Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight an analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes at the Bloomberg Law Podcast, on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Trump Administration's
Speaker 1: focus on immigration has crowded the Supreme Court's docket with
Speaker 1: an unusually large number of immigration cases this term, more
Speaker 1: than ten percent of the courts docket. Joining me is
Speaker 1: Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter Kimberly. Last week,
Speaker 1: the Court agreed to take up another immigration case, this
Speaker 1: involving crime as well as immigration. Tell us about it well.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has taken up a number of these
Speaker 1: so called crimmigration cases. That is, cases that touch both
Speaker 1: on crime and immigration areas of the law that really
Speaker 1: intersect quite a bit. Now, the issue here is what
Speaker 1: crimes can bar these really long time non citizens from
Speaker 1: relief from deportation, And in particular, the question is where
Speaker 1: that individual was convicted under a state law that prohibits
Speaker 1: some actions that would be disqualifying for that relief and
Speaker 1: some that are not does that ambiguity preclude the immigrant
Speaker 1: from seeking relief from deportation. So tell us a little
Speaker 1: bit about this case in particular. Put in context. Well,
Speaker 1: the man here has actually been in the United States
Speaker 1: since the nineteen nineties and enter the country illegally, but
Speaker 1: has been living in the country since that time, has
Speaker 1: raised a family here, but was convicted under a Kansas
Speaker 1: law for using a fake Social Security number to get employment. Now,
Speaker 1: this is the kind of person for which relief would
Speaker 1: generally be considered from deportation, but the Kansas law does
Speaker 1: have that kind of ambiguity where it's not clear if
Speaker 1: all of the actions would disqualify them from that relief.
Speaker 1: And so the lower courts are really split on that question,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court has decided to take it up.
Speaker 1: So this is the ninth immigration case the justices are
Speaker 1: going to consider this term. How does that compare to
Speaker 1: a typical docket. Well, that's really a very immigration heavy docket.
Speaker 1: And so we've seen in past years, especially recently in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court really taking on a lot of these
Speaker 1: immigration cases just like this one that are really technical
Speaker 1: because the immigration laws are now very technical laws. But
Speaker 1: typically they take up about three to five cases. So
Speaker 1: nine cases is quite a lot, especially given the facts
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court is still adding cases to its
Speaker 1: docket this term. So we'll see how the court sorts
Speaker 1: out these issues. But it's notable just the number of
Speaker 1: immigration topics that they're tackling this here. What are the
Speaker 1: range of issues in these immigration cases. Well, they really,
Speaker 1: you know, run the gamut of immigration laws. So we
Speaker 1: have laws like this that are very technical that are
Speaker 1: going to be you know, applicable only to a few individuals,
Speaker 1: and then we have other laws that are going to
Speaker 1: be applicable in different kinds of immigration cases, and those
Speaker 1: really deal with how much courts can review lower immigration decisions.
Speaker 1: This is an issue that we've seen play out in
Speaker 1: things like the travel ban, where the Trump administration said,
Speaker 1: you know, federal courts don't have a role to play
Speaker 1: in these kinds of immigration questions. So really quite the
Speaker 1: spread of immigration cases this term is the immigration heavy
Speaker 1: docket reflective of President Trump's crackdown on immigration or change
Speaker 1: in immigration policy. Well, that probably depends on who you ask.
Speaker 1: People who are critical of the presidents say that him
Speaker 1: and his administration have really been focusing on enforcement of
Speaker 1: immigration laws and using creative ways to try and deport
Speaker 1: more people and to try to prohibit or encourage people
Speaker 1: not to try to come to the United States. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, people who are supportive of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration say that it's really the federal courts who are
Speaker 1: stepping into immigration law in a way that they shouldn't,
Speaker 1: and they really bring Congress for failing to kind of
Speaker 1: fill in some of these more technical questions and leaving
Speaker 1: courts to feel like they have to step in instead.
Speaker 1: There must be more litigation though in the immigration area,
Speaker 1: with all the rule changes and policy changes, there certainly is,
Speaker 1: and so, as I said, it's probably a matter of
Speaker 1: who you ask, but in reality it's probably a little
Speaker 1: bit true both sides. In your article, you quoted from
Speaker 1: Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in Law and Policy at
Speaker 1: the Center of Immigration Studies, and he said that immigration
Speaker 1: has always been a hot button issue, right, And you know,
Speaker 1: I think what he was referring to is the fact that,
Speaker 1: you know, these immigration cases often tend to be emotional cases,
Speaker 1: and so there's something that often are very high profile.
Speaker 1: Earlier this term, the Supreme Court heard the litigation over
Speaker 1: deferred deportation for dreamers, which again is a very emotional
Speaker 1: matter even though it is a legal question that's before
Speaker 1: the justices. But again, you know, we are seeing more
Speaker 1: immigration cases at the High Court this term. So while
Speaker 1: it's always been a big issue, this term, you know
Speaker 1: it's even bigger. How many cases, if you know, has
Speaker 1: the Solicitor General asked the Justice is to take in
Speaker 1: the immigration arena? Well, I don't have the exact numbers,
Speaker 1: but there are a number of these cases, and in fact,
Speaker 1: a number of the nine cases that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has already agreed to here have come from the Solicitor
Speaker 1: General's office. And those are really cases where the justices
Speaker 1: are more inclined to take up the case because it
Speaker 1: is a request from the federal government. Usually it involves
Speaker 1: a lower court striking down a part of an immigration
Speaker 1: law or interpreting it in a way that the federal
Speaker 1: government says it will create harm to immigration laws and
Speaker 1: to its enforcement and ultimately to national security. The data
Speaker 1: case got a lot of publicity. Which way the justices
Speaker 1: seem to be leaning in that case. Well, it's always
Speaker 1: really hazardous to try and guess what the justices are
Speaker 1: going to do, and then when you do it's always
Speaker 1: goes the other way, but at least for moral arguments
Speaker 1: than the questions that the justices asked. There it looked
Speaker 1: like a majority of the justices were going to let
Speaker 1: the Trump administration wind down the doctor program, which has
Speaker 1: deferred deportations for hundreds of thousands of Americans or immigrants
Speaker 1: who came to the United States when they were younger.
Speaker 1: So again, it's just a guess, but that was the
Speaker 1: way it would look like it was heading to. Immigration
Speaker 1: cases tend to divide the court ideologically. Well, it really
Speaker 1: depends on what kind of immigration cases you're talking about.
Speaker 1: The cases like DOCCA that involved more policy questions. Yes,
Speaker 1: they often do divide the justices along ideological lines. And
Speaker 1: you know, that really boils down to how much power
Speaker 1: the justices think that the executive should have and how
Speaker 1: much power they think that the judiciary should have. But
Speaker 1: in these more technical cases, we often see either a
Speaker 1: lot of unanimous decisions or divided opinions that don't follow
Speaker 1: along ideological lines. We've seen that a lot. Actually from
Speaker 1: Trump's first appointee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorcich, who
Speaker 1: has actually crossed over on some of these commigration issues,
Speaker 1: and ruled in flavor of immigrants with his more liberal colleagues.
Speaker 1: These nine cases and perhaps more, are they likely to
Speaker 1: have an impact on immigration law or are the issues
Speaker 1: refined well? In some cases they are very discrete issues
Speaker 1: that will probably only affect a few people. There really
Speaker 1: aren't that many people who have been living in the
Speaker 1: country for decades and decades who are then convicted under
Speaker 1: these ambiguous statues, like in the cases that I was
Speaker 1: talking about the court recently granting. But there are others
Speaker 1: that are going to have broader effects. And again, these
Speaker 1: are really cases that deal with how much courts can
Speaker 1: be involved in immigration decisions and how much they have
Speaker 1: to stay out of it and just leave it to
Speaker 1: the executive. Thanks Kimberly. That's Kimberly Strong brid Robinson, Bloomberg Law,
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Reporter. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg