1
00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:20,239
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Trump administration

6
00:00:20,280 --> 00:00:23,360
Speaker 1: suffered a string of immigration defeats in the federal courts

7
00:00:23,440 --> 00:00:27,880
Speaker 1: last Friday, preventing the administration from enforcing new immigration policies.

8
00:00:28,360 --> 00:00:31,320
Speaker 1: In d C, a federal judge stopped the Trump administration

9
00:00:31,440 --> 00:00:36,800
Speaker 1: from fast tracking deportation of undocumented immigrants. In Los Angeles,

10
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:39,600
Speaker 1: a federal judge denied the administration's attempt to end a

11
00:00:39,720 --> 00:00:42,960
Speaker 1: twenty two year old agreement that limits how long migrant

12
00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:46,800
Speaker 1: children can be held in detention. Also on Friday, another

13
00:00:46,840 --> 00:00:50,120
Speaker 1: federal judge in l A blocked ICE from relying only

14
00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:54,640
Speaker 1: on databases when issuing detainers. Joining me is David Beer,

15
00:00:54,680 --> 00:00:59,880
Speaker 1: immigration policy analyst at Cato Institute. David let's discuss exped

16
00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:04,479
Speaker 1: i removal. First explain how the Trump administration's plan would

17
00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:08,360
Speaker 1: have expanded what's allowed now, well right now, If people

18
00:01:08,400 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 1: are apprehended crossing the border or at a port of entry,

19
00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:15,959
Speaker 1: they can be removed from the United States simply based

20
00:01:16,000 --> 00:01:20,399
Speaker 1: on the say so of whoever apprehended them. The immigration agent,

21
00:01:20,959 --> 00:01:23,720
Speaker 1: the Border patrol can send people back to their home

22
00:01:23,720 --> 00:01:29,680
Speaker 1: countries or to Mexico without going to the immigration courts

23
00:01:29,760 --> 00:01:33,319
Speaker 1: to obtain a removal order for that person. So this

24
00:01:33,400 --> 00:01:37,679
Speaker 1: process is incredibly rapid iman it can happen in minutes,

25
00:01:38,080 --> 00:01:40,920
Speaker 1: you know, in some cases. So that's what we call

26
00:01:41,040 --> 00:01:45,720
Speaker 1: expediting removal. Formal removal, on the other hand, requires them

27
00:01:45,760 --> 00:01:48,400
Speaker 1: to go and present evidence that the person is in

28
00:01:48,440 --> 00:01:52,200
Speaker 1: the country illegally, that they violated the immigration laws, and

29
00:01:52,880 --> 00:01:56,080
Speaker 1: in addition that they've been in the country for more

30
00:01:56,120 --> 00:01:59,200
Speaker 1: than two weeks. So essentially, anyone who's been in the

31
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:02,240
Speaker 1: country from less in two weeks and is apprehended out

32
00:02:02,240 --> 00:02:04,800
Speaker 1: of port of entry or within a hundred miles of

33
00:02:04,800 --> 00:02:08,520
Speaker 1: the border can be subject to that expedited removal. The

34
00:02:08,680 --> 00:02:11,240
Speaker 1: alternative to that, like I said, is going to the

35
00:02:11,240 --> 00:02:15,480
Speaker 1: immigration court to obtain a formal order of removal that

36
00:02:15,600 --> 00:02:18,480
Speaker 1: would require them to go to their home country. And

37
00:02:18,560 --> 00:02:22,120
Speaker 1: so this rule is really about making it possible to

38
00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:27,240
Speaker 1: use expdited removal against anyone inside the United States anywhere,

39
00:02:27,320 --> 00:02:31,560
Speaker 1: no matter where they're apprehended if they cannot prove that

40
00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:34,800
Speaker 1: they've been in the country for at least two years.

41
00:02:34,880 --> 00:02:37,400
Speaker 1: So you'd have to figure out how to prove that

42
00:02:37,480 --> 00:02:39,360
Speaker 1: you've been in the country for at least that long

43
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:42,480
Speaker 1: in order to then be able to take their case

44
00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:46,200
Speaker 1: to an immigration course. So the judge issued a preliminary

45
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:51,120
Speaker 1: injunction in a hundred and twenty six page decision or memorandum.

46
00:02:51,320 --> 00:02:54,200
Speaker 1: Just briefly tell us what the main basis for her

47
00:02:54,240 --> 00:02:59,359
Speaker 1: decision was. Well, the biggest basis is that the administrative

48
00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:03,519
Speaker 1: procedure typically requires the public to have input into the

49
00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:08,320
Speaker 1: rulemaking process by allowing them to comment on a decision

50
00:03:08,320 --> 00:03:13,080
Speaker 1: before it goes final. In this case, essentially, the administration said,

51
00:03:13,200 --> 00:03:15,480
Speaker 1: we don't need to do this. It's an emergency. We

52
00:03:15,560 --> 00:03:18,480
Speaker 1: have to put out this rule without taking into accountingy

53
00:03:18,520 --> 00:03:23,200
Speaker 1: of the public's input. And the judge really rebuffed that

54
00:03:23,400 --> 00:03:26,240
Speaker 1: idea that this is an emergency, that they had to

55
00:03:26,320 --> 00:03:30,360
Speaker 1: do this right now without taking into account the public's

56
00:03:30,480 --> 00:03:33,280
Speaker 1: views on the issue. Let's turn to the l A

57
00:03:33,400 --> 00:03:37,440
Speaker 1: decision which involved that twenty two year old agreement, the

58
00:03:37,440 --> 00:03:41,160
Speaker 1: Flora Settlement. Explain what the judge did there. Well, the

59
00:03:41,280 --> 00:03:48,000
Speaker 1: Flora settlement requires the government to either detain children in

60
00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:55,480
Speaker 1: state licensed facilities or to release them to responsible sponsors

61
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:58,880
Speaker 1: in the United States, or at least put them in

62
00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:04,800
Speaker 1: non prison like settings, so when foster care or shelters

63
00:04:04,840 --> 00:04:08,320
Speaker 1: that are not run like a prison. And really the

64
00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:12,280
Speaker 1: reason for this is initially the case developed out of

65
00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:16,279
Speaker 1: a young girl who was apprehended at the border and

66
00:04:16,400 --> 00:04:20,520
Speaker 1: basically put into an adult prison where she was stripped,

67
00:04:20,560 --> 00:04:25,120
Speaker 1: search and treated like any other prisoner. And essentially the

68
00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:28,799
Speaker 1: agreement that has come to in the said that's inappropriate.

69
00:04:28,920 --> 00:04:31,800
Speaker 1: You have to take into account the best interests of

70
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:36,480
Speaker 1: the child. And what the judge said was these regulations

71
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:39,359
Speaker 1: that the administration have rolled out which require them to

72
00:04:39,400 --> 00:04:43,360
Speaker 1: detain children indefinitely and allow them to use prison like

73
00:04:43,520 --> 00:04:47,719
Speaker 1: settings in order to detain them without seeking state licensing

74
00:04:48,040 --> 00:04:52,520
Speaker 1: for essentially holding children. By waiving those requirements, they had

75
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:57,920
Speaker 1: violated the terms of the agreement, and therefore the regulations

76
00:04:58,120 --> 00:05:01,080
Speaker 1: have violated the law. At the district court level, the

77
00:05:01,080 --> 00:05:03,960
Speaker 1: Trump administration has had a lot of losses in the

78
00:05:04,000 --> 00:05:07,800
Speaker 1: immigration area, but many of these are likely to go

79
00:05:07,839 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court, which has already allowed the Trump

80
00:05:11,000 --> 00:05:16,680
Speaker 1: administration to proceed with immigration policies until the case is decided.

81
00:05:17,279 --> 00:05:19,760
Speaker 1: Is the Supreme Court likely to rule the way the

82
00:05:19,800 --> 00:05:23,599
Speaker 1: district courts are It's case dependent. In some cases, the

83
00:05:23,760 --> 00:05:27,440
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has gone against the administration on the initial

84
00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:31,520
Speaker 1: been on asylum, for example, for people who had crossed

85
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:36,480
Speaker 1: and legally, the Supreme Court actually had held that initial injunction.

86
00:05:37,040 --> 00:05:41,920
Speaker 1: A later iteration with different criteria, they reverse course and

87
00:05:41,960 --> 00:05:44,479
Speaker 1: allowed it to go into effect. So we have seen

88
00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:47,159
Speaker 1: a little bit of equivocation on the Supreme Court depending

89
00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:51,719
Speaker 1: on the specifics of each individual case. So I wouldn't

90
00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:55,960
Speaker 1: just say automatically that the Supreme Court will instantly reverse this.

91
00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:59,840
Speaker 1: At a minimum, this will delay the administration's plans for

92
00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:03,360
Speaker 1: months now. The White House said in a statement on

93
00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 1: Saturday that once again a single district judge has suspended

94
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:11,479
Speaker 1: application of federal law nationwide, which has been something that

95
00:06:11,520 --> 00:06:14,880
Speaker 1: they have complained about before. Is that likely to cause

96
00:06:15,520 --> 00:06:18,719
Speaker 1: a problem as these decisions go to the federal circuit

97
00:06:18,760 --> 00:06:22,760
Speaker 1: courts of appeals? Well, the the administration says this anytime

98
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:26,080
Speaker 1: anything they want to do is struck down, that they

99
00:06:26,120 --> 00:06:29,560
Speaker 1: say the law is being suspended, but it's really their

100
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:33,279
Speaker 1: regulation that's being suspended. The law as it existed prior

101
00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:37,400
Speaker 1: to the last month will continue, and so the administration

102
00:06:37,560 --> 00:06:39,520
Speaker 1: will still be able to enforce the law as it

103
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:45,080
Speaker 1: existed then, and nothing in this decision or any of

104
00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:49,320
Speaker 1: these decisions prevent them from enforcing immigration law against people

105
00:06:49,320 --> 00:06:51,680
Speaker 1: in the country illegally. You don't think there is any

106
00:06:51,760 --> 00:06:56,120
Speaker 1: kind of a problem with nationwide injunctions. I mean, it's

107
00:06:56,480 --> 00:06:59,839
Speaker 1: it's ultimately a question for the courts, you know. I

108
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:02,640
Speaker 1: imagine that the Supreme Court might roll that back and

109
00:07:03,080 --> 00:07:06,359
Speaker 1: limit the scope of those injunctions. All right, Thank you

110
00:07:06,440 --> 00:07:10,240
Speaker 1: so much, David. That's David Beer, immigration policy analyst at

111
00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:15,720
Speaker 1: the Cato Institute. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

112
00:07:16,080 --> 00:07:20,120
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

113
00:07:20,200 --> 00:07:24,120
Speaker 1: and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

114
00:07:24,560 --> 00:07:25,880
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg