1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,000
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,120
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The new film

6
00:00:22,320 --> 00:00:25,360
Speaker 1: Little Pink Houses about a landmark Supreme Court case that

7
00:00:25,400 --> 00:00:27,960
Speaker 1: affirmed the use of eminent domain to take the homes

8
00:00:27,960 --> 00:00:30,479
Speaker 1: of people in a Connecticut town for the sake of

9
00:00:30,520 --> 00:00:33,880
Speaker 1: private redevelopment. The story is told through the real life

10
00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 1: plaintiff in the case, Suzette Kilo, who fought to save

11
00:00:37,200 --> 00:00:42,680
Speaker 1: her Little Pink House. No amount of money can replace

12
00:00:42,920 --> 00:00:48,320
Speaker 1: our homes. This is where we chose to settle, and

13
00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:51,680
Speaker 1: this is where we want to stay. Joining me in

14
00:00:51,680 --> 00:00:54,480
Speaker 1: our New York studios are Suzette Kilo and the writer

15
00:00:54,560 --> 00:00:57,400
Speaker 1: and director of the film, Courtney Ballacher. Thank you both

16
00:00:57,440 --> 00:01:00,000
Speaker 1: for being here. It's wonderful to have you for us.

17
00:01:00,240 --> 00:01:04,320
Speaker 1: So is that your story resonates even more today when

18
00:01:04,480 --> 00:01:08,960
Speaker 1: many women who have never been advocates are becoming just that.

19
00:01:09,160 --> 00:01:16,080
Speaker 1: What inspired you, well, I simply um was just trying

20
00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:18,279
Speaker 1: to do the right thing, trying to save our homes,

21
00:01:18,480 --> 00:01:23,080
Speaker 1: in our neighborhood. You're as you're as short spoken as

22
00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:26,679
Speaker 1: you as as your character in the movie. So but

23
00:01:26,760 --> 00:01:30,280
Speaker 1: to the point, So Courtney, it's very rarely that we

24
00:01:30,360 --> 00:01:34,520
Speaker 1: see films when the struggles of real people for years

25
00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:37,120
Speaker 1: and years to get their cases to the Supreme Court

26
00:01:37,600 --> 00:01:40,400
Speaker 1: are told. Why did you want to make this film?

27
00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:43,320
Speaker 1: I was not as familiar with this case as my

28
00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:47,480
Speaker 1: husband and producing partner, Ted was. Uh. We were brought

29
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:50,000
Speaker 1: it was brought to our attention that the book written

30
00:01:50,000 --> 00:01:52,200
Speaker 1: by Jef Benedict of the same title, that the film

31
00:01:52,200 --> 00:01:55,440
Speaker 1: and TV film and TV rights were available. I read

32
00:01:55,480 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 1: the book and I was astounded that this happened in

33
00:01:59,240 --> 00:02:03,160
Speaker 1: our country and that the United States Supreme Court allowed

34
00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:05,920
Speaker 1: it and said it was legal. So I had to

35
00:02:05,920 --> 00:02:08,679
Speaker 1: tell this story, and it was important for me to

36
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 1: put a human face on this sort of vague issue

37
00:02:12,440 --> 00:02:14,359
Speaker 1: that a lot of people don't know about, called eminent

38
00:02:14,440 --> 00:02:17,000
Speaker 1: domain abuse. Eminent domain is, you know, is usually used

39
00:02:17,000 --> 00:02:18,840
Speaker 1: to widen a road or build a hospital something for

40
00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:21,440
Speaker 1: public use. It's not supposed to be so that people

41
00:02:21,440 --> 00:02:23,680
Speaker 1: can take property from private individuals and give it over

42
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,560
Speaker 1: to a private corporation or for the benefit of a

43
00:02:26,560 --> 00:02:30,359
Speaker 1: private corporation in this particular case. So I I felt

44
00:02:30,400 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 1: that Susette's story was so inspiring what she did, and

45
00:02:33,960 --> 00:02:35,880
Speaker 1: she did not want to be the face of this

46
00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:39,200
Speaker 1: cause she did not want to, you know, stand up

47
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:41,760
Speaker 1: in front of you know, hundreds of cameras talking to

48
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:44,400
Speaker 1: millions and millions of Americans about her story. But she

49
00:02:44,480 --> 00:02:46,919
Speaker 1: did it because, as she said, it was the right

50
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:49,480
Speaker 1: principal thing to do. And because she did that, because

51
00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:53,520
Speaker 1: she fought. Even though she lost, millions of Americans got

52
00:02:53,600 --> 00:02:55,760
Speaker 1: to keep their homes because laws were changed. People were

53
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:59,840
Speaker 1: outraged by this decision. Suzette. When you first saw the movie,

54
00:03:00,240 --> 00:03:05,840
Speaker 1: what was your reaction seeing yourself portrayed there? Well, Um,

55
00:03:05,880 --> 00:03:08,520
Speaker 1: I was really pleased with the film. And I have

56
00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:12,960
Speaker 1: to say that, um having it, having it portrayed, and

57
00:03:13,000 --> 00:03:15,880
Speaker 1: bringing it to light again after so many years from

58
00:03:15,880 --> 00:03:21,040
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, it makes um me really relieved to

59
00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:23,240
Speaker 1: see that the American people are going to forget what

60
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:26,520
Speaker 1: happened to us in that neighborhood. Well, are you getting

61
00:03:26,520 --> 00:03:30,640
Speaker 1: reactions from people about the case now? Yeah, there's like

62
00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: there is again another interest in what happened. You know,

63
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:37,280
Speaker 1: people can't believe this happened. Yes, it's all come to

64
00:03:37,360 --> 00:03:41,720
Speaker 1: light again. Um. The movie is beautifully shot Courtney, and

65
00:03:42,000 --> 00:03:45,560
Speaker 1: certain scenes really stand out, like the jolting scene with

66
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:49,360
Speaker 1: the bulldozers. Um, what do you want audiences to get

67
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:53,000
Speaker 1: from seeing them film? What I want audiences to walk

68
00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:56,680
Speaker 1: away with is at least having a conversation about whether

69
00:03:56,800 --> 00:04:00,640
Speaker 1: or not this type of eminent domain abuse is is right.

70
00:04:01,040 --> 00:04:03,360
Speaker 1: I would hope that they would say, no, it's not.

71
00:04:03,440 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 1: It was a very controversial issue at the time when

72
00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,360
Speaker 1: Susette and her neighbors were going through it. Um. I

73
00:04:09,400 --> 00:04:14,440
Speaker 1: also want people to understand that being resilient is crucial.

74
00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:16,919
Speaker 1: You have to stand up to the powers that be.

75
00:04:17,360 --> 00:04:20,760
Speaker 1: This was a case this was not about democrats versus Republicans.

76
00:04:20,760 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 1: This is about insiders versus outsiders, the government cozying up

77
00:04:24,960 --> 00:04:28,440
Speaker 1: to a multibillion dollar corporation. Everybody's saying that they're standing

78
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:30,599
Speaker 1: up for the little guy, and they didn't. The little

79
00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:33,320
Speaker 1: guy lost, And that's really what happens in almost all

80
00:04:33,360 --> 00:04:36,760
Speaker 1: of these cases. The little guy loses. These eminent domain

81
00:04:36,800 --> 00:04:40,159
Speaker 1: abuse cases happen typically important minority communities where they don't

82
00:04:40,200 --> 00:04:42,880
Speaker 1: have a lot of support and resources. So I really

83
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:46,719
Speaker 1: hope that people walk away being inspired by Suzette's stance

84
00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:49,880
Speaker 1: and her strength. And also I hope that maybe we

85
00:04:49,920 --> 00:04:52,320
Speaker 1: can make a difference and stop this from happening again.

86
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:57,200
Speaker 1: It is a classic David versus Goliath story, And Suzette,

87
00:04:57,240 --> 00:05:02,400
Speaker 1: as David, you went on after the Supreme Court argument,

88
00:05:02,400 --> 00:05:06,360
Speaker 1: after you lost that case, and tell us what you did. Well,

89
00:05:06,640 --> 00:05:10,520
Speaker 1: I continue to um go and give speeches and talk

90
00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:15,239
Speaker 1: to people about how to help them fight uh eminent.

91
00:05:15,320 --> 00:05:18,000
Speaker 1: To me and you, actually there were laws passed in

92
00:05:18,040 --> 00:05:23,080
Speaker 1: several sports. Forty four states now haven't enacted laws just

93
00:05:23,320 --> 00:05:26,200
Speaker 1: to change their eminent domain laws in your states as

94
00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:29,720
Speaker 1: well as you miss, municipalities and towns within states have

95
00:05:29,880 --> 00:05:34,640
Speaker 1: even changed their own laws. So, Courtney, even for those

96
00:05:34,720 --> 00:05:39,520
Speaker 1: who know the story, you see at the end, what

97
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:42,799
Speaker 1: happened to the little pink house, and it is a surprise.

98
00:05:42,920 --> 00:05:45,560
Speaker 1: Tell us what happened to the little pink house? Well,

99
00:05:45,600 --> 00:05:49,159
Speaker 1: it has been more than ten years since the Supreme

100
00:05:49,160 --> 00:05:53,160
Speaker 1: Court decision and nothing has been built where Susatte and

101
00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:57,000
Speaker 1: her neighbor's houses once stood. Its weeds and feral cats.

102
00:05:57,080 --> 00:06:01,119
Speaker 1: And it's shocking and tragic, but that that's the case.

103
00:06:01,240 --> 00:06:04,040
Speaker 1: And many of these situations are all these big ideas,

104
00:06:04,080 --> 00:06:07,520
Speaker 1: but very little happens. Um. It was important for me

105
00:06:07,560 --> 00:06:09,919
Speaker 1: as the director to show that because people who have

106
00:06:10,000 --> 00:06:13,200
Speaker 1: just been immersed in this story, going on the journey

107
00:06:13,240 --> 00:06:16,039
Speaker 1: with Suzette. But I think it's very important for people

108
00:06:16,080 --> 00:06:20,080
Speaker 1: to see the real land and where it stands. And

109
00:06:20,160 --> 00:06:25,120
Speaker 1: ironically and disgustingly my opinion, there is a sign there

110
00:06:25,240 --> 00:06:27,400
Speaker 1: right now in front of this vacant plot of land

111
00:06:27,560 --> 00:06:34,440
Speaker 1: saying Fort Trumbull open for new development opportunities. So you know,

112
00:06:34,480 --> 00:06:37,920
Speaker 1: again this is this was an ordeal, and this is

113
00:06:37,960 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 1: important to mention as well. This was ten years of

114
00:06:40,680 --> 00:06:43,240
Speaker 1: Suzette's life. This was not just a few bad weeks

115
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:47,080
Speaker 1: going up against the city. This took a toll on

116
00:06:47,160 --> 00:06:51,400
Speaker 1: her and her neighbor's emotionally, physically, financially. Uh. It was

117
00:06:51,440 --> 00:06:54,640
Speaker 1: a battle and she fought it, and she fought it bravely.

118
00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:59,279
Speaker 1: And when she and her neighbors lost eight I think

119
00:07:00,400 --> 00:07:04,359
Speaker 1: something like that of Americans were just outraged and and

120
00:07:04,200 --> 00:07:06,839
Speaker 1: and again. And that is another thing that led to change.

121
00:07:06,880 --> 00:07:09,160
Speaker 1: So this is not all for not this is a movement.

122
00:07:09,720 --> 00:07:12,160
Speaker 1: The story continues. We want to use this movie to

123
00:07:12,160 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 1: bring awareness and education, UM and that's what I hope

124
00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:18,160
Speaker 1: we do starting tonight, because we opened in theaters tonight.

125
00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:22,320
Speaker 1: Justice John Paul Stevens, who actually wrote the opinion, said

126
00:07:22,400 --> 00:07:24,720
Speaker 1: it was one of the most unpopular he ever wrote.

127
00:07:25,000 --> 00:07:28,520
Speaker 1: And just about thirty seconds, Suzette, Um, your life today

128
00:07:28,680 --> 00:07:31,200
Speaker 1: has this? Is this in the background now or is

129
00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:35,600
Speaker 1: it always part Oh? It's always part always part yeah?

130
00:07:36,720 --> 00:07:40,720
Speaker 1: And so um finally, Courtney, about thirty seconds, the timing

131
00:07:40,720 --> 00:07:45,840
Speaker 1: of the movie seems almost almost as if it was real. Yes,

132
00:07:45,880 --> 00:07:49,040
Speaker 1: surreal is the word. Because of President Trump and support

133
00:07:49,120 --> 00:07:54,160
Speaker 1: for Eminent domain and his support of the decision against her,

134
00:07:55,040 --> 00:07:58,480
Speaker 1: so so audiences have have yet to look at that.

135
00:07:58,640 --> 00:08:01,320
Speaker 1: And um, it's a it's a rate story. It's David

136
00:08:01,320 --> 00:08:04,120
Speaker 1: and Goliath. That's about a landmark Supreme Court case, the

137
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:06,400
Speaker 1: real story behind it which we don't often get to see.

138
00:08:06,680 --> 00:08:09,320
Speaker 1: Thank you both for being here, Thank you for having us.

139
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:11,720
Speaker 1: And again, we opened the theaters tonight in New York,

140
00:08:11,880 --> 00:08:14,400
Speaker 1: l A, Atlanta, San Francisco. Little pink house movie dot

141
00:08:14,480 --> 00:08:16,720
Speaker 1: com has all of the information. So we're a little movie.

142
00:08:16,720 --> 00:08:19,440
Speaker 1: Please help support it, all right, Thank you both. That's

143
00:08:19,480 --> 00:08:22,880
Speaker 1: Courtney Bala Gershi is the director and writer and Suzette Killer,

144
00:08:22,920 --> 00:08:29,320
Speaker 1: who is the subject of the story. Yesterday, at federal

145
00:08:29,400 --> 00:08:33,319
Speaker 1: appeals Court in Chicago ruled against the Trump administration's efforts

146
00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:37,200
Speaker 1: to withhold federal funds from so called sanctuary cities, something

147
00:08:37,200 --> 00:08:41,440
Speaker 1: the president has frequently criticized. They go into those sanctuary

148
00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:43,640
Speaker 1: cities when they see them. They go there because they

149
00:08:43,679 --> 00:08:46,640
Speaker 1: feel they're safe, and in many cases they are very

150
00:08:46,679 --> 00:08:52,680
Speaker 1: bad actors. We have gang members, we have predators, rapists, killers,

151
00:08:53,800 --> 00:08:56,880
Speaker 1: a lot of bad people. Joining me is David Beer,

152
00:08:56,960 --> 00:09:01,040
Speaker 1: an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. David this

153
00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:03,600
Speaker 1: is the first time that a federal appeals court has

154
00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:08,000
Speaker 1: weighed in on the Trump administration's block on sanctuary city funding.

155
00:09:08,320 --> 00:09:13,520
Speaker 1: How significant is this decision. It's pretty significant in terms

156
00:09:13,559 --> 00:09:18,640
Speaker 1: of blocking the president's agenda on this. Very key portion

157
00:09:18,880 --> 00:09:24,319
Speaker 1: of his regulatory agenda on sanctuary cities was limiting the

158
00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:28,360
Speaker 1: funds that could go through federal grants to cities that

159
00:09:29,080 --> 00:09:34,560
Speaker 1: he deems to not comply with immigration agents to the

160
00:09:34,600 --> 00:09:39,079
Speaker 1: fullest extent that he wants, and so this decision will

161
00:09:39,120 --> 00:09:43,040
Speaker 1: certainly hamper their ability to uh bring down the hammer

162
00:09:43,120 --> 00:09:46,760
Speaker 1: on on those cities that are going out of their

163
00:09:46,760 --> 00:09:51,560
Speaker 1: way to obstruct the president, although the Justice Department has

164
00:09:51,559 --> 00:09:54,559
Speaker 1: said that the agency doesn't agree that it assumed a

165
00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:58,199
Speaker 1: funding power belonging to Congress. All three of the judges

166
00:09:58,240 --> 00:10:02,400
Speaker 1: are Republican appointee, and the court used very strong language

167
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:05,839
Speaker 1: saying allowing this could lead to tyranny and that the A. G.

168
00:10:06,080 --> 00:10:10,600
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions used the sort of federal funding to conscript states.

169
00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:15,480
Speaker 1: Tell us more about the opinion itself. You're absolutely right.

170
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:21,880
Speaker 1: I mean, this decision describes the behavior of the Trump

171
00:10:21,920 --> 00:10:27,320
Speaker 1: administration as tyrannical, as uh, you know, flying in the

172
00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:31,760
Speaker 1: face of American tradition and the and the position of

173
00:10:31,760 --> 00:10:38,200
Speaker 1: the founding fathers on on the relationship between the executive

174
00:10:38,240 --> 00:10:42,120
Speaker 1: branch and the legislative branch and the relationship between the

175
00:10:42,160 --> 00:10:45,880
Speaker 1: federal government and the states. And what they said was

176
00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:50,920
Speaker 1: what the administration has done here is essentially created new

177
00:10:51,040 --> 00:10:57,880
Speaker 1: requirements for UH, for these grants, these law enforcement grants, UH,

178
00:10:58,080 --> 00:11:00,480
Speaker 1: you know, specifically to the city of chica Ago, but

179
00:11:00,679 --> 00:11:05,800
Speaker 1: also throughout the country with ount congressional approval. So they've

180
00:11:05,920 --> 00:11:10,560
Speaker 1: essentially decided, we are going to set the requirements for

181
00:11:10,800 --> 00:11:15,280
Speaker 1: how uh the United States spends money. And that's a

182
00:11:15,559 --> 00:11:22,000
Speaker 1: power specifically given to Congress in the Constitution. And the

183
00:11:22,040 --> 00:11:27,280
Speaker 1: second thing that the decision says is that, uh, the

184
00:11:27,400 --> 00:11:34,319
Speaker 1: Attorney General and and the Trump administration have really undermined

185
00:11:34,480 --> 00:11:40,960
Speaker 1: our system of federalism by trying to coerce or conscript

186
00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:44,400
Speaker 1: to use the term that you quoted, these local and

187
00:11:44,559 --> 00:11:48,640
Speaker 1: state authorities to do what the federal government wants, which

188
00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:54,040
Speaker 1: is really contrary to the principles um that the Founders

189
00:11:54,240 --> 00:11:59,680
Speaker 1: established that separate the state and federal uh jurisdictions. And

190
00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:03,800
Speaker 1: so the idea that the federal government can force or

191
00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:10,439
Speaker 1: coerce states and localities into doing its bidding would essentially

192
00:12:10,520 --> 00:12:14,160
Speaker 1: make them agencies of the federal government, which is something

193
00:12:14,200 --> 00:12:19,800
Speaker 1: that the Founders explicitly opposed. And that's one of the

194
00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:24,720
Speaker 1: reasons why uh this uh, this panel found uh the

195
00:12:25,040 --> 00:12:31,160
Speaker 1: action unconstant unconstitutional. So, David, were the judges sending out

196
00:12:31,160 --> 00:12:35,760
Speaker 1: a specific message by saying it falls to us the judiciary,

197
00:12:35,840 --> 00:12:38,040
Speaker 1: as the remaining branch of the government, to act as

198
00:12:38,080 --> 00:12:42,000
Speaker 1: a check on such usurpation of power. So as pointing

199
00:12:42,000 --> 00:12:44,200
Speaker 1: out that there are a check on the executive branch,

200
00:12:44,320 --> 00:12:49,280
Speaker 1: is there a message there to the Trump administration. Absolutely,

201
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:53,400
Speaker 1: it's it's I mean they're telling the Trump administration that

202
00:12:53,440 --> 00:12:58,360
Speaker 1: they cannot act in this way. And so as long

203
00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:03,760
Speaker 1: as the administration keeps inventing new ways to uh, you know,

204
00:13:03,840 --> 00:13:07,120
Speaker 1: get the same issue. UM, you know, the courts are

205
00:13:07,120 --> 00:13:10,280
Speaker 1: going to continue to strike them down. Does this have

206
00:13:10,520 --> 00:13:14,360
Speaker 1: implications for other legal cases or other moves made by

207
00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, Well, it's it's an interesting question. So

208
00:13:21,120 --> 00:13:25,880
Speaker 1: there are cases pending in California for the State of

209
00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:30,840
Speaker 1: California's essentially the opposite actions where they have attempted to

210
00:13:30,880 --> 00:13:37,680
Speaker 1: target uh federal law enforcement activities in the state of California,

211
00:13:37,720 --> 00:13:40,400
Speaker 1: and really that some of those provisions go in the

212
00:13:40,400 --> 00:13:46,560
Speaker 1: opposite direction, essentially undermining the federal government's authority UM in

213
00:13:46,720 --> 00:13:51,000
Speaker 1: California in some ways. And so, uh, it's likely that

214
00:13:51,080 --> 00:13:55,320
Speaker 1: the principles being laid down here will cut against some

215
00:13:55,440 --> 00:13:58,440
Speaker 1: of the actions that states and localities have done in

216
00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:02,120
Speaker 1: uh in some parts of the country to to reverse

217
00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:05,599
Speaker 1: the actions of the administration is taking. UM. So this

218
00:14:05,840 --> 00:14:10,839
Speaker 1: separation between the states and Feds cuts both ways, and

219
00:14:11,080 --> 00:14:13,760
Speaker 1: UH it's likely that you know, some provisions of those

220
00:14:13,760 --> 00:14:17,320
Speaker 1: California laws will be struck down as well on the

221
00:14:17,360 --> 00:14:20,800
Speaker 1: same basis. The court said the term sanctuary cities is

222
00:14:20,840 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 1: an unfair attack on local authorities, and went at length

223
00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:27,080
Speaker 1: about that. But that seemed a little odd to me

224
00:14:27,160 --> 00:14:30,680
Speaker 1: because a lot of local authorities and cities and governors

225
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:35,840
Speaker 1: are embracing the idea of being a sanctuary city or state. Yeah,

226
00:14:36,360 --> 00:14:41,680
Speaker 1: it's absolutely true. Some people have certainly embraced um, you know,

227
00:14:41,840 --> 00:14:45,680
Speaker 1: that principle, and so there's really no reason to take

228
00:14:45,760 --> 00:14:50,440
Speaker 1: issue with the terminology being used. It's really about the

229
00:14:50,480 --> 00:14:56,240
Speaker 1: policies and the legality that matter here. There was a

230
00:14:57,080 --> 00:14:59,680
Speaker 1: dissent by one judge saying the rulings should have been

231
00:14:59,720 --> 00:15:02,880
Speaker 1: limited to Chicago. In about a minute, just explain that

232
00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:10,720
Speaker 1: we're also Chicago is the jurisdiction that is challenging this uh,

233
00:15:11,120 --> 00:15:15,240
Speaker 1: these new conditions for the federal grants, and so the

234
00:15:15,360 --> 00:15:19,200
Speaker 1: argument there would be that really the city of Chicago

235
00:15:19,600 --> 00:15:24,960
Speaker 1: should be the one that receives relief, not essentially the

236
00:15:25,160 --> 00:15:29,600
Speaker 1: entire uh, the entire United States, every jurisdiction, even ones

237
00:15:29,680 --> 00:15:34,680
Speaker 1: that do not oppose the restrictions on the grants. All right,

238
00:15:34,720 --> 00:15:37,520
Speaker 1: thanks so much, David. As always, that's David Beer. He's

239
00:15:37,560 --> 00:15:41,560
Speaker 1: an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. There is

240
00:15:41,640 --> 00:15:45,080
Speaker 1: also a case pending in California, and we have to

241
00:15:45,080 --> 00:15:48,640
Speaker 1: see whether the appeals court there will rule in line

242
00:15:48,640 --> 00:15:51,000
Speaker 1: with the Appeals Court in the Seventh Circuit that the

243
00:15:51,040 --> 00:15:54,120
Speaker 1: Seventh and Ninth Circuits. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg

244
00:15:54,200 --> 00:15:57,280
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show

245
00:15:57,320 --> 00:16:02,040
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and one Umberg dot com slash podcast.

246
00:16:02,400 --> 00:16:11,000
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso. This is Bloomberg m H.