1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,320
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,559 --> 00:00:09,760
Speaker 1: Immigration disputes dominated the Supreme Court's docket this term. On

3
00:00:09,880 --> 00:00:13,240
Speaker 1: Monday alone, the Justice has heard arguments in two separate

4
00:00:13,280 --> 00:00:16,400
Speaker 1: cases on the subject, and on Tuesday, the Court handed

5
00:00:16,400 --> 00:00:19,040
Speaker 1: down an opinion that bolstered the power of states to

6
00:00:19,160 --> 00:00:23,400
Speaker 1: prosecute undocumented immigrants. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner

7
00:00:23,440 --> 00:00:29,280
Speaker 1: at Hollandon Knight. Isn't immigration the domain of the federal government? Well, yes, June,

8
00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:34,000
Speaker 1: And this is actually a significant rollback of the Supreme

9
00:00:34,040 --> 00:00:38,080
Speaker 1: Court sort of epic decision in Arizona versus United States,

10
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:42,760
Speaker 1: where it sort of gave this broad proclamation that the

11
00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:48,040
Speaker 1: employment of undocumented immigrants and the prosecution by states of

12
00:00:48,159 --> 00:00:52,559
Speaker 1: unlawful employment of undocumented immigrants would be something that just

13
00:00:52,600 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 1: couldn't be in the province of the state. States couldn't

14
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:58,760
Speaker 1: take matters into their own hands. And what happened here

15
00:00:58,760 --> 00:01:02,160
Speaker 1: in Kansas versus guard Sea is that the Supreme Court

16
00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 1: created a gigantic loophole in that decision in two ways. First,

17
00:01:07,880 --> 00:01:11,640
Speaker 1: it said because the prosecution was not actually based on

18
00:01:11,800 --> 00:01:15,720
Speaker 1: lying on the immigration form itself the nine but rather

19
00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:19,399
Speaker 1: on tax forms that the state was permitted to make

20
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:24,800
Speaker 1: this prosecution, but also because Congress hadn't expressly pre ended

21
00:01:25,319 --> 00:01:28,679
Speaker 1: this prosecution in a statute, that was enough for the

22
00:01:28,720 --> 00:01:30,920
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to say, well, it's some of our business.

23
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:33,600
Speaker 1: The states can do what they want here. This vote

24
00:01:33,720 --> 00:01:38,800
Speaker 1: was five to four long ideological lines. What was the descent, Well,

25
00:01:38,840 --> 00:01:42,679
Speaker 1: the descent was saying that there was a package of

26
00:01:42,800 --> 00:01:48,040
Speaker 1: information that an employee gives in order to substantiate that

27
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: they can legally work in the United States, and that

28
00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:54,280
Speaker 1: always has a tax form and an immigration form, but

29
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,760
Speaker 1: that the motivation for lying on both forms is because

30
00:01:57,760 --> 00:02:03,040
Speaker 1: of immigration, and so be immigration is the reason that

31
00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:07,960
Speaker 1: the form contains this inaccurate information that should all be

32
00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:13,519
Speaker 1: viewed as prosecution for lying about your immigration status, which

33
00:02:13,560 --> 00:02:17,560
Speaker 1: they believe was preempted under federal law, and that that

34
00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:20,680
Speaker 1: was already covered under the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona

35
00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:24,320
Speaker 1: versus United States, which is that states cannot take matters

36
00:02:24,320 --> 00:02:28,760
Speaker 1: in their own hands and start prosecuting undocumented immigrants for

37
00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 1: working illegally. But in the end of the day, the

38
00:02:32,680 --> 00:02:36,240
Speaker 1: five justices and the majority disagreed because they said they

39
00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:39,120
Speaker 1: were not being prosecuted for lying on their E nine form.

40
00:02:39,480 --> 00:02:42,200
Speaker 1: They're being prosecuted for lying on their tax forms. And

41
00:02:42,320 --> 00:02:46,120
Speaker 1: that difference was enough, even though very small distinction, to

42
00:02:46,240 --> 00:02:49,960
Speaker 1: carry the day. Here, how many states are actually aggressively

43
00:02:50,080 --> 00:02:55,640
Speaker 1: prosecuting undocumented immigrants. Well, because of the Arizona versus United

44
00:02:55,680 --> 00:02:59,080
Speaker 1: States case, this was not a very common thing that

45
00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:02,120
Speaker 1: was occurring an it in Kansas. This was not very common.

46
00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:06,120
Speaker 1: But now this will open the door because every state

47
00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:10,839
Speaker 1: can prosecute identity theft. Every state has identity theft statutes

48
00:03:11,240 --> 00:03:14,200
Speaker 1: that if you right the wrong identity or you provide

49
00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:18,200
Speaker 1: a false Social Security number, you can prosecute that person.

50
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: And so the only question was can you do that

51
00:03:22,280 --> 00:03:25,880
Speaker 1: when someone's applying for a job, because that's usually done

52
00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:30,120
Speaker 1: for immigration purposes. Why people provide this false information? And

53
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:33,919
Speaker 1: so now that this loophole has been opened for state prosecutions,

54
00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:36,440
Speaker 1: I think you will see many states start to take

55
00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:40,560
Speaker 1: matters into their own hands and make similar prosecutions, not

56
00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:43,080
Speaker 1: on the basis of the anine form, but on the

57
00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 1: basis of identity theft on any other form that was

58
00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 1: given to the employer as part of the application package.

59
00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:53,800
Speaker 1: So then what happens if they're convicted are they then

60
00:03:54,360 --> 00:03:57,200
Speaker 1: you know, hand it over to the FEDS and deported. Well,

61
00:03:57,240 --> 00:03:59,480
Speaker 1: that's another way that this can happen. If you draw

62
00:03:59,520 --> 00:04:02,800
Speaker 1: this out of the logical conclusion of a person is

63
00:04:02,840 --> 00:04:07,280
Speaker 1: prosecuted for providing a false identity, then if the jurisdiction

64
00:04:07,400 --> 00:04:11,000
Speaker 1: is very active at referring people who have been prosecuted

65
00:04:11,040 --> 00:04:13,880
Speaker 1: to ICE, they will be turned over to ICE, and

66
00:04:13,920 --> 00:04:16,960
Speaker 1: then ICE has a basis to remove them, both on

67
00:04:17,000 --> 00:04:18,640
Speaker 1: account of the fact that they may not have been

68
00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:21,159
Speaker 1: here legally in the first place, which is its own

69
00:04:21,200 --> 00:04:25,039
Speaker 1: basis to remove somebody, but secondly because they've been convicted

70
00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:28,480
Speaker 1: of an inciense involving moral turpitude in this case, which

71
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:32,320
Speaker 1: is identity theft. And so it creates a serious problem

72
00:04:32,360 --> 00:04:36,080
Speaker 1: because it's a way to attract many more people into

73
00:04:36,120 --> 00:04:40,280
Speaker 1: the machinery of the immigration enforcement and removal system that

74
00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:43,719
Speaker 1: otherwise existed prior to a couple of days ago. So

75
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:47,479
Speaker 1: they'll be sort of safe states and not safe states

76
00:04:47,520 --> 00:04:51,000
Speaker 1: like sanctuary states and correct. This is part of a

77
00:04:51,080 --> 00:04:55,200
Speaker 1: larger evolution that I think even the Congress may identify

78
00:04:55,360 --> 00:04:59,840
Speaker 1: one day about this concept of why not let states

79
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:02,240
Speaker 1: or to take matters into their own hands. Here with

80
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:05,359
Speaker 1: regard to immigration, and the states that I want to

81
00:05:05,360 --> 00:05:09,560
Speaker 1: have these very high rigid enforcement barriers can have them.

82
00:05:09,880 --> 00:05:11,839
Speaker 1: And the states that don't want to have these high

83
00:05:11,920 --> 00:05:15,200
Speaker 1: rigid enforcement barriers can have them too, And so it

84
00:05:15,200 --> 00:05:17,599
Speaker 1: will be interesting. And what will be interesting is whether

85
00:05:17,640 --> 00:05:21,760
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court will take this view of states rights

86
00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:24,640
Speaker 1: when the states are doing positive things toward immigrants. And

87
00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:26,839
Speaker 1: we're gonna see some cases come out of the Ninth

88
00:05:26,839 --> 00:05:30,599
Speaker 1: Circuits soon on the issues of sanctuary jurisdictions and whether

89
00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:34,000
Speaker 1: funding can be denied for grant funding on the basis

90
00:05:34,000 --> 00:05:37,200
Speaker 1: of being a sanctuary jurisdiction. And so we'll see whether

91
00:05:37,240 --> 00:05:39,799
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is going to be consistent or whether

92
00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:42,159
Speaker 1: they're going to only take the side of enforcement on

93
00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:45,400
Speaker 1: both kinds of cases. I've been talking to Leon Fresco,

94
00:05:45,480 --> 00:05:49,400
Speaker 1: a partnered Hollandon Night about the immigration disputes that dominated

95
00:05:49,400 --> 00:05:53,200
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's docket this term. On Monday, the Justices

96
00:05:53,279 --> 00:05:57,440
Speaker 1: heard arguments in two separate cases on immigration, one on

97
00:05:57,520 --> 00:06:02,400
Speaker 1: whether to allow quick deportation of documented immigrants apprehended close

98
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:07,479
Speaker 1: to the border. Is this a new policy of quick deportation? Well,

99
00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:12,240
Speaker 1: what happened was Congress created this process called the expedited

100
00:06:12,279 --> 00:06:15,839
Speaker 1: removal process, which says that if someone shows up either

101
00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:19,120
Speaker 1: at our border or at a port of entry, and

102
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:21,240
Speaker 1: what a port of entry is would be like JFK

103
00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:25,839
Speaker 1: Airport or Dallas Airport in in in Washington. If somebody

104
00:06:25,880 --> 00:06:28,839
Speaker 1: shows up there and they don't have any reason to

105
00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:32,120
Speaker 1: be there, we don't owe them a whole trial and

106
00:06:32,279 --> 00:06:34,800
Speaker 1: an appeal in the Court of Appeals and a Supreme

107
00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:38,000
Speaker 1: Court decision. We don't know them, owe them any of that.

108
00:06:38,360 --> 00:06:41,400
Speaker 1: We can just put them into what's called expedited removal

109
00:06:41,839 --> 00:06:44,320
Speaker 1: and literally put them on the next plane back to

110
00:06:44,480 --> 00:06:47,200
Speaker 1: the country that they came from, or if they're coming

111
00:06:47,240 --> 00:06:51,080
Speaker 1: down the southern border, just literally arrest them and take

112
00:06:51,200 --> 00:06:55,719
Speaker 1: their body to Mexico. And so that's what's called expedited removal.

113
00:06:56,279 --> 00:07:01,040
Speaker 1: And the question is there's these concepts where expedited removal

114
00:07:01,279 --> 00:07:04,159
Speaker 1: is not to be applied in cases where someone is

115
00:07:04,160 --> 00:07:07,560
Speaker 1: saying that they're a refugee and in that case you

116
00:07:07,640 --> 00:07:11,200
Speaker 1: have to give somebody the ability to apply for asylum.

117
00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:16,760
Speaker 1: And so the complication there becomes in that case, can

118
00:07:16,840 --> 00:07:22,160
Speaker 1: the individual take a habeas corpus decision if the government

119
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,560
Speaker 1: is not taking their asylum claim seriously, and so that's

120
00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:28,040
Speaker 1: what the court was debating. Here, tell us a little

121
00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:31,840
Speaker 1: bit about the plaintiff. He was a Sri Lankan, right,

122
00:07:31,880 --> 00:07:34,440
Speaker 1: So the plaintiff was a member of the ethnic minority

123
00:07:34,600 --> 00:07:38,240
Speaker 1: Tamil population in Sri Lanka who had been apprehended just

124
00:07:38,360 --> 00:07:41,320
Speaker 1: inside the U. S. Border, and he was seeking asylum.

125
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:43,400
Speaker 1: He was saying, I have a fear that if I

126
00:07:43,440 --> 00:07:46,760
Speaker 1: am removed to Sri Lanka, I will be persecuted on

127
00:07:46,840 --> 00:07:50,240
Speaker 1: the basis of my minority status. And what happened was

128
00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:53,600
Speaker 1: the adjudicator who was there at the border said that

129
00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:57,760
Speaker 1: this person is unlikely to qualify for asylum. And so

130
00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:00,840
Speaker 1: what happens when that happens is the X added removal

131
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:04,560
Speaker 1: order can be executed. And so this person said, but

132
00:08:04,600 --> 00:08:07,280
Speaker 1: wait a second, what if this person is wrong, shouldn't

133
00:08:07,320 --> 00:08:09,760
Speaker 1: I be able to appeal this to a court under

134
00:08:09,840 --> 00:08:14,280
Speaker 1: the habeas corpus provision. And what happened is all of

135
00:08:14,320 --> 00:08:16,720
Speaker 1: these cases in the past have failed, but the Ninth

136
00:08:16,720 --> 00:08:19,840
Speaker 1: Circuit for the first time said, you're probably right. You

137
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:22,880
Speaker 1: should be able to appeal this to a federal court

138
00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:26,560
Speaker 1: judge and say that the adjudicator got the law wrong.

139
00:08:26,680 --> 00:08:30,080
Speaker 1: If that was in fact true. And so that's what

140
00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:32,960
Speaker 1: was the purpose of this case. Is does a person

141
00:08:33,000 --> 00:08:35,560
Speaker 1: actually have that right to go to federal court and

142
00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:40,080
Speaker 1: get that adjudicator's decision reverse or is that adjudicator's decision

143
00:08:40,120 --> 00:08:45,040
Speaker 1: the last word. The justices seemed divided over the point

144
00:08:45,120 --> 00:08:49,840
Speaker 1: of habeas. Yes, and so there was a complication there,

145
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:54,720
Speaker 1: first in what habeas means, because usually habeas means the

146
00:08:54,800 --> 00:08:58,400
Speaker 1: right to be released from the tension, and here the

147
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:01,439
Speaker 1: person wasn't seeking a right to be released from detention.

148
00:09:01,800 --> 00:09:04,280
Speaker 1: They were seeking a right to get review from a

149
00:09:04,280 --> 00:09:07,800
Speaker 1: deportation order. So that's the first case. Now, Now, for

150
00:09:07,840 --> 00:09:11,760
Speaker 1: a hundred years, courts have said you can use habeas

151
00:09:11,800 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 1: to seek review of a deportation order. So it would

152
00:09:15,800 --> 00:09:18,160
Speaker 1: be a major change of the court says no, no, no, no,

153
00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:21,520
Speaker 1: that's not habeas. Habeas is just to be released from

154
00:09:21,559 --> 00:09:23,880
Speaker 1: the tension. So that would be a huge change. But

155
00:09:24,000 --> 00:09:27,880
Speaker 1: that might be something that this court considers. But more

156
00:09:27,960 --> 00:09:30,720
Speaker 1: importantly than that, the larger issue in this case that

157
00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:34,760
Speaker 1: seems to be the more conventional issue is whether this

158
00:09:34,880 --> 00:09:40,120
Speaker 1: review is permitted by law. When the Congress wrote specifically

159
00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:44,680
Speaker 1: that there is a clause in the law that says,

160
00:09:44,720 --> 00:09:51,160
Speaker 1: if somebody is denied their credible fear adjudication, then they

161
00:09:51,160 --> 00:09:54,120
Speaker 1: don't get any habeas corpus reviews. So the Congress wrote

162
00:09:54,120 --> 00:09:56,880
Speaker 1: that that was their intention. And so what the Supreme

163
00:09:56,920 --> 00:10:00,520
Speaker 1: Court is grappling with is is that constitutional to deny

164
00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:03,840
Speaker 1: that review? Could Congress actually have done that or did

165
00:10:03,880 --> 00:10:08,120
Speaker 1: Congress act unconstitutionally? From the oral arguments, does it appear

166
00:10:08,200 --> 00:10:11,960
Speaker 1: that justices are divided over this right? I mean, we

167
00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:15,040
Speaker 1: know that there are four justices that are absolutely not

168
00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:18,680
Speaker 1: comfortable with a scheme that has no mechanism for courts

169
00:10:18,720 --> 00:10:21,839
Speaker 1: to correct even the most egregious of mistakes. So even

170
00:10:21,880 --> 00:10:24,200
Speaker 1: if they say they lie, or they get the wrong

171
00:10:24,280 --> 00:10:28,680
Speaker 1: human being involved, or anything else, there's no ability to

172
00:10:28,720 --> 00:10:31,080
Speaker 1: correct that. That's what the Department of Justice is saying.

173
00:10:31,559 --> 00:10:33,640
Speaker 1: And then we know that Justice is a leader and

174
00:10:33,720 --> 00:10:37,680
Speaker 1: Kavana have very strong concerns about that this is not

175
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:40,880
Speaker 1: a real habeas petition. Habeas petitions are only to release

176
00:10:40,920 --> 00:10:44,520
Speaker 1: people from the tension, and so the keys are Justices

177
00:10:44,600 --> 00:10:49,800
Speaker 1: Gorcis and Justices Roberts and Justice Roberts on this concept

178
00:10:49,880 --> 00:10:53,040
Speaker 1: of whether they the person will prevail and have habeas

179
00:10:53,120 --> 00:10:56,760
Speaker 1: rights or not. I'm not optimistic because the only court

180
00:10:56,800 --> 00:10:59,839
Speaker 1: that ever recognized this right was the Ninth Circuit. Every

181
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:02,840
Speaker 1: their court had rejected this claim, and so I'm not

182
00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:06,680
Speaker 1: optimistic that the court will allow this, but we will

183
00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:09,360
Speaker 1: do this. This is yet to be seen. Lee on

184
00:11:09,400 --> 00:11:12,480
Speaker 1: the second case the Court heard arguments in was over

185
00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:17,280
Speaker 1: whether courts can review administrative findings involving claims of torture

186
00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:22,560
Speaker 1: when non citizens are deported, and Justice Samuel Alito said,

187
00:11:22,880 --> 00:11:26,920
Speaker 1: all this is very complicated. Explain it to us. So

188
00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:29,600
Speaker 1: there's a third case that happened this week that had

189
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:33,760
Speaker 1: to do with a person who was a criminal person

190
00:11:33,800 --> 00:11:36,000
Speaker 1: who has had no right to be in the United States,

191
00:11:36,360 --> 00:11:38,679
Speaker 1: but said that they could not be deported because they

192
00:11:38,679 --> 00:11:42,000
Speaker 1: were going to be tortured in their home country. And

193
00:11:42,080 --> 00:11:44,800
Speaker 1: so what happens is in those cases where someone is

194
00:11:44,800 --> 00:11:47,840
Speaker 1: saying that they're going to be tortured in their home country,

195
00:11:47,920 --> 00:11:51,199
Speaker 1: they are actually given what's called the removal order, meaning

196
00:11:51,240 --> 00:11:54,040
Speaker 1: they can be removed to any other country in the world.

197
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:56,240
Speaker 1: But the question is can they be removed to the

198
00:11:56,280 --> 00:11:59,520
Speaker 1: country that they're claiming that they're going to be tortured in?

199
00:12:00,200 --> 00:12:03,440
Speaker 1: And so that this case only involved the issue of

200
00:12:03,720 --> 00:12:07,360
Speaker 1: if someone is a criminal and the immigration court says

201
00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:10,680
Speaker 1: you're not going to be tortured, do the federal courts

202
00:12:10,720 --> 00:12:14,080
Speaker 1: get to review this? Because Congress had said that the

203
00:12:14,080 --> 00:12:19,880
Speaker 1: federal courts cannot review any case involving certain very hardened criminals,

204
00:12:20,200 --> 00:12:23,240
Speaker 1: no matter what. But then Congress had also written in

205
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:26,240
Speaker 1: another law that it has the ability to review all

206
00:12:26,360 --> 00:12:30,400
Speaker 1: claims under the Convention against Torture. So the question is

207
00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:33,640
Speaker 1: which of these two laws governs. Is it the one

208
00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:37,679
Speaker 1: that bars all claims made by people who have committed

209
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:40,680
Speaker 1: certain crimes, or is it the one that says yes.

210
00:12:40,720 --> 00:12:43,480
Speaker 1: But if what you're seeking is review of your claim

211
00:12:43,520 --> 00:12:45,520
Speaker 1: that you're going to be tortured, and you're saying that

212
00:12:45,600 --> 00:12:49,400
Speaker 1: the judge applied the wrong law, that case should be

213
00:12:49,440 --> 00:12:53,520
Speaker 1: allowed to be reviewed, what was the questioning like, Well,

214
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:59,439
Speaker 1: the questioning was very again contentious, with Justice Soto Mayor

215
00:13:00,120 --> 00:13:03,760
Speaker 1: being very concerned that even the plaintiffs were or the

216
00:13:03,880 --> 00:13:07,160
Speaker 1: person who was representing the the immigrants in this case,

217
00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:09,439
Speaker 1: were conceding too many points that you wanted to make

218
00:13:09,480 --> 00:13:13,960
Speaker 1: it a strong, very robust review that the courts have

219
00:13:14,800 --> 00:13:17,440
Speaker 1: in this in this doctrine, and that they can review

220
00:13:17,480 --> 00:13:21,920
Speaker 1: every aspect of the Convention against Torture claim and other

221
00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:26,920
Speaker 1: justices were uncomfortable with this concept, like Justice Kavanaugh who

222
00:13:27,000 --> 00:13:30,160
Speaker 1: tried to say, hey, look, there's laws that say that

223
00:13:30,280 --> 00:13:34,560
Speaker 1: these claims can't be reviewed. And Justice Alito was there too,

224
00:13:34,600 --> 00:13:38,920
Speaker 1: trying to really push these arguments that the Congress foreclosed

225
00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:41,840
Speaker 1: this review. So again we are going to be looking

226
00:13:41,880 --> 00:13:45,400
Speaker 1: at Justice Roberts and Justice Course this year as to

227
00:13:45,520 --> 00:13:49,880
Speaker 1: what the ultimate outcome is going to be. And very unusual,

228
00:13:50,120 --> 00:13:53,760
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts did not ask any questions in this case,

229
00:13:54,240 --> 00:13:56,320
Speaker 1: and in the last case that we were talking about,

230
00:13:56,640 --> 00:14:00,760
Speaker 1: Justice Course, it didn't ask any questions. Now, I always

231
00:14:00,800 --> 00:14:03,440
Speaker 1: wonder if that's because they don't want to telegraph the

232
00:14:03,480 --> 00:14:06,560
Speaker 1: way they're thinking. I mean, I think that's part of

233
00:14:06,559 --> 00:14:08,920
Speaker 1: the reason they don't ask questions. They also may not

234
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:12,040
Speaker 1: want to interrupt the flow of what someone is trying

235
00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:14,640
Speaker 1: to get accomplished, just as Roberts has said that on

236
00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:17,640
Speaker 1: numerous occasions where he thinks his colleagues asked too many

237
00:14:17,720 --> 00:14:20,840
Speaker 1: questions and the lawyer never even gets to make an argument.

238
00:14:21,320 --> 00:14:25,120
Speaker 1: And so I know Justice Roberts is uh position on

239
00:14:25,240 --> 00:14:26,960
Speaker 1: that is that he wants people to at least be

240
00:14:27,040 --> 00:14:29,520
Speaker 1: able to make some kind of logical argument and not

241
00:14:29,600 --> 00:14:32,200
Speaker 1: get peppered by questions all the time. But if he

242
00:14:32,280 --> 00:14:35,000
Speaker 1: has a legitimate question, he would ask it. And I

243
00:14:35,000 --> 00:14:40,080
Speaker 1: think Justice Gorsege probably didn't have a question on these grounds.

244
00:14:40,120 --> 00:14:42,560
Speaker 1: I think his questions were asked by all of the

245
00:14:42,600 --> 00:14:45,560
Speaker 1: other justices, and I think it will be very interesting

246
00:14:45,600 --> 00:14:48,360
Speaker 1: to see what he has to say on these two cases.

247
00:14:48,600 --> 00:14:51,080
Speaker 1: At one point he told the assistant US listener General,

248
00:14:51,200 --> 00:14:55,240
Speaker 1: sounds pretty metaphysical, counsel, It's like the Holy Trinity. What

249
00:14:55,320 --> 00:14:58,960
Speaker 1: was he referring to. Well, I think that the issue

250
00:14:59,080 --> 00:15:03,680
Speaker 1: here is the fact that there is this concept that

251
00:15:03,800 --> 00:15:07,600
Speaker 1: the government is trying to make, which is they're trying

252
00:15:07,680 --> 00:15:12,680
Speaker 1: to say that the review is not permitted of the

253
00:15:12,720 --> 00:15:16,880
Speaker 1: Convention Against Torture claim because it is the same thing

254
00:15:17,520 --> 00:15:22,440
Speaker 1: as reviewing the Order of removal, and so that's all

255
00:15:22,520 --> 00:15:24,600
Speaker 1: one thing, just like the Holy Trinity is supposed to

256
00:15:24,640 --> 00:15:27,040
Speaker 1: be one thing, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

257
00:15:27,320 --> 00:15:29,960
Speaker 1: That this is all one thing, the Order of removal

258
00:15:30,240 --> 00:15:33,520
Speaker 1: and the CAT decision, the Convention Against Torture decision, And

259
00:15:33,560 --> 00:15:35,760
Speaker 1: what the plate that was saying is no, those are

260
00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:39,680
Speaker 1: separate things. We are understandably conceding that the person can

261
00:15:39,680 --> 00:15:42,600
Speaker 1: be removed at this point to any country where they

262
00:15:42,640 --> 00:15:45,480
Speaker 1: won't be tortured. So the removal order is valid. But

263
00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:48,800
Speaker 1: the question is can the removal be effectuated to a

264
00:15:48,880 --> 00:15:52,080
Speaker 1: specific country where they're going to be tortured and can

265
00:15:52,160 --> 00:15:56,520
Speaker 1: that case be reviewed? And so they're saying that's separate,

266
00:15:56,560 --> 00:15:59,600
Speaker 1: that's not the same thing, and so Gorsage seems to

267
00:15:59,640 --> 00:16:02,280
Speaker 1: be said, yeah, that is not the same thing, and

268
00:16:02,400 --> 00:16:06,440
Speaker 1: claiming that those are the same thing found metaphysical. Thanks

269
00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:09,280
Speaker 1: for being on Bloomberg Law. Leon. That's Leon Fresco, a

270
00:16:09,360 --> 00:16:11,840
Speaker 1: partner to Hollandon Knight. And that's it for this edition

271
00:16:11,840 --> 00:16:14,200
Speaker 1: of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can listen to all the

272
00:16:14,280 --> 00:16:16,760
Speaker 1: latest legal topics in the news anytime on our Bloomberg

273
00:16:16,840 --> 00:16:19,560
Speaker 1: Law podcast. You could subscribe to the podcast or just

274
00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:23,680
Speaker 1: go to iTunes or Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law.

275
00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:26,840
Speaker 1: I'm June Glosso, thanks so much for listening, and remember

276
00:16:26,840 --> 00:16:29,240
Speaker 1: to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show weeknights at ten

277
00:16:29,320 --> 00:16:33,160
Speaker 1: pm right here on Bloomberg Radio. Thank you.