Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio
Speaker 1: the teenage reading and they all faults wished well. You
Speaker 1: can see that Tier did truely love the pa Quentin
Speaker 1: Tarantino film. Pulp Fiction is a cult classic, so it
Speaker 1: got a lot of attention when the filmmaker announced that
Speaker 1: he planned to auction off n f T s from
Speaker 1: the film, including scanned copies of script pages for seven
Speaker 1: scenes that didn't make the final cut. We've taken the
Speaker 1: original pages, digitize the original pages, and like I said,
Speaker 1: they're full of dialogue that was changed, new stop stuff
Speaker 1: that I dropped later. Uh Like for instance, uh, the
Speaker 1: character that Judge Bolt places Vincent for the whole six
Speaker 1: months of write his name was dat. It got unwanted
Speaker 1: attention from Hollywood studio Mirramax, who's trying to stop Tarantino
Speaker 1: from selling the n f T s, suing him for
Speaker 1: breach of contract, copyright and trademark infringement. Joining me is
Speaker 1: Lance Cooon's a partner at Clara's Law. Despite all the
Speaker 1: hype and the millions of dollars, n f T s
Speaker 1: are being sold for a lot of people don't understand
Speaker 1: what they are and why they're so valuable. So, an
Speaker 1: NFC is a non fungible token that's distinguished from a
Speaker 1: fungible token like bitcoin or ether, which are blockchain based
Speaker 1: records that functioned like a dollar or a quarter or
Speaker 1: any other piece of currency in the real world. One
Speaker 1: is exchanged with another and they have the same value
Speaker 1: from no matter which one you have. A non fungible
Speaker 1: token is something that's unique. It's a blockchain record that
Speaker 1: has been created that does not exchange one to one
Speaker 1: with others, but is instead unique. One of the analogies
Speaker 1: I sometimes use is that if you take a penny
Speaker 1: or a quarter, but if the mint were to misprint
Speaker 1: the penny or the quarter, then suddenly you have an
Speaker 1: item that is different from the ref and collectors then
Speaker 1: value those particular misprinted items because of their scarcity. And
Speaker 1: so n f t s are a way to create
Speaker 1: digital scarcity, and what you end up being able to
Speaker 1: do is linked an n FP and non fungible token
Speaker 1: as a record to some other unique digital assets. So
Speaker 1: what exactly is Tarantino trying to sell as an n
Speaker 1: f T. It's not clear from the advertising and the
Speaker 1: promotion that's been done around the n f t sale.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's entirely clear. From the complaint that
Speaker 1: Merrimac filed, it appears to be Tarantino's can written pages
Speaker 1: of scenes from pulp fiction. It's not clear to me
Speaker 1: whether they're all unique in some way. There's also apparently
Speaker 1: commentary that's going to be provided for him that's unique.
Speaker 1: It looks like there may have been a plan, and
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is still true, to do
Speaker 1: some sort of unique artwork as sort of the cover
Speaker 1: of the n f T or the image that goes
Speaker 1: along with it. Mirramax immediately sued. What's the focus of
Speaker 1: the lawsuit? The primary focus is on the language of
Speaker 1: the contract between Tarantino and Mirramax dating back to and
Speaker 1: there was a rights agreement under which Tarantino and Lawrence
Speaker 1: Fender transferred their rights in the film, which I think included,
Speaker 1: you know, all elements and all stages of development production
Speaker 1: to Merrimax. So obviously n f t s were not
Speaker 1: part of anyone's imagination, I don't think. And Tarantino's attorney
Speaker 1: argues that the director was acting within reserved rights, specifically
Speaker 1: the right to screenplay production. In a court of law,
Speaker 1: how will they determine what that is. Typically, a court's
Speaker 1: going to look at the first at the contract language
Speaker 1: itself and determine whether or not the language on its
Speaker 1: face is clear. And if the language is clear, then
Speaker 1: that screenplay publication would cover the creation of n FPS
Speaker 1: around these themes or these script pages, then it would
Speaker 1: fall within his reserved rights, which is probably more likely.
Speaker 1: Here there's at least some question is to exactly what
Speaker 1: that phrase means that a court is going to have
Speaker 1: to look at the things courts look at to determine
Speaker 1: more ambiguous terms in the contract, the course of action
Speaker 1: between the parties, the other language and the contract sort
Speaker 1: of standard in the industry, and so here that I
Speaker 1: think what the court will end up looking at. There
Speaker 1: is a line of cases on new uses of work
Speaker 1: in the copyright world where and we've seen this at
Speaker 1: many junctures when new technology comes into play and you
Speaker 1: know too, contracting parties could not have anticipated in new technology.
Speaker 1: Often those cases come down to how broad the language
Speaker 1: of the grant is and whether the parties can be
Speaker 1: seen to have contracted around sort of anything that comes
Speaker 1: up in the future. And we saw this in cases
Speaker 1: involving digital archives and things like that. So tell us
Speaker 1: about Random House Vio set of books, right, And that's
Speaker 1: exactly you know, one of those cases. And I should
Speaker 1: say that there were cases long before that as well,
Speaker 1: when things moved from television and to feature film and
Speaker 1: things like that and video. But in the Random House
Speaker 1: vias At a book case, the question was whether the
Speaker 1: right to publish in book form and that was the
Speaker 1: language in the contract included electronics e book right. And
Speaker 1: in that particular case, the district court said that the
Speaker 1: language has written was not brought enough to cover of
Speaker 1: the new use, and then they're on appeal. The second
Speaker 1: circuit really sort of set a standard for how a
Speaker 1: fact finder needs to look at the contract language to
Speaker 1: determine whether the new use was contemplated. Now, I will
Speaker 1: say that I'm not entirely sure whether the new use
Speaker 1: cases will come into play that directly in the Merrimac
Speaker 1: Tarantino case, because that case seems to be focused primarily
Speaker 1: on the screenplay publication language as opposed to new uses,
Speaker 1: But it could come up depending how the arguments go.
Speaker 1: What's the main question in the case going to be?
Speaker 1: To my mind, the primary question in this case is
Speaker 1: does the term screenplay publication cover the sale of an
Speaker 1: NFT that is tied to parts of a screenplay. You know, clearly,
Speaker 1: when Tarantino reserved his right to screenplay publication, it meant something.
Speaker 1: It meant that he was reserving the right to do
Speaker 1: something with the screenplays. And you know, I think in
Speaker 1: the normal sense, you would think that probably means taking
Speaker 1: that screenplay and selling copies of the whole screenplay on
Speaker 1: the market and publishing that screenplay to the market. Here,
Speaker 1: it's not clear. I don't believe you know what Tarantino
Speaker 1: is going to be doing with these n fps. It
Speaker 1: looks like that sort of broader publication if you were
Speaker 1: going to sell one or two or ten n f
Speaker 1: p s around a particular set of screenplay pages. But
Speaker 1: I don't know that there's that much precedent yet that
Speaker 1: would tell us what the answer to that question is.
Speaker 1: Maybe you can answer this question that no one else
Speaker 1: has been able to answer for me. In some of
Speaker 1: the auctions involving millions and millions of dollars of digital art,
Speaker 1: in some of those the copyright isn't transferred to the
Speaker 1: purchaser of the n f T, So what does the
Speaker 1: purchaser get the sides bragging rights. In short, it is
Speaker 1: the bragging rights. But I think the best analogy would
Speaker 1: be to the sale of a really valuable piece of
Speaker 1: physical artwork, in the sense that if I paid twenty
Speaker 1: million dollars or sixty nine million dollars for a painting
Speaker 1: and I buy that, I don't get the copyright when
Speaker 1: I purchased that painting. In most cases, I simply get
Speaker 1: that one copy. It may be the original, it may
Speaker 1: be the only or there may be prints made of it,
Speaker 1: and there may be copies everywhere. But when I buy
Speaker 1: that piece of physical artwork, I get that piece of
Speaker 1: physical artwork. There's a doctrine called the first sale doctrine
Speaker 1: under copyright law in the US, which says that in
Speaker 1: the physical world, when I sell something like a copy
Speaker 1: of a book or a or a painting or a
Speaker 1: record album and vinyl, that any copyright interest that the
Speaker 1: seller has in that one in instance of content goes away,
Speaker 1: and the user then has a right to sell that
Speaker 1: copy onward and do whatever they want to with it. Essentially,
Speaker 1: although you couldn't then make another copy of it and
Speaker 1: sell a copy, all you have is the right to
Speaker 1: sell it in a used bookstore and to alienate that
Speaker 1: one copy that you've For people who are going to
Speaker 1: buy or sell n f T s, what should you
Speaker 1: do to ensure that the rights that you think you're
Speaker 1: getting are actually the rights that you are getting right
Speaker 1: And and we advise clients on both sides of this question,
Speaker 1: and I think the short answer is, you need to
Speaker 1: know very clearly what the terms of sale are in
Speaker 1: connection with the particular n f T sale. In some
Speaker 1: market places, that may be something that you'll see in
Speaker 1: the description of the item itself in the sale. In
Speaker 1: some cases you maybe looking to the terms of use
Speaker 1: on the n f T platform website. But you know,
Speaker 1: in either case, whether you're a buyer or a seller,
Speaker 1: you need to be very clear on where those rights
Speaker 1: are found in what those what those terms are. Thanks Lance.
Speaker 1: That's Lance. Coon's a partner at Clara's Law. Former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump lost his appeal to the d C Circuit
Speaker 1: to override President Joe Biden's waver of executive privilege over
Speaker 1: White House records in the January sixth Capital Ride investigation,
Speaker 1: but the Biden administration is siding with Trump and urging
Speaker 1: the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to scuttle a defamation
Speaker 1: lawsuit brought by advice columnist E Jean Carroll after Carol
Speaker 1: went public with her allegation that Trump sexually assaulted her
Speaker 1: in a New York department store dressing room two decades ago.
Speaker 1: Trump said she was quote totally lying and not my type.
Speaker 1: Judge Denny Chin appeared skeptical that Trump's words fell within
Speaker 1: his duties as a government employee, as he questioned Trump's
Speaker 1: lawyer Elena Habba, who is he serving when when he
Speaker 1: says something like she's not my type? He was? That
Speaker 1: is he serving the United States of America when he
Speaker 1: makes that statement? Absolutely, because he has to address the
Speaker 1: fact that this could not and would not have happened.
Speaker 1: He did not do it. Not It was the one
Speaker 1: thing if he said I didn't do it. But but
Speaker 1: he goes way beyond that. Joining me is Eric Lawson,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg News legal reporter Eric. Many were surprised with Biden's
Speaker 1: Justice Department siding with Trump. Yeah, I think when Biden
Speaker 1: was elected, a lot of people who were watching this
Speaker 1: attempted d J intervention sort of assumed that if this
Speaker 1: would be one of the many Trump policy decisions that
Speaker 1: would be reversed by the new administration, So it was
Speaker 1: kind of a big surprise when the Biden administration said
Speaker 1: we actually side with Trump. They said, we don't agree
Speaker 1: with what Trump said, but his denying of Ms. Carroll's
Speaker 1: claims were made as part of his job duties, and
Speaker 1: therefore he's protected by this law. It's called the west
Speaker 1: Ball Act, which protect government employees from litigation related to
Speaker 1: their job. And the Justice Department's lawyer said, Trump made
Speaker 1: offensive comments in response to very serious allegations of sexual assault.
Speaker 1: I'm not here to defend or justify them, but how
Speaker 1: did he divorce the comments from the defense of the comments?
Speaker 1: To the Justice Department, they sort of boiled it down
Speaker 1: to Trump was denying an allegation made against him, so
Speaker 1: the press was asking him about the allegations. He was
Speaker 1: responding in his own special way. So the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: based on their papers, they're looking at it as just
Speaker 1: protecting the office of the presidency, as often the d
Speaker 1: o J does in terms of being able to protect
Speaker 1: any president's right, in their view, to deny allegations like
Speaker 1: this without the threat of being too for defamation. Trump's
Speaker 1: lawyer referred to Kyle written Wilson asked, what are we
Speaker 1: going to do if Kyle Rittenhouse sue's President Biden for
Speaker 1: calling him a white supremacist? Right, And I actually was
Speaker 1: not too surprised that she brought that up because it
Speaker 1: was sort of a current events comparison That was actually
Speaker 1: kind of a good one come in a way, because
Speaker 1: after Kyle Rittenhouse shot and killed two protesters in the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter rally last year in Commosha, Wisconsin, and
Speaker 1: injured a third. In the aftermath of that, Biden put
Speaker 1: out a campaign video that Rittenhouses then lawyers suggested that
Speaker 1: Rittenhouse was a white supremacist and threatened defamation lawsuit against Biden,
Speaker 1: which never actually ended up happening, but it did raise
Speaker 1: the prospect of what would happen if he had been
Speaker 1: to in It's sort of a similar argument there, right,
Speaker 1: Trump said, She's not my type. That is the part
Speaker 1: of the statement that's offensive. Is it that he denied
Speaker 1: it at all, or is it the offensive nature of it?
Speaker 1: How are they parsing that statement? Well, that's a good question,
Speaker 1: because that did come up in the court hearing and
Speaker 1: it got a little bit confusing at times. But I
Speaker 1: did clarify with mis Carroll's legal team afterwards that they
Speaker 1: do absolutely stand by the argument of even the denial
Speaker 1: itself was defamation, because the denial implies that she was
Speaker 1: lying the additional parts of him claiming that she's not
Speaker 1: his type, and that she was making these claims just
Speaker 1: to sell a book, and that sort of thing does
Speaker 1: make it more difficult, in Carol's view, to tie the
Speaker 1: denial to the president's job duties. So that's why they
Speaker 1: were parting that. But they say that the denial itself
Speaker 1: was defination. Listen to what Judge Guido Calabrisi said about
Speaker 1: presidents in general. The fact is that the president often
Speaker 1: has done things which goes long for all for purposes
Speaker 1: of the presidency. Almost every president has done it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's impossible to really get into a judge's head, but
Speaker 1: it does kind of hint at how at least that
Speaker 1: judge was thinking that there's always been a wide latitude
Speaker 1: for presidents behave in a certain way. You know. He
Speaker 1: went on to point out that the big outlier and
Speaker 1: this type of behavior would be like Nixon lying for
Speaker 1: his own personal benefit rather than to protect the office
Speaker 1: of the presidency, and that that rises to level of impeachment,
Speaker 1: you know, and then he said something along the lines
Speaker 1: that that's a higher part to reach the decision here.
Speaker 1: If it goes against Carol, it's more than just losing emotion.
Speaker 1: The case would be lost. That's correct. If the Justice
Speaker 1: Department prevails here and is able to substitute itself for
Speaker 1: Trump as defendant in the case, then essentially the case
Speaker 1: will be dismissed because you can't sue the federal governments
Speaker 1: the defamation. So the west Fal Act has been applied
Speaker 1: to Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, so
Speaker 1: the last three presidents. It seems to be invoked a lot, yes,
Speaker 1: and even against Hillary Clinton and Senator Elizabeth Warren and
Speaker 1: other members of Congresses. It's actually used fairly frequently, and
Speaker 1: even in some defination cases. I believe there was one
Speaker 1: to to get Elizabeth Warren over something that she said
Speaker 1: from about someone in an interview, and that case never
Speaker 1: made it to trial. It was dismissed under the west
Speaker 1: Ball Act. Thanks Eric, that's Bloomberg Legal reporter. Eric Lawson,
Speaker 1: an Indian national who has lived in the US nearly
Speaker 1: thirty years, wants to take another shot at arguing that
Speaker 1: he isn't precluded from seeking a green card because he
Speaker 1: falsely said he was a US citizen while getting a
Speaker 1: driver's license in Georgia, and the Supreme Court justices seemed
Speaker 1: likely to side with him. Joining me is Leon Fresco,
Speaker 1: a partner at Hollandon Knight. What's the process for getting
Speaker 1: a green card? Well, the process for getting a green
Speaker 1: card depends on whether you're inside the United States or
Speaker 1: outside the United States. But let's just take for the
Speaker 1: purposes of this gate that's before the Supreme Court. There's
Speaker 1: a two step process if you're inside the United States
Speaker 1: called adjustment of status, and they're What you usually do
Speaker 1: is you file one application that says, I'm ela mole
Speaker 1: for the visa I'm asking for whether it's an employment
Speaker 1: visa or a family visa. And then at the same
Speaker 1: time you file an application called an adjustment of status application,
Speaker 1: which says, and by the way, I'm not ineligible because
Speaker 1: of a ground of inadmissibility that would apply against me.
Speaker 1: And so there's about fifty grounds of inadmissibility in the
Speaker 1: Immigration Code that if you did any of those things wrong,
Speaker 1: even if you are eligible for the visa because you
Speaker 1: are the right kind of relative or you do have
Speaker 1: the right kind of employer petitioning for you, it wouldn't matter.
Speaker 1: You still couldn't get the Green card. And so this
Speaker 1: supre Court case is about that second process, the adjustment
Speaker 1: of status process, and whether someone can appeal the decision
Speaker 1: that they're inadmissible a k a. Ineligible for adjustment of
Speaker 1: status for whatever reason the Immigration Service has stayed they're
Speaker 1: inadmissible for So tell us about the case before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, which involves a citizen of India who has
Speaker 1: been living here for thirty years. Correct, this is a
Speaker 1: citizen of India who has lived in the United States
Speaker 1: for thirty years, and they're married and have three children.
Speaker 1: And this individual apply for a relief called TO forty
Speaker 1: five I, which was something that existed before two thousand
Speaker 1: and one, which for you know, you could use the
Speaker 1: word legalization or amnesty or whatever, but it was a
Speaker 1: program that allowed people who didn't have legal status to
Speaker 1: regularize their legal status if they have a proper employer
Speaker 1: or a proper family member petitioning for them, even if
Speaker 1: they had been in unlawful status at the time of
Speaker 1: their application. And so this person goes through the process
Speaker 1: but gets denied because they said that this person had
Speaker 1: what's called the grounds of an admissibility for false claim
Speaker 1: for US citizens. And what that means is if a
Speaker 1: person who's not a U. S citizens ever state in
Speaker 1: any way, shape or formed that they're U. S. Citizens,
Speaker 1: that's pretty much the worst thing you could do in
Speaker 1: the immigration code that banns you from everything. And in
Speaker 1: this case, they said that this person marked yes in
Speaker 1: response to a Georgia driver's license application question that asked
Speaker 1: are you a US citizen? And so the Immigration Service
Speaker 1: here actually denies this person's application and state that this
Speaker 1: person can't get a green card because they lied about
Speaker 1: being a U. S. Citizen. And so this person wants
Speaker 1: to appeal that determination, but it is being told by
Speaker 1: the federal court that the courts do not have jurisdiction
Speaker 1: to review whether this person lied on their Georgia application
Speaker 1: and whether that was a material lie, whether they mental life,
Speaker 1: or whether it was a mistake. And so that's what
Speaker 1: the case is all about. It did the immigration judge
Speaker 1: make a determination that Patel did lie, because Patel said
Speaker 1: it was a mistake. But it's sort of hard to
Speaker 1: believe that you'd make a mistake about something like that, well,
Speaker 1: so correct. The immigration judge ruled against Patel and said
Speaker 1: that Patel was not in credible in his explanation that
Speaker 1: it was a mistake. But the point is Patel is
Speaker 1: seeking review from the Eleventh Circuit of that decision, saying
Speaker 1: that the Immigration judge was wrong, and the Eleventh Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeal says it does not have the ability
Speaker 1: to review that. But what they said was it's because
Speaker 1: nothing in an adjustment of status application is reviewable, as
Speaker 1: opposed to what Patel argued, which is no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 1: Only the discretionary decision in an adjustment of status application
Speaker 1: are reviewable. We need. What happens is they do two
Speaker 1: steps of an analysis. First, they decide is this person
Speaker 1: and actually legally able to get a green card? And
Speaker 1: then second, even if they are, as a matter of discretion,
Speaker 1: should we give it to them? Maybe they had fifty
Speaker 1: arrets and no conviction, and so even though they're legally
Speaker 1: able to you start asking why did this person have
Speaker 1: fifty arts? Or maybe they are doing some sort of
Speaker 1: other vile thing that's not covered by the grounds of inadmissibility,
Speaker 1: but under your discretion you would deny it. And so
Speaker 1: what the arguments are, both by the government and by
Speaker 1: the Patel is that only that discretion is what's not
Speaker 1: reviewable in the court. But the decisions regarding the factual
Speaker 1: claims in the case and the factual findings, those should
Speaker 1: be reviewable. And so that's what they wanted to review here,
Speaker 1: and so here the Federal government agreed with Patel and
Speaker 1: Council had to be appointed to take the position of
Speaker 1: the Eleventh Circuit correct. And this is actually happened probably
Speaker 1: in the last twenty years, three or four times in
Speaker 1: the immigration the world. But it's interesting. I don't know
Speaker 1: if this happens very often in other worlds, but it
Speaker 1: does happen in the immigration world because what happens is
Speaker 1: it's kind of funny where a four national will be
Speaker 1: placed in removal proceedings and they have sort of don't
Speaker 1: say over um the fact that they're in removal proceedings,
Speaker 1: that it's iOS placing them in removal proceedings, and only
Speaker 1: by the time that the case gets to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is it actually working its way through the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, Solicitor General's office and sort of the scholarly
Speaker 1: attorneys in the world where when they get the decision,
Speaker 1: they say, well, why are we defending this? You know,
Speaker 1: this was a very bizarre position that I took during
Speaker 1: the litig agtion that now we're being asked to defend
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court. Why are we defending this? And
Speaker 1: so during those times it has happened that the government
Speaker 1: will actually take us side of the litigant, and then
Speaker 1: the court will need to do something in order to
Speaker 1: make sure that the lower courts ruling has someone who
Speaker 1: defended it, and they'll appoint gets to do that. And
Speaker 1: so that's what happened here in this case, and the
Speaker 1: lower federal courts were split on this issue. Right, the
Speaker 1: lower federal courts are split. You have some circuits saying
Speaker 1: that you can review the decisions in an adjustment of
Speaker 1: status application except for the truly discretionary you know, at
Speaker 1: the end, do you give it, do not give it,
Speaker 1: that's the only part that's not reviewable, as opposed to
Speaker 1: the eleven Circuit thing that because there's a discretionary component
Speaker 1: at the end, that means none of it is reviewable.
Speaker 1: And so there were some arguments today in the court about, well,
Speaker 1: in the end, if they can deny him for discretion
Speaker 1: and that's what this judge wants to do. What's the
Speaker 1: kind of matter in the end, But I think the
Speaker 1: court still focused on the fact that because there's this
Speaker 1: presumption of review in the statute, and it really makes
Speaker 1: sense to read it in this kind of bifurcated manner
Speaker 1: where nondiscretionary things like law and facts and everything else
Speaker 1: get review and truly discretionary things don't get review. I
Speaker 1: do think some members of the conservative wing of the
Speaker 1: court see to have that argument register with them. So
Speaker 1: it seems likely that Potel is going to win. Well,
Speaker 1: what it seems likely is he's gonna win to get
Speaker 1: review of the decision. That does not mean Patel, in
Speaker 1: the end of the day, is going to get a
Speaker 1: green card, because if the lower court found him not
Speaker 1: credible as to his actual why he clicked on the
Speaker 1: citizenship part for his driver's license, it's going to be
Speaker 1: a hard flog in the Court of Appeals because the
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals doesn't have the benefit of the credibility
Speaker 1: determinations that are being made in the lower court. They
Speaker 1: can't as the individual or any of that. So those
Speaker 1: are historically hard decisions to overturn, but at least a
Speaker 1: larger legal principle will withstand this eleventh circuit attack so
Speaker 1: that people who need this review, who actually can win,
Speaker 1: will be able to win moving forward. That was what
Speaker 1: seemed strange to me here, because you have someone on
Speaker 1: a trial judge level. Let's say, when the trial judge
Speaker 1: makes certain determinations of fact, the appeals court can't really
Speaker 1: review those determinations. So if you have a tr judge
Speaker 1: you're making a determination that he was incredible, what kind
Speaker 1: of information would you present to an appeals court to
Speaker 1: show he was credible? Right, You would have to say,
Speaker 1: basically that no reasonable lawmaker would have found that conclusion
Speaker 1: based on what was submitted to them, And very rarely
Speaker 1: are you going to meet that. In the immigration world,
Speaker 1: where you do see this happen on occasion, and it's sad,
Speaker 1: but it's true, is where sometimes the actual judges on
Speaker 1: the immigration court will verbally express such an anti immigrant
Speaker 1: viewpoint towards this individual in the case that then people
Speaker 1: start to question the objectivity of the actual judge in
Speaker 1: the case. They will say things that are completely inappropriate
Speaker 1: during the course of the litigation that isn't even like
Speaker 1: politically correct inappropriate. It's stuff that anybody would say, don't
Speaker 1: saying judge would say something like this during during a hearing,
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. So sometimes like that you will
Speaker 1: see it reverse. But other than that, you're correct, you
Speaker 1: very rarely see it reverse. So how many people would
Speaker 1: this affect to this decision of the Supreme Court? They
Speaker 1: asked this question a bunch of times during the argument,
Speaker 1: and nobody could seek to tell. And there was this belief, well, look,
Speaker 1: if they're about a hundred thousands of these cases a
Speaker 1: year and there's about a seven percent get granted, how
Speaker 1: many people could this actually be? Is it a thousand?
Speaker 1: And the point is we don't know. And also there's
Speaker 1: a lot of people who may not file an appeal
Speaker 1: because they thought they were foreclosed from doing this. But
Speaker 1: even if it's a few thousand people a year, those
Speaker 1: are a few thousand people a year that would have
Speaker 1: that lifeline that wouldn't have it in the court rules
Speaker 1: against them. There there is sometimes and I don't know
Speaker 1: if it happened here, but definitely sometimes, and these states
Speaker 1: that have automatic motor voter registration, you will see a
Speaker 1: situation where a foreign national will sign up for a
Speaker 1: driver's license and they'll automatically get signed up to vote,
Speaker 1: and then they've got to untangle that they didn't ask
Speaker 1: for that. So in this kind of case, it will
Speaker 1: be very useful to have that review in case there's
Speaker 1: a lot of confusion about what happened. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: think that's what happened in this particular case, but those
Speaker 1: motor voter situations are not that com So I want
Speaker 1: to turn to two bigger issues. How many of the
Speaker 1: Trump immigration policy decisions is the Biden administration following Well,
Speaker 1: The main one that we're seeing now, and if that
Speaker 1: being done on purpose, but it's being done because the
Speaker 1: court is requiring them to do it, is this concept
Speaker 1: of remain in Mexico. And this concept of romain in
Speaker 1: Mexico is fascinating now because the entire purpose of revoking
Speaker 1: the Remain in Mexico policy was the Biden administration's memorandum
Speaker 1: stating that there's no way to do this in a
Speaker 1: humane manner. And so now what's interesting is as they're
Speaker 1: being forced implemented, and they're actually implementing it with Lingal
Speaker 1: counc and with the International Organization of Migration helping secure
Speaker 1: safety for people in Mexico and all the kinds of
Speaker 1: things that they're doing because they're concerned about socifety of
Speaker 1: the people in this It is potentially going to be
Speaker 1: a very interesting thing to see in the court. It's
Speaker 1: sort of all of these human rights elements that are
Speaker 1: being implemented as part of remain in Mexical will actually
Speaker 1: undermine the argument now in courts such as it will
Speaker 1: essentially be a no good deed goes unpunished situation, and
Speaker 1: now it will be impossible to revoke the Remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico policy because the court can say, you see, there
Speaker 1: is a humane way to do this the way you're
Speaker 1: doing it, so why do you need to revoke the policy?
Speaker 1: And so this is gonna be a very interesting thing
Speaker 1: to watch moving forward. And as the Biden administration still
Speaker 1: using the COVID excuse for not except using yeah, they're
Speaker 1: still using Title forty two in cases where they're single adults,
Speaker 1: and those single adults are still working in their way
Speaker 1: into the system and they don't have any sort of
Speaker 1: equities for why they would be paroled or light into
Speaker 1: the country. And I think you will see that until
Speaker 1: the lifting in its totality of the COVID National Emergency
Speaker 1: which hasn't been listed yet, So you still have this
Speaker 1: COVID national emergency, and I think until you see that
Speaker 1: get lifted, you're still gonna see at least some number
Speaker 1: of people be excluded under the Title forty two authorities.
Speaker 1: So I haven't heard that much in the last few
Speaker 1: weeks about the numbers of illegal immigrants coming into the country.
Speaker 1: Has that subsided a little? Sure? Well, those numbers are
Speaker 1: lower and they have subsided, and that's because this isn't
Speaker 1: usually the time of year. There's sort of three things
Speaker 1: going on at the same time. One, this isn't usually
Speaker 1: the time of year where you see surges. Even in
Speaker 1: Texas it actually gets quite cold, uh, and so people
Speaker 1: don't usually start coming in December November during that time period.
Speaker 1: So you do see, uh, those numbers slipping, and they
Speaker 1: for three consecutive months now. But also the fact that
Speaker 1: people are still being subjected to Title forty two and
Speaker 1: now the remaining Mexical policy does mean you're going to
Speaker 1: start seeing these numbers the GRIP. Thanks for being on
Speaker 1: the show. Leon. That's Leon Fresco, a partner at hollanden Knight.
Speaker 1: And that's if in this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,
Speaker 1: and please join us every weeknight at ten pm Wall
Speaker 1: Street Time for the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg