1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:09,400 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio 2 00:00:09,119 --> 00:00:15,319 Speaker 1: the teenage reading and they all faults wished well. You 3 00:00:15,360 --> 00:00:19,639 Speaker 1: can see that Tier did truely love the pa Quentin 4 00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:25,360 Speaker 1: Tarantino film. Pulp Fiction is a cult classic, so it 5 00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:28,080 Speaker 1: got a lot of attention when the filmmaker announced that 6 00:00:28,120 --> 00:00:30,480 Speaker 1: he planned to auction off n f T s from 7 00:00:30,520 --> 00:00:34,920 Speaker 1: the film, including scanned copies of script pages for seven 8 00:00:34,960 --> 00:00:38,199 Speaker 1: scenes that didn't make the final cut. We've taken the 9 00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:42,240 Speaker 1: original pages, digitize the original pages, and like I said, 10 00:00:43,479 --> 00:00:47,920 Speaker 1: they're full of dialogue that was changed, new stop stuff 11 00:00:47,920 --> 00:00:54,920 Speaker 1: that I dropped later. Uh Like for instance, uh, the 12 00:00:55,040 --> 00:00:59,360 Speaker 1: character that Judge Bolt places Vincent for the whole six 13 00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:03,960 Speaker 1: months of write his name was dat. It got unwanted 14 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:08,400 Speaker 1: attention from Hollywood studio Mirramax, who's trying to stop Tarantino 15 00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:11,120 Speaker 1: from selling the n f T s, suing him for 16 00:01:11,200 --> 00:01:15,480 Speaker 1: breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement. Joining me is 17 00:01:15,560 --> 00:01:19,200 Speaker 1: Lance Cooon's a partner at Clara's Law. Despite all the 18 00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:22,560 Speaker 1: hype and the millions of dollars, n f T s 19 00:01:22,800 --> 00:01:26,440 Speaker 1: are being sold for a lot of people don't understand 20 00:01:26,880 --> 00:01:30,200 Speaker 1: what they are and why they're so valuable. So, an 21 00:01:30,280 --> 00:01:34,280 Speaker 1: NFC is a non fungible token that's distinguished from a 22 00:01:34,520 --> 00:01:40,240 Speaker 1: fungible token like bitcoin or ether, which are blockchain based 23 00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:44,280 Speaker 1: records that functioned like a dollar or a quarter or 24 00:01:44,319 --> 00:01:47,240 Speaker 1: any other piece of currency in the real world. One 25 00:01:47,360 --> 00:01:50,200 Speaker 1: is exchanged with another and they have the same value 26 00:01:50,480 --> 00:01:53,480 Speaker 1: from no matter which one you have. A non fungible 27 00:01:53,520 --> 00:01:57,640 Speaker 1: token is something that's unique. It's a blockchain record that 28 00:01:57,680 --> 00:02:00,640 Speaker 1: has been created that does not exchange one to one 29 00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:04,120 Speaker 1: with others, but is instead unique. One of the analogies 30 00:02:04,160 --> 00:02:07,960 Speaker 1: I sometimes use is that if you take a penny 31 00:02:08,200 --> 00:02:11,359 Speaker 1: or a quarter, but if the mint were to misprint 32 00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:15,040 Speaker 1: the penny or the quarter, then suddenly you have an 33 00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:18,320 Speaker 1: item that is different from the ref and collectors then 34 00:02:18,440 --> 00:02:22,720 Speaker 1: value those particular misprinted items because of their scarcity. And 35 00:02:22,840 --> 00:02:25,440 Speaker 1: so n f t s are a way to create 36 00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:28,760 Speaker 1: digital scarcity, and what you end up being able to 37 00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:31,880 Speaker 1: do is linked an n FP and non fungible token 38 00:02:32,120 --> 00:02:36,120 Speaker 1: as a record to some other unique digital assets. So 39 00:02:36,480 --> 00:02:40,320 Speaker 1: what exactly is Tarantino trying to sell as an n 40 00:02:40,400 --> 00:02:44,640 Speaker 1: f T. It's not clear from the advertising and the 41 00:02:44,639 --> 00:02:48,040 Speaker 1: promotion that's been done around the n f t sale. 42 00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:51,400 Speaker 1: I don't think it's entirely clear. From the complaint that 43 00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:56,880 Speaker 1: Merrimac filed, it appears to be Tarantino's can written pages 44 00:02:57,280 --> 00:03:00,920 Speaker 1: of scenes from pulp fiction. It's not clear to me 45 00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:04,560 Speaker 1: whether they're all unique in some way. There's also apparently 46 00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:08,000 Speaker 1: commentary that's going to be provided for him that's unique. 47 00:03:08,160 --> 00:03:10,160 Speaker 1: It looks like there may have been a plan, and 48 00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:12,000 Speaker 1: I don't know if this is still true, to do 49 00:03:12,240 --> 00:03:14,960 Speaker 1: some sort of unique artwork as sort of the cover 50 00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:17,079 Speaker 1: of the n f T or the image that goes 51 00:03:17,120 --> 00:03:22,120 Speaker 1: along with it. Mirramax immediately sued. What's the focus of 52 00:03:22,160 --> 00:03:27,240 Speaker 1: the lawsuit? The primary focus is on the language of 53 00:03:27,280 --> 00:03:33,760 Speaker 1: the contract between Tarantino and Mirramax dating back to and 54 00:03:34,080 --> 00:03:37,840 Speaker 1: there was a rights agreement under which Tarantino and Lawrence 55 00:03:37,880 --> 00:03:42,360 Speaker 1: Fender transferred their rights in the film, which I think included, 56 00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:46,000 Speaker 1: you know, all elements and all stages of development production 57 00:03:46,160 --> 00:03:51,360 Speaker 1: to Merrimax. So obviously n f t s were not 58 00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:56,200 Speaker 1: part of anyone's imagination, I don't think. And Tarantino's attorney 59 00:03:56,400 --> 00:04:02,560 Speaker 1: argues that the director was acting within reserved rights, specifically 60 00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:06,400 Speaker 1: the right to screenplay production. In a court of law, 61 00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:10,600 Speaker 1: how will they determine what that is. Typically, a court's 62 00:04:10,640 --> 00:04:13,840 Speaker 1: going to look at the first at the contract language 63 00:04:13,840 --> 00:04:17,440 Speaker 1: itself and determine whether or not the language on its 64 00:04:17,520 --> 00:04:21,920 Speaker 1: face is clear. And if the language is clear, then 65 00:04:22,240 --> 00:04:27,280 Speaker 1: that screenplay publication would cover the creation of n FPS 66 00:04:27,480 --> 00:04:32,320 Speaker 1: around these themes or these script pages, then it would 67 00:04:32,320 --> 00:04:35,760 Speaker 1: fall within his reserved rights, which is probably more likely. 68 00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:39,279 Speaker 1: Here there's at least some question is to exactly what 69 00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:42,320 Speaker 1: that phrase means that a court is going to have 70 00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,320 Speaker 1: to look at the things courts look at to determine 71 00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:49,080 Speaker 1: more ambiguous terms in the contract, the course of action 72 00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:52,200 Speaker 1: between the parties, the other language and the contract sort 73 00:04:52,200 --> 00:04:54,919 Speaker 1: of standard in the industry, and so here that I 74 00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:57,520 Speaker 1: think what the court will end up looking at. There 75 00:04:57,640 --> 00:05:01,479 Speaker 1: is a line of cases on new uses of work 76 00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:05,039 Speaker 1: in the copyright world where and we've seen this at 77 00:05:05,360 --> 00:05:09,479 Speaker 1: many junctures when new technology comes into play and you 78 00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:13,400 Speaker 1: know too, contracting parties could not have anticipated in new technology. 79 00:05:13,640 --> 00:05:17,040 Speaker 1: Often those cases come down to how broad the language 80 00:05:17,160 --> 00:05:19,880 Speaker 1: of the grant is and whether the parties can be 81 00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:23,520 Speaker 1: seen to have contracted around sort of anything that comes 82 00:05:23,600 --> 00:05:25,719 Speaker 1: up in the future. And we saw this in cases 83 00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:28,920 Speaker 1: involving digital archives and things like that. So tell us 84 00:05:28,920 --> 00:05:32,600 Speaker 1: about Random House Vio set of books, right, And that's 85 00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:35,080 Speaker 1: exactly you know, one of those cases. And I should 86 00:05:35,120 --> 00:05:38,000 Speaker 1: say that there were cases long before that as well, 87 00:05:38,120 --> 00:05:41,960 Speaker 1: when things moved from television and to feature film and 88 00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:45,480 Speaker 1: things like that and video. But in the Random House 89 00:05:45,680 --> 00:05:48,680 Speaker 1: vias At a book case, the question was whether the 90 00:05:48,880 --> 00:05:51,960 Speaker 1: right to publish in book form and that was the 91 00:05:52,040 --> 00:05:57,040 Speaker 1: language in the contract included electronics e book right. And 92 00:05:57,320 --> 00:06:00,919 Speaker 1: in that particular case, the district court said that the 93 00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:04,240 Speaker 1: language has written was not brought enough to cover of 94 00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:07,800 Speaker 1: the new use, and then they're on appeal. The second 95 00:06:07,800 --> 00:06:10,960 Speaker 1: circuit really sort of set a standard for how a 96 00:06:11,040 --> 00:06:13,839 Speaker 1: fact finder needs to look at the contract language to 97 00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:17,600 Speaker 1: determine whether the new use was contemplated. Now, I will 98 00:06:17,640 --> 00:06:20,720 Speaker 1: say that I'm not entirely sure whether the new use 99 00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:24,239 Speaker 1: cases will come into play that directly in the Merrimac 100 00:06:24,320 --> 00:06:28,280 Speaker 1: Tarantino case, because that case seems to be focused primarily 101 00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:32,720 Speaker 1: on the screenplay publication language as opposed to new uses, 102 00:06:33,040 --> 00:06:35,320 Speaker 1: But it could come up depending how the arguments go. 103 00:06:35,880 --> 00:06:39,080 Speaker 1: What's the main question in the case going to be? 104 00:06:39,680 --> 00:06:43,599 Speaker 1: To my mind, the primary question in this case is 105 00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:49,560 Speaker 1: does the term screenplay publication cover the sale of an 106 00:06:49,680 --> 00:06:54,960 Speaker 1: NFT that is tied to parts of a screenplay. You know, clearly, 107 00:06:55,040 --> 00:07:00,960 Speaker 1: when Tarantino reserved his right to screenplay publication, it meant something. 108 00:07:01,279 --> 00:07:03,760 Speaker 1: It meant that he was reserving the right to do 109 00:07:03,960 --> 00:07:07,599 Speaker 1: something with the screenplays. And you know, I think in 110 00:07:07,720 --> 00:07:11,920 Speaker 1: the normal sense, you would think that probably means taking 111 00:07:11,920 --> 00:07:16,560 Speaker 1: that screenplay and selling copies of the whole screenplay on 112 00:07:16,640 --> 00:07:20,679 Speaker 1: the market and publishing that screenplay to the market. Here, 113 00:07:21,040 --> 00:07:24,600 Speaker 1: it's not clear. I don't believe you know what Tarantino 114 00:07:24,840 --> 00:07:28,040 Speaker 1: is going to be doing with these n fps. It 115 00:07:28,040 --> 00:07:31,400 Speaker 1: looks like that sort of broader publication if you were 116 00:07:31,440 --> 00:07:33,960 Speaker 1: going to sell one or two or ten n f 117 00:07:34,080 --> 00:07:37,640 Speaker 1: p s around a particular set of screenplay pages. But 118 00:07:37,880 --> 00:07:40,160 Speaker 1: I don't know that there's that much precedent yet that 119 00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:42,320 Speaker 1: would tell us what the answer to that question is. 120 00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:45,000 Speaker 1: Maybe you can answer this question that no one else 121 00:07:45,040 --> 00:07:47,200 Speaker 1: has been able to answer for me. In some of 122 00:07:47,240 --> 00:07:51,120 Speaker 1: the auctions involving millions and millions of dollars of digital art, 123 00:07:51,600 --> 00:07:55,160 Speaker 1: in some of those the copyright isn't transferred to the 124 00:07:55,200 --> 00:07:58,160 Speaker 1: purchaser of the n f T, So what does the 125 00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:04,120 Speaker 1: purchaser get the sides bragging rights. In short, it is 126 00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:06,920 Speaker 1: the bragging rights. But I think the best analogy would 127 00:08:06,920 --> 00:08:10,520 Speaker 1: be to the sale of a really valuable piece of 128 00:08:10,600 --> 00:08:14,680 Speaker 1: physical artwork, in the sense that if I paid twenty 129 00:08:14,680 --> 00:08:19,440 Speaker 1: million dollars or sixty nine million dollars for a painting 130 00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:23,240 Speaker 1: and I buy that, I don't get the copyright when 131 00:08:23,240 --> 00:08:26,920 Speaker 1: I purchased that painting. In most cases, I simply get 132 00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:30,040 Speaker 1: that one copy. It may be the original, it may 133 00:08:30,080 --> 00:08:32,880 Speaker 1: be the only or there may be prints made of it, 134 00:08:32,920 --> 00:08:35,800 Speaker 1: and there may be copies everywhere. But when I buy 135 00:08:35,840 --> 00:08:38,760 Speaker 1: that piece of physical artwork, I get that piece of 136 00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:42,360 Speaker 1: physical artwork. There's a doctrine called the first sale doctrine 137 00:08:42,600 --> 00:08:45,640 Speaker 1: under copyright law in the US, which says that in 138 00:08:45,679 --> 00:08:49,280 Speaker 1: the physical world, when I sell something like a copy 139 00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:52,520 Speaker 1: of a book or a or a painting or a 140 00:08:52,559 --> 00:08:57,080 Speaker 1: record album and vinyl, that any copyright interest that the 141 00:08:57,120 --> 00:09:03,320 Speaker 1: seller has in that one in instance of content goes away, 142 00:09:03,360 --> 00:09:07,040 Speaker 1: and the user then has a right to sell that 143 00:09:07,200 --> 00:09:11,480 Speaker 1: copy onward and do whatever they want to with it. Essentially, 144 00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:14,079 Speaker 1: although you couldn't then make another copy of it and 145 00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:16,760 Speaker 1: sell a copy, all you have is the right to 146 00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:19,400 Speaker 1: sell it in a used bookstore and to alienate that 147 00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:22,640 Speaker 1: one copy that you've For people who are going to 148 00:09:22,840 --> 00:09:26,400 Speaker 1: buy or sell n f T s, what should you 149 00:09:26,480 --> 00:09:30,199 Speaker 1: do to ensure that the rights that you think you're 150 00:09:30,240 --> 00:09:34,240 Speaker 1: getting are actually the rights that you are getting right 151 00:09:34,320 --> 00:09:38,120 Speaker 1: And and we advise clients on both sides of this question, 152 00:09:38,360 --> 00:09:41,720 Speaker 1: and I think the short answer is, you need to 153 00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:46,600 Speaker 1: know very clearly what the terms of sale are in 154 00:09:46,640 --> 00:09:49,800 Speaker 1: connection with the particular n f T sale. In some 155 00:09:49,880 --> 00:09:53,840 Speaker 1: market places, that may be something that you'll see in 156 00:09:53,920 --> 00:09:59,120 Speaker 1: the description of the item itself in the sale. In 157 00:09:59,160 --> 00:10:02,559 Speaker 1: some cases you maybe looking to the terms of use 158 00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:07,560 Speaker 1: on the n f T platform website. But you know, 159 00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:10,240 Speaker 1: in either case, whether you're a buyer or a seller, 160 00:10:10,640 --> 00:10:13,920 Speaker 1: you need to be very clear on where those rights 161 00:10:13,960 --> 00:10:17,760 Speaker 1: are found in what those what those terms are. Thanks Lance. 162 00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:23,040 Speaker 1: That's Lance. Coon's a partner at Clara's Law. Former President 163 00:10:23,040 --> 00:10:25,880 Speaker 1: Donald Trump lost his appeal to the d C Circuit 164 00:10:26,200 --> 00:10:30,920 Speaker 1: to override President Joe Biden's waver of executive privilege over 165 00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:35,080 Speaker 1: White House records in the January sixth Capital Ride investigation, 166 00:10:35,520 --> 00:10:39,200 Speaker 1: but the Biden administration is siding with Trump and urging 167 00:10:39,200 --> 00:10:42,720 Speaker 1: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to scuttle a defamation 168 00:10:42,800 --> 00:10:47,200 Speaker 1: lawsuit brought by advice columnist E Jean Carroll after Carol 169 00:10:47,280 --> 00:10:50,800 Speaker 1: went public with her allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her 170 00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:54,040 Speaker 1: in a New York department store dressing room two decades ago. 171 00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:58,760 Speaker 1: Trump said she was quote totally lying and not my type. 172 00:10:59,320 --> 00:11:03,000 Speaker 1: Judge Denny Chin appeared skeptical that Trump's words fell within 173 00:11:03,120 --> 00:11:07,199 Speaker 1: his duties as a government employee, as he questioned Trump's 174 00:11:07,280 --> 00:11:10,840 Speaker 1: lawyer Elena Habba, who is he serving when when he 175 00:11:10,880 --> 00:11:13,679 Speaker 1: says something like she's not my type? He was? That 176 00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:16,400 Speaker 1: is he serving the United States of America when he 177 00:11:16,440 --> 00:11:20,360 Speaker 1: makes that statement? Absolutely, because he has to address the 178 00:11:20,360 --> 00:11:23,000 Speaker 1: fact that this could not and would not have happened. 179 00:11:23,040 --> 00:11:25,320 Speaker 1: He did not do it. Not It was the one 180 00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:27,560 Speaker 1: thing if he said I didn't do it. But but 181 00:11:27,640 --> 00:11:31,520 Speaker 1: he goes way beyond that. Joining me is Eric Lawson, 182 00:11:31,559 --> 00:11:36,560 Speaker 1: Bloomberg News legal reporter Eric. Many were surprised with Biden's 183 00:11:36,640 --> 00:11:40,120 Speaker 1: Justice Department siding with Trump. Yeah, I think when Biden 184 00:11:40,200 --> 00:11:42,000 Speaker 1: was elected, a lot of people who were watching this 185 00:11:42,080 --> 00:11:45,840 Speaker 1: attempted d J intervention sort of assumed that if this 186 00:11:45,840 --> 00:11:48,599 Speaker 1: would be one of the many Trump policy decisions that 187 00:11:48,600 --> 00:11:51,560 Speaker 1: would be reversed by the new administration, So it was 188 00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:54,640 Speaker 1: kind of a big surprise when the Biden administration said 189 00:11:54,679 --> 00:11:57,080 Speaker 1: we actually side with Trump. They said, we don't agree 190 00:11:57,120 --> 00:12:01,160 Speaker 1: with what Trump said, but his denying of Ms. Carroll's 191 00:12:01,240 --> 00:12:04,160 Speaker 1: claims were made as part of his job duties, and 192 00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:07,120 Speaker 1: therefore he's protected by this law. It's called the west 193 00:12:07,160 --> 00:12:10,320 Speaker 1: Ball Act, which protect government employees from litigation related to 194 00:12:10,360 --> 00:12:14,560 Speaker 1: their job. And the Justice Department's lawyer said, Trump made 195 00:12:14,559 --> 00:12:19,320 Speaker 1: offensive comments in response to very serious allegations of sexual assault. 196 00:12:19,720 --> 00:12:22,960 Speaker 1: I'm not here to defend or justify them, but how 197 00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:26,679 Speaker 1: did he divorce the comments from the defense of the comments? 198 00:12:27,280 --> 00:12:30,240 Speaker 1: To the Justice Department, they sort of boiled it down 199 00:12:30,280 --> 00:12:33,800 Speaker 1: to Trump was denying an allegation made against him, so 200 00:12:33,920 --> 00:12:37,440 Speaker 1: the press was asking him about the allegations. He was 201 00:12:37,520 --> 00:12:41,520 Speaker 1: responding in his own special way. So the Justice Department, 202 00:12:41,600 --> 00:12:44,280 Speaker 1: based on their papers, they're looking at it as just 203 00:12:44,400 --> 00:12:47,480 Speaker 1: protecting the office of the presidency, as often the d 204 00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:49,920 Speaker 1: o J does in terms of being able to protect 205 00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:54,360 Speaker 1: any president's right, in their view, to deny allegations like 206 00:12:54,440 --> 00:12:57,959 Speaker 1: this without the threat of being too for defamation. Trump's 207 00:12:58,000 --> 00:13:01,560 Speaker 1: lawyer referred to Kyle written Wilson asked, what are we 208 00:13:01,600 --> 00:13:06,560 Speaker 1: going to do if Kyle Rittenhouse sue's President Biden for 209 00:13:06,679 --> 00:13:10,200 Speaker 1: calling him a white supremacist? Right, And I actually was 210 00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:13,000 Speaker 1: not too surprised that she brought that up because it 211 00:13:13,080 --> 00:13:16,080 Speaker 1: was sort of a current events comparison That was actually 212 00:13:16,120 --> 00:13:18,240 Speaker 1: kind of a good one come in a way, because 213 00:13:18,320 --> 00:13:21,719 Speaker 1: after Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two protesters in the 214 00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:25,160 Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter rally last year in Commosha, Wisconsin, and 215 00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:28,200 Speaker 1: injured a third. In the aftermath of that, Biden put 216 00:13:28,200 --> 00:13:32,160 Speaker 1: out a campaign video that Rittenhouses then lawyers suggested that 217 00:13:32,240 --> 00:13:37,440 Speaker 1: Rittenhouse was a white supremacist and threatened defamation lawsuit against Biden, 218 00:13:37,880 --> 00:13:40,960 Speaker 1: which never actually ended up happening, but it did raise 219 00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:43,640 Speaker 1: the prospect of what would happen if he had been 220 00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:46,360 Speaker 1: to in It's sort of a similar argument there, right, 221 00:13:46,679 --> 00:13:49,480 Speaker 1: Trump said, She's not my type. That is the part 222 00:13:49,480 --> 00:13:52,640 Speaker 1: of the statement that's offensive. Is it that he denied 223 00:13:52,679 --> 00:13:56,280 Speaker 1: it at all, or is it the offensive nature of it? 224 00:13:56,679 --> 00:14:01,000 Speaker 1: How are they parsing that statement? Well, that's a good question, 225 00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:04,320 Speaker 1: because that did come up in the court hearing and 226 00:14:04,600 --> 00:14:06,840 Speaker 1: it got a little bit confusing at times. But I 227 00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:10,000 Speaker 1: did clarify with mis Carroll's legal team afterwards that they 228 00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:13,439 Speaker 1: do absolutely stand by the argument of even the denial 229 00:14:13,480 --> 00:14:16,960 Speaker 1: itself was defamation, because the denial implies that she was 230 00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:19,880 Speaker 1: lying the additional parts of him claiming that she's not 231 00:14:20,080 --> 00:14:22,320 Speaker 1: his type, and that she was making these claims just 232 00:14:22,360 --> 00:14:24,400 Speaker 1: to sell a book, and that sort of thing does 233 00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:27,760 Speaker 1: make it more difficult, in Carol's view, to tie the 234 00:14:27,840 --> 00:14:30,480 Speaker 1: denial to the president's job duties. So that's why they 235 00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:33,120 Speaker 1: were parting that. But they say that the denial itself 236 00:14:33,240 --> 00:14:36,880 Speaker 1: was defination. Listen to what Judge Guido Calabrisi said about 237 00:14:36,920 --> 00:14:42,280 Speaker 1: presidents in general. The fact is that the president often 238 00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:48,080 Speaker 1: has done things which goes long for all for purposes 239 00:14:48,320 --> 00:14:53,360 Speaker 1: of the presidency. Almost every president has done it. You know, 240 00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:55,640 Speaker 1: it's impossible to really get into a judge's head, but 241 00:14:55,680 --> 00:14:57,640 Speaker 1: it does kind of hint at how at least that 242 00:14:57,760 --> 00:15:01,080 Speaker 1: judge was thinking that there's always been a wide latitude 243 00:15:01,080 --> 00:15:03,440 Speaker 1: for presidents behave in a certain way. You know. He 244 00:15:03,480 --> 00:15:05,880 Speaker 1: went on to point out that the big outlier and 245 00:15:06,000 --> 00:15:09,080 Speaker 1: this type of behavior would be like Nixon lying for 246 00:15:09,120 --> 00:15:12,640 Speaker 1: his own personal benefit rather than to protect the office 247 00:15:12,640 --> 00:15:16,400 Speaker 1: of the presidency, and that that rises to level of impeachment, 248 00:15:16,760 --> 00:15:18,360 Speaker 1: you know, and then he said something along the lines 249 00:15:18,400 --> 00:15:20,880 Speaker 1: that that's a higher part to reach the decision here. 250 00:15:20,920 --> 00:15:24,560 Speaker 1: If it goes against Carol, it's more than just losing emotion. 251 00:15:25,040 --> 00:15:28,680 Speaker 1: The case would be lost. That's correct. If the Justice 252 00:15:28,720 --> 00:15:32,440 Speaker 1: Department prevails here and is able to substitute itself for 253 00:15:32,520 --> 00:15:35,000 Speaker 1: Trump as defendant in the case, then essentially the case 254 00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:38,040 Speaker 1: will be dismissed because you can't sue the federal governments 255 00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:42,080 Speaker 1: the defamation. So the west Fal Act has been applied 256 00:15:42,200 --> 00:15:46,120 Speaker 1: to Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, so 257 00:15:46,200 --> 00:15:49,880 Speaker 1: the last three presidents. It seems to be invoked a lot, yes, 258 00:15:49,920 --> 00:15:53,240 Speaker 1: and even against Hillary Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren and 259 00:15:53,320 --> 00:15:57,040 Speaker 1: other members of Congresses. It's actually used fairly frequently, and 260 00:15:57,200 --> 00:15:59,760 Speaker 1: even in some defination cases. I believe there was one 261 00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:02,600 Speaker 1: to to get Elizabeth Warren over something that she said 262 00:16:02,720 --> 00:16:05,600 Speaker 1: from about someone in an interview, and that case never 263 00:16:05,640 --> 00:16:07,480 Speaker 1: made it to trial. It was dismissed under the west 264 00:16:07,480 --> 00:16:10,960 Speaker 1: Ball Act. Thanks Eric, that's Bloomberg Legal reporter. Eric Lawson, 265 00:16:12,560 --> 00:16:15,200 Speaker 1: an Indian national who has lived in the US nearly 266 00:16:15,280 --> 00:16:18,600 Speaker 1: thirty years, wants to take another shot at arguing that 267 00:16:18,640 --> 00:16:21,720 Speaker 1: he isn't precluded from seeking a green card because he 268 00:16:21,800 --> 00:16:24,480 Speaker 1: falsely said he was a US citizen while getting a 269 00:16:24,600 --> 00:16:28,600 Speaker 1: driver's license in Georgia, and the Supreme Court justices seemed 270 00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:31,600 Speaker 1: likely to side with him. Joining me is Leon Fresco, 271 00:16:31,760 --> 00:16:35,600 Speaker 1: a partner at Hollandon Knight. What's the process for getting 272 00:16:35,600 --> 00:16:38,560 Speaker 1: a green card? Well, the process for getting a green 273 00:16:38,600 --> 00:16:41,760 Speaker 1: card depends on whether you're inside the United States or 274 00:16:41,840 --> 00:16:44,480 Speaker 1: outside the United States. But let's just take for the 275 00:16:44,520 --> 00:16:48,680 Speaker 1: purposes of this gate that's before the Supreme Court. There's 276 00:16:48,720 --> 00:16:51,680 Speaker 1: a two step process if you're inside the United States 277 00:16:51,760 --> 00:16:56,040 Speaker 1: called adjustment of status, and they're What you usually do 278 00:16:56,160 --> 00:17:00,240 Speaker 1: is you file one application that says, I'm ela mole 279 00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:03,720 Speaker 1: for the visa I'm asking for whether it's an employment 280 00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:07,680 Speaker 1: visa or a family visa. And then at the same 281 00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:12,040 Speaker 1: time you file an application called an adjustment of status application, 282 00:17:12,160 --> 00:17:16,480 Speaker 1: which says, and by the way, I'm not ineligible because 283 00:17:16,520 --> 00:17:19,760 Speaker 1: of a ground of inadmissibility that would apply against me. 284 00:17:19,840 --> 00:17:23,480 Speaker 1: And so there's about fifty grounds of inadmissibility in the 285 00:17:23,520 --> 00:17:26,199 Speaker 1: Immigration Code that if you did any of those things wrong, 286 00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:28,919 Speaker 1: even if you are eligible for the visa because you 287 00:17:28,960 --> 00:17:31,959 Speaker 1: are the right kind of relative or you do have 288 00:17:32,000 --> 00:17:36,200 Speaker 1: the right kind of employer petitioning for you, it wouldn't matter. 289 00:17:36,240 --> 00:17:39,400 Speaker 1: You still couldn't get the Green card. And so this 290 00:17:39,720 --> 00:17:42,879 Speaker 1: supre Court case is about that second process, the adjustment 291 00:17:42,880 --> 00:17:48,400 Speaker 1: of status process, and whether someone can appeal the decision 292 00:17:48,480 --> 00:17:52,439 Speaker 1: that they're inadmissible a k a. Ineligible for adjustment of 293 00:17:52,440 --> 00:17:57,000 Speaker 1: status for whatever reason the Immigration Service has stayed they're 294 00:17:57,040 --> 00:18:01,320 Speaker 1: inadmissible for So tell us about the case before the 295 00:18:01,359 --> 00:18:05,119 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, which involves a citizen of India who has 296 00:18:05,160 --> 00:18:08,359 Speaker 1: been living here for thirty years. Correct, this is a 297 00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:10,720 Speaker 1: citizen of India who has lived in the United States 298 00:18:10,760 --> 00:18:14,720 Speaker 1: for thirty years, and they're married and have three children. 299 00:18:15,440 --> 00:18:20,040 Speaker 1: And this individual apply for a relief called TO forty 300 00:18:20,080 --> 00:18:23,600 Speaker 1: five I, which was something that existed before two thousand 301 00:18:23,680 --> 00:18:26,439 Speaker 1: and one, which for you know, you could use the 302 00:18:26,440 --> 00:18:29,719 Speaker 1: word legalization or amnesty or whatever, but it was a 303 00:18:29,720 --> 00:18:33,280 Speaker 1: program that allowed people who didn't have legal status to 304 00:18:33,400 --> 00:18:38,320 Speaker 1: regularize their legal status if they have a proper employer 305 00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:42,360 Speaker 1: or a proper family member petitioning for them, even if 306 00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:45,359 Speaker 1: they had been in unlawful status at the time of 307 00:18:45,480 --> 00:18:50,239 Speaker 1: their application. And so this person goes through the process 308 00:18:50,240 --> 00:18:55,000 Speaker 1: but gets denied because they said that this person had 309 00:18:55,119 --> 00:18:58,479 Speaker 1: what's called the grounds of an admissibility for false claim 310 00:18:58,640 --> 00:19:01,679 Speaker 1: for US citizens. And what that means is if a 311 00:19:01,720 --> 00:19:04,520 Speaker 1: person who's not a U. S citizens ever state in 312 00:19:04,560 --> 00:19:07,120 Speaker 1: any way, shape or formed that they're U. S. Citizens, 313 00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:09,679 Speaker 1: that's pretty much the worst thing you could do in 314 00:19:09,760 --> 00:19:12,919 Speaker 1: the immigration code that banns you from everything. And in 315 00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:16,399 Speaker 1: this case, they said that this person marked yes in 316 00:19:16,480 --> 00:19:21,120 Speaker 1: response to a Georgia driver's license application question that asked 317 00:19:21,240 --> 00:19:26,400 Speaker 1: are you a US citizen? And so the Immigration Service 318 00:19:26,480 --> 00:19:32,600 Speaker 1: here actually denies this person's application and state that this 319 00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:37,280 Speaker 1: person can't get a green card because they lied about 320 00:19:37,320 --> 00:19:40,399 Speaker 1: being a U. S. Citizen. And so this person wants 321 00:19:40,440 --> 00:19:44,080 Speaker 1: to appeal that determination, but it is being told by 322 00:19:44,240 --> 00:19:48,120 Speaker 1: the federal court that the courts do not have jurisdiction 323 00:19:48,240 --> 00:19:54,080 Speaker 1: to review whether this person lied on their Georgia application 324 00:19:54,240 --> 00:19:57,240 Speaker 1: and whether that was a material lie, whether they mental life, 325 00:19:57,600 --> 00:19:59,760 Speaker 1: or whether it was a mistake. And so that's what 326 00:19:59,880 --> 00:20:03,639 Speaker 1: the case is all about. It did the immigration judge 327 00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:08,680 Speaker 1: make a determination that Patel did lie, because Patel said 328 00:20:08,680 --> 00:20:12,000 Speaker 1: it was a mistake. But it's sort of hard to 329 00:20:12,160 --> 00:20:16,760 Speaker 1: believe that you'd make a mistake about something like that, well, 330 00:20:16,840 --> 00:20:21,399 Speaker 1: so correct. The immigration judge ruled against Patel and said 331 00:20:21,480 --> 00:20:24,280 Speaker 1: that Patel was not in credible in his explanation that 332 00:20:24,320 --> 00:20:27,000 Speaker 1: it was a mistake. But the point is Patel is 333 00:20:27,040 --> 00:20:31,720 Speaker 1: seeking review from the Eleventh Circuit of that decision, saying 334 00:20:31,720 --> 00:20:35,639 Speaker 1: that the Immigration judge was wrong, and the Eleventh Circuit 335 00:20:35,680 --> 00:20:37,840 Speaker 1: Court of Appeal says it does not have the ability 336 00:20:37,880 --> 00:20:40,760 Speaker 1: to review that. But what they said was it's because 337 00:20:40,960 --> 00:20:45,240 Speaker 1: nothing in an adjustment of status application is reviewable, as 338 00:20:45,280 --> 00:20:48,080 Speaker 1: opposed to what Patel argued, which is no, no, no, no no. 339 00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:53,280 Speaker 1: Only the discretionary decision in an adjustment of status application 340 00:20:53,320 --> 00:20:56,480 Speaker 1: are reviewable. We need. What happens is they do two 341 00:20:56,520 --> 00:21:00,000 Speaker 1: steps of an analysis. First, they decide is this person 342 00:21:00,000 --> 00:21:03,520 Speaker 1: and actually legally able to get a green card? And 343 00:21:03,560 --> 00:21:07,000 Speaker 1: then second, even if they are, as a matter of discretion, 344 00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:09,080 Speaker 1: should we give it to them? Maybe they had fifty 345 00:21:09,200 --> 00:21:13,040 Speaker 1: arrets and no conviction, and so even though they're legally 346 00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:16,000 Speaker 1: able to you start asking why did this person have 347 00:21:16,119 --> 00:21:20,000 Speaker 1: fifty arts? Or maybe they are doing some sort of 348 00:21:20,040 --> 00:21:23,919 Speaker 1: other vile thing that's not covered by the grounds of inadmissibility, 349 00:21:24,359 --> 00:21:27,159 Speaker 1: but under your discretion you would deny it. And so 350 00:21:27,280 --> 00:21:31,480 Speaker 1: what the arguments are, both by the government and by 351 00:21:31,520 --> 00:21:36,159 Speaker 1: the Patel is that only that discretion is what's not 352 00:21:36,320 --> 00:21:40,320 Speaker 1: reviewable in the court. But the decisions regarding the factual 353 00:21:40,560 --> 00:21:44,080 Speaker 1: claims in the case and the factual findings, those should 354 00:21:44,080 --> 00:21:48,160 Speaker 1: be reviewable. And so that's what they wanted to review here, 355 00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:54,120 Speaker 1: and so here the Federal government agreed with Patel and 356 00:21:54,480 --> 00:21:58,199 Speaker 1: Council had to be appointed to take the position of 357 00:21:58,200 --> 00:22:01,920 Speaker 1: the Eleventh Circuit correct. And this is actually happened probably 358 00:22:01,920 --> 00:22:04,399 Speaker 1: in the last twenty years, three or four times in 359 00:22:04,440 --> 00:22:07,119 Speaker 1: the immigration the world. But it's interesting. I don't know 360 00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:10,119 Speaker 1: if this happens very often in other worlds, but it 361 00:22:10,160 --> 00:22:13,280 Speaker 1: does happen in the immigration world because what happens is 362 00:22:13,400 --> 00:22:17,080 Speaker 1: it's kind of funny where a four national will be 363 00:22:17,119 --> 00:22:20,480 Speaker 1: placed in removal proceedings and they have sort of don't 364 00:22:20,560 --> 00:22:25,800 Speaker 1: say over um the fact that they're in removal proceedings, 365 00:22:25,800 --> 00:22:29,840 Speaker 1: that it's iOS placing them in removal proceedings, and only 366 00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:32,840 Speaker 1: by the time that the case gets to the Supreme 367 00:22:32,880 --> 00:22:36,160 Speaker 1: Court is it actually working its way through the Department 368 00:22:36,200 --> 00:22:40,280 Speaker 1: of Justice, Solicitor General's office and sort of the scholarly 369 00:22:40,320 --> 00:22:43,399 Speaker 1: attorneys in the world where when they get the decision, 370 00:22:43,440 --> 00:22:45,919 Speaker 1: they say, well, why are we defending this? You know, 371 00:22:46,200 --> 00:22:49,160 Speaker 1: this was a very bizarre position that I took during 372 00:22:49,160 --> 00:22:52,840 Speaker 1: the litig agtion that now we're being asked to defend 373 00:22:52,840 --> 00:22:55,359 Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court. Why are we defending this? And 374 00:22:55,400 --> 00:22:58,600 Speaker 1: so during those times it has happened that the government 375 00:22:58,640 --> 00:23:03,000 Speaker 1: will actually take us side of the litigant, and then 376 00:23:03,280 --> 00:23:05,560 Speaker 1: the court will need to do something in order to 377 00:23:05,560 --> 00:23:09,119 Speaker 1: make sure that the lower courts ruling has someone who 378 00:23:09,240 --> 00:23:12,879 Speaker 1: defended it, and they'll appoint gets to do that. And 379 00:23:13,040 --> 00:23:15,280 Speaker 1: so that's what happened here in this case, and the 380 00:23:15,600 --> 00:23:19,760 Speaker 1: lower federal courts were split on this issue. Right, the 381 00:23:19,840 --> 00:23:23,280 Speaker 1: lower federal courts are split. You have some circuits saying 382 00:23:24,000 --> 00:23:28,040 Speaker 1: that you can review the decisions in an adjustment of 383 00:23:28,080 --> 00:23:33,080 Speaker 1: status application except for the truly discretionary you know, at 384 00:23:33,119 --> 00:23:35,000 Speaker 1: the end, do you give it, do not give it, 385 00:23:35,160 --> 00:23:37,960 Speaker 1: that's the only part that's not reviewable, as opposed to 386 00:23:38,040 --> 00:23:42,160 Speaker 1: the eleven Circuit thing that because there's a discretionary component 387 00:23:42,400 --> 00:23:45,040 Speaker 1: at the end, that means none of it is reviewable. 388 00:23:45,680 --> 00:23:49,560 Speaker 1: And so there were some arguments today in the court about, well, 389 00:23:49,600 --> 00:23:51,720 Speaker 1: in the end, if they can deny him for discretion 390 00:23:52,080 --> 00:23:54,520 Speaker 1: and that's what this judge wants to do. What's the 391 00:23:54,600 --> 00:23:57,240 Speaker 1: kind of matter in the end, But I think the 392 00:23:57,440 --> 00:24:00,760 Speaker 1: court still focused on the fact that because there's this 393 00:24:01,040 --> 00:24:05,240 Speaker 1: presumption of review in the statute, and it really makes 394 00:24:05,320 --> 00:24:10,280 Speaker 1: sense to read it in this kind of bifurcated manner 395 00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:15,200 Speaker 1: where nondiscretionary things like law and facts and everything else 396 00:24:15,720 --> 00:24:20,840 Speaker 1: get review and truly discretionary things don't get review. I 397 00:24:20,960 --> 00:24:24,080 Speaker 1: do think some members of the conservative wing of the 398 00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:28,119 Speaker 1: court see to have that argument register with them. So 399 00:24:28,240 --> 00:24:32,000 Speaker 1: it seems likely that Potel is going to win. Well, 400 00:24:32,160 --> 00:24:36,160 Speaker 1: what it seems likely is he's gonna win to get 401 00:24:36,400 --> 00:24:40,520 Speaker 1: review of the decision. That does not mean Patel, in 402 00:24:40,560 --> 00:24:41,680 Speaker 1: the end of the day, is going to get a 403 00:24:41,720 --> 00:24:45,080 Speaker 1: green card, because if the lower court found him not 404 00:24:45,359 --> 00:24:50,680 Speaker 1: credible as to his actual why he clicked on the 405 00:24:50,880 --> 00:24:54,760 Speaker 1: citizenship part for his driver's license, it's going to be 406 00:24:54,840 --> 00:24:56,920 Speaker 1: a hard flog in the Court of Appeals because the 407 00:24:57,000 --> 00:25:01,480 Speaker 1: Court of Appeals doesn't have the benefit of the credibility 408 00:25:01,600 --> 00:25:04,040 Speaker 1: determinations that are being made in the lower court. They 409 00:25:04,080 --> 00:25:07,280 Speaker 1: can't as the individual or any of that. So those 410 00:25:07,320 --> 00:25:10,720 Speaker 1: are historically hard decisions to overturn, but at least a 411 00:25:10,880 --> 00:25:15,840 Speaker 1: larger legal principle will withstand this eleventh circuit attack so 412 00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:18,520 Speaker 1: that people who need this review, who actually can win, 413 00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:21,639 Speaker 1: will be able to win moving forward. That was what 414 00:25:21,800 --> 00:25:25,200 Speaker 1: seemed strange to me here, because you have someone on 415 00:25:25,280 --> 00:25:27,720 Speaker 1: a trial judge level. Let's say, when the trial judge 416 00:25:27,760 --> 00:25:31,920 Speaker 1: makes certain determinations of fact, the appeals court can't really 417 00:25:32,440 --> 00:25:35,639 Speaker 1: review those determinations. So if you have a tr judge 418 00:25:35,640 --> 00:25:39,240 Speaker 1: you're making a determination that he was incredible, what kind 419 00:25:39,280 --> 00:25:42,000 Speaker 1: of information would you present to an appeals court to 420 00:25:42,080 --> 00:25:45,320 Speaker 1: show he was credible? Right, You would have to say, 421 00:25:45,400 --> 00:25:51,320 Speaker 1: basically that no reasonable lawmaker would have found that conclusion 422 00:25:51,400 --> 00:25:54,520 Speaker 1: based on what was submitted to them, And very rarely 423 00:25:54,560 --> 00:25:56,959 Speaker 1: are you going to meet that. In the immigration world, 424 00:25:57,400 --> 00:26:01,120 Speaker 1: where you do see this happen on occasion, and it's sad, 425 00:26:01,359 --> 00:26:04,920 Speaker 1: but it's true, is where sometimes the actual judges on 426 00:26:05,000 --> 00:26:11,400 Speaker 1: the immigration court will verbally express such an anti immigrant 427 00:26:11,640 --> 00:26:15,760 Speaker 1: viewpoint towards this individual in the case that then people 428 00:26:15,840 --> 00:26:19,760 Speaker 1: start to question the objectivity of the actual judge in 429 00:26:19,800 --> 00:26:23,160 Speaker 1: the case. They will say things that are completely inappropriate 430 00:26:23,520 --> 00:26:25,840 Speaker 1: during the course of the litigation that isn't even like 431 00:26:26,200 --> 00:26:30,680 Speaker 1: politically correct inappropriate. It's stuff that anybody would say, don't 432 00:26:30,840 --> 00:26:34,680 Speaker 1: saying judge would say something like this during during a hearing, 433 00:26:35,160 --> 00:26:37,920 Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. So sometimes like that you will 434 00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:40,359 Speaker 1: see it reverse. But other than that, you're correct, you 435 00:26:40,560 --> 00:26:44,400 Speaker 1: very rarely see it reverse. So how many people would 436 00:26:44,480 --> 00:26:48,320 Speaker 1: this affect to this decision of the Supreme Court? They 437 00:26:48,359 --> 00:26:51,040 Speaker 1: asked this question a bunch of times during the argument, 438 00:26:51,240 --> 00:26:55,040 Speaker 1: and nobody could seek to tell. And there was this belief, well, look, 439 00:26:55,080 --> 00:26:58,240 Speaker 1: if they're about a hundred thousands of these cases a 440 00:26:58,440 --> 00:27:02,159 Speaker 1: year and there's about a seven percent get granted, how 441 00:27:02,200 --> 00:27:04,600 Speaker 1: many people could this actually be? Is it a thousand? 442 00:27:05,240 --> 00:27:07,400 Speaker 1: And the point is we don't know. And also there's 443 00:27:07,400 --> 00:27:09,280 Speaker 1: a lot of people who may not file an appeal 444 00:27:09,720 --> 00:27:12,600 Speaker 1: because they thought they were foreclosed from doing this. But 445 00:27:12,800 --> 00:27:15,840 Speaker 1: even if it's a few thousand people a year, those 446 00:27:15,880 --> 00:27:18,000 Speaker 1: are a few thousand people a year that would have 447 00:27:18,119 --> 00:27:20,840 Speaker 1: that lifeline that wouldn't have it in the court rules 448 00:27:20,840 --> 00:27:25,680 Speaker 1: against them. There there is sometimes and I don't know 449 00:27:25,760 --> 00:27:29,199 Speaker 1: if it happened here, but definitely sometimes, and these states 450 00:27:29,320 --> 00:27:34,280 Speaker 1: that have automatic motor voter registration, you will see a 451 00:27:34,440 --> 00:27:37,240 Speaker 1: situation where a foreign national will sign up for a 452 00:27:37,359 --> 00:27:41,399 Speaker 1: driver's license and they'll automatically get signed up to vote, 453 00:27:41,720 --> 00:27:44,200 Speaker 1: and then they've got to untangle that they didn't ask 454 00:27:44,280 --> 00:27:47,320 Speaker 1: for that. So in this kind of case, it will 455 00:27:47,359 --> 00:27:50,640 Speaker 1: be very useful to have that review in case there's 456 00:27:50,680 --> 00:27:53,520 Speaker 1: a lot of confusion about what happened. Now, I don't 457 00:27:53,560 --> 00:27:56,960 Speaker 1: think that's what happened in this particular case, but those 458 00:27:57,080 --> 00:28:01,240 Speaker 1: motor voter situations are not that com So I want 459 00:28:01,240 --> 00:28:05,600 Speaker 1: to turn to two bigger issues. How many of the 460 00:28:05,800 --> 00:28:14,320 Speaker 1: Trump immigration policy decisions is the Biden administration following Well, 461 00:28:14,440 --> 00:28:16,879 Speaker 1: The main one that we're seeing now, and if that 462 00:28:17,080 --> 00:28:20,639 Speaker 1: being done on purpose, but it's being done because the 463 00:28:20,680 --> 00:28:23,560 Speaker 1: court is requiring them to do it, is this concept 464 00:28:23,640 --> 00:28:27,280 Speaker 1: of remain in Mexico. And this concept of romain in 465 00:28:27,359 --> 00:28:34,120 Speaker 1: Mexico is fascinating now because the entire purpose of revoking 466 00:28:34,240 --> 00:28:37,960 Speaker 1: the Remain in Mexico policy was the Biden administration's memorandum 467 00:28:38,000 --> 00:28:40,600 Speaker 1: stating that there's no way to do this in a 468 00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:45,000 Speaker 1: humane manner. And so now what's interesting is as they're 469 00:28:45,040 --> 00:28:49,400 Speaker 1: being forced implemented, and they're actually implementing it with Lingal 470 00:28:49,560 --> 00:28:53,800 Speaker 1: counc and with the International Organization of Migration helping secure 471 00:28:53,880 --> 00:28:57,840 Speaker 1: safety for people in Mexico and all the kinds of 472 00:28:57,920 --> 00:29:00,680 Speaker 1: things that they're doing because they're concerned about socifety of 473 00:29:00,720 --> 00:29:04,480 Speaker 1: the people in this It is potentially going to be 474 00:29:04,560 --> 00:29:07,080 Speaker 1: a very interesting thing to see in the court. It's 475 00:29:07,120 --> 00:29:09,880 Speaker 1: sort of all of these human rights elements that are 476 00:29:09,920 --> 00:29:12,920 Speaker 1: being implemented as part of remain in Mexical will actually 477 00:29:13,080 --> 00:29:16,840 Speaker 1: undermine the argument now in courts such as it will 478 00:29:17,040 --> 00:29:21,640 Speaker 1: essentially be a no good deed goes unpunished situation, and 479 00:29:21,720 --> 00:29:24,560 Speaker 1: now it will be impossible to revoke the Remain in 480 00:29:24,640 --> 00:29:27,680 Speaker 1: Mexico policy because the court can say, you see, there 481 00:29:27,840 --> 00:29:30,080 Speaker 1: is a humane way to do this the way you're 482 00:29:30,120 --> 00:29:32,360 Speaker 1: doing it, so why do you need to revoke the policy? 483 00:29:33,240 --> 00:29:36,880 Speaker 1: And so this is gonna be a very interesting thing 484 00:29:37,000 --> 00:29:40,640 Speaker 1: to watch moving forward. And as the Biden administration still 485 00:29:40,880 --> 00:29:46,680 Speaker 1: using the COVID excuse for not except using yeah, they're 486 00:29:46,720 --> 00:29:50,520 Speaker 1: still using Title forty two in cases where they're single adults, 487 00:29:50,720 --> 00:29:53,520 Speaker 1: and those single adults are still working in their way 488 00:29:53,680 --> 00:29:56,320 Speaker 1: into the system and they don't have any sort of 489 00:29:56,360 --> 00:29:59,480 Speaker 1: equities for why they would be paroled or light into 490 00:29:59,560 --> 00:30:02,680 Speaker 1: the country. And I think you will see that until 491 00:30:03,400 --> 00:30:08,040 Speaker 1: the lifting in its totality of the COVID National Emergency 492 00:30:08,520 --> 00:30:10,960 Speaker 1: which hasn't been listed yet, So you still have this 493 00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:14,520 Speaker 1: COVID national emergency, and I think until you see that 494 00:30:14,800 --> 00:30:17,960 Speaker 1: get lifted, you're still gonna see at least some number 495 00:30:18,000 --> 00:30:21,280 Speaker 1: of people be excluded under the Title forty two authorities. 496 00:30:21,880 --> 00:30:24,400 Speaker 1: So I haven't heard that much in the last few 497 00:30:24,480 --> 00:30:29,560 Speaker 1: weeks about the numbers of illegal immigrants coming into the country. 498 00:30:30,000 --> 00:30:33,840 Speaker 1: Has that subsided a little? Sure? Well, those numbers are 499 00:30:34,000 --> 00:30:37,760 Speaker 1: lower and they have subsided, and that's because this isn't 500 00:30:37,880 --> 00:30:40,880 Speaker 1: usually the time of year. There's sort of three things 501 00:30:40,960 --> 00:30:44,120 Speaker 1: going on at the same time. One, this isn't usually 502 00:30:44,200 --> 00:30:47,360 Speaker 1: the time of year where you see surges. Even in 503 00:30:47,560 --> 00:30:52,000 Speaker 1: Texas it actually gets quite cold, uh, and so people 504 00:30:52,080 --> 00:30:56,400 Speaker 1: don't usually start coming in December November during that time period. 505 00:30:56,520 --> 00:30:59,680 Speaker 1: So you do see, uh, those numbers slipping, and they 506 00:31:00,160 --> 00:31:04,120 Speaker 1: for three consecutive months now. But also the fact that 507 00:31:04,880 --> 00:31:08,800 Speaker 1: people are still being subjected to Title forty two and 508 00:31:09,200 --> 00:31:12,920 Speaker 1: now the remaining Mexical policy does mean you're going to 509 00:31:13,000 --> 00:31:16,640 Speaker 1: start seeing these numbers the GRIP. Thanks for being on 510 00:31:16,680 --> 00:31:20,560 Speaker 1: the show. Leon. That's Leon Fresco, a partner at hollanden Knight. 511 00:31:21,400 --> 00:31:23,760 Speaker 1: And that's if in this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 512 00:31:24,200 --> 00:31:26,400 Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 513 00:31:26,480 --> 00:31:30,560 Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 514 00:31:30,680 --> 00:31:35,600 Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, 515 00:31:36,120 --> 00:31:39,040 Speaker 1: and please join us every weeknight at ten pm Wall 516 00:31:39,120 --> 00:31:42,200 Speaker 1: Street Time for the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso 517 00:31:42,440 --> 00:31:44,080 Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg