1
00:00:00,680 --> 00:00:05,320
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,680 --> 00:00:09,920
Speaker 1: President Trump has long complained about judges who issue injunctions

3
00:00:09,960 --> 00:00:16,040
Speaker 1: that apply across the country. This includes activist judges who

4
00:00:16,040 --> 00:00:20,920
Speaker 1: have issued nationwide injunctions prohibiting US from enforcing the immigration

5
00:00:21,040 --> 00:00:25,160
Speaker 1: laws enacted even by Congress. Now, the Supreme Court has

6
00:00:25,200 --> 00:00:28,560
Speaker 1: backed him up, lifting a nationwide injunction and letting the

7
00:00:28,560 --> 00:00:33,360
Speaker 1: administration start enforcing its new immigrant wealth test that's designed

8
00:00:33,360 --> 00:00:36,120
Speaker 1: to screen out Green card applicants seen as being at

9
00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:40,159
Speaker 1: risk of becoming dependent on government benefits. Joining me is

10
00:00:40,240 --> 00:00:43,199
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco, a partnered Hollandon Knight and formerly head of

11
00:00:43,200 --> 00:00:46,279
Speaker 1: the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Department of Justice.

12
00:00:46,840 --> 00:00:51,240
Speaker 1: Describe what Trump's new immigrant wealth test is and how

13
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:55,920
Speaker 1: it differs from the old tests. Sure, the test is

14
00:00:55,960 --> 00:01:00,880
Speaker 1: called the public charge test, and since the teen hundreds,

15
00:01:01,040 --> 00:01:05,440
Speaker 1: Congress actually has had a statute called the Public Charge Statute.

16
00:01:05,520 --> 00:01:08,800
Speaker 1: And what that statute has said is is that if

17
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,160
Speaker 1: a person is coming to the United States from abroad,

18
00:01:12,800 --> 00:01:16,319
Speaker 1: they can be denied entry into the United States if

19
00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:20,800
Speaker 1: the person who's adjudicating their entry determines that they're likely

20
00:01:20,880 --> 00:01:24,080
Speaker 1: to be a public charge, And what public charge has

21
00:01:24,160 --> 00:01:26,920
Speaker 1: historically meant is that they will be reliant on the

22
00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:31,560
Speaker 1: government dole or fisk in order to survive in the

23
00:01:31,640 --> 00:01:34,959
Speaker 1: United States, taxpayers will have to ensure that these individuals

24
00:01:35,080 --> 00:01:39,520
Speaker 1: eat and get support and housing, etcetera. Now, what the

25
00:01:39,600 --> 00:01:43,480
Speaker 1: Trump administration has done is it has in two thousand

26
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:48,160
Speaker 1: and eighteen decided to change the implementing regulations in order

27
00:01:48,200 --> 00:01:51,960
Speaker 1: to define much more broadly the types of people who

28
00:01:52,000 --> 00:01:55,360
Speaker 1: can be called public charges and thus to be able

29
00:01:55,400 --> 00:01:59,360
Speaker 1: to exclude more foreigners from entering the United States. So

30
00:01:59,480 --> 00:02:04,279
Speaker 1: are they determining in advance who might be a public charge?

31
00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:07,160
Speaker 1: How would they do that? So there's three ways in

32
00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:10,440
Speaker 1: which this gets implemented. The first way it gets implemented

33
00:02:11,000 --> 00:02:14,480
Speaker 1: is for individuals who are abroad who are applying for

34
00:02:14,639 --> 00:02:18,600
Speaker 1: visas to come into the United States. So, when someone

35
00:02:18,840 --> 00:02:21,160
Speaker 1: is abroad and they either want to come because they're

36
00:02:21,200 --> 00:02:24,280
Speaker 1: marrying a US citizen or they have a job, that's

37
00:02:24,400 --> 00:02:27,360
Speaker 1: petition for them to come on an employment based green card.

38
00:02:28,040 --> 00:02:31,160
Speaker 1: The counselor adjudicator when you go to pick up your

39
00:02:31,280 --> 00:02:34,440
Speaker 1: visa at a U. S consulate can make a determination

40
00:02:34,520 --> 00:02:37,040
Speaker 1: as to who is a public charge and if they

41
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:40,000
Speaker 1: think that person is likely to become a public chart,

42
00:02:40,120 --> 00:02:42,760
Speaker 1: they can deny them the visa right there. The second

43
00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:46,119
Speaker 1: way is that someone is already here, but they're here

44
00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:48,760
Speaker 1: on what's called a non immigrant visa, meaning they came

45
00:02:48,800 --> 00:02:51,240
Speaker 1: as a visitor, or as a student, or as a

46
00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:54,240
Speaker 1: temporary worker, and now they want to apply for a

47
00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:57,840
Speaker 1: green card. Maybe they married a US citizen, or maybe

48
00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:01,440
Speaker 1: a company has asked for them to stay permanently. In

49
00:03:01,520 --> 00:03:06,639
Speaker 1: that situation, that determination can also be rejected if an

50
00:03:06,639 --> 00:03:09,880
Speaker 1: adjudicator here in the United States determined that that person

51
00:03:10,000 --> 00:03:12,400
Speaker 1: is going to become a public charge. And then the

52
00:03:12,440 --> 00:03:15,239
Speaker 1: third way is for individuals who are here on one

53
00:03:15,280 --> 00:03:18,160
Speaker 1: type of visa who wants to change to a second

54
00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:22,360
Speaker 1: type of visa, that application may be denied now if

55
00:03:22,760 --> 00:03:25,040
Speaker 1: the person is determined to be a public charge in

56
00:03:25,080 --> 00:03:28,520
Speaker 1: the future. Now, a New York federal judge blocked the

57
00:03:28,600 --> 00:03:32,280
Speaker 1: policy from going into effect just while the legal fight

58
00:03:32,480 --> 00:03:35,800
Speaker 1: goes forward. So how big a win is this for

59
00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:40,160
Speaker 1: the Trump administration for the Supreme Court to lift that

60
00:03:40,360 --> 00:03:44,080
Speaker 1: injunction and let the policy go forward. Well, by the

61
00:03:44,200 --> 00:03:47,360
Speaker 1: very terms of the arguments that Trump administration was making

62
00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:50,080
Speaker 1: to the New York Court of Appeals to the Second

63
00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:53,280
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals. They were saying that the harm

64
00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:56,560
Speaker 1: that they would suffer if this rule had been enjoined,

65
00:03:56,600 --> 00:03:58,960
Speaker 1: even for a few more months, was that they would

66
00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,480
Speaker 1: not be able to reach people from coming to the

67
00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:04,560
Speaker 1: United States that they would otherwise have wanted to reject.

68
00:04:05,160 --> 00:04:07,280
Speaker 1: And so this is a big win for them from

69
00:04:07,320 --> 00:04:10,320
Speaker 1: that perspective that they will now be able in these

70
00:04:10,440 --> 00:04:14,440
Speaker 1: interim months where the litigation is pending, to reject people

71
00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:16,839
Speaker 1: from the United States that would if otherwise, had to

72
00:04:16,839 --> 00:04:20,760
Speaker 1: have been accepted had this rule not been implemented. So

73
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:24,000
Speaker 1: the Court as a whole gave no explanation for its order,

74
00:04:24,440 --> 00:04:29,120
Speaker 1: but Justice Neil Gorst, writing for himself, and Justice Clarence Thomas,

75
00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:32,479
Speaker 1: said the Court needs to curb the power of federal

76
00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:36,360
Speaker 1: trial judges to issue these nationwide orders that block a

77
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:40,039
Speaker 1: government initiative. So is this decision by the Court more

78
00:04:40,279 --> 00:04:45,520
Speaker 1: about the wealth test itself or stopping these nationwide injunctions.

79
00:04:46,440 --> 00:04:48,920
Speaker 1: I think there's quite a mix of both there. And

80
00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:52,160
Speaker 1: I think what may have frustrated the five justices is

81
00:04:52,680 --> 00:04:55,919
Speaker 1: it be one thing if there was litigation about, for instance,

82
00:04:55,960 --> 00:05:00,240
Speaker 1: the applicability of the public charge doctrine two people who

83
00:05:00,520 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 1: didn't speak English, or the people with disabilities or the

84
00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:07,640
Speaker 1: people with low credit scores or something like that a

85
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:12,200
Speaker 1: specific test. But what they express frustration about, at least

86
00:05:12,200 --> 00:05:15,520
Speaker 1: in the concurring opinion, is that the rule was enjoined

87
00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:19,520
Speaker 1: in its entirety as to every single individual, and they're

88
00:05:19,560 --> 00:05:22,640
Speaker 1: saying it cannot be the case that every single aspect

89
00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:26,600
Speaker 1: of this rule is in violation of the statute, and

90
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:30,080
Speaker 1: because of that, that challenge that tries to make it

91
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:34,920
Speaker 1: completely invalid should be stayed. This was a split decision

92
00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:40,000
Speaker 1: along ideological lines. Why along ideological lines in a case

93
00:05:40,080 --> 00:05:43,880
Speaker 1: like this are we expecting to see ideological splits in

94
00:05:44,240 --> 00:05:48,200
Speaker 1: the immigration cases going forward? Sure, I think that the

95
00:05:48,279 --> 00:05:52,159
Speaker 1: problem here and it just all comes down to sort

96
00:05:52,200 --> 00:05:55,520
Speaker 1: of what you think is good faith or not good faith.

97
00:05:55,600 --> 00:05:58,440
Speaker 1: If you think that this regulation was done in good faith,

98
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:00,919
Speaker 1: then there would be no reason to enjoin it in

99
00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:04,839
Speaker 1: its entirety because you think, okay, well, this regulation is

100
00:06:04,839 --> 00:06:09,200
Speaker 1: only going to be applied in very narrow circumstances, and

101
00:06:09,320 --> 00:06:12,840
Speaker 1: even those narrow circumstances, it's applied incorrectly. People can go

102
00:06:12,880 --> 00:06:16,200
Speaker 1: to court and challenge it and that will be fine.

103
00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:20,000
Speaker 1: But the poor dissenters. I think that this was not

104
00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:22,240
Speaker 1: done in good faith, that this is not going to

105
00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:25,080
Speaker 1: be applied narrowly, and that this is going to mean

106
00:06:25,160 --> 00:06:28,080
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of people being excluded who would never

107
00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:31,159
Speaker 1: have been excluded in the past, and that when the

108
00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:35,159
Speaker 1: dust settled on this regulation, you're going to see a

109
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:40,159
Speaker 1: great amount of human catastrophes in terms of people not

110
00:06:40,279 --> 00:06:42,520
Speaker 1: being able to come into the United States that usually

111
00:06:42,520 --> 00:06:44,919
Speaker 1: were able to come. The new policy is designed to

112
00:06:44,960 --> 00:06:48,480
Speaker 1: screen out Green card applicants seen as being at risk

113
00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:52,760
Speaker 1: of becoming dependent on government benefits. It expands the definition

114
00:06:52,760 --> 00:06:56,320
Speaker 1: of public charge and gives officials broad power to determine

115
00:06:56,320 --> 00:06:59,200
Speaker 1: that someone is at risk of falling into that category.

116
00:06:59,480 --> 00:07:03,080
Speaker 1: To make that determination, Department of Homeland Security officials can

117
00:07:03,120 --> 00:07:08,120
Speaker 1: consider a list of factors including age, health, education, English

118
00:07:08,200 --> 00:07:12,960
Speaker 1: language proficiency, family size, wealth, and credit scores. In a

119
00:07:13,040 --> 00:07:16,480
Speaker 1: five to four vote along ideological lines, the court blocked

120
00:07:16,480 --> 00:07:19,040
Speaker 1: to New York federal judges ruling that was keeping the

121
00:07:19,120 --> 00:07:22,679
Speaker 1: policy from taking effect. What a legal fight goes forward,

122
00:07:23,600 --> 00:07:28,280
Speaker 1: so Leon explained the argument of those states and immigrant

123
00:07:28,360 --> 00:07:31,680
Speaker 1: groups who are challenging the new Wealth test well, the

124
00:07:31,840 --> 00:07:34,880
Speaker 1: argument of the people challenging the immigration tests that they

125
00:07:34,920 --> 00:07:37,760
Speaker 1: say that many of the factors that were added were

126
00:07:37,800 --> 00:07:42,160
Speaker 1: not factors that Congress actually wanted added when it most

127
00:07:42,240 --> 00:07:45,080
Speaker 1: recently popying them as issue a public charge in nine

128
00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:49,080
Speaker 1: and so they're what they say is, look, a Congress

129
00:07:49,120 --> 00:07:52,080
Speaker 1: didn't want immigrants using certain benefits, they simply would have

130
00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:55,520
Speaker 1: excluded immigrants from using those benefits. You can't come in

131
00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:58,720
Speaker 1: after the fact in a regulation and play a gotcha

132
00:07:58,760 --> 00:08:02,200
Speaker 1: game where somebody used a benefit that the Congress allowed

133
00:08:02,200 --> 00:08:05,280
Speaker 1: them to use, that this would make them a public charge.

134
00:08:05,400 --> 00:08:08,360
Speaker 1: The idea being that the entire point of the public

135
00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:11,640
Speaker 1: charge is to be using things that the Congress didn't

136
00:08:11,680 --> 00:08:14,200
Speaker 1: want immigrants to use, but that if the Congress did

137
00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:17,080
Speaker 1: want immigrants to use these benefits, the whole point of

138
00:08:17,120 --> 00:08:19,240
Speaker 1: it being that they didn't consider that a bad thing.

139
00:08:19,920 --> 00:08:23,960
Speaker 1: And so from that perspective, that main argument, plus the

140
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:27,360
Speaker 1: fact that they broughten the test out to include factors

141
00:08:27,400 --> 00:08:32,880
Speaker 1: like disability, English language knowledge, and credit scores, all things

142
00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:37,480
Speaker 1: that really uh disadvantage knew immigrants of the United States

143
00:08:37,480 --> 00:08:39,440
Speaker 1: who may not know English, but they have a skills

144
00:08:39,760 --> 00:08:42,920
Speaker 1: that certainly makes it very likely that they'll earn money

145
00:08:43,040 --> 00:08:45,680
Speaker 1: or credit score. Nobody comes in with a good credit score.

146
00:08:45,679 --> 00:08:47,760
Speaker 1: People come in with a zero credit score and they

147
00:08:47,800 --> 00:08:50,960
Speaker 1: have to earn it. Those kinds of things become quite

148
00:08:50,960 --> 00:08:54,120
Speaker 1: onerous if they're going to be applied literally and people

149
00:08:54,160 --> 00:08:56,720
Speaker 1: are going to get rejected for these things. So what

150
00:08:56,840 --> 00:09:00,959
Speaker 1: happens next in the litigation? So now the litigation works

151
00:09:00,960 --> 00:09:03,160
Speaker 1: its way through. The second circuit is kind of the

152
00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:05,840
Speaker 1: one that's most developed here, and they will make a

153
00:09:05,920 --> 00:09:10,240
Speaker 1: merits determination and assuming they maintain their merits determination that

154
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:13,600
Speaker 1: the rule is invalid, then the stay still remains in

155
00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:17,240
Speaker 1: place unless the Supreme Court denied SIRT on the public

156
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 1: charge case, which is very unlikely, or until the final

157
00:09:21,200 --> 00:09:24,480
Speaker 1: decision of the Supreme Court, So most likely for about

158
00:09:24,520 --> 00:09:27,319
Speaker 1: a year a year and a half, the Supreme Court

159
00:09:27,440 --> 00:09:30,720
Speaker 1: is allowing this public charge rule to take place, to

160
00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:33,720
Speaker 1: take into effect. Which will be interesting because at least

161
00:09:33,800 --> 00:09:36,520
Speaker 1: during this time period, we will have much more anecdotal

162
00:09:36,559 --> 00:09:39,280
Speaker 1: evidence that can be provided to the the Supreme Court on

163
00:09:39,360 --> 00:09:42,840
Speaker 1: the types of people that are being denied visas under

164
00:09:42,880 --> 00:09:46,640
Speaker 1: this that weren't being denied visas before. In within the injunction,

165
00:09:46,840 --> 00:09:50,079
Speaker 1: part of the test is whether they're likely to succeed

166
00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:53,439
Speaker 1: on the merits. So does this mean that those five

167
00:09:53,559 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 1: justices are most likely going to allow the Trump administration

168
00:09:57,880 --> 00:10:01,240
Speaker 1: to go forward with this inner wealth test when it

169
00:10:01,320 --> 00:10:03,960
Speaker 1: does come back to the court. I think that's a

170
00:10:04,080 --> 00:10:06,680
Speaker 1: very fair assumption to make here. I don't think they

171
00:10:06,679 --> 00:10:08,560
Speaker 1: would have stayed the rule if they thought there was

172
00:10:08,600 --> 00:10:11,240
Speaker 1: something wrong with the rule. But I think the complication

173
00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:14,360
Speaker 1: with this public charge case is that it is so

174
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:17,680
Speaker 1: broad that I think the rule is so broad and

175
00:10:17,720 --> 00:10:20,320
Speaker 1: the application is so broad that I think what the

176
00:10:20,360 --> 00:10:22,720
Speaker 1: court really wants to do in a rule like this

177
00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:26,079
Speaker 1: is to say sub parts of this seemed perfectly reasonable.

178
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:28,880
Speaker 1: You know, if somebody has been living in public housing

179
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:31,160
Speaker 1: for the last thirty six months, why aren't they a

180
00:10:31,160 --> 00:10:34,080
Speaker 1: public charge when they apply for a green card? That

181
00:10:34,160 --> 00:10:37,800
Speaker 1: might be a very reasonable thing to ask, as opposed

182
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:40,240
Speaker 1: to if somebody doesn't speak English, why does that make

183
00:10:40,280 --> 00:10:43,080
Speaker 1: them a public charge? And so what they're trying to

184
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,800
Speaker 1: gear the litigants toward is make those kinds of claims,

185
00:10:46,840 --> 00:10:50,560
Speaker 1: the narrower kinds about specific classes of people being denied,

186
00:10:51,120 --> 00:10:53,439
Speaker 1: rather than the entirety of the rules. So I think

187
00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:55,960
Speaker 1: they will uphold the entirety of the rule. But that

188
00:10:56,040 --> 00:10:58,840
Speaker 1: doesn't speak to the sub classes that are likely to

189
00:10:58,920 --> 00:11:03,079
Speaker 1: form of of people being denied under this rule. So

190
00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:08,400
Speaker 1: we've discussed before Leon how the Supreme Court is also

191
00:11:08,480 --> 00:11:13,120
Speaker 1: allowing President Trump to build his wall with funds that

192
00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:17,360
Speaker 1: were diverted from the military until that case goes through

193
00:11:17,360 --> 00:11:21,320
Speaker 1: the courts. Now we have this, So does it seem

194
00:11:21,360 --> 00:11:25,120
Speaker 1: to you as if the Court is just willing to

195
00:11:25,240 --> 00:11:31,239
Speaker 1: let the Trump administration take these huge leaps in immigration?

196
00:11:32,280 --> 00:11:34,559
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's become evident when you look

197
00:11:34,600 --> 00:11:38,240
Speaker 1: at the travel band case, the asylum case, the border

198
00:11:38,280 --> 00:11:43,160
Speaker 1: wall case, and now this public charge case that the

199
00:11:43,200 --> 00:11:47,600
Speaker 1: institutional litigation that is designed to stop the president from

200
00:11:47,640 --> 00:11:54,320
Speaker 1: at least implementing wholeheartedly reforms on immigration is not going

201
00:11:54,400 --> 00:11:56,920
Speaker 1: to be welcomed by the Supreme Court. The question is,

202
00:11:56,960 --> 00:11:59,360
Speaker 1: does the Supreme Court have the band with to cover

203
00:11:59,480 --> 00:12:01,440
Speaker 1: all of the alsos that are happening on all of

204
00:12:01,480 --> 00:12:04,440
Speaker 1: the different immigration thanks, because otherwise it's gonna end up

205
00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:08,400
Speaker 1: becoming the Supreme Court of Immigration. But when the Supreme

206
00:12:08,440 --> 00:12:11,080
Speaker 1: Court is taking cases, it is saying we want the

207
00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:16,640
Speaker 1: Trump administration's immigration priorities to continue. And that is quite

208
00:12:16,840 --> 00:12:21,679
Speaker 1: a I think a set of events that perhaps was

209
00:12:21,880 --> 00:12:27,800
Speaker 1: not anticipated by the litigants making these cases, and it's

210
00:12:27,840 --> 00:12:30,440
Speaker 1: going to require at some point, especially if the president

211
00:12:30,520 --> 00:12:35,400
Speaker 1: is re elected, a sort of redetermination as to whether

212
00:12:35,480 --> 00:12:39,400
Speaker 1: litigation is the right thing to do in these broader cases,

213
00:12:39,440 --> 00:12:42,839
Speaker 1: because maybe you'll be creating bad president that will last

214
00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:45,839
Speaker 1: a lifetime that you'd rather not create in the situation.

215
00:12:46,360 --> 00:12:50,000
Speaker 1: Of course, now that there are more conservative judges on

216
00:12:50,520 --> 00:12:54,319
Speaker 1: the circuit courts, a lot of the circuit court opinions

217
00:12:54,360 --> 00:12:58,720
Speaker 1: may now go against immigrants. Yeah, that's absolutely correct, and

218
00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:02,600
Speaker 1: that's why personally, when I've done these types of cases,

219
00:13:02,640 --> 00:13:05,160
Speaker 1: I've always tried to stick to the application of the

220
00:13:05,240 --> 00:13:09,200
Speaker 1: law to a certain specific individual, because it's much easier

221
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:11,440
Speaker 1: to make those cases, and the court looks at those,

222
00:13:11,520 --> 00:13:14,600
Speaker 1: and even conservative judges will say, how could you possibly

223
00:13:14,600 --> 00:13:17,120
Speaker 1: have done that? It's much easier when you're going to

224
00:13:17,240 --> 00:13:19,920
Speaker 1: the court in those instances. When you're doing these broader

225
00:13:20,520 --> 00:13:23,880
Speaker 1: policy challenges. A lot of times both sides go into

226
00:13:23,880 --> 00:13:27,040
Speaker 1: their camps and the decision is just, you know, we

227
00:13:27,040 --> 00:13:29,360
Speaker 1: we decide the decision first and then we come up

228
00:13:29,360 --> 00:13:31,719
Speaker 1: with the law to figure that out later. And you're

229
00:13:31,760 --> 00:13:35,120
Speaker 1: starting to see some of that on both sides of

230
00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:38,880
Speaker 1: the equation here, because I wonder when you have a

231
00:13:38,960 --> 00:13:44,400
Speaker 1: Supreme Court that seems so willing to expand the power

232
00:13:44,440 --> 00:13:49,400
Speaker 1: of the executive over the judiciary, what is left as

233
00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:52,880
Speaker 1: a check on the executive. You know, if if Congress

234
00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:56,920
Speaker 1: can't do it with withholding funds, and if the Supreme

235
00:13:57,000 --> 00:14:01,679
Speaker 1: Court won't do it, then there's no is there. Correct.

236
00:14:01,720 --> 00:14:04,720
Speaker 1: It becomes very complicated because there are these two views

237
00:14:04,760 --> 00:14:07,640
Speaker 1: of the world, and it's been an unresolved issue in

238
00:14:07,679 --> 00:14:11,400
Speaker 1: immigration for about fifty years. Is there are some people

239
00:14:11,520 --> 00:14:14,240
Speaker 1: and this I'm talking now uniquely immigration, not to other

240
00:14:14,280 --> 00:14:17,480
Speaker 1: issues where the president claims broad powers. I'm talking just

241
00:14:17,559 --> 00:14:20,840
Speaker 1: about immigration. There have been people on both sides of

242
00:14:20,920 --> 00:14:23,640
Speaker 1: the island. President Obama made these arguments when it was

243
00:14:23,680 --> 00:14:26,800
Speaker 1: time for Dhaka and Dappa that say, when the president

244
00:14:26,840 --> 00:14:30,360
Speaker 1: does something on immigration, it's broad power that cannot be

245
00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:34,240
Speaker 1: reviewed by the courts. And then there are others who say, no, no, no, no.

246
00:14:34,360 --> 00:14:38,560
Speaker 1: The courts have as much say, scrutinizing these immigration policies

247
00:14:38,840 --> 00:14:42,240
Speaker 1: as they do anything else. And if the president gets

248
00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:45,560
Speaker 1: made here that the president does have these broad power

249
00:14:45,600 --> 00:14:49,000
Speaker 1: as well, that's potentially fine for this president. But of

250
00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:51,000
Speaker 1: course then the court would say that that would happen

251
00:14:51,040 --> 00:14:55,360
Speaker 1: for a subsequent president they may not like. But then similarly,

252
00:14:55,960 --> 00:14:58,480
Speaker 1: you know, a president who puts in policies that will

253
00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:02,040
Speaker 1: exclude many, many, many people will while that person is

254
00:15:02,080 --> 00:15:07,520
Speaker 1: president be creating all kinds of upheaval and difficult times

255
00:15:07,600 --> 00:15:10,800
Speaker 1: for those individuals that immigration lawyers might not have wanted

256
00:15:11,200 --> 00:15:13,680
Speaker 1: and should shouldn't have brought those lawsuits if they knew

257
00:15:13,720 --> 00:15:15,960
Speaker 1: this was going to be the outcome. And so these

258
00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:19,240
Speaker 1: are the difficult balances. But yes, right now it seems

259
00:15:19,240 --> 00:15:22,320
Speaker 1: like the Supreme Court is leaning towards sayings that on immigration,

260
00:15:22,800 --> 00:15:26,200
Speaker 1: the president has extremely broad power that the Court is

261
00:15:26,280 --> 00:15:31,800
Speaker 1: not going to question unless there's some really adverse outcome

262
00:15:31,880 --> 00:15:35,720
Speaker 1: here that that's not being presented in the litigation. So

263
00:15:36,280 --> 00:15:39,960
Speaker 1: that seems to bode ill for the doctor decision that

264
00:15:40,000 --> 00:15:43,520
Speaker 1: we're expecting this term, right. I mean, the way I've

265
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:46,120
Speaker 1: always thought this doctor decision will come down and we'll

266
00:15:46,120 --> 00:15:49,040
Speaker 1: will wait and see, is that the court will say, look,

267
00:15:49,160 --> 00:15:53,080
Speaker 1: President Obama had the power to make DOCTA and President

268
00:15:53,120 --> 00:15:56,800
Speaker 1: Trump thus has the power to extinguish DOCTA, and neither

269
00:15:56,960 --> 00:15:59,760
Speaker 1: is questioned by the courts. I think that's sort of

270
00:15:59,800 --> 00:16:02,280
Speaker 1: a a split decision in the sense that a new

271
00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:05,680
Speaker 1: president could reinstall data. What would be sort of the

272
00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:09,680
Speaker 1: overreach would be if the court said and President Obama

273
00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:11,880
Speaker 1: didn't have the authority to make data. I don't know

274
00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:14,160
Speaker 1: if they have to go all the way there, but

275
00:16:14,320 --> 00:16:17,320
Speaker 1: if they just leave it at the president has broad

276
00:16:17,360 --> 00:16:21,040
Speaker 1: power either way, then that that gets rid of data,

277
00:16:21,440 --> 00:16:25,000
Speaker 1: and then it provides the sort of large prerogative for

278
00:16:25,160 --> 00:16:30,120
Speaker 1: either president to have expensive immigration powers. Thanks for being

279
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:33,600
Speaker 1: on Zoomberg long Leon, that's Leon Fresco, a partner's hand

280
00:16:33,640 --> 00:16:33,960
Speaker 1: and Knight