1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:12,640
Speaker 2: Los Angeles has been a hotspot for the Trump administration's

3
00:00:12,760 --> 00:00:17,840
Speaker 2: immigration efforts, with accusations that ICE agents were using racial

4
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:20,520
Speaker 2: profiling and other illegal tactics.

5
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:25,319
Speaker 3: The mask men in unmarked cars, no license plate, no

6
00:00:25,520 --> 00:00:29,880
Speaker 3: real uniforms, jumping out of cars with rifles, and snatching

7
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:32,920
Speaker 3: people off the street, leading a lot of people to

8
00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:35,280
Speaker 3: think maybe kidnappings were taking place.

9
00:00:36,080 --> 00:00:40,120
Speaker 2: That was Mayor Karen Bass on ABC's This Week. A

10
00:00:40,159 --> 00:00:43,519
Speaker 2: federal judge found last month that there was a quote

11
00:00:43,760 --> 00:00:49,040
Speaker 2: mountain of evidence that ICE agents tactics were violating the Constitution.

12
00:00:49,720 --> 00:00:53,880
Speaker 2: She issued an order barring agents in LA from stopping

13
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,680
Speaker 2: and questioning people on the basis of race or ethnicity,

14
00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:01,760
Speaker 2: speaking Spanish or English with an accent, the type of

15
00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 2: work they do, or their presence at a particular location

16
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,800
Speaker 2: like a car wash, a tow yard, or an agricultural site,

17
00:01:10,080 --> 00:01:14,280
Speaker 2: and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously backed

18
00:01:14,280 --> 00:01:18,200
Speaker 2: that order, leaving the ball in the administration's court. My

19
00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:21,800
Speaker 2: guest is an expert in immigration law. Leon Fresco, a

20
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:25,280
Speaker 2: partnered Holland and Knight. Leon explained what the district judge

21
00:01:25,400 --> 00:01:27,000
Speaker 2: ordered in the LA case.

22
00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:31,560
Speaker 1: Well, the original case involved the challenge to something that

23
00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:34,720
Speaker 1: was called Operation at Large, which was a federal immigration

24
00:01:34,959 --> 00:01:39,360
Speaker 1: enforcement initiative in Los Angeles. There were these ICE contact

25
00:01:39,400 --> 00:01:43,959
Speaker 1: teams targeting locations such as car washes and home depots

26
00:01:44,000 --> 00:01:48,760
Speaker 1: and other places believed to employ undocumented workers. And there

27
00:01:48,840 --> 00:01:53,240
Speaker 1: was a lawsuit claiming that these roving patrols detained individuals

28
00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:58,600
Speaker 1: without reasonable suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment, and the District

29
00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:01,800
Speaker 1: Court at health on Julia Lae Eaven that the plaintiffs

30
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:06,919
Speaker 1: were likely to succeed improving unconstitutional seizures. So the judge

31
00:02:07,000 --> 00:02:11,919
Speaker 1: restricted federal agents from conducting these ICE rays and stops

32
00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:16,519
Speaker 1: without a reasonable suspicion. So what that means is that

33
00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:21,240
Speaker 1: instead of walking around and trying to say this person

34
00:02:21,280 --> 00:02:25,360
Speaker 1: looks like somebody that's not here legally, which has a

35
00:02:25,440 --> 00:02:29,360
Speaker 1: sort of dubious application that people get worried about because

36
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,040
Speaker 1: they say, well, how are you making those decisions? What

37
00:02:32,160 --> 00:02:35,440
Speaker 1: they're trying to do is convert ICE back into a

38
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:40,560
Speaker 1: list sort of agency where it says, we know today

39
00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:43,880
Speaker 1: we're going to go after person one, person two, person three,

40
00:02:43,960 --> 00:02:46,240
Speaker 1: person four, person five, and then they go and they

41
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:49,680
Speaker 1: look for these people because they know they're here undocumented,

42
00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:52,959
Speaker 1: rather than just grabbing people in the middle of the street.

43
00:02:53,040 --> 00:02:56,920
Speaker 1: And so that's really the end goal of this lawsuit.

44
00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:00,560
Speaker 1: And so yes, there are times where they'll still be

45
00:03:00,639 --> 00:03:02,799
Speaker 1: able to pick people up because they'll have a reasonable

46
00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:05,680
Speaker 1: subspicion for another reason other than they're on a list.

47
00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:09,480
Speaker 1: But mostly this limits ICE to this sort of list

48
00:03:09,560 --> 00:03:10,560
Speaker 1: based enforcement.

49
00:03:10,960 --> 00:03:15,560
Speaker 2: And what was the government's argument at the Ninth Circuit when.

50
00:03:15,440 --> 00:03:18,640
Speaker 1: The government appealed, They said two things. They said, first

51
00:03:18,639 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: of all, that the organizational plaintiffs and the case didn't

52
00:03:22,000 --> 00:03:26,200
Speaker 1: even have standing to bring the case, because organizational plaintiffs

53
00:03:26,200 --> 00:03:28,440
Speaker 1: were the ones bringing the case, you know, because if

54
00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:32,079
Speaker 1: you have an individual plane, if it's hard because you say, well,

55
00:03:32,080 --> 00:03:34,239
Speaker 1: what are the odds that you particularly are going to

56
00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:37,360
Speaker 1: be grabbed by Ice, so you don't really have standing

57
00:03:37,440 --> 00:03:40,280
Speaker 1: to make the claim. So instead there were these organizational

58
00:03:40,320 --> 00:03:44,640
Speaker 1: planiffs who brought the case. And they also said that

59
00:03:45,320 --> 00:03:49,000
Speaker 1: in general they weren't violating the Fourth Amendment because they

60
00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:53,680
Speaker 1: have the ability and then the right to enforce immigration law.

61
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 1: They have the right to question anybody about their lawful

62
00:03:57,240 --> 00:04:00,280
Speaker 1: presence in the United states at any times what the

63
00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:05,320
Speaker 1: statue permits them to do. The Ninth Circuit said two things. First,

64
00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 1: that the organizational planets had standing because they showed that

65
00:04:09,280 --> 00:04:12,600
Speaker 1: these kind of roving patrols forced them to divert their

66
00:04:12,640 --> 00:04:17,160
Speaker 1: resources from instead of carrying out other missions of supporting immigrants'

67
00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 1: rights in the community, they had to move to divert

68
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:23,479
Speaker 1: the resources into dealing with these enforcement actions. So that

69
00:04:23,680 --> 00:04:25,880
Speaker 1: was the standing issue, and they said there was standing.

70
00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:29,800
Speaker 1: But they also said that with regard to these claims

71
00:04:29,839 --> 00:04:35,040
Speaker 1: about reasonable suspicion and force Amendment violations caused by ICE

72
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:38,839
Speaker 1: officers roving around looking for people, they said that yes,

73
00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:41,960
Speaker 1: that does also seem to have a likelihood of success

74
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:45,760
Speaker 1: enough that they would not say the District Court's ruling

75
00:04:45,960 --> 00:04:49,279
Speaker 1: it was a three zero decision, and so the court

76
00:04:49,440 --> 00:04:52,919
Speaker 1: basically allowed almost all of the ruling to take place,

77
00:04:52,960 --> 00:04:56,520
Speaker 1: except there was one line in the injunction that prevented

78
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:01,800
Speaker 1: ICE from even asking individuals about their immigration reasonable suspicion.

79
00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:05,840
Speaker 1: That was say, they were allowed to still do that.

80
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:10,760
Speaker 1: That was considered overbroad and problematic in terms of enforcement

81
00:05:10,800 --> 00:05:15,520
Speaker 1: and constitutional interpretation, but the rest of the injunction was

82
00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:17,000
Speaker 1: allowed to continue.

83
00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:21,440
Speaker 2: So the judge rule that ICE can't attain people based

84
00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:26,720
Speaker 2: on their apparent race or ethnicity, So speaking Spanish or

85
00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:31,000
Speaker 2: accented English, or being at locations such as home depot

86
00:05:31,080 --> 00:05:34,920
Speaker 2: parking lots, what does constitute reasonable suspicion?

87
00:05:35,040 --> 00:05:40,320
Speaker 1: Then the main thing that people who file this lawsuit

88
00:05:40,360 --> 00:05:43,760
Speaker 1: basically are trying to limit ICE is to say you

89
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:46,720
Speaker 1: have to have some sort of knowledge of the person

90
00:05:46,760 --> 00:05:50,560
Speaker 1: you're looking for and of their immigration status before you

91
00:05:50,680 --> 00:05:55,080
Speaker 1: go looking for those individuals. So, for instance, if you're

92
00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:57,839
Speaker 1: at an immigration court, then you'll know if somebody has

93
00:05:57,880 --> 00:06:00,320
Speaker 1: that status or not, so then you can pay them

94
00:06:00,360 --> 00:06:03,679
Speaker 1: up after or if again, you're working off a list

95
00:06:03,760 --> 00:06:06,440
Speaker 1: of people who have lost their status that you know

96
00:06:06,520 --> 00:06:09,760
Speaker 1: from the Department of Homeland Security databases and you're going

97
00:06:09,800 --> 00:06:11,720
Speaker 1: to pick up those people at their work or at

98
00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:14,640
Speaker 1: their homes, you then have reasonable suspicion and you can

99
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:17,640
Speaker 1: do that. And what the decision also allows is so,

100
00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:22,159
Speaker 1: for instance, let's say there's twenty undocumented people at a

101
00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:24,640
Speaker 1: work site that they know about because they have it

102
00:06:24,680 --> 00:06:27,560
Speaker 1: in their database, then they can ask, Okay, well, what

103
00:06:27,600 --> 00:06:30,080
Speaker 1: about the other people at this work site? I want

104
00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:32,839
Speaker 1: to see the paperwork for them, because then there's a

105
00:06:32,839 --> 00:06:37,919
Speaker 1: reasonable suspicion because you've already established that there's twenty undocumented

106
00:06:37,920 --> 00:06:42,000
Speaker 1: people at that work site, that the employer hires undocumented people.

107
00:06:42,279 --> 00:06:47,480
Speaker 1: But in terms of just randomly generating leads by going

108
00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:52,120
Speaker 1: to places and making these sort of facial decisions, I

109
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:55,200
Speaker 1: am concerned about how this person looks or how they

110
00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 1: present themselves, etc. That's the kind of thing that is

111
00:06:59,279 --> 00:07:00,760
Speaker 1: enjoying them this injunction.

112
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:07,920
Speaker 2: How much of a hindrance is this order to ICE, Well.

113
00:07:07,680 --> 00:07:10,080
Speaker 1: It depends if you say how much of a hindrance

114
00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:14,960
Speaker 1: is it to their deterrent operations as opposed to their

115
00:07:15,000 --> 00:07:18,000
Speaker 1: removal operations. It's not really a deterrent at all to

116
00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:22,040
Speaker 1: their removal operations in the sense of ICE has pretty

117
00:07:22,080 --> 00:07:26,520
Speaker 1: sophisticated databases where it knows where most of the undocument

118
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:29,320
Speaker 1: the people in this country are and where they live,

119
00:07:29,400 --> 00:07:32,280
Speaker 1: and ICE, if they want to, can go and pick

120
00:07:32,360 --> 00:07:35,720
Speaker 1: up as many people as it has detention space to detain,

121
00:07:36,440 --> 00:07:40,240
Speaker 1: and so there's never a shortage of people that ICE

122
00:07:40,280 --> 00:07:42,320
Speaker 1: can pick up on any given day to place and

123
00:07:42,440 --> 00:07:46,240
Speaker 1: detention given the limited detention space it has. But what

124
00:07:46,400 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 1: it does limit is ICE's ability to engage in the

125
00:07:50,520 --> 00:07:54,480
Speaker 1: kind of patrols that are designed to create a deterrent effect,

126
00:07:54,560 --> 00:07:57,960
Speaker 1: meaning people are nervous to remain here in the United

127
00:07:58,000 --> 00:08:01,160
Speaker 1: States because they think, oh, if I take a city bus,

128
00:08:01,600 --> 00:08:04,600
Speaker 1: or if I just go shopping, or if I'm taking

129
00:08:04,640 --> 00:08:07,560
Speaker 1: my child to school, I could be apprehended at any moment.

130
00:08:08,280 --> 00:08:12,440
Speaker 1: The design of those operations isn't to meet the quota,

131
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:17,280
Speaker 1: so to speak. It's to instead create a deterrent effect

132
00:08:17,320 --> 00:08:20,560
Speaker 1: that tells people, if you stay here, you never know

133
00:08:20,600 --> 00:08:22,720
Speaker 1: what day is going to be the day you're apprehended,

134
00:08:23,120 --> 00:08:26,120
Speaker 1: so you should just return home. And so that's where

135
00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:28,880
Speaker 1: it's limiting the operation. Isn't that deterrent effect.

136
00:08:29,480 --> 00:08:33,079
Speaker 2: So the government has two options. It can ask for

137
00:08:33,200 --> 00:08:37,400
Speaker 2: an onbink hearing to reconsider the panel's decision, or it

138
00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:41,480
Speaker 2: could ask the Supreme Court to stay the order. Do

139
00:08:41,520 --> 00:08:43,440
Speaker 2: you think it will do either of those things.

140
00:08:43,840 --> 00:08:46,480
Speaker 1: I think the government has been quite aggressive in appealing

141
00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:49,280
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court, so I do think the government

142
00:08:49,360 --> 00:08:52,160
Speaker 1: probably will not take the step of going to the

143
00:08:52,240 --> 00:08:56,040
Speaker 1: unbank Ninth Circuit because that will simply delay thing and

144
00:08:56,360 --> 00:09:00,000
Speaker 1: probably unlikely to be considered unbanked by the Ninth Circuit

145
00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:03,000
Speaker 1: unless they happen to get a perfect setup of the

146
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:05,560
Speaker 1: twelve judges that would be picked for the unbound panel.

147
00:09:05,640 --> 00:09:08,640
Speaker 1: Then I mean, theoretically it could happen, but the odds

148
00:09:08,679 --> 00:09:11,600
Speaker 1: are not so great for that purpose. And they've been

149
00:09:11,720 --> 00:09:14,480
Speaker 1: getting better results in the Supreme Court with saying some

150
00:09:14,600 --> 00:09:19,680
Speaker 1: of these injunctions, and I could foresee the Supreme Court

151
00:09:20,200 --> 00:09:25,119
Speaker 1: lifting or staying parts of the injunction that limit ICE's hands.

152
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:28,120
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't see them potentially taking away the

153
00:09:28,160 --> 00:09:31,600
Speaker 1: whole injunction, but I could see them giving Ice a

154
00:09:31,600 --> 00:09:34,440
Speaker 1: little bit more wiggle room here. And so I do

155
00:09:34,480 --> 00:09:36,680
Speaker 1: think they're going to try their hand there to see

156
00:09:36,720 --> 00:09:39,559
Speaker 1: if they can continue, because I think they view these

157
00:09:39,720 --> 00:09:45,800
Speaker 1: city roving operations as an important part of their deterrent force,

158
00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:49,000
Speaker 1: and so they really want to be engaging in these

159
00:09:49,040 --> 00:09:51,160
Speaker 1: and I don't think they'll give it up that easily.

160
00:09:51,720 --> 00:09:55,960
Speaker 2: So during this hearing, the Ninth Circuit hearing, the judges

161
00:09:56,000 --> 00:10:00,559
Speaker 2: asked the government lawyer repeatedly whether the Trump administer has

162
00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:04,520
Speaker 2: set a quota of three thousand immigration arrests a day.

163
00:10:04,800 --> 00:10:07,280
Speaker 2: That number has been bandied about, and it started with

164
00:10:07,559 --> 00:10:11,520
Speaker 2: I believe Stephen Miller, White House advisor, the government lawyer

165
00:10:11,679 --> 00:10:14,480
Speaker 2: Yakovrov said he didn't know, and the judges said, okay,

166
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:18,080
Speaker 2: submit a letter, and in the letter he said that

167
00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:21,960
Speaker 2: was incorrect, that there wasn't a goal of three thousand.

168
00:10:22,400 --> 00:10:23,920
Speaker 2: I mean, do you think there's a goal.

169
00:10:24,760 --> 00:10:28,880
Speaker 1: I think the way they're trying to basically square the

170
00:10:28,960 --> 00:10:32,800
Speaker 1: circle is to say that there's not a memo or

171
00:10:32,840 --> 00:10:35,559
Speaker 1: a policy or anything in place where they don't hit

172
00:10:35,600 --> 00:10:39,360
Speaker 1: three thousand in a day. Something bad happens to somebody

173
00:10:39,360 --> 00:10:43,640
Speaker 1: at ice, or somebody's pay gets dogs or anything like that.

174
00:10:44,040 --> 00:10:47,240
Speaker 1: So they recognize, yes, people have said three thousand a day,

175
00:10:47,280 --> 00:10:50,440
Speaker 1: that is something that's been said in the media, but

176
00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:56,199
Speaker 1: there's not any operational context that actually requires three thousand

177
00:10:56,200 --> 00:10:59,920
Speaker 1: people to be arrested today. And the truth is there

178
00:11:00,080 --> 00:11:02,560
Speaker 1: goal is to detain as many people as they can

179
00:11:02,600 --> 00:11:06,079
Speaker 1: each day. I think three thousand is probably not a

180
00:11:06,120 --> 00:11:08,840
Speaker 1: policy in the sense that it has to hit three

181
00:11:08,920 --> 00:11:13,680
Speaker 1: thousand or something happens legally where somebody's heels responsible for

182
00:11:13,800 --> 00:11:16,679
Speaker 1: not hitting three thousand, So I think that's probably an

183
00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:21,080
Speaker 1: accurate statement. But the intent or the goal is to

184
00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:24,040
Speaker 1: detain as many people as possible. If that was six thousand,

185
00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:27,000
Speaker 1: they'd be happier than if it was four thousand, or

186
00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:30,559
Speaker 1: if it was two thousand, and So if the idea

187
00:11:30,840 --> 00:11:35,240
Speaker 1: behind this lawsuit is that these roving patrols are being

188
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:39,040
Speaker 1: done to generate as many removals as possible, there are

189
00:11:39,040 --> 00:11:42,719
Speaker 1: as many detentions as possible, I don't think the administration

190
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:45,240
Speaker 1: would dispute that. But the issue is do they have

191
00:11:45,320 --> 00:11:48,640
Speaker 1: this quota? And I think the quota would only bother

192
00:11:48,760 --> 00:11:53,120
Speaker 1: them from the standpoint that any law enforcement operation that's

193
00:11:53,200 --> 00:11:57,520
Speaker 1: not geared toward enforcing the law in that individual case,

194
00:11:57,840 --> 00:12:01,680
Speaker 1: but that's geared toward a larger quota, creates trouble with

195
00:12:01,800 --> 00:12:04,760
Speaker 1: regard to sort of the motives of the government in

196
00:12:04,800 --> 00:12:08,560
Speaker 1: how it's operating and how it's conducting law enforcement. Those

197
00:12:08,559 --> 00:12:11,760
Speaker 1: have been problematic cases and other contexts in the court.

198
00:12:12,360 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: But I think it's just fair to say there's not

199
00:12:14,800 --> 00:12:20,040
Speaker 1: a quota that is operationalized, but rather just a goal, Hey,

200
00:12:20,200 --> 00:12:22,480
Speaker 1: get as many people as you can in detention and

201
00:12:22,600 --> 00:12:26,600
Speaker 1: in deportation proceedings as humanly possible, and so the number

202
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:30,160
Speaker 1: three thousand was a goal in terms of you should

203
00:12:30,160 --> 00:12:33,320
Speaker 1: be able to do this. But again, I think it's

204
00:12:33,320 --> 00:12:36,120
Speaker 1: fair enough to say that there's no legal consequences for

205
00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:38,280
Speaker 1: not hitting that number coming up next.

206
00:12:38,800 --> 00:12:42,959
Speaker 2: I just agree that agents in Los Angeles won't impersonate

207
00:12:43,040 --> 00:12:47,559
Speaker 2: police officers to make arrests and homes. You're listening to Bloomberg.

208
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:51,480
Speaker 2: We've been talking about the Ninth Circuit backing a judge's

209
00:12:51,679 --> 00:12:56,640
Speaker 2: order barring immigration agents in Los Angeles barring immigration agents

210
00:12:56,640 --> 00:13:00,480
Speaker 2: in the Los Angeles area from using racial profile filing

211
00:13:00,520 --> 00:13:05,600
Speaker 2: to detain in question suspected undocumented migrants. Well, in another

212
00:13:05,679 --> 00:13:11,520
Speaker 2: lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ICE agents in LA impersonating

213
00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:15,520
Speaker 2: police officers or using other ruses to make home arrests,

214
00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:19,559
Speaker 2: ICE has reached a court approved settlement. Under the agreement,

215
00:13:19,720 --> 00:13:23,800
Speaker 2: ICE officers can't claim to be state or local law

216
00:13:23,840 --> 00:13:28,640
Speaker 2: enforcement or misrepresent the nature of their visit in order

217
00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:32,559
Speaker 2: to enter a home or persuade a resident to come outside.

218
00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:36,520
Speaker 2: I've been talking to immigration attorney Leon Fresco of Holland

219
00:13:36,559 --> 00:13:40,280
Speaker 2: and Knight. Leon explain what ICE officers were doing.

220
00:13:41,000 --> 00:13:43,080
Speaker 1: This is sort of a larger issue, which is that

221
00:13:43,559 --> 00:13:47,920
Speaker 1: as the people in the immigration rights movement have become

222
00:13:48,040 --> 00:13:51,640
Speaker 1: very very successful in communicating messages of know your Right,

223
00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:55,440
Speaker 1: a lot of people in the immigration community have understood

224
00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:59,360
Speaker 1: that ICE can be refused entry into a home unless

225
00:13:59,360 --> 00:14:01,320
Speaker 1: they have a judice warrant. So if they have an

226
00:14:01,360 --> 00:14:04,240
Speaker 1: administrative warrant, or if they just say can you let

227
00:14:04,280 --> 00:14:06,920
Speaker 1: me in, you're totally within your right to say no,

228
00:14:07,000 --> 00:14:09,360
Speaker 1: I don't want to let you in, and I can't

229
00:14:09,400 --> 00:14:12,280
Speaker 1: go in. If I goes in, then whatever operation they

230
00:14:12,320 --> 00:14:15,480
Speaker 1: did is invalid under the law once it eventually gets

231
00:14:15,520 --> 00:14:18,720
Speaker 1: to a court. And so a lot of individuals know

232
00:14:18,840 --> 00:14:21,560
Speaker 1: this now. So ICE has had to operate in this

233
00:14:21,720 --> 00:14:24,160
Speaker 1: sort of and this has been happening for many years.

234
00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:26,480
Speaker 1: This is not a recent thing, but the settlement is

235
00:14:26,520 --> 00:14:30,800
Speaker 1: recent where they try to find ways around these limitations.

236
00:14:30,800 --> 00:14:33,480
Speaker 1: So they try to get people to come outside. They say, hey,

237
00:14:33,520 --> 00:14:36,480
Speaker 1: your car is broken, or hey I need some directions,

238
00:14:36,560 --> 00:14:39,200
Speaker 1: can you come outside or whatever, and then once they're

239
00:14:39,240 --> 00:14:42,560
Speaker 1: outside then they can conduct their legal action. Or they

240
00:14:42,600 --> 00:14:45,640
Speaker 1: say they're police, can they be let inside? And if

241
00:14:45,680 --> 00:14:48,080
Speaker 1: people think they're police but not ICE, then they let

242
00:14:48,120 --> 00:14:51,120
Speaker 1: them inside. And so the idea of this lawsuit was

243
00:14:51,160 --> 00:14:55,680
Speaker 1: to say ICE has to not do those tactics of

244
00:14:56,000 --> 00:14:59,880
Speaker 1: giving some sort of not whole truth or or potent

245
00:15:00,240 --> 00:15:03,520
Speaker 1: deviation from the truth in what their operations are. They

246
00:15:03,560 --> 00:15:06,760
Speaker 1: have to say that their ICE both in their clothing

247
00:15:06,880 --> 00:15:10,440
Speaker 1: and in their verbiage, and so that when they are

248
00:15:10,520 --> 00:15:13,800
Speaker 1: engaging in those operations. Now under this settlement, then the

249
00:15:13,840 --> 00:15:17,280
Speaker 1: individuals will know this is ICE. ICE is strength enter

250
00:15:17,360 --> 00:15:19,280
Speaker 1: the home. I can refuse it unless they have a

251
00:15:19,320 --> 00:15:20,160
Speaker 1: judicial warrant.

252
00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:22,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, so they have to have a warrant that's signed

253
00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:25,280
Speaker 2: by a judge, and those are hard to get.

254
00:15:25,840 --> 00:15:27,760
Speaker 1: It's not that they're hard to get, but it's time

255
00:15:27,800 --> 00:15:30,680
Speaker 1: consuming because judges only have so many things they can

256
00:15:30,720 --> 00:15:34,320
Speaker 1: do on a given day. And if ICE is trying

257
00:15:34,360 --> 00:15:36,840
Speaker 1: to get one of those warrants, they have to set

258
00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:40,320
Speaker 1: up the paperwork that says, here's this person, here's how

259
00:15:40,360 --> 00:15:43,480
Speaker 1: we know they entered illegally, or they entered legally but

260
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:46,600
Speaker 1: they've overstayed their status, and then you wait for the

261
00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:49,080
Speaker 1: judge they issue the warrant, and then the judge issues

262
00:15:49,120 --> 00:15:52,200
Speaker 1: the warrant. So all of this takes time, and it's

263
00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:54,280
Speaker 1: time that ICE doesn't want to be spending when it

264
00:15:54,320 --> 00:15:58,320
Speaker 1: can just write up an administrative warrant on their work

265
00:15:58,360 --> 00:16:01,400
Speaker 1: processing documents. So they try to do that, but if

266
00:16:01,400 --> 00:16:04,000
Speaker 1: they're not successful, then they have to go and get

267
00:16:04,040 --> 00:16:06,080
Speaker 1: a warrant from a judge, meaning also they have to

268
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:10,040
Speaker 1: get the Department of Justice lawyer involved, and those lawyers

269
00:16:10,040 --> 00:16:12,200
Speaker 1: want to be doing other things. They don't necessarily want

270
00:16:12,240 --> 00:16:14,640
Speaker 1: to be doing this, although they're being ordered to do

271
00:16:14,720 --> 00:16:18,440
Speaker 1: more of this, and so that's the sort of barriers

272
00:16:18,440 --> 00:16:21,520
Speaker 1: to entry to get those warrants. So it's not hard legally,

273
00:16:21,640 --> 00:16:23,200
Speaker 1: but you just have to get a lot of people

274
00:16:23,600 --> 00:16:26,480
Speaker 1: interested in terms of the judge and the Department of

275
00:16:26,640 --> 00:16:29,240
Speaker 1: Justice and others in issuing the warrant. And so that

276
00:16:29,360 --> 00:16:31,280
Speaker 1: takes fine and resources.

277
00:16:31,480 --> 00:16:35,320
Speaker 2: And so you mentioned clothing identifying them as ice. Do

278
00:16:35,520 --> 00:16:40,520
Speaker 2: ICE agents often have clothing that says police instead of ice.

279
00:16:41,320 --> 00:16:43,840
Speaker 1: They for a number of years have been engaging in

280
00:16:43,840 --> 00:16:47,240
Speaker 1: these operations where what the front of their shirt would

281
00:16:47,280 --> 00:16:51,520
Speaker 1: say was the word police. And that did and they said, well,

282
00:16:51,600 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 1: police has this sort of general meaning of a person

283
00:16:55,280 --> 00:16:58,880
Speaker 1: who enforces law. So we are correct to be able

284
00:16:58,920 --> 00:17:00,800
Speaker 1: to say police. We don't have to say ice. We

285
00:17:00,920 --> 00:17:04,280
Speaker 1: just have to say we are people who enforce the laws.

286
00:17:04,800 --> 00:17:07,520
Speaker 1: But now in this settlement I can't do that. It

287
00:17:07,560 --> 00:17:10,560
Speaker 1: actually has to say it is ice, not just that

288
00:17:10,680 --> 00:17:11,320
Speaker 1: it's believed.

289
00:17:11,560 --> 00:17:15,000
Speaker 2: One more question on clothing ICE agents. Whenever you see

290
00:17:15,200 --> 00:17:19,480
Speaker 2: video of them or photos they're wearing masks. Is there

291
00:17:19,480 --> 00:17:22,040
Speaker 2: a problem with them wearing masks as well? I mean,

292
00:17:22,080 --> 00:17:25,800
Speaker 2: I take it they're wearing masks to conceal their identity.

293
00:17:26,400 --> 00:17:29,320
Speaker 1: Right at the moment, this mask issue is one that's

294
00:17:29,359 --> 00:17:33,600
Speaker 1: being hotly debated in the Congress for this upcoming appropriations bill.

295
00:17:33,680 --> 00:17:35,960
Speaker 1: They're trying to see if they can actually get some

296
00:17:36,160 --> 00:17:38,720
Speaker 1: language in there that maybe the Republicans will agree to

297
00:17:39,160 --> 00:17:42,479
Speaker 1: with regard to people being able to identify themselves so

298
00:17:42,560 --> 00:17:46,760
Speaker 1: that people aren't worried whether these are fake ICE officers

299
00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:49,720
Speaker 1: who are actually criminals trying to take advantage. But at

300
00:17:49,720 --> 00:17:52,760
Speaker 1: the moment, there isn't any court order or anything that

301
00:17:52,800 --> 00:17:55,680
Speaker 1: says that the agents can't wear masks. The agents wear

302
00:17:55,760 --> 00:17:58,600
Speaker 1: masks because they don't want people coming to their homes.

303
00:17:59,000 --> 00:18:01,680
Speaker 1: Now in this social media you could say, oh, that's

304
00:18:01,800 --> 00:18:04,440
Speaker 1: ICE agent Fred Smith who lives on one one one

305
00:18:04,800 --> 00:18:07,920
Speaker 1: Smith Lane, and so go to their house and yell

306
00:18:07,960 --> 00:18:11,080
Speaker 1: at them. They're trying to avoid that scenario. That is

307
00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:14,600
Speaker 1: a scenario that whether you agree with immigration enforcement or not,

308
00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:17,200
Speaker 1: the people that I don't deserve to have their houses

309
00:18:17,320 --> 00:18:21,800
Speaker 1: raided by angry people in the community. And so it's

310
00:18:21,840 --> 00:18:25,439
Speaker 1: one of those terrible situations all the way around. But

311
00:18:25,600 --> 00:18:28,000
Speaker 1: the wearing a mask, there's going to need to be

312
00:18:28,400 --> 00:18:32,119
Speaker 1: I think most people agree some sort of limiting principle

313
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:36,240
Speaker 1: here where there has to be some identification that's done

314
00:18:36,840 --> 00:18:39,160
Speaker 1: and shown that says I'm an ice agent. So maybe

315
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:43,440
Speaker 1: the person wears a mask, but during the immediate apprehension says,

316
00:18:43,440 --> 00:18:46,520
Speaker 1: here's my badge and I'm an ice agent, and they

317
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:50,000
Speaker 1: show it, and then that follows the problem. But I

318
00:18:50,040 --> 00:18:54,919
Speaker 1: think the current way where someone just is completely unidentified

319
00:18:54,960 --> 00:18:57,879
Speaker 1: wearing a mask and putting someone in a van, I

320
00:18:57,920 --> 00:19:01,240
Speaker 1: think if that continues, you will see courts getting involved,

321
00:19:01,680 --> 00:19:04,560
Speaker 1: and I think you'll even see Congress getting involved, because

322
00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:08,040
Speaker 1: those are not the kind of images that one typically

323
00:19:08,080 --> 00:19:13,080
Speaker 1: associates with normal law enforcement. You want the law enforcement

324
00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:16,399
Speaker 1: to be more transparent than that, and so we will see.

325
00:19:16,640 --> 00:19:20,280
Speaker 1: But the concerns are well understood, they're well justified. But

326
00:19:20,359 --> 00:19:22,439
Speaker 1: there has to be some principle where at least I

327
00:19:22,440 --> 00:19:24,840
Speaker 1: think a badge is shown or something happens so that

328
00:19:24,880 --> 00:19:27,840
Speaker 1: people can know, Okay, this is a nice agent that's

329
00:19:27,920 --> 00:19:28,840
Speaker 1: doing this operation.

330
00:19:29,680 --> 00:19:32,800
Speaker 2: Let's turn now to visas to get into the country.

331
00:19:33,040 --> 00:19:37,840
Speaker 2: The State Department is proposing requiring applicants for business and

332
00:19:37,920 --> 00:19:42,480
Speaker 2: tourists visas, some applicants to post bonds up to fifteen

333
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:45,480
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. Who are they targeting here?

334
00:19:46,119 --> 00:19:48,800
Speaker 1: So this is a pilot program, And what they're trying

335
00:19:48,840 --> 00:19:51,479
Speaker 1: to do is they are worried that there are certain

336
00:19:51,520 --> 00:19:55,080
Speaker 1: countries that have very high over stay rates. That means

337
00:19:55,080 --> 00:19:57,280
Speaker 1: that a visa gets issued and the person doesn't go

338
00:19:57,480 --> 00:20:00,680
Speaker 1: home and they instead stay in the the United States.

339
00:20:00,760 --> 00:20:02,440
Speaker 1: And so what they're trying to do is to create

340
00:20:02,480 --> 00:20:06,679
Speaker 1: a financial disincentive for people to do that, which is

341
00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 1: a bond, meaning you put up this money and you

342
00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:11,919
Speaker 1: don't get it back if you don't go home. And

343
00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:14,480
Speaker 1: so right now they're doing about two dozen countries that

344
00:20:14,560 --> 00:20:17,560
Speaker 1: have a ten percent or higher overstay rate. Most of

345
00:20:17,600 --> 00:20:20,560
Speaker 1: these are African countries. And what they're going to say

346
00:20:20,560 --> 00:20:24,679
Speaker 1: to the State Department is charge these bonds and if

347
00:20:24,760 --> 00:20:26,680
Speaker 1: only if they can put up the bond, will they

348
00:20:26,680 --> 00:20:29,480
Speaker 1: get the visa. Now, this is an interesting concept. This

349
00:20:29,560 --> 00:20:32,000
Speaker 1: is actually a concept that even when I was a

350
00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:34,880
Speaker 1: staffer back on the hill, you know, a long long

351
00:20:34,920 --> 00:20:39,159
Speaker 1: time ago, many many many years ago, I actually was

352
00:20:39,200 --> 00:20:42,960
Speaker 1: in favor of this concept. But in a slightly different way,

353
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:46,560
Speaker 1: meaning that a lot of what the State Department does

354
00:20:46,680 --> 00:20:50,000
Speaker 1: is guess work, trying to guess is someone going to

355
00:20:50,080 --> 00:20:52,480
Speaker 1: overstay or not. They really don't have any idea. They're

356
00:20:52,560 --> 00:20:54,879
Speaker 1: just trying to do the best they can under some

357
00:20:55,000 --> 00:20:59,040
Speaker 1: challenging circumstances. And so I had pushed the State Department

358
00:20:59,440 --> 00:21:03,240
Speaker 1: personally as as baff Director of the Immigration sub Committee,

359
00:21:03,280 --> 00:21:05,600
Speaker 1: to do these bonds, but in a way where it

360
00:21:05,680 --> 00:21:09,119
Speaker 1: basically what would happen was if someone was refused a visa,

361
00:21:09,640 --> 00:21:12,800
Speaker 1: they could overcome the refusal by putting up a bond

362
00:21:13,200 --> 00:21:16,400
Speaker 1: and say, hey, if you really think I'm going to overstay,

363
00:21:16,560 --> 00:21:19,360
Speaker 1: you're fifty thousand dollars saying I'm not going to oversay.

364
00:21:19,920 --> 00:21:23,320
Speaker 1: And the State Department had traditionally and by traditionally, I

365
00:21:23,320 --> 00:21:25,879
Speaker 1: need at least the last two three decades take in

366
00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:28,560
Speaker 1: the view, there was no bond you could make people

367
00:21:28,920 --> 00:21:33,080
Speaker 1: pay that would substitute from their desire to overstay. So

368
00:21:33,119 --> 00:21:36,440
Speaker 1: if you made the bond twenty thousand, fifty thousand, they've

369
00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:38,760
Speaker 1: just put up the money and overstay and they don't care.

370
00:21:39,320 --> 00:21:42,919
Speaker 1: And so it appears that Trump administration does not agree

371
00:21:43,000 --> 00:21:45,480
Speaker 1: with that. They so they're putting up the bond. But

372
00:21:45,600 --> 00:21:48,840
Speaker 1: the issue is who's going to get charged this bond.

373
00:21:48,920 --> 00:21:50,840
Speaker 1: So is this bond and this is we're gonna have

374
00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:53,720
Speaker 1: to wait and see. Is this bond going to get

375
00:21:53,840 --> 00:21:58,240
Speaker 1: charged to people who would otherwise have already been approved

376
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:01,800
Speaker 1: and now they have to pay a bond? Or is

377
00:22:01,840 --> 00:22:04,280
Speaker 1: this going to be the way I wanted it, which

378
00:22:04,400 --> 00:22:08,120
Speaker 1: was someone whose case was iffy, who you thought could

379
00:22:08,119 --> 00:22:10,600
Speaker 1: be approved, but you're a little nervous, so you deny it.

380
00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:13,560
Speaker 1: Now you can put a bond in and you can

381
00:22:13,640 --> 00:22:17,080
Speaker 1: approve the visa because now they can pay and show

382
00:22:17,119 --> 00:22:20,400
Speaker 1: that they're serious about going back. And so if it's

383
00:22:20,480 --> 00:22:24,760
Speaker 1: this second concept, I think that's actually an improvement from

384
00:22:24,800 --> 00:22:28,160
Speaker 1: where we were before. But if it's the first concept,

385
00:22:28,480 --> 00:22:32,159
Speaker 1: then it's useful for your listeners to know that getting

386
00:22:32,200 --> 00:22:35,800
Speaker 1: a visa from any of these countries in Africa is very,

387
00:22:35,920 --> 00:22:39,120
Speaker 1: very hard. You have to be extraordinarily wealthy in order

388
00:22:39,160 --> 00:22:42,080
Speaker 1: to get a visa, so that your overstay risk is

389
00:22:42,119 --> 00:22:45,680
Speaker 1: almost zero in that context. And so just to make

390
00:22:45,760 --> 00:22:48,280
Speaker 1: those people have to pay a bond when it was

391
00:22:48,320 --> 00:22:52,119
Speaker 1: clear they were already going to go home seems excessive

392
00:22:52,200 --> 00:22:55,040
Speaker 1: and unnecessary. So that's what We're going to wait and

393
00:22:55,080 --> 00:22:57,080
Speaker 1: see is what context, because it's still going to be

394
00:22:57,119 --> 00:23:01,399
Speaker 1: optional for the individual consular officials to decide whether the

395
00:23:01,440 --> 00:23:04,359
Speaker 1: bond would be zero, five, ten thousand, or up to

396
00:23:04,440 --> 00:23:08,920
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand that's the highest they can charge, and who

397
00:23:08,960 --> 00:23:12,080
Speaker 1: they will give the bonds too. So we'll have to

398
00:23:12,119 --> 00:23:13,879
Speaker 1: wait and see. But I do think if there was

399
00:23:13,920 --> 00:23:17,159
Speaker 1: a scenario where this could be applied to people who

400
00:23:17,200 --> 00:23:20,320
Speaker 1: otherwise wouldn't have been permitted to travel, I'm not so

401
00:23:20,520 --> 00:23:22,840
Speaker 1: against it, but I think we'll have to wait and see.

402
00:23:22,840 --> 00:23:26,159
Speaker 2: There. Does it involve a lot of paperwork? Does this

403
00:23:26,200 --> 00:23:27,400
Speaker 2: put additional burdens?

404
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:29,200
Speaker 1: Well, this is going to be a brand new thing

405
00:23:29,280 --> 00:23:32,640
Speaker 1: for the state Department. Absolutely. They don't have the infrastructure

406
00:23:32,680 --> 00:23:35,720
Speaker 1: in place to a collect the money, be hold the money,

407
00:23:35,800 --> 00:23:40,560
Speaker 1: see pay back the money, the determine if you actually

408
00:23:41,040 --> 00:23:44,080
Speaker 1: earned your bond, meaning you came back. And then the

409
00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:46,960
Speaker 1: question also is what does this mean. So for instance,

410
00:23:47,000 --> 00:23:50,320
Speaker 1: a visitor visa, sometimes it's a ten year visa and

411
00:23:50,400 --> 00:23:52,240
Speaker 1: it allows you to go back and forth as many

412
00:23:52,280 --> 00:23:55,240
Speaker 1: times as you want during those ten years. So the

413
00:23:55,320 --> 00:23:57,400
Speaker 1: question is you have to keep putting up the fifteen

414
00:23:57,440 --> 00:24:00,720
Speaker 1: thousand every single time you enter, you only have to

415
00:24:00,720 --> 00:24:02,400
Speaker 1: do it the first time and show that you went

416
00:24:02,440 --> 00:24:04,960
Speaker 1: back the first time. Because if you only have to

417
00:24:05,000 --> 00:24:07,920
Speaker 1: do it the first time, then somebody can become very

418
00:24:07,920 --> 00:24:10,440
Speaker 1: creative and say, let me just you know, come back

419
00:24:10,520 --> 00:24:12,440
Speaker 1: the first time, but then the second time I enter

420
00:24:12,800 --> 00:24:15,600
Speaker 1: is the time I can overstay. So I don't know

421
00:24:15,640 --> 00:24:17,119
Speaker 1: what they're going to do about all of that. I

422
00:24:17,119 --> 00:24:19,480
Speaker 1: don't think they quite know either, but they're going to

423
00:24:19,560 --> 00:24:21,160
Speaker 1: have to work out all of those issues.

424
00:24:21,800 --> 00:24:27,080
Speaker 2: The administration is also tightening visa requirements for certain people.

425
00:24:27,119 --> 00:24:32,120
Speaker 2: We talked about them denying visa to the Venezuelan Little

426
00:24:32,160 --> 00:24:35,800
Speaker 2: League team, so now they're going to deny female transgender

427
00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:40,879
Speaker 2: athletes petitions for extraordinary ability visas. First of all, what

428
00:24:40,960 --> 00:24:42,639
Speaker 2: is an extraordinary ability visa?

429
00:24:42,960 --> 00:24:45,080
Speaker 1: I have a lot of these. So for instance, if

430
00:24:45,080 --> 00:24:47,720
Speaker 1: you're going to watch now upcoming the US Open tennis

431
00:24:47,760 --> 00:24:49,600
Speaker 1: tournament in New York, I know a lot of people

432
00:24:49,600 --> 00:24:51,919
Speaker 1: love that. I have. Any tennis players that are my

433
00:24:51,960 --> 00:24:55,560
Speaker 1: clients that come in on these extraordinary ability visas, and

434
00:24:55,640 --> 00:25:00,520
Speaker 1: what happens is you basically show hey immigration service. These

435
00:25:00,600 --> 00:25:03,240
Speaker 1: tennis players are at the top of their field. They're

436
00:25:03,280 --> 00:25:05,679
Speaker 1: in the members of either of the ATP, which is

437
00:25:05,920 --> 00:25:10,119
Speaker 1: the men's tournament or the WTA the women's tournament. And

438
00:25:10,320 --> 00:25:12,960
Speaker 1: because they've reached the top let's say one hundred ranking,

439
00:25:13,440 --> 00:25:15,639
Speaker 1: that means they're one of the top hundred tennis players

440
00:25:15,640 --> 00:25:19,159
Speaker 1: in their field. So they have extraordinary ability. So you

441
00:25:19,160 --> 00:25:21,720
Speaker 1: should give them a visa, and that visa lasts for

442
00:25:21,800 --> 00:25:24,199
Speaker 1: three years, and so they can then come in the

443
00:25:24,240 --> 00:25:27,080
Speaker 1: country and play in the tennis tournament for three years,

444
00:25:27,160 --> 00:25:29,680
Speaker 1: or it could be the same thing for Formula one

445
00:25:29,800 --> 00:25:34,440
Speaker 1: drivers or for golfers. You get the pictures the points

446
00:25:34,480 --> 00:25:37,879
Speaker 1: of those visas. What they're trying to say is, suppose

447
00:25:37,960 --> 00:25:41,160
Speaker 1: you end up being one of the best female tennis

448
00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:43,879
Speaker 1: players in the world, but you are born a man.

449
00:25:44,480 --> 00:25:47,120
Speaker 1: Could you get one of these visas? And what they're

450
00:25:47,119 --> 00:25:49,000
Speaker 1: saying is, no, we won't give you one of those

451
00:25:49,080 --> 00:25:53,000
Speaker 1: visas if we can determine that you're coming to America

452
00:25:53,080 --> 00:25:55,639
Speaker 1: to play in the female part of the US Open,

453
00:25:55,960 --> 00:25:58,480
Speaker 1: but you are born a man. Now, I don't know

454
00:25:58,800 --> 00:26:01,800
Speaker 1: at the moment who that would apply to. I mean,

455
00:26:01,840 --> 00:26:04,359
Speaker 1: I know theoretically, but what I'm saying is, at the moment,

456
00:26:04,480 --> 00:26:08,240
Speaker 1: I don't know if there is a specific athlete who

457
00:26:08,320 --> 00:26:11,000
Speaker 1: was born a man who's trying to come into the

458
00:26:11,080 --> 00:26:14,639
Speaker 1: United States to compete in an event like this in

459
00:26:14,680 --> 00:26:18,680
Speaker 1: the female category. But with the Olympics coming up, perhaps

460
00:26:18,760 --> 00:26:21,040
Speaker 1: the concern is maybe this could happen, even though the

461
00:26:21,040 --> 00:26:23,840
Speaker 1: Olympic Committee said they will not allow people who are

462
00:26:23,880 --> 00:26:27,360
Speaker 1: born men to compete in the women's events. But nevertheless,

463
00:26:27,400 --> 00:26:29,720
Speaker 1: this is now a clear line in the sand saying

464
00:26:30,080 --> 00:26:32,200
Speaker 1: don't even try to get the visa because we won't

465
00:26:32,240 --> 00:26:32,720
Speaker 1: allow it.

466
00:26:33,480 --> 00:26:38,479
Speaker 2: At some point, when you know international organizations are thinking

467
00:26:38,480 --> 00:26:43,440
Speaker 2: about where their next tournament or their next event should

468
00:26:43,480 --> 00:26:46,800
Speaker 2: take place, are they going to start considering, well, if

469
00:26:46,840 --> 00:26:49,920
Speaker 2: we go to the US, a certain number of people

470
00:26:49,960 --> 00:26:53,360
Speaker 2: are not going to be let in for various reasons.

471
00:26:53,720 --> 00:26:57,240
Speaker 2: I mean, they also blocked the Cuban volleyball team from

472
00:26:57,320 --> 00:26:59,119
Speaker 2: playing in Puerto Rico.

473
00:26:59,560 --> 00:27:03,000
Speaker 1: I think there's gonna have to be long term analyses

474
00:27:03,040 --> 00:27:06,040
Speaker 1: here because obviously any new events that get scheduled in

475
00:27:06,040 --> 00:27:08,679
Speaker 1: the US will be beyond twenty twenty eight. And so

476
00:27:08,760 --> 00:27:12,080
Speaker 1: the question is do people want to assume that whatever

477
00:27:12,119 --> 00:27:15,480
Speaker 1: the immigration policies that are in the existence now will

478
00:27:15,480 --> 00:27:18,760
Speaker 1: be in existence past twenty twenty eight. Those are all

479
00:27:18,840 --> 00:27:22,359
Speaker 1: the kinds of gambling and speculation that people put in place.

480
00:27:23,359 --> 00:27:26,320
Speaker 1: I think if people thought that, then I do think

481
00:27:26,359 --> 00:27:28,320
Speaker 1: there would be a likelihood you wouldn't see as many

482
00:27:28,320 --> 00:27:31,439
Speaker 1: events scheduled in the United States in the future. But

483
00:27:31,520 --> 00:27:34,680
Speaker 1: if people think that the immigration policy will revert back

484
00:27:34,720 --> 00:27:40,200
Speaker 1: to some more moderate tones, then they might not care

485
00:27:40,280 --> 00:27:42,280
Speaker 1: and they might schedule these events in the United States

486
00:27:42,320 --> 00:27:45,119
Speaker 1: because obviously it's very lucrative to hold these events in

487
00:27:45,160 --> 00:27:47,720
Speaker 1: the United States, and they have the infrastructure and the

488
00:27:47,800 --> 00:27:52,280
Speaker 1: stadiums and everything else. But I think that those determinations

489
00:27:52,320 --> 00:27:54,360
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to wait and see. But I mean,

490
00:27:54,400 --> 00:27:56,439
Speaker 1: I think we're going to see pretty soon with the

491
00:27:56,440 --> 00:27:59,920
Speaker 1: World Cup coming up next summer. Are those stadiums full

492
00:28:00,400 --> 00:28:03,000
Speaker 1: or are they emptied? Did people travel, were they allowed

493
00:28:03,040 --> 00:28:06,200
Speaker 1: to travel? Do we hear stories of people not getting in?

494
00:28:06,520 --> 00:28:10,040
Speaker 1: And then obviously twenty twenty eight at the Olympics, we're

495
00:28:10,119 --> 00:28:13,399
Speaker 1: athletes banned from competing. And if we really start to

496
00:28:13,440 --> 00:28:17,480
Speaker 1: see that, or we're coaches or families or fans of

497
00:28:17,680 --> 00:28:20,879
Speaker 1: the team banned from entering, the more we see that,

498
00:28:21,000 --> 00:28:24,200
Speaker 1: then the more likely that even if there's a different president,

499
00:28:24,240 --> 00:28:26,159
Speaker 1: people will just say, look for a little while, we

500
00:28:26,280 --> 00:28:30,120
Speaker 1: need to calm ourselves from the US until we redetermine

501
00:28:30,119 --> 00:28:32,520
Speaker 1: the landscape, and then we could decide to come back in.

502
00:28:33,040 --> 00:28:39,000
Speaker 2: Our immigration policy certainly does change from administration to administration.

503
00:28:39,600 --> 00:28:43,160
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and

504
00:28:43,240 --> 00:28:47,600
Speaker 2: Knight coming up next. When religious accommodations in the workplace

505
00:28:48,120 --> 00:28:52,760
Speaker 2: impose a higher burden on coworkers, you're listening to Bloomberg.

506
00:28:54,480 --> 00:28:57,720
Speaker 2: There's been a line of lower court decisions following the

507
00:28:57,760 --> 00:29:01,920
Speaker 2: Supreme Court's twenty twenty three rule that employers under Title

508
00:29:02,040 --> 00:29:04,840
Speaker 2: seven of the Civil Rights Act need to be the

509
00:29:05,000 --> 00:29:10,080
Speaker 2: higher bar to refuse a religious accommodation as an undue hardship.

510
00:29:10,440 --> 00:29:15,720
Speaker 2: Could the Trump administrations loosening accommodation rules for religious employees

511
00:29:15,960 --> 00:29:19,400
Speaker 2: place a higher burden on their coworkers. Joining me is

512
00:29:19,400 --> 00:29:23,719
Speaker 2: Beru College professor Debbie Kamener, who's been studying this. Debbie,

513
00:29:23,720 --> 00:29:24,800
Speaker 2: tell us about your paper.

514
00:29:25,000 --> 00:29:27,560
Speaker 4: So what I'm actually trying to send this up right

515
00:29:27,600 --> 00:29:33,240
Speaker 4: now is an article on Title seven, which requires religious

516
00:29:33,240 --> 00:29:36,760
Speaker 4: accommodation in the workplace. And there was a case Grass

517
00:29:36,880 --> 00:29:40,000
Speaker 4: versus the Joy It came down two years ago, and

518
00:29:40,240 --> 00:29:42,960
Speaker 4: it was a sort of weird Supreme Court case because

519
00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:46,120
Speaker 4: we have the Roberts Court, which is so pro religion

520
00:29:46,240 --> 00:29:49,280
Speaker 4: and also FAU pro business. And when you think about

521
00:29:49,320 --> 00:29:53,400
Speaker 4: religious accommodation in the workplace, in many ways, what it

522
00:29:53,520 --> 00:29:58,120
Speaker 4: does is it pits religious rights against business rights because

523
00:29:58,240 --> 00:30:01,320
Speaker 4: if you have more religious acommodation, you would need to

524
00:30:01,320 --> 00:30:05,000
Speaker 4: give religious employee time off to celebrate their religious holiday.

525
00:30:05,640 --> 00:30:09,240
Speaker 4: Then the employer has to bear the cost. What the

526
00:30:09,360 --> 00:30:11,960
Speaker 4: court did in Graph is they did this very strange

527
00:30:12,080 --> 00:30:14,480
Speaker 4: thing where they wrote the decision in a way where

528
00:30:14,600 --> 00:30:19,560
Speaker 4: more accommodation is required. But it's possible for both lower

529
00:30:19,600 --> 00:30:23,200
Speaker 4: courts and employers to now shift that increase the commodation

530
00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:28,440
Speaker 4: costs to coworkers. So instead of the employer having to say,

531
00:30:28,480 --> 00:30:32,320
Speaker 4: pay somebody over time to work the extra hours or

532
00:30:32,480 --> 00:30:35,360
Speaker 4: suffer a loss and productivity in the workplace, what the

533
00:30:35,400 --> 00:30:38,000
Speaker 4: employer does is they just stay to coworkers, sorry, you

534
00:30:38,160 --> 00:30:43,520
Speaker 4: have to work the undesirable shifts of the religious employee.

535
00:30:43,720 --> 00:30:46,160
Speaker 4: So what I've been looking at is what has been

536
00:30:46,280 --> 00:30:49,800
Speaker 4: happening since Graph came down two years ago, and what

537
00:30:49,880 --> 00:30:53,040
Speaker 4: are the lower courts and then the employers doing, and

538
00:30:53,360 --> 00:30:57,479
Speaker 4: have they actually been shifting this increased the accommodation costs

539
00:30:57,520 --> 00:31:01,760
Speaker 4: to co workers, and in many instances it seems like

540
00:31:01,880 --> 00:31:04,800
Speaker 4: they are. So it seems like what's happening isn't these

541
00:31:04,880 --> 00:31:08,240
Speaker 4: co workers who are bearing the cost of the accommodation

542
00:31:08,520 --> 00:31:11,720
Speaker 4: and there's the party with the least power. So I

543
00:31:11,760 --> 00:31:14,360
Speaker 4: have been finding that to be very, very problematic.

544
00:31:15,200 --> 00:31:17,640
Speaker 2: How have the courts been handling these issues?

545
00:31:18,040 --> 00:31:21,040
Speaker 4: So the courts what they used to say is they

546
00:31:21,160 --> 00:31:24,920
Speaker 4: used to say that anything more than a deminimous or

547
00:31:25,040 --> 00:31:30,280
Speaker 4: minimal cost was not required. So if for example, a

548
00:31:30,320 --> 00:31:35,920
Speaker 4: religious employee regularly needed their status off, that in many

549
00:31:36,000 --> 00:31:39,640
Speaker 4: instances would be more than a deminimous cost because it

550
00:31:39,640 --> 00:31:42,640
Speaker 4: would mean that a religious employees co workers would have

551
00:31:42,800 --> 00:31:47,360
Speaker 4: to work that undesirable weekend shift on a regular basis.

552
00:31:47,640 --> 00:31:50,280
Speaker 4: The cases I do want to emphasize they're just starting

553
00:31:50,320 --> 00:31:54,240
Speaker 4: to come down. But courts are now requiring the lower

554
00:31:54,240 --> 00:31:59,000
Speaker 4: courts this higher level of accommodation, and they seem very

555
00:31:59,240 --> 00:32:03,560
Speaker 4: unconcerned earned with an impact on coworkers. What they're saying

556
00:32:03,680 --> 00:32:08,000
Speaker 4: is that unless the coworkers are impacted in a way

557
00:32:08,040 --> 00:32:12,680
Speaker 4: that there's a direct financial cost to the business itself. So,

558
00:32:12,880 --> 00:32:15,800
Speaker 4: like you know, the co workers are very annoyed that

559
00:32:15,840 --> 00:32:18,920
Speaker 4: they have to work. The religious employees shifts, so you know,

560
00:32:19,040 --> 00:32:22,280
Speaker 4: they're letting it be known, and they're morale issues and

561
00:32:22,360 --> 00:32:26,400
Speaker 4: it's leading to efficiency issues and productivity issues. That could

562
00:32:26,400 --> 00:32:29,400
Speaker 4: be an undue hardship. But if it's just an impact

563
00:32:29,440 --> 00:32:32,840
Speaker 4: on coworkers alone and the co workers, particularly a very

564
00:32:32,880 --> 00:32:37,200
Speaker 4: powerless coworker, you know, think about somebody maybe like stocking

565
00:32:37,280 --> 00:32:41,000
Speaker 4: the shells and the target store. They may be very

566
00:32:41,080 --> 00:32:45,880
Speaker 4: concerned about complaining, and if they are, the imposition on

567
00:32:46,120 --> 00:32:49,960
Speaker 4: them would not be considered an undue hardship. So it's

568
00:32:50,080 --> 00:32:54,120
Speaker 4: this very odd thing where the burden is now being

569
00:32:54,280 --> 00:32:58,880
Speaker 4: shifted to the coworkers to bear this increased accommodation cost.

570
00:32:59,080 --> 00:33:01,400
Speaker 2: And so is it the co workers who are complaining

571
00:33:01,600 --> 00:33:03,120
Speaker 2: or filing complaints.

572
00:33:03,480 --> 00:33:06,080
Speaker 4: Well, so what's happening, which is sort of interesting, is

573
00:33:06,080 --> 00:33:10,840
Speaker 4: is the employers say we can't accommodate. And then if

574
00:33:10,840 --> 00:33:15,400
Speaker 4: an employer says they can't accommodate, the religious employee will

575
00:33:15,440 --> 00:33:18,280
Speaker 4: soothe saying the Title seven was violated, that they have

576
00:33:18,360 --> 00:33:21,480
Speaker 4: a right to accommodation. And there are cases where actually

577
00:33:21,520 --> 00:33:26,280
Speaker 4: the employers will say, well, we can't accommodate because it's

578
00:33:26,280 --> 00:33:29,000
Speaker 4: an imposition on coworkers. So there are cases where the

579
00:33:29,040 --> 00:33:33,080
Speaker 4: employers are concerned with the coworkers. They'll say, we can't accommodate.

580
00:33:33,120 --> 00:33:36,640
Speaker 4: It's an imposition on coworkers. And the courts will then say,

581
00:33:36,680 --> 00:33:40,360
Speaker 4: we are not particularly concerned with an imposition on the

582
00:33:40,400 --> 00:33:44,800
Speaker 4: coworkers themselves. So once the courts start saying that, I

583
00:33:44,920 --> 00:33:48,600
Speaker 4: think what's going to end up happening is employers will say, oh, okay,

584
00:33:48,920 --> 00:33:52,520
Speaker 4: courts don't care about imposition on coworkers. We're just going

585
00:33:52,600 --> 00:33:55,720
Speaker 4: to shift the cost to coworkers to avoid the litigation.

586
00:33:56,280 --> 00:33:58,800
Speaker 4: And again, I do want to emphasize this is at

587
00:33:58,800 --> 00:34:02,959
Speaker 4: the very very early stages, but this is sort of

588
00:34:03,040 --> 00:34:04,280
Speaker 4: what has been going on.

589
00:34:05,200 --> 00:34:10,080
Speaker 2: So this new memo from the Trump administration encouraging federal

590
00:34:10,120 --> 00:34:16,960
Speaker 2: government employees to express their faith and proselytize coworkers, how

591
00:34:17,000 --> 00:34:17,880
Speaker 2: would it affect that.

592
00:34:19,000 --> 00:34:21,719
Speaker 4: I don't think it would have a huge effect on that,

593
00:34:22,120 --> 00:34:24,880
Speaker 4: because what the memo is saying is the memo is

594
00:34:24,960 --> 00:34:29,360
Speaker 4: clearly requiring this higher level of accommodation. One of the

595
00:34:29,480 --> 00:34:32,160
Speaker 4: very odd things in the memo is they seem to

596
00:34:32,200 --> 00:34:37,319
Speaker 4: be very unconcerned with whether or not the person engaging

597
00:34:37,400 --> 00:34:41,480
Speaker 4: in cases of religious expression whether it's a supervisor or

598
00:34:41,520 --> 00:34:44,880
Speaker 4: not a supervisor. And the reason that I found to

599
00:34:44,960 --> 00:34:51,719
Speaker 4: be very odd is that the court traditionally are understandably

600
00:34:52,040 --> 00:34:55,920
Speaker 4: very concerned when you're dealing with religious expression, you know,

601
00:34:55,880 --> 00:34:58,120
Speaker 4: which are different than the time off cases, but they're

602
00:34:58,200 --> 00:35:03,680
Speaker 4: very concerned with religious question of supervisors because the impact

603
00:35:03,760 --> 00:35:07,160
Speaker 4: on employees is going to be very different. The memoir

604
00:35:07,320 --> 00:35:12,400
Speaker 4: was very odd. They cited a case called Tamas versus Toulon,

605
00:35:13,120 --> 00:35:16,680
Speaker 4: and in that case, essentially what the court had said

606
00:35:17,320 --> 00:35:21,960
Speaker 4: is that accommodation of religious expression is not required, in

607
00:35:22,120 --> 00:35:27,040
Speaker 4: part because you're dealing with a supervisor. But the memos

608
00:35:27,080 --> 00:35:32,000
Speaker 4: seemed to be citing that almost for the position that

609
00:35:32,200 --> 00:35:34,360
Speaker 4: you know, it doesn't matter if an employee is a

610
00:35:34,400 --> 00:35:38,480
Speaker 4: supervisor or not in a supervisory role. So that was

611
00:35:38,600 --> 00:35:40,080
Speaker 4: that was a very very odd thing.

612
00:35:40,680 --> 00:35:44,160
Speaker 2: There's been a lot of Supreme Court cases where religious

613
00:35:44,200 --> 00:35:48,880
Speaker 2: rights clash with LGBTQ rights. Tell us about the cases

614
00:35:49,080 --> 00:35:55,080
Speaker 2: coming up where employees claim a religious right to intentionally

615
00:35:55,400 --> 00:35:57,680
Speaker 2: misgender their co workers.

616
00:35:58,600 --> 00:36:00,920
Speaker 4: Yeah, so you know they're but there's been like this

617
00:36:01,080 --> 00:36:04,719
Speaker 4: ongoing thing where you have a conflict between religious rights

618
00:36:04,760 --> 00:36:09,280
Speaker 4: and religious liberties and LGBTQ rights. And in the constitutional realm,

619
00:36:09,560 --> 00:36:12,440
Speaker 4: you had what is a creative three of three, you

620
00:36:12,680 --> 00:36:16,600
Speaker 4: had Masterpiece cake Shop, And now you're also having these

621
00:36:16,680 --> 00:36:20,160
Speaker 4: cases starting to come down, while more of them are

622
00:36:20,200 --> 00:36:24,960
Speaker 4: coming down under Title seven. And essentially, what these religious

623
00:36:24,960 --> 00:36:29,840
Speaker 4: employees are saying is they are saying that we believe

624
00:36:30,280 --> 00:36:33,040
Speaker 4: that gender is assigned to birth, and we have a

625
00:36:33,120 --> 00:36:37,560
Speaker 4: religious belief. We must speak our truth. And if our

626
00:36:37,800 --> 00:36:42,400
Speaker 4: truth is you are a biological male, then we refuse

627
00:36:42,600 --> 00:36:46,400
Speaker 4: to call you she, and we need a religious accommodation

628
00:36:46,719 --> 00:36:49,520
Speaker 4: to do that. And what's interesting, and I don't want

629
00:36:49,560 --> 00:36:52,120
Speaker 4: to make too much of these decisions because they're just

630
00:36:52,160 --> 00:36:56,560
Speaker 4: starting to come down, the court seems to be very

631
00:36:56,840 --> 00:37:03,600
Speaker 4: very concerned with the dignitary rights of the transgender employees

632
00:37:03,800 --> 00:37:07,640
Speaker 4: or the transgender one case that involves students who are

633
00:37:07,680 --> 00:37:13,160
Speaker 4: being intentionally misgendered in these cases, so courts aren't basically

634
00:37:13,200 --> 00:37:17,040
Speaker 4: saying you cannot accommodate somebody who has a need to

635
00:37:17,160 --> 00:37:21,359
Speaker 4: intentionally misgender, you know, someone in the workplace, whether it's

636
00:37:21,360 --> 00:37:26,239
Speaker 4: an employee or this was one big case that involves students.

637
00:37:26,280 --> 00:37:29,960
Speaker 4: So that's like another way where these cases are starting

638
00:37:30,000 --> 00:37:30,319
Speaker 4: to go.

639
00:37:30,800 --> 00:37:36,359
Speaker 2: But the Trump administration's Religion Memo just applies to government employees.

640
00:37:37,000 --> 00:37:42,279
Speaker 4: So the Religion Memo covers both religious employees rights under

641
00:37:42,320 --> 00:37:46,799
Speaker 4: the Constitution, because religious employees have constitutional rights. But then

642
00:37:46,840 --> 00:37:52,720
Speaker 4: it also covers religious employees rights under Title seven because

643
00:37:52,760 --> 00:37:56,560
Speaker 4: if you're a government employee, you have both constitutional rights

644
00:37:56,600 --> 00:37:59,840
Speaker 4: and statutory rights to religious expression in the workplace. So

645
00:38:00,080 --> 00:38:04,840
Speaker 4: it's covering both of those, and it is essentially interpreting

646
00:38:05,320 --> 00:38:11,480
Speaker 4: cases or in some cases misinterpreting cases, to provide an

647
00:38:11,600 --> 00:38:18,239
Speaker 4: extremely high level of accommodation of religious expression in the workplace.

648
00:38:19,239 --> 00:38:24,840
Speaker 2: Will these ideas or requirements migrate to the private sector.

649
00:38:25,440 --> 00:38:28,600
Speaker 2: Will the EOC sort of up its game in that regard?

650
00:38:29,280 --> 00:38:32,680
Speaker 4: That's a very good question. I don't know. What's interesting

651
00:38:33,040 --> 00:38:38,480
Speaker 4: is that the EEOC guidance that has come down on

652
00:38:38,560 --> 00:38:42,399
Speaker 4: religion in the workplace over the last few years. There

653
00:38:42,440 --> 00:38:46,359
Speaker 4: are few parts, very small parts that have been rescinded,

654
00:38:46,400 --> 00:38:49,560
Speaker 4: but when I last checked, like a week ago, most

655
00:38:49,600 --> 00:38:53,520
Speaker 4: of it is still up. You know, courts now, and

656
00:38:53,680 --> 00:38:57,359
Speaker 4: I don't have any kind of great expertise in administrative law,

657
00:38:57,719 --> 00:39:01,239
Speaker 4: but courts are now focusing much less on what the

658
00:39:01,920 --> 00:39:07,359
Speaker 4: EEOC has to say. Could it I guess, you know,

659
00:39:07,440 --> 00:39:09,799
Speaker 4: It's like I think, with all of these things, if

660
00:39:09,840 --> 00:39:13,880
Speaker 4: employers see this, and employers are reading about the fact

661
00:39:14,239 --> 00:39:18,239
Speaker 4: that more religious accommodation is required, just in like a

662
00:39:18,560 --> 00:39:23,040
Speaker 4: very non legalistic sense. You keep hearing about how the

663
00:39:23,080 --> 00:39:26,719
Speaker 4: administration is requiring more religious expression in the workplace, more

664
00:39:26,760 --> 00:39:30,279
Speaker 4: religious accommodation in the workplace, and you're an employer and

665
00:39:30,320 --> 00:39:32,279
Speaker 4: you just want to make your widgets, and you don't

666
00:39:32,280 --> 00:39:35,520
Speaker 4: want to have to deal with litigation, you may just

667
00:39:35,920 --> 00:39:40,239
Speaker 4: over accommodate because it's the easiest thing to do. And

668
00:39:40,320 --> 00:39:42,600
Speaker 4: I do think that this type of a memo is

669
00:39:42,719 --> 00:39:47,840
Speaker 4: going to encourage that. I am most concerned about the

670
00:39:47,960 --> 00:39:50,880
Speaker 4: types of employees who have to show up in the

671
00:39:50,920 --> 00:39:56,319
Speaker 4: workplace every single day, who can't work remotely, and who

672
00:39:56,400 --> 00:39:59,000
Speaker 4: now are going to be told that they have to

673
00:39:59,120 --> 00:40:03,760
Speaker 4: work a religious employees less desirable shifts. But there's something

674
00:40:03,840 --> 00:40:08,319
Speaker 4: about that which is a little unfair. And there's also

675
00:40:08,520 --> 00:40:13,920
Speaker 4: something that is very strange, particularly with Title seven, that

676
00:40:14,160 --> 00:40:18,800
Speaker 4: here you have the statute which was passed, the stop

677
00:40:19,080 --> 00:40:25,239
Speaker 4: Discrimination in Employment, and under the statue, religious employees are

678
00:40:25,280 --> 00:40:31,839
Speaker 4: saying we have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ employees.

679
00:40:31,960 --> 00:40:35,279
Speaker 4: And that's what I'm watching and what I'm most interested in.

680
00:40:35,640 --> 00:40:38,880
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me, Debbie. That's Debbie Camoner, a professor

681
00:40:38,880 --> 00:40:42,600
Speaker 2: of law at Beru College. In other legal news today,

682
00:40:43,120 --> 00:40:47,360
Speaker 2: the House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed the Justice Department for

683
00:40:47,560 --> 00:40:52,200
Speaker 2: files in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. It's also

684
00:40:52,440 --> 00:40:56,960
Speaker 2: seeking depositions with the Clintons and former law enforcement officials.

685
00:40:57,239 --> 00:41:01,520
Speaker 2: The committee's actions show how even with awmakers away from

686
00:41:01,680 --> 00:41:05,440
Speaker 2: Washington on a month long break, interest in the Epstein

687
00:41:05,600 --> 00:41:10,000
Speaker 2: files is still running high. The committee has issued subpoenas

688
00:41:10,040 --> 00:41:14,759
Speaker 2: for depositions with former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of

689
00:41:14,800 --> 00:41:19,960
Speaker 2: State Hillary Clinton, and former Attorneys General Merrick Garland, Bill Barr,

690
00:41:20,040 --> 00:41:26,080
Speaker 2: Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder, and Alberto Gonzalez. And

691
00:41:26,120 --> 00:41:28,280
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

692
00:41:28,600 --> 00:41:31,120
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news Honor

693
00:41:31,120 --> 00:41:35,319
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

694
00:41:35,480 --> 00:41:40,520
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

695
00:41:40,920 --> 00:41:43,520
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

696
00:41:43,560 --> 00:41:47,480
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

697
00:41:47,600 --> 00:41:49,200
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg,