WEBVTT - Immigration Heavy Docket Reflects Trump Priorities

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight an analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:20.760
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Trump Administration's

0:00:20.800 --> 0:00:24.520
<v Speaker 1>focus on immigration has crowded the Supreme Court's docket with

0:00:24.640 --> 0:00:28.640
<v Speaker 1>an unusually large number of immigration cases this term, more

0:00:28.640 --> 0:00:31.640
<v Speaker 1>than ten percent of the courts docket. Joining me is

0:00:31.720 --> 0:00:37.040
<v Speaker 1>Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly. Last week,

0:00:37.080 --> 0:00:40.440
<v Speaker 1>the Court agreed to take up another immigration case, this

0:00:40.600 --> 0:00:44.520
<v Speaker 1>involving crime as well as immigration. Tell us about it well.

0:00:44.600 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court has taken up a number of these

0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:51.040
<v Speaker 1>so called crimmigration cases. That is, cases that touch both

0:00:51.120 --> 0:00:54.160
<v Speaker 1>on crime and immigration areas of the law that really

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:57.840
<v Speaker 1>intersect quite a bit. Now, the issue here is what

0:00:58.160 --> 0:01:02.760
<v Speaker 1>crimes can bar these really long time non citizens from

0:01:03.200 --> 0:01:08.000
<v Speaker 1>relief from deportation, And in particular, the question is where

0:01:08.040 --> 0:01:12.160
<v Speaker 1>that individual was convicted under a state law that prohibits

0:01:12.200 --> 0:01:15.520
<v Speaker 1>some actions that would be disqualifying for that relief and

0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:19.720
<v Speaker 1>some that are not does that ambiguity preclude the immigrant

0:01:19.959 --> 0:01:23.200
<v Speaker 1>from seeking relief from deportation. So tell us a little

0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:26.679
<v Speaker 1>bit about this case in particular. Put in context. Well,

0:01:26.800 --> 0:01:29.760
<v Speaker 1>the man here has actually been in the United States

0:01:29.760 --> 0:01:33.800
<v Speaker 1>since the nineteen nineties and enter the country illegally, but

0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:36.640
<v Speaker 1>has been living in the country since that time, has

0:01:36.720 --> 0:01:39.800
<v Speaker 1>raised a family here, but was convicted under a Kansas

0:01:39.880 --> 0:01:44.640
<v Speaker 1>law for using a fake Social Security number to get employment. Now,

0:01:44.880 --> 0:01:47.600
<v Speaker 1>this is the kind of person for which relief would

0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:51.520
<v Speaker 1>generally be considered from deportation, but the Kansas law does

0:01:51.560 --> 0:01:54.880
<v Speaker 1>have that kind of ambiguity where it's not clear if

0:01:55.040 --> 0:01:58.200
<v Speaker 1>all of the actions would disqualify them from that relief.

0:01:58.320 --> 0:02:01.800
<v Speaker 1>And so the lower courts are really split on that question,

0:02:01.960 --> 0:02:04.160
<v Speaker 1>and the Supreme Court has decided to take it up.

0:02:04.520 --> 0:02:08.280
<v Speaker 1>So this is the ninth immigration case the justices are

0:02:08.320 --> 0:02:11.280
<v Speaker 1>going to consider this term. How does that compare to

0:02:11.400 --> 0:02:15.600
<v Speaker 1>a typical docket. Well, that's really a very immigration heavy docket.

0:02:15.639 --> 0:02:18.600
<v Speaker 1>And so we've seen in past years, especially recently in

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:20.960
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court really taking on a lot of these

0:02:21.000 --> 0:02:24.280
<v Speaker 1>immigration cases just like this one that are really technical

0:02:24.520 --> 0:02:29.200
<v Speaker 1>because the immigration laws are now very technical laws. But

0:02:29.280 --> 0:02:32.240
<v Speaker 1>typically they take up about three to five cases. So

0:02:32.720 --> 0:02:36.120
<v Speaker 1>nine cases is quite a lot, especially given the facts

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:39.120
<v Speaker 1>that the Supreme Court is still adding cases to its

0:02:39.200 --> 0:02:42.440
<v Speaker 1>docket this term. So we'll see how the court sorts

0:02:42.440 --> 0:02:45.040
<v Speaker 1>out these issues. But it's notable just the number of

0:02:45.080 --> 0:02:48.040
<v Speaker 1>immigration topics that they're tackling this here. What are the

0:02:48.160 --> 0:02:52.520
<v Speaker 1>range of issues in these immigration cases. Well, they really,

0:02:52.639 --> 0:02:55.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, run the gamut of immigration laws. So we

0:02:55.800 --> 0:02:58.080
<v Speaker 1>have laws like this that are very technical that are

0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:01.959
<v Speaker 1>going to be you know, applicable only to a few individuals,

0:03:02.000 --> 0:03:04.200
<v Speaker 1>and then we have other laws that are going to

0:03:04.280 --> 0:03:07.799
<v Speaker 1>be applicable in different kinds of immigration cases, and those

0:03:07.880 --> 0:03:13.360
<v Speaker 1>really deal with how much courts can review lower immigration decisions.

0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 1>This is an issue that we've seen play out in

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:18.720
<v Speaker 1>things like the travel ban, where the Trump administration said,

0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:21.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, federal courts don't have a role to play

0:03:21.240 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 1>in these kinds of immigration questions. So really quite the

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:28.320
<v Speaker 1>spread of immigration cases this term is the immigration heavy

0:03:28.400 --> 0:03:34.640
<v Speaker 1>docket reflective of President Trump's crackdown on immigration or change

0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:38.760
<v Speaker 1>in immigration policy. Well, that probably depends on who you ask.

0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:42.240
<v Speaker 1>People who are critical of the presidents say that him

0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:46.200
<v Speaker 1>and his administration have really been focusing on enforcement of

0:03:46.240 --> 0:03:49.960
<v Speaker 1>immigration laws and using creative ways to try and deport

0:03:50.160 --> 0:03:53.600
<v Speaker 1>more people and to try to prohibit or encourage people

0:03:53.640 --> 0:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>not to try to come to the United States. On

0:03:56.160 --> 0:03:58.240
<v Speaker 1>the other hand, people who are supportive of the Trump

0:03:58.280 --> 0:04:02.480
<v Speaker 1>administration say that it's really the federal courts who are

0:04:02.520 --> 0:04:05.400
<v Speaker 1>stepping into immigration law in a way that they shouldn't,

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:08.720
<v Speaker 1>and they really bring Congress for failing to kind of

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:11.920
<v Speaker 1>fill in some of these more technical questions and leaving

0:04:11.960 --> 0:04:14.720
<v Speaker 1>courts to feel like they have to step in instead.

0:04:15.240 --> 0:04:18.919
<v Speaker 1>There must be more litigation though in the immigration area,

0:04:19.120 --> 0:04:23.520
<v Speaker 1>with all the rule changes and policy changes, there certainly is,

0:04:23.600 --> 0:04:26.080
<v Speaker 1>and so, as I said, it's probably a matter of

0:04:26.120 --> 0:04:28.840
<v Speaker 1>who you ask, but in reality it's probably a little

0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:33.240
<v Speaker 1>bit true both sides. In your article, you quoted from

0:04:33.360 --> 0:04:36.680
<v Speaker 1>Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in Law and Policy at

0:04:36.680 --> 0:04:39.400
<v Speaker 1>the Center of Immigration Studies, and he said that immigration

0:04:39.440 --> 0:04:42.839
<v Speaker 1>has always been a hot button issue, right, And you know,

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:45.080
<v Speaker 1>I think what he was referring to is the fact that,

0:04:45.279 --> 0:04:49.440
<v Speaker 1>you know, these immigration cases often tend to be emotional cases,

0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:52.760
<v Speaker 1>and so there's something that often are very high profile.

0:04:53.080 --> 0:04:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Earlier this term, the Supreme Court heard the litigation over

0:04:57.240 --> 0:05:00.760
<v Speaker 1>deferred deportation for dreamers, which again is a very emotional

0:05:00.800 --> 0:05:03.279
<v Speaker 1>matter even though it is a legal question that's before

0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:07.000
<v Speaker 1>the justices. But again, you know, we are seeing more

0:05:07.240 --> 0:05:10.160
<v Speaker 1>immigration cases at the High Court this term. So while

0:05:10.160 --> 0:05:13.000
<v Speaker 1>it's always been a big issue, this term, you know

0:05:13.040 --> 0:05:16.920
<v Speaker 1>it's even bigger. How many cases, if you know, has

0:05:17.000 --> 0:05:20.560
<v Speaker 1>the Solicitor General asked the Justice is to take in

0:05:20.600 --> 0:05:24.160
<v Speaker 1>the immigration arena? Well, I don't have the exact numbers,

0:05:24.200 --> 0:05:27.200
<v Speaker 1>but there are a number of these cases, and in fact,

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:29.480
<v Speaker 1>a number of the nine cases that the Supreme Court

0:05:29.480 --> 0:05:32.240
<v Speaker 1>has already agreed to here have come from the Solicitor

0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:36.000
<v Speaker 1>General's office. And those are really cases where the justices

0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:39.039
<v Speaker 1>are more inclined to take up the case because it

0:05:39.160 --> 0:05:42.600
<v Speaker 1>is a request from the federal government. Usually it involves

0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:45.720
<v Speaker 1>a lower court striking down a part of an immigration

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.680
<v Speaker 1>law or interpreting it in a way that the federal

0:05:48.720 --> 0:05:52.599
<v Speaker 1>government says it will create harm to immigration laws and

0:05:52.600 --> 0:05:56.800
<v Speaker 1>to its enforcement and ultimately to national security. The data

0:05:56.839 --> 0:06:00.760
<v Speaker 1>case got a lot of publicity. Which way the justices

0:06:00.839 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 1>seem to be leaning in that case. Well, it's always

0:06:03.839 --> 0:06:06.160
<v Speaker 1>really hazardous to try and guess what the justices are

0:06:06.200 --> 0:06:08.520
<v Speaker 1>going to do, and then when you do it's always

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:11.799
<v Speaker 1>goes the other way, but at least for moral arguments

0:06:11.800 --> 0:06:14.239
<v Speaker 1>than the questions that the justices asked. There it looked

0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:17.679
<v Speaker 1>like a majority of the justices were going to let

0:06:17.920 --> 0:06:21.760
<v Speaker 1>the Trump administration wind down the doctor program, which has

0:06:21.920 --> 0:06:25.719
<v Speaker 1>deferred deportations for hundreds of thousands of Americans or immigrants

0:06:25.720 --> 0:06:28.039
<v Speaker 1>who came to the United States when they were younger.

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:30.960
<v Speaker 1>So again, it's just a guess, but that was the

0:06:30.960 --> 0:06:33.600
<v Speaker 1>way it would look like it was heading to. Immigration

0:06:33.720 --> 0:06:39.160
<v Speaker 1>cases tend to divide the court ideologically. Well, it really

0:06:39.160 --> 0:06:42.159
<v Speaker 1>depends on what kind of immigration cases you're talking about.

0:06:42.360 --> 0:06:46.159
<v Speaker 1>The cases like DOCCA that involved more policy questions. Yes,

0:06:46.200 --> 0:06:50.520
<v Speaker 1>they often do divide the justices along ideological lines. And

0:06:50.680 --> 0:06:52.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, that really boils down to how much power

0:06:53.360 --> 0:06:56.120
<v Speaker 1>the justices think that the executive should have and how

0:06:56.200 --> 0:06:58.919
<v Speaker 1>much power they think that the judiciary should have. But

0:06:58.960 --> 0:07:02.279
<v Speaker 1>in these more technical cases, we often see either a

0:07:02.320 --> 0:07:06.200
<v Speaker 1>lot of unanimous decisions or divided opinions that don't follow

0:07:06.200 --> 0:07:09.279
<v Speaker 1>along ideological lines. We've seen that a lot. Actually from

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:13.680
<v Speaker 1>Trump's first appointee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorcich, who

0:07:13.680 --> 0:07:16.720
<v Speaker 1>has actually crossed over on some of these commigration issues,

0:07:16.800 --> 0:07:20.480
<v Speaker 1>and ruled in flavor of immigrants with his more liberal colleagues.

0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:23.800
<v Speaker 1>These nine cases and perhaps more, are they likely to

0:07:23.840 --> 0:07:27.760
<v Speaker 1>have an impact on immigration law or are the issues

0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:32.240
<v Speaker 1>refined well? In some cases they are very discrete issues

0:07:32.280 --> 0:07:35.120
<v Speaker 1>that will probably only affect a few people. There really

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:37.000
<v Speaker 1>aren't that many people who have been living in the

0:07:37.000 --> 0:07:40.640
<v Speaker 1>country for decades and decades who are then convicted under

0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:43.400
<v Speaker 1>these ambiguous statues, like in the cases that I was

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:46.560
<v Speaker 1>talking about the court recently granting. But there are others

0:07:46.600 --> 0:07:49.160
<v Speaker 1>that are going to have broader effects. And again, these

0:07:49.160 --> 0:07:52.080
<v Speaker 1>are really cases that deal with how much courts can

0:07:52.160 --> 0:07:55.200
<v Speaker 1>be involved in immigration decisions and how much they have

0:07:55.280 --> 0:07:56.720
<v Speaker 1>to stay out of it and just leave it to

0:07:56.720 --> 0:08:01.680
<v Speaker 1>the executive. Thanks Kimberly. That's Kimberly Strong brid Robinson, Bloomberg Law,

0:08:01.680 --> 0:08:08.400
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court Reporter. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:08:08.760 --> 0:08:12.840
<v Speaker 1>You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:08:12.880 --> 0:08:16.800
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:08:17.280 --> 0:08:18.560
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg