1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:11,760
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can indefinitely

3
00:00:11,800 --> 00:00:15,360
Speaker 1: detain certain immigrants who re entered the country illegally and

4
00:00:15,400 --> 00:00:18,759
Speaker 1: say they'll face persecution or torture if they're deported to

5
00:00:18,760 --> 00:00:21,520
Speaker 1: their native countries. In a six or three decision down

6
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:25,000
Speaker 1: audiological lines, the Court held that the immigrants are not

7
00:00:25,200 --> 00:00:27,840
Speaker 1: entitled to a hearing about whether they should be released

8
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:31,160
Speaker 1: while their cases work their way through the system. Joining

9
00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:34,360
Speaker 1: me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight Leon.

10
00:00:34,440 --> 00:00:38,680
Speaker 1: Who are the immigrants? This decision concerns, Well, the group

11
00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:42,680
Speaker 1: is actually small in terms of written large the amount

12
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:45,360
Speaker 1: of people that come to the border, but in a

13
00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:49,159
Speaker 1: border certain situation could end up being actually a significant

14
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:52,000
Speaker 1: number of people. And that's because it's the group of

15
00:00:52,040 --> 00:00:55,440
Speaker 1: people who have been deported any time in the past

16
00:00:56,120 --> 00:00:58,480
Speaker 1: and who seeks to come back and re enter the

17
00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: United States. I've or they've been ordered deported and asked

18
00:01:03,560 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 1: for not asylum because they're not eligible for asylum, but

19
00:01:07,959 --> 00:01:12,800
Speaker 1: basically a release from a second deportation called withholding of

20
00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:15,959
Speaker 1: removal that says that the country that they're a citizen

21
00:01:16,080 --> 00:01:19,440
Speaker 1: from is so dangerous that they will be persecuted there.

22
00:01:20,040 --> 00:01:23,920
Speaker 1: So why aren't they eligible for asylum? Well, what happens

23
00:01:24,040 --> 00:01:28,000
Speaker 1: is you're only eligible for asylum, which is a specific

24
00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:30,720
Speaker 1: type of relief that actually gives you a pass to

25
00:01:30,840 --> 00:01:34,280
Speaker 1: citizenship in the United States if you apply for it

26
00:01:34,760 --> 00:01:38,360
Speaker 1: when you first enter the United States and are not

27
00:01:38,600 --> 00:01:43,760
Speaker 1: ordered deported. But if you've been ordered deported previously and

28
00:01:43,880 --> 00:01:49,680
Speaker 1: try to re enter illegally and are apprehended re entering illegally,

29
00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:54,120
Speaker 1: then you're not eligible for asylum. You're only eligible for

30
00:01:54,360 --> 00:01:58,760
Speaker 1: something called withholding of removal, which serves the same purpose

31
00:01:58,840 --> 00:02:01,440
Speaker 1: as asylum, and that which is that you don't get

32
00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:04,600
Speaker 1: supported to the country you're afraid of being deported to.

33
00:02:05,120 --> 00:02:08,160
Speaker 1: But does that give you a path to citizenship? You're

34
00:02:08,280 --> 00:02:14,160
Speaker 1: only in America in lux until such time as the

35
00:02:14,200 --> 00:02:16,760
Speaker 1: crisis in your country is over. Not for some people

36
00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:19,360
Speaker 1: that ends up being the rest of their lives, but

37
00:02:19,440 --> 00:02:22,640
Speaker 1: other people could be removed if the situation changes in

38
00:02:22,680 --> 00:02:26,760
Speaker 1: their country. All right, So tell us about the majority opinions.

39
00:02:26,880 --> 00:02:30,160
Speaker 1: So this case is a difficult case because it's a

40
00:02:30,240 --> 00:02:34,359
Speaker 1: case about when someone goes through this process of re

41
00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:38,840
Speaker 1: entering the United States. Are they allowed to have bob

42
00:02:39,040 --> 00:02:42,200
Speaker 1: meaning do they have to stay in detention during the

43
00:02:42,200 --> 00:02:45,280
Speaker 1: whole time that they're asking for this withholding of removal

44
00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:48,440
Speaker 1: release or will they be you know, will they be

45
00:02:49,160 --> 00:02:51,720
Speaker 1: are able to ask for bond and be released on

46
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:54,680
Speaker 1: conditions of release or could they be detained for up

47
00:02:54,720 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 1: to one year or two years while they're asking for release.

48
00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:03,559
Speaker 1: And so all of the administrations, including the Biden administration,

49
00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:06,640
Speaker 1: so you have Obama, you have Trump, that you have Biden,

50
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:10,400
Speaker 1: have said that in this group of people who is

51
00:03:10,520 --> 00:03:15,680
Speaker 1: re entering the United States, they're subject to detention under

52
00:03:15,720 --> 00:03:20,440
Speaker 1: a statute that says, when we're trying to deport a

53
00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 1: person who's already been ordered deported, we are allowed to

54
00:03:25,400 --> 00:03:29,320
Speaker 1: detain them without fonds. That's been the position of the

55
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:35,560
Speaker 1: last three administrations. The litigant position, the the non citizens said, know,

56
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:40,520
Speaker 1: what we're subject to is a detention provision that applies

57
00:03:40,560 --> 00:03:44,040
Speaker 1: to people who are going through brand new proceedings, because

58
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:46,680
Speaker 1: that's what we're going through is brand new proceedings when

59
00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:49,920
Speaker 1: we've re entered, and in those brand new proceedings, you're

60
00:03:49,960 --> 00:03:52,800
Speaker 1: allowed to apply for Biden. So there had been a

61
00:03:52,840 --> 00:03:57,840
Speaker 1: circuit split some circuits that said, the provision that applies

62
00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:00,880
Speaker 1: to people who have already been deported is what applies,

63
00:04:00,920 --> 00:04:03,680
Speaker 1: and other people said, so this is a new proceeding.

64
00:04:04,200 --> 00:04:07,960
Speaker 1: So uh, the conservative justices of the Supreme Courts that

65
00:04:08,120 --> 00:04:13,120
Speaker 1: six So the six to three decisions ruled that in fact,

66
00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:19,680
Speaker 1: the Obama Trump Biden position was correct, and that the

67
00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:22,920
Speaker 1: detensive statute that applies to people who have already been

68
00:04:23,080 --> 00:04:27,120
Speaker 1: ordered deported applied to this group that re enters after

69
00:04:27,200 --> 00:04:31,039
Speaker 1: they've been deported, but that they can be detained for

70
00:04:31,320 --> 00:04:34,839
Speaker 1: the entirety of these proceedings, even if they take one

71
00:04:34,920 --> 00:04:39,000
Speaker 1: year or two years. They can be detained without found

72
00:04:39,440 --> 00:04:44,480
Speaker 1: in an immigration detention facility until these proceedings have been adjudicated.

73
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:48,880
Speaker 1: So Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinions, said, basically,

74
00:04:48,920 --> 00:04:52,160
Speaker 1: the question isn't whether they can be deported, but where

75
00:04:52,200 --> 00:04:55,360
Speaker 1: they'll be deported too. Is that true? They're all going

76
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:58,360
Speaker 1: to be deported? Yes, And in fact, this is an

77
00:04:58,480 --> 00:05:04,760
Speaker 1: argument that the sending opinions of the three liberal justices Briar, Soda, Mayor,

78
00:05:04,920 --> 00:05:07,200
Speaker 1: and Kagan don't even address because they know it's a

79
00:05:07,279 --> 00:05:10,200
Speaker 1: difficult argument, and that's why they didn't address it. When

80
00:05:10,240 --> 00:05:14,760
Speaker 1: a person re enters the United States after being ordered deported,

81
00:05:15,160 --> 00:05:18,479
Speaker 1: they're asking for withholding of removal from the country they're

82
00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:21,799
Speaker 1: a citizen of. So let's say you're from El Savador.

83
00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 1: You're saying, please don't support me back to El Savador

84
00:05:24,680 --> 00:05:27,840
Speaker 1: because I'm going to be persecuted there. That does not

85
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:32,599
Speaker 1: limit under US immigration law, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement

86
00:05:32,680 --> 00:05:37,000
Speaker 1: Division from supporting that individual to Mexico or to Sweden

87
00:05:37,440 --> 00:05:41,200
Speaker 1: or to Ghana. It's just a matter of whether any

88
00:05:41,240 --> 00:05:44,280
Speaker 1: of those countries will actually accept this human being, which

89
00:05:44,320 --> 00:05:47,120
Speaker 1: is very very rare, and the court talks about it

90
00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:50,719
Speaker 1: only happens in one person of withholding of revootball cases.

91
00:05:50,960 --> 00:05:53,880
Speaker 1: We then usually what happens in those cases is those

92
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:56,400
Speaker 1: are people we really want out of the United States

93
00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:59,800
Speaker 1: because they're very dangerous and we don't want them walking around.

94
00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:03,000
Speaker 1: And so what we do is we basically make some

95
00:06:03,160 --> 00:06:06,560
Speaker 1: diplomatic heels where we say, if you want something from us,

96
00:06:06,640 --> 00:06:08,520
Speaker 1: what is it that you want and if we give

97
00:06:08,560 --> 00:06:11,200
Speaker 1: it to you, will you take X, y Z people?

98
00:06:11,839 --> 00:06:15,120
Speaker 1: And so the United States makes these diplomatic deals and

99
00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:18,720
Speaker 1: we remove certain people. And so just as Aldo's points is,

100
00:06:19,520 --> 00:06:23,039
Speaker 1: we're not having a debate about whether the person is

101
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:27,120
Speaker 1: going to avoid deportation, because the person can be deported

102
00:06:27,200 --> 00:06:30,039
Speaker 1: at any moment if you find a country that's not

103
00:06:30,160 --> 00:06:33,040
Speaker 1: going to persecute them. So the fact that they're just

104
00:06:33,080 --> 00:06:37,479
Speaker 1: trying to evade deportation to one specific country doesn't make

105
00:06:37,560 --> 00:06:41,680
Speaker 1: this a brand new proceeding. It's just an ancillary proceeding

106
00:06:41,720 --> 00:06:45,719
Speaker 1: happening after the fact to just avoid deportations to a

107
00:06:45,760 --> 00:06:51,040
Speaker 1: specific country. But they can avoid deportation written large, and

108
00:06:51,160 --> 00:06:53,960
Speaker 1: stay in the United States. And so for that reason

109
00:06:54,880 --> 00:06:57,080
Speaker 1: is why he says that the statutes that apply to

110
00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:00,240
Speaker 1: people who have already been ordered deported as is that

111
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:03,599
Speaker 1: those people can be detained without bonds while we're trying

112
00:07:03,640 --> 00:07:07,960
Speaker 1: to execute their removal order. Is what applies here. Justice

113
00:07:08,000 --> 00:07:12,880
Speaker 1: Brier wrote the dissenting opinion for the three liberal justices.

114
00:07:12,920 --> 00:07:17,320
Speaker 1: What was his reasoning. His reasoning was based much more on,

115
00:07:17,640 --> 00:07:22,119
Speaker 1: and rightly so, the facts of what's actually going on here,

116
00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:25,920
Speaker 1: and Congress is knowledge of the facts that are going on,

117
00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:30,560
Speaker 1: rather than maybe the actual text of the statutes, and

118
00:07:30,760 --> 00:07:35,720
Speaker 1: saying Congress clunkily wrote this sect because at the end

119
00:07:35,720 --> 00:07:38,520
Speaker 1: of the day, they would never have wanted people to

120
00:07:38,560 --> 00:07:42,560
Speaker 1: be detained for two years it while these things are

121
00:07:42,600 --> 00:07:48,320
Speaker 1: being decided, and they knew that withholding of removal is

122
00:07:48,360 --> 00:07:51,680
Speaker 1: a type of release that is very very very rarely

123
00:07:52,840 --> 00:07:57,400
Speaker 1: uh thwarted by a third country deportation, and meaning they

124
00:07:57,480 --> 00:08:00,880
Speaker 1: knew that withholding of removal was based sically a new

125
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:06,880
Speaker 1: immigration proceedings where you're going and you're deciding again whether

126
00:08:06,920 --> 00:08:09,240
Speaker 1: the person can be deported, because if they win, they're

127
00:08:09,240 --> 00:08:11,960
Speaker 1: gonna be able to say, as a matter of practice,

128
00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:15,520
Speaker 1: nobody's actually gonna send them to Sweden or France or

129
00:08:15,560 --> 00:08:18,520
Speaker 1: Australia or any of that. And so because they do

130
00:08:18,640 --> 00:08:24,120
Speaker 1: the practical efforts of this, you should interpret the statute

131
00:08:24,640 --> 00:08:27,720
Speaker 1: in light of that practical knowledge of how the immigration

132
00:08:27,800 --> 00:08:31,760
Speaker 1: system works and say that they meant that this was

133
00:08:31,800 --> 00:08:34,959
Speaker 1: a new hearing and because there was a new hearing,

134
00:08:35,720 --> 00:08:39,520
Speaker 1: that person can be eligible for bonds. And so I

135
00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:41,800
Speaker 1: mean this makes a big difference because at the end

136
00:08:41,800 --> 00:08:45,560
Speaker 1: of the day, if you're eligible for bonds, then there

137
00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:50,120
Speaker 1: are a lot less disincentive for returning to the United

138
00:08:50,160 --> 00:08:53,520
Speaker 1: States if you've been deported, because the idea is that

139
00:08:53,679 --> 00:08:56,800
Speaker 1: you can return and make a prime of fasia claim

140
00:08:57,280 --> 00:09:00,200
Speaker 1: that you're going to be persecuted in your country, you

141
00:09:00,240 --> 00:09:04,600
Speaker 1: can get bond Then the idea is maybe more people

142
00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:08,000
Speaker 1: will be willing to take that risk then people who

143
00:09:08,040 --> 00:09:10,960
Speaker 1: don't know. If I get caught, I'm gonna be detained

144
00:09:10,960 --> 00:09:13,560
Speaker 1: for one year or two years, and if I lose,

145
00:09:13,960 --> 00:09:15,719
Speaker 1: what will have been the point of all of this.

146
00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:19,600
Speaker 1: So the idea is the reason you've seen the Biden

147
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:23,360
Speaker 1: administration stay with the Trump administration stay with the Obama

148
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:27,000
Speaker 1: administration's positions is they don't want people who have been

149
00:09:27,280 --> 00:09:31,600
Speaker 1: deported already coming back into the United States thinking there's

150
00:09:31,640 --> 00:09:34,520
Speaker 1: a calculus where they will be able to get bonded

151
00:09:34,559 --> 00:09:37,640
Speaker 1: into the United States and be able to return and

152
00:09:37,679 --> 00:09:40,679
Speaker 1: just walk around. They wanted to say, look, if you're

153
00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:45,720
Speaker 1: a legitimate refugee who is worried about death, then being

154
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:49,080
Speaker 1: in a detention facility while your claimed attending, as horrible

155
00:09:49,080 --> 00:09:51,720
Speaker 1: as it is, it's still preferable to death, so you

156
00:09:51,760 --> 00:09:55,400
Speaker 1: will come. But if you're not a legitimate refugee and

157
00:09:55,559 --> 00:09:59,719
Speaker 1: you're not actually facing death upon removal, then it is

158
00:09:59,800 --> 00:10:04,360
Speaker 1: let likely you will be willingly give up your freedom

159
00:10:04,559 --> 00:10:07,040
Speaker 1: in a change for a very small chance to remain

160
00:10:07,480 --> 00:10:09,960
Speaker 1: in the United States. And so that's why you've seen

161
00:10:10,440 --> 00:10:15,160
Speaker 1: all three administrations takes this position. So is it basically

162
00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:21,120
Speaker 1: a textualist reading by the majority and a practical interpretation

163
00:10:21,520 --> 00:10:25,480
Speaker 1: by the descent. Yes, that's basically what it comes down to.

164
00:10:26,240 --> 00:10:30,160
Speaker 1: If you've seen this this term where sometimes the sexual

165
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:33,440
Speaker 1: reading helps the non citizens and sometimes it hurts the

166
00:10:33,480 --> 00:10:37,840
Speaker 1: non citizens. And here the textualist reading, if somebody is

167
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:41,760
Speaker 1: being honest about it, hurts the non citizens. Because there's

168
00:10:41,800 --> 00:10:45,160
Speaker 1: no way you can say that there isn't a removal

169
00:10:45,280 --> 00:10:49,640
Speaker 1: order that exists for someone who's re entering the country

170
00:10:49,720 --> 00:10:52,800
Speaker 1: after they've been ordered removed. That removal order does exist,

171
00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:57,559
Speaker 1: and it can be executed to one and nine countries,

172
00:10:57,559 --> 00:11:00,679
Speaker 1: but maybe just the one that's the person doesn't want

173
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:04,400
Speaker 1: it execute it to So even if it's practically true

174
00:11:04,440 --> 00:11:09,640
Speaker 1: that it won't be executed with probability as any of

175
00:11:09,679 --> 00:11:12,400
Speaker 1: those other countries. So none of those other countries want

176
00:11:12,480 --> 00:11:15,600
Speaker 1: this person and they won't give them a passport to enter,

177
00:11:16,280 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 1: it is still theoretically possible. And so as a matter

178
00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:24,000
Speaker 1: of sexualist interpretation, there's no way you can say that

179
00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:28,600
Speaker 1: there's a new proceeding that is to decide whether someone

180
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:31,920
Speaker 1: is going to be ordered removed, which is what the

181
00:11:32,679 --> 00:11:36,840
Speaker 1: liberal argument requires you to say. And so that's why

182
00:11:36,920 --> 00:11:41,160
Speaker 1: I think probably as a matter of sexualist interpretation, the

183
00:11:41,200 --> 00:11:45,719
Speaker 1: majority opinion is correct. So now we've discussed before the

184
00:11:45,840 --> 00:11:51,320
Speaker 1: last three decisions in immigration cases were unanimous. This is

185
00:11:51,400 --> 00:11:55,960
Speaker 1: six to three down ideological lines. What made the difference here?

186
00:11:56,000 --> 00:12:01,880
Speaker 1: Do you think the difference is? This is a case which,

187
00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:07,520
Speaker 1: if interpreted by an administration that is trying to have

188
00:12:07,600 --> 00:12:12,640
Speaker 1: a draconian path on immigration, will lead to some pretty

189
00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:16,400
Speaker 1: harsh outcome. Meaning you could have people in detention for

190
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:18,719
Speaker 1: quite a long time and just lock them up and

191
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:22,280
Speaker 1: throw away the key while their case of sending and

192
00:12:22,320 --> 00:12:26,200
Speaker 1: in these cases take forever. Then people will just know

193
00:12:26,440 --> 00:12:28,520
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna be locked up forever if I try

194
00:12:28,559 --> 00:12:30,880
Speaker 1: to come into the United States. And so you have

195
00:12:31,000 --> 00:12:34,560
Speaker 1: the three liberal justices saying we don't want to sign

196
00:12:34,559 --> 00:12:38,280
Speaker 1: on to that. That sounds repugnant to us. But I

197
00:12:38,320 --> 00:12:42,080
Speaker 1: think the solutions to that will be to allow what

198
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:47,000
Speaker 1: are called as applied challenges, which you can say, look,

199
00:12:47,080 --> 00:12:50,480
Speaker 1: maybe this statute reads the way it is, but there

200
00:12:50,480 --> 00:12:53,000
Speaker 1: should be no statute in the United States that allows

201
00:12:53,040 --> 00:12:56,400
Speaker 1: me to stay longer than a year in immigration detention.

202
00:12:56,440 --> 00:12:59,559
Speaker 1: Because this is not criminal detention. I haven't committed a crime.

203
00:12:59,600 --> 00:13:02,800
Speaker 1: I'm just sitting here in immigration attenion and the government

204
00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:05,480
Speaker 1: is taking too long to do my case. And so

205
00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:09,719
Speaker 1: that's what this will now lead to is what are

206
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:13,240
Speaker 1: calls as applied challenges, where there's an individual whose case

207
00:13:13,320 --> 00:13:16,520
Speaker 1: is taking too long, they will then file a position

208
00:13:16,559 --> 00:13:19,960
Speaker 1: for rid of a bas corpus in the U. S. Disrecord,

209
00:13:20,200 --> 00:13:23,719
Speaker 1: saying my case is taking too long. It's unconstitutional to

210
00:13:23,800 --> 00:13:28,400
Speaker 1: hold be this long, and that will be an issue

211
00:13:28,520 --> 00:13:31,760
Speaker 1: if the administration is holding people that long. I don't

212
00:13:31,800 --> 00:13:36,120
Speaker 1: think the Biden administration we'll hold people that long, but

213
00:13:36,240 --> 00:13:39,480
Speaker 1: if there's some new administration, you'll see those kinds of

214
00:13:39,559 --> 00:13:45,040
Speaker 1: cases arising. Now. I've read that the number of imprisoned

215
00:13:45,040 --> 00:13:50,360
Speaker 1: asylum seekers has jumped exponentially under the Biden administration, that

216
00:13:50,440 --> 00:13:54,959
Speaker 1: it doubled from fourteen thousand early in the year to

217
00:13:56,000 --> 00:14:02,000
Speaker 1: thousand in June. Why so be because what has happened

218
00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:06,120
Speaker 1: is people think of the immigration border issue as an

219
00:14:06,120 --> 00:14:09,840
Speaker 1: issue of just Mexico and Central America, but that's actually

220
00:14:09,880 --> 00:14:12,080
Speaker 1: not true. We have a much more fluid and dynamic

221
00:14:12,160 --> 00:14:15,240
Speaker 1: border than we've ever had before, and so what happens

222
00:14:15,320 --> 00:14:17,880
Speaker 1: is that people think that there's an entry route into

223
00:14:17,920 --> 00:14:20,960
Speaker 1: the United States through the southern border. You start to

224
00:14:20,960 --> 00:14:23,480
Speaker 1: see people from all over the world show up at

225
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:26,760
Speaker 1: your southern border. You don't just see people from Mexico

226
00:14:26,840 --> 00:14:29,960
Speaker 1: and Central America. And so what happens is there's more

227
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:32,240
Speaker 1: of these people who are from all over the world

228
00:14:32,600 --> 00:14:36,240
Speaker 1: show up at the southern border. Mexico doesn't just let

229
00:14:36,280 --> 00:14:39,320
Speaker 1: you return them to Mexico because they're not Mexican. So

230
00:14:39,480 --> 00:14:42,160
Speaker 1: it doesn't work that way. You can't send someone from

231
00:14:42,160 --> 00:14:45,680
Speaker 1: Cuba or Ecuador, which are two of the big big

232
00:14:45,920 --> 00:14:50,160
Speaker 1: sending countries right now, but there's others. There's Venezuela, Colombia,

233
00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:52,520
Speaker 1: there's a lot of place. There's people from a lot

234
00:14:52,560 --> 00:14:55,560
Speaker 1: of places coming to the southern border. Mexico says, well,

235
00:14:55,600 --> 00:14:57,840
Speaker 1: these people are Mexican, why do you think you can

236
00:14:57,920 --> 00:15:01,120
Speaker 1: send them back here? And so they have to be

237
00:15:01,200 --> 00:15:05,440
Speaker 1: detained in our facilities until we can actually process their

238
00:15:05,480 --> 00:15:09,760
Speaker 1: deportation to the actual country they're a citizen of. And

239
00:15:09,920 --> 00:15:14,120
Speaker 1: so that's what's leading to this massive increase and fight

240
00:15:14,320 --> 00:15:18,680
Speaker 1: in detention at the immigration and customer facilities. I found

241
00:15:18,720 --> 00:15:24,720
Speaker 1: this interesting. There's disagreement about the term used for illegal immigrants,

242
00:15:24,760 --> 00:15:26,760
Speaker 1: just as a leader in the majority and Justice Thomas

243
00:15:26,800 --> 00:15:30,000
Speaker 1: in a concurrence use the term alien, but just as

244
00:15:30,040 --> 00:15:32,840
Speaker 1: prior in the descent used the term non citizen, and

245
00:15:32,880 --> 00:15:36,600
Speaker 1: apparently the Solicitor General is using the term non citizen

246
00:15:36,840 --> 00:15:40,280
Speaker 1: recently as well. Is it just a question of sort

247
00:15:40,280 --> 00:15:44,080
Speaker 1: of being politically correct or is there a difference. There's

248
00:15:44,120 --> 00:15:47,880
Speaker 1: a huge problem because the Immigration Code, so the actual

249
00:15:47,960 --> 00:15:50,880
Speaker 1: text of the statute uses the word alien, so it

250
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:53,280
Speaker 1: doesn't use any other word, and it says an alien

251
00:15:53,320 --> 00:15:55,800
Speaker 1: as a person who is neither a citizen or a

252
00:15:55,880 --> 00:15:58,960
Speaker 1: national of the United States. And so what's weird is

253
00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:01,960
Speaker 1: we have these two categories of people in the United States.

254
00:16:01,960 --> 00:16:05,080
Speaker 1: We have citizens that we have naginals, and for most

255
00:16:05,080 --> 00:16:08,800
Speaker 1: people that we think of with US passports are citizens.

256
00:16:08,800 --> 00:16:11,960
Speaker 1: But there are some people who are US nationals. But

257
00:16:12,040 --> 00:16:15,600
Speaker 1: those are people like from American Samoa and from the

258
00:16:15,680 --> 00:16:18,760
Speaker 1: Swayne Island and stuff like that, who are not actually

259
00:16:18,880 --> 00:16:21,720
Speaker 1: US citizens, but they all an allegiance to the United

260
00:16:21,760 --> 00:16:25,320
Speaker 1: States or US nationals. That's called And so the reason

261
00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:29,640
Speaker 1: that's complicated is when the politically correct term non citizen

262
00:16:29,800 --> 00:16:32,520
Speaker 1: is applied, you could be a US national and not

263
00:16:32,600 --> 00:16:36,080
Speaker 1: actually be a citizens, So the pert non citizen is

264
00:16:36,120 --> 00:16:40,600
Speaker 1: actually imprecise. Thanks Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Hollandon Knight.

265
00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:46,640
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court rule that California was violating the Constitution

266
00:16:46,960 --> 00:16:51,240
Speaker 1: with the decades old regulation that gives union organizers access

267
00:16:51,280 --> 00:16:54,440
Speaker 1: to agricultural company land for part of the year to

268
00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:58,840
Speaker 1: talk to workers in nine provision that grew out of

269
00:16:58,840 --> 00:17:02,240
Speaker 1: the efforts of Caesar Chavez to give farm workers collective

270
00:17:02,240 --> 00:17:06,240
Speaker 1: bargaining rights. The six to three vote down audiological lines

271
00:17:06,359 --> 00:17:09,560
Speaker 1: is the latest blow to unions. In the majority opinion,

272
00:17:09,680 --> 00:17:15,000
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts concluded the California regulation unconstitutionally interfered

273
00:17:15,119 --> 00:17:17,879
Speaker 1: with the growers property rights and a provision in the

274
00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:23,240
Speaker 1: Constitution that prohibits governments from taking private property without just compensation.

275
00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:26,760
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bethanie Burger, a professor at the University

276
00:17:26,760 --> 00:17:30,359
Speaker 1: of Connecticut School of Law. How much of a blow

277
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:35,000
Speaker 1: is this decision for unions? So this is a blow

278
00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:40,199
Speaker 1: for California migrant farm workers. As far as I know,

279
00:17:41,400 --> 00:17:45,639
Speaker 1: no other state has a statute or regulation like this

280
00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:52,240
Speaker 1: protecting migrant farm workers. For unions, this shows that the

281
00:17:52,280 --> 00:17:55,159
Speaker 1: majority on the Supreme Court just doesn't like unions. But

282
00:17:56,000 --> 00:18:00,680
Speaker 1: unions that are not farm worker unions are protected by

283
00:18:01,119 --> 00:18:06,760
Speaker 1: the National Labor Relations Act, which gives access to employer

284
00:18:06,840 --> 00:18:13,240
Speaker 1: property when there is no effective way to reach employees

285
00:18:13,600 --> 00:18:18,320
Speaker 1: off the property. So it's effect on unions generally might

286
00:18:18,359 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 1: be relatively confined. So explain the majority's reasoning here. So

287
00:18:24,560 --> 00:18:28,440
Speaker 1: the majority said, Well, the first part of the opinion

288
00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:37,199
Speaker 1: says that whenever the government authorizes and involuntary entry into property,

289
00:18:37,680 --> 00:18:40,560
Speaker 1: that is a taking, and the only question is what

290
00:18:40,640 --> 00:18:45,040
Speaker 1: compensation is doing. But that new per se rule is,

291
00:18:45,520 --> 00:18:48,320
Speaker 1: as the Court said in another case, only a per

292
00:18:48,359 --> 00:18:51,320
Speaker 1: se rule for a few pages in the u S Reports,

293
00:18:51,320 --> 00:18:56,320
Speaker 1: because the Court immediately includes a lot of exceptions to

294
00:18:56,600 --> 00:19:00,639
Speaker 1: that pier se rule of invasions that will not be taking.

295
00:19:01,000 --> 00:19:08,000
Speaker 1: So what this leaves for lower courts, for regulators, for

296
00:19:08,480 --> 00:19:13,520
Speaker 1: just individuals is a tough process of trying to figure

297
00:19:13,560 --> 00:19:18,520
Speaker 1: out when those exceptions apply or not. Did Chief Justice

298
00:19:18,600 --> 00:19:22,640
Speaker 1: John Roberts year from precedent. I've been reading that he's

299
00:19:22,760 --> 00:19:29,040
Speaker 1: rewriting the takings clause. That's correct. Yeah, So the majority

300
00:19:29,080 --> 00:19:32,840
Speaker 1: claims to rely on precedent, But what in fact it

301
00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:38,680
Speaker 1: does is it takes isolated phrases out of context. And

302
00:19:38,880 --> 00:19:42,399
Speaker 1: twist them into something that they never said, and in

303
00:19:42,480 --> 00:19:46,119
Speaker 1: fact twists them sometimes into the opposite of what the

304
00:19:46,160 --> 00:19:51,240
Speaker 1: decision said. So, for example, the court says that a

305
00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:56,800
Speaker 1: government authorization of a right to enter is a per

306
00:19:56,840 --> 00:20:01,920
Speaker 1: se taking, and it distinguishes is the prune Yard decision

307
00:20:02,160 --> 00:20:06,720
Speaker 1: from about right to speak at malls by saying that

308
00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:09,960
Speaker 1: was only because the property was open to the public.

309
00:20:10,440 --> 00:20:14,480
Speaker 1: But prune Yard said, this is a taking of the

310
00:20:14,560 --> 00:20:18,520
Speaker 1: right to exclude, but not all takings of rights to

311
00:20:18,600 --> 00:20:24,199
Speaker 1: exclude our takings under the Constitution. So that's the opposite

312
00:20:24,240 --> 00:20:28,240
Speaker 1: of what the court held in Theater points. Similarly, there

313
00:20:28,280 --> 00:20:34,159
Speaker 1: are a number of cases that holds that physical invasions

314
00:20:34,240 --> 00:20:39,240
Speaker 1: are taking from the Supreme Court, but they only do

315
00:20:39,440 --> 00:20:45,320
Speaker 1: so after they find that the invasions significantly undermined the

316
00:20:45,400 --> 00:20:52,200
Speaker 1: owner's economic interest. And indeed, those cases sometimes said not

317
00:20:52,400 --> 00:20:56,200
Speaker 1: every invasion is going to be a taking, And in

318
00:20:56,240 --> 00:21:00,399
Speaker 1: this case, Theater point made no out of station that

319
00:21:00,440 --> 00:21:03,600
Speaker 1: there was any invasion of its economic interests, So it's

320
00:21:03,600 --> 00:21:07,439
Speaker 1: inconsistent with those decisions as well. Just explain what the

321
00:21:07,480 --> 00:21:13,200
Speaker 1: takings clause is. The takings clause says that the government

322
00:21:13,480 --> 00:21:19,800
Speaker 1: cannot authorize a taking of private property for public use

323
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:25,600
Speaker 1: without just compensation. So if the government takes property in

324
00:21:26,080 --> 00:21:29,040
Speaker 1: the constitutional sense, it has to pay for it. But

325
00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:32,640
Speaker 1: there are some cases where that's easy to apply, taking

326
00:21:32,640 --> 00:21:37,400
Speaker 1: somebody's house, saying that somebody's land is going to be

327
00:21:37,880 --> 00:21:41,760
Speaker 1: taken for a road. Those are easy cases. The hard

328
00:21:41,800 --> 00:21:48,280
Speaker 1: cases are when the government doesn't permanently physically take anything.

329
00:21:48,960 --> 00:21:54,200
Speaker 1: And in those cases the court has applied kind of

330
00:21:54,320 --> 00:21:57,600
Speaker 1: balancing test, say why are they doing it? Is there

331
00:21:57,680 --> 00:22:00,359
Speaker 1: much of an impact on the owner's interests, and in

332
00:22:00,359 --> 00:22:03,720
Speaker 1: a lot of cases says there isn't a taking. That's

333
00:22:03,760 --> 00:22:06,840
Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court changed in theater point, what does

334
00:22:06,880 --> 00:22:09,960
Speaker 1: it tell you that this is a six to three decision.

335
00:22:10,280 --> 00:22:14,840
Speaker 1: So what this means to me is that the conservative

336
00:22:14,880 --> 00:22:20,480
Speaker 1: majority on the Supreme Court is willing to expand private

337
00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:25,320
Speaker 1: property rights even when it violates precedents. And that may

338
00:22:25,359 --> 00:22:29,520
Speaker 1: be very significant for the taking clues or almost a century,

339
00:22:29,840 --> 00:22:36,240
Speaker 1: taking decisions have generally been split decisions, been five four decisions,

340
00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:39,000
Speaker 1: with one justice or the other going back and forth.

341
00:22:39,119 --> 00:22:43,400
Speaker 1: If this continues, that's no longer the case. Talking about

342
00:22:43,400 --> 00:22:46,919
Speaker 1: the union aspect of this, there have been several decisions

343
00:22:46,960 --> 00:22:52,120
Speaker 1: from this court eroding union power, including one that overturned

344
00:22:52,119 --> 00:22:55,359
Speaker 1: a forty year old precedent, the Janice case. They've all

345
00:22:55,400 --> 00:22:58,400
Speaker 1: been five to four as well, or now six to three.

346
00:22:58,760 --> 00:23:00,760
Speaker 1: I don't even know if the union has Unions have

347
00:23:00,880 --> 00:23:05,600
Speaker 1: won any cases at the Supreme Court in recent memory.

348
00:23:05,800 --> 00:23:10,399
Speaker 1: I think people watching the Supreme Court recognize that this

349
00:23:10,560 --> 00:23:14,080
Speaker 1: is the Supreme Court that is not friendly to unions.

350
00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:20,359
Speaker 1: The Janic's case is the biggest example. But this adds

351
00:23:20,359 --> 00:23:24,400
Speaker 1: to that list. And now explain what the liberals said

352
00:23:24,440 --> 00:23:28,920
Speaker 1: in dissent. So one of the points of the liberals

353
00:23:28,960 --> 00:23:32,359
Speaker 1: I think is kind of wrong. One of them was

354
00:23:32,440 --> 00:23:37,760
Speaker 1: to say this is just the regulation, not a physical invasion,

355
00:23:38,200 --> 00:23:42,439
Speaker 1: and that is based on a past decision. But the

356
00:23:42,480 --> 00:23:47,000
Speaker 1: distinction really doesn't make sense. The other points are more accurate. First,

357
00:23:47,480 --> 00:23:52,200
Speaker 1: this case is inconsistent with past presidents. The Supreme Court

358
00:23:52,400 --> 00:23:59,040
Speaker 1: has never said that a temporary invasion that doesn't cause

359
00:23:59,240 --> 00:24:03,359
Speaker 1: any eco nom the corm is a taking certainly not

360
00:24:03,480 --> 00:24:06,439
Speaker 1: a person taking. In fact, it said the opposite. The

361
00:24:06,680 --> 00:24:14,080
Speaker 1: second point is that these exceptions create a lot of uncertainty,

362
00:24:14,680 --> 00:24:20,119
Speaker 1: and they may, if interpreted in a certain way, in fact,

363
00:24:20,200 --> 00:24:25,040
Speaker 1: threatened lots of health and safety regulations. The third point

364
00:24:25,640 --> 00:24:30,280
Speaker 1: is that it's not clear what this decision actually does,

365
00:24:30,600 --> 00:24:35,200
Speaker 1: even for the regulation issue. So the taking classes. If

366
00:24:35,240 --> 00:24:38,280
Speaker 1: you take property, you have to pay, but what do

367
00:24:38,280 --> 00:24:40,480
Speaker 1: you have to pay. You have to pay the fair

368
00:24:40,560 --> 00:24:44,840
Speaker 1: market value of what's been taken. And here, from everything

369
00:24:44,840 --> 00:24:48,359
Speaker 1: that was presented below, the fair market value appears to

370
00:24:48,440 --> 00:24:53,600
Speaker 1: be zero. There wasn't any evidence that this economically harmed

371
00:24:53,920 --> 00:24:58,560
Speaker 1: the growers. So the Supreme Court tells something like this

372
00:24:58,880 --> 00:25:03,080
Speaker 1: with respect to interest on account, where the interest would

373
00:25:03,080 --> 00:25:07,280
Speaker 1: be so small that it wouldn't even make economic sense

374
00:25:07,320 --> 00:25:10,959
Speaker 1: to collect it. And in that case it had to

375
00:25:11,040 --> 00:25:13,919
Speaker 1: go back in another decision and say, well, you know what,

376
00:25:14,119 --> 00:25:17,560
Speaker 1: since the fair market value of this is effectively zero,

377
00:25:17,720 --> 00:25:20,800
Speaker 1: you don't even have to bother to go through the

378
00:25:20,840 --> 00:25:24,200
Speaker 1: takings analysis here, just say yeah, it's a taking, but

379
00:25:24,359 --> 00:25:26,600
Speaker 1: you don't have to pay for it. And so something

380
00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:30,359
Speaker 1: like that might happen here. What Justice Brier said was

381
00:25:30,880 --> 00:25:34,240
Speaker 1: if the government wants to do something like this, they

382
00:25:34,280 --> 00:25:37,639
Speaker 1: could do the economic analysis and say we're going to

383
00:25:37,720 --> 00:25:41,879
Speaker 1: give you one dollar in nominal damages for this invasion.

384
00:25:42,359 --> 00:25:45,399
Speaker 1: You come back and show us that the fair market

385
00:25:45,440 --> 00:25:48,960
Speaker 1: value of it was more. So that's another possibility. During

386
00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:52,959
Speaker 1: the oral arguments, Justice Barrett said, it could be as

387
00:25:53,000 --> 00:25:55,960
Speaker 1: little as fifty dollars. I don't know where she got

388
00:25:55,960 --> 00:25:59,280
Speaker 1: that figure from. So do you think that the next

389
00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:04,359
Speaker 1: step is then determining compensation. So the case goes back

390
00:26:04,400 --> 00:26:08,720
Speaker 1: down to determine what compensation would be. What is the

391
00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:13,000
Speaker 1: fair market value here? And it might be one dollar

392
00:26:13,480 --> 00:26:17,920
Speaker 1: nominal damages. That's something that happened in the Supreme Court

393
00:26:18,080 --> 00:26:22,680
Speaker 1: first per se physical invasion case in n where they said,

394
00:26:22,720 --> 00:26:26,000
Speaker 1: even saying that somebody can put a cable box on

395
00:26:26,040 --> 00:26:29,680
Speaker 1: your roof that you don't see, that doesn't undermine the

396
00:26:29,760 --> 00:26:32,000
Speaker 1: value of your property, that is a per se taking.

397
00:26:32,520 --> 00:26:34,760
Speaker 1: And it went back down to the state of New York,

398
00:26:34,800 --> 00:26:37,040
Speaker 1: and New York said, okay, it's a taking. You get

399
00:26:37,040 --> 00:26:40,119
Speaker 1: one dollar because it doesn't undermine the value of your property.

400
00:26:40,160 --> 00:26:43,560
Speaker 1: So that could happen here. So then if you look

401
00:26:43,560 --> 00:26:46,399
Speaker 1: at that, the compensation could be very little, and you

402
00:26:46,440 --> 00:26:51,320
Speaker 1: look at the fact that the n l RB controls elsewhere,

403
00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:55,880
Speaker 1: it seems like this is more a defeat in name

404
00:26:55,960 --> 00:26:59,280
Speaker 1: that it won't have that much impact. Well, no, it

405
00:26:59,400 --> 00:27:03,600
Speaker 1: does have a very big impact on every other area

406
00:27:03,880 --> 00:27:09,040
Speaker 1: of property law and regulation. So now potentially any time

407
00:27:09,280 --> 00:27:14,280
Speaker 1: that the law says that individuals can enter somebody else's

408
00:27:14,359 --> 00:27:18,520
Speaker 1: land without permission, there's a possible claim that that is

409
00:27:18,560 --> 00:27:24,080
Speaker 1: a taking, and it has to be determined whether it

410
00:27:24,520 --> 00:27:29,000
Speaker 1: comes within one of those three exceptions or it's not.

411
00:27:29,680 --> 00:27:32,480
Speaker 1: What's the compensation would be tell us what the three

412
00:27:32,520 --> 00:27:37,400
Speaker 1: exceptions are. So the three exceptions are, first, if it's

413
00:27:37,440 --> 00:27:41,879
Speaker 1: not a trest pass, and because trust pass is a

414
00:27:41,920 --> 00:27:45,040
Speaker 1: common law doctrine, that's not all that clear what that means. Second,

415
00:27:45,280 --> 00:27:50,040
Speaker 1: it's the right to enter is part of the longstanding

416
00:27:50,280 --> 00:27:54,399
Speaker 1: principles of property law, and there are tons of rights

417
00:27:54,440 --> 00:27:59,040
Speaker 1: to enter that have been recognized for hundreds of years,

418
00:27:59,119 --> 00:28:03,720
Speaker 1: and new one have been added. So if it comes

419
00:28:03,760 --> 00:28:07,159
Speaker 1: within one of those, then it's an exception. To the third,

420
00:28:07,440 --> 00:28:13,159
Speaker 1: the court said that the government can require entry to

421
00:28:13,880 --> 00:28:19,360
Speaker 1: property as a condition of receiving certain benefits, and they

422
00:28:19,440 --> 00:28:24,399
Speaker 1: said that all health and safety exceptions should come within that.

423
00:28:24,800 --> 00:28:31,080
Speaker 1: But there is some scrutiny about whether the entry is

424
00:28:31,800 --> 00:28:36,639
Speaker 1: sufficiently connected to the harm That suggests that's not as

425
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:39,880
Speaker 1: easy as an exception as the court said. So determining

426
00:28:39,920 --> 00:28:43,840
Speaker 1: the scope of the exception is going to be up

427
00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:48,560
Speaker 1: in the first place to lower courts and regulators, but

428
00:28:49,240 --> 00:28:53,160
Speaker 1: it will eventually get to the Supreme Court. So if

429
00:28:53,200 --> 00:28:58,000
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court keeps the composition that it has and

430
00:28:58,440 --> 00:29:05,000
Speaker 1: the preferences that the six justices and the majority have,

431
00:29:05,960 --> 00:29:11,120
Speaker 1: then those exceptions are going to get narrowed the Pacific

432
00:29:11,200 --> 00:29:17,040
Speaker 1: legal foundation ist and two at the Supreme Court. So

433
00:29:17,200 --> 00:29:20,520
Speaker 1: does that show that property rights win at the Supreme

434
00:29:20,560 --> 00:29:23,600
Speaker 1: Court most of the time. Well, so it depends on

435
00:29:23,680 --> 00:29:27,400
Speaker 1: you to find property rights. So I would say that

436
00:29:27,560 --> 00:29:33,520
Speaker 1: property rights include the right of the government to protect

437
00:29:33,560 --> 00:29:40,080
Speaker 1: everybody's interest in property in safe working condition and so on.

438
00:29:40,560 --> 00:29:44,760
Speaker 1: So it's a particular vision of property rights that favors

439
00:29:45,000 --> 00:29:48,880
Speaker 1: favor certain people and doesn't favor other interests. Thanks Bethany.

440
00:29:48,960 --> 00:29:52,480
Speaker 1: That's Bethany Burger other University of Connecticut School of Law.

441
00:29:52,920 --> 00:29:55,200
Speaker 1: I'm John Galso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.