WEBVTT - Sleeper Immigration Case With Echoes of Guantanamo 0:00:00.720 --> 0:00:05.040 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:05.559 --> 0:00:08.720 The Supreme Court's docket this year has an unusually large 0:00:08.800 --> 0:00:12.480 number of immigration cases that run the gamut from boilerplate 0:00:12.600 --> 0:00:16.080 to blockbuster. One of the cases in the blockbuster category 0:00:16.400 --> 0:00:20.560 involves a politically charged issue that could bolster the government's 0:00:20.560 --> 0:00:25.280 ability to deport undocumented immigrants quickly after their asylum bids 0:00:25.280 --> 0:00:29.440 are rejected. My guest is constitutional law experts Stephen Vladdock, 0:00:29.680 --> 0:00:32.879 a professor at the University of Texas Law School. So 0:00:33.040 --> 0:00:35.280 Steve tell us about the main issues in the case. 0:00:35.840 --> 0:00:38.440 June in a term full of of big immigration cases, 0:00:38.479 --> 0:00:41.199 I actually think this is the sleeper. So there's a 0:00:41.200 --> 0:00:45.160 whole category of non citizens who are placed in something 0:00:45.159 --> 0:00:48.320 called expedited removal. And the idea is when the government 0:00:48.320 --> 0:00:51.720 picks up someone right after they surreptitiously enter the country 0:00:52.240 --> 0:00:54.280 and when they haven't been here for that long, the 0:00:54.400 --> 0:00:56.240 law ought to treat them as if they were stopped 0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:58.800 at the border. That you know, we shouldn't necessarily reward 0:00:58.800 --> 0:01:01.360 folks who cross illegal just for the fact that they 0:01:01.400 --> 0:01:05.080 weren't captured right on site. In this context, as the 0:01:05.200 --> 0:01:08.720 term suggests, f tite removal means a much more streamlined 0:01:08.880 --> 0:01:11.640 process before they are removed from the country, and it 0:01:11.720 --> 0:01:16.200 also dramatically circumscribes the kinds of claims that folks in 0:01:16.240 --> 0:01:18.560 this status are allowed to make. So with regard to 0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:22.679 asylum seekers, for example, there's nowhere near the amount of 0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:26.120 review of a claim that you know, someone who fled 0:01:26.160 --> 0:01:30.520 persecution in another country actually credibly did so, or that 0:01:30.560 --> 0:01:32.760 if they were returned to their home country they face 0:01:32.840 --> 0:01:36.560 a meaningful risk of violence for you know. A long time, 0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:39.959 the Supreme Court has operated to the presumption that individuals 0:01:39.959 --> 0:01:44.520 who are physically present on US soil, whatever their immigration status, 0:01:44.560 --> 0:01:47.960 are protected by the Constitution. But this case is actually 0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:51.600 raising whether that's still true and whether the Court still 0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:54.200 believes that in the context of perhaps the most important 0:01:54.240 --> 0:01:57.920 constitutional protection, the right of habeas corpus. Basically, the long 0:01:58.080 --> 0:02:01.800 term of this case is Congress in nine took away 0:02:01.840 --> 0:02:05.480 from the federal courts the power to hear habeas petitions, 0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:10.720 basically collateral attacks on the underlying government detention from non 0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:14.600 sitisen immigrants who are in so called expedited removal proceedings. 0:02:14.880 --> 0:02:17.079 And the argument in these cases is that by not 0:02:17.160 --> 0:02:21.400 allowing for habeas. There's no meaningful opportunity for someone with 0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:24.560 a valid asylum claim whose claim is denied in this 0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:28.520 expedited context to then challenge that denial in court. When 0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:32.160 the Third Circuit heard this issue four years ago, it said, 0:02:32.200 --> 0:02:35.440 note the suspension clause of the Constitution, which protects the 0:02:35.480 --> 0:02:39.119 right of habeas corpus, does not apply to undocumented immigrants 0:02:39.160 --> 0:02:42.040 who are in excited removal. And late last year the 0:02:42.120 --> 0:02:44.480 Ninth Circuit, the Federal Pell's Court in San Francisco, disagreed, 0:02:44.560 --> 0:02:46.919 creating a circuit split. Tell us a little bit about 0:02:46.960 --> 0:02:50.720 the plaintiff who says he fears persecution in his country. 0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:54.079 The Rostertam is a Sri Lankan and he's a Tamil, 0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.040 which basically means that he is in a minority group 0:02:58.080 --> 0:03:00.799 that has been the subject of significant person acution from 0:03:00.800 --> 0:03:04.000 the Sri Lankan government. Of course, there's been some violence 0:03:04.000 --> 0:03:05.839 on the part of this group as well. He entered 0:03:05.840 --> 0:03:09.440 the United States surreptitiously in California. He was picked up 0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.880 shortly after he entered, and he basically is trying to 0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:16.760 challenge the government's denial of his asylum claim on the 0:03:16.800 --> 0:03:20.240 ground that he incredibly fears persecution or other forms of 0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:24.120 inappropriate treatment if he is returned to Sri Lanka. The 0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:26.760 District Court concluded that it lacked the ability to hear 0:03:26.800 --> 0:03:30.760 his habeas petition because of the statute Congress past, and 0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:33.679 the Ninth Circuit reversed, disagreeing with the Third Circan in 0:03:33.800 --> 0:03:38.320 holding that the suspension clause applies to anyone on US soil, 0:03:38.400 --> 0:03:40.680 that whether or not your attention is lawful, which is 0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:43.920 what the courts will ultimately decide. Congress can't cut the 0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:46.880 courts out of the loop entirely when it comes to 0:03:46.960 --> 0:03:49.880 reviewing these kinds of immigration cases. And June. One of 0:03:49.920 --> 0:03:51.520 the points the Ninth Circuit Majors, I think is a 0:03:51.520 --> 0:03:55.000 pretty good one is the most important Supreme Court case 0:03:55.120 --> 0:03:58.640 interpreting the suspension clause and discussing the right of habeas 0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:01.760 corpus is the boom Median case from two thousand and eight, 0:04:02.080 --> 0:04:04.400 where the Supreme Court and the context of the non 0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:09.640 citizen enemy combatants detain the guantanamo held that even they 0:04:09.680 --> 0:04:12.400 are protected by the suspension clause and are entitled to 0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:15.280 judicial review of their detention. And then I took it 0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:17.919 basically said, listen, if that's true, for non citizen enemy 0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:21.560 combatants at Guantanamo who have never had any connection to 0:04:21.600 --> 0:04:26.239 the United States. It should be true for undocumented immigrants who, 0:04:26.360 --> 0:04:30.359 whatever their legal status, are physically present on US soil 0:04:30.400 --> 0:04:35.039 at the time of their apprehension. So since is the 0:04:35.160 --> 0:04:38.919 Ninth Circuit the only court to say that that provision 0:04:38.960 --> 0:04:42.440 of the law is unconstitutional? June the Ninth Circuits the 0:04:42.520 --> 0:04:45.520 only court to hold that that provisions unconstitutional has applied 0:04:45.520 --> 0:04:47.840 in this context. But I mean, the reality is there 0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:50.280 are dozens and dozens of cases in which the district 0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:53.239 chords have reached the merits in this context. It's only 0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:55.920 really I think in response to the Third Circuit decision 0:04:55.920 --> 0:04:58.640 from twenty sixteen, that there's been this renewed focus on 0:04:58.680 --> 0:05:01.359 the constitutional question. So I don't think that there's a 0:05:01.400 --> 0:05:05.479 clear weight of authority on this question that necessarily tips 0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.240 in the government's favor. I think what it really is 0:05:08.240 --> 0:05:11.880 is this case is a referendum on the Guantanamo decision, 0:05:11.880 --> 0:05:14.040 the bu Media decision from two thousand eight that was 0:05:14.120 --> 0:05:17.159 five to four. You know, Justice Kavanaugh, who replaced Justice Kennedy. 0:05:17.240 --> 0:05:19.600 Kennedy had was the swing vote in that decision. Kennedy 0:05:19.600 --> 0:05:23.120 wrote the majority opinion. I think Justice Kavanaugh is arguably 0:05:23.200 --> 0:05:26.520 not as sympathetic toward habeas in this context of Justice 0:05:26.600 --> 0:05:30.000 Kennedy was. So it's another one of these cases where 0:05:30.040 --> 0:05:34.080 the Kennedy to Kavanaugh shift could have real consequences for 0:05:34.120 --> 0:05:37.200 the doctrine, and where, in contrast to Guantanamo, where we're 0:05:37.200 --> 0:05:40.200 only talking about forty detainees who are still there, now, 0:05:40.240 --> 0:05:43.640 we're talking about tens of thousands of individuals in the 0:05:43.720 --> 0:05:46.360 United States who would be covered by this ruling. I've 0:05:46.360 --> 0:05:49.039 been talking to Professor Stephen Vladdock of the University of 0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:52.640 Texas Law School about a high stakes immigration case at 0:05:52.640 --> 0:05:57.200 the Supreme Court involving expedited removal. So Steve, explain why 0:05:57.240 --> 0:06:01.080 that two thousand eight Guantanamo case still seems to be 0:06:01.120 --> 0:06:05.440 getting so much attention and criticism. The Supreme Court decision 0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:07.440 in the Median case with regard toble on time with 0:06:07.480 --> 0:06:10.440 detainees really has been something of the lightning rod. You know, 0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:14.200 Attorney General Bill Barr in his I think widely noticed 0:06:14.400 --> 0:06:17.279 speech to the Federal Society back in November, went out 0:06:17.279 --> 0:06:19.680 of his way to go after that decision, even though 0:06:19.920 --> 0:06:22.400 it's hard to see how those cases are really at 0:06:22.400 --> 0:06:24.680 the center of the government's agenda these days, as an 0:06:24.760 --> 0:06:27.599 example of what he called judicial activism, as an example 0:06:27.680 --> 0:06:31.520 of you know, progressive justices running amuck, and bars argument 0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:34.440 was that it was wrong for the courts to insert 0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:38.880 themselves into the middle of military operations by basically saying, yes, 0:06:38.920 --> 0:06:41.479 there's a role for the federal courts in reviewing the 0:06:41.520 --> 0:06:44.680 detention of enemy combatants. But you know, June, whatever folks 0:06:44.800 --> 0:06:47.320 think about that debate, what's so fascinated to me about 0:06:47.320 --> 0:06:49.520 the case the Supreme Court set to here at the 0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:52.480 end of February, the tha GM case, is that you know, 0:06:52.600 --> 0:06:56.200 these are not enemy combatants. These are not individuals who 0:06:56.240 --> 0:06:59.760 have any kind of criminal record or any special collection 0:06:59.760 --> 0:07:01.960 in terry or some you know, these are folks who, 0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:05.520 at least if their allegations are true, are simply looking 0:07:05.520 --> 0:07:08.960 for a better life in our fleeing persecution in other countries. 0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:11.120 And so long as we have a law on the 0:07:11.160 --> 0:07:13.880 books that says, you know, you're entitled to asylument, certain 0:07:13.920 --> 0:07:16.400 things are true. The question is who's going to be 0:07:16.440 --> 0:07:21.000 the ultimate arbiter of these individuals asylum claims, the individual 0:07:21.120 --> 0:07:24.960 immigration hearing officer for whom all the incentives are increasingly 0:07:25.000 --> 0:07:29.080 pointed towards denying claims or an independent Article three court, 0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:31.400 And that's really the stakes of this case and June, 0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:33.320 just to sort of add one more piece of context 0:07:33.400 --> 0:07:35.280 to it, All of this is happening while the Trump 0:07:35.320 --> 0:07:39.160 administration is actually trying to expand the category of non 0:07:39.200 --> 0:07:42.680 citizens who can be subjected to expedited removal, where the 0:07:42.720 --> 0:07:45.600 consequences of this case could become even bigger. What is 0:07:45.600 --> 0:07:50.680 the federal government's argument to the Supreme Court justices to 0:07:50.920 --> 0:07:53.920 get them to overturn the Ninth Circuits decision. So the 0:07:53.960 --> 0:07:56.080 government actually makes a series of arguments, and I think 0:07:56.120 --> 0:08:00.360 the principal argument the government makes is that immigration cases 0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:03.120 were never meant to be within the ambit of the 0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:08.000 suspension clause. That in contrast to executive detention like the 0:08:08.000 --> 0:08:12.720 Guantanamo cases. You know, in this context, individuals like thrasy Gum, 0:08:12.760 --> 0:08:16.800 they're not really objecting to their detention. They're trying to 0:08:16.960 --> 0:08:20.160 use habeas as a way of objecting to their removal, 0:08:20.680 --> 0:08:23.360 where you know, they won't necessarily be detained in their 0:08:23.360 --> 0:08:25.240 home countries, they just won't be able to stay in 0:08:25.280 --> 0:08:28.160 the United States. So a big part of the government's 0:08:28.240 --> 0:08:30.960 argument is that in general, the suspension clause just doesn't 0:08:30.960 --> 0:08:36.040 apply when non citizens are trying to collaterally attack removal proceedings. 0:08:36.040 --> 0:08:38.600 But the government also says that in any event, the 0:08:38.720 --> 0:08:42.680 suspension clause is satisfied, at least in this context, by 0:08:42.720 --> 0:08:47.440 the limited but not zero review that these kinds of 0:08:47.480 --> 0:08:50.000 non citizens receive of their claims, as I said, through 0:08:50.040 --> 0:08:53.440 this immigration hearing officer, through this asylum officer. But I think, 0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:55.080 you know, a lot's gonna rise and fall in the 0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:57.280 first part of that argument on whether there's a majority 0:08:57.320 --> 0:09:02.760 of the justices who agree that removal of non citizens 0:09:02.800 --> 0:09:07.280 deportation proceedings were not what Habeas was meant to protect 0:09:07.280 --> 0:09:08.920 at the founding, and it's not what Habeas is meant 0:09:08.920 --> 0:09:13.480 to protect today. So the justices don't have to overrule precedents, 0:09:13.520 --> 0:09:16.480 they don't have to overrule Median, they don't have to 0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:19.280 overrule Median, although I do think, you know, b Median 0:09:19.400 --> 0:09:22.400 really does lurk over these cases, you know, duns. I 0:09:22.400 --> 0:09:24.920 think the respondents argued at the certain stage and in 0:09:24.960 --> 0:09:28.040 the Ninth Circuit, there are a lot of older Supreme 0:09:28.080 --> 0:09:31.480 Court cases that are ruling the government saver here wouldn't 0:09:31.520 --> 0:09:35.079 require overruling, but would create some tension where the Supreme 0:09:35.080 --> 0:09:39.120 Court historically has basically sort of assumed that habeas applied 0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:42.600 in this context, and the Court has repeatedly suggested that 0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:46.319 undocumented immigrants, you know, because they're physically on US soil, 0:09:46.360 --> 0:09:49.560 are protected by at least some of the Constitution. So 0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:51.719 I think there is a way for the justices to 0:09:51.800 --> 0:09:54.720 rule for the government without overruling any of their precedents. 0:09:54.760 --> 0:09:56.360 I do think they would have to give at least 0:09:56.400 --> 0:09:58.880 some of those precedents a haircut. And you know, I 0:09:58.880 --> 0:10:01.319 think that's part of what the rout of GM's lawyers 0:10:01.360 --> 0:10:04.840 are likely to argue in their you know, merits brief, 0:10:04.840 --> 0:10:07.160 which I think is going to be filed shortly um 0:10:07.200 --> 0:10:09.679 and at the or argument next month. Do we know 0:10:09.920 --> 0:10:14.320 what this court's record in immigration is or is it 0:10:14.360 --> 0:10:17.120 too soon to tell? Well, I mean, I think, you know, June, 0:10:17.120 --> 0:10:19.760 this case does cont as part of a much larger 0:10:19.840 --> 0:10:22.199 uptick in the courts immigration docta. I mean, this is 0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:25.040 the same term the Court is hearing the DOCCA case, 0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:27.080 which is one of the most important immigration cases that's 0:10:27.120 --> 0:10:29.120 heard in a long time. You know, we're just coming 0:10:29.160 --> 0:10:31.680 off of the travel band case. The Court has had 0:10:32.360 --> 0:10:35.800 applications for emergency relief from the government in two different 0:10:35.800 --> 0:10:39.360 asylum cases. There's the border wall. So you know, immigration 0:10:39.400 --> 0:10:43.520 I think is definitely a dominant theme um of this 0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:45.120 term and of the last couple of terms in the 0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:47.680 Roberts Court. I guess my hesitation is just that I 0:10:47.679 --> 0:10:50.640 think this is a different kind of immigration case because 0:10:51.040 --> 0:10:53.760 unlike all of those other cases, where the fight is 0:10:53.800 --> 0:10:58.720 over the substance of immigration policy um and whether, for example, 0:10:58.760 --> 0:11:03.080 the President is acting consistently or inconsistently with the statutes 0:11:03.160 --> 0:11:06.959 Congress has passed and with the other potentially applicable constitutional provisions, 0:11:07.000 --> 0:11:08.880 this is a case that's really about the role of 0:11:08.920 --> 0:11:12.000 the courts in immigration cases in general, in a way 0:11:12.040 --> 0:11:14.400 that the other cases are not. And so, you know, 0:11:14.559 --> 0:11:19.400 especially with the Trump administration proposing to expand the number 0:11:19.440 --> 0:11:22.800 of immigrants who would fall into this expedited removal category, 0:11:23.240 --> 0:11:24.760 you know, I think this is really a case that's 0:11:24.840 --> 0:11:29.040 much more front and center about judicial review, where immigration 0:11:29.120 --> 0:11:31.800 is simply the foil um, whereas I think the other 0:11:31.800 --> 0:11:34.199 cases are more about the substance of our immigration policies. 0:11:34.600 --> 0:11:36.760 And that's why I think it's really a sleeper case 0:11:37.200 --> 0:11:39.640 for the Supreme Court's current term. I mean, obviously folks 0:11:39.640 --> 0:11:42.640 are fixated on, you know, the abortion case, the Second 0:11:42.679 --> 0:11:46.880 Amendment case, the you know, Trump tax subpoena cases. But 0:11:47.000 --> 0:11:49.400 you know, there aren't that many cases the Supreme Court. 0:11:49.480 --> 0:11:52.920 Here's where it's asked a fundamental question about whether the 0:11:53.000 --> 0:11:57.160 Constitution requires some role for the courts at all. Um. 0:11:57.240 --> 0:11:58.800 And so that's why I think, you know, how the 0:11:58.800 --> 0:12:03.400 court handles this case could have broader, longer term ramifications 0:12:03.800 --> 0:12:05.840 than any rule that hands down on any of these 0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:11.880 substantive immigration cases. So after Bumti in many many Guantanamo 0:12:11.960 --> 0:12:15.640 detainees brought habeas corpus petitions, but some people thought, O 0:12:15.720 --> 0:12:18.520 the floodgates were open. Is that likely to be an 0:12:18.679 --> 0:12:22.320 argument here from the federal government that this would open 0:12:22.360 --> 0:12:25.680 the floodgates to more litigation? So I think, you know, 0:12:25.679 --> 0:12:28.040 the federal government and it's brief at leastince opening brief. 0:12:28.400 --> 0:12:31.200 Um doesn't sort of talk so much about those floodgates June, 0:12:31.200 --> 0:12:34.679 but it does suggest that, you know, a requirement of 0:12:35.000 --> 0:12:38.360 the kind of judicial review for which the respondent is 0:12:38.480 --> 0:12:42.719 arguing UM would basically sort of take the expedited out 0:12:42.720 --> 0:12:46.040 of expediting removal that you know, Congress and the President 0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:49.960 should be allowed to streamline these proceedings without tradicial interference 0:12:50.280 --> 0:12:53.240 that requiring courts to actually review at least some of 0:12:53.280 --> 0:12:56.599 these cases. UM, would you know, do exactly what the 0:12:56.640 --> 0:12:59.640 statute was meant to prevent, which is, you know, slow 0:12:59.720 --> 0:13:02.760 down the process in these cases, give these individuals a 0:13:02.760 --> 0:13:04.800 longer period of time in the United States before they 0:13:04.840 --> 0:13:07.520 might ultimately be removed. UM. I guess you know, I'm 0:13:07.559 --> 0:13:10.840 not sure that that's going to be necessarily the the clincher, 0:13:11.080 --> 0:13:12.680 even if the government wins that I think, you know, 0:13:12.760 --> 0:13:17.000 from the court's perspective, Um, the resource problem is not 0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:20.000 really that big of a concern in contrast to the 0:13:20.440 --> 0:13:23.679 I think the broader concern about whether this decision, if 0:13:23.720 --> 0:13:26.360 they rule for the government, that's a broader precedent with 0:13:26.400 --> 0:13:30.160 regard to the rights of undocumented immigrants more generally. UM. 0:13:30.360 --> 0:13:32.079 And I think you know, it's not hard to see June, 0:13:32.080 --> 0:13:37.119 how a broader constitutional debate over what kinds of constitutional 0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:41.559 protections undocumented immigrants might have UM is not only you 0:13:41.600 --> 0:13:43.000 know in the often, but it's one that's going to 0:13:43.040 --> 0:13:46.120 be very fraught given the current political climate. While we're 0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:50.160 on this case, let's revisit for a moment the Guantanamo cases. 0:13:50.640 --> 0:13:53.080 They're not very many prisoners there, and it's hard to 0:13:53.120 --> 0:13:56.680 believe that those cases are still going on. Yeah, I mean, June, 0:13:56.679 --> 0:13:58.960 this this all comes, you know, shortly after what was 0:13:59.000 --> 0:14:03.160 the eighteenth dan aniversary on January UM eleventh of the 0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:05.960 opening of Guantanamo UM. And you know, I mean it's 0:14:06.000 --> 0:14:09.920 it's in one sense, I think it's it's revealing that 0:14:10.000 --> 0:14:13.040 Guantanamo is no longer part of almost any news story 0:14:13.160 --> 0:14:16.160 because you know, those cases, those issues really have largely 0:14:16.200 --> 0:14:19.200 faded from public view. But it's not because anything that's ended. 0:14:19.240 --> 0:14:22.400 I mean, there are still forty detainees to Quantanamo. There 0:14:22.400 --> 0:14:26.800 are still you know, ongoing Military Commission pre trial proceedings 0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:30.040 UM in three major cases, including the nine eleven trial, 0:14:30.120 --> 0:14:33.160 including you know, the trial of the alleged um USS 0:14:33.240 --> 0:14:36.000 coal bombing mastermind. And you know, I think one of 0:14:36.040 --> 0:14:39.600 the things that's interesting about this immigration case is it, 0:14:39.840 --> 0:14:42.600 you know, it provides an excuse to sort of reflect 0:14:42.680 --> 0:14:45.400 on the implications of what the Supreme Court held in 0:14:45.400 --> 0:14:48.200 two thousand and eight, UM, you know, Justice Scalia had 0:14:48.240 --> 0:14:51.560 written I think quite provocatively in his descent in the 0:14:51.720 --> 0:14:53.840 media in two thousand and eight that more Americans will 0:14:53.880 --> 0:14:56.840 be killed as a result of that decision. I'm not 0:14:56.840 --> 0:14:59.080 sure that's come to fruition. I mean, I think the 0:14:59.080 --> 0:15:03.920 the ultimate consequences of the Median um we're pretty mixed. Um. 0:15:04.000 --> 0:15:07.000 So you know, there were in the years after Bumedian. 0:15:07.040 --> 0:15:11.560 I think June sixty one Guantanamo detainees whose habeas petitions 0:15:11.840 --> 0:15:14.560 were litigated all the way to a final judgment. Um. 0:15:14.640 --> 0:15:18.320 Of those, sixty one, thirty prevailed um and twenty nine lost. 0:15:18.640 --> 0:15:20.400 Uh starry in thirty one lost. It would help if 0:15:20.440 --> 0:15:22.440 I could do math um right, which is, you know, 0:15:22.480 --> 0:15:24.080 I mean the definition of a pretty of a pretty 0:15:24.120 --> 0:15:26.480 mixed verdict. And of the ones who prevailed, you know, 0:15:26.640 --> 0:15:29.920 the Obama administration found ways to transfer them either to 0:15:29.960 --> 0:15:33.080 their home countries or the third countries that would take them. So, 0:15:33.560 --> 0:15:36.640 you know, I'm not sure we've seen the dire consequences 0:15:36.680 --> 0:15:39.880 that dissenters weren't about. On the flip side, you know, 0:15:39.920 --> 0:15:41.320 one could also look at the fact that there are 0:15:41.320 --> 0:15:44.840 still forty detainees at Guantanamo, that only thirty of the 0:15:44.920 --> 0:15:47.720 sixty one prevailed and say you know, all of that, 0:15:47.800 --> 0:15:50.800 so that there could be thirty habeas victories. Um, that 0:15:50.840 --> 0:15:52.480 seems like a lot of work for a very sort 0:15:52.520 --> 0:15:55.760 of modest outcome. So I think the you know, the 0:15:55.760 --> 0:15:57.440 where I sort of end up is, I think the 0:15:57.520 --> 0:16:00.640 Verton guantanamo is very much still a mixed one. But 0:16:00.760 --> 0:16:03.240 the more important point for present purposes is it hasn't 0:16:03.320 --> 0:16:05.880 gone away. And so, you know, as the Supreme Court 0:16:05.960 --> 0:16:09.400 sits to hear argument in this major but different case 0:16:09.560 --> 0:16:12.560 about habeas and the role of courts in reviewing exactly 0:16:12.560 --> 0:16:15.160 the branch conduct, you know, I do think it's important 0:16:15.160 --> 0:16:19.080 not to lose sight of the ongoing implications of the 0:16:19.160 --> 0:16:21.680 last time the Court did that. Thanks so much, Steve. 0:16:22.040 --> 0:16:25.320 That's Stephen Vladick, professor at the University of Texas School 0:16:25.520 --> 0:16:28.600 of Law. And that's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. 0:16:29.000 --> 0:16:31.360 Remember you can listen to all the latest legal topics 0:16:31.360 --> 0:16:34.240 in the news anytime on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You 0:16:34.280 --> 0:16:37.320 can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or at Bloomberg dot 0:16:37.360 --> 0:16:41.840 com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so 0:16:41.920 --> 0:16:44.640 much for listening, and remember to tuning to the Bloomberg 0:16:44.680 --> 0:16:47.600 Lawn Show. Tomorrow night at ten pm Eastern Time, right 0:16:47.600 --> 0:16:48.920 here on Bloomberg Radio