawsuit continues and says, there is a significant risk that even individuals

who do not fall under the terms of the proclamation will be subject to it. As a result, countless Venezuelans are at imminent risk of deportation without any hearing or meaningful review. End quote. So part of the ACLU's argument is that because Trump links TDA to the political regime, he's basically targeting anyone that lives in Venezuela

and anyone that's subject to the Venezuelan government. But I will tell you exactly what the proclamation says just so we're all on the same page. It says quote, by the authority vested in me I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of Trende Aragua and are within the United States and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies." End quote. Okay, so hours after the lawsuit was filed, a judge blocked the administration's use

of the law and blocked the deportation of five Venezuelans. That initial ruling came after the ACLU and Democracy Forward argued that there was limited time to intervene before Trump began deporting Venezuelans. But later in the day, there was a second hearing. At that second hearing, the plaintiffs asked the judge to extend his block to all non-citizens in U.S. custody who would be subject to Trump's proclamation. The judge granted that request and wrote, quote, particularly given the plaintiff's information unrebutted by the government, that flights are actively departing and planning to depart, I do not believe I'm able to wait any longer.

Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States." The judge also said that his temporary restraining order is in effect for 14 days or until further order of the court, which means the administration cannot implement its proclamation for the next 14 days or until further order of the court. As we know, flights carrying 238 members of the TDA gang and at least 21 members of the MS-13 gang landed in El Salvador and Honduras Saturday night. Two of the flights were already in the air, one of them had not yet departed when the court's order was issued. The administration has since said that because the planes were outside US airspace when the order was issued,

the ruling didn't apply to those flights. So another hearing has actually been scheduled for tonight, Monday night, for the administration to explain why it allowed the flights to land in El Salvador despite the court's order. Now, a big question here is where were the flights when the judge gave his ruling? Were the flights within American territory? Were they outside of it? Those are the big questions. Here's what we know.

The second hearing, which ultimately ended with that order demanding the return of the flights, started at 5 p.m. on the dot on Saturday. At 5.22 p.m., the court adjourned for a break. It was on break until 6pm. So from 522pm to 6pm, there was a break. Four minutes after the court adjourned for the break, at 526pm, the first flight carrying migrants departs Texas. 19 minutes later, 545pm, the second flight carrying migrants departs Texas. Keep in mind, the court is still on break at this point. The court hearing resumes at 6 p.m. Between 6 p.m. and 6 48 p.m. is

when the judge verbally tells the DOJ that they need to turn around any planes carrying anyone being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. So that is when the order took effect between 6 48 or 6 45 and 6 48 p.m. At 736, the first flight lands in Honduras, and at 737, a third flight departs Texas in route to El Salvador. And at 808 p.m., the second flight lands in Honduras. So what that means is the third flight definitely left after the court order was issued,

so the judge will definitely take issue with that in tonight's hearing. The first and second flights are more of a question mark. All three flights left from a city in Texas, which is right next to the Texas Mexico border, virtually on the border. That means that the flights were likely in Mexican airspace within the first 15 minutes of takeoff,

which would mean that the first flight was outside US airspace by 5.40 p.m. The first flight was outside US airspace by 5 40 pm, the second flight was outside US airspace by 6 pm. So that would have been before the judge's order at 6 45 pm. But like I said, there is another hearing tonight, so I will update you on Thursday because we're bound to find out more in tonight's hearing and ultimately what the judge decides to do about it. So stay tuned for that. Let's take our second and final break here and I will be right back. Last night, President Trump claimed that President Biden used an auto pen to sign pardon documents

during his presidency and therefore those documents are void. An auto pen, by the way, is a device that replicates a handwritten signature. So the signature is digitally recorded, it's stored, and then the device creates a replica of that signature on paper. Specifically, Trump posted about the pardons for the January 6th committee members writing on True Social, quote,

"'The pardons that Sleepy Joe Biden gave "'to the unselect committee of political thugs "'and many others are hereby declared void, vacant, "'and of no further force or effect because of the fact that they were done by auto pen. In other words, Joe Biden did not sign them. But more importantly, he did not know anything about them. The necessary pardoning documents were not explained to or approved by Biden.

He knew nothing about them, and the people that did may have committed a crime. Therefore, those on the unselect committee who destroyed and deleted all evidence obtained during their two-year witch hunt of me and many other innocent people should fully understand that they are subject to investigation at the highest level. The fact is they were probably responsible for the documents that were signed on their behalf

without the knowledge or consent of the worst president in the history of our country, Crooked Joe Biden." End quote. So keep in mind that January 6 committee that he is referencing was put together to investigate what took place on January 6. The reason that President Biden issued that pardon for committee members is because he felt there was a chance President Trump could go after them once he took office. Now, keep in mind that the use of auto pens is not new. In fact, a 2005 opinion from the Bush Office of Legal Counsel titled Whether the President May Sign a Bill by Directing that his

Signature be Affixed to it, the Office of the Legal Counsel wrote, quote, We emphasize that we are not suggesting that the president may delegate the decision to approve and sign a bill, only that, having made this decision, he may direct a subordinate to affix the president's signature to the bill." So again, this practice of auto-penning or having someone else do the signature is not new and it has been permissible in the past. We don't know how auto-pen or the permissibility of using an auto- pen translates to pardons and if it does. We know one possible scenario in which the use of an auto pen would render a document

void though is if the document were signed without the president's authorization or direction to do so. And that we have no information on. President Trump said in his post that President Biden knew nothing about the pardons that were signed, but at this time we don't have proof of that outside of Trump's statement. So the actual use of auto-penning, not a new thing. Whether a president can auto-pen a pardon, that we don't know. What we do know is that the auto-pen cannot be used for signing a

document for which, you for which the president did not give approval to do so or did not direct someone to sign. Let's talk about some TikTok updates. Oracle is allegedly accelerating talks with the White House on a deal to run TikTok. Oracle is a multinational information technology company. It's headquartered in Texas. It sells database software and cloud computing. So according to the reported terms of the deal, Oracle would oversee American users data and store that data on US based servers run by the company. ByteDance,

the current parent company of TikTok, would reportedly retain control over the algorithm and operations of TikTok, but Oracle would serve as the quote-unquote protector of Americans' data. As we know, President Trump signed an executive order back in January, which temporarily blocked the TikTok ban until April 5th. So it's unclear what will happen once that April 5th deadline is here, though there are a few potential avenues for the current administration to take. One, let's say the ban does take effect. In that situation, the president could tell the DOJ not to enforce the ban, which would mean the DOJ wouldn't penalize app stores for offering the app to US users. But as we saw in January, app stores did remove the app from its stores for US users out of an abundance of caution. So even if the president

were to tell the DOJ not to enforce the ban, the app stores could remove the app if the ban were to take effect just to be safe. Two, the president may be able to extend the pause on the ban again to allow for more negotiations. So time will tell. In other TikTok adjacent news, TikTok launched an ad campaign in metro stations across Washington, DC this weekend and into today to attempt to sway lawmakers.

According to TikTok, the ads are meant to remind lawmakers of the app's importance to the economy. One ad featuring an Arizona cafe owner says, TikTok took us from $10 to $25,000 in a week. Another ad featuring a Georgia auto repair shop says, 80% of my business is from TikTok. End quote. Last month, TikTok also ran a full page ad

in Politico's print newspaper, which circulates on Capitol Hill, that read, quote, small businesses in America are thriving on TikTok. End quote. It's unclear whether these ads will make any difference, considering TikTok tried a similar advertising strategy last year, but Congress still passed the ban anyway. And some news from today. Well, actually, this news started last week, but we received a new update today.

So last week, an assistant professor at Brown University was sent back to Lebanon after arriving to Boston Logan International Airport with a valid H-1B visa. Dr. Rasha Alawi arrived at Boston Logan on Thursday and was detained until Friday when CBP sent her on a flight back to Lebanon. In between Thursday and Friday, Alawi's cousin filed a petition with a court requesting and was detained until Friday when CBP sent her on a flight back to Lebanon. In between Thursday and Friday, Alaway's cousin filed a petition with a court requesting her release. According to the petition, Alaway has been in the United States since 2018, previously

lived and worked in Rhode Island, and is a kidney transplant specialist. In response to that petition, the court issued an order on Friday saying there would be a hearing on Monday, today, which Alaway was to attend and that Alaway was not to be removed from the state of Massachusetts without 48 hours notice and a reason. But by the time that CBP received notice of the order, Alaway was already sent back to Lebanon. Today we learned, and this is the update, today we learned from Homeland Security officials that Alawi told customs agents upon her arrival that she had attended the funeral of Hassan

Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. Alawi's cousin had stated in the original petition that Alawi had gone to Lebanon to visit family. The DHS official also said Alawi's phone had quote unquote sympathetic photos and videos of prominent Hezbollah figures in a deleted items folder on her phone. Assistant US Attorney Michael Sadie wrote in a court filing Monday that CBP questioned Dr. Allouay and determined that her true intentions in the United States could not be determined. Allouay had told CBP agents that she followed Nasrallah's

teachings from a religious perspective, not a political one. In light of the new information, the court has postponed Allaway's hearing, which was originally scheduled for today, as I said, and gave the government another week to submit additional information about what happened. Now for some quick hitters. Speaking of the DHS, DHS secretary Kristi Noem announced a $7 million contract for 7 miles of additional border wall construction to Granite Construction Company. That construction began yesterday in Arizona and it's being paid for out of 2021 CBP funds after the Biden administration initially canceled the contract. A jury in California has awarded a man $50 million after he was badly burned by a hot Starbucks coffee while at the drive-thru.

The man alleged he was picking up three drinks at the drive-thru when an improperly secured lid led to a spill on his lap. The lawsuit claimed that he suffered severe burns, disfigurement, and debilitating nerve damage to his genitals. Starbucks said it intends to appeal the $50 million verdict, and that it disagrees with the jury's decision that it was at fault for the incident. According to a new CNN poll, Americans' views of the Democratic Party have dropped to a record low with only 29% having a favorable opinion of the party. To compare, in October of last year,

39% of all Americans had a favorable opinion of the party. Notably, 48% of respondents believe Democratic leaders are taking the party in the right direction, 52% say the wrong direction. As for the Republican Party, the new poll shows that 36% of Americans have a favorable opinion of it. This study was conducted between March 6th and 9th of roughly 1,200 adults, of whom 29% described themselves as Democrats, 30% Republicans, and 41% independents or members of another party. Four astronauts arrived at the International Space

Station on Sunday, which means the two astronauts who have been stuck at the ISS for the last nine months can now go home. Weather permitting, the SpaceX capsule carrying Wilmore Williams and two other astronauts will undock from the space station no later than Wednesday, March 19th and splash down off Florida's coast. For today's critical thinking segment, let's revisit the Alien Enemies Act.

Remember, the critical thinking segment is not meant to be too complicated. It's just an exercise for the brain so we don't forget how to think for ourselves and how to form our own opinions. First, I always start with your initial thoughts. How do you feel about the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in this situation? Are you more on the administration side or are you more on the ACLU side and why? The why part is the most important because we have to be able to back up our arguments. If you support the invocation, I want you to imagine a situation where the president

uses this law to deport people based on vague or unproven security threats. Would you still support its use and why or why not? And I don't necessarily want you to approach this question from a policy standpoint, right? So it shouldn't be, yeah, all immigrants without legal authorization shouldn't be in the US, so of course I support the invocation of the law. No, I want you to think about this from a legal perspective, obeying the law.

Think about what the law actually says and then whether you would support its invocation for vague or unproven national security threats. If you are against the invocation, imagine a situation where there is strong evidence that a foreign gang was responsible for a rise in violent crime here in the United States. Strong evidence. Would you reconsider using expedited deportations in this case? Why or why not? And if not, what would it take for you to support

the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act? That is what I have for you today. Don't forget to subscribe to the newsletter if you're not already. It is in the link to subscribe is in this episode description, so it's right there for you. I will talk to you again on Thursday.