LET'S GO TO IMMIGRATION. CONGRESS GAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL "SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION WHETHER TO EXPEDITE REMOVAL WHERE APPLIED TO AN ALIEN NOT ADMITTED TO THE U.S." YOU DECIDED A CASE WHERE YOU SEEMED TO AGREE CONGRESS GAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SOLE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHICH ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL BUT YOU STILL WENT ON TO REVIEW THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION. IN FACT, YOU ISSUED A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION BLOCKING DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FROM REMOVING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO HAD BEEN IN THE COUNTRY FOR LESS THAN TWO YEARS. IN THAT HEARING, YOU TOLD US IF THE TEXT WAS CLEAR, THAT ENDED THE QUESTION. THE LAW SPECIFICALLY SAYS HOMELAND SECURITY, NOT THE COURTS, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE DECISION. COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU BELIEVE A FEDERAL COURT COULD REVIEW SOMETHING CONGRESS CALLED UNREVIEWABLE? YOU, SENATOR, FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THAT OPINION AND MY ANALYSIS WITH RESPECT TO IT. AS YOU SAID, MAKE THE ROAD WAS A CASE INVOLVING A CHALLENGE TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL, WHICH WAS A WAY IN WHICH CONGRESS HAD GIVEN AUTHORITY TO HOMELAND, TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT HOW TO DEPORT PEOPLE WHO ARE NONCITIZENS. PRIOR TO THE CHALLENGE I HEARD, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, SINCE IT RECEIVED THAT AUTHORITY SEVERAL DECADES AGO HAD DECIDED PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR UP TO 14 DAYS AND ARE FOUND WITHIN 100 MILES OF THE BORDER ARE SUBJECT TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL. THE CHALLENGE THAT I HEARD INVOLVED THE DEPARTMENT'S SUDDEN SHIFT TO A DETERMINATION THAT EXPEDITED REMOVAL WOULD BE APPLIED TO ANYONE FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY AND WHO HAD BEEN HERE UP TO TWO YEARS. IMPORTANTLY, THE CHALLENGE WAS NOT ABOUT THE ACTUAL DETERMINATION. THE CHALLENGE WAS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES THE AGENCY UNDERTOOK TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THE STATUTE SAID, AS YOU RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, THAT THE AGENCY HAD SOLE AND UNREVIEWABLE DISCRETION TO DECIDE AND IN INTERPRETING THAT, I TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE LANGUAGE OF THAT STATUTE AND THE LANGUAGE OF ANOTHER STATUTE THAT CONGRESS HAS ENACTED TWO DIRECT AGENCIES WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH -- TO DIRECT AGENCIES WITH RESPECT TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY EXECUTED. I TOOK "SOLE" MEANT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WAS THE ONLY AGENCY THAT GOT TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, TO HOW MANY MONTHS A PERSON SHOULD BE IN THE U.S. UNREVIEWABLE MEANT IT WAS FINAL. ONCE THE AGENCY DECIDED, THERE WAS NO ABILITY TO REVIEW SUBSTANTIVELY THE DETERMINATION. I SHOULD SAY IMPORTANTLY, THE STATUTE CONGRESS ENACTED GAVE THE AGENCY DISCRETION TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION BETWEEN ZERO AND 24 MONTHS. THERE IS A LIMIT IN THE STATUTE. IT SAYS DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, YOU GET TO DECIDE WHERE BETWEEN ZERO AND 24 MONTHS A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY CAN BE SUBJECT TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL. I READ THE STATUTE. DHS GETS THE SOLE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION. DHS MAKES THAT DECISION AND IT IS FINAL. WHAT WAS NOT CLEAR TO ME BASED ON THAT LANGUAGE WAS WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO PRECLUDE ITS PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS TO THE EXERCISE OF AGENCY DISCRETION. , THERE WAS PRESIDENT, -- PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS MAY STILL APPLY. IT IS PRESUMPTIVE, AN AGENCY CANNOT ACT WHEN IT UNDERTAKES TO EXERCISE DISCRETION. IT HAS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION CONGRESS HAS GIVEN IT. I'M SORRY. I LOOKED AT THOSE STATUTES AND CONSIDERED THE CANONS OF CONSTRUCTION THAT SAY THAT STATUTES SHOULD BE READ HARMONIOUSLY. THAT IS A COURT, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO UNDERSTAND CONGRESS HAS DIRECTED, SOMETIMES IN MORE THAN ONE STATUTE WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. I READ THEM TOGETHER TO MEAN THE COURT COULD STILL DO WHAT IT ALMOST ALWAYS DOES IN A CASE INVOLVING A CHALLENGE TO THE MANNER IN WHICH AN AGENCY MAKES ITS DECISION AND IN FACT I THOUGHT, AS I SAY IN MY OPINION, THAT CONGRESS INTENDED FOR THE APA TO APPLY BECAUSE IT HAD NOT EXCLUDED IT WHICH IT HAD DONE ESPECIALLY IN OTHER PARTS OF THE INA, IT HAD NOT EXCLUDED IT HERE. AND IT MADE SENSE TO REQUIRE THE AGENCY TO USE ITS EXPERTISE. IF CONGRESS WANTED THE AGENCY TO ACT ARBITRARILY IN PICKING A NUMBER, CONGRESS COULD HAVE DONE THAT. CONGRESS COULD HAVE RANDOMLY PICKED THE NUMBER. IT WAS GIVING IT TO THE AGENCY, I THOUGHT, PRECISELY BECAUSE IT WANTED THE AGENCY TO USE ITS EXPERTISE, TO DO ITS RESEARCH AND TO FIGURE OUT WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME IS SUFFICIENT. IT WAS IMPORTANT, I THOUGHT, TO LAY THAT OUT IN THE STATUTE. I DETERMINED THAT BOTH OF THOSE STATUTORY DIRECTIVES SHOULD APPLY. 