1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,760 --> 00:00:13,159
Speaker 1: It's the second immigration victory for the Biden administration at

3
00:00:13,160 --> 00:00:15,680
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court in a year. By an eight to

4
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:19,320
Speaker 1: one vote. That Justice is rejected the challenge by Texas

5
00:00:19,320 --> 00:00:24,439
Speaker 1: and Louisiana to a Biden policy that prioritizes deporting immigrants

6
00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:27,520
Speaker 1: who recently crossed the border or who are considered the

7
00:00:27,560 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 1: greatest threat to public safety. The Court held that the

8
00:00:31,080 --> 00:00:36,000
Speaker 1: Republican states lack the legal standing or right to sue something.

9
00:00:36,080 --> 00:00:41,440
Speaker 1: Several justices, including Elena Kagan, pointed out during the oral arguments.

10
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:46,240
Speaker 2: Immigration policy is supposed to be the zenith of federal power,

11
00:00:46,520 --> 00:00:49,600
Speaker 2: and is supposed to be the zenith of executive power,

12
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:53,840
Speaker 2: and instead we're creating a system where a combination of

13
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:58,840
Speaker 2: states and courts can bring immigration policy to a dead halt.

14
00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:02,520
Speaker 1: And Justice Brett Cavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, had

15
00:01:02,560 --> 00:01:06,360
Speaker 1: pushed the Texas Solicitor General on whether allowing this suit

16
00:01:06,440 --> 00:01:09,680
Speaker 1: would mean that states could challenge other federal policies.

17
00:01:10,160 --> 00:01:13,600
Speaker 3: Could a state challenge the president's exercise of war powers,

18
00:01:13,640 --> 00:01:17,920
Speaker 3: for example, being a violation of the Constitution or the

19
00:01:17,920 --> 00:01:22,440
Speaker 3: War Powers Resolution? They raised that as an issue that

20
00:01:23,080 --> 00:01:24,399
Speaker 3: your theory would lead to.

21
00:01:24,880 --> 00:01:27,280
Speaker 4: I don't believe, say your honor in part because for example,

22
00:01:27,480 --> 00:01:32,520
Speaker 4: why not, well, definitely because to the state from its

23
00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:35,640
Speaker 4: people going into a foreign war.

24
00:01:35,760 --> 00:01:38,679
Speaker 3: So why couldn't the state then challenge under your theory.

25
00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:41,639
Speaker 1: Here joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland

26
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:43,560
Speaker 1: and Knight and the former head of the Department of

27
00:01:43,760 --> 00:01:47,920
Speaker 1: Justice's Office of Immigration Litigation. Leon how big a victory

28
00:01:48,160 --> 00:01:49,800
Speaker 1: was this for the Biden administration.

29
00:01:50,520 --> 00:01:54,000
Speaker 5: This was absolutely a tremendous victory from the same point

30
00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:58,600
Speaker 5: of procutorial discression priorities that the Biden administration has been

31
00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:02,360
Speaker 5: trying to implement and since the beginning of the Biden administration,

32
00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:05,680
Speaker 5: and they've been thwarted. So we're talking about twenty twenty one,

33
00:02:05,880 --> 00:02:09,200
Speaker 5: twenty twenty two, and now halfway through twenty twenty three,

34
00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:12,480
Speaker 5: and finally the Bide administration is going to be able

35
00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:16,840
Speaker 5: to have these prosecutorial discretion priorities so that it's no

36
00:02:16,919 --> 00:02:19,920
Speaker 5: longer a decision as to the discretion of the local

37
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:23,520
Speaker 5: ICE office in your area to decide whether they are

38
00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:25,960
Speaker 5: going to put you in removal proceedings or not, but

39
00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:29,440
Speaker 5: instead you'll be able to follow this particular memo and

40
00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:31,760
Speaker 5: be able to say the ICE, I'm not within the

41
00:02:31,840 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 5: prosecutorial enforcement priority, so mycations taken off the docket, and

42
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 5: I shouldn't be deported and you should focus on these

43
00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:43,639
Speaker 5: larger national security or criminal priorities that are in your memo.

44
00:02:44,360 --> 00:02:50,000
Speaker 1: So explain what the Biden administration's policy is compared to

45
00:02:50,240 --> 00:02:52,520
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration's policy was.

46
00:02:53,040 --> 00:02:55,080
Speaker 5: So you have to start with the end of the

47
00:02:55,080 --> 00:02:58,440
Speaker 5: Obama administration and then the Trump administration and now the

48
00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:00,800
Speaker 5: Biden administration. But at the end of the Bomba administration

49
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:03,560
Speaker 5: was the first time that an actual manimal was issued

50
00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:06,720
Speaker 5: like this saying, look, if you are not a criminal,

51
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:10,480
Speaker 5: a recent border arrival, or a national security threat, you

52
00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:14,240
Speaker 5: are with the bottom of the priority list for ICE deportation,

53
00:03:14,680 --> 00:03:18,200
Speaker 5: meaning I should be focusing all of its resources on criminals,

54
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:21,960
Speaker 5: national security threats, and recent border arrival. And hence, if

55
00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:24,880
Speaker 5: you find somebody who's been here ten twenty years, don't

56
00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:28,320
Speaker 5: place that person into removal proceedings, don't arrest them, and

57
00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:32,400
Speaker 5: if they happened to already be in removal proceedings, cancel

58
00:03:32,520 --> 00:03:34,960
Speaker 5: them so that you can not take up that court

59
00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:37,520
Speaker 5: plot with this kind of case you should be taking

60
00:03:37,560 --> 00:03:40,160
Speaker 5: it with a criminal state. The Trump administration came in

61
00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:44,600
Speaker 5: and canceled that and said everybody is equally an enforcement priority.

62
00:03:44,920 --> 00:03:47,920
Speaker 5: There isn't one person who should be focusing on more

63
00:03:47,960 --> 00:03:51,160
Speaker 5: than another. Because the theory was if anybody thought they

64
00:03:51,200 --> 00:03:53,920
Speaker 5: were not a priority, that would mean that they would

65
00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:57,280
Speaker 5: have impunity to live in the United States without fear

66
00:03:57,320 --> 00:04:00,360
Speaker 5: of deportation, and they didn't want that. They wanted anybody

67
00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 5: who didn't have status in the United States to theoretically

68
00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:06,200
Speaker 5: think that they could be deported at any time. Now,

69
00:04:06,240 --> 00:04:09,880
Speaker 5: as a reality where these priorities implemented, still in a

70
00:04:09,960 --> 00:04:13,119
Speaker 5: de facto manner, they probably were, and so you did

71
00:04:13,200 --> 00:04:16,120
Speaker 5: probably still see more focus on criminal cases than on

72
00:04:16,240 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 5: national security cases and on recent border arrivals. But nevertheless,

73
00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:22,799
Speaker 5: there was a specific memo in the Trump administration saying

74
00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:26,640
Speaker 5: we are not going to prioritize any specific group at

75
00:04:26,640 --> 00:04:30,080
Speaker 5: the expense of another group, meaning any group was equally

76
00:04:30,160 --> 00:04:32,719
Speaker 5: high as a priority, and so if you find anyone

77
00:04:32,839 --> 00:04:35,360
Speaker 5: who could be deported, tried to deport that. So then

78
00:04:35,400 --> 00:04:38,440
Speaker 5: the Binding administration comes in and issue a memo very

79
00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 5: similar to the Obama memo saying again, focus on recent

80
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:47,240
Speaker 5: border crossers, focus on national security threats, focus on criminals,

81
00:04:47,520 --> 00:04:50,720
Speaker 5: and the State of Texas says that's not legal. You've

82
00:04:50,760 --> 00:04:53,680
Speaker 5: got to focus on everybody like Trump was doing. We

83
00:04:53,720 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 5: want to enjoin this, and that's where the Supreme Court. Ultimately,

84
00:04:57,400 --> 00:05:00,400
Speaker 5: after the peral government lost in the district court often

85
00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:03,320
Speaker 5: the Fit Circuit finally said that the State of Texas

86
00:05:03,360 --> 00:05:06,880
Speaker 5: does not have standing to sue to say you're not

87
00:05:07,040 --> 00:05:09,040
Speaker 5: sufficiently enforcing immigration law.

88
00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:14,200
Speaker 1: So I believe that immigration advocates called President Obama the

89
00:05:14,240 --> 00:05:18,760
Speaker 1: deporter in chief. So why would Texas and Louisiana object

90
00:05:18,920 --> 00:05:22,800
Speaker 1: to a policy that's leading to, you know, a lot

91
00:05:22,839 --> 00:05:23,880
Speaker 1: of arrests.

92
00:05:23,920 --> 00:05:26,680
Speaker 5: Well, I think they believe that at the end of

93
00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:31,279
Speaker 5: the day, if you don't have a memo that theoretically

94
00:05:31,360 --> 00:05:35,920
Speaker 5: scares every single person in America that they might be

95
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:39,920
Speaker 5: deported at any moment, that that memo is then insufficient

96
00:05:40,000 --> 00:05:42,359
Speaker 5: for their purposes. And so they did not like a

97
00:05:42,480 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 5: memo that basically said that there were going to be

98
00:05:45,279 --> 00:05:49,719
Speaker 5: groups of people that were deprioritized from deportation and that

99
00:05:49,800 --> 00:05:52,320
Speaker 5: there would be other groups that would be prioritized. They

100
00:05:52,440 --> 00:05:58,240
Speaker 5: preferred the situation under President Trump where everyone was technically

101
00:05:58,320 --> 00:06:02,839
Speaker 5: subject to deportation, and that threat, that sort of enforcement

102
00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:07,280
Speaker 5: by deterrence threat is a high priority for the immigration

103
00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:10,320
Speaker 5: enforcement hawks of which the state of Sextus is and

104
00:06:10,480 --> 00:06:13,599
Speaker 5: other states are where they believe that at the end

105
00:06:13,600 --> 00:06:16,440
Speaker 5: of the day, that kind of nervousness needs to be

106
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:18,680
Speaker 5: in the immigrant community. And so that's what they were

107
00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:19,880
Speaker 5: suing to reimpose.

108
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:24,279
Speaker 1: Again, the decision was based on standing. Explain what the

109
00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:25,040
Speaker 1: court found.

110
00:06:25,480 --> 00:06:28,000
Speaker 5: So what the Supreme Court said is, we're not even

111
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:32,120
Speaker 5: going to get into whether the federal government is legally

112
00:06:32,320 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 5: enforcing the immigration law because we don't have to get there.

113
00:06:35,360 --> 00:06:38,160
Speaker 5: What has to happen before any lawsuit even gets to

114
00:06:38,279 --> 00:06:41,320
Speaker 5: the merit about whether the federal government is or isn't

115
00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:45,040
Speaker 5: enforcing immigration law properly. Is it jet that standing to sue?

116
00:06:45,040 --> 00:06:48,560
Speaker 5: And what standing is is the concept that you actually

117
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:53,320
Speaker 5: have a right to sue. Meaning right now, I may

118
00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:56,400
Speaker 5: not like something I watch on TV where one character

119
00:06:56,560 --> 00:06:59,360
Speaker 5: defeats another character, but I can't go to a court

120
00:06:59,480 --> 00:07:02,920
Speaker 5: to sue because that really doesn't affect me. And if

121
00:07:02,960 --> 00:07:06,159
Speaker 5: you take that concept out to this issue of state,

122
00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:08,839
Speaker 5: what the Court is saying with regard to states is

123
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:11,560
Speaker 5: that even though there are many circumstances where a states

124
00:07:11,600 --> 00:07:16,880
Speaker 5: consumed in this particular circumstance where a state is trying

125
00:07:16,920 --> 00:07:20,240
Speaker 5: to sue the federal government saying we d not believe

126
00:07:20,320 --> 00:07:24,920
Speaker 5: you are sufficiently enforcing the law. That is not a

127
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:27,840
Speaker 5: claim that in the hundreds of years of history of

128
00:07:27,840 --> 00:07:31,000
Speaker 5: the United States, is one that any state has ever

129
00:07:31,040 --> 00:07:33,720
Speaker 5: had the ability to win. And in fact, the two

130
00:07:33,840 --> 00:07:38,200
Speaker 5: or three cases that have been decided in this realm

131
00:07:38,360 --> 00:07:43,040
Speaker 5: generally where people say, hey, the federal government isn't sufficiently

132
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:47,760
Speaker 5: enforcing the law have all been denied for lack of fancing,

133
00:07:47,920 --> 00:07:51,480
Speaker 5: Meaning it's very hard for anybody to see the federal

134
00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:54,840
Speaker 5: government saying, I think that your enforcement is too lacked.

135
00:07:55,120 --> 00:07:57,360
Speaker 5: I think the court should get involved in making the

136
00:07:57,480 --> 00:08:04,760
Speaker 5: enforcement stronger. And at underlying logical common sense reasons is

137
00:08:04,800 --> 00:08:07,160
Speaker 5: what is a court supposed to do if they agree

138
00:08:07,480 --> 00:08:10,920
Speaker 5: and if the PLANETI wins, are they supposed to start saying, Hey,

139
00:08:11,440 --> 00:08:15,400
Speaker 5: there's Steve on twenty fourth Johnson Street, go arrest him,

140
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:16,840
Speaker 5: and if you don't, we're going to hold you in

141
00:08:16,880 --> 00:08:21,000
Speaker 5: consensive court. Here's Bobby, I'm thirty one Honey Lane. We're

142
00:08:21,000 --> 00:08:24,360
Speaker 5: gonna arrestue if you don't go arrest Bobby. It's impossible,

143
00:08:24,360 --> 00:08:27,640
Speaker 5: and courts are not law enforcement agencies, and how can

144
00:08:27,720 --> 00:08:30,800
Speaker 5: this possibly be enforced by the court. And hence the

145
00:08:30,880 --> 00:08:33,320
Speaker 5: court said, this is the traditional kind of case where

146
00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:34,160
Speaker 5: there's no standing.

147
00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 1: So there was a lot of talk during the oral

148
00:08:38,000 --> 00:08:41,679
Speaker 1: arguments about the fact that the federal government doesn't have

149
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:46,040
Speaker 1: the capacity to arrest every illegal immigrant in this country.

150
00:08:46,400 --> 00:08:48,760
Speaker 1: Was that any part at all of the decision.

151
00:08:49,480 --> 00:08:53,440
Speaker 5: Absolutely. They tried to say in the decision that you

152
00:08:53,520 --> 00:08:56,200
Speaker 5: can't read this decision as saying that this is going

153
00:08:56,320 --> 00:09:00,480
Speaker 5: to give tart blanche to the federal government to cease

154
00:09:01,040 --> 00:09:04,600
Speaker 5: to enforce laws, that you can't read this decision as

155
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:07,679
Speaker 5: doing that, although a leader in his defense says that's

156
00:09:07,720 --> 00:09:10,440
Speaker 5: exactly what this decision says. And even though they say

157
00:09:10,480 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 5: it's not what it says, in the end, this is

158
00:09:13,000 --> 00:09:16,240
Speaker 5: going to get extended this doctrine. What Justice kevinah who

159
00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:19,600
Speaker 5: wrote the majority decision, said is no, if you advocate

160
00:09:20,040 --> 00:09:23,040
Speaker 5: your enforcement, maybe come back and let's see and we

161
00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:25,440
Speaker 5: can have a decision on whether you've got standing. But

162
00:09:25,640 --> 00:09:28,920
Speaker 5: here there is no dispute that there is enforcement go

163
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:32,400
Speaker 5: out on and the issue is just whether it's enough enforcement.

164
00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:36,560
Speaker 5: And because they say the last thirty years they fight

165
00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:41,000
Speaker 5: of presidential administrations of both parties have said there's too

166
00:09:41,080 --> 00:09:43,800
Speaker 5: many people who are here without status, had too few

167
00:09:44,000 --> 00:09:47,760
Speaker 5: enforcement resources, so we can't enforce them for everybody. So

168
00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:51,079
Speaker 5: we might as well make memos that talk about who's

169
00:09:51,080 --> 00:09:55,200
Speaker 5: a priority and who isn't. That that is permissible because

170
00:09:55,240 --> 00:09:58,400
Speaker 5: there is enforcement going on, as opposed to some future

171
00:09:58,480 --> 00:10:02,400
Speaker 5: hypothetical scenario where if there was some sort of jubilee

172
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,840
Speaker 5: year where the government said we're not going to enforce

173
00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:08,880
Speaker 5: laws on anybody for any reason. Both do whatever you want.

174
00:10:09,080 --> 00:10:11,719
Speaker 5: So that might be able to be challenged in that

175
00:10:11,800 --> 00:10:13,280
Speaker 5: future hypothetical case.

176
00:10:13,760 --> 00:10:19,760
Speaker 1: So now could this influence other immigration cases that may

177
00:10:19,800 --> 00:10:22,079
Speaker 1: reach the Supreme Court? For example DOCA.

178
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:25,360
Speaker 5: Well, so that's the interesting question that's being asked, what

179
00:10:25,480 --> 00:10:28,640
Speaker 5: happens to DOCA? And so it depends how you look

180
00:10:28,679 --> 00:10:32,560
Speaker 5: at it. The cases that were cited in this Supreme

181
00:10:32,600 --> 00:10:36,000
Speaker 5: Court case of the United States versus Texas, were they

182
00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:38,960
Speaker 5: exact same cases that were cited by the federal government

183
00:10:39,040 --> 00:10:42,880
Speaker 5: with regard to DOCTA, meaning that they believe on the

184
00:10:42,880 --> 00:10:46,360
Speaker 5: federal government end that the two parts the docas be

185
00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:48,960
Speaker 5: we're not going to deport you parts, but also that

186
00:10:49,000 --> 00:10:51,480
Speaker 5: we're going to give you a work permit part are

187
00:10:51,480 --> 00:10:54,760
Speaker 5: both flip sides of the same coin of prosecutorial discretion,

188
00:10:55,080 --> 00:10:58,320
Speaker 5: meaning that once the government decides that they're not going

189
00:10:58,360 --> 00:11:01,240
Speaker 5: to deport you because you're such a low priority like

190
00:11:01,280 --> 00:11:04,360
Speaker 5: one of these DOCA children, then what are you supposed

191
00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:07,000
Speaker 5: to do when the child turns sixteen? Are you supposed

192
00:11:07,040 --> 00:11:09,640
Speaker 5: to just let them be homeless and diable are the

193
00:11:09,720 --> 00:11:12,800
Speaker 5: living or are you supposed to let them work so

194
00:11:12,880 --> 00:11:16,280
Speaker 5: that the work is not separated from the decision to

195
00:11:16,600 --> 00:11:21,880
Speaker 5: refrain from deportation. Whereas Justice Kindana appeared to say in

196
00:11:21,960 --> 00:11:25,320
Speaker 5: his decision, well, we'll get back to DACA when we

197
00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:27,160
Speaker 5: get to it. He didn't talk about DOCCA, but he

198
00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:31,079
Speaker 5: said if we're talking about not just enforcement but enforcement

199
00:11:31,240 --> 00:11:34,800
Speaker 5: plus benefits, that's not what we're talking about in this case.

200
00:11:35,000 --> 00:11:38,199
Speaker 5: So he leaves the door open for a DOCCA challenge

201
00:11:38,480 --> 00:11:42,760
Speaker 5: and says enforcement plus benefits may be different than just enforcement,

202
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:45,800
Speaker 5: and so it's going to come down to that question.

203
00:11:45,960 --> 00:11:48,319
Speaker 5: What does the government. What does the Supreme Court think

204
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:52,199
Speaker 5: about the government's argument that giving someone you're not deporting

205
00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:56,040
Speaker 5: the ability to legally work, is that part of the

206
00:11:56,080 --> 00:12:00,600
Speaker 5: same prosecutorial discretion decision that's not reviewable or is that

207
00:12:00,679 --> 00:12:04,359
Speaker 5: a new thing that thus makes it reviewable.

208
00:12:04,920 --> 00:12:07,959
Speaker 1: So this theory that the Justice has decided this case

209
00:12:08,080 --> 00:12:13,360
Speaker 1: on could be used if states challenge under enforcement of

210
00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:16,080
Speaker 1: drug laws or gun laws, etc.

211
00:12:16,480 --> 00:12:19,960
Speaker 5: Right is correct. Any time a state is challenging in

212
00:12:20,000 --> 00:12:23,480
Speaker 5: the future anything related to a lack of environmental enforcement,

213
00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 5: lack of drug enforcement, lack of gun enforcement, whatever the

214
00:12:27,320 --> 00:12:29,760
Speaker 5: topic is, it's going to be a very very hard

215
00:12:30,400 --> 00:12:34,200
Speaker 5: challenge for a state to seem because again, the courts

216
00:12:34,240 --> 00:12:36,839
Speaker 5: are saying, the coercive power of the federal government is

217
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:40,839
Speaker 5: not being used against anyone. No one is directly suffering

218
00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:43,920
Speaker 5: as a result of this, and hence there's no standing.

219
00:12:44,040 --> 00:12:47,080
Speaker 5: If you could actually show a human being who is

220
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:50,240
Speaker 5: being coerced by the government in some way, fine, there

221
00:12:50,280 --> 00:12:53,480
Speaker 5: would be standing. But here, because there isn't anything, there

222
00:12:53,600 --> 00:12:56,079
Speaker 5: is no standing. And then, of course, even if you win,

223
00:12:56,160 --> 00:12:57,880
Speaker 5: what do you win. How do you get a court

224
00:12:58,200 --> 00:13:01,199
Speaker 5: to become an enforcement body. That's where the courts say,

225
00:13:01,320 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 5: we can't do that. We're Article three. Enforcement happened with

226
00:13:04,520 --> 00:13:07,760
Speaker 5: Article two as that's the executive and you can't turn

227
00:13:07,840 --> 00:13:11,360
Speaker 5: courts into enforcement agency. That's really the big mental block

228
00:13:11,440 --> 00:13:14,280
Speaker 5: here that the justice is pad is what was the

229
00:13:14,320 --> 00:13:18,439
Speaker 5: court supposed to do? Even in Texas one and nobody

230
00:13:18,440 --> 00:13:19,440
Speaker 5: had a good answer to that.

231
00:13:20,040 --> 00:13:23,360
Speaker 1: It's the second immigration victory for the administration at the

232
00:13:23,360 --> 00:13:26,960
Speaker 1: Supreme Court in a year. Does that signal a change

233
00:13:26,960 --> 00:13:30,280
Speaker 1: in the court or is it just based on the

234
00:13:30,320 --> 00:13:32,240
Speaker 1: facts in law of each of these cases.

235
00:13:32,720 --> 00:13:35,960
Speaker 5: Well, I do think you're seeing some very interesting trends. So,

236
00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:39,680
Speaker 5: for instance, there were three immigration cases decided in the

237
00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:42,960
Speaker 5: last seven days, and there was one case that yes,

238
00:13:43,160 --> 00:13:46,880
Speaker 5: was decided against the foreign nationals related to this issue

239
00:13:46,880 --> 00:13:52,679
Speaker 5: of whether obstruction of justice was requiring an actual investigation

240
00:13:52,880 --> 00:13:55,840
Speaker 5: that was live to be taking place in order to

241
00:13:55,840 --> 00:13:58,960
Speaker 5: deport the person. And even though they ruled that person

242
00:13:59,040 --> 00:14:01,960
Speaker 5: could be deported, and the point was, you start to

243
00:14:02,000 --> 00:14:08,000
Speaker 5: see Justice Gorsage really taking a hard line on deporting people.

244
00:14:08,400 --> 00:14:11,120
Speaker 5: I find that to be a very interesting trend. He's

245
00:14:11,160 --> 00:14:14,320
Speaker 5: basically saying, look, the government has to have very clear

246
00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:18,200
Speaker 5: guidance before they can support people. And that's a very

247
00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:20,480
Speaker 5: interesting thing. You've done that in a couple of cases

248
00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:23,400
Speaker 5: last terments, now this case. So that's one interesting trend.

249
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 5: And so the second interesting trend you're seeing is Roberts

250
00:14:27,080 --> 00:14:33,200
Speaker 5: and Katana on the issue of challenges the government authority

251
00:14:33,440 --> 00:14:37,280
Speaker 5: to make immigration memos need to have a more expansive

252
00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:41,520
Speaker 5: view of the federal government's ability to operate in this state,

253
00:14:41,680 --> 00:14:45,040
Speaker 5: the administrative state's ability to operate in the state. And

254
00:14:45,120 --> 00:14:49,120
Speaker 5: so that I also find very interesting. And even Justice

255
00:14:49,160 --> 00:14:52,120
Speaker 5: Cony Barrett on this same front, even though she wasn't

256
00:14:52,480 --> 00:14:55,640
Speaker 5: on the majority opinion, she found a different concurring opinion

257
00:14:55,680 --> 00:14:58,240
Speaker 5: on a different part of standing. I do think that

258
00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:00,960
Speaker 5: both in the Remain in Mexico case and in this

259
00:15:01,080 --> 00:15:06,800
Speaker 5: Prosecutorial Discretion case, that block of Justices Kavanaugh, Coony, Barrens,

260
00:15:07,240 --> 00:15:10,160
Speaker 5: and Roberts seems to be saying, look, the states are

261
00:15:10,160 --> 00:15:13,880
Speaker 5: going too far when they want to have say in

262
00:15:14,320 --> 00:15:17,200
Speaker 5: the way immigration laws being enforced. They just have to

263
00:15:17,240 --> 00:15:21,080
Speaker 5: stop doing that. And now we have multiple decisions saying

264
00:15:21,080 --> 00:15:25,440
Speaker 5: that Remain in Mexico and now the Prosecutorial Discretion case,

265
00:15:25,880 --> 00:15:28,880
Speaker 5: And so I think now we're returning sort of back

266
00:15:28,880 --> 00:15:32,840
Speaker 5: to the future, back to the eighteen eighties original purist

267
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:35,520
Speaker 5: prudence here, which is that looks when the federal government

268
00:15:35,600 --> 00:15:39,800
Speaker 5: is acting in a way that's consistent with the congressional

269
00:15:39,800 --> 00:15:42,880
Speaker 5: grant of authority to the federal government. There's not really

270
00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:46,120
Speaker 5: anything for the court to do here, and that's what

271
00:15:46,160 --> 00:15:48,000
Speaker 5: we're seeing in the last couple of years.

272
00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:51,880
Speaker 1: Coming up, i'll continue this conversation with Leon Fresco and

273
00:15:51,920 --> 00:15:55,040
Speaker 1: we'll talk about two other immigration decisions the Court handed

274
00:15:55,080 --> 00:15:57,880
Speaker 1: down last week. Leon, let's turn now to two other

275
00:15:57,960 --> 00:16:03,520
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions from last week in criminal cases involving immigration.

276
00:16:03,800 --> 00:16:04,640
Speaker 1: Tell us about.

277
00:16:04,480 --> 00:16:08,240
Speaker 5: Those the two criminal cases that actually ended up being

278
00:16:08,360 --> 00:16:13,320
Speaker 5: decided against the foreign nationals. But neither of those cases

279
00:16:13,400 --> 00:16:16,440
Speaker 5: were very sympathetic cases to the four nationals, so they're not,

280
00:16:16,560 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 5: in terms of their reach, not going to be very broad.

281
00:16:19,280 --> 00:16:22,880
Speaker 5: So the first things is one about inducing people to

282
00:16:23,000 --> 00:16:26,520
Speaker 5: either come to the United States illegally or stay in

283
00:16:26,560 --> 00:16:29,600
Speaker 5: the United States illegally, and so that's been illegal for

284
00:16:29,640 --> 00:16:33,040
Speaker 5: about one hundred years, and there's been several iterations of

285
00:16:33,080 --> 00:16:35,840
Speaker 5: the statutes, the most recent one being in the fifties

286
00:16:36,160 --> 00:16:40,760
Speaker 5: about whether you could make it illegal to induce people

287
00:16:40,840 --> 00:16:42,960
Speaker 5: to either stay in the United States or to come

288
00:16:43,040 --> 00:16:45,920
Speaker 5: to the United States. And so there was this creative

289
00:16:46,240 --> 00:16:51,280
Speaker 5: theory that because the word was called induced, that induces speech,

290
00:16:51,880 --> 00:16:54,920
Speaker 5: and that you would be violating the First Amendment to

291
00:16:55,360 --> 00:16:59,920
Speaker 5: criminalize people for essentially saying, Grandma, please don't leave the

292
00:17:00,080 --> 00:17:03,280
Speaker 5: United States, I know you're here unlawfully. Now, that's not

293
00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:05,720
Speaker 5: what was happening in this case. In this case, there

294
00:17:05,760 --> 00:17:09,280
Speaker 5: was an actual criminal, a person who committed two million

295
00:17:09,320 --> 00:17:12,600
Speaker 5: dollars worth of fraud, inducing people to engage in a

296
00:17:12,680 --> 00:17:16,560
Speaker 5: fake adoption scheme in order to get citizenship, which none

297
00:17:16,600 --> 00:17:20,160
Speaker 5: of that works. And so, but that person was saying,

298
00:17:20,720 --> 00:17:26,760
Speaker 5: because this statute permits the criminalization of someone telling their grandmother, grandma,

299
00:17:26,920 --> 00:17:30,760
Speaker 5: please say don't go home, even though you're an illegal status,

300
00:17:30,960 --> 00:17:33,280
Speaker 5: that that meant that the whole statute needed to be

301
00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:36,800
Speaker 5: struck down under the person thatment ground, by the way,

302
00:17:36,880 --> 00:17:39,840
Speaker 5: the place that was ever prosecuted. And what the court

303
00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:43,919
Speaker 5: found was that that kind of conduct grandma police say

304
00:17:44,600 --> 00:17:47,920
Speaker 5: was not actually written into the statute, and that the

305
00:17:48,040 --> 00:17:53,240
Speaker 5: conduct of inducement actually had to be the intentional encouragement

306
00:17:53,320 --> 00:17:58,800
Speaker 5: and facilitation of an illegal act, meaning, Hey, here's how

307
00:17:58,840 --> 00:18:02,760
Speaker 5: you get a fake ID years, how you get face paperwork,

308
00:18:02,880 --> 00:18:06,520
Speaker 5: here is how you cross the border illegally, go over there,

309
00:18:06,720 --> 00:18:09,160
Speaker 5: go do you know that kind of thing? It couldn't

310
00:18:09,160 --> 00:18:12,560
Speaker 5: just be Grandma police say in America, I will miss you.

311
00:18:12,680 --> 00:18:16,520
Speaker 5: Because that's not actually facilitating in any way of the

312
00:18:16,520 --> 00:18:20,359
Speaker 5: illegal act. So the court limited the way it's going

313
00:18:20,440 --> 00:18:23,560
Speaker 5: to be read to say you actually had that conduct

314
00:18:23,960 --> 00:18:28,720
Speaker 5: talking about facilitating the illegal acts. The speech hustle involves that,

315
00:18:29,119 --> 00:18:32,000
Speaker 5: and if it didn't, you couldn't criminalize it. So that

316
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:35,040
Speaker 5: was that first case, and then in the second case,

317
00:18:35,040 --> 00:18:38,840
Speaker 5: there was a dispute about people who are being deported

318
00:18:38,880 --> 00:18:43,840
Speaker 5: for committing obstruction of justice. The question was whether you

319
00:18:43,880 --> 00:18:47,360
Speaker 5: could be deported for committing obstruction of justice if there

320
00:18:47,440 --> 00:18:50,720
Speaker 5: wasn't upending investigation. And so there were two kinds of cases.

321
00:18:51,240 --> 00:18:54,960
Speaker 5: One where the person was trying to stop people from

322
00:18:55,000 --> 00:18:58,080
Speaker 5: even speaking to the tops on a domestic violence case,

323
00:18:58,320 --> 00:19:01,200
Speaker 5: and by doing that that would mean an investigation would

324
00:19:01,240 --> 00:19:05,119
Speaker 5: never be launched, so it was pre investigation type obstruction.

325
00:19:05,880 --> 00:19:08,399
Speaker 5: And in the second one, it was after the fact,

326
00:19:08,560 --> 00:19:11,840
Speaker 5: meaning that everything ended, and then it charged the person

327
00:19:12,480 --> 00:19:15,480
Speaker 5: or being an accessory to a crime after the fact.

328
00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:19,359
Speaker 5: So one was pre investigation obstruction and one was post

329
00:19:19,400 --> 00:19:24,320
Speaker 5: investigation obstruction. And so the question was could you be

330
00:19:24,480 --> 00:19:29,400
Speaker 5: deported under the obstruction of justice ground of deportation if

331
00:19:29,400 --> 00:19:34,359
Speaker 5: there wasn't upending investigation, And here six justices, all the

332
00:19:34,480 --> 00:19:40,080
Speaker 5: conservative justices, said yes, you could be deported in this

333
00:19:40,200 --> 00:19:43,760
Speaker 5: situation because in the end, the best time to obstruct

334
00:19:43,880 --> 00:19:47,960
Speaker 5: justice is before an investigation. That's when you would benefit most. So,

335
00:19:48,560 --> 00:19:52,680
Speaker 5: of course Congress meant all aspects of obstruction of justice.

336
00:19:52,800 --> 00:19:56,199
Speaker 5: You didn't need an active, pending investigation in order to

337
00:19:56,200 --> 00:19:59,240
Speaker 5: be deported for obstruction of justice. So in those two

338
00:19:59,280 --> 00:20:02,480
Speaker 5: cases they rule against the immigrants in the cases, neither

339
00:20:02,520 --> 00:20:06,600
Speaker 5: of those are very large cases of applicability.

340
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,280
Speaker 1: And can you reconcile the reasoning in those two criminal

341
00:20:09,359 --> 00:20:12,640
Speaker 1: cases with the reasoning in the main case involving Texas

342
00:20:12,640 --> 00:20:13,760
Speaker 1: and Louisiana.

343
00:20:13,880 --> 00:20:16,960
Speaker 5: In both of those cases, they're basically trying to say

344
00:20:17,000 --> 00:20:20,879
Speaker 5: that the common sense version of the rule remains in place.

345
00:20:20,880 --> 00:20:23,520
Speaker 5: We're not going to start looking for creative ways to

346
00:20:23,640 --> 00:20:28,159
Speaker 5: invalidate congressional statutes. So in a sense, it's consistent with

347
00:20:28,920 --> 00:20:32,960
Speaker 5: the same concept in the larger prosecutorial discretion case, which

348
00:20:32,960 --> 00:20:36,600
Speaker 5: is again Congress is allowing the federal government to have

349
00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:39,240
Speaker 5: the say and how it's doing this, and whether the

350
00:20:39,240 --> 00:20:42,159
Speaker 5: federal government says this is how we're going to enforce

351
00:20:42,200 --> 00:20:45,239
Speaker 5: the law with regard to prosecutorial discussion. This is how

352
00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:47,840
Speaker 5: we're going to enforce it. With regard to obstruction of justice.

353
00:20:48,040 --> 00:20:50,400
Speaker 5: This is how we're going to enforce it with regards

354
00:20:50,440 --> 00:20:56,040
Speaker 5: to inducements of someone staying here illegally or coming here illegally.

355
00:20:56,520 --> 00:21:01,640
Speaker 5: The government's being given different widely in all of sometimes

356
00:21:01,640 --> 00:21:05,480
Speaker 5: out foreign national sometimes it hurts foreign nationals, but the

357
00:21:05,560 --> 00:21:08,639
Speaker 5: corn seems to be giving different every single time to

358
00:21:09,080 --> 00:21:11,679
Speaker 5: the federal government's enforcement priorities here.

359
00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:15,040
Speaker 1: I always appreciate your insights, Leon, Thanks so much. That's

360
00:21:15,160 --> 00:21:18,160
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. And that's

361
00:21:18,200 --> 00:21:20,840
Speaker 1: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

362
00:21:20,840 --> 00:21:22,959
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our

363
00:21:22,960 --> 00:21:27,119
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

364
00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:32,359
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

365
00:21:32,760 --> 00:21:35,320
Speaker 1: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

366
00:21:35,400 --> 00:21:39,280
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

367
00:21:39,440 --> 00:21:41,040
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg