korea. discussing policy issues facing the president and his second year in office. and former u.s. attorney alberto gonzales views the trump administration immigration policy and the presidential attacks on current attorney general jeff sessions. watch every sunday for our look at "american turmoil." next, attorney general jeff speech to the federalist society. he spoke out against federal judges who issue "nationwide injunctions." he says such and junctions are used to block executive actions under cities.

this is just over half an hour. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. i appreciate those words. it is good to be with you. i'm shocked this many people showed up on saturday morning at 8:30 a.m. even with the traffic jam out there. i'm delighted to see you. i think that shows strength and -- our legal world. that's what i think we are. part of the traditional views that american law was founded on and it served us exceedingly well.

honored toyond words have a small role and perhaps strengthening it. maintaining the great traditions that have been so beneficial to us. a good legal system is not only good for fairness and just plain justice but it is also critical to prosperity and freedom and public safety. all of those things are critical and when you travel the world, as i have, with the opportunity to serve with the foreign services committee and see the disastrous, almost hopeless situation summary countries around the world are in, you know our great legal system and judiciaryus traditions, our constitution, are just beyond words a gift that we inherited, really. we need to maintain it and strengthen it. i would like to express my

appreciation to the federalist society. i saw jean mayer just a while ago. i remember when it was founded. john at some point after was founded, there were no chapters where i was but i was reading the publications and would celebrate the fact that this iganization was out there and said at one of their events recently that i am convinced that is no organization seeks to advance an interest that has been more effective in the last 30 years, that achieves the goals it sets then the federalist society. don't you agree? i just think it is fabulous. [applause] general sessions: the great judges being nominated now. that will be hopefully years to

come who believe in classical american law, think it is just fabulous what you are doing. so our founders set up a great system that the congress writes laws. the executive branch carries out the laws. and the judiciary applies those cases and controversies that come before them but you know well that there is always a serious risk that each branch might overreach in its powers but i guess we're talking about potential overreach by the judiciary. powers.ave limited for example, we had recently i judge tell one of our fine lawyers you cannot come into

court and espouse a physician as this. that just hurt my heart. [laughter] sessions: to have that attorney attack might inquire. but it was not legal. it was not unlawful. but it was hard to see that. to say publicly that it was not his job to decide but the american people through their representatives pass laws and we try to enforce them as they are written and but that was our response. in the same judge then said, back in court, guess my lawyer said, i seem to think that courts cannot have an opinion. well, that is wrong, of course. judge should issue legal opinions that pertain to the legal questions before the end

as far as the case and not to politics. attorney general, i have been shocked, really, by the actions of certain judges in torts we have dealt with who are respect the constitutional responsibilities of the executive and the legislative branches. these branches are coequal. get to havees not the final word in every dispute. give me a break. all courts are empowered to decide specific cases and controversy but they do not have every word. that is the policy. the branches that are directly accountable to the people. i have been there. i had to be accountable. they must be given a proper respect. the new vehicle we are seeing today, and i would like to talk to you about that has been used by activist judges to direct

executive policy and functioning is the issuing of nationwide injunctions. or they are blocking the entire united states government from exacting a united states policy or carrying out a legislative statute. district.just in one they ordered it is applied nationwide and not just before the court that to everybody throughout the country. theme court seven calling nationwide injunctions. -- have been calling them nationwide injunctions. but it would be fitting to call them non-party injunctions or limitless injunctions since they and they areican usually preliminary and junctions so they are blocking government actions before trial has occurred. when you think about it, that is

some a gust power that one judge could do that. scholars have not found a single example of any judge issuing this kind of extreme remedy in the first 100 some new five years of the republic. but president trump, he has been over one22 would just year an office on issues. like daca. or the trouble order. or sanctuary cities. transgenderrvice of people in the military. we carefully worked on these matters. we believe we finally evaluate them in the order they are lawful land defensible. at one judge, no. nationwide. though you may have heard differently, we believe that our actions are justified and the orders that have been issued are lawful and within the powers of the chief executive.

we are in or to defend these actions before the supreme court and are confident about our prospects. the supreme court has on the issue -- i am not sure if you are aware of this -- 40 extremely extraordinary opinions by which they have reversed a vast majority of the injunctions on the travel matter and granted extraordinary writs on judges extreme discovery. they were deposing my counsel! one of my counsel is being deposed, and we finally got -- the united states supreme court inued an order to stop it the middle of a deposition. so we are -- feel like, and many instances, a lot of these actions are outside proper law. i just have to tell you that is the way we see it. it is hard enough the colossal government of the united states,

under the laws passed by congress -- give me a break. that is pretty hard. but much less when you're facing a host of nationwide and by one of 600 federal judges. injunctions that really do face -- cause turmoil. 32 nationwide and junctions issued. now we have had 22 and just one year. clearly, something has changed. it is not as though there were not legal controversies before 1963. there were indeed many. they were hotly contested but nobody issues nationwide, limitless and junctions. 1897 and scott versus dam for example, the supreme court found the law unconstitutional and even recognized many others besides the plaintiffs before them were entitled to relief,

but the court issued an injunction that only prevented the education of the law to that plaintiff. concluded that one new tax was unconstitutional. more than 1600 and junctions were issued. but each of those and junctions applied only to the plaintiff before the court and the government elected the tax of its state for more than 71,000 before the supreme court eventually struck it down. in truth, there is something we're dealing with that i feel it even more i think the department of justice lawyers and the senate. raws a question of pure, power. who decides? who has the authority? these are policy questions.

our elected representatives, our elected president, or all it elected lifetime federal judges? this is a question that bears on the very effectiveness of a representative democracy. today in fact, single district judges are going beyond proper adjudicated bounds, making themselves super legislators for the entire united states. this means each of the more than judges inl district the united states can enjoy no law or regulation throughout the country, regardless of whether the 599 agree. these limitless injunctions are of oury to the structure government, to the role of our judiciary, and they hamper or block the proper functioning of our government. they dramatically undermine the power of the people to control their government. let me share a few concerns.

first of all, the nationwide injunctions and courage forum ?hopping, right the reason why so may lawsuits have been filed against the trump administration in , to which i once referred to is that island in the middle of the pacific, which so far as i can tell is accurate. [laughter] attorney general sessions: it was deemed offensive by some. [laughter] attorney general sessions: others were filed in texas the obama administration. litigants are looking for the to advanceble forum their agenda. virtually, it is always to secure, is it not, an outcome that could never be won at the

theot box or in legislature. second, limitless injunctions cut off discussion among the lower courts. this is pretty odd to me. we have seen that historically. our federal judicial system is set up so that district courts in different parts of the country consider the same issues and rule on them. those issues may be appealed to one of the 12 circuits. when those circuit courts the supreme court will normally undertake review. non-party injunctions short-circuit the system. the federal government is forced to appeal the first nationwide injunction possibly all the way to the supreme court. 18 months perhaps in the process. the effect the supreme court wil normally undertake review. non-party is to cut off the opportunities for other courts to weigh in. all of these are preliminary injunctions, meaning a full case record has not been developed

before the vast scope of the injunction directs the policy of the united states government. third, when a single district judge issues a nationwide injunction while similar cases are pending elsewhere, the first ruling by the first district judge somehow becomes authoritative. if they enter an injunction. while contrary rulings by equally authoritative district judges do not have an effect. they just don't count. a telling example is the litigation over the rescission of the daca policy. parties have sued in several courts across the country, meaning several judges are considering the issue and will issue rulings that should be binding only on the plaintiff before them, normally. yet, a federal judge in san francisco and a federal judge in new york both felt they had the authority to issue a nationwide injunction granting relief to

others who are not parties to the case. then, last week, a federal judge in maryland held that the daca rescission was lawful. in inlaintiffs and the maryland case lost but by the rulings of the san francisco and new york judges, they got their relief anyway. fourth, limitless injunctions circumvent the certification process required by rule 23 of the federal rules of' procedure. that is because they provide the benefits of class certification without the procedural protections of class certification. fifth, limited injunction created in a third situation in which a plaintiff only needs to win once. to stop a national law from taking effect or national

policy. but, the government needs to win every time to care out its policy. that makes governing all but impossible. you could lose five straight cases that seek to enjoin the government from executing a certain policy and then the fifth judge's rules that the injunction is enforced and enforced even in those cases' districts where the judges ruled otherwise. predecessor, the great attorney general robert jackson, faced a similar problem. -- i37, he lamented that "no this quote -- administration can halt its policies to seek the judiciary's views. the government cannot learn the judge's views until after the law is passed and then only after a lapse of years.

moreover, those contributions are always negative. it may tell what may not be done, but it never tells the government what can be done. government by litigation has destroyed the effective enforcement of public policy." i kind of feel that way sometimes. he did not know how good he had it, however. [laughter] so, the. sessions: department of justice has been fighting the unprecedented limitless injunctions in the courts and we are well aware. for example, last year, i made the commonsense decision that ls in thestay in i local law-enforcement grants that go to cities and states, should go to those that actually cooperate with us in federal law enforcement. these discretionary grants,

including the enforcement of immigration laws. not requiring states and cities to participate in any way, but asking for certain limited cooperation. we asked that to receive this rent money, jurisdictions need theyrtify that they are -- comply with existing federal law restrictions on two medications between state and local agencies -- on communications between state and local agencies. we coordinate with each other every day. detainers are issued every day between cities and states and restrictions on two medications between state and localcounties and federal gover. we honor that routinely. it is one of the more sophisticated improvements in law enforcement in america. it has gotten better and better and it is essential because people are so mobile today. we asked if we allow ice agents to these detention facilities,

which we do routinely in non-immigration cases, to meet with aliens and to inquire into his or her right to remain in the united states. third, we asked they provide notice of 38 hours before the intent to release an alien convicted of a crime was being held in the state jail. these are small button board these are small button board requests -- but important request for cooperation. we think if we are going to send out federal money, we ought to send it out primarily to people help us do our jobs and enforce federal jobs. this allows ice to know when the aliens are arrested and decide whether or not to take custody of them. these are alien to have committed crimes or suspected of committed crimes. they are serious enough criminals that the local government, even san francisco, may have arrested them and put them in the slammer. some cities think only

their law enforcement interest deserve vindication and not those of the federal government. why should we provide them grant money? if they are not going to be minimally clobbered. cooperative. several of these cities have sued us. they think they are entitled to this money anyway. they don't want federal law or to comply with the most reasonable cooperative requirements. chicago found a local judge who agreed with them. we disagree with the merits of that ruling and we think we will also prevail on the legal question. but normally, this would be a discrete error or discrete decision affecting only one city's grant. we would correct it on appeal in due course. it would not impact the whole some cities think only theircountry, but instead of isg

an injunction for that city, the judge can join the federal government from imposing these conditions on any state or city across the entire nation, including those that agree completely with our position and support us and don't want this relief. what possible interest does chicago have in such a sweeping relief? the litigants for the city of chicago, may have an interest in their grant, but they are not empowered to represent parties around the country that don't want their representation. what possible interest do they happen this? chicago's only plausible interest is its grant money. that would have been completely vindicated if protections would have been vindicated by ruling involving chicago iand that district judge. other judges are considering the

same question. a judge in san francisco recently denied a preliminary injunction to that city, but it does not matter because the judge in chicago has already decided tochicago's only plausie interest give relief to every city, including san francisco and it trumps their decision. by not acting as a district court of limited jurisdiction, the chicago judge has halted the grant process for the entire country. these cities and counties are getting anxious. months ago by and monday the -- money they expected to receive is not going out. we now are trying to seek relief, accident appeal to the seventh circuit -- expedited appeal to the seventh circuit and it takes time. months go by and cities and counties expecting their grant

money, a vast majority of them are being held up. relief, accident the increasing frequency of limitless injunctions is simply unsustainable. the evermore extreme nature of these injunctions are only making it more obvious how unconstitutional they are. the supreme court has not yet issued a dividend of ruling on the merits -- a definitive ruling on the merits of nationwide injunction. the court has had relevant cases before it, they have resolved those cases on other grounds. e hopeful that the supreme court will soon send a clear message to the lower courts that injunctions ought to be limited to the parties in the case. issue in alief is at number of high profile cases right now. we will soon be arguing the merits of the president traveled and -- travel ban.

we ask for a review of this aspect of the case. we think it will be before the supreme court. it is not a partisan issue. it is a constitutional issue and a rule of law issue. this has been a problem for the administration of both parties. until president trump, the president with the most limitless injunctions with president obama, and president place. was in second the department of justice, on a democrat and republican administration's alike, including the obama has beenation, consistent in the past several decades the place. the department of nationwide injunctions gravely threaten the rule of law. they threaten the proper respect for separation ofthey threaten t for separation of powers and indeed the very front shinning -- functioning of the other two branches of our government. the american people vote for those other two branches of

government, in case you have not heard. people have to campaign and seek support for the policies they want to further. the people want their votes to count. heard.nt their voices the political branches need to be able to function to be able to carry out reasonable constitutional policy. this is my message. we hope the supreme court will resolve the issue. there will be no question that courts should put an end to nationwide injunctions and keep activists on both sides of the aisle from paralyzing the functioning of our government. in order for our system to work, the court must and government by litigation and i'm hopeful they soon will. that with your help and the intellectual support of persons like you, we will be able to restore the rule of law in our country. thank you. it is great to be with you this morning. [applause]

>> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, mr. attorney general. i'm a georgetown law student and symposium chair. we have a few brief questions froor you from our audience and i am sure everyone here will appreciate your insight. i will now read the first question which is how do you justify increased use of civil asset forfeiture over the limited government model? atty gen. sessions: asset forfeiture has been the law for 60 years and it has been actively utilized for 60 years. it has been before the supreme court multiple times. one of the first things you want to do if you are finding an

illegal enterprise is not let .hem keep the profits under president reagan and the reallyent of justice, we improved the functioning of asset forfeiture. think there is every right to seize illegal profits. it is part of the law of the country, it has been repeatedly upheld. it is think an action and not at the person. it does not deny the person of their liberty and they are given the right to contest that forfeiture. lawyers --red our i have taken a number of steps. i've heard the complaints about it. we did a couple of -- first, i picked an experience that prove an attorney and i told him i want this system working properly.

if there are any problems, let me know. we require our attorneys to file their answers. half the time, the log requires them so the person can get the hearing sooner. in the drug cases, which are overwhelmingly what we deal with, 80% of those cases aren't even contested because where did you get $50,000 in cash under the seat in your car? [laughter] atty gen. sessions: that used to say i got a gambling, but now the casinos record if you won $50,000 and you can check that. people figure perjuring themselves is not worth the contest. i think the system works well. it is a huge matter for state and local law-enforcement. process.t is a proven >> thank you, mr. attorney general. the next question from our audience is the following. what is the justice department doing to enforce the federal

marijuana laws? atty gen. sessions: well, we are not going to be able even if we stated to take over enforcement of routine cases that might occur. federal agents are highly[laugh] atty gen. sessions: trained andn paid, highlycases involving cartels, international organizations, major distribution networks, large amounts of cash. they deal with criminal organizations, rico typefaces. there prosecuting those cases every day. it is the law of the united states of america and the law of the united states of america, in case you have not heard, applies in every state in the united states. i'm not going to tell colorado or california or someone else that the possession of marijuana is legal under united states law. i don't think it is helping

either. if i were sick, i would not suggest you take marijuana to cure yourself. inot sure it is proven'm to be particularly -- i'm not sure it is proven to be particularly helpful. that is where we are on that. i've sent out a memo that reversed the memorandum of the department of justice. i believe it is a rule of law question. i think the cole memoranda basically conceded and was perceived to have conceded at least that states have the ability to determine marijuana policy when the state and federal law was a very limited affect. incorrectat was legally. we simply withdrew the memoranda. we tell our u.s. attorneys to use your resources you feel best. they have not been walking small marijuana cases before, that

will not be working them now. if it comes up as part of a bigger case, criminal enterprise, and not being done on federal land, parklands and distraction to our park system. those are the kinds of things i am sure each one of those u.s. attorneys will decide how to handle. >> thank you. our next question is the following -- do you think it was a mistake to recuse yourself from the russian investigation? [laughter] atty gen. sessions: no, i don't. >> it is not my question. [laughter] atty gen. sessions: no, i think, that is what i had to do. i did not realize. i knew you had to deal with those questions and i told the committee i would consult with officials in the department about any recusal issue. there is a specific regulation that says if you participate in

explicitly says that -- then you cannot investigate the campaign of which you were a part. pretty reasonable thing. i was chairman of the national security committee of the trump campaign and participated in it. i did not feel like that was what i was advised from the professionals. i felt like i had to recuse myself. >> thank you. our last question for you. sorry -- how does the department of justice decide whether to participate in a case before the supreme court? atty gen. sessions: well, i asked noel francisco, my solicitor general. he tells me what to do. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, mr. attorney general. [applause] atty gen. sessions: no, we have a great group in there in the solicitor general's office.

a lot of career people. we evaluate it on a lot of issues like, is that the best case to bring up? this case may be marginal, it best factuale basis to create a clear issue for the supreme court that would likely result in a ruling we think is proper. ugh it takes a lot of tho that goes into thatt and it takes people who know the court, know the tendencies, the makeup of the court, and whose familiar with the history and growth of the law in a lot of different areas. it is no litter matter -- little matter to decide what to take to the supreme court. the solicitor general, that is the greatest lawyer job in the world. he gets to stand before the highest court in the land, the supreme court, represent the greatest country in the history of the world, united states of

america, is quite an honor. he is a fabulous addition to our office. >> thank you very much. we know you have a busy schedule ahead of you so thank you for speaking with us this morning. atty gen. sessions: thank you all. [applause] formerght on q&a, a u.s. orbital asian talks about his book. his memoir of his experiences and what he learned about the immigration system. >> the woman was pregnant, that is why she could not keep up. they were lost for three days after their group left in him. they were drinking filthy water from cattle tanks.

they made it to a village and the border patrol got called and i was supposed to take them in. i started talking with them. it turned out that this pregnant woman had grown up in iowa to speak perfect english. she was a schoolteacher in iowa. her husband saw that we were talking and leaned over and said, hey, man, can we skip the whole arrest and deportation thing? can you drive us back to the border and let us cross back into mexico? be a brother? i didn't hesitate, i said no, this is my job. i can't do that. i took them in. what i remember about that encounter is i remember asking their names. i remember introducing myself to them. i remember wanting to remember them because i had this

connection. i wanted to hold them in my mind. i wanted that woman to be safe. and for their child to be safe. and then a couple hours later, i went back on patrol, i was sitting in my car, and i had completely forgotten their name. the reason that encounter sticks with me so much is because i think that is the first event in dehumanization, is forgetting what makes someone an individual. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> in his weekly address, the president talks about sanctuary cities and immigration law. representative bill pascrell of new jersey delivered the weekly address giving his reaction to the tax reform law. president trump: my fellow americans, protecting the safety and well-being of american citizens is my highest duty as president. yet lawless sanctuary jurisdictions are nullifying federal law, obstructing