I'M NOT GOING TO PUSH IT. I GET IT. IT'S NOT A GOOD TIME TO MAKE THE CHIEF OF STAFF HAD. -- MAD. I HOPE YOU WILL KEEP THIS IN MIND JUDGE, IF YOU ARE CONFIRMED. THIS IS WHERE JUDICIAL STRENGTH IS ALL ABOUT -- JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IS ALL ABOUT. AMERICA IS A BIG WIDE OPEN DIVERSE SOMETIMES DYSFUNCTIONAL BUT SOMETIMES IMPERFECT BUT BASICALLY GOOD COUNTRY. WE HAVE DIFFERENT VALUES. THAT'S PART OF OUR DIVERSITY. I THINK OUR COUNTRY WORKS BECAUSE OF OUR SYSTEM OF FEDERALISM. THE VALUES IN LOUISIANA MAY BE DIFFERENT FROM THE VALUES IN MAINE. IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON, YOU CAN MOVE. AS OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS GOTTEN BIGGER AND BIGGER, WHAT HAS DEVELOPED AT LEAST HERE IN WASHINGTON IS THIS MANAGERIAL ELITE. WHEN I SAY THAT, I MEAN THE ENTRENCHED POLITICIANS I GUESS I SHOULDN'T SAY ENTRENCHED BECAUSE THAT'S PEJORATIVE BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT THAT HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME. MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA ARE PART OF THE MANAGERIAL ELITE. PART OF THE ADMINISTERED ESTATE. ACADEMICS. A LOT OF CORPORATE PHONIES THAT ARE PART OF. MANY PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE SMARTER AND MORE VIRTUOUS THAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT THEY OUGHT TO SET FORTH HOW PEOPLE SHOULD LIVE THEIR LIVES. PEOPLE SHOULD SHUT UP AND DO WHAT THEY'RE TOLD AND IF THEY BEHAVE, MAYBE MANAGERIAL ELITE WILL LET THEM MEET OCCASIONALLY. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE VISION OF OUR COUNTRY. I THINK TO SOME EXTENT, THE SUPREME COURT I DON'T WANT TO SAY CONTRIBUTES TO IT, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE MINDFUL. LET ME GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE. THIS CASE BOTHERS ME, I WAY TO EXPLAIN IT. -- I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN IT. I WANT TO HEAR YOU EXPLAIN IT. IT IS MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK VERSUS BUCKLEY CLINT. HERE'S THE WAY I READ IT. CONGRESS WE IN A RARE MOMENT OF CONSENSUS GAVE DHS THE SOUL AND UNREVIEWABLE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHEN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE REMOVED ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS. THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TAKING THE STATUTE DECIDED TO USE IT SOUL AND UNREVIEWABLE AUTHORITY TO STATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE EXPEDITED REMOVAL OF ALL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO HAVE BEEN LESS THAN TWO YEARS. YOU SAID NO. YOU ISSUED UNIVERSAL INJUNCTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. YOU TALKED ABOUT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. I DON'T SEE HOW MUCH CLEARER CONGRESS COULD HAVE BEEN. THE D.C. CIRCUIT JUDGE YOU, BUT I WANT TO HEAR YOUR REASONS FOR ISSUING THAT NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION. JUDGE JACKSON: THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THAT DECISION IN THAT CASE. THE STATUTE AT ISSUE GAVE DISCRETION TO DHS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT A PERSON NEEDED TO HAVE BEEN IN THE COUNTRY BETWEEN ZERO AND 24 MONTHS IN ORDER TO BE SUBJECT TO EXPEDITED REMOVAL AS OPPOSED TO THE NORMAL REMOVAL PROCESS IN THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM. THE STATUTE SAID THAT DHS HAD SOLE DISCRETION MEANING NO OTHER AGENCY WAS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THE STATUTE SAID THAT DHS DETERMINATION IN THAT REGARD WAS UNREVIEWABLE MEANING IT WAS FINAL. THIS IS HOW I'M INTERPRETING. MEANING THAT ONCE THE DECISION WAS MADE, IT WAS OVER. NOBODY ELSE GETS TO REVIEW, THE COURT DOESN'T GET TO SAY NO, YOU ARE WRONG IF YOU PICK 12 MONTHS FOR EXAMPLE OR 16 MONTHS OR 24 MONTHS AS THEY DID IN THIS CASE. THE STATUTE DID NOT SPEAK TO WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED WITH THAT GRANT OF VERY BROAD DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE ANOTHER STATUTE THAT CONGRESS HAD PASSED THE DIRECTS AGENCIES WHEN CONGRESS GIVES THEM DISCRETION, THE OTHER STATUTE DIRECTS AGENCIES AS TO HOW THEY GO ABOUT MAKING DECISIONS THAT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THEM THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE. THE APA IS PROCEDURAL STATUTE. IT SAYS TO AGENCIES WHEN CONGRESS GIVES YOU DISCRETION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION, YOU HAVE TO DO SO IN A WAY THAT IS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, YOU HAVE TO USE YOUR EXPERTISE IN CERTAIN KINDS OF DECISIONS YOU HAVE TO USE NOTICE AND COMMENT IN ORDER TO GET INFORMATION. IT IS PROCEDURAL. THE CLAIM THAT WAS BEING MADE IN THIS CASE AS I READ IT AND UNDERSTOOD IT WAS NOT THAT THE AGENCY COULDN'T PICK 24 MONTHS. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, CONGRESS HAS SAID YOU CAN PICK BETWEEN ZERO AND 24 MONTHS. THE CLAIM THAT WAS BEING MADE IS THAT THE AGENCY PICKED 24 MONTHS ARBITRARILY. IN VIOLATION OF CONGRESS'S DIRECTION ABOUT HOW YOU GO ABOUT. THE CLAIM WAS AN APA VIOLATION. NO ONE WAS SAYING THAT THE STATUTE WAS VIOLATED IN THE SENSE THAT THE AGENCY DID SOMETHING IT COULDN'T HAVE DONE PER THE STATUTE PICKING 24 MONTHS. THEY STATE THE APA WAS VIOLATED BECAUSE -- AS THE CLAIMED THEY WERE MAKING -- THE APA MADE NO ANALYSIS, THE AGENCY DID NO EXPERTISE, IT DID NOT EVALUATE IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE SIX MONTHS THESE ARE THE KINDS OF TIES THAT YOU HAVE, IF YOU'VE BEEN HERE 18 MONTHS -- THE AGENCY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. ESSENTIALLY ACCORDING TO THE CLAIMANTS, THE AGENCY HEARD THE PRESIDENT SAY WE ARE NOW GOING TO DO 24 MONTHS WHEN ALL OF THE OTHER ADMINISTRATIONS -- ...