1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:09,280 --> 00:00:12,200 Speaker 1: Jury selection is scheduled to begin next Monday in the 3 00:00:12,200 --> 00:00:15,880 Speaker 1: trial of the former Minneapolis police officer accused of killing 4 00:00:15,880 --> 00:00:19,720 Speaker 1: George Floyd. At the same time, the Biden administration is 5 00:00:19,720 --> 00:00:22,599 Speaker 1: backing a police reform bill in the House that would, 6 00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,840 Speaker 1: among other things, banned show coles and no knock warrants. 7 00:00:26,200 --> 00:00:30,200 Speaker 1: Its name the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. Joining 8 00:00:30,240 --> 00:00:33,280 Speaker 1: me is Jeffrey Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School, 9 00:00:33,720 --> 00:00:36,680 Speaker 1: tell us a little bit about the Act. Well, the 10 00:00:36,760 --> 00:00:40,240 Speaker 1: Act is about several things UM. One in particular is 11 00:00:40,320 --> 00:00:47,000 Speaker 1: racial profiling and UM. It specifies measures to eliminate racially policing, 12 00:00:47,080 --> 00:00:51,680 Speaker 1: particularly racially racial profiling UM and sets forth the standard 13 00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:57,640 Speaker 1: of UH disparate impact on particular populations minority populations UM 14 00:00:57,680 --> 00:01:01,040 Speaker 1: as the measure of looking in to see whether jurisdiction 15 00:01:01,160 --> 00:01:05,200 Speaker 1: is violating the prohibition on profiling UM. I think, though, 16 00:01:05,240 --> 00:01:08,000 Speaker 1: the most important things to me are the police misconduct 17 00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:11,520 Speaker 1: measures UM. Profiling is a form of misconduct with the 18 00:01:11,720 --> 00:01:16,920 Speaker 1: but the measures to try and UM identify officers who 19 00:01:16,920 --> 00:01:21,280 Speaker 1: are repeat offenders. With respect to who misconduct or excessive 20 00:01:21,319 --> 00:01:25,800 Speaker 1: force or perhaps lethal force, the creation of a registry 21 00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:30,320 Speaker 1: to monitor misconduct across the country, the de certification procedures, 22 00:01:30,360 --> 00:01:33,600 Speaker 1: which I think are extremely important to stop officers from 23 00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:35,920 Speaker 1: pinging around from one department to the other after they 24 00:01:35,920 --> 00:01:39,200 Speaker 1: get in trouble. Um data collections really is built in, 25 00:01:39,240 --> 00:01:41,240 Speaker 1: and it's quite important. We have very little in the 26 00:01:41,240 --> 00:01:44,600 Speaker 1: way of national data on the kinds of issues that 27 00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:48,800 Speaker 1: are the target of the George Floyd Act again, excessive force, 28 00:01:48,920 --> 00:01:52,640 Speaker 1: racial profiling, repeat this conduct, and z on. So I 29 00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:55,480 Speaker 1: think it's a very wide ranging act. I think it 30 00:01:55,960 --> 00:01:59,000 Speaker 1: at least at the federal level, it should have some impacts. 31 00:01:59,000 --> 00:02:01,560 Speaker 1: Now most of the issues that that they try and 32 00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:04,000 Speaker 1: get at are actually state in the city level issues 33 00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:07,520 Speaker 1: are local municipalities. So um, at the very least, it 34 00:02:07,640 --> 00:02:10,320 Speaker 1: sets this this lights of path I think for a 35 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:14,040 Speaker 1: fairly uniform response across the US with respect to improving 36 00:02:14,040 --> 00:02:18,880 Speaker 1: policing and reducing UH policing equities and the police misconduct 37 00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:23,000 Speaker 1: and ensure your accountability of police to both citizens into 38 00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:26,560 Speaker 1: their local governments. How does the Act handle racial profiling? 39 00:02:26,600 --> 00:02:30,160 Speaker 1: Because isn't sometimes racial profiling something that goes on in 40 00:02:30,200 --> 00:02:35,320 Speaker 1: the officer's head well, you know, it's at the individual level. 41 00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:37,240 Speaker 1: It's you could say that, yeah, it doesn't go on 42 00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:40,240 Speaker 1: in the officer's head. He could perceive where she could 43 00:02:40,280 --> 00:02:44,920 Speaker 1: perceive that a particularly individual is dangerous or up to 44 00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:49,560 Speaker 1: some kind of criminal activity. That's based on perception, and 45 00:02:49,600 --> 00:02:52,640 Speaker 1: those perceptions can be biased, and I think that's one 46 00:02:52,680 --> 00:02:55,040 Speaker 1: of the issues that they try and get at UM. 47 00:02:55,160 --> 00:02:58,240 Speaker 1: I think though, when you think about UM, the way 48 00:02:58,320 --> 00:03:02,760 Speaker 1: the language is set forth in UM Section three one 49 00:03:02,800 --> 00:03:05,880 Speaker 1: two of the Act, they talk about really a pattern, 50 00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:10,400 Speaker 1: and they talk about activities of law enforcement agents and 51 00:03:10,400 --> 00:03:14,520 Speaker 1: a jurisdiction that have had a disparate impact on individuals 52 00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:17,080 Speaker 1: with a particular characteristic, and the characteristic is a racial 53 00:03:17,160 --> 00:03:22,400 Speaker 1: razor gender, but particularly recent ethnicity. So implicitly they're arguing 54 00:03:22,440 --> 00:03:24,760 Speaker 1: for a pattern and practice model, which means some kind 55 00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:28,720 Speaker 1: of statistical analysis overall of the actions of police officers 56 00:03:28,720 --> 00:03:32,200 Speaker 1: with respect to the citizens. Now I've done that. I 57 00:03:32,360 --> 00:03:35,600 Speaker 1: was participately in the David Floyd trial in New York 58 00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:38,680 Speaker 1: on stopping frisk um, and I've been involved in other 59 00:03:38,920 --> 00:03:44,680 Speaker 1: UM racial selective we call selective enforcement cases. And it's 60 00:03:44,720 --> 00:03:47,760 Speaker 1: hard to prove. There's two issues here. One is disparate impact, 61 00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:52,360 Speaker 1: which is a different standard than for example, selective enforcement 62 00:03:52,480 --> 00:03:56,200 Speaker 1: or disparate treatment. And I think there'll be a little 63 00:03:56,200 --> 00:04:01,440 Speaker 1: bit of m conscientiousness in when there are efforts to 64 00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:05,160 Speaker 1: prove disparate impact. It's proven to be in the empirical 65 00:04:05,200 --> 00:04:07,560 Speaker 1: literature by police scholars to be kind of hard to 66 00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:09,680 Speaker 1: pin down. It's one of those things where I think 67 00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:12,760 Speaker 1: everybody knows it's there, but to to say it and 68 00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:16,560 Speaker 1: to find that race UH, net of all other factors 69 00:04:16,640 --> 00:04:20,120 Speaker 1: is driving the patterns that are observed, that's tricky. We 70 00:04:20,240 --> 00:04:23,159 Speaker 1: all may be may sense it. It may be the 71 00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:25,520 Speaker 1: only logical explanation. I think that was one of the 72 00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:28,600 Speaker 1: conclusions we reached in New York. Apart from the statistical conclusion. 73 00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:30,160 Speaker 1: We said, well, if it's not race, what else could 74 00:04:30,200 --> 00:04:34,320 Speaker 1: it be? And I think that the access to the 75 00:04:34,400 --> 00:04:39,440 Speaker 1: standard that UH will lead to some contentious um fights 76 00:04:39,560 --> 00:04:42,880 Speaker 1: once we get to litigation and allegations of violation to 77 00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:46,000 Speaker 1: the Act. Having said all that, I think that the 78 00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:50,640 Speaker 1: acts of a baseline that would lead to I think 79 00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:54,480 Speaker 1: rigorous and and and sweeping empirical research to show and 80 00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:58,120 Speaker 1: identify the patterns and local jurisdictions as well as across 81 00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:04,279 Speaker 1: the federal agencies mentioned sort of tracking police officers to 82 00:05:04,440 --> 00:05:08,800 Speaker 1: see if they repeat conduct. I don't think they they 83 00:05:09,080 --> 00:05:12,960 Speaker 1: I don't think they Act specifies tracking particular officers. I 84 00:05:12,960 --> 00:05:17,719 Speaker 1: think the Act specifies recording incidents of misconduct by officers, 85 00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:23,520 Speaker 1: and then jurisdictions can identify within the data which officers 86 00:05:23,600 --> 00:05:27,880 Speaker 1: are engaging in misconduct repeatedly and which officers may only 87 00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:33,359 Speaker 1: be doing it incidentally, and then ideally the data collection system, 88 00:05:33,400 --> 00:05:35,320 Speaker 1: the archive, would be able to look at the responses 89 00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:37,400 Speaker 1: to those by particular departments to see if they're being 90 00:05:37,400 --> 00:05:40,960 Speaker 1: held accountable. I don't think it's a system to register 91 00:05:41,160 --> 00:05:45,360 Speaker 1: all police and follow their their uh their behavior over 92 00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:47,799 Speaker 1: time and record their misconduct. I think it's an incident 93 00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:51,240 Speaker 1: based system to look at particular incidents to see if 94 00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:54,839 Speaker 1: there are patterns in there. So my question is don't 95 00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:59,440 Speaker 1: police departments across the country already keep track of those officers. 96 00:06:00,560 --> 00:06:05,400 Speaker 1: It's wildly uneven um and for for several reasons. One 97 00:06:05,480 --> 00:06:07,400 Speaker 1: is just simply the preference of the police departments to 98 00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:11,400 Speaker 1: invest their resources in keeping track of officer misconduct to 99 00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:15,560 Speaker 1: a lot of misconduct depends on reporting by civilians to 100 00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:19,880 Speaker 1: either directly that the police are to a civilian oversight board, 101 00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:24,279 Speaker 1: and um uh, some civilians may not want to report. 102 00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:27,000 Speaker 1: I think there's a legitimate fear of retaliation by police 103 00:06:27,000 --> 00:06:29,839 Speaker 1: officers if somebody reports an officer for having engaged in 104 00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:35,680 Speaker 1: excessive forests or or abusive language, or false arrested and 105 00:06:36,000 --> 00:06:40,640 Speaker 1: things like that. So, um, there's a good interesting example 106 00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:43,440 Speaker 1: in Chicago. The police department in Chicago does receive complaints. 107 00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:47,000 Speaker 1: They record a fairly large volume of complaints. But there's 108 00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:50,360 Speaker 1: also a private organization called the Invisible Institute, and they 109 00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:55,440 Speaker 1: received complaints as well. And the private organization Invisible Institute, 110 00:06:55,440 --> 00:06:58,320 Speaker 1: they received nearly twice as many complaints by civilians about 111 00:06:58,360 --> 00:07:01,360 Speaker 1: misconduct by the Chicago Police as do the Chicago Police. 112 00:07:02,320 --> 00:07:04,760 Speaker 1: So I think that tells us something about the sensitivity 113 00:07:04,800 --> 00:07:08,680 Speaker 1: of these archives to willingness of citizens to report to 114 00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:12,080 Speaker 1: an agency that they may have some distrust towards. When 115 00:07:12,120 --> 00:07:16,720 Speaker 1: you look at news articles on this act, the first 116 00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:20,000 Speaker 1: thing you see is that it bans all chokeholds. Are 117 00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:24,280 Speaker 1: there still police stations around the country where choke holds 118 00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:28,200 Speaker 1: are allowed. There's a few they allow chokeholds under particular 119 00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:31,920 Speaker 1: circumstances what they call exiting circumstances, but for the most 120 00:07:31,960 --> 00:07:36,080 Speaker 1: part they're banned. Now the bands um are of question 121 00:07:36,120 --> 00:07:40,480 Speaker 1: will affectiveness and UM. If an officer violated the ban 122 00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:43,920 Speaker 1: in a particular department, whether that officer is sanctioned for 123 00:07:44,120 --> 00:07:46,920 Speaker 1: violating the band depends very much on the discipline systems 124 00:07:46,920 --> 00:07:50,200 Speaker 1: in place in that department, and often the departments will 125 00:07:50,240 --> 00:07:53,000 Speaker 1: look at the particular circumstances in which the officer used 126 00:07:53,000 --> 00:07:56,239 Speaker 1: the chokehold and decide, well, perhaps that officer really didn't 127 00:07:56,240 --> 00:08:00,000 Speaker 1: have a choice. Now, that's hard to prove one more 128 00:08:00,080 --> 00:08:03,240 Speaker 1: or the other, um, but in general I think officers 129 00:08:03,240 --> 00:08:05,080 Speaker 1: do have a choice. There are many ways to simping 130 00:08:05,160 --> 00:08:08,720 Speaker 1: with aspect other than risking their life by cutting off 131 00:08:08,760 --> 00:08:13,160 Speaker 1: their oxygen supply. So um, it's it's a The ban 132 00:08:13,320 --> 00:08:17,640 Speaker 1: is is well stated. I think it has strong expressive 133 00:08:17,720 --> 00:08:22,400 Speaker 1: value to condemn a particular police tactic. Um. Its enforceability 134 00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:25,400 Speaker 1: will vary from place to place, depending on the the 135 00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:29,560 Speaker 1: urgency that police leadership feels towards this and their willingness 136 00:08:29,600 --> 00:08:34,240 Speaker 1: to make their officers angry by curtailing their activities. So 137 00:08:34,280 --> 00:08:37,560 Speaker 1: there's again, many of these provisions are complicated by the 138 00:08:37,600 --> 00:08:40,679 Speaker 1: realities of policing, but they're all pointing in the right 139 00:08:40,720 --> 00:08:46,200 Speaker 1: direction to increase accountability. Does the Act just stop all 140 00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:50,199 Speaker 1: no knock warrants? I believe the intent is to ban 141 00:08:50,679 --> 00:08:53,880 Speaker 1: all no knock warrants. Are there certain instances where no 142 00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:57,280 Speaker 1: knock warrant is needed? You know, it's an interesting question, 143 00:08:57,360 --> 00:09:00,520 Speaker 1: and I think, well, let's put it this way. It 144 00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:03,280 Speaker 1: does band no knock warrants. I would guess that that 145 00:09:03,520 --> 00:09:09,320 Speaker 1: somewhere uh north of se perhaps closer to eight of 146 00:09:09,600 --> 00:09:13,280 Speaker 1: warrants can be served without a no knock provision. Um, 147 00:09:13,320 --> 00:09:15,960 Speaker 1: it's possible that it could be as high as as 148 00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:20,920 Speaker 1: as ninety five or ninety eight or UM. We don't 149 00:09:20,920 --> 00:09:26,360 Speaker 1: have enough research on this question to answer um your 150 00:09:26,440 --> 00:09:28,640 Speaker 1: question and the criticisms of police that you do need 151 00:09:28,679 --> 00:09:31,680 Speaker 1: to keep that possibility. And again it's one of the 152 00:09:31,720 --> 00:09:35,720 Speaker 1: things that that has strong expressive value. But UM, I 153 00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:37,600 Speaker 1: think we need This is an area where we really 154 00:09:37,600 --> 00:09:41,160 Speaker 1: need some research to say to say just how far 155 00:09:41,160 --> 00:09:46,240 Speaker 1: should the band go so qualified immunity just explain what 156 00:09:46,400 --> 00:09:52,600 Speaker 1: qualified immunity is and what this bill would provide. According 157 00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:54,600 Speaker 1: to the Act, very little of it will survive as 158 00:09:54,640 --> 00:10:00,960 Speaker 1: any qualified immunity essentially is UM relieves officers of liability 159 00:10:01,360 --> 00:10:07,120 Speaker 1: for having engaged in um misconduct as simple as that, 160 00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:11,200 Speaker 1: if they engage in excessive force, if they engage in 161 00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:17,040 Speaker 1: false arrest, if they engage in some kind of racial 162 00:10:17,120 --> 00:10:20,560 Speaker 1: profiling for example, that leads to some harm when an 163 00:10:20,600 --> 00:10:23,840 Speaker 1: officer is found, When an officer is found who have 164 00:10:23,960 --> 00:10:27,840 Speaker 1: violated the law, whether civil or criminal, they are quality 165 00:10:28,000 --> 00:10:32,080 Speaker 1: the qualified and meanoring and provisions reliefs of any responsibility 166 00:10:32,120 --> 00:10:34,120 Speaker 1: for the acts that they took, that they engaged in, 167 00:10:34,800 --> 00:10:38,800 Speaker 1: and that includes relief of monetary damages and in some 168 00:10:38,880 --> 00:10:44,360 Speaker 1: instances relief from criminal prosecution. So this would eliminate qualified immunity, 169 00:10:44,880 --> 00:10:46,720 Speaker 1: that's right, It would hold officers feet to the fire. 170 00:10:47,160 --> 00:10:49,959 Speaker 1: This is a federal federal bill, so I mean, how 171 00:10:50,080 --> 00:10:54,800 Speaker 1: much of this will be enforceable at the state level. Well, 172 00:10:54,920 --> 00:10:57,240 Speaker 1: this is an interesting question because some states have their 173 00:10:57,280 --> 00:11:01,960 Speaker 1: own statutes and qualified immunity and there didn't UM. Not surprisingly, 174 00:11:02,000 --> 00:11:04,280 Speaker 1: a number of court cases on qualified immunity in the 175 00:11:04,360 --> 00:11:07,520 Speaker 1: last couple of years, and there's a very very strong, 176 00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:13,000 Speaker 1: well thought out appellate court opinions on this with respect 177 00:11:13,000 --> 00:11:16,640 Speaker 1: to the actions of individual officers. But but there most 178 00:11:16,640 --> 00:11:20,200 Speaker 1: of those cases involve allegations of violations of federal law. 179 00:11:21,080 --> 00:11:24,000 Speaker 1: If there's a case which involves violation of state law, 180 00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:26,880 Speaker 1: that's going to lead to a different um possibly different 181 00:11:27,080 --> 00:11:30,080 Speaker 1: uh standard in the courts to determine where they're qualified 182 00:11:30,120 --> 00:11:32,679 Speaker 1: immunity applies. It depends on how the state statutes wriated. 183 00:11:33,559 --> 00:11:36,360 Speaker 1: But there is federal case law that that's that sustains 184 00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:39,280 Speaker 1: qualified immunity depending on the depending on the statute in 185 00:11:39,280 --> 00:11:41,480 Speaker 1: the circumstances. To give an example, you know, we don't 186 00:11:41,480 --> 00:11:43,320 Speaker 1: we don't really know the parameter that the courts haven't 187 00:11:43,320 --> 00:11:45,440 Speaker 1: really settled on the parameters of it. There was just 188 00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:48,079 Speaker 1: a case in um I believe was in Texas of 189 00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:53,120 Speaker 1: a negligent correctional officer who allowed a person to suffer 190 00:11:54,559 --> 00:11:57,760 Speaker 1: illness um and um some beatings at the hands of 191 00:11:58,120 --> 00:12:03,360 Speaker 1: garden inmates um in well confined, and the courts, the 192 00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:08,880 Speaker 1: lower courts there's um found um the officer gave the 193 00:12:08,880 --> 00:12:12,079 Speaker 1: officer to qualified immunity for any damages. The appellate court 194 00:12:12,800 --> 00:12:19,600 Speaker 1: didn't and um uh they were going to They essentially 195 00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:22,439 Speaker 1: they said there are limits to qualified immunity. And it 196 00:12:22,559 --> 00:12:25,000 Speaker 1: was an interesting opinion in the courts, but it did 197 00:12:25,000 --> 00:12:27,160 Speaker 1: say that you know, there are boundaries on it. The 198 00:12:27,160 --> 00:12:29,760 Speaker 1: boundaries are a little bit porous, and the boundaries are 199 00:12:29,800 --> 00:12:33,760 Speaker 1: really hard to see as a clear um categorical line, 200 00:12:35,000 --> 00:12:36,880 Speaker 1: but there are boundaries on it. But for the most part, 201 00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:38,319 Speaker 1: I think this is going to make it much more 202 00:12:38,320 --> 00:12:41,040 Speaker 1: difficult for officers to claim qualified immunity for the courts 203 00:12:41,040 --> 00:12:43,480 Speaker 1: they granted to them and as far as the rest 204 00:12:43,480 --> 00:12:45,800 Speaker 1: of the act. So if it passes, it would be 205 00:12:45,840 --> 00:12:50,400 Speaker 1: against federal law to let's say, use a choke cold, 206 00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:52,719 Speaker 1: so the officer would have to be charged in the 207 00:12:52,800 --> 00:12:56,160 Speaker 1: federal court. That would put the federal government in in 208 00:12:56,240 --> 00:12:59,680 Speaker 1: the position of doing a lot of policing of the police. 209 00:13:01,120 --> 00:13:02,800 Speaker 1: Well I do would now, I mean the Department of 210 00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:07,400 Speaker 1: Justice has mechanisms by which they can order police departments, um, 211 00:13:07,440 --> 00:13:12,000 Speaker 1: following a civil rights investigation to undertake particular activities to 212 00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:16,080 Speaker 1: remedy acts of civil rights violations. Music call consent degrees. 213 00:13:16,120 --> 00:13:18,839 Speaker 1: In there, they were dormant for the most part unto 214 00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:24,840 Speaker 1: the Trunk administration. They were fairly common um under the 215 00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:29,640 Speaker 1: Obama administration. Um less so under the Bush administration, but 216 00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:32,560 Speaker 1: but probably more so than any other administration during the 217 00:13:32,559 --> 00:13:37,280 Speaker 1: Obama years. And I'm quite sure that given the nominees 218 00:13:37,320 --> 00:13:41,520 Speaker 1: for UM Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, this this 219 00:13:41,920 --> 00:13:43,880 Speaker 1: activity will be revived. So I think there is a 220 00:13:43,920 --> 00:13:47,080 Speaker 1: mechanism that is going to be reinvigorated, strengthened in the 221 00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:49,800 Speaker 1: Justice Department to pursue these kinds of investigations. So, yes, 222 00:13:49,840 --> 00:13:53,240 Speaker 1: there is some elements, there's some aspects of of federal 223 00:13:53,240 --> 00:13:56,439 Speaker 1: oversecon police departments, and they will be I think expanded 224 00:13:56,440 --> 00:13:58,840 Speaker 1: somewhat under these They would be expanded with or without 225 00:13:58,880 --> 00:14:01,160 Speaker 1: the George Floyd Act, make me clear about that. But 226 00:14:01,160 --> 00:14:03,760 Speaker 1: the George Flight Act gives kind of a foundation and 227 00:14:03,840 --> 00:14:09,599 Speaker 1: a sort of a normative or political political rationale to 228 00:14:10,960 --> 00:14:15,240 Speaker 1: more aggressively overseeing the police activity. A version of the 229 00:14:15,280 --> 00:14:20,320 Speaker 1: bill passed the House last year along partisan lines, but 230 00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:23,280 Speaker 1: it went nowhere in the Senate, which was then controlled 231 00:14:23,320 --> 00:14:26,360 Speaker 1: by Republicans. What do you think it's chances are in 232 00:14:26,400 --> 00:14:29,680 Speaker 1: the Senate this time around. Well, I think we can 233 00:14:29,720 --> 00:14:32,520 Speaker 1: probably count noses in this case, and I my guess 234 00:14:32,560 --> 00:14:34,760 Speaker 1: is that for the most part, there may be some 235 00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,080 Speaker 1: tinkering with the act in the Senate version of the Act, 236 00:14:39,280 --> 00:14:42,600 Speaker 1: and that tinkering would be around the margins of police accountability, 237 00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:48,560 Speaker 1: and it might lead to some concessions by some Democratic senators. 238 00:14:48,600 --> 00:14:52,560 Speaker 1: I can imagine Senator Mansion, for example, coming from a 239 00:14:52,600 --> 00:15:00,080 Speaker 1: more conservative state, perhaps Senator Cinema from from Arizona me 240 00:15:00,160 --> 00:15:03,200 Speaker 1: from a more conservative state, having a few qualms about 241 00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:05,480 Speaker 1: certain provisions of the bill. So there might be some 242 00:15:05,560 --> 00:15:08,880 Speaker 1: figuring around the markets. But I think the main thrust 243 00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:12,800 Speaker 1: of the legislation will pass. Now that's a prediction, and 244 00:15:12,840 --> 00:15:16,520 Speaker 1: I'm very bad. I'm a very bad gambler. We appreciate 245 00:15:16,560 --> 00:15:19,400 Speaker 1: the prediction anyway, Thanks so much for being on the show. 246 00:15:19,800 --> 00:15:24,560 Speaker 1: That's Professor Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia Law School. A federal 247 00:15:24,640 --> 00:15:28,760 Speaker 1: judge in Texas extended in order blocking President Joe Biden's 248 00:15:28,800 --> 00:15:33,600 Speaker 1: plan to hall deportations of undocumented immigrants for one hundred days. 249 00:15:33,920 --> 00:15:38,360 Speaker 1: Federal Judge Drew Tipton, a Trump appointee, granted Texas's motion 250 00:15:38,440 --> 00:15:42,000 Speaker 1: for an injunction blocking the plan freeze on removals until 251 00:15:42,040 --> 00:15:45,240 Speaker 1: the case is resolved, which could take months or even years. 252 00:15:45,480 --> 00:15:48,160 Speaker 1: Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. 253 00:15:48,480 --> 00:15:52,200 Speaker 1: Leon the judge road a one five page order. What 254 00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:55,360 Speaker 1: was his reasoning here? Well, in the end, what this 255 00:15:55,440 --> 00:16:01,320 Speaker 1: judge was saying, is that, just like other programmatic changes 256 00:16:01,400 --> 00:16:04,040 Speaker 1: that have occurred that have been enjoyed by the courts, 257 00:16:04,360 --> 00:16:08,120 Speaker 1: that here this memo that was then by the Biden 258 00:16:08,200 --> 00:16:12,680 Speaker 1: administration that was specifically instructing I not to engage in 259 00:16:12,800 --> 00:16:16,240 Speaker 1: certain removal operations in order to remove people from the 260 00:16:16,280 --> 00:16:19,600 Speaker 1: United States was a programmatic change that needed to occur 261 00:16:19,760 --> 00:16:23,840 Speaker 1: to the notice and comment process, and so violated the 262 00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:27,040 Speaker 1: I and A. And also that it violated different agreements 263 00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:30,400 Speaker 1: that have been in place with different states about how 264 00:16:30,520 --> 00:16:34,800 Speaker 1: the enforcement of immigration law could occur, and also violated 265 00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:39,440 Speaker 1: the requirements that the president actually enforced the laws. And 266 00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:45,480 Speaker 1: so with all of those results, the court enjoined this memorandum, 267 00:16:45,520 --> 00:16:48,640 Speaker 1: which actually has some cookie results, but in the end 268 00:16:49,160 --> 00:16:53,960 Speaker 1: just says that this memorandum itself can actually be enforced. 269 00:16:54,160 --> 00:16:58,080 Speaker 1: So not going through the comment procedures is something that 270 00:16:58,240 --> 00:17:01,640 Speaker 1: was often used against the Trump administration. So is this 271 00:17:01,720 --> 00:17:04,720 Speaker 1: judge using the same kind of reasoning here? The doctor 272 00:17:04,760 --> 00:17:07,960 Speaker 1: in itself upon which the decision was based upon is 273 00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:10,640 Speaker 1: the typical doctor that you would use to overturn one 274 00:17:10,640 --> 00:17:14,320 Speaker 1: of these prigot edge of the memorandum. The key here, however, 275 00:17:14,920 --> 00:17:18,000 Speaker 1: is that in the end, this is a memorandum about 276 00:17:18,080 --> 00:17:22,200 Speaker 1: how the president is going to enforce immigration law. And 277 00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:26,800 Speaker 1: so even if this particular memo is stricken, it doesn't 278 00:17:26,880 --> 00:17:30,200 Speaker 1: really change the fact that on a case by case basis, 279 00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:35,280 Speaker 1: ICE can't be forced to deport specific people. There's no 280 00:17:35,400 --> 00:17:37,399 Speaker 1: lawsuits that anybody is going to be able to file. 281 00:17:37,520 --> 00:17:40,800 Speaker 1: It's going to say you must import every single person 282 00:17:40,880 --> 00:17:45,320 Speaker 1: you encounter. That's the president's discretion. That's literally in the 283 00:17:45,400 --> 00:17:48,919 Speaker 1: statutes that nobody can do to take away that discretion. 284 00:17:49,200 --> 00:17:52,480 Speaker 1: And so all this does is just eliminate the memo 285 00:17:53,240 --> 00:17:57,800 Speaker 1: as a basis for governing how this ICE discretionary process works, 286 00:17:58,000 --> 00:18:01,159 Speaker 1: which is why the Biden administrations of siquickly issued another 287 00:18:01,200 --> 00:18:04,960 Speaker 1: memo had said if you're going to engage in operations 288 00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:07,920 Speaker 1: against people other than serious criminals, you have to get 289 00:18:08,040 --> 00:18:13,600 Speaker 1: many layers of approval, which basically procedurally accomplishes the same 290 00:18:13,640 --> 00:18:18,520 Speaker 1: objective as saying don't remove people. The Texas A g 291 00:18:19,000 --> 00:18:24,720 Speaker 1: was tweeting victory, etcetera. So the victory maybe the legal victory, 292 00:18:24,800 --> 00:18:29,280 Speaker 1: but on the ground it doesn't make that much difference. Correct, 293 00:18:29,400 --> 00:18:32,800 Speaker 1: It's a victory in paper only, but not in substance. 294 00:18:32,920 --> 00:18:37,639 Speaker 1: Because the paper itself, the memo itself is gone, so 295 00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:40,159 Speaker 1: that no one can site to that memo as a 296 00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:44,720 Speaker 1: basis for why a removal shouldn't occur. But if an 297 00:18:44,760 --> 00:18:47,680 Speaker 1: ICE agent has to go through many layers of review 298 00:18:47,760 --> 00:18:50,920 Speaker 1: in order to engage in an ICE operation, what will 299 00:18:50,960 --> 00:18:55,680 Speaker 1: inevitably occur is that those context that the memo does 300 00:18:55,760 --> 00:18:59,840 Speaker 1: permit or doesn't permit for removal will be inculcated in 301 00:18:59,840 --> 00:19:02,880 Speaker 1: the agency such that whatever somebody tries to go through 302 00:19:02,920 --> 00:19:05,639 Speaker 1: those layers of review, they will be told this is 303 00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:09,960 Speaker 1: not an acceptable operation for a removal and that goal 304 00:19:10,000 --> 00:19:13,040 Speaker 1: will have been accomplished in the same manner. So that 305 00:19:13,119 --> 00:19:16,520 Speaker 1: may be the reason why the Biden administration hasn't said 306 00:19:16,560 --> 00:19:19,840 Speaker 1: that they're going to appeal this decision to the Fifth Circuit. 307 00:19:20,960 --> 00:19:24,240 Speaker 1: Right in the end, it's really much to do about nothing, 308 00:19:24,920 --> 00:19:31,800 Speaker 1: because if you are organizing a prosecutorial discretion regime, that 309 00:19:31,960 --> 00:19:34,600 Speaker 1: regime can be done without needing a memo like this. 310 00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:37,960 Speaker 1: The point of what memo was because on day one 311 00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:41,920 Speaker 1: of the Biden administration, you needed a very broad memo 312 00:19:42,040 --> 00:19:45,680 Speaker 1: like that which essentially said don't support anyone because there 313 00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:50,440 Speaker 1: was no one there at these agencies. Yet he inculcate 314 00:19:50,600 --> 00:19:54,639 Speaker 1: the officers about what the new enforcement priorities were. Now, 315 00:19:54,680 --> 00:19:58,359 Speaker 1: people are slowly being installed. Alle Majorchis has been confirmed 316 00:19:58,400 --> 00:20:02,000 Speaker 1: as the DHS secretary. There are political appointments that are 317 00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:05,400 Speaker 1: moving into these agencies that do not require cetic conformation, 318 00:20:06,000 --> 00:20:10,359 Speaker 1: and those individuals can begin to say to the people, 319 00:20:10,400 --> 00:20:13,760 Speaker 1: and I here are our priorities, and so you should 320 00:20:13,800 --> 00:20:16,560 Speaker 1: not approve a removal as this or this or this, 321 00:20:17,200 --> 00:20:20,560 Speaker 1: and that doesn't need a memo that says don't enforce 322 00:20:20,640 --> 00:20:22,840 Speaker 1: the immigration law, which was sort of the day one 323 00:20:22,880 --> 00:20:26,200 Speaker 1: memo just to stop any removals that were imminent at 324 00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:29,679 Speaker 1: that time. And the judges opinion didn't touch on the 325 00:20:29,720 --> 00:20:34,840 Speaker 1: agreement that the Trump administration made with Texas and some 326 00:20:35,000 --> 00:20:39,239 Speaker 1: other states. Well, in the end, the agreements were not 327 00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:44,600 Speaker 1: necessary to invalidate this decision because what was ultimately necessary 328 00:20:44,760 --> 00:20:47,560 Speaker 1: was just this issue that this was a programmatic change 329 00:20:47,600 --> 00:20:50,720 Speaker 1: that needed to go through the formal rulemaking process, that 330 00:20:50,800 --> 00:20:54,600 Speaker 1: it was going to be implemented. And they don't in 331 00:20:54,640 --> 00:20:58,360 Speaker 1: the end half standings to say that the federal government 332 00:20:58,400 --> 00:21:01,720 Speaker 1: should deport at person that just is not a thing 333 00:21:01,920 --> 00:21:06,000 Speaker 1: in the US law. And so from that perspective, that 334 00:21:06,160 --> 00:21:08,359 Speaker 1: wasn't something that was going to be able to survive 335 00:21:08,760 --> 00:21:11,800 Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit or Supreme Court review. And so that's 336 00:21:11,800 --> 00:21:14,640 Speaker 1: why I think you don't see the imphasis there. Lean 337 00:21:14,760 --> 00:21:18,640 Speaker 1: you said that the judge's action will have some cookie results. 338 00:21:19,160 --> 00:21:23,320 Speaker 1: Tell us about them. There results in some very unique consequences, 339 00:21:23,320 --> 00:21:26,280 Speaker 1: which is just that this memo itself can't be imforced. 340 00:21:26,960 --> 00:21:32,159 Speaker 1: So you can't say to people, don't deport anyone they 341 00:21:32,240 --> 00:21:35,600 Speaker 1: on the basis of this memo. But there's nothing about 342 00:21:35,720 --> 00:21:38,679 Speaker 1: this case being victorious for the State of Texas that 343 00:21:38,840 --> 00:21:41,679 Speaker 1: is likely to lead to even a single additional person 344 00:21:41,760 --> 00:21:46,120 Speaker 1: being removed or maintained, because the processes that the agency 345 00:21:46,119 --> 00:21:49,639 Speaker 1: has put in place now have made it clear that 346 00:21:50,280 --> 00:21:53,320 Speaker 1: here are the kinds of approval you need in order 347 00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:57,200 Speaker 1: to begin a removal action or to finalize the removal action, 348 00:21:57,720 --> 00:22:02,280 Speaker 1: and when those approve sources are procured, you're not going 349 00:22:02,320 --> 00:22:05,879 Speaker 1: to get that approval unless it's a serious criminal or 350 00:22:06,040 --> 00:22:09,600 Speaker 1: national security case. Let's turn to what's happening now. Because 351 00:22:09,960 --> 00:22:13,280 Speaker 1: there are ports that there have been thousands of unaccompanied 352 00:22:13,480 --> 00:22:19,000 Speaker 1: miners coming through the border. Border patrol agents are apprehending 353 00:22:19,040 --> 00:22:21,560 Speaker 1: an average of more than two hundred children crossing the 354 00:22:21,600 --> 00:22:26,280 Speaker 1: border without a parent every day, but nearly all beds 355 00:22:26,280 --> 00:22:29,040 Speaker 1: for immigrant children maintained by the Department of Health and 356 00:22:29,119 --> 00:22:32,479 Speaker 1: Human Services are full. So what's happening at the border. 357 00:22:33,240 --> 00:22:35,760 Speaker 1: So there are multiple issues that are happening at the 358 00:22:35,760 --> 00:22:39,080 Speaker 1: southern border. One is with regard to asylum speakers, and 359 00:22:39,160 --> 00:22:43,840 Speaker 1: one is with regard to unaccompanied children. So for unaccompanied children, 360 00:22:43,960 --> 00:22:46,800 Speaker 1: the Trump administration, at the final days of the Trump 361 00:22:46,840 --> 00:22:51,400 Speaker 1: administration have actually won a decision that said that what's 362 00:22:51,440 --> 00:22:54,359 Speaker 1: called Title forty two of the Code, which is the 363 00:22:54,400 --> 00:22:58,280 Speaker 1: code having to do with the CDC and disease exclusion, 364 00:22:58,840 --> 00:23:03,960 Speaker 1: permitted the Trump administration to exclude young people on a 365 00:23:04,040 --> 00:23:08,240 Speaker 1: companied miners from the United States because of COVID and 366 00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:12,040 Speaker 1: the COVID crisis. The Biden administration decided that it would 367 00:23:12,119 --> 00:23:15,639 Speaker 1: not use this COVID authority to exclude on a company 368 00:23:15,720 --> 00:23:20,000 Speaker 1: miners and would instead process on accompany miners the way 369 00:23:20,080 --> 00:23:24,000 Speaker 1: they had traditionally been processed under the Flora Settlement Agreement, 370 00:23:24,000 --> 00:23:26,720 Speaker 1: which is that an unaccompanied minor gets to come into 371 00:23:26,760 --> 00:23:30,159 Speaker 1: the United States and make a claim for either asylum 372 00:23:30,240 --> 00:23:34,680 Speaker 1: relief or trafficking relief or what is called special immigrants 373 00:23:34,720 --> 00:23:39,240 Speaker 1: juvenile static. The complication is that when on a company 374 00:23:39,280 --> 00:23:42,040 Speaker 1: miner comes into the United States, they need to be 375 00:23:42,119 --> 00:23:44,719 Speaker 1: housed in a shelter that is run by the Office 376 00:23:44,760 --> 00:23:48,600 Speaker 1: of Refugee Resettlement until the Office of Refugee Resettlement can 377 00:23:48,640 --> 00:23:51,840 Speaker 1: determine that the adult that something to pick up that 378 00:23:52,000 --> 00:23:56,879 Speaker 1: minor isn't some human trafficker or smuggler or terrible individual, 379 00:23:56,960 --> 00:24:00,159 Speaker 1: but it is instead a committed scare stags. And so 380 00:24:00,359 --> 00:24:04,840 Speaker 1: the facilities that are usually over expended for this purpose 381 00:24:05,200 --> 00:24:08,280 Speaker 1: here not only are overexpended, but haves to be out 382 00:24:08,320 --> 00:24:12,680 Speaker 1: about capacity due to the COVID prices. And so this 383 00:24:12,720 --> 00:24:15,280 Speaker 1: is why you're seeing all of these new facilities opening up, 384 00:24:15,320 --> 00:24:19,080 Speaker 1: including this one in Carrizo Springs, Texas, is because they're 385 00:24:19,119 --> 00:24:23,600 Speaker 1: gonna need to be increased capacity if the unaccompanied miners 386 00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:25,720 Speaker 1: are actually going to be allowed into the United States 387 00:24:25,760 --> 00:24:31,160 Speaker 1: as opposed to be excluded using the CDC COVID Exclusion Authority. 388 00:24:31,640 --> 00:24:35,320 Speaker 1: So are more people coming in since since Biden has 389 00:24:35,359 --> 00:24:40,160 Speaker 1: been president, So the numbers are on an uptick. They're 390 00:24:40,200 --> 00:24:43,040 Speaker 1: not yet at the crisis levels that we've seen in 391 00:24:43,080 --> 00:24:46,359 Speaker 1: the past, but there is some concerns that the Department 392 00:24:46,359 --> 00:24:49,400 Speaker 1: of home brand security of citing that those numbers by 393 00:24:49,440 --> 00:24:53,240 Speaker 1: May or June could get up to those levels. And 394 00:24:53,280 --> 00:24:55,480 Speaker 1: the question is, if they get up to those levels, 395 00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:59,119 Speaker 1: will the Biden administration change course and use this title 396 00:24:59,240 --> 00:25:02,359 Speaker 1: forty to afford ready again to exclude people from the 397 00:25:02,440 --> 00:25:05,200 Speaker 1: United States. That's going to be very interesting to see. 398 00:25:05,560 --> 00:25:09,080 Speaker 1: And the other change that was made was ending what 399 00:25:09,240 --> 00:25:11,920 Speaker 1: is known as the Remain in Mexico or the Migrant 400 00:25:11,960 --> 00:25:16,000 Speaker 1: Protection Protocol program, which was a program that required anybody 401 00:25:16,080 --> 00:25:20,560 Speaker 1: seeking asylum too entertain their claims from Mexico and not 402 00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:24,160 Speaker 1: from inside the United States. The Biden administration has said 403 00:25:24,200 --> 00:25:27,040 Speaker 1: that people, not new people, but people who were previously 404 00:25:27,080 --> 00:25:30,080 Speaker 1: waiting in line, can come in on a controlled basis 405 00:25:30,160 --> 00:25:32,879 Speaker 1: of a few hundred people per day to come in 406 00:25:32,920 --> 00:25:36,200 Speaker 1: and make their claims from inside the United States. And 407 00:25:36,280 --> 00:25:40,840 Speaker 1: so the worry is that if enough people misinterpret that action, 408 00:25:41,040 --> 00:25:43,800 Speaker 1: meaning they think it does apply to the people or 409 00:25:43,880 --> 00:25:47,200 Speaker 1: it will apply to new people, that more people will 410 00:25:47,200 --> 00:25:50,200 Speaker 1: try to come in through the border. Are people coming 411 00:25:50,240 --> 00:25:54,160 Speaker 1: in now? Are they going through an immigration hearing and 412 00:25:54,200 --> 00:25:57,360 Speaker 1: then released until what you know used to be called 413 00:25:57,400 --> 00:25:59,960 Speaker 1: catch and release and then released until a court day. 414 00:26:00,119 --> 00:26:03,760 Speaker 1: How is it being done. Well. What's happening is the 415 00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:07,919 Speaker 1: queue that had been created for this migration Protection Protocol 416 00:26:08,440 --> 00:26:13,040 Speaker 1: of several thousand individuals waiting for hearings inside of Mexico 417 00:26:13,200 --> 00:26:15,920 Speaker 1: instead of inside the United States. They're going through that 418 00:26:16,200 --> 00:26:20,840 Speaker 1: queue and they're assessing who has serious, legitimate claims, and 419 00:26:20,920 --> 00:26:23,240 Speaker 1: a few hundreds of those individuals are being led into 420 00:26:23,320 --> 00:26:26,760 Speaker 1: the United States. They're being quarantined for a specific period 421 00:26:26,760 --> 00:26:30,520 Speaker 1: of time and facility that are being implemented for this quarantine, 422 00:26:30,880 --> 00:26:33,200 Speaker 1: and then yes, they are being released into the United 423 00:26:33,240 --> 00:26:35,840 Speaker 1: States to make their claim. And so this is why 424 00:26:35,880 --> 00:26:39,960 Speaker 1: you see the protestations from former President Trump about this, 425 00:26:40,160 --> 00:26:42,399 Speaker 1: because he did not want them to occur. And the 426 00:26:42,440 --> 00:26:47,240 Speaker 1: Biden administration said, but the humanitarian nightmare that was happening 427 00:26:47,240 --> 00:26:51,879 Speaker 1: on the Mexican border cannot be justified under asylum law principles. 428 00:26:51,960 --> 00:26:54,640 Speaker 1: And so this is why this needed to be accomplished. 429 00:26:54,920 --> 00:26:57,639 Speaker 1: And so you just have two completely different philosophies on 430 00:26:57,720 --> 00:27:01,399 Speaker 1: this issue of processing a sylum speakers on the border. 431 00:27:01,880 --> 00:27:05,560 Speaker 1: The immigration bill that's been proposed in the House is 432 00:27:05,600 --> 00:27:08,520 Speaker 1: that Biden's immigration bill. Does that have what Biden wants 433 00:27:08,520 --> 00:27:11,600 Speaker 1: in it? Correct? That was the bill that by then 434 00:27:11,640 --> 00:27:15,800 Speaker 1: actually wrote with the administration and consultation with Senator Menendez 435 00:27:15,880 --> 00:27:19,240 Speaker 1: and and congress Women Linda Fanja in the Senator in 436 00:27:19,320 --> 00:27:23,280 Speaker 1: the House, respectively, and that bill is what I would say. 437 00:27:23,320 --> 00:27:26,160 Speaker 1: There are two parts to the usual comprehensive bill. There's 438 00:27:26,160 --> 00:27:30,320 Speaker 1: the bill that fixes the legal immigration system and provides 439 00:27:30,400 --> 00:27:34,240 Speaker 1: benefits for people here without status, and that's usually coupled 440 00:27:34,280 --> 00:27:38,240 Speaker 1: with significant increases in enforcement to prevent future waves of 441 00:27:38,280 --> 00:27:42,560 Speaker 1: illegal immigration. And so this package only has the first 442 00:27:42,560 --> 00:27:44,520 Speaker 1: part of it. It doesn't have the second part of it. 443 00:27:45,040 --> 00:27:48,560 Speaker 1: Because the idea is, well, if Republicans want to negotiate, 444 00:27:48,920 --> 00:27:51,359 Speaker 1: then they can. They can say what they want the 445 00:27:51,400 --> 00:27:54,800 Speaker 1: second part of this bill to be, but that strategically 446 00:27:54,800 --> 00:27:58,840 Speaker 1: wouldn't make sense for Democrats to insert whatever language they 447 00:27:58,880 --> 00:28:01,840 Speaker 1: think is good on it, for given that whatever they 448 00:28:01,880 --> 00:28:05,440 Speaker 1: do may not be deemed acceptable to Republicans anyway. So 449 00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:08,800 Speaker 1: the idea is, you get what the Democrats want in 450 00:28:08,840 --> 00:28:11,320 Speaker 1: the bill out there, and you see if there are 451 00:28:11,400 --> 00:28:15,080 Speaker 1: Republicans who are willing to engage and say I will 452 00:28:15,119 --> 00:28:19,000 Speaker 1: accept this and you give me these changes. The focus 453 00:28:19,040 --> 00:28:22,600 Speaker 1: has been on the dreamers, what's their path under this 454 00:28:22,640 --> 00:28:26,119 Speaker 1: immigration bill? Well, I think you'll see in the middle 455 00:28:26,160 --> 00:28:29,040 Speaker 1: of mark the House vote on a number of provisions. 456 00:28:29,040 --> 00:28:31,080 Speaker 1: They'll see if they can vote on this bigger bill, 457 00:28:31,560 --> 00:28:33,920 Speaker 1: but the laws of vote on a bill for Dreamers, 458 00:28:33,960 --> 00:28:35,679 Speaker 1: on a bill for people who have been here for 459 00:28:35,720 --> 00:28:40,440 Speaker 1: decades with temporary prospective status to give them lawful permanent residents, 460 00:28:40,640 --> 00:28:42,760 Speaker 1: and a bill to help farm workers who have been 461 00:28:42,760 --> 00:28:46,360 Speaker 1: here for several years with our documented status to give 462 00:28:46,440 --> 00:28:49,800 Speaker 1: them legal status as well. And then that will shift 463 00:28:49,840 --> 00:28:53,160 Speaker 1: over to that is going to lead a process to 464 00:28:53,280 --> 00:28:57,000 Speaker 1: determine are their ten Republicans who will agree to any 465 00:28:57,080 --> 00:29:01,240 Speaker 1: immigration changes for anybody for any reason. And that's gonna 466 00:29:01,280 --> 00:29:04,440 Speaker 1: be where the action really is is what can you 467 00:29:04,520 --> 00:29:08,479 Speaker 1: get Republican senators to vote for an immigration if there's anything. 468 00:29:09,520 --> 00:29:14,160 Speaker 1: Trump had several immigration cases before the court. Have all 469 00:29:14,200 --> 00:29:18,480 Speaker 1: those cases been taken off the track by Biden's administration 470 00:29:18,800 --> 00:29:22,560 Speaker 1: or not? Yes, Almost the vast majority of those cases 471 00:29:22,560 --> 00:29:25,400 Speaker 1: have either been staved or have been dismissed, such as 472 00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:28,920 Speaker 1: the border wall case and the public charge case, because 473 00:29:28,960 --> 00:29:31,480 Speaker 1: those cases are you know, the Trump of the Biden 474 00:29:31,480 --> 00:29:34,680 Speaker 1: administration is saying they're taking a different direction than the 475 00:29:34,880 --> 00:29:37,719 Speaker 1: one that the people in the lawsuit were suing about. 476 00:29:38,040 --> 00:29:39,719 Speaker 1: For that, there would be no need for the Supreme 477 00:29:39,760 --> 00:29:42,440 Speaker 1: Courts to come in. There is one case of very 478 00:29:42,480 --> 00:29:46,240 Speaker 1: interesting about whether people on temporary protective status can actually 479 00:29:46,280 --> 00:29:48,800 Speaker 1: get green cards, where it looks like that case will 480 00:29:48,840 --> 00:29:51,840 Speaker 1: go forward and the Biden administrator may adopt these same 481 00:29:52,320 --> 00:29:55,240 Speaker 1: decision that the Trump administrations have adopted that people on 482 00:29:55,360 --> 00:29:59,560 Speaker 1: semporary protective status shouldn't be able to get green cards. 483 00:29:59,600 --> 00:30:02,920 Speaker 1: But we'll wait and we'll see on that one. Thanks 484 00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:05,640 Speaker 1: for being on the show. Leon, that's Leon Fresco, a 485 00:30:05,720 --> 00:30:08,760 Speaker 1: partner at Hollanden Night And that's it for the edition 486 00:30:08,760 --> 00:30:11,440 Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get 487 00:30:11,440 --> 00:30:14,160 Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You 488 00:30:14,200 --> 00:30:18,560 Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at www 489 00:30:18,680 --> 00:30:23,400 Speaker 1: dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm Judent Grosso. 490 00:30:23,560 --> 00:30:25,720 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and please tune into The 491 00:30:25,720 --> 00:30:28,840 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Eastern right 492 00:30:28,840 --> 00:30:30,080 Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Radio.