1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,520 --> 00:00:11,960
Speaker 1: I wasn't sure that this day would ever come, and

3
00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:15,800
Speaker 1: I just feel so grateful that the jury believed us

4
00:00:15,920 --> 00:00:20,160
Speaker 1: and sent a strong message that perpetrators of sexual abuse

5
00:00:20,160 --> 00:00:23,360
Speaker 1: and exploitation will be held accountable, no matter how much

6
00:00:23,520 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 1: power and privilege that they have. That was Annie Farmer

7
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:29,320
Speaker 1: a little more than a week ago after a jury

8
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:32,600
Speaker 1: found the Lane Maxwell guilty of engaging in a ten

9
00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:36,640
Speaker 1: year sex trafficking scheme with Jeffrey Epstein. But now the

10
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:39,800
Speaker 1: verdict that was hailed as long delayed justice for the

11
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:44,680
Speaker 1: victims is in jeopardy. In newspaper interviews, a juror said

12
00:00:44,720 --> 00:00:47,920
Speaker 1: that during the jury deliberations, he revealed that he had

13
00:00:47,960 --> 00:00:50,760
Speaker 1: been the victim of sexual abuse as a child, and

14
00:00:50,800 --> 00:00:54,280
Speaker 1: that his story helps sway other jurors who questioned the

15
00:00:54,320 --> 00:00:58,240
Speaker 1: credibility of some of Maxwell's accusers. Than a second juror

16
00:00:58,280 --> 00:01:01,880
Speaker 1: made a similar disclosure, joining me as former federal prosecutor

17
00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:06,280
Speaker 1: Jessica Ralph, a professor at Cardozo Law School. Jessica explain

18
00:01:06,360 --> 00:01:10,080
Speaker 1: why the revelations by these jurors are leading the defense

19
00:01:10,120 --> 00:01:13,120
Speaker 1: to ask for a new trial. A descendant is entitled

20
00:01:13,240 --> 00:01:17,480
Speaker 1: to a trial by a jury that is fair and impartial.

21
00:01:17,720 --> 00:01:22,080
Speaker 1: That is a constitutional guarantee. A defendant is not entitled

22
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:24,720
Speaker 1: to a perfect trial, but at a minimum, to a

23
00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:28,720
Speaker 1: trial by a jury that will decide the case based

24
00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:32,520
Speaker 1: on the evidence presented in court and not influenced by

25
00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:35,520
Speaker 1: any bias. And so the problem that has been raised

26
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 1: by these recent revelations by two jurors is the concern

27
00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:44,080
Speaker 1: that they may have harbored a bias against Maxwell based

28
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:48,600
Speaker 1: on their own prior experiences as victims of sexual abuse.

29
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:50,400
Speaker 1: And so what the court is going to be trying

30
00:01:50,400 --> 00:01:54,240
Speaker 1: to determine is whether, essentially these jurors should not have

31
00:01:54,360 --> 00:01:59,920
Speaker 1: been seated because of those prior experiences. Clearly, the question

32
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:02,400
Speaker 1: in the air that the jurors had to fill out

33
00:02:02,520 --> 00:02:05,800
Speaker 1: asks have you are a friend or a family member

34
00:02:05,800 --> 00:02:09,320
Speaker 1: ever been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual abuse or

35
00:02:09,440 --> 00:02:15,639
Speaker 1: sexual assault? So was their misrepresentation here by either juror Well,

36
00:02:15,720 --> 00:02:17,639
Speaker 1: there are a couple of things we still don't know.

37
00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:21,600
Speaker 1: So we don't know how he answered that question on

38
00:02:21,680 --> 00:02:26,079
Speaker 1: his questionnaire because it's under steel. So the lawyers may know,

39
00:02:26,360 --> 00:02:29,080
Speaker 1: but the general public doesn't know yet how In fact,

40
00:02:29,120 --> 00:02:33,440
Speaker 1: he answered that question. It's possible that he answered the

41
00:02:33,520 --> 00:02:38,160
Speaker 1: question accurately and did disclose that he had prior experience

42
00:02:38,200 --> 00:02:41,400
Speaker 1: of abuse, and that the lawyers either didn't catch it

43
00:02:41,760 --> 00:02:45,440
Speaker 1: or failed to follow up on it, either deliberately or inadvertent.

44
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:48,840
Speaker 1: Unlikely they would have deliberately failed to follow up on it,

45
00:02:48,919 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 1: but it is possible that they missed his answer. So

46
00:02:52,600 --> 00:02:55,000
Speaker 1: the first order of business, I imagine for the parties

47
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,480
Speaker 1: right now is going to be finding his questionnaire and

48
00:02:57,680 --> 00:03:01,040
Speaker 1: seeing how, in fact he answered it. And it seems

49
00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:04,280
Speaker 1: unlikely that he answered it in a way that disclosed

50
00:03:04,280 --> 00:03:07,440
Speaker 1: the abuse, because if he had, it is likely that

51
00:03:07,480 --> 00:03:10,800
Speaker 1: the attorneys would have asked follow up questions about it.

52
00:03:11,040 --> 00:03:14,720
Speaker 1: And according to the reporting, the transcript of the vardier

53
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:18,360
Speaker 1: does not reveal any follow up questioning of this particular

54
00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:22,560
Speaker 1: juror on that issue. So that's suggest that he did

55
00:03:22,639 --> 00:03:26,240
Speaker 1: not disclose it on his questionnaire, or that he did

56
00:03:26,280 --> 00:03:28,640
Speaker 1: disclose it but the lawyers didn't catch it. But the

57
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:31,280
Speaker 1: first order of business is going to be determining how

58
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:34,200
Speaker 1: he answered that question on the questionnaire, and that's important

59
00:03:34,200 --> 00:03:36,120
Speaker 1: for the next step of the inquiry because the court

60
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:39,960
Speaker 1: is going to inquire into his possible motives for not

61
00:03:40,160 --> 00:03:43,200
Speaker 1: disclosing it, assuming for present purposes that he did not

62
00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:46,640
Speaker 1: disclose it. If the court were to determine that he

63
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:50,440
Speaker 1: did not disclose it deliberately in order to get on

64
00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:54,640
Speaker 1: the jury, then that would be more indicative of bias.

65
00:03:54,640 --> 00:04:00,280
Speaker 1: Then if he, as he has suggested, perhaps inadvertently to

66
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 1: disclose it because he was rushing through the questionnaire. And

67
00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:06,720
Speaker 1: there are cases where courts have talked about the significance

68
00:04:06,960 --> 00:04:12,400
Speaker 1: of a juror's motivations for failing to disclose information that

69
00:04:12,520 --> 00:04:16,279
Speaker 1: seems relevant to determining bias, because if it seems that

70
00:04:16,320 --> 00:04:20,120
Speaker 1: the juror was determined or trying to get onto the jury,

71
00:04:20,279 --> 00:04:23,880
Speaker 1: that is often indicative in the courts of view of

72
00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:27,280
Speaker 1: harboring some bias and wanting to get onto the jury

73
00:04:27,360 --> 00:04:31,200
Speaker 1: in order to render a verdict against the defendant. Will

74
00:04:31,240 --> 00:04:34,800
Speaker 1: the judge look into what happened in the jury room.

75
00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:38,000
Speaker 1: That's one of the more interesting aspects of this new

76
00:04:38,040 --> 00:04:41,000
Speaker 1: turn in the case, which is that although the jurors

77
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:44,719
Speaker 1: has suggested in their accounts to the media that they

78
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:47,880
Speaker 1: brought their experiences into the jury room with them and

79
00:04:48,040 --> 00:04:50,960
Speaker 1: used them to persuade other jurors who may have been

80
00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:55,680
Speaker 1: initially skeptical of the victims witnesses credibility. The judge is

81
00:04:55,720 --> 00:04:59,880
Speaker 1: not going to consider testimony or other evidence about the

82
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:03,000
Speaker 1: jury deliberation in making her decision about whether or not

83
00:05:03,040 --> 00:05:06,400
Speaker 1: to grant a new trial. That's because there's a federal

84
00:05:06,480 --> 00:05:10,920
Speaker 1: rule of evidence that expressly prohibits a judge from considering

85
00:05:11,480 --> 00:05:15,599
Speaker 1: testimony or an affidavit from a juror about conduct or

86
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:20,080
Speaker 1: statements that occurred during the jury's deliberation. That's a rule

87
00:05:20,600 --> 00:05:24,960
Speaker 1: of long standing precedent um, and it's designed to protect

88
00:05:25,040 --> 00:05:28,920
Speaker 1: the privacy of jury deliberations. The concern is that if

89
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:32,120
Speaker 1: jurors are not assured of the privacy of their deliberation,

90
00:05:32,520 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 1: that they will be less candid. Courts have been willing

91
00:05:35,760 --> 00:05:38,800
Speaker 1: to accept the fact that this rule may result in

92
00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:42,039
Speaker 1: occasional injustice, but they have said that they do not

93
00:05:42,200 --> 00:05:45,839
Speaker 1: think that the jury system could survive efforts to perfect it.

94
00:05:46,240 --> 00:05:49,320
Speaker 1: In this regard. There are a few narrow exceptions to

95
00:05:49,440 --> 00:05:52,320
Speaker 1: that rule. For example, if a juror were to come

96
00:05:52,360 --> 00:05:54,919
Speaker 1: forward and say that a juror was offered a bribe

97
00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:58,839
Speaker 1: over threatened to influence their verdict, the court would hear

98
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:02,480
Speaker 1: testimony from a about that. The court also would hear

99
00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:06,920
Speaker 1: testimony from jurors about their having been exposed to extraneous

100
00:06:07,320 --> 00:06:11,600
Speaker 1: extrajudicial publicity, for example, in newspaper account about the case.

101
00:06:12,160 --> 00:06:16,839
Speaker 1: But other than those narrow exceptions, which involve extraneous external

102
00:06:16,880 --> 00:06:19,840
Speaker 1: information being brought to bear on the jury, the court

103
00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 1: will not hear that kind of information from the jurors.

104
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:25,599
Speaker 1: The last exception is one that the U. S. Supreme

105
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:28,839
Speaker 1: Court carved out in recent years to say that if

106
00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:34,440
Speaker 1: there is significant evidence of racial animus affecting the jury's deliberations,

107
00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:36,919
Speaker 1: that the Court of Court should hear is that kind

108
00:06:36,960 --> 00:06:40,080
Speaker 1: of evidence from a juror. But none of those exceptions

109
00:06:40,480 --> 00:06:45,400
Speaker 1: apply in this case. So the defense argues that the

110
00:06:45,440 --> 00:06:48,680
Speaker 1: new trial should be granted without any kind of evidentiary

111
00:06:48,960 --> 00:06:52,000
Speaker 1: hearing because there's enough on the record already with what

112
00:06:52,040 --> 00:06:54,960
Speaker 1: the juror said. But does it seem likely that the

113
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:58,719
Speaker 1: judge will hold a hearing. It seems unlikely to me

114
00:06:58,839 --> 00:07:04,960
Speaker 1: that the court will decide this motion without some further inquiry.

115
00:07:05,080 --> 00:07:07,760
Speaker 1: I think that the court is likely to hear from

116
00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:10,640
Speaker 1: one or both jurors who have come forward so far,

117
00:07:11,320 --> 00:07:16,240
Speaker 1: and to probe their reasons for not disclosing this information

118
00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:18,640
Speaker 1: if in fact, it turns out that they did not

119
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:22,680
Speaker 1: disclose it on their juror questionnaires, Because again, what the

120
00:07:22,680 --> 00:07:25,320
Speaker 1: court is going to be trying to determine is whether

121
00:07:25,400 --> 00:07:29,040
Speaker 1: the jurors harbored any kind of bias that would have

122
00:07:29,200 --> 00:07:33,720
Speaker 1: provided UH cause for them to have been excused UM

123
00:07:33,720 --> 00:07:37,880
Speaker 1: from the jury during the warrite or process, the prosecution

124
00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:42,080
Speaker 1: requested that the jury be given a court appointed attorney.

125
00:07:42,280 --> 00:07:47,480
Speaker 1: Does that indicate that there could be possible criminal perjury charges?

126
00:07:49,160 --> 00:07:55,120
Speaker 1: I wouldn't read that into the government's request UH for

127
00:07:55,200 --> 00:07:57,840
Speaker 1: the court to a point an attorney. I think that

128
00:07:57,920 --> 00:08:04,120
Speaker 1: the government was trying to UH streamline UM the process

129
00:08:04,360 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 1: for moving forward UM and to UH and to ask

130
00:08:10,160 --> 00:08:15,880
Speaker 1: the court to exercise supervisory authority essentially over the process

131
00:08:16,000 --> 00:08:20,280
Speaker 1: moving forward. Having an attorney appointed to represent the juror

132
00:08:21,080 --> 00:08:25,280
Speaker 1: helps that process. And what it also does, incidentally, is

133
00:08:25,400 --> 00:08:30,440
Speaker 1: now require any attorney who wishes to communicate with that juror,

134
00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:34,240
Speaker 1: whether it's the prosecutors or the defense attorneys, to go

135
00:08:34,440 --> 00:08:37,920
Speaker 1: through that attorney, because lawyers are bound by rules of

136
00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:42,559
Speaker 1: professional conduct that require that if they know a an

137
00:08:42,559 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 1: individual is represented by an attorney in a matter that

138
00:08:45,920 --> 00:08:51,440
Speaker 1: they must contact that individual through their attorney. What kind

139
00:08:51,480 --> 00:08:55,080
Speaker 1: of factors would the judge consider? Will she consider the

140
00:08:55,160 --> 00:09:00,480
Speaker 1: strength of the evidence against Maxwell, Will she consider having

141
00:09:00,520 --> 00:09:05,240
Speaker 1: to put the four victims who testified through another trial? Well,

142
00:09:05,320 --> 00:09:10,040
Speaker 1: motions for a new trial are disfavored precisely because of

143
00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:13,640
Speaker 1: the interests and finality in judgments once they've been rendered,

144
00:09:13,960 --> 00:09:17,160
Speaker 1: and those interests include not having to put victims and

145
00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:21,880
Speaker 1: witnesses through another trial. But that said, the legal determination

146
00:09:21,960 --> 00:09:24,720
Speaker 1: that the court will need to make is whether or

147
00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:32,800
Speaker 1: not the record establishes that these jurors um were sufficiently

148
00:09:33,480 --> 00:09:39,280
Speaker 1: unbiased um that they should we were appropriately seated as

149
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:43,000
Speaker 1: jurors in this case. So I think the court is

150
00:09:43,120 --> 00:09:47,959
Speaker 1: likely to hear from these jurors UM about their reasons

151
00:09:48,000 --> 00:09:52,319
Speaker 1: for not disclosing this information UM if in fact um

152
00:09:52,360 --> 00:09:57,000
Speaker 1: they failed to disclose it, and also um their own

153
00:09:57,120 --> 00:10:01,200
Speaker 1: views about the case when they went to the case UM.

154
00:10:01,200 --> 00:10:04,480
Speaker 1: And there are precedents for courts making such inquiries of

155
00:10:04,960 --> 00:10:09,640
Speaker 1: jurors um to inquire into why they failed to make

156
00:10:09,679 --> 00:10:17,320
Speaker 1: disclosures UM and what the jurors responses reveal about their biases. So,

157
00:10:17,480 --> 00:10:19,880
Speaker 1: for example, there was a case a death penalty case

158
00:10:19,920 --> 00:10:23,760
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, tried a number of years ago, where it emerged,

159
00:10:23,880 --> 00:10:27,640
Speaker 1: after the defendant was sentenced to death, that one of

160
00:10:27,679 --> 00:10:30,880
Speaker 1: the jurors failed to disclose that she herself had been

161
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:35,000
Speaker 1: the victim of a horrific violent crime, even though all

162
00:10:35,000 --> 00:10:38,640
Speaker 1: potential jurors were asked about that, and when she was

163
00:10:38,720 --> 00:10:42,520
Speaker 1: questioned about it in a subsequent post trial hearing, she

164
00:10:42,679 --> 00:10:45,280
Speaker 1: said that it was so traumatic for her to talk

165
00:10:45,360 --> 00:10:50,360
Speaker 1: about that experience that she simply chose not to because

166
00:10:50,360 --> 00:10:53,320
Speaker 1: it was so shameful and difficult for her to discuss that.

167
00:10:54,000 --> 00:10:56,160
Speaker 1: And so even though the court found in that case

168
00:10:56,200 --> 00:11:00,080
Speaker 1: that she harbored no specific bias towards that defendant, the

169
00:11:00,120 --> 00:11:03,080
Speaker 1: court found that her reason for not disclosing it mainly

170
00:11:03,080 --> 00:11:06,760
Speaker 1: that it was so traumatic for her to discuss those experiences.

171
00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:09,959
Speaker 1: UM was the kind of information that would have caused

172
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:14,079
Speaker 1: the court to excuse her for cause UM initially had

173
00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:16,880
Speaker 1: the court known about it, because it was clearly still

174
00:11:16,920 --> 00:11:19,719
Speaker 1: so raw and emotional for that juror, such that the

175
00:11:19,760 --> 00:11:22,480
Speaker 1: court would have been concerned about the juror's ability to

176
00:11:22,559 --> 00:11:26,160
Speaker 1: decide the present case UM fairly and based solely on

177
00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:29,160
Speaker 1: the evidence. And so I think that the judge if

178
00:11:29,200 --> 00:11:31,280
Speaker 1: the court makes an inquiry of these jurors, is going

179
00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:34,760
Speaker 1: to want to know a bit about their own experience

180
00:11:34,800 --> 00:11:37,480
Speaker 1: with abuse to sort of the nature and circumstances of it.

181
00:11:38,040 --> 00:11:40,720
Speaker 1: At the court will also inquire again about why they

182
00:11:40,760 --> 00:11:43,720
Speaker 1: failed to disclose it if they did um and whether

183
00:11:43,800 --> 00:11:47,200
Speaker 1: or not, taking all the facts and circumstances together, including

184
00:11:47,240 --> 00:11:50,400
Speaker 1: the witnesses demeanor, at any such hearing, whether the court

185
00:11:50,480 --> 00:11:55,199
Speaker 1: concludes that the jurors ultimately harbored some bias towards Maxwell

186
00:11:55,240 --> 00:11:57,839
Speaker 1: and wanted to get on this jury, or there was

187
00:11:57,880 --> 00:12:01,200
Speaker 1: anything about their own experiences with the use that would

188
00:12:01,200 --> 00:12:03,680
Speaker 1: have caused them to be unable to be fair and

189
00:12:03,720 --> 00:12:07,199
Speaker 1: impartial in this case. Was the conviction in that case

190
00:12:07,360 --> 00:12:11,280
Speaker 1: in the death penalty case reversed, Yes, the defendant had

191
00:12:11,320 --> 00:12:14,840
Speaker 1: fled guilty to the crime. The only thing put before

192
00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:17,199
Speaker 1: the jury in that case was whether the defendant should

193
00:12:17,200 --> 00:12:19,840
Speaker 1: be sentenced to death um, and the court did set

194
00:12:19,880 --> 00:12:24,079
Speaker 1: aside that death sentence on account of the juror's partiality.

195
00:12:24,520 --> 00:12:29,000
Speaker 1: A lot of experts are saying that this revelation, this

196
00:12:29,080 --> 00:12:34,080
Speaker 1: is so serious that it's likely that the judge is

197
00:12:34,120 --> 00:12:37,720
Speaker 1: going to reverse Maxwell's conviction. Do you agree with that.

198
00:12:38,960 --> 00:12:42,520
Speaker 1: I think it's too soon to predict how the court

199
00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:45,560
Speaker 1: will rule here. I think we need to take things

200
00:12:45,600 --> 00:12:47,360
Speaker 1: one step at a time, and as I said a

201
00:12:47,360 --> 00:12:49,440
Speaker 1: moment ago, the first order of business is to find

202
00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:52,480
Speaker 1: those juror questionnaires and to see what the juror said,

203
00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:56,400
Speaker 1: and then to follow up with the jurors. Um. I

204
00:12:56,440 --> 00:12:58,400
Speaker 1: think it's very hard to say that this is a

205
00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:01,480
Speaker 1: per se case for Fertile, even if the jurors did

206
00:13:01,480 --> 00:13:05,240
Speaker 1: not disclose this information. I think we're several steps away

207
00:13:05,280 --> 00:13:08,120
Speaker 1: from the court having all the information it needs to

208
00:13:08,200 --> 00:13:12,839
Speaker 1: make a decision. Does this say something about those lengthy

209
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:16,880
Speaker 1: questionnaires that are sent out to pools of jurors. This

210
00:13:16,960 --> 00:13:19,840
Speaker 1: juror said, you know, he just went through it really quickly,

211
00:13:20,559 --> 00:13:23,480
Speaker 1: and then they based their questions on whether or not

212
00:13:23,720 --> 00:13:27,080
Speaker 1: I think the judge individually questioned each juror who said

213
00:13:27,080 --> 00:13:29,640
Speaker 1: they were the victim of sex abuse. I can understand

214
00:13:29,640 --> 00:13:32,440
Speaker 1: a jew or just going really fast through question after

215
00:13:32,559 --> 00:13:35,560
Speaker 1: question after question. I wonder how useful they really are.

216
00:13:37,080 --> 00:13:39,680
Speaker 1: So it's an interesting question about whether it is certain

217
00:13:39,679 --> 00:13:43,840
Speaker 1: points they're diminishing returns to a lengthy jury questionnaire, and

218
00:13:43,880 --> 00:13:48,839
Speaker 1: whether in fact it can be uh uh counter productive

219
00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:52,079
Speaker 1: to have so many questions that there is an increased

220
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:55,000
Speaker 1: risk that the jurors will not pay attention to the

221
00:13:55,080 --> 00:14:00,400
Speaker 1: most significant questions. In this particular case, whether a potential

222
00:14:00,480 --> 00:14:04,800
Speaker 1: juror had a personal experience or whether somebody close to

223
00:14:04,840 --> 00:14:07,760
Speaker 1: them had an experience with sexual abuse seems to be

224
00:14:08,200 --> 00:14:11,800
Speaker 1: very important information that the parties would want to find

225
00:14:11,840 --> 00:14:16,760
Speaker 1: out about each potential juror, and so without having looked

226
00:14:17,360 --> 00:14:20,680
Speaker 1: at all of the other questions carefully to decide what

227
00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:24,360
Speaker 1: might have been discarded. UM. I do think as a

228
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:28,680
Speaker 1: general matter, it is perhaps a good reminder that sometimes

229
00:14:28,800 --> 00:14:32,680
Speaker 1: less is more. If if, if, if, if the judge

230
00:14:32,720 --> 00:14:36,560
Speaker 1: does reverse the conviction. Is there any doubt that the

231
00:14:36,640 --> 00:14:40,920
Speaker 1: prosecutors will have to retry her given the seriousness of

232
00:14:40,920 --> 00:14:45,880
Speaker 1: the allegations and the notoriety of the case, the prosecutors

233
00:14:45,920 --> 00:14:49,040
Speaker 1: will have to make that evaluation in light of a

234
00:14:49,240 --> 00:14:54,080
Speaker 1: number of considerations. UM. But I would be very surprised

235
00:14:54,120 --> 00:14:58,280
Speaker 1: if they would not retry her. Um, given the seriousness

236
00:14:58,840 --> 00:15:02,960
Speaker 1: of the charges here. But that said, uh, we are

237
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:06,560
Speaker 1: way way way too early, I think to be making

238
00:15:06,600 --> 00:15:10,040
Speaker 1: predictions about what's going to happen. Thanks Jessica, that's professor

239
00:15:10,120 --> 00:15:15,200
Speaker 1: Jessica Roth of Cordoza Law School. The U s. Supreme

240
00:15:15,240 --> 00:15:18,440
Speaker 1: Court struggle with the question of whether immigrants who entered

241
00:15:18,480 --> 00:15:22,240
Speaker 1: the country illegally and have sought to avoid deportation on

242
00:15:22,360 --> 00:15:26,240
Speaker 1: humanitarian grounds must be given a bond hearing after being

243
00:15:26,280 --> 00:15:30,200
Speaker 1: in detention for six months. The justices are confronting how

244
00:15:30,200 --> 00:15:33,600
Speaker 1: to handle a precedent that lower courts have interpreted to

245
00:15:33,720 --> 00:15:38,160
Speaker 1: require those bond hearings for certain immigrants after six months attention.

246
00:15:38,720 --> 00:15:42,640
Speaker 1: Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight Leon.

247
00:15:42,680 --> 00:15:47,560
Speaker 1: How long can immigrants who entered the country illegally be

248
00:15:47,760 --> 00:15:52,120
Speaker 1: kept in detention without a bond hearing? So this depends

249
00:15:52,200 --> 00:15:55,960
Speaker 1: you because there are many different contexts in which four

250
00:15:56,080 --> 00:16:00,640
Speaker 1: nationals are detained. And so the very first case, that's

251
00:16:00,640 --> 00:16:03,800
Speaker 1: the seminal case that discussed this issue, is the case

252
00:16:03,920 --> 00:16:09,360
Speaker 1: called Zavidas, where it was a Lithuanian person who had

253
00:16:09,440 --> 00:16:14,200
Speaker 1: had an order of removal to Lithuania, but at the

254
00:16:14,280 --> 00:16:17,400
Speaker 1: time that he was born, he was born in the

255
00:16:17,480 --> 00:16:20,520
Speaker 1: Soviet Union. He was not born there was no Lithuania

256
00:16:20,520 --> 00:16:23,480
Speaker 1: at that time any more, and so when it came

257
00:16:23,520 --> 00:16:26,360
Speaker 1: time to deport him back to Lithuania. Lithuania said, I

258
00:16:26,400 --> 00:16:29,440
Speaker 1: don't know this person. This is a Soviet Union citizen,

259
00:16:29,800 --> 00:16:32,800
Speaker 1: and the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, so we're not

260
00:16:32,880 --> 00:16:37,160
Speaker 1: taking them. And so then the US government was was

261
00:16:37,200 --> 00:16:42,680
Speaker 1: faced with two equally lousy scenarios. Detained Zavidas for the

262
00:16:42,720 --> 00:16:46,360
Speaker 1: rest of his life or let him out. And so

263
00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:49,200
Speaker 1: the court was presented with that case in the nineties,

264
00:16:49,680 --> 00:16:52,880
Speaker 1: and the court said, even though the statute doesn't ever

265
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:56,240
Speaker 1: use either a hundred and eighty days or six months,

266
00:16:56,320 --> 00:16:58,720
Speaker 1: it doesn't have any of that in it. It said,

267
00:16:59,600 --> 00:17:04,359
Speaker 1: it's not significantly likely that you will be removed in

268
00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:08,560
Speaker 1: the foreseeable future. If you've already been detained six months,

269
00:17:08,840 --> 00:17:11,520
Speaker 1: we're gonna let you have a bomb hearing. We're gonna

270
00:17:11,560 --> 00:17:14,440
Speaker 1: get you a chance to be released because we're not

271
00:17:14,480 --> 00:17:18,880
Speaker 1: gonna keep you in detention forever. So that's what's called

272
00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:23,360
Speaker 1: a post removal case. In the meantime, after that was decided,

273
00:17:24,040 --> 00:17:28,040
Speaker 1: people then asked, well, what about not post removal, but

274
00:17:28,119 --> 00:17:32,440
Speaker 1: if you're detained in the middle of your proceedings, so

275
00:17:33,119 --> 00:17:36,000
Speaker 1: we haven't decided whether the court you or not, but

276
00:17:36,119 --> 00:17:39,840
Speaker 1: you're detained in these proceedings are taking too long so

277
00:17:40,440 --> 00:17:45,000
Speaker 1: people said that should be six months as well, and

278
00:17:45,480 --> 00:17:48,600
Speaker 1: a lot of the lower courts agreed, But by the

279
00:17:48,680 --> 00:17:51,679
Speaker 1: time discussed to the Supreme Court in the Trump administration

280
00:17:51,880 --> 00:17:55,760
Speaker 1: and the composition of the courts had changed, the courts

281
00:17:55,880 --> 00:17:59,920
Speaker 1: disagreed and said, we're not gonna set a presumptive time

282
00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:04,360
Speaker 1: period for people who are going through proceedings. Whatever long

283
00:18:04,400 --> 00:18:07,040
Speaker 1: it takes, it takes, and if it takes way, way, way,

284
00:18:07,080 --> 00:18:09,840
Speaker 1: way way way too long, you can make what's called

285
00:18:09,880 --> 00:18:15,040
Speaker 1: an individual as applied challenge, saying, hey, I've been detained

286
00:18:15,280 --> 00:18:18,400
Speaker 1: two years, three years, and my proceedings are going nowhere.

287
00:18:18,880 --> 00:18:21,520
Speaker 1: Let me out. So that's the difference between a person

288
00:18:21,560 --> 00:18:24,159
Speaker 1: who finished their proceedings and a person who's in the

289
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:29,720
Speaker 1: middle of their proceedings. So today's cases, we're tricky because

290
00:18:30,119 --> 00:18:34,480
Speaker 1: they are people who are in the middle of their proceedings.

291
00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:37,960
Speaker 1: But because of an earlier Supreme Court case from last week,

292
00:18:38,560 --> 00:18:41,840
Speaker 1: we said that these people are not considered to be

293
00:18:41,880 --> 00:18:46,440
Speaker 1: in detention during their proceedings, but are considered to be

294
00:18:46,920 --> 00:18:51,240
Speaker 1: post removal detention because these are people who have already

295
00:18:51,280 --> 00:18:54,800
Speaker 1: been deported and have come back into the United States

296
00:18:55,119 --> 00:18:58,720
Speaker 1: and we're trying to deport them again. But they're saying no, no, no, no, no,

297
00:18:59,119 --> 00:19:01,480
Speaker 1: something happened in the middle of the time for when

298
00:19:01,520 --> 00:19:04,320
Speaker 1: you deported me, so when I came back that it

299
00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:06,960
Speaker 1: would be very dangerous for me for you to deport me.

300
00:19:07,160 --> 00:19:11,000
Speaker 1: The please, please, please don't do it for those people,

301
00:19:11,640 --> 00:19:16,479
Speaker 1: because the post removal cases six months. Should the courts

302
00:19:16,920 --> 00:19:21,440
Speaker 1: make these people also have a six month the tension

303
00:19:21,520 --> 00:19:24,840
Speaker 1: period because you can't interpret the same set you differently

304
00:19:25,240 --> 00:19:27,840
Speaker 1: for two different kinds of people. So that's the argument

305
00:19:27,880 --> 00:19:31,960
Speaker 1: they're making, and what's the federal government's position. The federal

306
00:19:32,000 --> 00:19:36,960
Speaker 1: government is saying, yes, if you have a point beheaded bureaucratic,

307
00:19:37,320 --> 00:19:39,400
Speaker 1: you have to interpret the same set you the same

308
00:19:39,440 --> 00:19:42,639
Speaker 1: way for everybody. Yes, then it would be six months.

309
00:19:42,680 --> 00:19:45,600
Speaker 1: But then these people who have been deported and who

310
00:19:45,600 --> 00:19:50,159
Speaker 1: are returning actually will get better treatment than people who

311
00:19:50,200 --> 00:19:52,880
Speaker 1: are coming for the first time and are being detained,

312
00:19:53,119 --> 00:19:55,600
Speaker 1: because the courts of decide is that those people don't

313
00:19:55,640 --> 00:19:59,040
Speaker 1: get a six months the tension period. And these aren't

314
00:19:59,080 --> 00:20:02,560
Speaker 1: like sasa It people where we know we can't support

315
00:20:02,600 --> 00:20:05,600
Speaker 1: them ever because there is no Lithuania is not going

316
00:20:05,680 --> 00:20:07,800
Speaker 1: to accept them, and no other countries gonna accept them.

317
00:20:08,000 --> 00:20:10,320
Speaker 1: These people can be deported, but we just have to

318
00:20:10,359 --> 00:20:15,400
Speaker 1: finish their proceeding. And so that's the obstacle to deportation.

319
00:20:15,560 --> 00:20:18,879
Speaker 1: It isn't that no country will take them. And so

320
00:20:19,200 --> 00:20:22,399
Speaker 1: that's the arguments the government was making here. And the

321
00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:27,439
Speaker 1: Supreme Court was very gingerly trying to figure all of

322
00:20:27,480 --> 00:20:30,600
Speaker 1: this out during your argument and trying to understand all

323
00:20:30,600 --> 00:20:33,359
Speaker 1: these different permutations, and you could tell they didn't have

324
00:20:33,440 --> 00:20:37,960
Speaker 1: it exactly all understood by their questioning what were the

325
00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:42,680
Speaker 1: main concerns you heard the justices discuss. So I think

326
00:20:42,720 --> 00:20:45,120
Speaker 1: the main concerns from the what you would call them

327
00:20:45,119 --> 00:20:49,840
Speaker 1: more progressive justices is they were really focused on the practical.

328
00:20:50,359 --> 00:20:53,840
Speaker 1: How long is it gonna take for this human being

329
00:20:54,119 --> 00:20:57,479
Speaker 1: and others like them to have their hearing, And if

330
00:20:57,520 --> 00:21:00,840
Speaker 1: it's gonna take one year, two years, three years, years,

331
00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:03,160
Speaker 1: why should they be allowed to be in detention all

332
00:21:03,200 --> 00:21:06,520
Speaker 1: of this time? And when would be the time that

333
00:21:06,560 --> 00:21:10,120
Speaker 1: would be appropriate. And so this is where the Council

334
00:21:10,240 --> 00:21:14,360
Speaker 1: for the Advocates were saying, Okay, well though, that's why

335
00:21:14,400 --> 00:21:16,320
Speaker 1: it should be six months, and after six months you

336
00:21:16,320 --> 00:21:19,440
Speaker 1: should get a right to have bonds and be bonded

337
00:21:19,480 --> 00:21:22,760
Speaker 1: out if you're not a danger to society and if

338
00:21:22,800 --> 00:21:26,680
Speaker 1: you're not a flight risk, and the government was saying no,

339
00:21:26,680 --> 00:21:29,479
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, no, you can't create a six months

340
00:21:30,000 --> 00:21:34,560
Speaker 1: time train for this because this isn't something where we

341
00:21:34,800 --> 00:21:38,360
Speaker 1: know that the person is never going to be deported.

342
00:21:38,400 --> 00:21:40,879
Speaker 1: In fact, most of these people are going to be deported,

343
00:21:41,320 --> 00:21:44,320
Speaker 1: and if we can keep them detained, we can finish

344
00:21:44,359 --> 00:21:48,680
Speaker 1: these cases more quickly because these cases would go and

345
00:21:48,800 --> 00:21:52,920
Speaker 1: what's called the detained docket, which is a faster immigration

346
00:21:52,960 --> 00:21:56,879
Speaker 1: court docket than the non detained docket, so that these

347
00:21:57,160 --> 00:22:01,480
Speaker 1: time periods are hard to analyze because the reason we

348
00:22:01,560 --> 00:22:04,920
Speaker 1: don't have these folks in the detained docket is because

349
00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:07,160
Speaker 1: we don't know if we can detain them. But once

350
00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:09,680
Speaker 1: you give us authority to do it, we will put

351
00:22:09,720 --> 00:22:13,119
Speaker 1: them into detained docket and their cases will go much faster.

352
00:22:13,720 --> 00:22:17,960
Speaker 1: So that's from the progressive wing. That was their concern

353
00:22:18,080 --> 00:22:20,359
Speaker 1: is they seem to say, look, we want to apply

354
00:22:20,440 --> 00:22:23,159
Speaker 1: to six months standard if you're not gonna give us

355
00:22:23,160 --> 00:22:26,560
Speaker 1: some guarantees about how long this is gonna take, because

356
00:22:26,560 --> 00:22:28,600
Speaker 1: this could take forever and it's not fair to keep

357
00:22:28,640 --> 00:22:32,320
Speaker 1: people to say for so long just for an immigration thing.

358
00:22:32,359 --> 00:22:34,760
Speaker 1: They didn't commit any crime of any time, So that's

359
00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:39,359
Speaker 1: number one. On the conservative side, they seem to have

360
00:22:39,440 --> 00:22:43,720
Speaker 1: a bunch of different possibilities. Number one might be actually

361
00:22:44,240 --> 00:22:48,720
Speaker 1: overruling the Zavida's case in the first place, which the government,

362
00:22:48,760 --> 00:22:50,880
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, doesn't want. This would be a huge

363
00:22:51,000 --> 00:22:56,119
Speaker 1: nightmare for the Biden administration if by defending this particular

364
00:22:56,200 --> 00:23:00,760
Speaker 1: kind of detention you ended up with actually overruling Xavidas,

365
00:23:01,359 --> 00:23:05,399
Speaker 1: which would then allow the government to definitely detain anybody,

366
00:23:05,480 --> 00:23:09,840
Speaker 1: even people it knew it couldn't deport. So that's a possibility,

367
00:23:09,960 --> 00:23:12,320
Speaker 1: and that's out there as a as a possibility. I

368
00:23:12,359 --> 00:23:16,240
Speaker 1: don't know if the court will go that far. Also,

369
00:23:16,640 --> 00:23:20,560
Speaker 1: Justice Cony Barrett seems to have like a compromise position.

370
00:23:20,640 --> 00:23:23,439
Speaker 1: She was trying the carve out, which is where I

371
00:23:23,520 --> 00:23:26,000
Speaker 1: think if you said, Leon, you have to come up

372
00:23:26,040 --> 00:23:28,680
Speaker 1: with a prediction, I think it could end up here,

373
00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:31,560
Speaker 1: which is where the court would say, look, we're not

374
00:23:31,600 --> 00:23:35,680
Speaker 1: gonna say six months, but come to us with individual

375
00:23:35,760 --> 00:23:39,560
Speaker 1: claims if you think that there's an undue delay, and

376
00:23:39,640 --> 00:23:42,080
Speaker 1: we will do this on a case by case basis.

377
00:23:42,359 --> 00:23:44,760
Speaker 1: And then the court was trying to figure out criteria

378
00:23:45,280 --> 00:23:47,359
Speaker 1: of what it could use for such an analysis, but

379
00:23:47,480 --> 00:23:49,919
Speaker 1: it didn't really get there. But I could see the

380
00:23:49,960 --> 00:23:52,360
Speaker 1: court over the next six months trying to hammer out

381
00:23:52,760 --> 00:23:56,200
Speaker 1: something like that where it could provide guidance on what

382
00:23:56,240 --> 00:23:58,639
Speaker 1: you could do on a case by case basis, but

383
00:23:58,800 --> 00:24:03,520
Speaker 1: not give a six month presumption that the lower courts,

384
00:24:03,560 --> 00:24:07,760
Speaker 1: the immigration courts correct. That will make many, many, many

385
00:24:07,880 --> 00:24:11,400
Speaker 1: individual cases that's to get filed, as opposed to having

386
00:24:11,400 --> 00:24:14,240
Speaker 1: a bright line rule where after six months the government

387
00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:16,800
Speaker 1: knows it has to release people who are not like

388
00:24:17,040 --> 00:24:19,520
Speaker 1: risks and who are not dangerous, and so all of

389
00:24:19,560 --> 00:24:22,199
Speaker 1: those people will need to have access to council and

390
00:24:22,280 --> 00:24:24,800
Speaker 1: will need to them be able to file a lawsuit,

391
00:24:24,880 --> 00:24:28,200
Speaker 1: which needs the leader to four or somebody else will

392
00:24:28,240 --> 00:24:30,159
Speaker 1: have to put up that money, or they have to

393
00:24:30,200 --> 00:24:33,119
Speaker 1: file what's called an informed of operas, which is a

394
00:24:33,280 --> 00:24:36,560
Speaker 1: very long, convoluted process to convince the court that you

395
00:24:36,560 --> 00:24:38,879
Speaker 1: don't have any money. So all of that will have

396
00:24:38,960 --> 00:24:41,280
Speaker 1: to be done, and then you'll have to go through

397
00:24:41,640 --> 00:24:45,880
Speaker 1: at least hundred and twenty days of additional litigation while

398
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:49,879
Speaker 1: you're in detention for you to get out and have

399
00:24:49,920 --> 00:24:52,040
Speaker 1: a bond hearing. So that would be the outcome of

400
00:24:52,119 --> 00:24:57,600
Speaker 1: as applied standard as opposed to setting a bright line

401
00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:00,960
Speaker 1: of look after six months, you have to lead people out.

402
00:25:01,160 --> 00:25:04,760
Speaker 1: But I mean, either of those are possibilities, and there's

403
00:25:04,760 --> 00:25:08,280
Speaker 1: the remote possibility they may just say nobody anymore gets

404
00:25:08,280 --> 00:25:11,720
Speaker 1: a six months presumption, not even the original people who

405
00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:14,879
Speaker 1: were people you just couldn't deport because no country would

406
00:25:14,880 --> 00:25:18,119
Speaker 1: take them. None of them will get a six months presumption.

407
00:25:18,240 --> 00:25:21,680
Speaker 1: So we'll see all three of those possibilities are still alive.

408
00:25:22,119 --> 00:25:25,840
Speaker 1: But the third would mean that they would overrule one

409
00:25:25,840 --> 00:25:30,280
Speaker 1: of their precedents, correct, which is something that is going

410
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:32,440
Speaker 1: to come up a couple of times this term, or

411
00:25:32,480 --> 00:25:34,760
Speaker 1: at least in the abortion cases. And one wonders if

412
00:25:34,800 --> 00:25:40,560
Speaker 1: they want to be overruling precedent so frequently correct. I mean,

413
00:25:40,560 --> 00:25:44,760
Speaker 1: it would be a monumental thing. Who overturns Zabdas. But

414
00:25:44,880 --> 00:25:48,120
Speaker 1: to the extent that this set of justice has says, look,

415
00:25:48,600 --> 00:25:50,879
Speaker 1: I don't see how we can keep zabdas when the

416
00:25:51,040 --> 00:25:54,400
Speaker 1: entire point of Zabdas is that it puts a six

417
00:25:54,480 --> 00:25:57,800
Speaker 1: month standard where literally, if you put a control f

418
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:02,000
Speaker 1: search for the days or six months, you don't see

419
00:26:02,040 --> 00:26:04,679
Speaker 1: it anywhere in the statutes. How can we as a

420
00:26:04,720 --> 00:26:08,960
Speaker 1: conservative textual cord keep this decision. So they might say that,

421
00:26:09,720 --> 00:26:12,840
Speaker 1: or they might say, look, this would be very dangerous

422
00:26:12,880 --> 00:26:15,800
Speaker 1: to let the government indefinitely detain people we know can't

423
00:26:15,800 --> 00:26:18,280
Speaker 1: be deported. Are we really going to give immigrants a

424
00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:21,520
Speaker 1: life sentence and jail for just the fact that a

425
00:26:21,600 --> 00:26:24,360
Speaker 1: government won't take them back. That seems kind of harsh,

426
00:26:24,960 --> 00:26:28,439
Speaker 1: And so the question is, then what can we do?

427
00:26:28,520 --> 00:26:33,040
Speaker 1: Can we create some other carve outs that differentiate the

428
00:26:33,119 --> 00:26:35,920
Speaker 1: kinds of cases where a person can't be deported because

429
00:26:35,920 --> 00:26:38,600
Speaker 1: the country won't take them, and the kinds of cases

430
00:26:38,600 --> 00:26:41,080
Speaker 1: where a person can't be deported because even though we've

431
00:26:41,119 --> 00:26:44,040
Speaker 1: deported them already, they've come back and are in the

432
00:26:44,080 --> 00:26:46,320
Speaker 1: middle of a hearing to decide if they get this

433
00:26:46,680 --> 00:26:50,760
Speaker 1: special relief just for a very narrow thing, that they're

434
00:26:50,800 --> 00:26:54,040
Speaker 1: gonna be tortured if they go back to the country

435
00:26:54,040 --> 00:26:56,640
Speaker 1: where we deported them too, because of something that happened

436
00:26:56,960 --> 00:27:00,280
Speaker 1: in the meantime after we deported them. And so they

437
00:27:00,359 --> 00:27:03,680
Speaker 1: might make that carve out and say that that carve

438
00:27:03,720 --> 00:27:08,400
Speaker 1: out matters, which would be odd because usually a fatue

439
00:27:08,440 --> 00:27:11,520
Speaker 1: means the same thing for everybody. But they may say, no,

440
00:27:11,720 --> 00:27:14,800
Speaker 1: it doesn't which would be kind of poopy, or they

441
00:27:14,840 --> 00:27:19,200
Speaker 1: may say it does mean this for everybody, but nevertheless,

442
00:27:19,280 --> 00:27:21,440
Speaker 1: we're we're just gonna say you still have to have

443
00:27:21,520 --> 00:27:24,960
Speaker 1: and as applied talents for every single purpose. So all

444
00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:27,320
Speaker 1: of these things are possible and we'll just have to

445
00:27:27,359 --> 00:27:30,760
Speaker 1: see how they come up with the final answer there.

446
00:27:31,080 --> 00:27:34,880
Speaker 1: So how many people are we talking about? How many

447
00:27:34,920 --> 00:27:40,080
Speaker 1: people with this case the decisionless case impact well, so

448
00:27:40,320 --> 00:27:43,600
Speaker 1: it could end up being thousands of people. And it

449
00:27:43,680 --> 00:27:48,560
Speaker 1: also depends from the standpoint of if there is a

450
00:27:48,720 --> 00:27:54,639
Speaker 1: six month right, then potentially many more people come back

451
00:27:55,119 --> 00:27:58,440
Speaker 1: who've been deported and they try to make these claims

452
00:27:58,480 --> 00:28:00,520
Speaker 1: knowing that they can get out and say it months,

453
00:28:00,960 --> 00:28:04,000
Speaker 1: as opposed to if people think they're gonna be indefinitely detained.

454
00:28:04,040 --> 00:28:06,320
Speaker 1: Perhaps some people don't come back because they say, oh,

455
00:28:06,520 --> 00:28:09,920
Speaker 1: Holy Mother, I don't want to go back to America.

456
00:28:09,960 --> 00:28:11,800
Speaker 1: If I get caught, I'll be put in the pensions

457
00:28:11,800 --> 00:28:15,320
Speaker 1: for three or four years. And so the number could

458
00:28:15,440 --> 00:28:21,920
Speaker 1: change depending eithern on what the relief is. So, um

459
00:28:22,160 --> 00:28:26,760
Speaker 1: do they discuss the class action aspect of this right,

460
00:28:26,800 --> 00:28:29,440
Speaker 1: So there's there's also such a story language about whether

461
00:28:29,480 --> 00:28:33,080
Speaker 1: you can get relief on these kinds of cases based

462
00:28:33,200 --> 00:28:36,000
Speaker 1: on a class case or whether these need to be

463
00:28:36,040 --> 00:28:39,400
Speaker 1: done on a case by case basis. And so in

464
00:28:39,440 --> 00:28:43,800
Speaker 1: the cases that had to do with tending immigration proceedings,

465
00:28:44,160 --> 00:28:46,360
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court that said you can't tile these as

466
00:28:46,400 --> 00:28:49,840
Speaker 1: a class. They all need to be done individually. And

467
00:28:49,960 --> 00:28:51,960
Speaker 1: so that's one of the issues that's going to be

468
00:28:52,040 --> 00:28:54,680
Speaker 1: determined here is can you do this as a class

469
00:28:54,720 --> 00:28:58,000
Speaker 1: because they all have one common legal claim, or is

470
00:28:58,000 --> 00:29:00,280
Speaker 1: this gonna have to be something where you're gonna to

471
00:29:00,360 --> 00:29:05,160
Speaker 1: show that the detention was unreasonable given the circumstances in

472
00:29:05,280 --> 00:29:09,200
Speaker 1: your case, that the government was delaying your case and

473
00:29:09,360 --> 00:29:14,080
Speaker 1: that's why you should be let out. The Biden administration

474
00:29:14,120 --> 00:29:18,440
Speaker 1: has gotten some blowback because of its positions and certain

475
00:29:18,480 --> 00:29:23,680
Speaker 1: immigration issues that it hasn't been as progressive as immigration

476
00:29:23,720 --> 00:29:27,600
Speaker 1: advocates want. Are they getting criticized for the position in

477
00:29:27,600 --> 00:29:30,760
Speaker 1: this case where they're just standing in the shoes of

478
00:29:30,800 --> 00:29:36,360
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. I think in general the advocates are

479
00:29:36,440 --> 00:29:38,960
Speaker 1: very disappointed. And this has been a theme with both

480
00:29:39,000 --> 00:29:43,000
Speaker 1: the Obama administration and the Biden administration that in both

481
00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:49,640
Speaker 1: administrations they have defended the statutory text the way Congress

482
00:29:49,720 --> 00:29:52,800
Speaker 1: wrote it, which if you appear to read it at

483
00:29:52,840 --> 00:29:57,160
Speaker 1: faith value, says that the detention needs to go on,

484
00:29:57,240 --> 00:29:59,680
Speaker 1: and it needs to be mandatory, and it needs to

485
00:29:59,720 --> 00:30:02,640
Speaker 1: be the length of the proceedings. That's the way Congress

486
00:30:02,680 --> 00:30:06,360
Speaker 1: wrote those statutes. Now, the question is is that fair?

487
00:30:06,800 --> 00:30:09,400
Speaker 1: Does that make any sense? Is if you mean? All

488
00:30:09,400 --> 00:30:13,760
Speaker 1: of those are logical questions, But both the Obama administration

489
00:30:13,800 --> 00:30:18,239
Speaker 1: and the Biden administration both made the calculation that at

490
00:30:18,280 --> 00:30:20,640
Speaker 1: the end, the statute is written the way it's written,

491
00:30:21,320 --> 00:30:25,520
Speaker 1: and unless we're prepared to say that that statute is unconstitutional,

492
00:30:26,000 --> 00:30:28,640
Speaker 1: we have to defend it the way it's written. And

493
00:30:28,720 --> 00:30:35,920
Speaker 1: from neither the Biden administration nor the Obama administrations ever

494
00:30:36,040 --> 00:30:39,640
Speaker 1: decided to say that these statutes were unconstitutional. And so

495
00:30:39,760 --> 00:30:42,640
Speaker 1: they've defended it, and the advocates I've given them quite

496
00:30:42,640 --> 00:30:45,120
Speaker 1: a lot of plock for doing it. But I mean,

497
00:30:45,200 --> 00:30:49,640
Speaker 1: once you start saying immigration detention statutes are unconstitutional, then

498
00:30:49,760 --> 00:30:51,680
Speaker 1: what are you doing? I mean, at that point that

499
00:30:51,760 --> 00:30:55,320
Speaker 1: becomes a major problem, because what are you supposed to

500
00:30:55,400 --> 00:30:59,440
Speaker 1: do to control unfettered immigration into the United States? And

501
00:30:59,480 --> 00:31:02,520
Speaker 1: so this this is the problem. But you know, to

502
00:31:02,600 --> 00:31:05,480
Speaker 1: the extensive people want to criticize the Biden administration for

503
00:31:05,520 --> 00:31:07,680
Speaker 1: a bunch of different things. The one thing you have

504
00:31:07,800 --> 00:31:10,640
Speaker 1: to say and give them the credits for his looks.

505
00:31:11,040 --> 00:31:13,640
Speaker 1: They are calling balls and strikes on a bunch of things,

506
00:31:13,640 --> 00:31:16,680
Speaker 1: and this is one example of them where they're not.

507
00:31:16,840 --> 00:31:19,840
Speaker 1: This is clearly not a politicized Justice department, and it's

508
00:31:19,840 --> 00:31:23,920
Speaker 1: a justice department that trying to make its way through

509
00:31:24,200 --> 00:31:26,600
Speaker 1: reading a statute the way you would do it regardless

510
00:31:26,640 --> 00:31:30,520
Speaker 1: of the president. Thanks Leon, that's Leon Fresco of hollanden Knight.

511
00:31:30,920 --> 00:31:33,160
Speaker 1: I'm June Crosson. You're listening to Bloomberg