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

2
00:00:09,920 --> 00:00:11,880
Speaker 1: We the jury in the above ententitled matter as to

3
00:00:11,960 --> 00:00:15,560
Speaker 1: count one unintentional second degree murder while committing a felony

4
00:00:15,920 --> 00:00:19,000
Speaker 1: fying the defendant guilty. This verdict agreed to this twentieth

5
00:00:19,079 --> 00:00:24,000
Speaker 1: day of April PM, and as that guilty verdict for

6
00:00:24,040 --> 00:00:26,920
Speaker 1: the murder of George Floyd was read in the Minneapolis

7
00:00:26,960 --> 00:00:30,960
Speaker 1: courtroom and broadcast to the country. Former police officer Derek

8
00:00:31,080 --> 00:00:34,960
Speaker 1: Chauvin showed no reaction to his conviction, but outside the

9
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:42,080
Speaker 1: heavily fortified and guarded courthouse, the crowd erupted and cheers

10
00:00:42,120 --> 00:00:45,280
Speaker 1: at the announcement of guilt on all three charges, and

11
00:00:45,320 --> 00:00:48,120
Speaker 1: there was uniform praise for the verdict from people in

12
00:00:48,240 --> 00:00:52,760
Speaker 1: all walks of life. From George Floyd's brother, Felonis Gustus

13
00:00:52,800 --> 00:00:57,040
Speaker 1: bad Me freedom fall, to the President of the United

14
00:00:57,080 --> 00:01:01,200
Speaker 1: States as he saw in this trial. From the fellow

15
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 1: police officers who testified most when men and women aware

16
00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:10,520
Speaker 1: the Badge served their communities honorably, but those few who

17
00:01:10,600 --> 00:01:14,520
Speaker 1: failed to meet that standard must be held accountable, and

18
00:01:14,560 --> 00:01:17,840
Speaker 1: they were. Today. Chauvin is facing up to forty years

19
00:01:17,840 --> 00:01:21,360
Speaker 1: in prison. And the Minneapolis Police Department is facing a

20
00:01:21,440 --> 00:01:26,000
Speaker 1: sweeping federal investigation. Joining me is David Harris, a professor

21
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,320
Speaker 1: at the University of Pittsburgh Law School and author of

22
00:01:29,520 --> 00:01:35,039
Speaker 1: A City Divided, Race, Fear, and the Law in Police confrontations. David,

23
00:01:35,240 --> 00:01:38,520
Speaker 1: isn't an inflection point that at this trial a number

24
00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:44,039
Speaker 1: of police officers, including the chief of police, testified against Chauvin,

25
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:46,520
Speaker 1: one of their own. Is this the crumbling of the

26
00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:51,040
Speaker 1: so called blue wall. It was very significant because usually,

27
00:01:51,080 --> 00:01:54,000
Speaker 1: as you say, this idea, the blue wall of silence

28
00:01:54,160 --> 00:01:58,080
Speaker 1: is that police officers never turn on and certainly don't

29
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:02,400
Speaker 1: testify against their own in these kinds of cases, that

30
00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:05,960
Speaker 1: they always back each other up no matter what. And

31
00:02:06,040 --> 00:02:10,000
Speaker 1: here you had three police officers from the Minneapolis Police

32
00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 1: Department to current high ranking officers, including the chief himself,

33
00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:19,359
Speaker 1: testifying against Chauvin. Now, this is very significant on two levels.

34
00:02:19,440 --> 00:02:22,679
Speaker 1: Number one is on the level of the case itself.

35
00:02:22,720 --> 00:02:27,000
Speaker 1: It served to cut off the defense argument that somehow

36
00:02:27,280 --> 00:02:30,600
Speaker 1: Chauvin was acting within his training, that his actions were

37
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:33,560
Speaker 1: within policy and so forth, And all three of the

38
00:02:33,600 --> 00:02:38,160
Speaker 1: officers said, oh no, definitely not. And therefore that crippled

39
00:02:38,200 --> 00:02:41,000
Speaker 1: the argument that the defense did make. But the larger

40
00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:44,520
Speaker 1: question is whether this shows that that blue wall will

41
00:02:44,600 --> 00:02:48,000
Speaker 1: crumble more generally. I think the jury has to be

42
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:51,919
Speaker 1: out on that at this point. Certainly, seeing this right

43
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:55,440
Speaker 1: out in front of the whole country gives an indication

44
00:02:55,600 --> 00:02:59,840
Speaker 1: of how important it is for police officials to say

45
00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:04,680
Speaker 1: out and direct no, this was wrong. But whether this

46
00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:07,240
Speaker 1: becomes some kind of a trend that we see in

47
00:03:07,280 --> 00:03:09,920
Speaker 1: a lot of other cases, I think still remains to

48
00:03:10,000 --> 00:03:13,440
Speaker 1: be seen. There is still a very strong current of thinking, well,

49
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:16,080
Speaker 1: this Chauvin, he was just one bad guy in an

50
00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:20,160
Speaker 1: otherwise good department, in an otherwise good profession. Chauvin is

51
00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:23,400
Speaker 1: facing a maximum of forty years in prison and a

52
00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:27,639
Speaker 1: minimum of twelve and a half. Floyd's family and activists

53
00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:33,200
Speaker 1: are calling for the maximum sentence. How likely is that, Well,

54
00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:37,720
Speaker 1: in any sentencing, you look at both the crime and

55
00:03:37,840 --> 00:03:42,360
Speaker 1: the convicted descendant. The Chauvin's lawyers will no doubt argue

56
00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:46,640
Speaker 1: that he's been a policeman with a relatively good record

57
00:03:46,880 --> 00:03:49,720
Speaker 1: for nineteen years, and you know, there can be some

58
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:53,920
Speaker 1: argument about whether that's true of his record, but they'll

59
00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:57,760
Speaker 1: argue that he should get the minimum sentence because this

60
00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:02,040
Speaker 1: is something that nobody could have foreseen he's not a

61
00:04:02,080 --> 00:04:07,040
Speaker 1: repeat offender. I don't think that's realistic, because the crime

62
00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:13,440
Speaker 1: itself showed what are called in Minnesota aggravating circumstances, and

63
00:04:13,600 --> 00:04:17,599
Speaker 1: that would be especially just the outright cruelty of what

64
00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:22,400
Speaker 1: happened out there in public. This was a situation where

65
00:04:22,440 --> 00:04:25,600
Speaker 1: a man did not need to die. This was not

66
00:04:25,920 --> 00:04:29,040
Speaker 1: a case in which the police officer could make and

67
00:04:29,040 --> 00:04:31,800
Speaker 1: we didn't hear it any argument. You know, he was

68
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:34,599
Speaker 1: in fear for his life, like we often hear in

69
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:39,520
Speaker 1: such cases. You often wonder looking at that video, is

70
00:04:39,560 --> 00:04:43,000
Speaker 1: this guy waiting in line for a sandwich at subway?

71
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:45,680
Speaker 1: Is he trying to make a point to these people

72
00:04:45,720 --> 00:04:48,120
Speaker 1: who are yelling at him that he can do whatever

73
00:04:48,160 --> 00:04:51,039
Speaker 1: he wants. So I would expect the sentence to be

74
00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:56,479
Speaker 1: above the minimum. The system and the sentencing will respond

75
00:04:56,520 --> 00:05:00,599
Speaker 1: to the circumstances of the crime and the sendant. You

76
00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:03,600
Speaker 1: can make an argument that the crime was so cruel

77
00:05:03,640 --> 00:05:09,240
Speaker 1: and outrageous that it deserves the maximum sentence, but I

78
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:12,359
Speaker 1: think there's going to be debate about that. I don't

79
00:05:12,400 --> 00:05:15,799
Speaker 1: expect the judge to give the minimum, but I would

80
00:05:15,839 --> 00:05:19,320
Speaker 1: be surprised if he gave the absolute maximum that was

81
00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:23,320
Speaker 1: out there. Chauvin's lawyer has been making a record for

82
00:05:23,400 --> 00:05:26,800
Speaker 1: his appellate case throughout the trial. What will some of

83
00:05:26,800 --> 00:05:31,719
Speaker 1: the appellate issues be. There will be appeals about jury issues.

84
00:05:32,360 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: We saw multiple times that Chauvin's lawyer asked that the

85
00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:41,159
Speaker 1: case be moved out of Hennepin County, multiple requests for

86
00:05:41,440 --> 00:05:46,279
Speaker 1: mistrial concerning information that was out in the public sphere,

87
00:05:46,360 --> 00:05:51,560
Speaker 1: particularly the announcement during jury selection that the family of

88
00:05:51,680 --> 00:05:55,000
Speaker 1: Mr Floyd was going to receive a very large settlement,

89
00:05:55,600 --> 00:05:58,240
Speaker 1: And we saw Judge Cahill actually take a couple of

90
00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:01,320
Speaker 1: the juror who had already been selected off the jury

91
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:03,920
Speaker 1: panel when they told him they weren't sure that they

92
00:06:03,960 --> 00:06:06,880
Speaker 1: could stay on the jury and be fair. There are

93
00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:11,120
Speaker 1: also multiple issues about the admission of certain pieces of

94
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:15,040
Speaker 1: evidence that will be contested by the defendant on appeal.

95
00:06:15,640 --> 00:06:19,800
Speaker 1: Once you're convicted, it becomes hard to overturn a conviction

96
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 1: at every stage of the system. The higher up you

97
00:06:22,640 --> 00:06:26,039
Speaker 1: go and the farther along ago once you're convicted, the

98
00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:29,640
Speaker 1: harder it is to overturn a verdict. The three other

99
00:06:29,720 --> 00:06:33,040
Speaker 1: officers at the scene will be tried in August. Does

100
00:06:33,080 --> 00:06:37,640
Speaker 1: the conviction in this case have any impact on that trial?

101
00:06:38,400 --> 00:06:43,480
Speaker 1: Not directly. It doesn't say foreclosed the possibility that they

102
00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:47,600
Speaker 1: could be acquitted. They are charged with aiding and abetting

103
00:06:47,640 --> 00:06:51,039
Speaker 1: Derek shown, which in legal theory is the same as

104
00:06:51,120 --> 00:06:55,240
Speaker 1: being the main actor. But juries always have a sense

105
00:06:55,400 --> 00:06:59,840
Speaker 1: of proportion in my experience. They will know, for instance,

106
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:04,600
Speaker 1: that one officer was standing up on the sidewalk blocking

107
00:07:04,720 --> 00:07:08,960
Speaker 1: people from what they fear might have been interference, though

108
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:12,200
Speaker 1: he is an aider and a better allegedly under the

109
00:07:12,280 --> 00:07:15,760
Speaker 1: legal theory of the case, and therefore bears the same

110
00:07:15,800 --> 00:07:19,520
Speaker 1: responsibility of as the person who did the actual act.

111
00:07:20,240 --> 00:07:24,280
Speaker 1: Juries want a sense of proportional justice, and if they

112
00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:28,440
Speaker 1: think the system is reacting too harshly to a person

113
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:31,520
Speaker 1: with a role that is not the same, the jury

114
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:35,520
Speaker 1: may be more reluctant to convict for the same charges,

115
00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:40,120
Speaker 1: and prosecutors know this, so I wouldn't be surprised to

116
00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:44,720
Speaker 1: see some movement towards a plea agreement with these three defendants.

117
00:07:44,720 --> 00:07:48,400
Speaker 1: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Professor David

118
00:07:48,400 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 1: Harris of the University of Pittsburgh Law School, and we'll

119
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 1: talk about the new Justice Department investigation into the Minneapolis

120
00:07:55,080 --> 00:08:09,080
Speaker 1: Police Department Date Right, life mad Date Wright Life, Merit.

121
00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:14,040
Speaker 1: The trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is over,

122
00:08:14,400 --> 00:08:17,280
Speaker 1: but still to come is the trial of another former

123
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:20,559
Speaker 1: police officer for the killing of Dante Wright, a twenty

124
00:08:20,640 --> 00:08:23,480
Speaker 1: year old black man shot during a traffic stop on

125
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:28,120
Speaker 1: April eleven in suburban Minneapolis, and that city's police department

126
00:08:28,160 --> 00:08:31,080
Speaker 1: will now be the subject of a sweeping investigation by

127
00:08:31,080 --> 00:08:36,040
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. Here's Attorney General Merrick Garland. The investigation

128
00:08:36,280 --> 00:08:40,480
Speaker 1: I am announcing today. We'll assess whether the Minneapolis Police

129
00:08:40,480 --> 00:08:45,520
Speaker 1: Department engages in a pattern or practice of using excessive force,

130
00:08:46,160 --> 00:08:49,760
Speaker 1: including during protests. I've been talking to David Harris, a

131
00:08:49,800 --> 00:08:53,600
Speaker 1: professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. How significant

132
00:08:53,800 --> 00:08:59,199
Speaker 1: is this pattern and practice investigation? I think it's very important. Uh.

133
00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:02,920
Speaker 1: Here's why. A case like Chauvin's case, or the cases

134
00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:08,280
Speaker 1: of the other three officers, those are criminal actions against

135
00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 1: individual people for particular acts that they did. In a

136
00:09:15,880 --> 00:09:20,680
Speaker 1: case like that, you're looking at individual facts to pursue

137
00:09:20,880 --> 00:09:24,800
Speaker 1: individualized justice, even though we are all looking at it

138
00:09:24,840 --> 00:09:29,040
Speaker 1: as a kind of referendum on police conduct. They are

139
00:09:29,160 --> 00:09:34,960
Speaker 1: fundamentally individual cases about individual actions on a particular day.

140
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:39,280
Speaker 1: What the Justice Department has the authority to do is

141
00:09:40,200 --> 00:09:44,240
Speaker 1: under a federal statute called the Pattern or Practice Statute,

142
00:09:44,840 --> 00:09:49,920
Speaker 1: to go to a local police department and to say,

143
00:09:50,120 --> 00:09:56,560
Speaker 1: we will now be investigating you, uh for allegations that

144
00:09:56,760 --> 00:10:00,960
Speaker 1: your department, not Derek Schouve, not one of the other

145
00:10:01,000 --> 00:10:05,239
Speaker 1: three options, but your department is engaged in a pattern

146
00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:10,440
Speaker 1: of violating your citizens constitutional right. Now, a number of

147
00:10:10,520 --> 00:10:13,920
Speaker 1: important things are packed in there. Number one, the national

148
00:10:13,960 --> 00:10:17,319
Speaker 1: government in this country does not have authority to regulate

149
00:10:17,400 --> 00:10:21,760
Speaker 1: local policing. Our policing in this country is hyper localized.

150
00:10:22,280 --> 00:10:24,800
Speaker 1: The best that they have is the authority to see

151
00:10:24,840 --> 00:10:28,240
Speaker 1: that the constitution is obeyed, and that's what this statute

152
00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:31,000
Speaker 1: is based on. So they can go in and look

153
00:10:31,040 --> 00:10:35,959
Speaker 1: for violations of constitutional rights. The statute limits them to

154
00:10:36,120 --> 00:10:40,720
Speaker 1: looking for patterns, to looking for regular practices of violations.

155
00:10:40,720 --> 00:10:44,760
Speaker 1: In other words, even a terrible incident like the death

156
00:10:44,800 --> 00:10:48,080
Speaker 1: of George Floyd at the hands of Derek Chauvin wouldn't

157
00:10:48,120 --> 00:10:51,320
Speaker 1: be enough under this statute. It can't be one incident,

158
00:10:51,480 --> 00:10:54,800
Speaker 1: even one very bad one. It must be a pattern

159
00:10:55,320 --> 00:10:59,680
Speaker 1: of this that goes on all the time. Under that statute,

160
00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:03,560
Speaker 1: the Justice Department can come in do an investigation to

161
00:11:03,640 --> 00:11:08,160
Speaker 1: look for those patterns in anything that might impact constitutional rights,

162
00:11:08,160 --> 00:11:10,400
Speaker 1: so that can be used. Of course, it can be

163
00:11:10,960 --> 00:11:15,240
Speaker 1: search and seizures of other kinds like stopping frisk, like

164
00:11:15,600 --> 00:11:18,079
Speaker 1: traffic stops. It can be any number of things that

165
00:11:18,160 --> 00:11:22,359
Speaker 1: might violate people's constitutional rights. And if it finds those patterns,

166
00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:25,760
Speaker 1: it then goes to the city and the police department says,

167
00:11:25,800 --> 00:11:29,319
Speaker 1: here's what we found. We think you're violating your citizens

168
00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:35,880
Speaker 1: constitutional rights, and we propose that you make the following changes,

169
00:11:36,600 --> 00:11:39,640
Speaker 1: and if there is agreement, that agreement is then put

170
00:11:39,679 --> 00:11:43,520
Speaker 1: into something a document called a consent decree, which is

171
00:11:43,559 --> 00:11:46,440
Speaker 1: signed off on by a federal judge. Now, the real

172
00:11:46,520 --> 00:11:50,560
Speaker 1: importance of this is that instead of addressing one incident,

173
00:11:50,640 --> 00:11:54,679
Speaker 1: and addresses the full scope of police actions that are

174
00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:57,920
Speaker 1: found to be in violation of the constitution in that department.

175
00:11:57,920 --> 00:12:01,640
Speaker 1: In other words, it's targeted at the system at the

176
00:12:01,760 --> 00:12:06,240
Speaker 1: institutional level. Right, So if they find a pattern of

177
00:12:06,440 --> 00:12:11,040
Speaker 1: use to force violations, they will uh, they will uh

178
00:12:11,200 --> 00:12:15,080
Speaker 1: say we want you to retrain all your officers. We

179
00:12:15,160 --> 00:12:18,840
Speaker 1: want this to be the new standard within your police department.

180
00:12:18,920 --> 00:12:22,440
Speaker 1: It will have the following details and you will monitor

181
00:12:22,520 --> 00:12:26,800
Speaker 1: it in these ways. So these are systemic level changes

182
00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:29,720
Speaker 1: and it's the best and really only tool out there

183
00:12:30,040 --> 00:12:33,800
Speaker 1: that the federal government has for making those kind of changes.

184
00:12:34,040 --> 00:12:38,400
Speaker 1: So it is entirely appropriate to follow the Chawbn trial

185
00:12:38,800 --> 00:12:42,280
Speaker 1: with this kind of investigation to see is this the

186
00:12:42,480 --> 00:12:46,120
Speaker 1: problem of one person, as some people are saying, well,

187
00:12:46,160 --> 00:12:49,800
Speaker 1: he was a bad apple, or is this a department

188
00:12:50,120 --> 00:12:54,480
Speaker 1: wide problems. In the last few years, there have been

189
00:12:54,520 --> 00:12:58,920
Speaker 1: as many as seven fatal shootings by police in the

190
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:02,800
Speaker 1: Minneapolis area, So is it likely the feds will find

191
00:13:02,840 --> 00:13:05,480
Speaker 1: a pattern and practice? And I suspect they're going to

192
00:13:05,600 --> 00:13:09,600
Speaker 1: find that department wide pattern because data that was public

193
00:13:09,640 --> 00:13:12,800
Speaker 1: even at the time of George Boyd's death showed that

194
00:13:12,840 --> 00:13:18,760
Speaker 1: the Minneapolis police used force way disproportionately against people of

195
00:13:18,800 --> 00:13:21,960
Speaker 1: color and all kind of force, not just deadly forced,

196
00:13:22,040 --> 00:13:25,680
Speaker 1: but you know, using tasers, using fists or pepper spray

197
00:13:25,840 --> 00:13:29,720
Speaker 1: or clubs or whatever. So this is the right thing

198
00:13:29,800 --> 00:13:32,160
Speaker 1: for them to do to look into this, and it

199
00:13:32,280 --> 00:13:35,200
Speaker 1: is a signal that the Justice Department is going to

200
00:13:35,360 --> 00:13:39,760
Speaker 1: pick up this tool after letting it go and abandoning

201
00:13:39,800 --> 00:13:43,480
Speaker 1: it entirely. Under the Trump administration and under Attorney general

202
00:13:43,559 --> 00:13:49,680
Speaker 1: sessions have consent degrees changed police practices in past cases. Yes,

203
00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:53,080
Speaker 1: they worked, not all of them worked, and not all

204
00:13:53,120 --> 00:13:56,000
Speaker 1: of them had staying power. But I do think it's

205
00:13:56,000 --> 00:13:59,280
Speaker 1: fair to say that they were the best tool we had,

206
00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:03,440
Speaker 1: and often a very effective tool to go in and

207
00:14:03,480 --> 00:14:07,559
Speaker 1: address some of the worst police departments and get others

208
00:14:07,600 --> 00:14:10,240
Speaker 1: back on track. You know, they had to go into

209
00:14:10,280 --> 00:14:13,920
Speaker 1: the New Orleans Police department, not once, but twice. Here

210
00:14:13,920 --> 00:14:17,160
Speaker 1: in Pittsburgh where I am based, was the very first

211
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:22,040
Speaker 1: consent to free back to two thousands and two, and

212
00:14:22,240 --> 00:14:25,280
Speaker 1: it transformed this police department, and it was a better

213
00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 1: department for some years. But you know, as in all

214
00:14:28,760 --> 00:14:32,400
Speaker 1: police departments, city administrations changed, a new mayor comes in,

215
00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:35,880
Speaker 1: a couple of police chiefs. Down the line, the commitment

216
00:14:35,960 --> 00:14:38,320
Speaker 1: is not there, and a lot of the things that

217
00:14:38,360 --> 00:14:42,000
Speaker 1: were put into place a kind of atrophied didn't stick.

218
00:14:42,200 --> 00:14:46,640
Speaker 1: So it doesn't always work and fully transformed departments. But

219
00:14:46,680 --> 00:14:48,920
Speaker 1: there are many places where it has. I mean, a

220
00:14:48,920 --> 00:14:51,840
Speaker 1: good example is Cincinnati, which had a terrible set of

221
00:14:52,000 --> 00:14:55,840
Speaker 1: riots after the killing of Timothy Thomas back in two

222
00:14:55,880 --> 00:15:00,000
Speaker 1: thousand and one. And that's still a different department. Remember

223
00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:02,840
Speaker 1: that there are knock on effects too. So when the

224
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:06,760
Speaker 1: Justice Department comes into a police department in say Baltimore, Chicago,

225
00:15:06,880 --> 00:15:10,160
Speaker 1: or New Orleans or whatever, you've got police departments all

226
00:15:10,200 --> 00:15:12,880
Speaker 1: over that same region and all over the country saying,

227
00:15:13,160 --> 00:15:15,680
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't really want the eight hundred

228
00:15:15,720 --> 00:15:18,840
Speaker 1: pound guerilla in my office telling me they're gonna take

229
00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:20,920
Speaker 1: all my files. What do I have to do to

230
00:15:20,960 --> 00:15:24,000
Speaker 1: get better? How can I manage up to a better

231
00:15:24,160 --> 00:15:27,480
Speaker 1: standard so I don't have that. Everybody knows the Department

232
00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:31,080
Speaker 1: of Justice can't investigate all police departments. I think during

233
00:15:31,120 --> 00:15:35,280
Speaker 1: the entire Obama administration they did twenty five of these.

234
00:15:35,440 --> 00:15:38,200
Speaker 1: And you know, we have eighteen thousand police departments in

235
00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:42,160
Speaker 1: this country, so you're only going to get a small franction,

236
00:15:42,360 --> 00:15:45,320
Speaker 1: and hopefully they're the ones that really needed. That's Professor

237
00:15:45,400 --> 00:15:49,560
Speaker 1: David Harris of the University of Pittsburgh Law School coming up. Well.

238
00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:58,520
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court curb green card applications. This is Bloomberg

239
00:15:58,640 --> 00:16:03,920
Speaker 1: Law with June Brush from Bloomberg Radio. In oral arguments

240
00:16:03,960 --> 00:16:06,800
Speaker 1: this week, the Supreme Court suggest that it would block

241
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:10,600
Speaker 1: green card applications of thousands of immigrants who entered the

242
00:16:10,640 --> 00:16:14,760
Speaker 1: country illegally but then secured temporary legal status because their

243
00:16:14,800 --> 00:16:18,040
Speaker 1: home nations are in crisis, like the Salvadoran couple in

244
00:16:18,040 --> 00:16:21,600
Speaker 1: the case, federal law requires Green card applicants to have

245
00:16:21,720 --> 00:16:25,320
Speaker 1: been quote inspected and admitted into the country, and some

246
00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:28,800
Speaker 1: of the justices appeared doubtful about whether the plaintiffs could

247
00:16:28,800 --> 00:16:32,720
Speaker 1: be considered admitted. Here are Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena

248
00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:38,480
Speaker 1: Kagan in the case of oppetitioners, how does that work?

249
00:16:38,680 --> 00:16:42,560
Speaker 1: Because they clearly were not admitted at the borders? So

250
00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:46,560
Speaker 1: is that a fiction? Is it metaphysical? What is it?

251
00:16:47,760 --> 00:16:50,080
Speaker 1: I mean? The section says the admission to the United

252
00:16:50,080 --> 00:16:52,560
Speaker 1: States of any alien is a non immigrant, But why

253
00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:56,640
Speaker 1: does that suggest that admission is something that all non immigrants?

254
00:16:56,680 --> 00:17:00,240
Speaker 1: Ket and Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs at an

255
00:17:00,280 --> 00:17:04,840
Speaker 1: uphill climb. We need to be careful about tinkering with

256
00:17:04,880 --> 00:17:09,199
Speaker 1: the immigration statutes has written, particularly when Congress has some

257
00:17:09,880 --> 00:17:13,640
Speaker 1: such a primary role. Here joining me is Leon Fresco,

258
00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:18,879
Speaker 1: a partnered Hollandon Knight. Leon explain what temporary protected status is.

259
00:17:20,000 --> 00:17:24,240
Speaker 1: So that's actually a statute that Congress passed that says

260
00:17:24,359 --> 00:17:28,040
Speaker 1: that when there is a natural disaster or something like

261
00:17:28,119 --> 00:17:33,040
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen pandemic or the hurricane or political war,

262
00:17:33,440 --> 00:17:37,600
Speaker 1: et cetera, that the United States and the President in

263
00:17:37,600 --> 00:17:41,520
Speaker 1: this case in particular, has the ability to say, I

264
00:17:41,640 --> 00:17:45,399
Speaker 1: AM going to protect people here in America from those

265
00:17:45,440 --> 00:17:50,760
Speaker 1: countries from deportations and give them something called temporary protective

266
00:17:50,800 --> 00:17:55,280
Speaker 1: status that allows them to remain here legally for eighteen

267
00:17:55,320 --> 00:17:59,080
Speaker 1: months increments during the quote unquote duration of the crisis,

268
00:17:59,560 --> 00:18:03,200
Speaker 1: and then when that quote unquote crisis is over, then

269
00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:07,359
Speaker 1: theoretically these individuals are supposed to then returned back to

270
00:18:07,400 --> 00:18:11,280
Speaker 1: their country. So the Salvadoran couple came here in the

271
00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:16,840
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties, when did they acquire temporary protected status? The

272
00:18:17,040 --> 00:18:21,320
Speaker 1: status that they accrued actually did occur in the nineties

273
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:26,120
Speaker 1: due to natural disasters and hurricanes that occurred in Al Savador.

274
00:18:26,280 --> 00:18:31,280
Speaker 1: The point is that that status was extended. This is

275
00:18:31,320 --> 00:18:34,400
Speaker 1: one of the criticisms that people give about temporary protective

276
00:18:34,440 --> 00:18:38,920
Speaker 1: status is once it's extended, it never goes away. Because

277
00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:43,280
Speaker 1: America feels badly about deporting people that had legal status.

278
00:18:43,400 --> 00:18:48,080
Speaker 1: So these were individuals that had for eighteen month increments

279
00:18:48,080 --> 00:18:52,240
Speaker 1: at a time been getting their silent remaining in the

280
00:18:52,320 --> 00:18:56,199
Speaker 1: United States. But we're concerned, like many people were, that

281
00:18:56,280 --> 00:18:59,040
Speaker 1: when President Trump came into office, his goal was to

282
00:18:59,320 --> 00:19:03,439
Speaker 1: end this temporary protective status and not let anyone remain

283
00:19:03,480 --> 00:19:06,520
Speaker 1: on it anymore. And so many people started to try

284
00:19:06,520 --> 00:19:08,919
Speaker 1: to figure out are their ways I can get a

285
00:19:08,960 --> 00:19:12,800
Speaker 1: green card in order to remain here in the United States.

286
00:19:12,920 --> 00:19:15,320
Speaker 1: And that is the crux of what the Supreme Court

287
00:19:15,400 --> 00:19:19,359
Speaker 1: was debating. The issue for the justices, though, was that

288
00:19:19,440 --> 00:19:23,440
Speaker 1: they came here illegally. Correct they came here illegally, and

289
00:19:23,520 --> 00:19:27,439
Speaker 1: so what happens is in order to get temporary protective status,

290
00:19:27,800 --> 00:19:31,520
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter whether you came here legally or illegally.

291
00:19:32,040 --> 00:19:34,600
Speaker 1: It just matters that you're in the United States on

292
00:19:34,800 --> 00:19:38,240
Speaker 1: the day that the status is created. So let's say

293
00:19:38,280 --> 00:19:41,879
Speaker 1: there's a hurricane on March one, and on March eighth,

294
00:19:42,200 --> 00:19:45,159
Speaker 1: the President says, we're gonna say that everybody who was

295
00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:48,000
Speaker 1: here on March one, the day of the hurricane, gets

296
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:52,160
Speaker 1: temporary protective status. Then anybody here could apply whether they

297
00:19:52,160 --> 00:19:56,600
Speaker 1: were here illegally or legally, and more importantly, whether they

298
00:19:56,760 --> 00:20:01,800
Speaker 1: came illegally or legally, The question for them was whether

299
00:20:02,000 --> 00:20:06,520
Speaker 1: those individuals who had entered here illegally could be treated

300
00:20:06,560 --> 00:20:11,359
Speaker 1: as being admitted here now that they had temporary protective

301
00:20:11,400 --> 00:20:14,480
Speaker 1: status such that they're permitted now to apply for green

302
00:20:14,520 --> 00:20:17,320
Speaker 1: card because the condition of a green card is that

303
00:20:17,440 --> 00:20:20,520
Speaker 1: you had to have been admitted into the United States.

304
00:20:20,760 --> 00:20:25,920
Speaker 1: What were the justices main concerns during oral arguments? There

305
00:20:25,920 --> 00:20:31,160
Speaker 1: were three being concerns. One there was there was well,

306
00:20:31,200 --> 00:20:34,760
Speaker 1: there was a prudential concern, a textual concern, and then

307
00:20:34,840 --> 00:20:37,920
Speaker 1: sort of the main concern in the case. But so

308
00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:40,440
Speaker 1: I'll start first with the prudential concerns because that's the

309
00:20:40,440 --> 00:20:45,399
Speaker 1: easiest to understand. The first was, look, Congress decided this

310
00:20:45,520 --> 00:20:50,840
Speaker 1: thing as a temporary relief. And so if Congress decided

311
00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:54,960
Speaker 1: this thing as a temporary relief, then Congress didn't want

312
00:20:55,000 --> 00:20:57,840
Speaker 1: this thing to be used by people to stay here permanently.

313
00:20:58,240 --> 00:21:00,560
Speaker 1: So there's no way that's could have been. They're intent

314
00:21:01,040 --> 00:21:04,120
Speaker 1: to give people a way to be able to sneak

315
00:21:04,160 --> 00:21:09,399
Speaker 1: ely earn lawful permanent residents. So you heard Justice Kavanaugh said,

316
00:21:09,440 --> 00:21:13,560
Speaker 1: Justice Coney Barrett talk about this. Justice Kevana was also concerned, Hey, look,

317
00:21:13,560 --> 00:21:18,040
Speaker 1: Congress is currently debating giving green cards to people here

318
00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:21,520
Speaker 1: with temporary protective status. So just let that debate happen,

319
00:21:21,600 --> 00:21:23,439
Speaker 1: and when they can win it, they win it, and

320
00:21:23,440 --> 00:21:25,800
Speaker 1: they get the green cards. And if not, why should

321
00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:29,399
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court be involved in this? The second was

322
00:21:29,440 --> 00:21:32,280
Speaker 1: there was this very arcane and I thought a bit

323
00:21:33,080 --> 00:21:36,320
Speaker 1: confusing because I think they were trying to be too

324
00:21:36,400 --> 00:21:42,080
Speaker 1: cute by half. All of the justices asking whether a nonimmigrant,

325
00:21:42,200 --> 00:21:45,560
Speaker 1: which is someone who's coming here temporarily, and so nonimmigrants

326
00:21:45,600 --> 00:21:50,920
Speaker 1: are student visas, visitor visas, temporary work visas, religious work,

327
00:21:51,000 --> 00:21:54,080
Speaker 1: or visas, all of these things are called non immigrant visas,

328
00:21:54,080 --> 00:21:58,720
Speaker 1: whether there's any kind of nonimmigrants who hasn't been admitted

329
00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:01,880
Speaker 1: into the United States. Because the key up to this

330
00:22:01,960 --> 00:22:05,520
Speaker 1: case is that the statute says that if you have

331
00:22:05,680 --> 00:22:09,240
Speaker 1: temporary protective status, you're being you're being treated as a

332
00:22:09,320 --> 00:22:12,399
Speaker 1: non immigrant, And so they were getting to this debate,

333
00:22:12,560 --> 00:22:15,760
Speaker 1: is there any kind of of non immigrants who hasn't

334
00:22:15,760 --> 00:22:18,040
Speaker 1: been admitted to the United States? And the actual answer

335
00:22:18,080 --> 00:22:20,680
Speaker 1: that question is no. And for some reasons that did

336
00:22:20,720 --> 00:22:23,520
Speaker 1: not come out in the oral argument yesterday, you can't

337
00:22:23,680 --> 00:22:26,560
Speaker 1: the whole point, even if it's not said in the

338
00:22:26,600 --> 00:22:29,800
Speaker 1: code that in order to be a nonimmigrant, you have

339
00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:32,480
Speaker 1: to be admitted into the United States. It's like if

340
00:22:32,520 --> 00:22:35,240
Speaker 1: you don't say in the code, in order to be alive,

341
00:22:35,359 --> 00:22:38,160
Speaker 1: you have to be breathing. It's just an obvious point

342
00:22:38,440 --> 00:22:42,119
Speaker 1: because what happens is the way you get non immigrant

343
00:22:42,200 --> 00:22:46,119
Speaker 1: status in America is you enter a port of entry,

344
00:22:46,720 --> 00:22:51,040
Speaker 1: you present that VIVA, and a CDP person stamps you,

345
00:22:51,560 --> 00:22:56,119
Speaker 1: and that's your admission. And that's every nonimmigrant in America

346
00:22:56,280 --> 00:22:59,760
Speaker 1: that there's nobody who's not like that. And so because

347
00:22:59,800 --> 00:23:04,200
Speaker 1: of that, the the court got off on this tangent

348
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:08,879
Speaker 1: of well, maybe not every non immigrant is admitted, but

349
00:23:08,960 --> 00:23:10,920
Speaker 1: they didn't come up with an example. They didn't ask

350
00:23:10,920 --> 00:23:15,159
Speaker 1: for an example. Nobody provided an example. Because though example

351
00:23:15,440 --> 00:23:18,359
Speaker 1: was available, and the Justice has asked a lot of

352
00:23:18,440 --> 00:23:22,440
Speaker 1: questions about what the word admitted means, tell us about

353
00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:25,720
Speaker 1: the third concerns. Then the third thing they were arguing

354
00:23:25,720 --> 00:23:28,600
Speaker 1: about was, well, there's two requirements in order to get

355
00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:31,439
Speaker 1: a green card. First you have to be admitted, and

356
00:23:31,600 --> 00:23:34,359
Speaker 1: second you have to be in legal status when you apply.

357
00:23:34,600 --> 00:23:37,320
Speaker 1: This is for employment based green cards, which is what

358
00:23:37,359 --> 00:23:40,120
Speaker 1: they were talking about in this case. And so they said,

359
00:23:40,160 --> 00:23:43,359
Speaker 1: why doesn't this just mean the second thing, which is

360
00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:46,480
Speaker 1: that you're currently in legal status, but it doesn't fix

361
00:23:46,560 --> 00:23:49,600
Speaker 1: the first thing, which is that you were admitted. And

362
00:23:49,760 --> 00:23:54,000
Speaker 1: that's really the central question in the case. And there

363
00:23:54,560 --> 00:23:56,600
Speaker 1: is where I think the government, if they have the

364
00:23:56,640 --> 00:23:59,920
Speaker 1: stronger area of the argument, it would be there, which

365
00:24:00,160 --> 00:24:02,440
Speaker 1: is that it was meant to cover just the issue

366
00:24:02,480 --> 00:24:05,399
Speaker 1: of whether you're currently in loveful status, but it was

367
00:24:05,440 --> 00:24:08,199
Speaker 1: not meant to fix the issue of whether you had

368
00:24:08,240 --> 00:24:11,240
Speaker 1: been admitted here in the first place. And so it's

369
00:24:11,240 --> 00:24:14,080
Speaker 1: only meant to give a green card the people who

370
00:24:14,119 --> 00:24:17,120
Speaker 1: came here llegally. It's not meant to give a green

371
00:24:17,119 --> 00:24:20,919
Speaker 1: card to people who came here illegally, and so that's

372
00:24:21,359 --> 00:24:23,919
Speaker 1: I think most likely where you're going to see the

373
00:24:23,960 --> 00:24:28,959
Speaker 1: court go. But what's very fascinating about this case is

374
00:24:29,119 --> 00:24:33,320
Speaker 1: the Biden administration Solicitor General did not want the court

375
00:24:33,480 --> 00:24:37,200
Speaker 1: and was very adamant about this, to say that this

376
00:24:37,359 --> 00:24:41,280
Speaker 1: interpretation had been foreclothes that you could get a green

377
00:24:41,359 --> 00:24:44,560
Speaker 1: card while they were on TPS. They simply wanted to

378
00:24:44,640 --> 00:24:49,520
Speaker 1: be a reasonable interpretation of the statue because it's possible

379
00:24:49,600 --> 00:24:53,640
Speaker 1: that they may issue a regulation later that does allow

380
00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:58,000
Speaker 1: people with temporary protective status to get green cards because

381
00:24:58,040 --> 00:25:01,520
Speaker 1: you can choose between two reasonable interpretation. But if the

382
00:25:01,560 --> 00:25:05,160
Speaker 1: Supreme Court says there's only one reasonable interpretation, and it's

383
00:25:05,200 --> 00:25:08,240
Speaker 1: that you cannot get a green card, then no regulation

384
00:25:08,359 --> 00:25:11,680
Speaker 1: will be possible. Listen to what Chief Justice John Roberts

385
00:25:11,680 --> 00:25:15,880
Speaker 1: told the Joice Department lawyer about the Biden administration not

386
00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:19,560
Speaker 1: being more forceful in their arguments. Mr Houston, I was

387
00:25:19,880 --> 00:25:24,320
Speaker 1: struck by the extent to which your brief um under

388
00:25:24,400 --> 00:25:29,600
Speaker 1: soldier position. Throughout it you said things like the text

389
00:25:29,760 --> 00:25:34,119
Speaker 1: doesn't foreclose your position. The court was not required to

390
00:25:34,240 --> 00:25:38,320
Speaker 1: accept the petitioners reading. Is that because of the difference

391
00:25:38,359 --> 00:25:41,280
Speaker 1: in the way the Biden administration views this and the

392
00:25:41,320 --> 00:25:45,600
Speaker 1: way the Trump administration viewed it correct that's the huge differences.

393
00:25:45,760 --> 00:25:50,600
Speaker 1: The Trump administration wanted a decision that foreclosed permanently the

394
00:25:50,640 --> 00:25:53,760
Speaker 1: ability for anybody who would enter here illegally to be

395
00:25:53,760 --> 00:25:56,720
Speaker 1: able to get a green card using temporary protective plant,

396
00:25:57,359 --> 00:26:00,719
Speaker 1: and the Biden administration is instead, And I think this

397
00:26:00,800 --> 00:26:03,159
Speaker 1: was because they didn't really have time. The case was

398
00:26:03,200 --> 00:26:05,480
Speaker 1: already in the middle, and they didn't want to change

399
00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:09,359
Speaker 1: their position. They instead are trying to defer to this

400
00:26:09,640 --> 00:26:14,600
Speaker 1: minimalist position, which is to say this argument isn't wrong.

401
00:26:14,760 --> 00:26:17,720
Speaker 1: We're not saying it's the only correct argument. We're just

402
00:26:17,760 --> 00:26:22,760
Speaker 1: saying that the Trump administration's interpretation wasn't a bad interpretation.

403
00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:26,800
Speaker 1: So you should say this interpretation is reasonable enough for now,

404
00:26:27,560 --> 00:26:29,760
Speaker 1: and then you can always change it later if you

405
00:26:29,800 --> 00:26:33,359
Speaker 1: want to. And so that's where the bid that administration

406
00:26:33,440 --> 00:26:36,040
Speaker 1: retreated to. So where do you think the court is

407
00:26:36,040 --> 00:26:38,640
Speaker 1: going to come out on this? I could see some

408
00:26:38,720 --> 00:26:42,720
Speaker 1: sort of consensus being reached on the reasonableness of the

409
00:26:42,760 --> 00:26:47,120
Speaker 1: interpretation that would then allow the Biden administration to come

410
00:26:47,119 --> 00:26:50,560
Speaker 1: back and ensue a regulation and change how it interprets

411
00:26:50,600 --> 00:26:54,840
Speaker 1: this statute. That way, sort of the position that people

412
00:26:55,160 --> 00:26:58,760
Speaker 1: on the conservative side think exists here can prevail in

413
00:26:58,840 --> 00:27:04,840
Speaker 1: the litigation. But at least if you provide this consensus opinion.

414
00:27:05,040 --> 00:27:08,160
Speaker 1: A it's better for courts always to provide a consensus opinion,

415
00:27:08,560 --> 00:27:11,480
Speaker 1: but be it then provides the ability for the Biden

416
00:27:11,480 --> 00:27:15,440
Speaker 1: administrations to change how it interprets the statute and actually

417
00:27:15,440 --> 00:27:18,040
Speaker 1: permit green cards. I think there will probably be a

418
00:27:18,080 --> 00:27:23,119
Speaker 1: concurring opinion by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito and maybe

419
00:27:23,160 --> 00:27:26,439
Speaker 1: Justice Corsage saying no, no, no, we don't agree with

420
00:27:26,440 --> 00:27:29,760
Speaker 1: the Chevron difference concept, but we don't believe in that,

421
00:27:29,840 --> 00:27:32,400
Speaker 1: and we think there's only one way to interpret the statute.

422
00:27:32,760 --> 00:27:38,560
Speaker 1: But I could see a consensus judgment that just upholds

423
00:27:38,640 --> 00:27:42,800
Speaker 1: the decision but doesn't foreclose the Biden administrations from changing

424
00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:46,160
Speaker 1: its interpretation of the statutes. That would be my prediction.

425
00:27:46,480 --> 00:27:49,959
Speaker 1: Does this illustrate the problem the Biden administration has with

426
00:27:50,080 --> 00:27:54,800
Speaker 1: immigration issues? Where here it's at odds with Democratic lawmakers.

427
00:27:54,840 --> 00:27:59,880
Speaker 1: There are nine Democratic members arguing against it and progressive yes.

428
00:28:00,119 --> 00:28:04,680
Speaker 1: I mean, this was the exact perfect storm where perhaps

429
00:28:04,920 --> 00:28:09,320
Speaker 1: if this whole issue had arisen during the Biden administration

430
00:28:09,400 --> 00:28:12,159
Speaker 1: from beginning to end, you might have seen a different

431
00:28:12,200 --> 00:28:17,320
Speaker 1: resolution all throughout. But because this case was part of

432
00:28:17,359 --> 00:28:20,960
Speaker 1: the Trump administration and was carried over into the Biden's

433
00:28:20,960 --> 00:28:25,840
Speaker 1: administration after the Supreme Court had already granted tertiary, the

434
00:28:25,880 --> 00:28:29,040
Speaker 1: Biden administration was in a very tough position because it

435
00:28:29,080 --> 00:28:31,520
Speaker 1: didn't have the ability to do all of the changes

436
00:28:31,560 --> 00:28:34,440
Speaker 1: that it needed to do. It ordered to change its

437
00:28:34,480 --> 00:28:37,080
Speaker 1: position in this case. It didn't want to take a

438
00:28:37,160 --> 00:28:40,560
Speaker 1: lawless position in this case because there had already been

439
00:28:41,200 --> 00:28:45,000
Speaker 1: binding authorities from this body called the Board of Immigration

440
00:28:45,040 --> 00:28:48,560
Speaker 1: appeals that had bound the administration to this case. So

441
00:28:48,680 --> 00:28:50,880
Speaker 1: what they just are trying to do for now is

442
00:28:50,960 --> 00:28:54,120
Speaker 1: minimized the damage by saying, look, all of these binding

443
00:28:54,120 --> 00:28:57,640
Speaker 1: decisions that we have, now, let's just say they're reasonable,

444
00:28:58,000 --> 00:29:01,520
Speaker 1: But give us the opportunity to undo all of these

445
00:29:01,560 --> 00:29:05,880
Speaker 1: decisions using the mechanisms that are available under administrative law.

446
00:29:06,400 --> 00:29:09,760
Speaker 1: And I could foresee in a year or two this

447
00:29:09,800 --> 00:29:13,760
Speaker 1: process being concluded to permit people who enter here illegally

448
00:29:13,880 --> 00:29:16,920
Speaker 1: to be able to obtain Green card. So far, the

449
00:29:16,920 --> 00:29:20,960
Speaker 1: Supreme Court the Biden administration on immigration issues has been

450
00:29:20,960 --> 00:29:26,000
Speaker 1: mostly rescinding Trump policies that the justices had been planning

451
00:29:26,040 --> 00:29:31,080
Speaker 1: to consider. For example, the Court's dismissed cases over Trump's

452
00:29:31,160 --> 00:29:35,880
Speaker 1: porter of Wall, his remained in Mexico policy for asylum keepers,

453
00:29:35,960 --> 00:29:39,520
Speaker 1: and his tough test for screening out Green card applicants

454
00:29:40,320 --> 00:29:43,280
Speaker 1: who might become dependent on government benefits. Is this the

455
00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:48,960
Speaker 1: first immigration case that's been argued by the administration. Yeah.

456
00:29:49,040 --> 00:29:52,360
Speaker 1: And the reason this one has to move forward and

457
00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:55,000
Speaker 1: the other ones didn't have to move forward was because

458
00:29:55,040 --> 00:30:01,200
Speaker 1: there was actual administrative law decision that had already binded

459
00:30:01,280 --> 00:30:04,880
Speaker 1: the government, and you couldn't overturn those you either had

460
00:30:04,960 --> 00:30:08,040
Speaker 1: to do something which I think the Biden administration was

461
00:30:08,120 --> 00:30:12,680
Speaker 1: uncomfortable doing, which was not defending decisions that the government

462
00:30:12,720 --> 00:30:16,120
Speaker 1: made through the regular order of the government decisions, or

463
00:30:16,480 --> 00:30:19,120
Speaker 1: they're doing what they're doing here, which is this minimalist

464
00:30:19,520 --> 00:30:22,600
Speaker 1: defense of the decision. For the border wall, they could

465
00:30:22,600 --> 00:30:25,680
Speaker 1: decifically say we're gonna move this out by not building

466
00:30:25,720 --> 00:30:28,560
Speaker 1: any more border wall, or for the public charge, they

467
00:30:28,560 --> 00:30:31,520
Speaker 1: consistually saying we're gonna move this out by accepting an

468
00:30:31,560 --> 00:30:34,600
Speaker 1: injunction from the lower course. But the problem with the

469
00:30:34,760 --> 00:30:39,280
Speaker 1: sense as cases, it was a challenge to an administrative decision,

470
00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:42,560
Speaker 1: and so there's no way to mood out at administrative decisions,

471
00:30:42,680 --> 00:30:44,800
Speaker 1: or there is, but it was gonna take much longer.

472
00:30:45,240 --> 00:30:48,640
Speaker 1: It would have required the Attorney General to issue a

473
00:30:48,680 --> 00:30:52,840
Speaker 1: new case, a new briefing process, etcetera. And none of

474
00:30:52,840 --> 00:30:55,600
Speaker 1: that was on the table where the Attorney general has

475
00:30:55,720 --> 00:30:58,440
Speaker 1: just recently been confirmed. There was not an ability to

476
00:30:58,480 --> 00:31:01,480
Speaker 1: get to this case in time. Thanks Leon. That's Leon

477
00:31:01,600 --> 00:31:03,840
Speaker 1: Fresco of hond and Knight, and that's it for the

478
00:31:03,960 --> 00:31:06,800
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Lan Show. I'm June Grosso and

479
00:31:06,840 --> 00:31:08,240
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg,