WEBVTT - Charges Dropped Against Adnan Syed in 'Serial' Case 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:13.680 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:14.240 --> 0:00:17.920 After twenty three years in prison, odd Non Sayed walked 0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:21.840 out of the courthouse in Baltimore, smiling but silent as 0:00:21.840 --> 0:00:25.320 his supporters cheered. The forty one year old was free 0:00:25.360 --> 0:00:28.680 for the first time since he was a teenager convicted 0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:34.879 of the murder of his high school girlfriend from His 0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:38.720 case captured the attention of millions in twenty fourteen on 0:00:38.800 --> 0:00:42.600 the hit podcast Serial, which raised doubts about his guilt. 0:00:42.960 --> 0:00:46.920 A judge ordered say Ed's release after prosecutors said a 0:00:47.040 --> 0:00:52.640 new investigation uncovered evidence that undermines his conviction. Our reinvestigation 0:00:52.720 --> 0:00:56.440 revealed that the original prosecutors and the subsequent prosecutors in 0:00:56.440 --> 0:01:01.560 the Attorney General's Office failed to disclose relevant information about 0:01:01.960 --> 0:01:06.520 alternative suspects. Wan Aful threatened to kill the victim, and 0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:10.240 then on Tuesday, prosecutors took the final step and dropped 0:01:10.240 --> 0:01:14.319 the charges against Sayette. His lawyer, Erica's Suitor, is my guest. 0:01:14.600 --> 0:01:17.560 She's an assistant public defender in Maryland and director of 0:01:17.560 --> 0:01:21.560 the University of Baltimore's Innocence Project Clinic. Erica what was 0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:24.680 it like for him walking out of the courthouse after 0:01:24.760 --> 0:01:27.960 spending more than half his life in prison. Well, in 0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:30.360 the courtroom, you know, he turned to me, a non 0:01:30.360 --> 0:01:32.360 turned to me and said that he couldn't believe it 0:01:32.400 --> 0:01:37.720 was real. I think walking out the courtroom was probably 0:01:37.720 --> 0:01:40.399 pretty overwhelming, and it was overwhelming to me. There were 0:01:40.440 --> 0:01:42.920 so many, so many people and so many cameras, so, 0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:45.880 you know, I think it was overwhelming. And he heard 0:01:46.080 --> 0:01:49.040 a friend, somebody who had been incarcerated with him, who 0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:51.520 had been exonerated, called his name, and that's when you 0:01:51.560 --> 0:01:53.840 see him look up and smile and wave, which was 0:01:53.920 --> 0:01:55.360 kind of one of the only times that he was, 0:01:55.440 --> 0:01:58.000 you know, sort of engaged. So how did you become 0:01:58.080 --> 0:02:02.360 his attorney? Well, I've been practicing postconviction law in Maryland 0:02:02.360 --> 0:02:06.920 for about fifteen years, and when his case was sort 0:02:06.920 --> 0:02:09.680 of last before the court, now I was following it 0:02:09.760 --> 0:02:12.560 like everyone else, and you know, paying attention because of 0:02:12.600 --> 0:02:15.240 my interests and sort of the legal and procedural posture. 0:02:15.760 --> 0:02:19.200 And then as that process ran down and he had 0:02:19.200 --> 0:02:22.280 reached sort of the natural conclusion of those things, you know, 0:02:22.320 --> 0:02:25.519 it was time for him to find another attorney to 0:02:25.560 --> 0:02:28.799 sort of pursuit whatever might remain and Robbia Chaudhry, who 0:02:28.800 --> 0:02:32.160 has been a longtime advocate of his and a family 0:02:32.200 --> 0:02:34.639 friend of his, you know, thought me out and approached 0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:37.079 me about taking the case and correct me if I'm wrong, 0:02:37.080 --> 0:02:40.440 But you were looking to overturn the case as much 0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:44.480 as get him out under another law. So no, we 0:02:44.480 --> 0:02:48.040 were always looking to overturn the case. We've always believed 0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:51.600 in his innocence. He's always maintained his innocence, and so 0:02:51.760 --> 0:02:54.320 as a post conviction lawyer, you're sort of looking at 0:02:54.360 --> 0:02:56.919 what are all the potential tools and the tool kit 0:02:57.400 --> 0:02:59.520 to try to achieve relief for this client. And so 0:03:00.480 --> 0:03:04.840 one possible way to do that was to seek release 0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:09.880 through sentencing modification um through the recently past Juvenal Restoration Act. 0:03:10.360 --> 0:03:13.960 So this particular path that we're on now did in 0:03:14.000 --> 0:03:17.639 fact begin with a conversation with the Sentencing Review Unit. 0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:19.320 But we were always looking at sort of all of 0:03:19.320 --> 0:03:22.519 our options. But yes, this particular sort of peace and 0:03:22.600 --> 0:03:26.000 a very long journey began with with having this conversation 0:03:26.040 --> 0:03:29.480 with an Assistant States Attorney, Bucky Seltman. So he had 0:03:29.560 --> 0:03:33.640 several appeals and at one point and appeals court vacated 0:03:33.680 --> 0:03:37.880 his conviction, but then it was reinstated. Yeah, so his 0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:43.840 sort of procedural history is interesting and long. And what 0:03:44.040 --> 0:03:47.800 happened was in terms of the post conviction is that 0:03:47.880 --> 0:03:50.520 he had filed a post conviction so you know, after 0:03:50.560 --> 0:03:53.400 your sentence, you have the right to go back and 0:03:53.880 --> 0:03:58.360 alleged an effective assistance of counsel, and Maryland particular has 0:03:58.800 --> 0:04:01.400 very clear procedure. You're guaranteed of hearing. It has to 0:04:01.440 --> 0:04:04.000 be filed within ten years, and you're sort of attacking 0:04:04.000 --> 0:04:06.960 the process. So he did that impost conviction and laws 0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:09.760 and then filed what we call an application for leave 0:04:09.800 --> 0:04:12.240 to appeal, so you don't have a direct right of appeal, 0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:15.280 you have the right to request permission to appeal. And 0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:17.880 it got remanded back and then he did what we 0:04:17.960 --> 0:04:20.599 call in Maryland emotion to reopen. So he's basically in 0:04:20.640 --> 0:04:24.920 post conviction posture again. And he won a new trial 0:04:25.320 --> 0:04:28.360 based on this cell phone evidence that incoming calls were 0:04:28.360 --> 0:04:32.680 not reliable for location. Because the cell phone evidence corroborated 0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:36.400 really the only evidence against him, which was the testimony 0:04:36.440 --> 0:04:40.040 of the cooperating co defendant, So co defendance testimony evolves 0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:44.560 he's an incentivized witness. It contradicts, you know, in various points. 0:04:44.600 --> 0:04:48.359 So they've got this alleged forensic evidence and in that 0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:53.400 post conviction post conviction council demonstrated that that evidence wasn't reliable. 0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:56.719 The state then appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, 0:04:56.760 --> 0:05:01.200 which is our intermediate appellate court, and they reversed on 0:05:01.279 --> 0:05:04.240 the cell phone saying that issue was waived because it 0:05:04.320 --> 0:05:07.760 wasn't raised in the initial post conviction, and then they 0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:11.960 granted relief on the alibi issue, saying that Christina Gutierrez 0:05:12.040 --> 0:05:16.040 trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate this alibi 0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:19.359 witness who said that she was with him at the 0:05:19.440 --> 0:05:23.240 library in the relevant time period. So he twice won 0:05:23.279 --> 0:05:25.240 a new trial and these two different levels of court, 0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:27.440 and then the state appealed again to our highest court 0:05:28.040 --> 0:05:33.159 Maryland essentially Supreme Court, and then they reversed and said 0:05:33.320 --> 0:05:36.880 that although it was ineffective or post conviction council to 0:05:37.040 --> 0:05:40.719 not have investigated the alibi given all of the evidence, 0:05:40.760 --> 0:05:42.839 there was no prejudice. So there was a mistake, but 0:05:42.920 --> 0:05:47.719 it wasn't significant enough two show, you know that the 0:05:47.720 --> 0:05:50.240 result would have been different. And then he filed start 0:05:50.320 --> 0:05:53.560 with the Supreme Court. Supreme Court didn't grant start, and 0:05:53.600 --> 0:05:57.080 that's where that process ended. A real roller coaster for him, 0:05:57.160 --> 0:05:59.800 up and down with these appears. Who are I mean, 0:05:59.839 --> 0:06:04.400 I think it was incredibly difficult to go through actually 0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:07.800 winning a new trial instead of having I mean, if 0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:11.159 you're always against the odds in this procedural posture, you 0:06:11.279 --> 0:06:14.039 necessarily lose more than you win, just because of the 0:06:14.080 --> 0:06:16.960 emphasis fund finality and the fact that the burden is 0:06:17.040 --> 0:06:19.960 on the moving parties is on the defendant in this case, 0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:21.920 so you always lose that when you win, it is 0:06:22.160 --> 0:06:26.200 It's incredible and to have that taken back was extraordinarily 0:06:26.240 --> 0:06:29.120 difficult for him for sure. Tell us about the recent 0:06:29.240 --> 0:06:34.120 investigation which you took part in, where prosecutors found in 0:06:34.160 --> 0:06:38.720 the trial folder evidence documents that were never turned over 0:06:38.800 --> 0:06:42.440 to his prior attorneys. So the investigation that happened over 0:06:42.440 --> 0:06:45.159 the past year was really a collaborative effort between the 0:06:45.160 --> 0:06:48.160 defense and the state and Assistant States Attorney Becky Feldman 0:06:48.279 --> 0:06:52.120 went and looked through every trial box and copied a 0:06:52.160 --> 0:06:55.000 whole lot of documents and handed them over to the defense, 0:06:55.120 --> 0:06:57.200 and you know, we both reviewed them and that's where 0:06:57.200 --> 0:07:00.520 we found this this note that had not been turned 0:07:00.520 --> 0:07:03.479 over to trial council, that had not been turned over 0:07:03.640 --> 0:07:07.960 to prior post conviction council, and it was pretty startling 0:07:08.080 --> 0:07:11.840 to see it. Tell us about the note, So it 0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:17.560 is a handwritten note that Um, because it's an ongoing investigation, 0:07:17.880 --> 0:07:19.880 you know, I don't want to go into too much detail. 0:07:19.880 --> 0:07:21.920 But what is part of the public record is the 0:07:21.960 --> 0:07:26.400 fact that it contained a threat against the victim. That 0:07:26.480 --> 0:07:30.160 the person about whom this note was talking said the 0:07:30.200 --> 0:07:34.480 suspect that he would make her disappear, the victim, he 0:07:34.520 --> 0:07:37.760 would kill her. And under our system of laws, under 0:07:37.760 --> 0:07:40.440 the obligation of the state, that is information that the 0:07:40.480 --> 0:07:43.960 defense is entitled to use to defend themselves and non 0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:47.280 never had it for twenty years, for twenty three years, 0:07:47.680 --> 0:07:50.520 three years, and there is saying that there are two 0:07:50.560 --> 0:07:56.200 possible alternative suspects and they also have been alternative suspects 0:07:56.240 --> 0:08:01.080 for twenty three years. Um. So with well, yes, I 0:08:01.360 --> 0:08:04.720 guess that's fair to say. Um, they are people who 0:08:04.720 --> 0:08:07.680 are involved in this case. They're not brand new people 0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:11.840 that nobody's ever heard of. They are people who are 0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.920 connected to this case in some way. Exactly how much 0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:18.640 attention the investigators at the time or the prosecution of 0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:20.720 the time, we're paying to them. I don't know whether 0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:23.880 or not the prosecution believe they were viable suspects at 0:08:23.880 --> 0:08:26.760 the time. I don't know. I certainly think this prosecution 0:08:27.000 --> 0:08:30.760 should have looked at them closer, examined them further, you know, 0:08:30.920 --> 0:08:34.240 at least developed them further. But they were known to 0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:38.040 the state for sure. The prosecutors asked that his conviction 0:08:38.160 --> 0:08:42.880 be vacated, but didn't say that your client is innocent. So, 0:08:43.240 --> 0:08:46.200 you know, the public often looks at innocence cases and 0:08:46.240 --> 0:08:48.560 thinks that they're sort of, you know, a straight line. 0:08:48.679 --> 0:08:51.080 You find the thing, the smoking gun, and then your 0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:55.560 person is exonerated. The reality is, exonerations are incredibly difficult 0:08:55.559 --> 0:08:58.520 because they require a particular kind of evidence. So someone 0:08:58.600 --> 0:09:01.120 may very well be innocent, but for example, if they 0:09:01.120 --> 0:09:03.920 were convinced based on one person's word, it can be 0:09:04.040 --> 0:09:07.520 very difficult to actually exonerate that person. You know, you're 0:09:07.520 --> 0:09:09.680 not going to necessarily have the thing that points to 0:09:09.720 --> 0:09:13.520 the other person. You know, this law, the ability for 0:09:13.559 --> 0:09:15.839 the state to move to vacate is relatively new. It 0:09:15.880 --> 0:09:19.560 got passed in two thousand and nineteen, actually with support 0:09:19.600 --> 0:09:23.960 of the State's Attorney's office, and it was created in 0:09:24.080 --> 0:09:28.200 part because we had in in Baltimore City, specifically the 0:09:28.240 --> 0:09:31.560 Gun Trace Task Force, which we now know was a 0:09:31.640 --> 0:09:35.439 group of very corrupt police officers who were planting evidence, 0:09:35.559 --> 0:09:40.320 who were robbing people, selling drugs, all all sorts of 0:09:40.480 --> 0:09:44.160 nefarious things. So with the Gun Traced Task Force cases, 0:09:44.800 --> 0:09:47.960 there was such an obvious problem that convictions based on 0:09:48.000 --> 0:09:52.600 the testimony of these extraordinarily corrupt officers ought not to stand. 0:09:53.160 --> 0:09:57.520 And so what the statute requires is evidence or information 0:09:57.559 --> 0:09:59.800 that is new to the state that causes them to 0:09:59.840 --> 0:10:03.040 lose faith in the integrity of the verdict. And that's 0:10:03.080 --> 0:10:06.440 really important that you know, the state is looking at 0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:10.880 whether this was a fair opportunity, whether the state, you know, 0:10:10.960 --> 0:10:14.320 played fair as they were supposed to. And in a 0:10:14.400 --> 0:10:18.000 non's case, for sure, the evidence is overwhelming that the 0:10:18.000 --> 0:10:22.840 state did not. There was a DNA analysis done, yes, 0:10:23.080 --> 0:10:27.760 So we initially in March filed a joint motion or 0:10:27.920 --> 0:10:35.840 DNA testing. Testing began and basically in consultation with the scientists, 0:10:35.880 --> 0:10:40.200 we identified of the evidence what was most likely to 0:10:40.280 --> 0:10:43.280 yield information that was going to give us information about 0:10:43.640 --> 0:10:46.160 whoever the actual assailant. Right, So we looked at all 0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:47.840 the evidence and based on the facts we know about 0:10:47.880 --> 0:10:51.040 the case, and under the advisement of scientists, selected the 0:10:51.080 --> 0:10:54.120 items that we thought were most likely to yield information 0:10:54.160 --> 0:10:58.840 about a suspect. And we tested all of that and 0:10:59.080 --> 0:11:01.760 the results were or that none of it came back 0:11:01.800 --> 0:11:05.800 to it Non. There are a couple of more items remaining, 0:11:05.920 --> 0:11:08.920 but we triage them, so we sort of identified these 0:11:08.920 --> 0:11:10.920 are the most important, These are the ones that I 0:11:10.960 --> 0:11:13.520 think would yield the most valuable information. We went through 0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:14.840 all of that, and then there are a couple of 0:11:14.880 --> 0:11:17.800 more items remaining that we're waiting for the results to 0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:20.760 come back on. But in the grants scenario, of all 0:11:20.760 --> 0:11:23.520 of the evidence we've already tested, what we thought was 0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:27.480 sort of the most significant serial, of course became this 0:11:27.800 --> 0:11:32.960 pop culture sensation. How did that change the equation for him? 0:11:33.640 --> 0:11:35.280 I mean, I think that's a really interesting question that 0:11:35.320 --> 0:11:36.839 a lot of people want to know about, and it's 0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:41.280 very difficult to say. What I think in general in 0:11:41.559 --> 0:11:45.120 a Non's case is that it contextualizes a person and 0:11:45.320 --> 0:11:49.640 it brings lights to a scenario that is actually common. 0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:52.520 For example, that prosecutors with hold evidence that they should 0:11:52.559 --> 0:11:55.160 turn over. So it sort of contextualizes a person as 0:11:55.160 --> 0:11:57.160 more of a full human being who is more than 0:11:57.200 --> 0:12:00.400 their conviction, and it educates the public to the extent 0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:02.720 that it impacts the judges. I think it's a double 0:12:02.760 --> 0:12:05.440 edged sword. Judges are serious folks trying to do their job. 0:12:05.520 --> 0:12:09.359 I don't think they particularly appreciate some of the distractions 0:12:09.400 --> 0:12:12.000 that can come with the media attention. But it also 0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:14.480 creates a level of transparency that I think can be 0:12:14.559 --> 0:12:17.839 helpful in our judicial system because these kinds of cases, 0:12:17.920 --> 0:12:19.800 they often die in the dark, like all the odds 0:12:19.840 --> 0:12:22.760 are stacked against you, nobody's paying attention. The court wants 0:12:22.760 --> 0:12:25.040 to leave the conviction intact. And now there's sort of 0:12:25.080 --> 0:12:28.319 a degree of attention and transparency that maybe just the 0:12:28.360 --> 0:12:31.000 needle a little bit more to a more level playing field. 0:12:31.559 --> 0:12:35.720 I can't imagine being a post conviction lawyer because it 0:12:35.880 --> 0:12:38.120 sounds like, you know, it's just such an uphill battle 0:12:38.280 --> 0:12:41.920 every minute of the day. So what does this mean 0:12:41.960 --> 0:12:45.199 to you? You know, his release. You know, the victories 0:12:45.240 --> 0:12:47.640 are few and far between in this work, but the 0:12:47.720 --> 0:12:52.080 victories are so incredibly sweet, and it is what sustains 0:12:52.120 --> 0:12:56.520 you in this work because they are always long fought, battles. 0:12:56.840 --> 0:13:00.480 So you know, on a personal level, this is a 0:13:00.559 --> 0:13:03.960 human being who has been incarcerated since he was a child, 0:13:04.360 --> 0:13:07.400 taken from his family for twenty three years, who spent 0:13:07.440 --> 0:13:11.240 his entire adult life in prison, in a fell and 0:13:11.320 --> 0:13:15.160 to see him, you know, restored to his family is 0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:18.360 to have the privilege of playing a part in that 0:13:18.640 --> 0:13:20.800 and being able to give somebody back to their family 0:13:21.080 --> 0:13:25.280 is is extraordinary. In terms of post conviction, you savor 0:13:25.320 --> 0:13:28.240 the winds because they're they're few and far between. Thanks 0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:31.280 so much for joining us. Erica. That's Erica, suitor and 0:13:31.360 --> 0:13:34.760 assistant public defender in Maryland and director of the University 0:13:34.760 --> 0:13:40.000 of Baltimore's Innocence Project Clinic. I'm proud that the Obama 0:13:40.040 --> 0:13:43.960 Biden administration stood up for Dreamers. My predecessor tried to 0:13:44.080 --> 0:13:47.400 end DCA, but the Biden Harris administrations working to preserve 0:13:47.440 --> 0:13:51.760 it and fortify it. I want to make clear to 0:13:51.920 --> 0:13:54.880 the Dreamers who are here and those who are watching 0:13:54.920 --> 0:13:59.840 from home, this is your home. This is your home, 0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:04.920 and we see you, and you are not alone. Despite 0:14:04.920 --> 0:14:09.320 promises from the Biden administration, the lives of Dreamers remain 0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:12.959 in limbo, and a federal appeals court has dealt another 0:14:13.040 --> 0:14:17.080 blow to their legal status. DACCA, or Deferred Action for 0:14:17.320 --> 0:14:22.240 Childhood Arrivals, is an Obama error program preventing the deportation 0:14:22.320 --> 0:14:25.400 of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought into the United 0:14:25.440 --> 0:14:29.320 States as children. It's had a complicated ride through federal 0:14:29.320 --> 0:14:32.800 court challenges, and now the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 0:14:32.840 --> 0:14:37.120 has ruled that the program contradicts federal immigration law and 0:14:37.200 --> 0:14:40.080 must go back to a Texas federal judge for a 0:14:40.160 --> 0:14:45.320 new review of the Biden administration's recent rule condifying the program. 0:14:45.360 --> 0:14:49.360 Current dreamers will retain their status for now, but the 0:14:49.400 --> 0:14:54.000 Fifth Circuit ruling highlights the precarious nature of Dreamer's protections, 0:14:54.400 --> 0:14:59.000 despite historically bipartisan support for their cause. My guest is 0:14:59.040 --> 0:15:03.760 immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partnered Honda Knight, start 0:15:03.920 --> 0:15:08.920 by telling us about this Fifth Circuit decision. Well, the 0:15:09.000 --> 0:15:13.200 Fifth Circuit decision is very interesting because it mails a 0:15:13.280 --> 0:15:17.600 lot of different concepts all into one decision. But basically, 0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:22.120 what it says is that DOCTA is illegal. But we're 0:15:22.160 --> 0:15:26.600 not going to end the program immediately because we're going 0:15:26.680 --> 0:15:30.200 to go back to the district courts to decide whether 0:15:30.400 --> 0:15:34.560 a new doctor rule that was issued by the federal 0:15:34.640 --> 0:15:40.280 government while the original doctor case was pending, changes something 0:15:40.880 --> 0:15:44.359 so that it makes the program converted from being illegal 0:15:44.800 --> 0:15:48.360 to legal. Tell us about the specifics of the decision. 0:15:49.280 --> 0:15:53.440 So the specifics of the decision, there's four basic aspects 0:15:53.480 --> 0:15:57.840 of the decision, two of which will not change, and 0:15:57.920 --> 0:16:00.240 two of which will be examined in the district court. 0:16:00.400 --> 0:16:03.680 So the two that will not change moving forward. Our 0:16:03.840 --> 0:16:07.840 first that the state of Texas has standing to actually 0:16:08.000 --> 0:16:12.360 challenge Takas. That was an interesting question with regard to 0:16:12.640 --> 0:16:16.120 whether they could even do this, and that argument actually 0:16:16.160 --> 0:16:20.320 had two parts. One that Texas, even though it claimed 0:16:20.360 --> 0:16:24.800 that it suffered financial laws from having a documented people 0:16:24.880 --> 0:16:28.400 in Texas, the government was saying, well, but that lass 0:16:28.680 --> 0:16:31.760 is outweighed by all of the economic benefits that having 0:16:31.920 --> 0:16:35.560 these individuals creates the Texas And the court said, no, 0:16:35.680 --> 0:16:39.120 we don't do this cost benefit analysis. If you show 0:16:39.200 --> 0:16:41.480 COUST that's the end. That's all you have to show 0:16:41.800 --> 0:16:44.520 for standing. You don't have to show that the cost 0:16:44.640 --> 0:16:49.280 outweigh the benefits. So that's one part of it. But secondly, 0:16:49.320 --> 0:16:51.960 there had been a decision in the Supreme Court earlier 0:16:52.040 --> 0:16:55.720 this year which said that you can't ask for injunctive 0:16:55.800 --> 0:17:00.760 relief in an immigration case unless you are one person 0:17:00.920 --> 0:17:04.199 in one case. You can't ask as a group or 0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:07.720 a state or anybody else for broad injunctive relief. And 0:17:07.800 --> 0:17:11.320 that came up in the Remain in Mexico case and 0:17:11.400 --> 0:17:13.680 what the Fifth Circuit hells and we'll see if the 0:17:13.720 --> 0:17:17.880 Supreme Court agrees with this, is that's not true when 0:17:17.880 --> 0:17:20.879 all you're trying to do is vacate a memo, like 0:17:21.040 --> 0:17:23.399 what's happening here where they were trying to vacate the 0:17:23.480 --> 0:17:26.879 doc a memo that's not an injunction. An injunction is 0:17:27.200 --> 0:17:31.560 don't do something here they were asking for just vacate 0:17:31.640 --> 0:17:34.439 the memo, say that the memo is illegal, and so 0:17:34.680 --> 0:17:36.760 the courts are going to have to desire. The Supreme 0:17:36.760 --> 0:17:38.359 Court is gonna have to decide is that true. Is 0:17:38.400 --> 0:17:41.240 that a distinction without a difference, or is that really 0:17:41.280 --> 0:17:43.520 a distinction that's real, which is one thing is an 0:17:43.520 --> 0:17:46.360 injunction that the government is not allowed to do something, 0:17:46.560 --> 0:17:49.399 and another thing is just vacating a memo for it 0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:52.320 being illegal. So that's the first thing they decided was 0:17:52.560 --> 0:17:55.040 this issue of can they get the court they said, yes, 0:17:55.200 --> 0:17:58.000 you can get the court. The second thing they decided 0:17:58.240 --> 0:18:02.280 was was the memo it self illegal because it didn't 0:18:02.320 --> 0:18:06.280 go through the formal rulemaking process. And they held yes, 0:18:06.400 --> 0:18:09.920 the memo itself was illegal because they didn't go through 0:18:09.920 --> 0:18:13.760 the formal rulemaking process. And he said, this memo actually 0:18:13.880 --> 0:18:17.760 confers benefits on the people in terms of work permits 0:18:17.800 --> 0:18:19.840 and in terms of the ability to say that you're 0:18:19.880 --> 0:18:23.040 lawfully here. And so because it does that, you can't 0:18:23.040 --> 0:18:25.000 just do that with a memo. You have to go 0:18:25.040 --> 0:18:30.119 through the formal rulemaking process. And so there the memo 0:18:30.520 --> 0:18:33.560 was stricken. And so those two things I think are 0:18:33.560 --> 0:18:35.960 not going to change regardless. So those are the parts 0:18:35.960 --> 0:18:38.760 of the decision that are over for now. Tell us 0:18:38.760 --> 0:18:43.200 about what the federal judge is going to be reviewing. Now. 0:18:43.240 --> 0:18:46.679 The next question is, well, the government now in the 0:18:46.720 --> 0:18:50.160 middle of this case went through the formal rulemaking process, 0:18:50.280 --> 0:18:53.119 and so that is now mooting out the issue of 0:18:53.160 --> 0:18:55.159 the memo. So we're never going to get to this 0:18:55.240 --> 0:18:57.920 memo issue ever again. And the issue is going to 0:18:57.960 --> 0:19:01.080 be whether the formal rules that the government has now 0:19:01.119 --> 0:19:04.160 put in place with regard to dots, which is basically 0:19:04.200 --> 0:19:06.480 identical to the memo. It does the same thing. It 0:19:06.520 --> 0:19:10.960 gives the same people status whether that formal rule is 0:19:10.960 --> 0:19:14.720 going to be illegal. And here the court previewed what 0:19:15.000 --> 0:19:19.160 they're likely going to rule in the future by saying, well, 0:19:19.200 --> 0:19:21.720 there's two points here that we think about the memo 0:19:22.440 --> 0:19:24.840 that we'll see if we think it about the rule. 0:19:25.000 --> 0:19:28.400 We're not gonna say anything yet, but here are two points. 0:19:28.600 --> 0:19:33.440 Number one, the memo itself contravenes the I and A 0:19:33.560 --> 0:19:39.159 the Immigration Code by saying that people get scientus that 0:19:39.200 --> 0:19:42.520 the Immigration Code doesn't say get status, and that people 0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:46.120 get work benefits that the Immigration Code doesn't say get 0:19:46.119 --> 0:19:49.960 work benefits. So the second you do that, you're contravening 0:19:50.000 --> 0:19:53.399 the Immigration Code. And that's the end of it. Now, 0:19:53.440 --> 0:19:56.760 there's always been arguments about that. The regular that the 0:19:57.560 --> 0:20:01.480 that the the statute says that the Attorney General, which 0:20:01.560 --> 0:20:04.119 is now the Secretary of Homeland Security because I've changed 0:20:04.359 --> 0:20:08.800 after Night eleven, can confer work authorizations to whoever they 0:20:08.840 --> 0:20:13.080 want to confer it to and can choose who to 0:20:13.359 --> 0:20:16.320 deport or not to deport. But the Fifth Circuit has 0:20:16.359 --> 0:20:20.360 said no, no, no. Once you start creating a program 0:20:20.560 --> 0:20:25.200 of you know, a million people or whatever to specifically 0:20:25.320 --> 0:20:30.080 exempt based on a certain criteria, and specifically give work permits. 0:20:30.119 --> 0:20:33.560 You're contravening the statute. So that's the first thing. And 0:20:33.600 --> 0:20:36.240 then the second thing the court said is based on 0:20:36.359 --> 0:20:39.680 the new logic of the West Virginia versus e P 0:20:39.840 --> 0:20:42.760 a decision which just came out also earlier this year, 0:20:43.359 --> 0:20:47.240 which says there was a huge decision that basically shrank 0:20:47.359 --> 0:20:51.679 the entire regulatory state dramatically because what it said was, 0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:56.680 if you're gonna do something of significant economic importance, then 0:20:57.160 --> 0:21:01.480 the thing you're doing regulatorially had to be something that's 0:21:01.680 --> 0:21:04.480 very clear in the statute. It has to be you 0:21:04.480 --> 0:21:07.720 can't just say here's a provision and it's not inconsistent 0:21:07.760 --> 0:21:10.359 with this. It's kind of Congress has to kind of 0:21:10.359 --> 0:21:13.640 be making a very clear signal that they want to 0:21:13.640 --> 0:21:16.000 to do this. And so they're saying, because of that 0:21:16.119 --> 0:21:20.119 new West Virginia versus e PA decision, dot is also 0:21:20.200 --> 0:21:24.439 illegal because there's nothing that Congress said which puts us 0:21:24.480 --> 0:21:28.439 anywhere near saying create a program like DOTA. And so 0:21:28.520 --> 0:21:31.440 those are the four prongs of the decision. And so 0:21:31.520 --> 0:21:33.520 now what the court said is, but we're not gonna 0:21:33.880 --> 0:21:37.479 end doctor today, go back District Court and tell us 0:21:37.520 --> 0:21:40.600 whether we're right about the new rule. Does the new 0:21:40.680 --> 0:21:43.159 rule do anything different? Or does it fail for the 0:21:43.240 --> 0:21:47.200 same two reasons, which are that it contravenes the statute 0:21:47.480 --> 0:21:49.560 and that it regulates in a place where there's that 0:21:49.720 --> 0:21:53.480 clear regulatory authority. And if it does, will strike it 0:21:53.560 --> 0:21:56.080 then and then it'll be up to the Supreme Court 0:21:56.119 --> 0:21:59.040 to determine what happens. Would you say this is not 0:21:59.119 --> 0:22:02.679 a good development for the dreamers because it sounds like 0:22:02.720 --> 0:22:05.760 it's a legal question. The Fifth Circuit is sending to 0:22:05.800 --> 0:22:09.040 the lower court judge, and this judge already rule once 0:22:09.080 --> 0:22:13.720 that data was unconstitutional. Correct. What this means is that 0:22:13.880 --> 0:22:18.119 they're sending back basically the same legal questions they just 0:22:18.400 --> 0:22:22.840 answered in the memo case and basically asking the District 0:22:22.880 --> 0:22:27.080 court does this new regulations the rule do anything different 0:22:27.080 --> 0:22:29.960 than the memos And if it does something different than 0:22:30.000 --> 0:22:34.080 the memo, tell us that maybe then the docta recipients win. 0:22:34.560 --> 0:22:37.879 But if it doesn't, then the doctor recipients blew. And 0:22:37.920 --> 0:22:40.080 the truth of the matter is, the whole point of 0:22:40.119 --> 0:22:43.920 the regulation was just to eliminate the notice and common argument. 0:22:44.000 --> 0:22:47.359 It wasn't to change anything else. And so I would 0:22:47.359 --> 0:22:52.640 say with thirty that the District Court and the Fifth 0:22:52.640 --> 0:22:55.280 Circuit are going to invalidate the rule, and then what 0:22:55.359 --> 0:22:58.840 happens It goes to the Supreme Right, then the case 0:22:58.880 --> 0:23:01.280 will go to the Supreme Courts that the Supreme Court 0:23:01.320 --> 0:23:05.120 will finally have to decide whether the DOCTA program under 0:23:05.200 --> 0:23:09.680 the new rule violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, either 0:23:09.840 --> 0:23:13.800 on its face because you know, you can't give work 0:23:13.840 --> 0:23:18.119 authorizations to categories of people that the statute doesn't provide, 0:23:18.920 --> 0:23:23.080 or whether it violates this new West Virginia versus e 0:23:23.160 --> 0:23:28.399 Pa doctrine, which says that even is the code basically 0:23:28.480 --> 0:23:32.040 doesn't this allow it, it doesn't for a question of 0:23:32.119 --> 0:23:36.800 this major important prompt regulation in this matter, so that 0:23:36.880 --> 0:23:40.040 you can't actually regulate in this matter because it's a 0:23:40.119 --> 0:23:43.840 question of such economic importance that Congress would have had 0:23:43.880 --> 0:23:47.400 to have given some indication that it wanted the agency 0:23:47.520 --> 0:23:51.840 to regulate in this area. Leon or any other circuit 0:23:51.880 --> 0:23:57.240 courts considering DOCTA questions. No, right now, there's nothing else 0:23:57.280 --> 0:24:00.840 going on. This is the only show in town. Because 0:24:00.880 --> 0:24:04.680 the original case that was the doctor case that went 0:24:04.840 --> 0:24:09.600