WEBVTT - Weekend Law: Texas Maps, ICE Profiling & Agency Power 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:08.719 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.680 There being ninety five members presence, a quorum. 0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:13.000 Is not present. 0:00:13.200 --> 0:00:16.000 For the third time in a week, the Texas House 0:00:16.040 --> 0:00:19.880 of Representatives was unable to reach a quorum on Friday, 0:00:20.160 --> 0:00:24.720 as dozens of Democratic lawmakers continued their walkout to block 0:00:24.760 --> 0:00:29.240 an unusual mid decade redistricting in the state. It's designed 0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:33.560 to give Republicans five additional seats in the midterm elections. 0:00:33.960 --> 0:00:38.920 But despite arrest warrants, threats of prosecution and removal from office, 0:00:39.040 --> 0:00:42.720 the Democrats who left the state, like Representative Chris Turner, 0:00:43.080 --> 0:00:44.919 have shown no signs of buckling. 0:00:45.280 --> 0:00:47.559 This is a nationwide fight, and we want everyone in 0:00:47.600 --> 0:00:50.320 the country to understand what the stakes are. So Greg 0:00:50.320 --> 0:00:52.279 Gabbat can make all the threats he want, We're going 0:00:52.320 --> 0:00:53.080 to continue to fight. 0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:57.560 Largely unnoticed with the focus on Texas's voting maps is 0:00:57.560 --> 0:01:01.480 that the Supreme Court has indicated it will consider outlawing 0:01:01.520 --> 0:01:05.080 the use of race in drawing voting maps, setting up 0:01:05.120 --> 0:01:09.679 a showdown with implications for dozens of congressional districts with 0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:15.160 predominantly minority populations. My guest is elections law expert Rick Hassen, 0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:19.920 a professor at UCLA Law School. So, Rick, Texas already 0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:23.720 jerrymandered its maps in twenty twenty one, and that's still 0:01:23.720 --> 0:01:27.280 in the courts. Is what it's doing now, trying to 0:01:27.360 --> 0:01:32.640 redistrict again to get five extra Republican seats. Is that constitutional? 0:01:33.280 --> 0:01:36.640 Well, that remains to be seen. What's going to happen 0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:40.280 if Texas draws its districts again is they will almost 0:01:40.280 --> 0:01:44.319 certainly be challenged as violating either the Voting Rights Act 0:01:44.760 --> 0:01:49.480 or as violating the Constitution's prohibition on racial jerrymandering. And 0:01:49.600 --> 0:01:52.120 that'll get tied up in the courts, just as the 0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:54.400 current round of redistricting is going to get tied up 0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:56.559 in the court. What the federal courts are not going 0:01:56.640 --> 0:02:01.320 to do is say it's unconstitutional as a artisan gerrymander, 0:02:01.640 --> 0:02:04.760 that is drawing the district lines to favor Republicans over Democrats. 0:02:05.000 --> 0:02:07.720 Because back in twenty nineteen, the Supreme Court decided a 0:02:07.760 --> 0:02:11.120 case called Rusho versus Common Cause, where the Court said 0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:14.000 that there are no standards to judge under the Constitution 0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:17.079 whether partisan jerrymandering goes too far. 0:02:17.960 --> 0:02:24.600 Several Blue states have threatened retaliatory redistricting but two key states, 0:02:24.800 --> 0:02:29.400 New York and California, have commissions drawing up the maps, 0:02:29.760 --> 0:02:32.360 so would they be able to retaliate in time for 0:02:32.400 --> 0:02:33.200 the midterms. 0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:36.080 Well, as far as the California case goes, which is 0:02:36.120 --> 0:02:39.040 one I'm most familiar with living here in California, the 0:02:39.080 --> 0:02:43.240 way that registrict could be done consistent with state law 0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:45.400 in the middle of the decade would have to be 0:02:45.480 --> 0:02:49.600 through a voter passed measure, because voters earlier passed to 0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:55.000 measure actually two ballot measures, establishing a non partisan or 0:02:55.080 --> 0:02:59.800 multi partisan commission, and then extending that commission's job to 0:03:00.040 --> 0:03:04.200 clue drawing congressional district To overturn a ballot measure in 0:03:04.280 --> 0:03:07.400 California needs a new ballot measure. So what the legislature 0:03:07.400 --> 0:03:09.560 and the governor are talking about doing now is drafting 0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:11.840 a new registioning plan and putting it before voters in 0:03:11.919 --> 0:03:15.240 a special election. If it passes, the new registing plan 0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:18.160 would be in effect, and then that could be challenged 0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:21.040 in court. But I think that again, because partisan jerry 0:03:21.080 --> 0:03:24.200 managering is not something that federal courts will police, there 0:03:24.200 --> 0:03:26.280 wouldn't be much of a federal basis unless you can 0:03:26.320 --> 0:03:28.800 make an argument again, like under the Voting Rights Actor, 0:03:28.800 --> 0:03:32.000 as a racial ferry manager, the districts somehow are illegal. 0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:36.720 It's sort of startling to hear the Republicans in Texas 0:03:36.760 --> 0:03:39.080 and the presidents say, you know, we're doing this to 0:03:39.120 --> 0:03:40.000 get more seats. 0:03:40.160 --> 0:03:43.680 Well. One reason why we've seen legislators in Texas and 0:03:44.000 --> 0:03:46.840 earlier in North Carolina say we are doing a partisan 0:03:46.880 --> 0:03:49.720 jerry manager, like proudly admitting it, it's because they're trying 0:03:49.800 --> 0:03:53.320 to deflect the argument, No, you're doing this on racial grounds. 0:03:53.320 --> 0:03:55.720 You're doing this to make it harder for black and 0:03:55.800 --> 0:03:59.120 Latino and Native American voters to elect their candidates of choice, 0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:02.040 which could raise a Voting Rights Act question or could 0:04:02.160 --> 0:04:05.160 raise a racial genreymndor in question under the Protection Close. 0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:07.640 So if the Supreme Court says we're not going to 0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:10.720 police politics, but we are going to police race, then 0:04:11.080 --> 0:04:13.400 of course they want to say, if they're trying to 0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:15.720 defend it, we're just doing politics. And so the courts 0:04:15.720 --> 0:04:17.080 have to try and sort that out, which is a 0:04:17.160 --> 0:04:20.280 very difficult thing to do when in a place like Texas, 0:04:20.520 --> 0:04:22.960 minority voters are much more likely to vote for Democrats 0:04:22.960 --> 0:04:24.479 and white voters for Republicans. 0:04:25.240 --> 0:04:29.600 As far as the Supreme Court policing race, the justices 0:04:29.680 --> 0:04:33.000 are ordering reargument of a case that was argued in 0:04:33.080 --> 0:04:38.000 March involving a Louisiana congressional map that created an additional 0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:41.440 majority black district. What are the implications? 0:04:42.120 --> 0:04:44.839 So, what we're talking about here is a case called 0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:48.760 Louisiana versus Calais, and it was already argued last March, 0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:53.200 and it was one of these cases where the Louisiana legislature, 0:04:53.440 --> 0:04:57.200 thanks to an earlier lawsuit, drew a second congressional district 0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:00.880 where black voters could elect their case of choice to 0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:04.280 a congressional district. And the argument in the earlier case 0:05:04.440 --> 0:05:06.680 was you had to draw the second district to comply 0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:09.200 with Section two of the Voting Right sect. Well, then 0:05:09.240 --> 0:05:11.560 a new group of voters came in and they said, hey, 0:05:11.680 --> 0:05:14.440 when you drew that second district, you made race the 0:05:14.480 --> 0:05:18.320 predominant factor in drawing those lines, and you don't have 0:05:18.400 --> 0:05:21.360 up a compelling reason to do so, and therefore you 0:05:21.360 --> 0:05:24.760 were committing a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth 0:05:24.760 --> 0:05:27.880 Amendments Equal Protection Clause. Back in March, the Court heard 0:05:27.960 --> 0:05:30.599 argument in that case where the main issue was was 0:05:30.760 --> 0:05:33.880 race really the predominant factor, the main reason why the 0:05:33.920 --> 0:05:36.240 second lines were drawn the way they were, or was 0:05:36.279 --> 0:05:39.480 it really about politics. It's surely about politics, then it's 0:05:39.480 --> 0:05:43.360 not a racialtarymander. Again, I find this distinction nonsensical when 0:05:43.360 --> 0:05:45.560 you have so much overlap between race and party in 0:05:45.600 --> 0:05:48.800 these Southern states. But it looked like yet another in 0:05:48.839 --> 0:05:51.360 a series of cases where the court's deciding whether race 0:05:51.440 --> 0:05:53.800 or party predominates. But then the end of the Supreme 0:05:53.839 --> 0:05:57.039 Court's term in June, rather than decide the case, the 0:05:57.040 --> 0:06:00.320 Court issued a somewhat unusual order saying we're going to 0:06:00.400 --> 0:06:03.320 hear reargument in the case, we're going to want additional briefing, 0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:05.120 but we're not telling you yet what we want the 0:06:05.120 --> 0:06:08.359 briefing on. And then it was not until the after 0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:12.359 five pm August first Friday night news dump where the 0:06:12.400 --> 0:06:15.760 Court issued this kind of obscure, cryptic order that I 0:06:15.960 --> 0:06:19.719 read as really asking the question whether Section two of 0:06:19.760 --> 0:06:22.960 the Voting Right Act remains constitutional. And the way this 0:06:23.040 --> 0:06:26.640 comes into the case is if race did predominate, then 0:06:26.680 --> 0:06:29.640 the only way you can do that in drawing district 0:06:29.640 --> 0:06:32.320 lines is if you have a compelling reason to do so, 0:06:32.640 --> 0:06:35.880 and the compelling reason that has been considered is, well, 0:06:35.920 --> 0:06:37.560 the Voting Rights Act made me do it. I had 0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:40.039 to do it to comply with Section two. Now the 0:06:40.080 --> 0:06:44.640 Court wants to hear, maybe it's unconstitutional to apply Section 0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:47.320 two and make race the predominant factor when you're drawing 0:06:47.360 --> 0:06:50.040 these district lines. So it really brings these two lines 0:06:50.080 --> 0:06:52.240 of cases, the Voting Rights AACK cases and the racial 0:06:52.320 --> 0:06:57.200 gerrymandering cases together in a way where the Voting Rights 0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:00.920 Act may lose. And the Supreme Court appears poised to 0:07:01.000 --> 0:07:05.599 consider striking down the second big pillar of the Voting 0:07:05.680 --> 0:07:09.000 Rights Act after it had already struck down the first 0:07:09.080 --> 0:07:12.920 pillar in twenty thirteen in the Shelby County Versus Holder case. 0:07:13.680 --> 0:07:16.840 Many of the Court's conservatives have been what you might 0:07:16.880 --> 0:07:20.240 call hostile to the Voting Rights Act, and some seem 0:07:20.320 --> 0:07:24.000 to think that the Voting Rights Act no longer provides 0:07:24.040 --> 0:07:29.880 a legitimate basis for map makers to intentionally create majority 0:07:29.920 --> 0:07:33.239 Black or majority Hispanic districts. 0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:33.720 Well. 0:07:33.760 --> 0:07:36.760 So, the most recent piece of evidence we have on 0:07:36.800 --> 0:07:38.840 what the Court thinks about the Voting Rights Acts, aside 0:07:38.840 --> 0:07:41.600 from this order that came out in the Louisiana case, 0:07:42.080 --> 0:07:44.000 is a case that was decided a few years ago 0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:46.800 out of Alabama involving very similar facts of the Voting 0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:50.000 Rights Act requiring the drawing of an additional black majority district, 0:07:50.320 --> 0:07:53.800 and in this case Alan versus Milligan, the Supreme Court, 0:07:53.840 --> 0:07:56.760 on a five to four vote upheld the requirement that 0:07:56.800 --> 0:07:59.560 these districts be drawn. The two conservatives who were in 0:07:59.600 --> 0:08:01.520 the majority already with the three liberals of the Court, 0:08:01.520 --> 0:08:05.000 were Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Cavanaugh, making it a 0:08:05.040 --> 0:08:09.040 five to four decision with Justices Gorsich, Barrett, Alito, and 0:08:09.080 --> 0:08:13.720 Thomas is descent. But Justice Cavanaugh, in the majority, wrote 0:08:13.800 --> 0:08:17.360 separately to say, I'm intrigued by the argument that maybe 0:08:17.360 --> 0:08:20.239 Section two is no longer constitutional because of the passage 0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:23.040 of time and the changes in political conditions. This isn't 0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:25.120 the case to decide that, but there may come a 0:08:25.160 --> 0:08:27.040 case down the line where we need to address that, 0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:30.360 and I think now this Louisiana case is that case. 0:08:30.400 --> 0:08:34.800 So Kavanaugh could prove to be the fifth vote, and Roberts, 0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:38.280 who has shown some hostility in voting rights that cases 0:08:38.280 --> 0:08:40.880 in the past, including the Shelby County case I mentioned, 0:08:41.120 --> 0:08:43.840 could be a sixth vote. If the Court divides along 0:08:44.080 --> 0:08:47.319 party lines, along ideological lines, the voter Knight tax Section 0:08:47.360 --> 0:08:50.520 two could either be whittled down or killed off. And 0:08:50.600 --> 0:08:56.320 so what started off as a pretty small, not blockbuster 0:08:56.480 --> 0:08:59.200 case out of Louisiana could turn out to be the 0:08:59.200 --> 0:09:01.959 most important voting rights case of this decade. 0:09:02.360 --> 0:09:04.880 I mean that was just a few years ago. Why 0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:08.400 do you think the Court has reached this sort of 0:09:08.600 --> 0:09:12.120 monumental moment or decision now? 0:09:12.720 --> 0:09:16.200 Well, you know, John Roberts likes to move slowly. Let's 0:09:16.240 --> 0:09:18.439 just take the killing off of Section five of the 0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:21.040 Voting Rice Act, which happened in Shelby County. That was 0:09:21.040 --> 0:09:23.000 the provision that said, the states with a history of 0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:26.400 racial discrimination and voting need to get approval before they 0:09:26.440 --> 0:09:28.920 make their voting changes to make sure that minority voters 0:09:29.040 --> 0:09:33.080 would not be made worse off. Congress renewed section five 0:09:33.440 --> 0:09:36.840 in two thousand and six. The Supreme Court first took 0:09:36.920 --> 0:09:41.200 up the issue of overturning Section five in two thousand 0:09:41.240 --> 0:09:44.720 and nine in a case called Northwest Austin Municipal Utility 0:09:44.720 --> 0:09:47.600 District Number one versus Holder, And in that case, the 0:09:47.640 --> 0:09:50.360 Court punts it on the question, but strongly signals that 0:09:50.440 --> 0:09:53.240 in a future case, it could strike down Section five. 0:09:53.480 --> 0:09:56.160 It was not until twenty thirteen, right, so you're talking 0:09:56.160 --> 0:09:59.439 about seven years after Congress acts that Roberts was finally 0:09:59.480 --> 0:10:03.040 ready to pull trigger. And so Roberts moves slowly, he 0:10:03.120 --> 0:10:06.360 whittles things away. And again, the Court in the Louisiana 0:10:06.400 --> 0:10:08.480 case could whittle it the way at the Voting Rights Act, 0:10:08.520 --> 0:10:12.320 make it essentially toothless without striking it down directly. But 0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:15.400 I think what's coming is not likely to be good 0:10:15.520 --> 0:10:16.680 for the Voting Rights Act. 0:10:16.960 --> 0:10:19.640 So you think they might strike it down completely. 0:10:20.120 --> 0:10:22.240 They might strike it down completely, or they might say 0:10:22.240 --> 0:10:24.839 it's unconstitutionalized applied in Louisiana, and then it will take 0:10:24.880 --> 0:10:27.040 time to figure out, well, what does that mean? How 0:10:27.080 --> 0:10:29.280 does it apply in other cases? That would be much 0:10:29.320 --> 0:10:32.440 more of a John Roberts faux minimalist move, looking like 0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:35.800 they're moving slowly, but in fact, you know, I was 0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:38.480 telling my editor of the piece that I wrote Slate 0:10:38.559 --> 0:10:41.520 about this that you know, the media loves to cover 0:10:41.600 --> 0:10:45.160 the car crash, the Texas registersting, you know, legislators getting 0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:48.640 on planes, and that's great visuals, great story. But the 0:10:48.679 --> 0:10:52.520 Supreme Court does slow poisoning, and so it's very hard 0:10:52.520 --> 0:10:55.640 to cover. Right, So here's an order that's issued, you know, 0:10:55.880 --> 0:11:00.440 Friday after five pm in August. I mean, who cover 0:11:00.520 --> 0:11:03.200 it on the weekend about a case that they're going 0:11:03.280 --> 0:11:06.920 to hear arguments about probably sometime in December or maybe 0:11:07.040 --> 0:11:10.640 in January, and then the issue in opinion in June. 0:11:10.800 --> 0:11:14.000 That will be very hard to understand. So the Court 0:11:14.040 --> 0:11:15.679 is still doing a lot of damage, but it does 0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:18.640 it in a way that is much harder to cover 0:11:18.840 --> 0:11:20.720 and much harder for the public to grasp. 0:11:21.200 --> 0:11:24.200 But it does look like this case could end up 0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:28.640 being one of the blockbusters of the next Supreme Court term. 0:11:28.800 --> 0:11:31.319 Thanks so much for joining me. Rick, that's Professor Rick 0:11:31.400 --> 0:11:35.240 Hassen of UCLA Law School. I'm June Grosso and you're 0:11:35.240 --> 0:11:39.560 listening to Bloomberg. Los Angeles has been in a battle 0:11:39.600 --> 0:11:44.480 with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration enforcement. Mayor 0:11:44.559 --> 0:11:49.079 Karen Bass has repeatedly called out ICE, saying it's masked 0:11:49.120 --> 0:11:54.600 agents in unmarked cars, we're grabbing suspected undocumented migrants off 0:11:54.640 --> 0:11:57.479 the streets in what looked like kidnappings. 0:11:58.120 --> 0:12:01.240 We know that Los Angeles is the test case, and 0:12:01.280 --> 0:12:04.440 we will stand strong, and we do so because the 0:12:04.480 --> 0:12:08.520 people snatched off city streets and chased through parking lots. 0:12:09.080 --> 0:12:12.920 Are our coworkers, our neighbors, are family members, and they 0:12:12.920 --> 0:12:13.920 are Angelinos. 0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:17.440 In a fast moving case, a federal judge found that 0:12:17.480 --> 0:12:21.280 there was quote a mountain of evidence that ICE agents 0:12:21.440 --> 0:12:26.240 tactics were violating the Constitution. She issued an order barring 0:12:26.320 --> 0:12:29.960 agents in LA from stopping and questioning people on the 0:12:30.000 --> 0:12:34.120 basis of race or ethnicity, they're speaking Spanish or English 0:12:34.120 --> 0:12:37.120 with an accent, the type of work they do, or 0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:40.920 their presence at a particular location. Three weeks later, the 0:12:41.000 --> 0:12:44.480 non Circuit Court of Appeals turned down a Trump administration 0:12:44.640 --> 0:12:48.480 appeal and left the judges ban almost completely in place, 0:12:48.960 --> 0:12:51.840 and six days later, on Thursday of this week, the 0:12:51.880 --> 0:12:56.520 administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the ban. Joining 0:12:56.520 --> 0:12:59.839 me is immigration attorney Leon Fresco, a partner at hond 0:12:59.840 --> 0:13:02.679 and he was the head of the Office of Immigration 0:13:02.840 --> 0:13:07.439 Litigation in the Obama administration. Leon explained what the district 0:13:07.520 --> 0:13:10.559 judge ordered in the LA case well. 0:13:10.800 --> 0:13:14.360 The original case involved the challenge to something that was 0:13:14.360 --> 0:13:18.119 called Operation at Large, which was a federal immigration enforcement 0:13:18.520 --> 0:13:22.360 initiative in Los Angeles. There were these ICE contact teams 0:13:22.440 --> 0:13:26.600 targeting locations such as car washes and home depots and 0:13:26.960 --> 0:13:31.000 other places believed to employ undocumented workers. And there was 0:13:31.040 --> 0:13:35.520 a lawsuit claiming that these roving patrols detained individuals without 0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:40.400 reasonable suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment, and the District courd 0:13:40.480 --> 0:13:43.800 at Health on July eleventh that the plaintiffs were likely 0:13:43.840 --> 0:13:49.679 to succeed improving unconstitutional seizures. So the judge restricted federal 0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:53.760 agents from conducting these seiss raids and stops without a 0:13:53.800 --> 0:13:59.040 reasonable suspicion. So what that means is that instead of 0:13:59.559 --> 0:14:02.720 walking around and trying to say this person looks like 0:14:02.800 --> 0:14:06.800 somebody that's not here legally, which has a sort of 0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:10.840 dubious application that people get worried about because they say, well, 0:14:10.840 --> 0:14:13.679 how are you making those decisions? What they're trying to 0:14:13.679 --> 0:14:18.160 do is convert ice back into a list sort of 0:14:18.480 --> 0:14:22.160 agency where it says, we know today we're going to 0:14:22.240 --> 0:14:25.360 go after person one, person two, person three, person four, 0:14:25.400 --> 0:14:27.440 person five, And then they go and they look for 0:14:27.480 --> 0:14:31.640 these people because they know they're here undocumented, rather than 0:14:31.720 --> 0:14:34.000 just grabbing people in the middle of the street. And 0:14:34.080 --> 0:14:38.240 so that's really the end goal of this lawsuit. And 0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:41.400 so yes, there are times where they will still be 0:14:41.480 --> 0:14:43.640 able to pick people up because they'll have a reasonable 0:14:43.680 --> 0:14:46.520 suspicion for another reason other than they're on a list. 0:14:47.000 --> 0:14:50.360 But mostly this limits ice to the sort of list 0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:51.400 based enforcement. 0:14:52.000 --> 0:14:54.920 And what was the government's argument in defense of these 0:14:54.960 --> 0:14:56.520 tactics At the Ninth. 0:14:56.240 --> 0:14:59.680 Circuit They said two things. They said, first of all, 0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:02.920 that the organizational plaintiffs and the case didn't even have 0:15:03.040 --> 0:15:06.960 standing to bring the case. And they also said that 0:15:07.600 --> 0:15:11.280 in general, they weren't violating the Fourth Amendment because they 0:15:11.320 --> 0:15:15.960 have the ability and then the right to enforce immigration law. 0:15:16.000 --> 0:15:19.480 They had the right to question anybody about their lawful 0:15:19.520 --> 0:15:22.320 presence in the United States at any time. That's what 0:15:22.440 --> 0:15:26.760 the statue permits them to do. The Ninth Circuit said, 0:15:26.880 --> 0:15:30.840 first that the organizational planets had standing because they showed 0:15:30.840 --> 0:15:34.280 that these kind of roving patrols forced them to divert 0:15:34.320 --> 0:15:37.760 their resources instead of carrying out other missions of supporting 0:15:37.800 --> 0:15:40.720 immigrants rights in the community. They had to move to 0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:44.480 divert the resources into dealing with these enforcement actions. So 0:15:44.600 --> 0:15:47.080 that was the standing issue, and they said there was standing. 0:15:47.520 --> 0:15:51.040 But they also said that with regard to these claims 0:15:51.040 --> 0:15:56.080 about reasonable suspicion and Fourth Amendment violations caused by ICE 0:15:56.240 --> 0:15:59.880 officers roving around looking for people. They said that, yes, 0:16:00.080 --> 0:16:03.040 that does also seem to have a likelihood of success 0:16:03.360 --> 0:16:06.800 enough that they would not say the district court's ruling. 0:16:07.000 --> 0:16:10.320 It was a three zero decision, and so the court 0:16:10.480 --> 0:16:13.960 basically allowed almost all of the ruling to take place, 0:16:14.000 --> 0:16:17.560 except there was one line in the injunction that prevented 0:16:17.720 --> 0:16:21.680 ICE from even asking individuals about their immigration status absent 0:16:21.760 --> 0:16:26.040 reasonable suspicion. That was, they they were allowed to still 0:16:26.400 --> 0:16:30.520 do that. That was considered overbroad and problematic in terms 0:16:30.600 --> 0:16:35.080 of enforcement and constitutional interpretation, but the rest of the 0:16:35.360 --> 0:16:38.040 injunction was allowed to continue. 0:16:38.320 --> 0:16:42.480 So the judge ruled that ICE can't attain people based 0:16:42.600 --> 0:16:47.760 on their apparent race or ethnicity, So speaking Spanish or 0:16:47.920 --> 0:16:52.040 accented English, or being at locations such as home depot 0:16:52.120 --> 0:16:56.000 parking lots, what does constitute reasonable suspicion? 0:16:56.080 --> 0:16:56.280 Then? 0:16:57.200 --> 0:17:01.480 The main thing that people who file this lawsuit basically 0:17:01.520 --> 0:17:04.800 are trying to limit ICE is to say you have 0:17:04.960 --> 0:17:07.640 to have some sort of knowledge of the person you're 0:17:07.680 --> 0:17:11.560 looking for and of their immigration status before you go 0:17:11.680 --> 0:17:15.959 looking for those individuals. So, for instance, if you're at 0:17:16.000 --> 0:17:18.679 an immigration court, then you'll know if somebody has that 0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:21.240 status or not, so then you can pick them up 0:17:21.240 --> 0:17:24.560 after or if again, you're working off a list of 0:17:24.600 --> 0:17:27.400 people who have lost their status that you know from 0:17:27.440 --> 0:17:30.600 the Department of Homeland Security databases, and you're going to 0:17:30.600 --> 0:17:32.880 pick up those people at their work or at their home, 0:17:33.320 --> 0:17:35.639 you then have reasonable suspicion and you can do that. 0:17:35.920 --> 0:17:39.120 And what the decision also allows is so, for instance, 0:17:39.200 --> 0:17:43.520 let's say there's twenty undocumented people at a work site 0:17:43.520 --> 0:17:46.280 that they know about because they have it in their database, 0:17:46.640 --> 0:17:48.840 then they can ask, Okay, well, what about the other 0:17:48.840 --> 0:17:51.159 people at this work site? I want to see the 0:17:51.200 --> 0:17:55.120 paperwork for them, because then there's a reasonable suspicion because 0:17:55.160 --> 0:17:59.119 you've already established that there's twenty undocumented people at that 0:17:59.200 --> 0:18:03.680 work site. Employer hires undocumented people. But in terms of 0:18:04.080 --> 0:18:09.520 just randomly generating leads by going to places and making 0:18:09.960 --> 0:18:13.760 these sort of facial decisions how this person looks or 0:18:13.800 --> 0:18:16.919 how they present themselves, et cetera. That's the kind of 0:18:16.960 --> 0:18:19.720 thing that is enjoyed under this injunction. 0:18:20.520 --> 0:18:26.800 How much of a hindrance is this order to ice, Well. 0:18:26.640 --> 0:18:29.040 It depends if you say, how much of a hindrance 0:18:29.119 --> 0:18:33.920 is it to their deterrent operations as opposed to their 0:18:33.960 --> 0:18:36.960 removal operations. It's not really a turrent at all to 0:18:37.040 --> 0:18:41.000 their removal operations in the sense of ICE has pretty 0:18:41.000 --> 0:18:45.560 sophisticated databases where it knows where most of the undocumented 0:18:45.640 --> 0:18:48.840 people in this country are and where they live, and ICE, 0:18:48.880 --> 0:18:51.600 if they want to, can go and pick up as 0:18:51.600 --> 0:18:55.440 many people as it has detention space to detain, and 0:18:55.520 --> 0:18:59.000 so there's never a shortage of people that ICE can 0:18:59.080 --> 0:19:01.439 pick up on any given day to place and detention 0:19:01.920 --> 0:19:05.200 given the limited detention space it has. But what it 0:19:05.280 --> 0:19:09.360 does limit is ICE's ability to engage in the kind 0:19:09.400 --> 0:19:13.040 of patrols that are designed to create a deterrent effect, 0:19:13.160 --> 0:19:16.560 meaning people are nervous to remain here in the United 0:19:16.600 --> 0:19:19.920 States because they think, oh, if I take a city bus, 0:19:20.200 --> 0:19:23.240 or if I just go shopping, or if I'm taking 0:19:23.280 --> 0:19:26.159 my child to school, I could be apprehended at any moment. 0:19:26.600 --> 0:19:30.760 The design of those operations isn't to meet the quota, 0:19:31.000 --> 0:19:35.280 so to speak. It's to instead create a deterrent effect 0:19:35.320 --> 0:19:38.560 that tells people if you stay here, you never know 0:19:38.600 --> 0:19:40.720 what day is going to be the day you're apprehended, 0:19:41.119 --> 0:19:44.120 so you should just return home and so that's where 0:19:44.160 --> 0:19:46.879 it's limiting the operation is in that deterrent effect. 0:19:47.280 --> 0:19:50.399 The government is asking the Supreme Court to lift the band, 0:19:50.640 --> 0:19:53.320 saying that the judge overstepped her authority. 0:19:53.720 --> 0:19:56.920 The Government's been quite aggressive in appealing to the Supreme Court, 0:19:57.119 --> 0:20:00.240 and they've been getting better results in the Supreme Court 0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:04.480 with saying some of these injunctions. And I could foresee 0:20:04.920 --> 0:20:09.200 the Supreme Court lifting or saying parts of the injunction 0:20:09.560 --> 0:20:12.840 that limit ICE's hands. I mean, I don't see them 0:20:12.960 --> 0:20:16.440 potentially taking away the whole injunction, but I could see 0:20:16.440 --> 0:20:19.040 them giving ICE a little bit more wiggle room here. 0:20:19.920 --> 0:20:25.200 Leon in another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ICE agents 0:20:25.200 --> 0:20:30.679 in Los Angeles impersonating police officers or using other ruses 0:20:31.080 --> 0:20:34.199 in order to enter a home or convince someone to 0:20:34.200 --> 0:20:37.639 come outside to make an arrest, ICE has reached a 0:20:37.720 --> 0:20:43.119 court approved settlement and agreed not to use those subterfuges anymore. 0:20:43.560 --> 0:20:45.880 I mean, what were they doing to cause this lawsuit 0:20:45.920 --> 0:20:46.640 to be filed. 0:20:47.640 --> 0:20:49.720 This is sort of a larger issue, which is that 0:20:50.240 --> 0:20:54.200 as people in the immigration rights movement have become very 0:20:54.280 --> 0:20:58.199 very successful in communicating messages of know you're right, a 0:20:58.240 --> 0:21:01.840 lot of people in the immigration community have understood that 0:21:02.040 --> 0:21:05.479 ICE can be refused entry into a home unless they 0:21:05.480 --> 0:21:08.399 have a judicial warrant. So if they have an administrative warrant, 0:21:08.720 --> 0:21:10.520 or if they just say can you let me in, 0:21:11.000 --> 0:21:13.200 you're totally within your right to say no, I don't 0:21:13.240 --> 0:21:15.719 want to let you in, and I can't go in. 0:21:15.800 --> 0:21:18.600 If I goes in, then whatever operation they did is 0:21:18.640 --> 0:21:22.080 invalid under the law once it eventually gets to a court. 0:21:22.520 --> 0:21:24.919 So so a lot of individuals know this now. So 0:21:25.080 --> 0:21:27.760 I has had to operate, and this has been happening 0:21:27.760 --> 0:21:29.879 for many years. This is not a recent thing. So 0:21:30.040 --> 0:21:33.560 I has had to operate where they tried to find 0:21:33.640 --> 0:21:36.200 ways around these limitations. So they try to get people 0:21:36.200 --> 0:21:39.040 to come outside. They say, hey, your car is broken, 0:21:39.200 --> 0:21:42.040 or hey I need some directions, can you come outside 0:21:42.119 --> 0:21:44.640 or whatever, and then once they're outside then they can 0:21:44.680 --> 0:21:48.160 conduct their legal action, or they say they're police, can 0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:51.199 they be let inside? And if people think they're police 0:21:51.240 --> 0:21:53.679 but not ICE, then they let them inside. And so 0:21:54.000 --> 0:21:57.280 the idea of this lawsuit was to say ICE has 0:21:57.320 --> 0:22:00.679 to not do those tactics. They have to say that 0:22:00.720 --> 0:22:04.600 their ICE, both in their clothing and in their verbiage. 0:22:05.000 --> 0:22:08.240 And so that when they are engaging in those operations 0:22:08.240 --> 0:22:12.040 now under this settlement, then the individuals will know this 0:22:12.119 --> 0:22:14.280 is ICE. ICE is strength enter the home. I can 0:22:14.320 --> 0:22:16.399 refuse it unless they have a judicial warrant. 0:22:16.640 --> 0:22:18.600 Yeah, so they have to have a warrant that's signed 0:22:18.640 --> 0:22:20.600 by a judge. Are those hard to get? 0:22:21.080 --> 0:22:23.000 It's not that they're hard to get, but it's time 0:22:23.040 --> 0:22:25.879 consuming because judges only have so many things they can 0:22:25.920 --> 0:22:29.520 do on a given day. And if ICE is trying 0:22:29.560 --> 0:22:32.040 to get one of those warrants, they have to set 0:22:32.119 --> 0:22:35.520 up the paperwork that says, here's this person, here's how 0:22:35.560 --> 0:22:38.679 we know they entered illegally, or they entered legally but 0:22:38.720 --> 0:22:41.359 they've overstayed their status. And also they have to get 0:22:41.520 --> 0:22:45.040