Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: As the Trump administration asserts its control over Venezuelan oil
Speaker 2: following the stunning capture of ousted President Nicholas Maduro, President
Speaker 2: Trump has set his sights elsewhere on Greenland, a strategic
Speaker 2: Arctic island that is a self governing territory of Denmark.
Speaker 3: We need Greenland from a national security to situation. It's
Speaker 3: so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese.
Speaker 4: Ships all over the place.
Speaker 3: We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and
Speaker 3: Denmark is not going to be able.
Speaker 5: To do it.
Speaker 2: Trump has been talking about acquiring Greenland since its first term,
Speaker 2: but this time it may be more than just rhetoric.
Speaker 2: The White House has said that all options are on
Speaker 2: the table, including using the military, Although Secretary of State
Speaker 2: Marco Rubio told a group of lawmakers that it was
Speaker 2: the administration's intention to eventually buy Greenland. European leaders have
Speaker 2: expressed concerns about a possible takeover. Back In April, Danish
Speaker 2: Prime Minister Meta Frederickson said that Greenland is not for
Speaker 2: sale and the US needs to respect its borders and sovereignty.
Speaker 4: You cannot annex another country, not even with an argument
Speaker 4: about international security.
Speaker 2: Joining me is an expert in international law. Monica Hakimi
Speaker 2: a professor at Columbia Law School. She was formerly an
Speaker 2: attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor in the
Speaker 2: US State Department. Monica, the capture of Maduro has sort
Speaker 2: of set the stage for the latest talk by Trump
Speaker 2: about acquiring Greenland. So let's start with Maduro and tell
Speaker 2: us whether has capture violated international law.
Speaker 5: As a matter of international law, I think there's really
Speaker 5: no question that the capture of Maduro was unlawful, and
Speaker 5: that's because it involves the enforcement powers of the United
Speaker 5: States in the territory of another state, Venezuela.
Speaker 6: In this case. International law does provide limited circumstances in
Speaker 6: which such exercises of power are lawful, but none of
Speaker 6: them applies in this case.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration is indicating that it's going to run Venezuela.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that is even going to happen,
Speaker 2: because it seems like the vice president is in control
Speaker 2: right now. I mean, is this about a regime change.
Speaker 5: It's really hard to know what the administration intends to
Speaker 5: do or in what way. I'm not sure regime changes
Speaker 5: exactly the right way to describe what's happening, because, as
Speaker 5: you say, a member of the regime is still now
Speaker 5: running the country, and the regime itself is largely in place,
Speaker 5: even if the singular leader has been removed. But in
Speaker 5: any event, it would be again unlawful for the United
Speaker 5: States to assert its authority or coercive power in Venezuela
Speaker 5: to tell that state how to run its own country.
Speaker 2: Talking about the broader questions here, it seems that the
Speaker 2: Trump administration and President Trump don't want to stop at Venezuela.
Speaker 2: On Saturday he was talking about problems with Colombia and Cuba,
Speaker 2: and now the administration is being completely open about wanting
Speaker 2: to acquire Greenland. How concerning is.
Speaker 5: That this claim on Greenland in particular is especially disturbing
Speaker 5: because it is part of an increasing trend in which
Speaker 5: states that have the raw power to take the territory
Speaker 5: of another state are claiming that they will do so.
Speaker 7: Of course, this is exactly.
Speaker 5: What President Putin of Russia did in Ukraine. It's also
Speaker 5: embedded in the conflict between Iran and its proxy groups
Speaker 5: on the one hand, and Israel and the Palestinians on
Speaker 5: the other hand, and so it's a deeply, deeply corrosive move.
Speaker 5: It is likely to trigger further actions to this effect.
Speaker 5: It's not just the United States in Russia and states
Speaker 5: in the Middle East or entities in the Middle East
Speaker 5: that want to eliminate other states off the.
Speaker 6: Map or acquired territory from other states.
Speaker 5: So we've seen China increasingly being assertive with its neighbors
Speaker 5: in the East and South China Sea, and in the Himalayas,
Speaker 5: we're seeing Morocco increasingly a certain control over Western Sahara,
Speaker 5: which is a portion of the territory that does not
Speaker 5: technically belong to it. And these claims for territorial aggression
Speaker 5: and annexation really undercut the fundamental principle of the international
Speaker 5: legal and political order since World War Two, which is
Speaker 5: that each state is entitled to establish its authority in
Speaker 5: its own borders as defined by international law, territorial and
Speaker 5: maritime borders, and that it ought to be given priority
Speaker 5: in those spaces.
Speaker 2: The White House says it's considering a range of options
Speaker 2: for acquiring Greenland. What are the legal ways that it
Speaker 2: could do that.
Speaker 5: The possibility exists for one state to enter into an
Speaker 5: agreement with another not subject to coercion, where there's a
Speaker 5: consentual arrangement for the transfer of territory. There's no indication
Speaker 5: at all that any of these entities, which are being
Speaker 5: subjected to coercion by more powerful states, is interested in
Speaker 5: selling part of its territorial and maritime space.
Speaker 2: President Trump has said, we need greenland for our national security.
Speaker 2: But if you look at what's happening in Venezuela, it's
Speaker 2: not about drugs coming into the United States from that country.
Speaker 2: It's all about the oil in Venezuela, and in Ukraine,
Speaker 2: the US signed a deal after it got access to
Speaker 2: that country's mineral resources, and Lynn has what's been called
Speaker 2: a treasure trove of untapped raw materials. So I wonder
Speaker 2: if the goal is really national security or it's about
Speaker 2: getting access to their oil and gas reserves and their
Speaker 2: mineral deposits and the like.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 5: There's been an increasing move and this is not to
Speaker 5: be honest, entirely specific to the Trump administration, but there's
Speaker 5: been an increasing move in the United States and elsewhere
Speaker 5: to tie together economic security with national security, with maritime
Speaker 5: security and channels for the movement of goods and people
Speaker 5: and services across the globe. And I think what we're seeing,
Speaker 5: and this would connect the actions in South America with
Speaker 5: the claims on Greenland, and you might remember there were
Speaker 5: earlier claims about acquiring Canada as well. It's an effort
Speaker 5: to say, like this is our zone. We are going
Speaker 5: to control this entire space, including the resources in this space.
Speaker 5: And you China might be able to take Asia and Russia,
Speaker 5: you might be able to take Europe or at least
Speaker 5: part of Europe, but we are defining the space over
Speaker 5: which we are going to have dominance. And that, it
Speaker 5: seems to me, is a way of explaining the Trump
Speaker 5: administration's actions in a number of different theaters, as well
Speaker 5: as the actions of China and Russia.
Speaker 2: You mentioned Canada and Trump saying he wanted to make
Speaker 2: it the fifty first state. He's also threatened to attack
Speaker 2: Panama to supposedly keep China from exerting influence over the
Speaker 2: Panama Canal, and on Saturday, he even warned that we
Speaker 2: have to do something about Mexico because the president is
Speaker 2: unable to clamp down on the drug Card tells so
Speaker 2: now Trump appears to be targeting even historic allies of
Speaker 2: the United States.
Speaker 5: Yes, I think the United States is we're fundamentally to
Speaker 5: transform the terms based on which states interact and relate
Speaker 5: to one another on the world stage.
Speaker 7: And again it's not just the United States that is
Speaker 7: doing this.
Speaker 5: So I think Russia's invasion of Ukraine was an action
Speaker 5: to say, look, we're no longer going to recognize Ukraine
Speaker 5: as an independent state, and we are going to change
Speaker 5: the terms based on which we interact with our near neighbors.
Speaker 5: And I think that's also what China is doing. But
Speaker 5: because the United States has a long history of trying
Speaker 5: to sustain this international legal and political order that is
Speaker 5: structured around separate and semi independent states or interdependent states,
Speaker 5: the moves by the United States basically to say, now
Speaker 5: we're also participating in this game, and we are just
Speaker 5: going to exert our raw power wherever we can, and
Speaker 5: especially in our defined space, to demand that others do
Speaker 5: as we tell them without regard for what they might
Speaker 5: insist on doing themselves. That is a massive shift, in
Speaker 5: my view, relative to where we were, I don't know,
Speaker 5: five ten years ago, Monica.
Speaker 2: Can you put this into context historically? Is this similar
Speaker 2: to other actions the US has taken or different.
Speaker 5: Well, there is a relatively long history of the United
Speaker 5: States intervening in various ways in the affairs of Latin
Speaker 5: American countries as well as countries and other parts of
Speaker 5: the world. But what is significant and I think unique
Speaker 5: about the current moment is that it's openly claiming the
Speaker 5: right to displace the state authorities basically across the globe
Speaker 5: or wherever it's not pleased with how the governments are
Speaker 5: running their own countries and not at all claiming to
Speaker 5: do so in the service of or through the mechanisms
Speaker 5: of international law, which is collectively made and which is
Speaker 5: sort of applied through collective processes that at the very
Speaker 5: least provide some transparency about what has happened, some reason
Speaker 5: giving about what is happening, the opportunity for others to
Speaker 5: express their voice and their agency about.
Speaker 6: What they want in the exchange.
Speaker 5: And so we're just seeing a fundamental shift away from
Speaker 5: let's say, legalized international relations toward a much more power based,
Speaker 5: coercive set of interactions.
Speaker 2: Secretary of State Marco Rubio has the firm that the
Speaker 2: move was sort of a revised play on the nineteenth
Speaker 2: century Monroe doctrine do you agree with that and what
Speaker 2: are the implications.
Speaker 7: It seems to be?
Speaker 5: And I think that we've seen this administration say repeatedly
Speaker 5: in various ways that it's trying to revive some kind
Speaker 5: of Monroe doctrine, and I think the implications are exactly
Speaker 5: as I described, which are that the United States will
Speaker 5: increasingly just use its coercive power to dominate those around it,
Speaker 5: particularly in the.
Speaker 6: Western hemisphere, or what it defines is its space.
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
Speaker 2: this conversation with Columbia Laws professor Monica Hakimi. Are these
Speaker 2: moves by the Trump administration a complete repudiation of the
Speaker 2: world order that has defined US foreign policy since the
Speaker 2: Cold War? I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
Speaker 2: President Trump and his advisors are discussing a range of
Speaker 2: options to acquire Greenland, a self governing territory of Denmark.
Speaker 2: Those options include military action. In response, European nations released
Speaker 2: a joint statement saying security in the Arctic must be
Speaker 2: achieved collectively with NATO allies, including the United States. Secretary
Speaker 2: of State Marco Rubio says he plans to meet with
Speaker 2: Danish officials next week to discuss the US interest in Greenland.
Speaker 2: But will Denmark's answer be any different from that of
Speaker 2: the Danish Prime Minister Metefredericson in April, when a US
Speaker 2: delegates that included Vice President JD. Vance visited Greenland and
Speaker 2: got a frosty reception.
Speaker 4: When you demand to take over a part of the
Speaker 4: Kingdoms of Denmark territory, When we are met by pressure
Speaker 4: and by threats from our closest ally, what are we
Speaker 4: to believe in about the country that we have admired
Speaker 4: for so many years. National borders, sovereignty of states, and
Speaker 4: our integrity. These are all principle rooted in international law.
Speaker 4: These are fundamental principles formed after the Second World War
Speaker 4: so that small countries don't have to fear big ones.
Speaker 2: But is that world order changing and how much can
Speaker 2: international law play a part today? I've been talking to
Speaker 2: an expert in international law, Monica Hakimi, a professor at
Speaker 2: Columbia Law School. Monica. President Trump has attacked seven countries
Speaker 2: since returning to office. There were strikes in Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen,
Speaker 2: and now in Venezuela, as well as in international waters.
Speaker 2: There was nothing done in Congress, and there was nothing
Speaker 2: done internationally. I mean, Stephen Miller, a top aid to
Speaker 2: President Trump, actually said on CNN yesterday that Greenland rightfully
Speaker 2: belongs to the United States and quote, nobody's going to
Speaker 2: fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think that's an open question.
Speaker 5: You know. One of the common criticisms of international law
Speaker 5: is that it's not enforceable or not easily enforceable against
Speaker 5: powerful states and in this case, the United States, and
Speaker 5: that it doesn't therefore constrain powerful state in the same
Speaker 5: way that it constrains weaker states. I think there's no
Speaker 5: way to know actually to what extent the United States
Speaker 5: has historically been constrained by international law and to what
Speaker 5: extent it's just chosen a path that has been more consistent.
Speaker 7: With international law. But in any event, I think.
Speaker 5: The real change now is not so much that international
Speaker 5: law has become has suddenly become unenforceable against the United States, but.
Speaker 7: Rather that the United States.
Speaker 5: Is no longer itself committed to upholding the international legal system.
Speaker 5: And that is a significant shift, because the United States
Speaker 5: has actually, even as it has historically acted in various
Speaker 5: ways that have undermined specific norms in international law. It
Speaker 5: has also historically done an enormous amount to try to
Speaker 5: bolster this entire system, and with that retreat from its
Speaker 5: own commitment to the legal system, the question is, is
Speaker 5: anyone capable of filling that gap?
Speaker 7: And if so, who, in out what terms?
Speaker 5: Is that alternative party going to be exercising its power
Speaker 5: with or without international law? And if not, we're just
Speaker 5: going to live in a world in which it's much
Speaker 5: harder to understand what those who exercise power are doing
Speaker 5: and why. Because one of the things that international law does,
Speaker 5: no matter what else it does, is clarify the terms
Speaker 5: based on which states and other actors interact on the
Speaker 5: world stage.
Speaker 2: Let's talk for a moment about NATO, and you know
Speaker 2: what the power or lack of power is there. Chomp
Speaker 2: has been pulling back from NATO, and today he criticized
Speaker 2: it again. Does NATO have any role to play here?
Speaker 5: The action against Greenland is in many ways causing a
Speaker 5: deep fissure within NATO.
Speaker 7: And I say that because, of course Denmark is a
Speaker 7: NATO state.
Speaker 5: It's historically been a very strong military ally of the
Speaker 5: United States, and so one NATO country directly attacking another
Speaker 5: NATO country just undermines the entire arrangement, which is that
Speaker 5: these countries are supposed to act collectively in their mutual
Speaker 5: defense and cooperatively in their mutual defense. Now, to answer
Speaker 5: your question more specifically, if the United States were to
Speaker 5: attack and try to acquire Greenland, other NATO countries could
Speaker 5: come to Denmark's defense against the United States, that would
Speaker 5: be a deep, deep fissure again within NATO, and it
Speaker 5: would raise again the question that you asked earlier about
Speaker 5: whether any other state could actually enforce Denmark's rights against
Speaker 5: the United States given the overwhelming military power of the
Speaker 5: United States.
Speaker 2: I mean, do you think that NATO's days are numbered.
Speaker 5: I've been worried for some time actually that NATO's days are,
Speaker 5: if not numbered, that NATO is going to have to
Speaker 5: transform itself to preserve its relevance and its saliens and quick. Frankly,
Speaker 5: it's been the position of the United States for well
Speaker 5: over a decade, nearing two decades, that the United States
Speaker 5: cannot continue to to provide the bulk of support for
Speaker 5: NATO's operations. That European states had to do more. Now
Speaker 5: that has become increasingly obvious over the course of the
Speaker 5: second Trump administration, and the question I guess is whether
Speaker 5: NATO states can collectively figure out how to reconstitute themselves
Speaker 5: in a way that is responsive to the Trump administration's
Speaker 5: new moves, but still protective of the entire group of
Speaker 5: states that currently comprise it.
Speaker 2: The United Nations Security Council held an emergency meeting on Monday.
Speaker 2: Because of the way the Security Council is set up,
Speaker 2: with the members having veto power, it seems unlikely that
Speaker 2: anything useful is going to come out of the Security Council.
Speaker 2: I mean, what's the point of the United Nations today.
Speaker 5: One of the essential components of the United Nations Security
Speaker 5: Council is that it is comprised of the five victors
Speaker 5: of World War Two as well as others. But those
Speaker 5: five members of veto power, as you say, and during
Speaker 5: the Cold War, the Security Council was largely stalled out
Speaker 5: because the United States and the Soviet Union could not
Speaker 5: agree to make decisions really through the Security Council. Nevertheless,
Speaker 5: I think some would say that the Security Council provided
Speaker 5: a useful venue for these two great powers who were very,
Speaker 5: very severely in odds with one another to figure out
Speaker 5: what the other was doing, and at least to talk
Speaker 5: to one another on terms that were sort of detached
Speaker 5: from the conflicts that were playing out on the ground,
Speaker 5: whether hot or cold. After the end of the Cold War,
Speaker 5: the Security Council was sort of revitalized and it became
Speaker 5: a really important mechanism for dealing with security threats around
Speaker 5: the world. Now again, we're going to a position where
Speaker 5: making decisions through the Security Council will be very, very
Speaker 5: difficult because of the geopolitical dynamics. Still, it might be
Speaker 5: a useful venue for those who want to understand what
Speaker 5: is happening or to express their own voice about what
Speaker 5: is happening, to do so and at least for those
Speaker 5: views to be aired and in that way serve as
Speaker 5: some kind of accountability mechanism or at least transparency about
Speaker 5: what their positions are.
Speaker 2: As you mentioned, Russia invaded Ukraine. China might use this
Speaker 2: as a template to eventually go after Taiwan. I mean,
Speaker 2: during the Trump administration the next three years, are we
Speaker 2: looking at a changing world order?
Speaker 7: I think absolutely.
Speaker 5: I think I'm on record as having said that the
Speaker 5: old world order, however one defined it is really no
Speaker 5: longer available to us, and it's not just the United
Speaker 5: States that's making that decision. The United States is of
Speaker 5: course responding to a broader set of global trends, including
Speaker 5: the limits of its own security umbrella, as was evidenced
Speaker 5: by you know, Russia's in China's actions that predated the
Speaker 5: second Trump administration, as well as Iraq. So I do
Speaker 5: think we are moving toward an entirely different world order,
Speaker 5: and that part of what's happening right now in these
Speaker 5: conflicts is that states are and other entities are basically
Speaker 5: defining the terms based on which any future order would
Speaker 5: have to be created. And there's a question about how
Speaker 5: different the next world order, if there is going to
Speaker 5: be some world order, will be relative to the one
Speaker 5: that we're leaving behind.
Speaker 2: How different do you think it'll be.
Speaker 5: I think it's going to be dramatically different, and I
Speaker 5: think it's going to be different in ways that are
Speaker 5: far worse for a greater number of people around the world.
Speaker 5: I think if one pays attention to the legal and
Speaker 5: political trends over the past couple of years, one sees
Speaker 5: a few things. The first is a reduction in the
Speaker 5: commitment to states as states, so we've seen that again
Speaker 5: with the denial of the authority of states in many
Speaker 5: parts of the world Ukraine, Venezuela, Denmark over Greenland. The
Speaker 5: second is backlash against the humanitarian impulses of international law.
Speaker 5: So we're seeing in many conflicts around the world an
Speaker 5: increased disregard for protecting civilians for humanity, as well as,
Speaker 5: in more limited ways, a backlash from human rights law
Speaker 5: more generally, as it applies even in peace time, not
Speaker 5: only in conflicts. The third, I would say, is a
Speaker 5: retreat in the legalization of international affairs. Again, I think
Speaker 5: legalization is extremely important for reasons of transparency, accountability, basic coordination,
Speaker 5: and understanding of what is happening around us, no matter
Speaker 5: to what extent it constrains or empowers particular entities. And
Speaker 5: then finally, we're seeing an increased resort to force in
Speaker 5: other forms of coercion to structure international affairs. These are
Speaker 5: trends that again predated the Trump administration, but they are
Speaker 5: trends that are being accelerated by the Trump administration. And
Speaker 5: they're all trends that, in my view, reflect a retreat
Speaker 5: from humanity and from basic ideas about governance and the
Speaker 5: service of the general good.
Speaker 2: Former President Joe Biden embraced NATO. Now we have President
Speaker 2: Trump with an anti NATO stance. If the next president
Speaker 2: wants to embrace NATO, will that change anything? Considering the
Speaker 2: new world order that you just described.
Speaker 5: I don't think the option is available to go back
Speaker 5: to what existed before. And actually, I myself was quite
Speaker 5: critical of the Biden administration for not seeing the writing
Speaker 5: on the wall and trying to put the world in
Speaker 5: a better position than it was when he left office,
Speaker 5: for what was inevitably going to be continued resistance to
Speaker 5: the US power structure that existed in the post Cold
Speaker 5: War period. And so, you know, I don't think a
Speaker 5: new administration could try to revive NATO and create the
Speaker 5: security that once existed through NATO. I think any new
Speaker 5: administration would have to deal with the hand that will
Speaker 5: have been created over the next three, if not more years.
Speaker 2: This has been a really fascinating conversation. Thanks so much,
Speaker 2: Monica for sharing your insights with us. That's Professor Monica
Speaker 2: Hakemi of Columbia Law School coming up next on the
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. It's the state that sued the Trump
Speaker 2: administration more than any other. Get ready for the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six court battles between California and Trump. I'm June
Speaker 2: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. California's response to the
Speaker 2: Trump administration has prompted a flood of litigation, with several
Speaker 2: major hearings over the line between state law and federal
Speaker 2: authority teed up for hearings early this year. At stake
Speaker 2: are hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds and
Speaker 2: the state's ability to steer policy in key areas including education, health,
Speaker 2: and infrastructure. Joining me is Bloomberg Law's correspondent for Los Angeles,
Speaker 2: Mayaespodo California in the first Trump administration and in this
Speaker 2: Trump administration has a sort of history of bringing lawsuits
Speaker 2: against the administration, and California's Attorney General Rob Banta often
Speaker 2: seems to be leading the charge in states suing the
Speaker 2: Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Right, It's true. During the start of President Trump's second presidency,
Speaker 1: the California Legislature convened and pumped twenty five million dollars
Speaker 1: into Bonton's office, readying for another round of those fights.
Speaker 1: From the first time.
Speaker 2: The court battles that gained a lot of attention in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, were centered on Trump's sending troops into
Speaker 2: LA and federal funding cuts.
Speaker 7: Are those suits still.
Speaker 2: Going on or have they been settled?
Speaker 1: Many of the federal funding related lawsuits are still working
Speaker 1: out on appeal or going into their merit stages now,
Speaker 1: meaning that a lot of the wins that Bonta and
Speaker 1: Governor Gavin Newsom were discussing as of August they cited
Speaker 1: a number of one hundred and sixty eight billion dollars
Speaker 1: in federal funding being restored came from these early court
Speaker 1: rulings that were weighing which side was likely to prevail.
Speaker 2: So we'll have to see if those victories are preserved
Speaker 2: during the appellate process. Let's turn now to several cases
Speaker 2: brought by the Trump administration in response to laws passed
Speaker 2: by California. Tell us about the legal challenge over the
Speaker 2: No Secret Police Act and the No Vigilantes Act.
Speaker 1: So, in response to these reports of federal immigration agents
Speaker 1: in California wearing masks and being unidentifiable, the state lawmakers
Speaker 1: passed a set of laws requiring them to show their
Speaker 1: faces and wear id The Trump administration sued, saying that
Speaker 1: the laws violate the supremacy clause, which allows federal law
Speaker 1: to take priority over conflicting state laws. And that case
Speaker 1: is tied up for a preliminary injunction hearing next week.
Speaker 2: So we'll find out soon after next week probably whether
Speaker 2: they'll issue a preliminary injunction. Now, the next lawsuit strikes
Speaker 2: me as a little unusual. The Trump administration is suing
Speaker 2: California over its laws banning tight cage confinement for egg
Speaker 2: laying hens.
Speaker 1: They did say that California's requirements for agri culture were
Speaker 1: causing the price of eggs to go up, and California
Speaker 1: has said in court filings that actually, the first Trump
Speaker 1: administration previously agreed that the federal law the current administration
Speaker 1: is citing does not supersede the state's cage free law.
Speaker 1: So that's what they are arguing, and.
Speaker 2: The cage free laws about humane treatment of the hens.
Speaker 1: It governs the amount of space that hens have.
Speaker 2: California is going to try to get that case dismissed.
Speaker 2: It's filed a motion to dismiss and to some rejudgment motion.
Speaker 1: This is one where California's odds seem pretty high.
Speaker 2: Now, let's talk about challenges by California based litigants to
Speaker 2: administrative actions of the Trump administration. The first one, which
Speaker 2: sounds familiar, maybe because it's similar to a federal case,
Speaker 2: is about ICE agents stopping people to arrest them without
Speaker 2: reasonable suspicion. So tell us what's happening there.
Speaker 1: Right, So this case came out of that set of
Speaker 1: immigration raids early in the Trump administration in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five in central parts of California, particularly Bakersfield, and it
Speaker 1: led to one of the first court orders from a
Speaker 1: federal judge requiring ICE agents not to stop these folks
Speaker 1: without reasonable suspicion that they were in the country unlawfully.
Speaker 1: This case is decently similar to the one that unfolded
Speaker 1: a few months later in Los Angeles Federal court that
Speaker 1: also got a court order from the district court, but
Speaker 1: was paused by the US Supreme Court this fall.
Speaker 2: So in September, the Supreme Court backed the Trump administration's
Speaker 2: aggressive immigration enforcement efforts, allowing federal immigration agents in Los
Speaker 2: Angeles to resume tect that critics say amount to racial profiling,
Speaker 2: and the court's order put on hold the district court
Speaker 2: order that barred ICE agents from questioning and detaining people
Speaker 2: based solely on their ethnicity, language, occupation, or presence at
Speaker 2: a particular location. And in the case we're discussing, the
Speaker 2: Trump administration is arguing that there's no standing, is that
Speaker 2: the plaintiffs don't have a stake in the fight, right.
Speaker 1: They are citing Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Los
Speaker 1: Angeles case.
Speaker 2: Interestingly, the plaintiffs are also saying that the emergency docket
Speaker 2: order isn't binding and that the federal agents have violated
Speaker 2: the preliminary injunction.
Speaker 1: You know, it's part of this broader question that we're
Speaker 1: dealing with across cases, particularly concerning the Trump administration, which
Speaker 1: is how should federal courts weigh the thoughts of the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court justices that are made on an emergency basis.
Speaker 2: Now a Ninth Circuit panel is going to hear arguments
Speaker 2: in a challenge to the use of Trump administration executive
Speaker 2: orders on gender identity and diversity initiatives.
Speaker 1: Right, So, there is an upcoming argument before the Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit concerning a challenge brought by nonprofits based in Northern
Speaker 1: California that support LGBTQ plus clients. They are fighting to
Speaker 1: reinstate funds that were pulled after the Trump administration's executive
Speaker 1: order related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender identity.
Speaker 2: There are a couple of cases related to elections, and
Speaker 2: one is over the California redistricting Who is suing over that.
Speaker 1: The California redistricting lawsuit was brought by a Republican state
Speaker 1: assembly member and the Republican Party in California alleging that
Speaker 1: California's new congressional map, which was drawn in response to
Speaker 1: the redistricting in Texas, is an unlawful racial jerry mander,
Speaker 1: and those parties argued before a panel of judges in December.
Speaker 1: The judges are still considering what to rule, but the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court did uphold Texas's new map for the midterms.
Speaker 2: It seems hard to argue that this wasn't politically motivated
Speaker 2: when you had the governor saying, let's do this to
Speaker 2: match Texas. So but we'll see, you never know where
Speaker 2: the court what happens.
Speaker 1: That's what the state argued, and the judges two of
Speaker 1: three certainly seemed to seize on that political argument.
Speaker 2: And the Trump administration wants California to turnover voter information right.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration wants California to turn over its VOTs,
Speaker 1: including personal information like registered voter strivers, licenses, and social
Speaker 1: Security numbers, and California is saying that state privacy laws
Speaker 1: keep that data safe. And so the judges in that
Speaker 1: case still considering what to do.
Speaker 2: Thanks so much. Maya will check back and see how
Speaker 2: these cases develop. That's Bloomberg Law LA correspondent Mayaspodo, and
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg