WEBVTT - Miramax v. Tarantino Over Pulp Fiction NFTs 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:09.400 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio 0:00:09.119 --> 0:00:15.319 the teenage reading and they all faults wished well. You 0:00:15.360 --> 0:00:19.639 can see that Tier did truely love the pa Quentin 0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:25.360 Tarantino film. Pulp Fiction is a cult classic, so it 0:00:25.480 --> 0:00:28.080 got a lot of attention when the filmmaker announced that 0:00:28.120 --> 0:00:30.480 he planned to auction off n f T s from 0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:34.920 the film, including scanned copies of script pages for seven 0:00:34.960 --> 0:00:38.199 scenes that didn't make the final cut. We've taken the 0:00:38.240 --> 0:00:42.240 original pages, digitize the original pages, and like I said, 0:00:43.479 --> 0:00:47.920 they're full of dialogue that was changed, new stop stuff 0:00:47.920 --> 0:00:54.920 that I dropped later. Uh Like for instance, uh, the 0:00:55.040 --> 0:00:59.360 character that Judge Bolt places Vincent for the whole six 0:00:59.400 --> 0:01:03.960 months of write his name was dat. It got unwanted 0:01:04.000 --> 0:01:08.400 attention from Hollywood studio Mirramax, who's trying to stop Tarantino 0:01:08.560 --> 0:01:11.120 from selling the n f T s, suing him for 0:01:11.200 --> 0:01:15.480 breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement. Joining me is 0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:19.200 Lance Cooon's a partner at Clara's Law. Despite all the 0:01:19.280 --> 0:01:22.560 hype and the millions of dollars, n f T s 0:01:22.800 --> 0:01:26.440 are being sold for a lot of people don't understand 0:01:26.880 --> 0:01:30.200 what they are and why they're so valuable. So, an 0:01:30.280 --> 0:01:34.280 NFC is a non fungible token that's distinguished from a 0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:40.240 fungible token like bitcoin or ether, which are blockchain based 0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:44.280 records that functioned like a dollar or a quarter or 0:01:44.319 --> 0:01:47.240 any other piece of currency in the real world. One 0:01:47.360 --> 0:01:50.200 is exchanged with another and they have the same value 0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:53.480 from no matter which one you have. A non fungible 0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:57.640 token is something that's unique. It's a blockchain record that 0:01:57.680 --> 0:02:00.640 has been created that does not exchange one to one 0:02:00.680 --> 0:02:04.120 with others, but is instead unique. One of the analogies 0:02:04.160 --> 0:02:07.960 I sometimes use is that if you take a penny 0:02:08.200 --> 0:02:11.359 or a quarter, but if the mint were to misprint 0:02:11.560 --> 0:02:15.040 the penny or the quarter, then suddenly you have an 0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:18.320 item that is different from the ref and collectors then 0:02:18.440 --> 0:02:22.720 value those particular misprinted items because of their scarcity. And 0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:25.440 so n f t s are a way to create 0:02:25.600 --> 0:02:28.760 digital scarcity, and what you end up being able to 0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:31.880 do is linked an n FP and non fungible token 0:02:32.120 --> 0:02:36.120 as a record to some other unique digital assets. So 0:02:36.480 --> 0:02:40.320 what exactly is Tarantino trying to sell as an n 0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:44.640 f T. It's not clear from the advertising and the 0:02:44.639 --> 0:02:48.040 promotion that's been done around the n f t sale. 0:02:48.280 --> 0:02:51.400 I don't think it's entirely clear. From the complaint that 0:02:51.480 --> 0:02:56.880 Merrimac filed, it appears to be Tarantino's can written pages 0:02:57.280 --> 0:03:00.920 of scenes from pulp fiction. It's not clear to me 0:03:00.960 --> 0:03:04.560 whether they're all unique in some way. There's also apparently 0:03:04.600 --> 0:03:08.000 commentary that's going to be provided for him that's unique. 0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:10.160 It looks like there may have been a plan, and 0:03:10.200 --> 0:03:12.000 I don't know if this is still true, to do 0:03:12.240 --> 0:03:14.960 some sort of unique artwork as sort of the cover 0:03:15.120 --> 0:03:17.079 of the n f T or the image that goes 0:03:17.120 --> 0:03:22.120 along with it. Mirramax immediately sued. What's the focus of 0:03:22.160 --> 0:03:27.240 the lawsuit? The primary focus is on the language of 0:03:27.280 --> 0:03:33.760 the contract between Tarantino and Mirramax dating back to and 0:03:34.080 --> 0:03:37.840 there was a rights agreement under which Tarantino and Lawrence 0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:42.360 Fender transferred their rights in the film, which I think included, 0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:46.000 you know, all elements and all stages of development production 0:03:46.160 --> 0:03:51.360 to Merrimax. So obviously n f t s were not 0:03:51.480 --> 0:03:56.200 part of anyone's imagination, I don't think. And Tarantino's attorney 0:03:56.400 --> 0:04:02.560 argues that the director was acting within reserved rights, specifically 0:04:02.560 --> 0:04:06.400 the right to screenplay production. In a court of law, 0:04:06.520 --> 0:04:10.600 how will they determine what that is. Typically, a court's 0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:13.840 going to look at the first at the contract language 0:04:13.840 --> 0:04:17.440 itself and determine whether or not the language on its 0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:21.920 face is clear. And if the language is clear, then 0:04:22.240 --> 0:04:27.280 that screenplay publication would cover the creation of n FPS 0:04:27.480 --> 0:04:32.320 around these themes or these script pages, then it would 0:04:32.320 --> 0:04:35.760 fall within his reserved rights, which is probably more likely. 0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:39.279 Here there's at least some question is to exactly what 0:04:39.480 --> 0:04:42.320 that phrase means that a court is going to have 0:04:42.480 --> 0:04:45.320 to look at the things courts look at to determine 0:04:45.880 --> 0:04:49.080 more ambiguous terms in the contract, the course of action 0:04:49.120 --> 0:04:52.200 between the parties, the other language and the contract sort 0:04:52.200 --> 0:04:54.919 of standard in the industry, and so here that I 0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:57.520 think what the court will end up looking at. There 0:04:57.640 --> 0:05:01.479 is a line of cases on new uses of work 0:05:01.839 --> 0:05:05.039 in the copyright world where and we've seen this at 0:05:05.360 --> 0:05:09.479 many junctures when new technology comes into play and you 0:05:09.480 --> 0:05:13.400 know too, contracting parties could not have anticipated in new technology. 0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:17.040 Often those cases come down to how broad the language 0:05:17.160 --> 0:05:19.880 of the grant is and whether the parties can be 0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:23.520 seen to have contracted around sort of anything that comes 0:05:23.600 --> 0:05:25.719 up in the future. And we saw this in cases 0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:28.920 involving digital archives and things like that. So tell us 0:05:28.920 --> 0:05:32.600 about Random House Vio set of books, right, And that's 0:05:32.600 --> 0:05:35.080 exactly you know, one of those cases. And I should 0:05:35.120 --> 0:05:38.000 say that there were cases long before that as well, 0:05:38.120 --> 0:05:41.960 when things moved from television and to feature film and 0:05:42.040 --> 0:05:45.480 things like that and video. But in the Random House 0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:48.680 vias At a book case, the question was whether the 0:05:48.880 --> 0:05:51.960 right to publish in book form and that was the 0:05:52.040 --> 0:05:57.040 language in the contract included electronics e book right. And 0:05:57.320 --> 0:06:00.919 in that particular case, the district court said that the 0:06:01.080 --> 0:06:04.240 language has written was not brought enough to cover of 0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:07.800 the new use, and then they're on appeal. The second 0:06:07.800 --> 0:06:10.960 circuit really sort of set a standard for how a 0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:13.839 fact finder needs to look at the contract language to 0:06:14.160 --> 0:06:17.600 determine whether the new use was contemplated. Now, I will 0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:20.720 say that I'm not entirely sure whether the new use 0:06:20.760 --> 0:06:24.239 cases will come into play that directly in the Merrimac 0:06:24.320 --> 0:06:28.280 Tarantino case, because that case seems to be focused primarily 0:06:28.440 --> 0:06:32.720 on the screenplay publication language as opposed to new uses, 0:06:33.040 --> 0:06:35.320 But it could come up depending how the arguments go. 0:06:35.880 --> 0:06:39.080 What's the main question in the case going to be? 0:06:39.680 --> 0:06:43.599 To my mind, the primary question in this case is 0:06:43.839 --> 0:06:49.560 does the term screenplay publication cover the sale of an 0:06:49.680 --> 0:06:54.960 NFT that is tied to parts of a screenplay. You know, clearly, 0:06:55.040 --> 0:07:00.960 when Tarantino reserved his right to screenplay publication, it meant something. 0:07:01.279 --> 0:07:03.760 It meant that he was reserving the right to do 0:07:03.960 --> 0:07:07.599 something with the screenplays. And you know, I think in 0:07:07.720 --> 0:07:11.920 the normal sense, you would think that probably means taking 0:07:11.920 --> 0:07:16.560 that screenplay and selling copies of the whole screenplay on 0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:20.679 the market and publishing that screenplay to the market. Here, 0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:24.600 it's not clear. I don't believe you know what Tarantino 0:07:24.840 --> 0:07:28.040 is going to be doing with these n fps. It 0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:31.400 looks like that sort of broader publication if you were 0:07:31.440 --> 0:07:33.960 going to sell one or two or ten n f 0:07:34.080 --> 0:07:37.640 p s around a particular set of screenplay pages. But 0:07:37.880 --> 0:07:40.160 I don't know that there's that much precedent yet that 0:07:40.200 --> 0:07:42.320 would tell us what the answer to that question is. 0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:45.000 Maybe you can answer this question that no one else 0:07:45.040 --> 0:07:47.200 has been able to answer for me. In some of 0:07:47.240 --> 0:07:51.120 the auctions involving millions and millions of dollars of digital art, 0:07:51.600 --> 0:07:55.160 in some of those the copyright isn't transferred to the 0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:58.160 purchaser of the n f T, So what does the 0:07:58.240 --> 0:08:04.120 purchaser get the sides bragging rights. In short, it is 0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:06.920 the bragging rights. But I think the best analogy would 0:08:06.920 --> 0:08:10.520 be to the sale of a really valuable piece of 0:08:10.600 --> 0:08:14.680 physical artwork, in the sense that if I paid twenty 0:08:14.680 --> 0:08:19.440 million dollars or sixty nine million dollars for a painting 0:08:20.000 --> 0:08:23.240 and I buy that, I don't get the copyright when 0:08:23.240 --> 0:08:26.920 I purchased that painting. In most cases, I simply get 0:08:26.960 --> 0:08:30.040 that one copy. It may be the original, it may 0:08:30.080 --> 0:08:32.880 be the only or there may be prints made of it, 0:08:32.920 --> 0:08:35.800 and there may be copies everywhere. But when I buy 0:08:35.840 --> 0:08:38.760 that piece of physical artwork, I get that piece of 0:08:38.800 --> 0:08:42.360 physical artwork. There's a doctrine called the first sale doctrine 0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:45.640 under copyright law in the US, which says that in 0:08:45.679 --> 0:08:49.280 the physical world, when I sell something like a copy 0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:52.520 of a book or a or a painting or a 0:08:52.559 --> 0:08:57.080 record album and vinyl, that any copyright interest that the 0:08:57.120 --> 0:09:03.320 seller has in that one in instance of content goes away, 0:09:03.360 --> 0:09:07.040 and the user then has a right to sell that 0:09:07.200 --> 0:09:11.480 copy onward and do whatever they want to with it. Essentially, 0:09:11.480 --> 0:09:14.079 although you couldn't then make another copy of it and 0:09:14.120 --> 0:09:16.760 sell a copy, all you have is the right to 0:09:16.840 --> 0:09:19.400 sell it in a used bookstore and to alienate that 0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:22.640 one copy that you've For people who are going to 0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:26.400 buy or sell n f T s, what should you 0:09:26.480 --> 0:09:30.199 do to ensure that the rights that you think you're 0:09:30.240 --> 0:09:34.240 getting are actually the rights that you are getting right 0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:38.120 And and we advise clients on both sides of this question, 0:09:38.360 --> 0:09:41.720 and I think the short answer is, you need to 0:09:41.720 --> 0:09:46.600 know very clearly what the terms of sale are in 0:09:46.640 --> 0:09:49.800 connection with the particular n f T sale. In some 0:09:49.880 --> 0:09:53.840 market places, that may be something that you'll see in 0:09:53.920 --> 0:09:59.120 the description of the item itself in the sale. In 0:09:59.160 --> 0:10:02.559 some cases you maybe looking to the terms of use 0:10:02.960 --> 0:10:07.560 on the n f T platform website. But you know, 0:10:07.600 --> 0:10:10.240 in either case, whether you're a buyer or a seller, 0:10:10.640 --> 0:10:13.920 you need to be very clear on where those rights 0:10:13.960 --> 0:10:17.760 are found in what those what those terms are. Thanks Lance. 0:10:18.160 --> 0:10:23.040 That's Lance. Coon's a partner at Clara's Law. Former President 0:10:23.040 --> 0:10:25.880 Donald Trump lost his appeal to the d C Circuit 0:10:26.200 --> 0:10:30.920 to override President Joe Biden's waver of executive privilege over 0:10:31.000 --> 0:10:35.080 White House records in the January sixth Capital Ride investigation, 0:10:35.520 --> 0:10:39.200 but the Biden administration is siding with Trump and urging 0:10:39.200 --> 0:10:42.720 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to scuttle a defamation 0:10:42.800 --> 0:10:47.200 lawsuit brought by advice columnist E Jean Carroll after Carol 0:10:47.280 --> 0:10:50.800 went public with her allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her 0:10:50.840 --> 0:10:54.040 in a New York department store dressing room two decades ago. 0:10:54.360 --> 0:10:58.760 Trump said she was quote totally lying and not my type. 0:10:59.320 --> 0:11:03.000 Judge Denny Chin appeared skeptical that Trump's words fell within 0:11:03.120 --> 0:11:07.199 his duties as a government employee, as he questioned Trump's 0:11:07.280 --> 0:11:10.840 lawyer Elena Habba, who is he serving when when he 0:11:10.880 --> 0:11:13.679 says something like she's not my type? He was? That 0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:16.400 is he serving the United States of America when he 0:11:16.440 --> 0:11:20.360 makes that statement? Absolutely, because he has to address the 0:11:20.360 --> 0:11:23.000 fact that this could not and would not have happened. 0:11:23.040 --> 0:11:25.320 He did not do it. Not It was the one 0:11:25.360 --> 0:11:27.560 thing if he said I didn't do it. But but 0:11:27.640 --> 0:11:31.520 he goes way beyond that. Joining me is Eric Lawson, 0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:36.560 Bloomberg News legal reporter Eric. Many were surprised with Biden's 0:11:36.640 --> 0:11:40.120 Justice Department siding with Trump. Yeah, I think when Biden 0:11:40.200 --> 0:11:42.000 was elected, a lot of people who were watching this 0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:45.840 attempted d J intervention sort of assumed that if this 0:11:45.840 --> 0:11:48.599 would be one of the many Trump policy decisions that 0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:51.560 would be reversed by the new administration, So it was 0:11:51.600 --> 0:11:54.640 kind of a big surprise when the Biden administration said 0:11:54.679 --> 0:11:57.080 we actually side with Trump. They said, we don't agree 0:11:57.120 --> 0:12:01.160 with what Trump said, but his denying of Ms. Carroll's 0:12:01.240 --> 0:12:04.160 claims were made as part of his job duties, and 0:12:04.200 --> 0:12:07.120 therefore he's protected by this law. It's called the west 0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:10.320 Ball Act, which protect government employees from litigation related to 0:12:10.360 --> 0:12:14.560 their job. And the Justice Department's lawyer said, Trump made 0:12:14.559 --> 0:12:19.320 offensive comments in response to very serious allegations of sexual assault. 0:12:19.720 --> 0:12:22.960 I'm not here to defend or justify them, but how 0:12:23.000 --> 0:12:26.679 did he divorce the comments from the defense of the comments? 0:12:27.280 --> 0:12:30.240 To the Justice Department, they sort of boiled it down 0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:33.800 to Trump was denying an allegation made against him, so 0:12:33.920 --> 0:12:37.440 the press was asking him about the allegations. He was 0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:41.520 responding in his own special way. So the Justice Department, 0:12:41.600 --> 0:12:44.280 based on their papers, they're looking at it as just 0:12:44.400 --> 0:12:47.480 protecting the office of the presidency, as often the d 0:12:47.600 --> 0:12:49.920 o J does in terms of being able to protect 0:12:49.960 --> 0:12:54.360 any president's right, in their view, to deny allegations like 0:12:54.440 --> 0:12:57.959 this without the threat of being too for defamation. Trump's 0:12:58.000 --> 0:13:01.560 lawyer referred to Kyle written Wilson asked, what are we 0:13:01.600 --> 0:13:06.560 going to do if Kyle Rittenhouse sue's President Biden for 0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:10.200 calling him a white supremacist? Right, And I actually was 0:13:10.240 --> 0:13:13.000 not too surprised that she brought that up because it 0:13:13.080 --> 0:13:16.080 was sort of a current events comparison That was actually 0:13:16.120 --> 0:13:18.240 kind of a good one come in a way, because 0:13:18.320 --> 0:13:21.719 after Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two protesters in the 0:13:21.760 --> 0:13:25.160 Black Lives Matter rally last year in Commosha, Wisconsin, and 0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:28.200 injured a third. In the aftermath of that, Biden put 0:13:28.200 --> 0:13:32.160 out a campaign video that Rittenhouses then lawyers suggested that 0:13:32.240 --> 0:13:37.440 Rittenhouse was a white supremacist and threatened defamation lawsuit against Biden, 0:13:37.880 --> 0:13:40.960 which never actually ended up happening, but it did raise 0:13:41.040 --> 0:13:43.640 the prospect of what would happen if he had been 0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:46.360 to in It's sort of a similar argument there, right, 0:13:46.679 --> 0:13:49.480 Trump said, She's not my type. That is the part 0:13:49.480 --> 0:13:52.640 of the statement that's offensive. Is it that he denied 0:13:52.679 --> 0:13:56.280 it at all, or is it the offensive nature of it? 0:13:56.679 --> 0:14:01.000 How are they parsing that statement? Well, that's a good question, 0:14:01.000 --> 0:14:04.320 because that did come up in the court hearing and 0:14:04.600 --> 0:14:06.840 it got a little bit confusing at times. But I 0:14:06.880 --> 0:14:10.000 did clarify with mis Carroll's legal team afterwards that they 0:14:10.040 --> 0:14:13.439 do absolutely stand by the argument of even the denial 0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:16.960 itself was defamation, because the denial implies that she was 0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:19.880 lying the additional parts of him claiming that she's not 0:14:20.080 --> 0:14:22.320 his type, and that she was making these claims just 0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:24.400 to sell a book, and that sort of thing does 0:14:24.640 --> 0:14:27.760 make it more difficult, in Carol's view, to tie the 0:14:27.840 --> 0:14:30.480 denial to the president's job duties. So that's why they 0:14:30.480 --> 0:14:33.120 were parting that. But they say that the denial itself 0:14:33.240 --> 0:14:36.880 was defination. Listen to what Judge Guido Calabrisi said about 0:14:36.920 --> 0:14:42.280 presidents in general. The fact is that the president often 0:14:42.360 --> 0:14:48.080 has done things which goes long for all for purposes 0:14:48.320 --> 0:14:53.360 of the presidency. Almost every president has done it. You know, 0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:55.640 it's impossible to really get into a judge's head, but 0:14:55.680 --> 0:14:57.640 it does kind of hint at how at least that 0:14:57.760 --> 0:15:01.080 judge was thinking that there's always been a wide latitude 0:15:01.080 --> 0:15:03.440 for presidents behave in a certain way. You know. He 0:15:03.480 --> 0:15:05.880 went on to point out that the big outlier and 0:15:06.000 --> 0:15:09.080 this type of behavior would be like Nixon lying for 0:15:09.120 --> 0:15:12.640 his own personal benefit rather than to protect the office 0:15:12.640 --> 0:15:16.400 of the presidency, and that that rises to level of impeachment, 0:15:16.760 --> 0:15:18.360 you know, and then he said something along the lines 0:15:18.400 --> 0:15:20.880 that that's a higher part to reach the decision here. 0:15:20.920 --> 0:15:24.560 If it goes against Carol, it's more than just losing emotion. 0:15:25.040 --> 0:15:28.680 The case would be lost. That's correct. If the Justice 0:15:28.720 --> 0:15:32.440 Department prevails here and is able to substitute itself for 0:15:32.520 --> 0:15:35.000 Trump as defendant in the case, then essentially the case 0:15:35.000 --> 0:15:38.040 will be dismissed because you can't sue the federal governments 0:15:38.080 --> 0:15:42.080 the defamation. So the west Fal Act has been applied 0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:46.120 to Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, so 0:15:46.200 --> 0:15:49.880 the last three presidents. It seems to be invoked a lot, yes, 0:15:49.920 --> 0:15:53.240 and even against Hillary Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren and 0:15:53.320 --> 0:15:57.040 other members of Congresses. It's actually used fairly frequently, and 0:15:57.200 --> 0:15:59.760 even in some defination cases. I believe there was one 0:15:59.800 --> 0:16:02.600 to to get Elizabeth Warren over something that she said 0:16:02.720 --> 0:16:05.600 from about someone in an interview, and that case never 0:16:05.640 --> 0:16:07.480 made it to trial. It was dismissed under the west 0:16:07.480 --> 0:16:10.960 Ball Act. Thanks Eric, that's Bloomberg Legal reporter. Eric Lawson, 0:16:12.560 --> 0:16:15.200 an Indian national who has lived in the US nearly 0:16:15.280 --> 0:16:18.600 thirty years, wants to take another shot at arguing that 0:16:18.640 --> 0:16:21.720 he isn't precluded from seeking a green card because he 0:16:21.800 --> 0:16:24.480 falsely said he was a US citizen while getting a 0:16:24.600 --> 0:16:28.600 driver's license in Georgia, and the Supreme Court justices seemed 0:16:28.680 --> 0:16:31.600 likely to side with him. Joining me is Leon Fresco, 0:16:31.760 --> 0:16:35.600 a partner at Hollandon Knight. What's the process for getting 0:16:35.600 --> 0:16:38.560 a green card? Well, the process for getting a green 0:16:38.600 --> 0:16:41.760 card depends on whether you're inside the United States or 0:16:41.840 --> 0:16:44.480 outside the United States. But let's just take for the 0:16:44.520 --> 0:16:48.680 purposes of this gate that's before the Supreme Court. There's 0:16:48.720 --> 0:16:51.680 a two step process if you're inside the United States 0:16:51.760 --> 0:16:56.040 called adjustment of status, and they're What you usually do 0:16:56.160 --> 0:17:00.240 is you file one application that says, I'm ela mole 0:17:00.360 --> 0:17:03.720 for the visa I'm asking for whether it's an employment 0:17:03.840 --> 0:17:07.680 visa or a family visa. And then at the same 0:17:07.760 --> 0:17:12.040 time you file an application called an adjustment of status application, 0:17:12.160 --> 0:17:16.480 which says, and by the way, I'm not ineligible because 0:17:16.520 --> 0:17:19.760 of a ground of inadmissibility that would apply against me. 0:17:19.840 --> 0:17:23.480 And so there's about fifty grounds of inadmissibility in the 0:17:23.520 --> 0:17:26.199 Immigration Code that if you did any of those things wrong, 0:17:26.640 --> 0:17:28.919 even if you are eligible for the visa because you 0:17:28.960 --> 0:17:31.959 are the right kind of relative or you do have 0:17:32.000 --> 0:17:36.200 the right kind of employer petitioning for you, it wouldn't matter. 0:17:36.240 --> 0:17:39.400 You still couldn't get the Green card. And so this 0:17:39.720 --> 0:17:42.879 supre Court case is about that second process, the adjustment 0:17:42.880 --> 0:17:48.400 of status process, and whether someone can appeal the decision 0:17:48.480 --> 0:17:52.439 that they're inadmissible a k a. Ineligible for adjustment of 0:17:52.440 --> 0:17:57.000 status for whatever reason the Immigration Service has stayed they're 0:17:57.040 --> 0:18:01.320 inadmissible for So tell us about the case before the 0:18:01.359 --> 0:18:05.119 Supreme Court, which involves a citizen of India who has 0:18:05.160 --> 0:18:08.359 been living here for thirty years. Correct, this is a 0:18:08.440 --> 0:18:10.720 citizen of India who has lived in the United States 0:18:10.760 --> 0:18:14.720 for thirty years, and they're married and have three children. 0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:20.040 And this individual apply for a relief called TO forty 0:18:20.080 --> 0:18:23.600 five I, which was something that existed before two thousand 0:18:23.680 --> 0:18:26.439 and one, which for you know, you could use the 0:18:26.440 --> 0:18:29.719 word legalization or amnesty or whatever, but it was a 0:18:29.720 --> 0:18:33.280 program that allowed people who didn't have legal status to 0:18:33.400 --> 0:18:38.320 regularize their legal status if they have a proper employer 0:18:38.960 --> 0:18:42.360 or a proper family member petitioning for them, even if 0:18:42.400 --> 0:18:45.359 they had been in unlawful status at the time of 0:18:45.480 --> 0:18:50.239 their application. And so this person goes through the process 0:18:50.240 --> 0:18:55.000 but gets denied because they said that this person had 0:18:55.119 --> 0:18:58.479 what's called the grounds of an admissibility for false claim 0:18:58.640 --> 0:19:01.679 for US citizens. And what that means is if a 0:19:01.720 --> 0:19:04.520 person who's not a U. S citizens ever state in 0:19:04.560 --> 0:19:07.120 any way, shape or formed that they're U. S. Citizens, 0:19:07.160 --> 0:19:09.679 that's pretty much the worst thing you could do in 0:19:09.760 --> 0:19:12.919 the immigration code that banns you from everything. And in 0:19:12.960 --> 0:19:16.399 this case, they said that this person marked yes in 0:19:16.480 --> 0:19:21.120 response to a Georgia driver's license application question that asked 0:19:21.240 --> 0:19:26.400 are you a US citizen? And so the Immigration Service 0:19:26.480 --> 0:19:32.600 here actually denies this person's application and state that this 0:19:32.680 --> 0:19:37.280 person can't get a green card because they lied about 0:19:37.320 --> 0:19:40.399 being a U. S. Citizen. And so this person wants 0:19:40.440 --> 0:19:44.080 to appeal that determination, but it is being told by 0:19:44.240 --> 0:19:48.120 the federal court that the courts do not have jurisdiction 0:19:48.240 --> 0:19:54.080 to review whether this person lied on their Georgia application 0:19:54.240 --> 0:19:57.240 and whether that was a material lie, whether they mental life, 0:19:57.600 --> 0:19:59.760 or whether it was a mistake. And so that's what 0:19:59.880 --> 0:20:03.639 the case is all about. It did the immigration judge 0:20:03.880 --> 0:20:08.680 make a determination that Patel did lie, because Patel said 0:20:08.680 --> 0:20:12.000 it was a mistake. But it's sort of hard to 0:20:12.160 --> 0:20:16.760 believe that you'd make a mistake about something like that, well, 0:20:16.840 --> 0:20:21.399 so correct. The immigration judge ruled against Patel and said 0:20:21.480 --> 0:20:24.280 that Patel was not in credible in his explanation that 0:20:24.320 --> 0:20:27.000 it was a mistake. But the point is Patel is 0:20:27.040 --> 0:20:31.720 seeking review from the Eleventh Circuit of that decision, saying 0:20:31.720 --> 0:20:35.639 that the Immigration judge was wrong, and the Eleventh Circuit 0:20:35.680 --> 0:20:37.840 Court of Appeal says it does not have the ability 0:20:37.880 --> 0:20:40.760 to review that. But what they said was it's because 0:20:40.960 --> 0:20:45.240 nothing in an adjustment of status application is reviewable, as 0:20:45.280 --> 0:20:48.080 opposed to what Patel argued, which is no, no, no, no no. 0:20:48.600 --> 0:20:53.280 Only the discretionary decision in an adjustment of status application 0:20:53.320 --> 0:20:56.480 are reviewable. We need. What happens is they do two 0:20:56.520 --> 0:21:00.000 steps of an analysis. First, they decide is this person 0:21:00.000 --> 0:21:03.520 and actually legally able to get a green card? And 0:21:03.560 --> 0:21:07.000 then second, even if they are, as a matter of discretion, 0:21:07.040 --> 0:21:09.080 should we give it to them? Maybe they had fifty 0:21:09.200 --> 0:21:13.040 arrets and no conviction, and so even though they're legally 0:21:13.119 --> 0:21:16.000 able to you start asking why did this person have 0:21:16.119 --> 0:21:20.000 fifty arts? Or maybe they are doing some sort of 0:21:20.040 --> 0:21:23.919 other vile thing that's not covered by the grounds of inadmissibility, 0:21:24.359 --> 0:21:27.159 but under your discretion you would deny it. And so 0:21:27.280 --> 0:21:31.480 what the arguments are, both by the government and by 0:21:31.520 --> 0:21:36.159 the Patel is that only that discretion is what's not 0:21:36.320 --> 0:21:40.320 reviewable in the court. But the decisions regarding the factual 0:21:40.560 --> 0:21:44.080 claims in the case and the factual findings, those should 0:21:44.080 --> 0:21:48.160 be reviewable. And so that's what they wanted to review here, 0:21:49.200 --> 0:21:54.120 and so here the Federal government agreed with Patel and 0:21:54.480 --> 0:21:58.199 Council had to be appointed to take the position of 0:21:58.200 --> 0:22:01.920 the Eleventh Circuit correct. And this is actually happened probably 0:22:01.920 --> 0:22:04.399 in the last twenty years, three or four times in 0:22:04.440 --> 0:22:07.119 the immigration the world. But it's interesting. I don't know 0:22:07.160 --> 0:22:10.119 if this happens very often in other worlds, but it 0:22:10.160 --> 0:22:13.280 does happen in the immigration world because what happens is 0:22:13.400 --> 0:22:17.080 it's kind of funny where a four national will be 0:22:17.119 --> 0:22:20.480 placed in removal proceedings and they have sort of don't 0:22:20.560 --> 0:22:25.800 say over um the fact that they're in removal proceedings, 0:22:25.800 --> 0:22:29.840 that it's iOS placing them in removal proceedings, and only 0:22:29.880 --> 0:22:32.840 by the time that the case gets to the Supreme 0:22:32.880 --> 0:22:36.160 Court is it actually working its way through the Department 0:22:36.200 --> 0:22:40.280 of Justice, Solicitor General's office and sort of the scholarly 0:22:40.320 --> 0:22:43.399 attorneys in the world where when they get the decision, 0:22:43.440 --> 0:22:45.919 they say, well, why are we defending this? You know, 0:22:46.200 --> 0:22:49.160 this was a very bizarre position that I took during 0:22:49.160 --> 0:22:52.840 the litig agtion that now we're being asked to defend 0:22:52.840 --> 0:22:55.359 of the Supreme Court. Why are we defending this? And 0:22:55.400 --> 0:22:58.600 so during those times it has happened that the government 0:22:58.640 --> 0:23:03.000 will actually take us side of the litigant, and then 0:23:03.280 --> 0:23:05.560 the court will need to do something in order to 0:23:05.560 --> 0:23:09.119 make sure that the lower courts ruling has someone who 0:23:09.240 --> 0:23:12.879 defended it, and they'll appoint gets to do that. And 0:23:13.040 --> 0:23:15.280 so that's what happened here in this case, and the 0:23:15.600 --> 0:23:19.760 lower federal courts were split on this issue. Right, the 0:23:19.840 --> 0:23:23.280 lower federal courts are split. You have some circuits saying 0:23:24.000 --> 0:23:28.040 that you can review the decisions in an adjustment of 0:23:28.080 --> 0:23:33.080 status application except for the truly discretionary you know, at 0:23:33.119 --> 0:23:35.000 the end, do you give it, do not give it, 0:23:35.160 --> 0:23:37.960 that's the only part that's not reviewable, as opposed to 0:23:38.040 --> 0:23:42.160 the eleven Circuit thing that because there's a discretionary component 0:23:42.400 --> 0:23:45.040 at the end, that means none of it is reviewable. 0:23:45.680 --> 0:23:49.560 And so there were some arguments today in the court about, well, 0:23:49.600 --> 0:23:51.720 in the end, if they can deny him for discretion 0:23:52.080 --> 0:23:54.520 and that's what this judge wants to do. What's the 0:23:54.600 --> 0:23:57.240 kind of matter in the end, But I think the 0:23:57.440 --> 0:24:00.760 court still focused on the fact that because there's this 0:24:01.040 --> 0:24:05.240 presumption of review in the statute, and it really makes 0:24:05.320 --> 0:24:10.280 sense to read it in this kind of bifurcated manner 0:24:10.800 --> 0:24:15.200 where nondiscretionary things like law and facts and everything else 0:24:15.720 --> 0:24:20.840 get review and truly discretionary things don't get review. I 0:24:20.960 --> 0:24:24.080 do think some members of the conservative wing of the 0:24:24.160 --> 0:24:28.119 court see to have that argument register with them. So 0:24:28.240 --> 0:24:32.000 it seems likely that Potel is going to win. Well, 0:24:32.160 --> 0:24:36.160 what it seems likely is he's gonna win to get 0:24:36.400 --> 0:24:40.520