Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: As President Donald Trump's agenda faces growing pushback from the
Speaker 2: federal courts, top administration officials are openly questioning the judiciary's
Speaker 2: authority to serve as a check on the president. After
Speaker 2: a Manhattan federal judge blocked Elon Musk's efficiency team from
Speaker 2: accessing Treasury Department information, must call for impeaching the judge
Speaker 2: and Vice President JD. Vance, a graduate of Yale Law School,
Speaker 2: wrote on x that judges aren't allowed to control the
Speaker 2: executive's legitimate power. Trump didn't back away from that.
Speaker 3: Well, we're going to see what happens.
Speaker 4: We have a long way to go, and we're talking
Speaker 4: about fraud, waste, abuse, and when a president can't look
Speaker 4: for fraud and waste and abuse, we don't have a
Speaker 4: country anymore. So we're very disappointed, but with the judges
Speaker 4: that would make such a ruling, But we have a
Speaker 4: long way to go. We have to look, we have
Speaker 4: to find all of the fraud that's going on. We
Speaker 4: have tremendous fraud, tremendous waste, and tremendous abuse and theft.
Speaker 4: By the way, and today you're not allowed to look
Speaker 4: for theft and fraud, etc. Then we don't have much
Speaker 4: of a country. So no judge should be No judge
Speaker 4: should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a
Speaker 4: decision as a disgrace.
Speaker 2: Joining me is constitutional law. Professor David Souper of Georgetown
Speaker 2: Law JD. Vance said judges aren't allowed to control the
Speaker 2: executive's legitimate power fair enough, but he's often argued that
Speaker 2: presidents can and should ignore court orders they say infringe
Speaker 2: on their rightful executive powers, quoting Andrew Jackson, who said
Speaker 2: the Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him
Speaker 2: enforce it. I mean when the vice president and a
Speaker 2: Yell educated lawyer says that, is it concerning.
Speaker 3: It certainly is worrying. And presidents and other high officials
Speaker 3: who have been engaged in illegal conduct have been saying
Speaker 3: that for over two hundred years. But it's no less
Speaker 3: disturbing when it happened. Of course, courts can't issue illegitimate orders,
Speaker 3: but the solution when they do that is to appeal them.
Speaker 2: Trump has been stopped at least temporarily by about eight
Speaker 2: judges nine judges, and the theory is, well, he's testing
Speaker 2: the limits, so that this will go to the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court and expand his presidential authority. I mean, do you
Speaker 2: think it goes that far or it's just he's doing
Speaker 2: what he wants?
Speaker 3: Oh, I think it does go that far. There's a
Speaker 3: few of these issues that are arguably separate, such as
Speaker 3: the birthright citizenship, where he's violating not a statute but
Speaker 3: the Constitution itself. But for the most part, he's going
Speaker 3: out of his way to violate statue that say how
Speaker 3: the federal government should operate, and in doing that, he's
Speaker 3: setting out the test case about whether any of these
Speaker 3: statutes find him at all. Some of the things he's
Speaker 3: trying to do, they are legal ways to do it,
Speaker 3: and he hasn't tried to do it legally. He's deliberately
Speaker 3: violated the statue to set up a fight.
Speaker 2: What are some of the things he's done or one
Speaker 2: of the things he's done that he could have done legally.
Speaker 3: He could have done a buyout under existing BIOT authority
Speaker 3: that requires an agency specific examination of how many people
Speaker 3: they want to leave and in what positions, but he
Speaker 3: didn't bother to use that authority. He did something completely
Speaker 3: illegal with this mass email that's likely to cause us
Speaker 3: to lose. Precisely, the federal workers we can't afford to lose.
Speaker 2: So, turning to Attorney General Pam Bondi, she issued fourteen
Speaker 2: first day directives. So a new memo warns the Justice
Speaker 2: Department attorneys against refusing to advance it's legal arguments they
Speaker 2: disagree with.
Speaker 5: Is this the way the.
Speaker 2: Justice Department normally works, you know, you get an assignment
Speaker 2: and you argue the side that the Justice Department takes,
Speaker 2: or is this something different?
Speaker 3: Well, lawyers are always required to act in the best
Speaker 3: interests that they're client, to the extent permitted by law
Speaker 3: and legal ethics, so it's not surprising that a lawyer
Speaker 3: might make an argument that if they were a judge
Speaker 3: they would rule against. That's ordinary. But the implication here
Speaker 3: is that lawyers might be required to make arguments that
Speaker 3: they regard as frivolous, and that is generally not allowed.
Speaker 3: In legal ethics. We expect lawyers to make good faith
Speaker 3: arguments to courts, not silly ones, and this could be
Speaker 3: read as requiring the latter.
Speaker 2: The Justice Department is supposed to be independent from the
Speaker 2: White House.
Speaker 5: Is that always the case?
Speaker 2: Though? Are there times when the Justice Department and the
Speaker 2: White House work closely together.
Speaker 6: Well.
Speaker 3: The Justice Department is part of the executive branch, and
Speaker 3: it is supposed to serve the nation's interests under the
Speaker 3: general guidance of the President. But it's always been understood
Speaker 3: that because they're dealing with law, and because the role
Speaker 3: of lawyers, particularly government lawyers, is very sensitive, the Justice
Speaker 3: Department has to be free to honor the law and
Speaker 3: to honor its obligations to only make legitimate arguments in court.
Speaker 2: And I think it's already been happening in some of
Speaker 2: these cases where judges see the Justice Department's arguments as
Speaker 2: just frivolous. For example, in the cases over you mentioned
Speaker 2: birthright citizenship, where it seems to be pretty clear cut
Speaker 2: that Trump can't do that. So does the Justice Department
Speaker 2: risk losing credibility with the judiciary?
Speaker 3: Yes, and I think that's already starting to have. Some
Speaker 3: of the arguments that have been put forward, not just
Speaker 3: in the birthright citizenship case, but in the funding freeze
Speaker 3: cases have been very strange, and the judges have commented
Speaker 3: on them. A judge in one of the funding freeze
Speaker 3: cases said that the government lawyers were claiming that the
Speaker 3: executive agencies must follow the president's priorities. There's no executive
Speaker 3: agencies must follow the law because even the president is
Speaker 3: consciously required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Speaker 2: In one of the memos on the first day, Bondi
Speaker 2: created a Weaponization Working Group, which strikes me as an
Speaker 2: ironic name to say the least she's targeting for investigation.
Speaker 2: There special counsel Jack Smith, New York ag Letitia James,
Speaker 2: Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Justice Department personnel who worked
Speaker 2: on January sixth, etc. Accusing them of improper investing, gative tactics,
Speaker 2: and unethical behavior going after an elected DA in Manhattan?
Speaker 2: Is that really the Justice Department's purview?
Speaker 3: In principle, there can be violations taken by district attorneys.
Speaker 3: Some of the actions in the Civil Rights era were
Speaker 3: against people using government powers to perpetuate illegal racist subjugations.
Speaker 3: So the fact that someone is a state attorney general
Speaker 3: or a district attorney doesn't make them waterproof. But in
Speaker 3: this case, the strong implication is is that this is
Speaker 3: payback or prosecuting or investigating per boss President Trump. And
Speaker 3: if the Justice Department is seen as making decisions based
Speaker 3: on the personal interests of officials. Mister Bragg normally prosecuted
Speaker 3: mister Trump, but persuaded that a jury of his peers
Speaker 3: to convict them counts. Then the Justice Department becomes the
Speaker 3: political tool and will have very littlepact.
Speaker 2: We've talked about this with reference to Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 2: But at her confirmation hearing, she said there will never
Speaker 2: be an enemies list within the Department of Justice. Here's
Speaker 2: Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, questioning her, and
Speaker 2: I'm questioning you right about whether you will enforce an
Speaker 2: enemy's list that he announced publicly on television.
Speaker 5: Oh, Senator, I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: There will never be an enemies list within the Department
Speaker 6: of Justice.
Speaker 2: And here she's on day one. She's targeting the people
Speaker 2: who are and have been on Trump's enemies list. So
Speaker 2: I wonder what is the point of those confirmation hearings.
Speaker 3: The point is what you've just demonstrated, to have the
Speaker 3: acknowledge the illegitimacy of this action. There's nothing that Congress
Speaker 3: can do any hearing to stop someone who's determined to
Speaker 3: violate the law to do so, but they can have
Speaker 3: them acknowledge up the front that what they're on a
Speaker 3: plating doing it is impompable.
Speaker 5: I think it's a.
Speaker 2: Couple of dozen prosecutors who worked on January sixth cases
Speaker 2: have already been fired. Is there any recourse for them
Speaker 2: if they think that their firing was based on the
Speaker 2: position that they took the assignment they were given.
Speaker 3: Certainly there's a strong principle of due process if the
Speaker 3: the Preme Court is articulated many times that one must
Speaker 3: be told what the law is and given a chance
Speaker 3: to conform one's behavior. Applying while retroactively is inherently improper.
Speaker 3: These are people who were given assignments by their lawfully
Speaker 3: designated bosses to conduct investigations, and they're now being criticized
Speaker 3: for doing something that's perfectly legal when they did it.
Speaker 3: That kind of retroactivity is obviously due process violation. It
Speaker 3: may be a violation of federal laws designed to keep
Speaker 3: government employment from being dis for patronage purposes.
Speaker 2: President Trump has outright said he's going to fire the
Speaker 2: FBI agents who are involved, so I guess they have
Speaker 2: some evidence there of his intent. So the Department of
Speaker 2: Justice has signaled that it's going to use criminal investigations
Speaker 2: to root out DEI practices in the private sector.
Speaker 5: That's according to one of the.
Speaker 2: Executive orders that Trump issued, and then the DOJ memo
Speaker 2: calls for specific steps to take within weeks.
Speaker 5: I don't even know what to say about that.
Speaker 2: I mean, criminal investigations for DEI policies.
Speaker 3: Well, it's quite remarkable. I can see why they keep
Speaker 3: using the initials, because that's saying, we're criminally investing in
Speaker 3: you for inclusion. We're criminally investing in you for equity.
Speaker 3: Inclusion and equity tend to be the things that the
Speaker 3: law supports, So they're using DEI as a cartoon villain
Speaker 3: rather than looking at what's actually involved in EI programs
Speaker 3: are enormously varied, and it's hard to imagine many of
Speaker 3: them engaging in any criminal activity any more than any
Speaker 3: other program to do that. The notion that they're going
Speaker 3: to bring these cases suggest that they're contemplating using the
Speaker 3: law for harassment.
Speaker 2: Whenever you're charged or complaint is filed against you, it's
Speaker 2: a hassle, it's expensive, et cetera. But does this seem
Speaker 2: like something that a judge would dismiss, you know, on
Speaker 2: a summary judgment motion or even before.
Speaker 3: Judges generally like to give the prosecution a chance to
Speaker 3: be heard, but in a situation like this, when there's
Speaker 3: so much evidence that the criminal law will be misused,
Speaker 3: the President and other senior officials essentially admitting that I
Speaker 3: think judges may feel that the fairest thing to do
Speaker 3: is dismiss these cases immediately and not force people who
Speaker 3: are following legitimate workers to go through the sort of burden.
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, more on
Speaker 2: those Bondy memos and the attack on sanctuary cities.
Speaker 5: I'm June Grosse. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: New Attorney General Pam Bondi has unveiled a series of
Speaker 2: directives designed to overhaul a justice department President Trump claims
Speaker 2: is biased against conservatives. The directives roll back by deministration
Speaker 2: policies and align the Justice Department with the priorities of
Speaker 2: a White House determined to exert control over federal law
Speaker 2: enforcement and purge agencies of career employees it views as disloyal.
Speaker 2: I've been talking to Georgetown law professor David super Bondi
Speaker 2: has also ordered the defunding of jurisdictions that refuse to
Speaker 2: cooperate with federal immigration authority. So the defunding of sanctuary
Speaker 2: cities and states that was tried before with Jeff Sessions, right.
Speaker 3: Well, that's very remarkable irony that they would think about
Speaker 3: doing this because conservative justices on the Supreme Court held
Speaker 3: that the federal government has no right through dragoons stayed
Speaker 3: in local governments, into carrying out its policies. That's a
Speaker 3: fundamental tenant of federalism, and mister Trump and other conservatives
Speaker 3: have championed federalism, and this is suggesting that state and
Speaker 3: local governments are just sidekicks of the federal government. That's
Speaker 3: not constitutional.
Speaker 2: She's reinstating the death penalty, that's been done before.
Speaker 5: There's nothing illegal about.
Speaker 3: That right now.
Speaker 2: So she's also calling for an October seventh task force
Speaker 2: seeking justice for victims of the attacking. The ongoing threat
Speaker 2: posed by HAMAS and its affiliates is that in the
Speaker 2: purview of the Attorney General, it sounds like it's foreign affairs.
Speaker 3: It sounds like foreign affairs to me. On some matters.
Speaker 3: There can be cooperation between Justice and state Justice and defense,
Speaker 3: Justice and CIA. So it's certainly that there could be
Speaker 3: something to investigate there. I'm not privy to what intelligence
Speaker 3: they might have. If they don't have more than is
Speaker 3: publicly known, i'd be worried about a fishing trip, but
Speaker 3: maybe they do have more.
Speaker 5: What they're doing is they're moving.
Speaker 2: They're reassigning attorneys within the Justice Department to immigration. So
Speaker 2: for example, they're reassigning environmental lawyers and antitrust lawyers to
Speaker 2: this sanctuary cities working group. Well, pulling resources from other
Speaker 2: areas and concentrating on immigration come at the expense of
Speaker 2: the department's other priorities like terrorism and white collar crime. Oh, certainly.
Speaker 3: And lawyers develop specialties, develop expertise in my areas of expertise.
Speaker 3: I like to think I'm a good lawyer, but I
Speaker 3: can name you twenty areas where I would be completely incompetent.
Speaker 3: I don't practice in those areas. That's true of any lawyer.
Speaker 3: So this is a good way of wasting valuable resources
Speaker 3: and letting important laws go ignored while pursuing cases that
Speaker 3: likely have no merit. Based on what we're publicly aware.
Speaker 2: Of of the things that she's planning or at least
Speaker 2: she's written memos about. Is there one area that you
Speaker 2: think that is most concerning.
Speaker 3: Well, it's the theme. The theme is politicizing the Justice
Speaker 3: Department to pursue a particular political agenda. Once we do that,
Speaker 3: then the Justice Department is going to lose something permanently.
Speaker 3: Whoever the next president is will not have a Justice
Speaker 3: Department that is trusted by the courts the way it's
Speaker 3: tradiginally has been.
Speaker 2: Some of these orders that he's handed down, let's use
Speaker 2: birthright citizenship, because that's so obviously a problem illegal. Whatever
Speaker 2: is he getting legal advice on these from the White
Speaker 2: House Counsel's Office.
Speaker 5: Or Justice Department.
Speaker 2: It seems like they're so disconnected some of them from
Speaker 2: basic legal concepts.
Speaker 3: I think piece are written by the people behind Project
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five, and those people have an extremely ambitious,
Speaker 3: radical agenda of overturning the separation of powers and the
Speaker 3: system of checks and balances has guided this country since
Speaker 3: its founding. That's the legal advice is behind all of this.
Speaker 3: The rest of what they're doing is hard to take seriously.
Speaker 3: You read references to cases in their memos. You go
Speaker 3: look up to the case and it says the opposite.
Speaker 3: So I don't think this is a serious effort to
Speaker 3: think about what the law is. This is a radical
Speaker 3: effort to change.
Speaker 2: With the law is do you think that the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court will be receptive to Trump's efforts?
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 3: The implication of this is that he's not governed by
Speaker 3: the law and that the courts have no power over him.
Speaker 3: That turns Supreme Court justice into a very modest, relatively
Speaker 3: insignificant figure. And I don't think that these justices are
Speaker 3: willing to give up their constitutional role and become figureheads.
Speaker 3: I think they want to decide cases based on the
Speaker 3: law and president the Trump's theories here are so radical
Speaker 3: that they would great we limit the rule of law
Speaker 3: of this country.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, David. I always enjoy our conversations.
Speaker 2: That's Professor David super of Georgetown Law. Turning down to immigration.
Speaker 2: The Justice Department is suing the State of Illinois and
Speaker 2: the City of Chicago over their sanctuary city policies. The
Speaker 2: lawsuit accuses them of obstructing the enforcement of immigration laws
Speaker 2: as ice and federal agents are ramping up their search
Speaker 2: for undocumented immigrants to be deported. Here's borders our Tom Homan.
Speaker 7: I would love to rest a bad guy in the
Speaker 7: city or county jail, but in sanaturist cities. We don't
Speaker 7: have access, so they're going to release a public safety
Speaker 7: threat back into the community, which I think is foolish.
Speaker 7: Puts a community at risk, puts our officers at risk,
Speaker 7: and puts the alien at risk.
Speaker 2: But Legal Learned, the deputy director of the Immigrant Rights
Speaker 2: Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, says only federal
Speaker 2: authorities can enforce these raids.
Speaker 5: I think the states will have very very strong arguments
Speaker 5: that they don't need to cooperate.
Speaker 3: They can obstruct, but they don't need to cooperate it.
Speaker 2: Joining me is a Laura Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia
Speaker 2: Law School and director of the school's Immigrants Rights Clinic ILERA.
Speaker 2: Will you start by explaining what a sanctuary city or
Speaker 2: state is.
Speaker 1: A sanctuary city or a sanctuary state isn't defined in
Speaker 1: the law in any way. It just means that a
Speaker 1: jurisdiction may have some policies that restrict a degree of
Speaker 1: cooperation between local law enforcement officers and the federal government.
Speaker 1: Ice there is a broad range of policies that different
Speaker 1: sanctuary jurisdictions have, so it's not a uniform term.
Speaker 2: Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the Justice Department to identify
Speaker 2: local governments with policies that impede immigration enforcement, and to
Speaker 2: take action where appropriate. The first lawsuit filed by the
Speaker 2: Justice Department is against Illinois and Chicago and elected officials there,
Speaker 2: including the governor and mayor. Tell us what the administration's
Speaker 2: allegations are.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is alleging violations of the supremacy Clause.
Speaker 1: They're saying that local Chicago laws, a Cook County ordinance,
Speaker 1: and an Illinois state law preempt federal law. They also
Speaker 1: the Trump administration also alleges unlawful discrimination against the federal
Speaker 1: government and the unlawful regulation of the federal government and
Speaker 1: violation of the supremacy Clause. The Trump Department of Justice
Speaker 1: is seeking declarations from a federal district court in Chicago
Speaker 1: that the state laws and the county and city ordinances
Speaker 1: violate the supremacy Clause and are therefore invalid.
Speaker 2: So this state law was first passed in twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: have there been a tax on it before?
Speaker 1: In the first Trump administration, the Trump administration signed an
Speaker 1: executive order that is virtually identical to the one that
Speaker 1: is currently at issue now that the president signed in
Speaker 1: his first days in office and in the first Trump administration,
Speaker 1: multiple federal courts deemed that the executive order from that
Speaker 1: time was unconstitutionally broad, unconstitutionally coercive against local jurisdictions, and
Speaker 1: that was en joined, meaning blocked by the federal courts
Speaker 1: from taking effect.
Speaker 2: Does it seem likely that the same thing will happen
Speaker 2: with this or have they added anything to their lawsuit
Speaker 2: to their argument?
Speaker 1: I anticipate that the Trump Department of Justice will not
Speaker 1: be successful in their litigation in Chicago. It's also worth
Speaker 1: noting that on February seventh, San Francisco, Santa Clara, King
Speaker 1: County in Washington, Portland, and New Haven also filed a
Speaker 1: lawsuit in the Northern District of California Federal District Court
Speaker 1: there alleging that the Sanctuary Jurisdiction executive Order, which would
Speaker 1: block sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving billions of dollars in federal funding,
Speaker 1: is illegal and unconstitutional. These localities argue that the president's
Speaker 1: executive order violates the Tenth Amendment, violates separation of powers
Speaker 1: and the spending Clause of the Constitution. These localities further
Speaker 1: argue that Trump's new executive orders violates the due process
Speaker 1: clause of the US Constitution and a statute called the
Speaker 1: Administrative Procedures Act. I anticipate that these localities will be
Speaker 1: successful in blocking that executive order.
Speaker 2: On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signs
Speaker 2: an executive order calling for federal funds to be cut
Speaker 2: off for any local government with sanctuary policies, and Attorney
Speaker 2: General Pam Bondi issued a memo calling for the Justice
Speaker 2: Department to start enforcing the order. Ellra tell us about
Speaker 2: that memo.
Speaker 1: That memo is in tandem with the executive order, and
Speaker 1: these localities have sued to stop that executive order and
Speaker 1: that February fifth Department of Justice memo from going into effect.
Speaker 1: It's notable that the February fifth Department of Justice memo
Speaker 1: threatens the termination of funding to local jurisdictions and threatens
Speaker 1: both civil and criminal prosecution for law enforcement officers and
Speaker 1: other officials in the sanctuary jurisdiction.
Speaker 2: It depends on the city, but are we talking hundreds
Speaker 2: of millions or billions of dollars in federal aid to
Speaker 2: these cities?
Speaker 1: Collectively billions of dollars in federal aid to these cities.
Speaker 2: So they've also in Trump's executive order vowed to go
Speaker 2: after local law enforcement officials who don't cooperate with federal
Speaker 2: immigration enforcement. Did they do that in the last administration.
Speaker 1: This threat to pursue both civil and criminal prosecution of
Speaker 1: local law enforcement agents and local officials who do not
Speaker 1: cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement is new.
Speaker 1: It is also unconstitutional. It clearly violates the Tenth Amendment
Speaker 1: and violates a longstanding principle of constitutional law, which is
Speaker 1: called anti commandeering. The federal government cannot commandeer cannot force
Speaker 1: localities and states to carry out federal priorities.
Speaker 2: There was a memo allowing ICE to go into sensitive
Speaker 2: locations like churches and schools and hospitals.
Speaker 1: Has I stillne that ICE has rescinded the sensitive Locations memo,
Speaker 1: which previously stopped ICE from carrying out immigration enforcement in
Speaker 1: locations such as schools, hospitals, places of worship, and public demonstrations.
Speaker 1: As far as we know at this time, there have
Speaker 1: been no immigration enforcement operations in schools nationwide, and in
Speaker 1: the first Trump administration there was very limited immigration enforcement
Speaker 1: taking place in the medical care context. We haven't heard
Speaker 1: of widespread ICE enforcement in the immigration context or in
Speaker 1: houses of worship in this administration.
Speaker 2: New York City, because of possible ice raids at schools,
Speaker 2: some immigrant families are keeping their kids at home, and
Speaker 2: the schools chancellor came out and said that the policy
Speaker 2: at city public schools hasn't changed and basically that a
Speaker 2: warrant is needed. Quote, we unequivocally stand with all children
Speaker 2: in our city, regardless of immigration status. But it seems
Speaker 2: like there's fear no matter what the government says.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration has created a pervasive sense of fear
Speaker 1: among immigrant communities nationwide. It is not surprising that after
Speaker 1: the recision of the Sensitive Locations memo, the number of
Speaker 1: children attending our public schools has gone down. And it's
Speaker 1: important to reiterate that there have been to date no
Speaker 1: immigration enforcement actions carried out in public schools, and families
Speaker 1: should continue to send their children to school.
Speaker 2: There's a dispute in New York City about New York
Speaker 2: City sanctuary status because of the actions of the mayor,
Speaker 2: Eric Adams. He wrote a memo to general councils for
Speaker 2: all agencies directing employees.
Speaker 5: To ask officers ICE officers.
Speaker 2: For their name and badge number. A warrant or subpoena
Speaker 2: and call their agencies. Council quote, but if you reasonably
Speaker 2: feel threatened or feel for your safety, you should give
Speaker 2: the officer the information they've asked for or let them
Speaker 2: enter the site. And critics say that's a violation of
Speaker 2: New York sanctuary law.
Speaker 1: Yes, the wording of that memo is problematic, and it
Speaker 1: has left city officials without clearer guidance on how to proceed.
Speaker 2: About the ICE raids. How are they proceeding? Some of
Speaker 2: them have been highly publicized. The one in New York
Speaker 2: where they arrested just one hundred I think people, was
Speaker 2: highly publicized because the new Secretary of Homeland Security went
Speaker 2: on the raid. How are they carrying them out across
Speaker 2: the country? Is it by the book?
Speaker 1: It is unclear how these ICE raids are being carried out.
Speaker 1: In the first weeks of the Trump administration, ICE was
Speaker 1: releasing data on how many individuals were being arrested in
Speaker 1: ICE rays. It appears that about half of those individuals
Speaker 1: who were arrested did not have criminal convictions and were
Speaker 1: so called collateral damage in the arrests. Now, it seems
Speaker 1: that ICE is not releasing data on how many arrests
Speaker 1: they are carrying out nationwide, so it is hard to
Speaker 1: know who is being arrested and whether or not those
Speaker 1: individuals actually pose a danger to public safety as the
Speaker 1: administration claims.
Speaker 2: On Sunday, a judge issued a temporary restraining order against
Speaker 2: three Venezuelans being sent to Guantanamo. Do you think that's
Speaker 2: sending migrants to Guantanamo is going to be upheld by
Speaker 2: the courts.
Speaker 1: There are serious legal questions about whether the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has the authority to send individuals to Guantanamo Bay. What
Speaker 1: is clear is that the Trump administration is trying to
Speaker 1: instill fear in immigrant communities nationwide and let people know
Speaker 1: that the United States of America is no longer a
Speaker 1: safe haven for immigrants, for migrants, for asylum seekers and others.
Speaker 1: And that message is being broadcast around the world.
Speaker 2: And what is the situation right now at the southern border.
Speaker 1: So the Trump administration has issued executive orders that purport
Speaker 1: to close the southern border completely to asylum seekers and
Speaker 1: other migrants by declaring that there is an invasion at
Speaker 1: the border, although if you look at the data crossing
Speaker 1: there a four year low, so the data doesn't support
Speaker 1: that there is an invasion, and earlier this month, a
Speaker 1: number of immigrants rights organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the
Speaker 1: constitutionality and the legality of those executive orders, saying that
Speaker 1: the President, with the stroke of a pen can't supersede
Speaker 1: laws passed by Congress which guarantee a right for people
Speaker 1: to seek asylum regardless of how they enter the United States.
Speaker 1: So that case is pending.
Speaker 5: Thanks so much for joining me today. E Laura.
Speaker 2: That's Laura Muokerjee, a professor at Columbia Law School and
Speaker 2: director of the school's Immigrant Rights Clinic. In other legal news, today,
Speaker 2: a federal judge in Boston temporarily blocked enforcement of a
Speaker 2: federal employee buy at offer by President Trump's Department of
Speaker 2: Government Efficiency. Federal Judge Georgie O'Toole Junior says the order
Speaker 2: will remain in effect until he issues a ruling. Attorney
Speaker 2: Elena Goldstein with the Democracy Forward Foundation argued for the
Speaker 2: plaintiffs in the case.
Speaker 6: We are pleased that today at the court continued his
Speaker 6: injunction from last week, continuing to enjoin OPM and defendants
Speaker 6: from implementing the fork in the Road directive. The so called.
Speaker 2: Buyout the deferred resignation program has been spearheaded by Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: who's serving as Trump's top advisor for reducing federal spending.
Speaker 2: Under the plan, employees can stop working and get paid
Speaker 2: until September thirtieth. Democrats and union leaders have said workers
Speaker 2: shouldn't accept the deferred resignation program because it wasn't authorized
Speaker 2: by Congress, raising the risk that they won't get paid.
Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg