Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: It's certainly not a typical dispute between neighbors about a
Speaker 1: fence or a dog crossing property lines. The feud between
Speaker 1: billionaire Bill Grows and tech entrepreneur Mark Talfick involves a
Speaker 1: private Kenny Loggin's concert, a TV shoot for the HBO
Speaker 1: series Ballers, and a million dollar glass sculpture. Today, Grows
Speaker 1: issued a public statement offering to end all hostilities with
Speaker 1: his Laguna Beach neighbor, but Talfick rejected the settlement, calling
Speaker 1: it a stunt to stem the tide of negative press.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who's covering
Speaker 1: the trial. Why is a neighbor's dispute in court and
Speaker 1: for so long? Well, I think it has to too.
Speaker 1: It's a combination of the bad feelings between these two neighbors,
Speaker 1: provoked dueling, harassment complaints, and as a result, it's because
Speaker 1: of the pandemic it's taking so long, But it does
Speaker 1: seem to be taking extra long even under the pandemic circumstances.
Speaker 1: So they're only doing one day of hearing, like a
Speaker 1: brief four hours or so of hearing every Monday, and
Speaker 1: then the judge in the case decided to sort of
Speaker 1: increase the number of days she sees them. But because
Speaker 1: of COVID, there have to take breaks, and there has
Speaker 1: to be social distancing, and so everything seems to take
Speaker 1: extra long under the circumstances. I imagine that these are
Speaker 1: huge properties. Explain how the houses are situated. These aren't
Speaker 1: like Greenwich, Connecticut or someplace on the Gold Coast in
Speaker 1: um Long Island where you have massive property. These are
Speaker 1: adjoining giant beachfront houses, and um they're not a beach shack.
Speaker 1: These are very large. They're like thousands of square feet.
Speaker 1: They're built on a bluff overlooking and a cliff side
Speaker 1: overlooking Laguna Beach, which used to be an artist colony
Speaker 1: for you know, basically hippies and artists when I was
Speaker 1: growing up, and it has transformed into this extremely desirable space.
Speaker 1: So it's beautiful with lots of cliffs and beach front down.
Speaker 1: So lots of wealthy, wealthy people have migrated there and
Speaker 1: built their wonderful homes. But they're kind of cheek to jowel.
Speaker 1: It's not as probably as tight as Malibu. If people
Speaker 1: have ever seen those Malibu homes, but um, they're very
Speaker 1: massive houses adjacent to each other. It seems that at
Speaker 1: one point they were friendly. So tell us about the
Speaker 1: Kenny Loggins private concert. Yeah, that was quite extraordinary. Having
Speaker 1: grown up with Kenny Loggins, it was quite something to
Speaker 1: hear that Phil Gross is so rich and they are
Speaker 1: different from you and me, that he had a private
Speaker 1: concert in his backyard, catered and everything with Kenny Loggins
Speaker 1: for his girlfriend's fiftieth birthday party. So this isn't just
Speaker 1: like honey, I'm taking you to Acapulco. This is like, honey,
Speaker 1: I'm getting Kenny lock And to play in my backyard
Speaker 1: for us. And apparently what also started with this was
Speaker 1: a for her birthday, he installed a million dollar Dale
Speaker 1: Chululi glass sculpture that is about twenty ft long and
Speaker 1: fourteen ft deep, So it's it might be the size
Speaker 1: of some studio apartment for New York, or let's just say,
Speaker 1: and it's tall, and its glass, it's blown glass. And
Speaker 1: they looked like lots of little like organ pipes made
Speaker 1: out of glass with colors. And they were apparently very
Speaker 1: good friends. There's two different, diametrically opposing stories. Of this
Speaker 1: relationship and how it's soured. According to Mark Talfok, he's
Speaker 1: a tech entrepreneur who built his multimillion dollar mansion first
Speaker 1: on this cove. He built a beautiful dream house and
Speaker 1: work from home. And he says that Bill Gross later
Speaker 1: bought the place next door and started renovating and had
Speaker 1: the sculpture and then had the Kenny Loggin's concert and
Speaker 1: everything was great, and he let Kenny Loggin's crew run
Speaker 1: their gigantic cables, passed his through his property to their trucks,
Speaker 1: the generating trucks, and let them trample his plants, and
Speaker 1: he never complained, but even thanks Bill Gross's girlfriend, and
Speaker 1: they had a text he read saying, you know, thank
Speaker 1: you for this, and she said you're very welcome smiley
Speaker 1: face emoji. But Gross says the bad blood between them
Speaker 1: started when to Fick had a TV show HBO program
Speaker 1: called Ballers, which is about former NBA players, and they
Speaker 1: used to fix house as the scene and they filmed
Speaker 1: there for an entire week and jammed up the Coast
Speaker 1: Highway with the film crew trucks and disrupted their laws.
Speaker 1: The MINTO filed dueling Harassment Plan Games, which is what
Speaker 1: the judge has been hearing of who harassed who, and
Speaker 1: there's also they were speaking temporary restraining orders against each other.
Speaker 1: Stay away from me, No, you stay away from me.
Speaker 1: Bill Gross says that he has been stalked by to Pick,
Speaker 1: who is tech obsessed, as a basic implications through the
Speaker 1: testimony and the allegations of all these cameras everywhere, including
Speaker 1: a camera that spied on him that was posted on
Speaker 1: a palm tree, a real live palm tree. Here's a
Speaker 1: camera on the palm tree which Bill Gross says death
Speaker 1: Tosik isn't ogling him and his girlfriend when they dressed
Speaker 1: antily in the pool. So to Fick actually complains to
Speaker 1: the city about that million dollar glass sculpture, and then
Speaker 1: he says that Bill Gross engaged in hours of sonic
Speaker 1: abuse with music blaring from Gross's home, including the theme
Speaker 1: songs from shows like Gilligan's Island and Matt Yeah. So
Speaker 1: Tofick called the police, and Laguna Beach police officers have
Speaker 1: come to stay testified that yes, I did respond to
Speaker 1: the scene. I was at the address of Tefick's home.
Speaker 1: I arrived at eleven thirty. Yes, I did hear Gilligan's
Speaker 1: Islands playing. So to Fix says he was told or
Speaker 1: instructed or advised by the police to record these so
Speaker 1: that we have heard over and over again multiple tapes,
Speaker 1: and we have heard the sitcom introduction tunes, to theme songs,
Speaker 1: to mash Green Acres, Gilligan's Island, and all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: And then you also didn't heard hip hop, and we
Speaker 1: heard Carlie Jepson's Call Me. So he made he made
Speaker 1: these tapes and he recorded them including he says in
Speaker 1: the background you could see Bill Gross and his girlfriend
Speaker 1: Sash Shane and dancing on their balcony nearby. In said
Speaker 1: he saw them giving him the finger. The officers had
Speaker 1: a couple of times that the men music has been very,
Speaker 1: very loud, and he said it was ear splitting. And
Speaker 1: he says he has ultra sick windows because he wanted
Speaker 1: to necessarily not have to hear the noise of the
Speaker 1: Pacific Coast Highway, which is adjacent to the house. You
Speaker 1: at the front of the house, and he has a
Speaker 1: six cement walls, and yet the music was coming from
Speaker 1: next door with the speakers from outdoors were pointed at
Speaker 1: his house. So um to Fix says it all started
Speaker 1: when he complained to the city of Laguna Beach about suddenly,
Speaker 1: out of the blue, it looked like a giant soccer
Speaker 1: net was put over the sculpture that's lit up at night.
Speaker 1: So imagine that something looks like a Christmas display, or
Speaker 1: you know, like a church organ made of glass that's
Speaker 1: illuminated at night, and it's you know, blue and white
Speaker 1: and all different colors, and then it's got a big
Speaker 1: giant white net over it. Now to Fick complain, he
Speaker 1: says about the lightly, not the sculpture per se. He
Speaker 1: loves art, but that he complained about the unsightly netting.
Speaker 1: Gross complained that the netting was fine. But what ends
Speaker 1: up happening is to pick winds a city ordinance. He
Speaker 1: has the city come out looks at the Grosses sculpture
Speaker 1: and then find gross In failed to comply the zoning regulations.
Speaker 1: When he has that installed. You can imagine someone might
Speaker 1: be annoyed that if you sent a million dollars installing
Speaker 1: art and then somehow it got broken and then you
Speaker 1: put net over it. But suddenly the city says that's
Speaker 1: not okay. And that's when Topi says the abuse started.
Speaker 1: At one point, a police officer says she arrived one
Speaker 1: morning and she heard very loud Spanish music and then
Speaker 1: they asked her to be more clear, explaining what kind
Speaker 1: of music, and she said she could hear very loud
Speaker 1: Mariachi music plane instead of Gilligan's Island, and she said
Speaker 1: it was louder than the Pacific Coast Highway traffic on
Speaker 1: a Saturday. If you can imagine, you know, it's very
Speaker 1: loud highway traffic as well. It was louder than the
Speaker 1: ocean roar. So now is that the testimony is coming
Speaker 1: on too. This week we're hearing more from the property manager,
Speaker 1: who's a Latino. He is testified that he liked to
Speaker 1: play what has been called Spanish music when he was working,
Speaker 1: and that he was given a decibel meter reader by
Speaker 1: the by Gross and Shorts to use it and to
Speaker 1: test whether his music was playing was too loud for
Speaker 1: anyone task to hear. And this would happen when Gross
Speaker 1: and his girlfriend weren't at the property. So Gross has
Speaker 1: been fined. Is he supposed to remove that? Well, it
Speaker 1: seems like everything is kind of been hold, it sounded
Speaker 1: from the testimony of the zoning guard it came to
Speaker 1: testify the sculpture wasn't necessary. Really the problem, what was
Speaker 1: a problem may have been that the netting was not
Speaker 1: in compliance with local ordinances its height, instance in distance,
Speaker 1: you know, it's a size and its height and its location.
Speaker 1: So he was supposed to remove it. Now, Bill Gross's
Speaker 1: people have testified that it was only put up on
Speaker 1: windy days to keep palm fronds from falling down and
Speaker 1: possibly breaking the sculpture. So what this has been is
Speaker 1: a judge has been asked to kind of she's kind
Speaker 1: of trying to be um disciplinarian of two middle school
Speaker 1: boys who can't get along, and she's been asked to
Speaker 1: basically decide to dueling harassment allegations against each other. So
Speaker 1: we've heard from to Fick. He spent multiple days on
Speaker 1: the stand, and of course this is going in an
Speaker 1: excruciatingly slow paced because of the breaks they've been taking
Speaker 1: and they can only have a hearing one day a week.
Speaker 1: And we expect to also here from Amy Schwartz, Bill
Speaker 1: Gross's girlfriend, who's a former model and professional tennis player,
Speaker 1: and then we're going to also hear from Bill Gross.
Speaker 1: You right, that you can sense the animosity between these
Speaker 1: two now, and that that has even been demonstrated in
Speaker 1: the courtroom. Yeah, the first day, to Fick was supposed
Speaker 1: to take the stand. You can imagine that they have
Speaker 1: plastic shields around the witness, the judge, and the witness box,
Speaker 1: and the courtroom seating is limited to the parties only,
Speaker 1: and a film crew and one I guess, one media representative.
Speaker 1: And I note the first day as as a trial
Speaker 1: inside edition got the price seat of being the pool
Speaker 1: or the only camera allowed in the courtroom. And so
Speaker 1: to Fick takes the stand to testify. It the dueling harassment, hearing,
Speaker 1: and suddenly you heard uh. And then someone said mr
Speaker 1: Mr Gross, where are you going? And then Gross said
Speaker 1: I can't hear him, and someone said it must be
Speaker 1: because he's mumbling. And so they were arguing immediately, bickering,
Speaker 1: and um, the judge was asking him not to speak
Speaker 1: to each other. And then so Gross planted himself as
Speaker 1: you can imagine, they're supposed to be socially distanced, and
Speaker 1: he sat in the jury box. He said he was
Speaker 1: hard of hearing and he couldn't hear. So he sat
Speaker 1: in the seat number two, second seat next to the
Speaker 1: witness box. In the jury box, there's no jury, of course,
Speaker 1: and then Tofi complained that he didn't like Gross sitting
Speaker 1: so close to him, so he that he should move.
Speaker 1: And then there was the discussion back and forth where
Speaker 1: could he sit? And then the Gross said he couldn't sit,
Speaker 1: so maybe he would stand throughout the entire hearing. And
Speaker 1: then he said his hearing aid was breaking because he
Speaker 1: couldn't hear, and then should the judge asked him to
Speaker 1: raise the volume in his hearing aid and suddenly hear that,
Speaker 1: you know that very painful screeching noise when someone's hearing
Speaker 1: aid has back play on a speaker. And then the
Speaker 1: judge said, that was painful for all of us. We've
Speaker 1: turned that down. Change seats, Mr Gross. So this has
Speaker 1: been quite interesting to Mr Gross, of course, is a
Speaker 1: very wealthy man, and he promises to bring basically his
Speaker 1: side of the story includes to fix former neighbor, the
Speaker 1: guy he bought the house from, and you know, all
Speaker 1: kinds of experts to say that that anything that to
Speaker 1: Fick recorded on his iPhone has been distorted because iPhones
Speaker 1: are not giving an actual audio volume. It's kind of crazy. Well,
Speaker 1: the amount of money that he must be spending on
Speaker 1: legal fees and experts and investigators. It's probably off the charts.
Speaker 1: But what is Gross's current complaint against to keep saying
Speaker 1: that Mark to Fick has a stalker Essentially, as his
Speaker 1: lawyer said, he's essentially a stalker uh and essentially engaging
Speaker 1: in stalking practices that he has been following uh growth
Speaker 1: and his girlfriend with his camera, that he's surreptitiously filming him. Uh.
Speaker 1: That this is that he also alleges. So, you know,
Speaker 1: we have the Laguna Beach Police come in and testify
Speaker 1: about the noise complaints they constantly had to respond to,
Speaker 1: and they basically affirm or confirm elements of topick story.
Speaker 1: There's music, plane, it's late, it's late at night, and
Speaker 1: their position it is very loud. He's complaining that Topick
Speaker 1: is obsessed and has weaponized If he got the police
Speaker 1: to testify to confirm his version of the story, it's
Speaker 1: because he's weaponized the Laguna Beach Police Department for in
Speaker 1: his favor. And I guess that one thing is that
Speaker 1: we're all sitting and weathering under very bad, terrible news
Speaker 1: about you know, tragic news about the pandemic. A lot
Speaker 1: of people are kind of asking what's going on and
Speaker 1: why are we in court? So, so the decision here
Speaker 1: is up to the judge, no jury, it's a judicial hearing,
Speaker 1: and and it's uh superior court, Orange County Superior Court.
Speaker 1: She said she wants to finish this hearing by December fifteen,
Speaker 1: and she's going to issue her own finding. Uh. So
Speaker 1: she's being asked to consider dueling harassment claims. And then
Speaker 1: there's also a slew of other lawsuits that have been
Speaker 1: our corollary suits and complaints. They filed on a variety
Speaker 1: of different method measures, you know, So she seems to
Speaker 1: be dealing specifically with the harassment claims. It's unclear. You know,
Speaker 1: everybody's got deep pockets in this story. So this litigation
Speaker 1: and all its corollary allegation, you know, allegations and complaints
Speaker 1: will probably proceed into Thanks for being on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Show. Pat. That's Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg Legal reporter. President
Speaker 1: Trump canceled the dot A program soon after he took office,
Speaker 1: and data has been caught in legal battles ever since,
Speaker 1: battles that went up to the Supreme Court. Now, a
Speaker 1: Brooklyn federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration must
Speaker 1: fully restore the so called Dreamer's program that protects undocumented
Speaker 1: immigrants brought to the US as children. My guest is
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. To set this up,
Speaker 1: go back to June when the Supreme Court blocked Trump
Speaker 1: from ending data. In June, what the Supreme Court did
Speaker 1: was they issued a decision about the legality of the
Speaker 1: process chosen by the Trump administration to refend the docup program.
Speaker 1: And what they said was that the process that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration used to resend the doctor program was unlawful
Speaker 1: because it did not sufficiently explain the rationale for revoking
Speaker 1: the program and did not sufficiently take into account different
Speaker 1: interests were in place in terms of reliance interests and
Speaker 1: in terms of winding down the program and the relevant
Speaker 1: time friend for doing so, and so because the Trump
Speaker 1: administration had failed to do that, the revocation of the
Speaker 1: doctor program was arbitrary and capricia. So then the question
Speaker 1: became what could the administration do next about the doctor program?
Speaker 1: And that is when the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: Judd Wolf, issued a memorandum saying that what he would
Speaker 1: do while he was weighing the future of the doctor
Speaker 1: program was to allow people to extend their doctor sabus
Speaker 1: by one year increment and not allow any new people
Speaker 1: to apply for DOCTA. And so that was the current
Speaker 1: state of affairs before this weekend when a judge ruled
Speaker 1: that that memorandum was no longer valid. Tell us why
Speaker 1: the judge ruled that the memorandum wasn't valid. Know what
Speaker 1: the judge in the New York case, which is a
Speaker 1: case called the tie of the Dial versus Chad wolf
Speaker 1: held was that Chad wolf who was the acting Secretary
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security, isn't actually a validly appointed acting Secretary
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security. Chad Wolfe was confirmed to be an
Speaker 1: Assistant Secretary for Policy and was appointed via a series
Speaker 1: of memoranda to be the acting Secretary of Homeland Security.
Speaker 1: But what the judge ruled was that that series of
Speaker 1: memoranda was clawed not just for Chad wolf but also
Speaker 1: even for Kevin McAleenan who was the acting Secretary of
Speaker 1: Homeland Security before Chad wolf And that the last actual
Speaker 1: valid person who the Secretary of Homeland Security was Kirstin Nielsen,
Speaker 1: who was confirmed by the Senate, and that she drafted
Speaker 1: a memo about who goes back in the succession plan.
Speaker 1: That memo was never followed, such that there is currently
Speaker 1: no legitimate person that can be appointed as acting Secretary
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security because there's no one who can actually
Speaker 1: do that anymore because the process was fractured, but that
Speaker 1: the only way to remedy this is for the Senate
Speaker 1: to confirm a new Secretary of Homeland Security. The judge
Speaker 1: also told the Department to put out a notice so
Speaker 1: that new DOCTA applicants could start applying. Correct. So, one
Speaker 1: of the main features of the decision of this District
Speaker 1: Court judge was not only that the District Court judge
Speaker 1: restored the doctor program to what it was in its
Speaker 1: entirety under the Obama administration, but basically said, I don't
Speaker 1: want any delay whatsoever in the implementation of this, because
Speaker 1: his concern was that the administration would slow walk this
Speaker 1: this and not a really implements the decision, and so
Speaker 1: he wanted immediate reporting on the fact that applications would
Speaker 1: be immediately accepted the beginning of December seven, and he
Speaker 1: wanted statistics up without about how many people were applying,
Speaker 1: how many people were being approved, how many people are
Speaker 1: being rejected. D Jess says it's going to appeal the decision.
Speaker 1: How long might that appeal take? Is there any way
Speaker 1: the appeal could be finished before Trump leaves office. So
Speaker 1: there's two issues, and both are important. The first issue
Speaker 1: is whether they will be able to get us say
Speaker 1: on the decision requiring the DOCCA applications to move forward.
Speaker 1: If they don't, then they're gonna have to be accepting
Speaker 1: these applications immediately or they will be subjects to consents
Speaker 1: of court. But the larger issue is they need to
Speaker 1: appeal this decision about whether Chad Wolfe is a legitimate
Speaker 1: Secretary of Homeland Security because if he isn't, that doesn't
Speaker 1: just affect Dacca, that affects everything he's done as Secretary
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security and potentially everything that Kevin McAleenan has
Speaker 1: done as Secretary of Homeland Security. And so because of that,
Speaker 1: they need to appeal this. And it's an interesting question
Speaker 1: as to whether they will get a decision in time
Speaker 1: before the end of the Trump administration. And if they
Speaker 1: don't get such a decision in time from the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court or at least from the Second Circuit, that tells them, hey,
Speaker 1: it's okay, there was a legitimate appointment here. If they
Speaker 1: don't fix that part, it will be very interesting to
Speaker 1: see what a Biden administration does as to whether it
Speaker 1: continues to try to defend other actions reached by Tad
Speaker 1: Wolf or whether it's basically jettisons every single thing that
Speaker 1: Chad Wolf did as Secretary of Homeland Security and maybe
Speaker 1: even that Kevin McAleenan did as Secretary of Homeland Security
Speaker 1: and basically says the last two years were a wat
Speaker 1: and nothing happened, and any policy that was there is invalid,
Speaker 1: and we only returned to whatever the policies were at
Speaker 1: the end of the first and Nielsen's security tenure. This
Speaker 1: is just one case. There are also challenges to data
Speaker 1: in other states. Texas is challenging doc and a judge
Speaker 1: there could rule that it's illegal. What happens then if
Speaker 1: if a judge in Texas says DOCA is illegal, and
Speaker 1: you have this decision by a Brooklyn judge. So that
Speaker 1: is a separate and completely distinct, but equally important challenge,
Speaker 1: which is there has been this bucket of lawsuits, which
Speaker 1: are the ones that reached the Supreme Court on the
Speaker 1: manner in which DOCTA was revoked, and all of those
Speaker 1: have failed to reach the fundamental issue of whether DOCTA
Speaker 1: was lawful to begin with or should be ended just
Speaker 1: because it's an unlawful program. We have not had that adjudication,
Speaker 1: and that's the litigation that happening in Texas right now.
Speaker 1: And the thought process is because the composition of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has changed since the last DOCTA decision, where
Speaker 1: Justice Ginberg has been replaced by Justice Cody Barrett, there
Speaker 1: is a significant possibility that if that case gets to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, the entire doctor program would be invalidated
Speaker 1: for the same reason that with President Obama tried a
Speaker 1: larger program called DAFA, which was for undocumented parents of
Speaker 1: US citizens. That program was invalidated because it was viewed
Speaker 1: as a procedurally incorrect because it did not use notice
Speaker 1: and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, but be
Speaker 1: it also violated the Immigration and Nationality Act because there
Speaker 1: are provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act which require
Speaker 1: the Secretary of Homeland Security to place undocumented individuals in
Speaker 1: removal proceedings when they come across undocumented individuals, not to
Speaker 1: give them work permits, and so the idea is you
Speaker 1: could do that on an individual basis, but once you
Speaker 1: do it on a programmatic basis, you're violating the law.
Speaker 1: And so that's the two theories that are going to
Speaker 1: be litigated as the Biden administration seeks to restore doctors.
Speaker 1: That's right, Joe Biden has pledged to restore data within
Speaker 1: one hundred days of his taking office. But his restoration
Speaker 1: that would just mean an executive order. Correct, he would
Speaker 1: simply say that the Obama administration policy is restored in
Speaker 1: its entirety and applications begin in earnest. Again. Now, the
Speaker 1: only question is President Biden is getting a lot of
Speaker 1: pressure to change the date of eligibility because under the
Speaker 1: current DOCTA program, you had to be eligible because you
Speaker 1: arrived before two thousand and seventh. That's a long time ago.
Speaker 1: It's south thirteen years ago. He may get some pressure
Speaker 1: to move up that date. Uh. And if he does
Speaker 1: do that, that makes it easier to challenge in court
Speaker 1: because now there will be people who did not have
Speaker 1: quote unquote the reliance interests on DOCCA that the current
Speaker 1: people in the program has. It seems like data recipients
Speaker 1: have never really been able to feel safe because ever
Speaker 1: since the beginning, there have been legal problems with data
Speaker 1: that is absolutely correct. Since the beginning of DOCCA, there
Speaker 1: have been legal challenges. There was an illegal There was
Speaker 1: a legal challenge originally in the Fifth Circuit by ICE agents,
Speaker 1: and they're the legality of the program was not ruled
Speaker 1: upon because at that time, the Fifth Circuit held that
Speaker 1: the ICE agents did not have standing to challenge the
Speaker 1: DOCTA programs. There was never a ruling on that. But
Speaker 1: what happened after the Obama administration expanded the doctor program
Speaker 1: to become DAFA to include parents of U. S citizens,
Speaker 1: then the state attorney general's food as opposed to ICE agents,
Speaker 1: And because the state attorney generals food, then the courts
Speaker 1: ruled that those state attorney generals did have standings because
Speaker 1: the issue was that DOCCA recipients were able to get
Speaker 1: driver licenses in those states and that that gave the
Speaker 1: state standings, whereas the ICE agent never had standing. So
Speaker 1: we've never been able to confront once and for all
Speaker 1: the legality of SOCCA, meaning to twelve. People in the
Speaker 1: program have always been worried that it would be held
Speaker 1: to be illegal, and as such, they could have their
Speaker 1: saddest strips away. And so that's why it's ultimately important
Speaker 1: either a Congress the past lasting relief or for the
Speaker 1: Biden administration to use a different form of relief to
Speaker 1: help the doctor students. And that's why I've been one
Speaker 1: of the people advocating for something called temporary protective status
Speaker 1: for not to SOCCA Hope, but for everyone under the
Speaker 1: COVID rubric and saying that at least for the next
Speaker 1: eighteen bunds don't deport any non criminals anywhere until we
Speaker 1: vaccinate everybody and get everything under control with COVID such
Speaker 1: that we can actually have a functioning immigration system again
Speaker 1: where people can go to courts and actually have real
Speaker 1: hearings and not buy in detention facilities, etcetera, etcetera. And
Speaker 1: so I don't know if that idea is going to
Speaker 1: get traction, but that's one of the ideas that they're
Speaker 1: considering in the Biden's administration. So, I mean, theoretically, what
Speaker 1: could happen is if that Texas case goes up to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court could say that DACA
Speaker 1: is illegal, and then the Biden administration would have to
Speaker 1: come up with some other kind of rubric to correct
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court hold that the DOTA program is
Speaker 1: illegal for the same reasons that it it held that
Speaker 1: the DA program was illegal. Now it didn't write a decision,
Speaker 1: it's just a firm the Texas decision. Back then there
Speaker 1: was a four four slip that just affirmed the Texas
Speaker 1: decision without a written opinion. But if it holds that
Speaker 1: it's illegal for the same reason, then the bid administration
Speaker 1: will actually have to come up with a new administrative
Speaker 1: way to try to protect data recipient, and I think
Speaker 1: that way would be temporary protective SIBUS. They can potentially
Speaker 1: also just tell people apply for something called the humanitarian
Speaker 1: parole and we're not gonna put any criteria in it.
Speaker 1: And that way because the the insertion of criteria that
Speaker 1: makes the program the legal. But if it's a one
Speaker 1: by one decision, it's legal. And so they could just
Speaker 1: tell people, we can't give you any guarantee that it
Speaker 1: will be granted, and we can't lay out any criteria
Speaker 1: for how it will be granted, but if you apply,
Speaker 1: maybe you'll get this humanitarian parole. And that would be
Speaker 1: another way to try to take care of this population.
Speaker 1: Thanks Leon that's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Night.
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grass. Thanks so much for listening, and remember
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening. Please tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week and now at ten pm Eastern right here on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio