Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can indefinitely
Speaker 1: detain certain immigrants who re entered the country illegally and
Speaker 1: say they'll face persecution or torture if they're deported to
Speaker 1: their native countries. In a six or three decision down
Speaker 1: audiological lines, the Court held that the immigrants are not
Speaker 1: entitled to a hearing about whether they should be released
Speaker 1: while their cases work their way through the system. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight Leon.
Speaker 1: Who are the immigrants? This decision concerns, Well, the group
Speaker 1: is actually small in terms of written large the amount
Speaker 1: of people that come to the border, but in a
Speaker 1: border certain situation could end up being actually a significant
Speaker 1: number of people. And that's because it's the group of
Speaker 1: people who have been deported any time in the past
Speaker 1: and who seeks to come back and re enter the
Speaker 1: United States. I've or they've been ordered deported and asked
Speaker 1: for not asylum because they're not eligible for asylum, but
Speaker 1: basically a release from a second deportation called withholding of
Speaker 1: removal that says that the country that they're a citizen
Speaker 1: from is so dangerous that they will be persecuted there.
Speaker 1: So why aren't they eligible for asylum? Well, what happens
Speaker 1: is you're only eligible for asylum, which is a specific
Speaker 1: type of relief that actually gives you a pass to
Speaker 1: citizenship in the United States if you apply for it
Speaker 1: when you first enter the United States and are not
Speaker 1: ordered deported. But if you've been ordered deported previously and
Speaker 1: try to re enter illegally and are apprehended re entering illegally,
Speaker 1: then you're not eligible for asylum. You're only eligible for
Speaker 1: something called withholding of removal, which serves the same purpose
Speaker 1: as asylum, and that which is that you don't get
Speaker 1: supported to the country you're afraid of being deported to.
Speaker 1: But does that give you a path to citizenship? You're
Speaker 1: only in America in lux until such time as the
Speaker 1: crisis in your country is over. Not for some people
Speaker 1: that ends up being the rest of their lives, but
Speaker 1: other people could be removed if the situation changes in
Speaker 1: their country. All right, So tell us about the majority opinions.
Speaker 1: So this case is a difficult case because it's a
Speaker 1: case about when someone goes through this process of re
Speaker 1: entering the United States. Are they allowed to have bob
Speaker 1: meaning do they have to stay in detention during the
Speaker 1: whole time that they're asking for this withholding of removal
Speaker 1: release or will they be you know, will they be
Speaker 1: are able to ask for bond and be released on
Speaker 1: conditions of release or could they be detained for up
Speaker 1: to one year or two years while they're asking for release.
Speaker 1: And so all of the administrations, including the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: so you have Obama, you have Trump, that you have Biden,
Speaker 1: have said that in this group of people who is
Speaker 1: re entering the United States, they're subject to detention under
Speaker 1: a statute that says, when we're trying to deport a
Speaker 1: person who's already been ordered deported, we are allowed to
Speaker 1: detain them without fonds. That's been the position of the
Speaker 1: last three administrations. The litigant position, the the non citizens said, know,
Speaker 1: what we're subject to is a detention provision that applies
Speaker 1: to people who are going through brand new proceedings, because
Speaker 1: that's what we're going through is brand new proceedings when
Speaker 1: we've re entered, and in those brand new proceedings, you're
Speaker 1: allowed to apply for Biden. So there had been a
Speaker 1: circuit split some circuits that said, the provision that applies
Speaker 1: to people who have already been deported is what applies,
Speaker 1: and other people said, so this is a new proceeding.
Speaker 1: So uh, the conservative justices of the Supreme Courts that
Speaker 1: six So the six to three decisions ruled that in fact,
Speaker 1: the Obama Trump Biden position was correct, and that the
Speaker 1: detensive statute that applies to people who have already been
Speaker 1: ordered deported applied to this group that re enters after
Speaker 1: they've been deported, but that they can be detained for
Speaker 1: the entirety of these proceedings, even if they take one
Speaker 1: year or two years. They can be detained without found
Speaker 1: in an immigration detention facility until these proceedings have been adjudicated.
Speaker 1: So Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinions, said, basically,
Speaker 1: the question isn't whether they can be deported, but where
Speaker 1: they'll be deported too. Is that true? They're all going
Speaker 1: to be deported? Yes, And in fact, this is an
Speaker 1: argument that the sending opinions of the three liberal justices Briar, Soda, Mayor,
Speaker 1: and Kagan don't even address because they know it's a
Speaker 1: difficult argument, and that's why they didn't address it. When
Speaker 1: a person re enters the United States after being ordered deported,
Speaker 1: they're asking for withholding of removal from the country they're
Speaker 1: a citizen of. So let's say you're from El Savador.
Speaker 1: You're saying, please don't support me back to El Savador
Speaker 1: because I'm going to be persecuted there. That does not
Speaker 1: limit under US immigration law, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Speaker 1: Division from supporting that individual to Mexico or to Sweden
Speaker 1: or to Ghana. It's just a matter of whether any
Speaker 1: of those countries will actually accept this human being, which
Speaker 1: is very very rare, and the court talks about it
Speaker 1: only happens in one person of withholding of revootball cases.
Speaker 1: We then usually what happens in those cases is those
Speaker 1: are people we really want out of the United States
Speaker 1: because they're very dangerous and we don't want them walking around.
Speaker 1: And so what we do is we basically make some
Speaker 1: diplomatic heels where we say, if you want something from us,
Speaker 1: what is it that you want and if we give
Speaker 1: it to you, will you take X, y Z people?
Speaker 1: And so the United States makes these diplomatic deals and
Speaker 1: we remove certain people. And so just as Aldo's points is,
Speaker 1: we're not having a debate about whether the person is
Speaker 1: going to avoid deportation, because the person can be deported
Speaker 1: at any moment if you find a country that's not
Speaker 1: going to persecute them. So the fact that they're just
Speaker 1: trying to evade deportation to one specific country doesn't make
Speaker 1: this a brand new proceeding. It's just an ancillary proceeding
Speaker 1: happening after the fact to just avoid deportations to a
Speaker 1: specific country. But they can avoid deportation written large, and
Speaker 1: stay in the United States. And so for that reason
Speaker 1: is why he says that the statutes that apply to
Speaker 1: people who have already been ordered deported as is that
Speaker 1: those people can be detained without bonds while we're trying
Speaker 1: to execute their removal order. Is what applies here. Justice
Speaker 1: Brier wrote the dissenting opinion for the three liberal justices.
Speaker 1: What was his reasoning. His reasoning was based much more on,
Speaker 1: and rightly so, the facts of what's actually going on here,
Speaker 1: and Congress is knowledge of the facts that are going on,
Speaker 1: rather than maybe the actual text of the statutes, and
Speaker 1: saying Congress clunkily wrote this sect because at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, they would never have wanted people to
Speaker 1: be detained for two years it while these things are
Speaker 1: being decided, and they knew that withholding of removal is
Speaker 1: a type of release that is very very very rarely
Speaker 1: uh thwarted by a third country deportation, and meaning they
Speaker 1: knew that withholding of removal was based sically a new
Speaker 1: immigration proceedings where you're going and you're deciding again whether
Speaker 1: the person can be deported, because if they win, they're
Speaker 1: gonna be able to say, as a matter of practice,
Speaker 1: nobody's actually gonna send them to Sweden or France or
Speaker 1: Australia or any of that. And so because they do
Speaker 1: the practical efforts of this, you should interpret the statute
Speaker 1: in light of that practical knowledge of how the immigration
Speaker 1: system works and say that they meant that this was
Speaker 1: a new hearing and because there was a new hearing,
Speaker 1: that person can be eligible for bonds. And so I
Speaker 1: mean this makes a big difference because at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, if you're eligible for bonds, then there
Speaker 1: are a lot less disincentive for returning to the United
Speaker 1: States if you've been deported, because the idea is that
Speaker 1: you can return and make a prime of fasia claim
Speaker 1: that you're going to be persecuted in your country, you
Speaker 1: can get bond Then the idea is maybe more people
Speaker 1: will be willing to take that risk then people who
Speaker 1: don't know. If I get caught, I'm gonna be detained
Speaker 1: for one year or two years, and if I lose,
Speaker 1: what will have been the point of all of this.
Speaker 1: So the idea is the reason you've seen the Biden
Speaker 1: administration stay with the Trump administration stay with the Obama
Speaker 1: administration's positions is they don't want people who have been
Speaker 1: deported already coming back into the United States thinking there's
Speaker 1: a calculus where they will be able to get bonded
Speaker 1: into the United States and be able to return and
Speaker 1: just walk around. They wanted to say, look, if you're
Speaker 1: a legitimate refugee who is worried about death, then being
Speaker 1: in a detention facility while your claimed attending, as horrible
Speaker 1: as it is, it's still preferable to death, so you
Speaker 1: will come. But if you're not a legitimate refugee and
Speaker 1: you're not actually facing death upon removal, then it is
Speaker 1: let likely you will be willingly give up your freedom
Speaker 1: in a change for a very small chance to remain
Speaker 1: in the United States. And so that's why you've seen
Speaker 1: all three administrations takes this position. So is it basically
Speaker 1: a textualist reading by the majority and a practical interpretation
Speaker 1: by the descent. Yes, that's basically what it comes down to.
Speaker 1: If you've seen this this term where sometimes the sexual
Speaker 1: reading helps the non citizens and sometimes it hurts the
Speaker 1: non citizens. And here the textualist reading, if somebody is
Speaker 1: being honest about it, hurts the non citizens. Because there's
Speaker 1: no way you can say that there isn't a removal
Speaker 1: order that exists for someone who's re entering the country
Speaker 1: after they've been ordered removed. That removal order does exist,
Speaker 1: and it can be executed to one and nine countries,
Speaker 1: but maybe just the one that's the person doesn't want
Speaker 1: it execute it to So even if it's practically true
Speaker 1: that it won't be executed with probability as any of
Speaker 1: those other countries. So none of those other countries want
Speaker 1: this person and they won't give them a passport to enter,
Speaker 1: it is still theoretically possible. And so as a matter
Speaker 1: of sexualist interpretation, there's no way you can say that
Speaker 1: there's a new proceeding that is to decide whether someone
Speaker 1: is going to be ordered removed, which is what the
Speaker 1: liberal argument requires you to say. And so that's why
Speaker 1: I think probably as a matter of sexualist interpretation, the
Speaker 1: majority opinion is correct. So now we've discussed before the
Speaker 1: last three decisions in immigration cases were unanimous. This is
Speaker 1: six to three down ideological lines. What made the difference here?
Speaker 1: Do you think the difference is? This is a case which,
Speaker 1: if interpreted by an administration that is trying to have
Speaker 1: a draconian path on immigration, will lead to some pretty
Speaker 1: harsh outcome. Meaning you could have people in detention for
Speaker 1: quite a long time and just lock them up and
Speaker 1: throw away the key while their case of sending and
Speaker 1: in these cases take forever. Then people will just know
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna be locked up forever if I try
Speaker 1: to come into the United States. And so you have
Speaker 1: the three liberal justices saying we don't want to sign
Speaker 1: on to that. That sounds repugnant to us. But I
Speaker 1: think the solutions to that will be to allow what
Speaker 1: are called as applied challenges, which you can say, look,
Speaker 1: maybe this statute reads the way it is, but there
Speaker 1: should be no statute in the United States that allows
Speaker 1: me to stay longer than a year in immigration detention.
Speaker 1: Because this is not criminal detention. I haven't committed a crime.
Speaker 1: I'm just sitting here in immigration attenion and the government
Speaker 1: is taking too long to do my case. And so
Speaker 1: that's what this will now lead to is what are
Speaker 1: calls as applied challenges, where there's an individual whose case
Speaker 1: is taking too long, they will then file a position
Speaker 1: for rid of a bas corpus in the U. S. Disrecord,
Speaker 1: saying my case is taking too long. It's unconstitutional to
Speaker 1: hold be this long, and that will be an issue
Speaker 1: if the administration is holding people that long. I don't
Speaker 1: think the Biden administration we'll hold people that long, but
Speaker 1: if there's some new administration, you'll see those kinds of
Speaker 1: cases arising. Now. I've read that the number of imprisoned
Speaker 1: asylum seekers has jumped exponentially under the Biden administration, that
Speaker 1: it doubled from fourteen thousand early in the year to
Speaker 1: thousand in June. Why so be because what has happened
Speaker 1: is people think of the immigration border issue as an
Speaker 1: issue of just Mexico and Central America, but that's actually
Speaker 1: not true. We have a much more fluid and dynamic
Speaker 1: border than we've ever had before, and so what happens
Speaker 1: is that people think that there's an entry route into
Speaker 1: the United States through the southern border. You start to
Speaker 1: see people from all over the world show up at
Speaker 1: your southern border. You don't just see people from Mexico
Speaker 1: and Central America. And so what happens is there's more
Speaker 1: of these people who are from all over the world
Speaker 1: show up at the southern border. Mexico doesn't just let
Speaker 1: you return them to Mexico because they're not Mexican. So
Speaker 1: it doesn't work that way. You can't send someone from
Speaker 1: Cuba or Ecuador, which are two of the big big
Speaker 1: sending countries right now, but there's others. There's Venezuela, Colombia,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of place. There's people from a lot
Speaker 1: of places coming to the southern border. Mexico says, well,
Speaker 1: these people are Mexican, why do you think you can
Speaker 1: send them back here? And so they have to be
Speaker 1: detained in our facilities until we can actually process their
Speaker 1: deportation to the actual country they're a citizen of. And
Speaker 1: so that's what's leading to this massive increase and fight
Speaker 1: in detention at the immigration and customer facilities. I found
Speaker 1: this interesting. There's disagreement about the term used for illegal immigrants,
Speaker 1: just as a leader in the majority and Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: in a concurrence use the term alien, but just as
Speaker 1: prior in the descent used the term non citizen, and
Speaker 1: apparently the Solicitor General is using the term non citizen
Speaker 1: recently as well. Is it just a question of sort
Speaker 1: of being politically correct or is there a difference. There's
Speaker 1: a huge problem because the Immigration Code, so the actual
Speaker 1: text of the statute uses the word alien, so it
Speaker 1: doesn't use any other word, and it says an alien
Speaker 1: as a person who is neither a citizen or a
Speaker 1: national of the United States. And so what's weird is
Speaker 1: we have these two categories of people in the United States.
Speaker 1: We have citizens that we have naginals, and for most
Speaker 1: people that we think of with US passports are citizens.
Speaker 1: But there are some people who are US nationals. But
Speaker 1: those are people like from American Samoa and from the
Speaker 1: Swayne Island and stuff like that, who are not actually
Speaker 1: US citizens, but they all an allegiance to the United
Speaker 1: States or US nationals. That's called And so the reason
Speaker 1: that's complicated is when the politically correct term non citizen
Speaker 1: is applied, you could be a US national and not
Speaker 1: actually be a citizens, So the pert non citizen is
Speaker 1: actually imprecise. Thanks Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Hollandon Knight.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court rule that California was violating the Constitution
Speaker 1: with the decades old regulation that gives union organizers access
Speaker 1: to agricultural company land for part of the year to
Speaker 1: talk to workers in nine provision that grew out of
Speaker 1: the efforts of Caesar Chavez to give farm workers collective
Speaker 1: bargaining rights. The six to three vote down audiological lines
Speaker 1: is the latest blow to unions. In the majority opinion,
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts concluded the California regulation unconstitutionally interfered
Speaker 1: with the growers property rights and a provision in the
Speaker 1: Constitution that prohibits governments from taking private property without just compensation.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bethanie Burger, a professor at the University
Speaker 1: of Connecticut School of Law. How much of a blow
Speaker 1: is this decision for unions? So this is a blow
Speaker 1: for California migrant farm workers. As far as I know,
Speaker 1: no other state has a statute or regulation like this
Speaker 1: protecting migrant farm workers. For unions, this shows that the
Speaker 1: majority on the Supreme Court just doesn't like unions. But
Speaker 1: unions that are not farm worker unions are protected by
Speaker 1: the National Labor Relations Act, which gives access to employer
Speaker 1: property when there is no effective way to reach employees
Speaker 1: off the property. So it's effect on unions generally might
Speaker 1: be relatively confined. So explain the majority's reasoning here. So
Speaker 1: the majority said, Well, the first part of the opinion
Speaker 1: says that whenever the government authorizes and involuntary entry into property,
Speaker 1: that is a taking, and the only question is what
Speaker 1: compensation is doing. But that new per se rule is,
Speaker 1: as the Court said in another case, only a per
Speaker 1: se rule for a few pages in the u S Reports,
Speaker 1: because the Court immediately includes a lot of exceptions to
Speaker 1: that pier se rule of invasions that will not be taking.
Speaker 1: So what this leaves for lower courts, for regulators, for
Speaker 1: just individuals is a tough process of trying to figure
Speaker 1: out when those exceptions apply or not. Did Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts year from precedent. I've been reading that he's
Speaker 1: rewriting the takings clause. That's correct. Yeah, So the majority
Speaker 1: claims to rely on precedent, But what in fact it
Speaker 1: does is it takes isolated phrases out of context. And
Speaker 1: twist them into something that they never said, and in
Speaker 1: fact twists them sometimes into the opposite of what the
Speaker 1: decision said. So, for example, the court says that a
Speaker 1: government authorization of a right to enter is a per
Speaker 1: se taking, and it distinguishes is the prune Yard decision
Speaker 1: from about right to speak at malls by saying that
Speaker 1: was only because the property was open to the public.
Speaker 1: But prune Yard said, this is a taking of the
Speaker 1: right to exclude, but not all takings of rights to
Speaker 1: exclude our takings under the Constitution. So that's the opposite
Speaker 1: of what the court held in Theater points. Similarly, there
Speaker 1: are a number of cases that holds that physical invasions
Speaker 1: are taking from the Supreme Court, but they only do
Speaker 1: so after they find that the invasions significantly undermined the
Speaker 1: owner's economic interest. And indeed, those cases sometimes said not
Speaker 1: every invasion is going to be a taking, And in
Speaker 1: this case, Theater point made no out of station that
Speaker 1: there was any invasion of its economic interests, So it's
Speaker 1: inconsistent with those decisions as well. Just explain what the
Speaker 1: takings clause is. The takings clause says that the government
Speaker 1: cannot authorize a taking of private property for public use
Speaker 1: without just compensation. So if the government takes property in
Speaker 1: the constitutional sense, it has to pay for it. But
Speaker 1: there are some cases where that's easy to apply, taking
Speaker 1: somebody's house, saying that somebody's land is going to be
Speaker 1: taken for a road. Those are easy cases. The hard
Speaker 1: cases are when the government doesn't permanently physically take anything.
Speaker 1: And in those cases the court has applied kind of
Speaker 1: balancing test, say why are they doing it? Is there
Speaker 1: much of an impact on the owner's interests, and in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases says there isn't a taking. That's
Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court changed in theater point, what does
Speaker 1: it tell you that this is a six to three decision.
Speaker 1: So what this means to me is that the conservative
Speaker 1: majority on the Supreme Court is willing to expand private
Speaker 1: property rights even when it violates precedents. And that may
Speaker 1: be very significant for the taking clues or almost a century,
Speaker 1: taking decisions have generally been split decisions, been five four decisions,
Speaker 1: with one justice or the other going back and forth.
Speaker 1: If this continues, that's no longer the case. Talking about
Speaker 1: the union aspect of this, there have been several decisions
Speaker 1: from this court eroding union power, including one that overturned
Speaker 1: a forty year old precedent, the Janice case. They've all
Speaker 1: been five to four as well, or now six to three.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if the union has Unions have
Speaker 1: won any cases at the Supreme Court in recent memory.
Speaker 1: I think people watching the Supreme Court recognize that this
Speaker 1: is the Supreme Court that is not friendly to unions.
Speaker 1: The Janic's case is the biggest example. But this adds
Speaker 1: to that list. And now explain what the liberals said
Speaker 1: in dissent. So one of the points of the liberals
Speaker 1: I think is kind of wrong. One of them was
Speaker 1: to say this is just the regulation, not a physical invasion,
Speaker 1: and that is based on a past decision. But the
Speaker 1: distinction really doesn't make sense. The other points are more accurate. First,
Speaker 1: this case is inconsistent with past presidents. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has never said that a temporary invasion that doesn't cause
Speaker 1: any eco nom the corm is a taking certainly not
Speaker 1: a person taking. In fact, it said the opposite. The
Speaker 1: second point is that these exceptions create a lot of uncertainty,
Speaker 1: and they may, if interpreted in a certain way, in fact,
Speaker 1: threatened lots of health and safety regulations. The third point
Speaker 1: is that it's not clear what this decision actually does,
Speaker 1: even for the regulation issue. So the taking classes. If
Speaker 1: you take property, you have to pay, but what do
Speaker 1: you have to pay. You have to pay the fair
Speaker 1: market value of what's been taken. And here, from everything
Speaker 1: that was presented below, the fair market value appears to
Speaker 1: be zero. There wasn't any evidence that this economically harmed
Speaker 1: the growers. So the Supreme Court tells something like this
Speaker 1: with respect to interest on account, where the interest would
Speaker 1: be so small that it wouldn't even make economic sense
Speaker 1: to collect it. And in that case it had to
Speaker 1: go back in another decision and say, well, you know what,
Speaker 1: since the fair market value of this is effectively zero,
Speaker 1: you don't even have to bother to go through the
Speaker 1: takings analysis here, just say yeah, it's a taking, but
Speaker 1: you don't have to pay for it. And so something
Speaker 1: like that might happen here. What Justice Brier said was
Speaker 1: if the government wants to do something like this, they
Speaker 1: could do the economic analysis and say we're going to
Speaker 1: give you one dollar in nominal damages for this invasion.
Speaker 1: You come back and show us that the fair market
Speaker 1: value of it was more. So that's another possibility. During
Speaker 1: the oral arguments, Justice Barrett said, it could be as
Speaker 1: little as fifty dollars. I don't know where she got
Speaker 1: that figure from. So do you think that the next
Speaker 1: step is then determining compensation. So the case goes back
Speaker 1: down to determine what compensation would be. What is the
Speaker 1: fair market value here? And it might be one dollar
Speaker 1: nominal damages. That's something that happened in the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: first per se physical invasion case in n where they said,
Speaker 1: even saying that somebody can put a cable box on
Speaker 1: your roof that you don't see, that doesn't undermine the
Speaker 1: value of your property, that is a per se taking.
Speaker 1: And it went back down to the state of New York,
Speaker 1: and New York said, okay, it's a taking. You get
Speaker 1: one dollar because it doesn't undermine the value of your property.
Speaker 1: So that could happen here. So then if you look
Speaker 1: at that, the compensation could be very little, and you
Speaker 1: look at the fact that the n l RB controls elsewhere,
Speaker 1: it seems like this is more a defeat in name
Speaker 1: that it won't have that much impact. Well, no, it
Speaker 1: does have a very big impact on every other area
Speaker 1: of property law and regulation. So now potentially any time
Speaker 1: that the law says that individuals can enter somebody else's
Speaker 1: land without permission, there's a possible claim that that is
Speaker 1: a taking, and it has to be determined whether it
Speaker 1: comes within one of those three exceptions or it's not.
Speaker 1: What's the compensation would be tell us what the three
Speaker 1: exceptions are. So the three exceptions are, first, if it's
Speaker 1: not a trest pass, and because trust pass is a
Speaker 1: common law doctrine, that's not all that clear what that means. Second,
Speaker 1: it's the right to enter is part of the longstanding
Speaker 1: principles of property law, and there are tons of rights
Speaker 1: to enter that have been recognized for hundreds of years,
Speaker 1: and new one have been added. So if it comes
Speaker 1: within one of those, then it's an exception. To the third,
Speaker 1: the court said that the government can require entry to
Speaker 1: property as a condition of receiving certain benefits, and they
Speaker 1: said that all health and safety exceptions should come within that.
Speaker 1: But there is some scrutiny about whether the entry is
Speaker 1: sufficiently connected to the harm That suggests that's not as
Speaker 1: easy as an exception as the court said. So determining
Speaker 1: the scope of the exception is going to be up
Speaker 1: in the first place to lower courts and regulators, but
Speaker 1: it will eventually get to the Supreme Court. So if
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court keeps the composition that it has and
Speaker 1: the preferences that the six justices and the majority have,
Speaker 1: then those exceptions are going to get narrowed the Pacific
Speaker 1: legal foundation ist and two at the Supreme Court. So
Speaker 1: does that show that property rights win at the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court most of the time. Well, so it depends on
Speaker 1: you to find property rights. So I would say that
Speaker 1: property rights include the right of the government to protect
Speaker 1: everybody's interest in property in safe working condition and so on.
Speaker 1: So it's a particular vision of property rights that favors
Speaker 1: favor certain people and doesn't favor other interests. Thanks Bethany.
Speaker 1: That's Bethany Burger other University of Connecticut School of Law.
Speaker 1: I'm John Galso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.