1
00:00:03,080 --> 00:00:07,880
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg

2
00:00:08,000 --> 00:00:31,479
Speaker 1: Radio Chaos at the Capital on January six. Slowly but surely,

3
00:00:31,480 --> 00:00:34,800
Speaker 1: the rioters are being brought to justice. And now the

4
00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:39,240
Speaker 1: first prison sentence. The man who carried a Trump flag

5
00:00:39,360 --> 00:00:42,880
Speaker 1: onto the Senate floor was sentenced to eight months behind bars,

6
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:47,400
Speaker 1: far below the sentencing guidelines. Paul Hodgkins had pleaded guilty

7
00:00:47,440 --> 00:00:50,720
Speaker 1: to the felony of obstructing an official proceeding joining me

8
00:00:50,720 --> 00:00:54,440
Speaker 1: as former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz a partner McCarter in English.

9
00:00:54,840 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 1: The sentencing guidelines were for fifteen to twenty one months,

10
00:00:59,160 --> 00:01:02,640
Speaker 1: but the judge sentenced to him below the guidelines and

11
00:01:02,720 --> 00:01:05,920
Speaker 1: to less than half the time the prosecutors had asked for.

12
00:01:06,200 --> 00:01:08,760
Speaker 1: Does it seem like a lenien sentence? Well, what the

13
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:11,920
Speaker 1: judge did in this case was to more or less

14
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:14,759
Speaker 1: split the difference between what the defense was asking for

15
00:01:15,120 --> 00:01:19,200
Speaker 1: and what prosecutors were asking for. Prosecutors were seeking eighteen months,

16
00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:21,840
Speaker 1: which was the middle of the guideline range, and the

17
00:01:21,880 --> 00:01:24,440
Speaker 1: defense lawyer was asking for a probation or house arrest.

18
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:26,920
Speaker 1: So this is an eight month sentence. There will be

19
00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:29,920
Speaker 1: eight months that are served in this case because you

20
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 1: don't get out early under the federal guidelines, and so

21
00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:35,399
Speaker 1: it's a hard sentence in the sense that there will

22
00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:38,480
Speaker 1: be some real jail time that's imposed here. But on

23
00:01:38,520 --> 00:01:41,120
Speaker 1: the other hand, if you look at the overall conduct

24
00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:43,840
Speaker 1: that was involved, some people might look at this as

25
00:01:43,840 --> 00:01:47,480
Speaker 1: a lenion sentence. That's the real puzzle with these sentences.

26
00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:50,760
Speaker 1: Does the judge look at simply the individual acts or

27
00:01:50,800 --> 00:01:52,720
Speaker 1: does the judge look at the broader picture of the

28
00:01:52,800 --> 00:01:56,000
Speaker 1: writing on the violence carried out by the larger group.

29
00:01:56,520 --> 00:02:00,480
Speaker 1: Isn't it considered lenient if it's below the sentence and guidelines. Well,

30
00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:03,840
Speaker 1: the sentencing guidelines are just guidelines at this point, and

31
00:02:03,920 --> 00:02:07,400
Speaker 1: they are followed by judges in the majority of cases.

32
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:09,880
Speaker 1: But in the District of Columbia, for example, where this

33
00:02:09,960 --> 00:02:14,160
Speaker 1: defendant was sentenced, judges sentenced below the guideline range and

34
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:17,640
Speaker 1: thirty percent of the cases. So it's not common to

35
00:02:17,680 --> 00:02:22,000
Speaker 1: do it, but it's certainly not entirely unusual. Hodgkins was

36
00:02:22,080 --> 00:02:25,960
Speaker 1: wearing protective eye goggles, he had rope with him and

37
00:02:26,080 --> 00:02:29,720
Speaker 1: white latex gloves. Yet he said he got swept up

38
00:02:29,720 --> 00:02:33,240
Speaker 1: in the march along Pennsylvania avenue. But when you come

39
00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:36,480
Speaker 1: with that kind of gear, you're not just planning on

40
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:39,760
Speaker 1: going to a rally, are you. Well, that's the issue

41
00:02:39,800 --> 00:02:44,080
Speaker 1: facing judges in these cases. The sentencing guidelines were set

42
00:02:44,080 --> 00:02:48,080
Speaker 1: out to inject some degree of uniformy and fairness so

43
00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:52,200
Speaker 1: that similarly situated defendants would be sentenced two similar terms

44
00:02:52,280 --> 00:02:55,880
Speaker 1: in jail. But in this case, these are unprecedented events

45
00:02:56,000 --> 00:02:58,240
Speaker 1: and the judges have to look at the acts of

46
00:02:58,280 --> 00:03:02,760
Speaker 1: the individuals and way at against the larger mob mentality.

47
00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:05,120
Speaker 1: And what we're seeing a lot on the defense side

48
00:03:05,120 --> 00:03:08,160
Speaker 1: from a legal strategy, is to blame the moment, not

49
00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:11,480
Speaker 1: the man. So they're arguing that their clients were swept

50
00:03:11,560 --> 00:03:14,480
Speaker 1: up in almost a mob mentality, that this was an

51
00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:18,560
Speaker 1: aberration and something that should be considered in the context

52
00:03:18,600 --> 00:03:21,520
Speaker 1: of the full life of the defendant. In this case,

53
00:03:21,600 --> 00:03:25,680
Speaker 1: there were some mitigating factors that the judge Wade. He

54
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:28,600
Speaker 1: looked at the seriousness of the charge and the damages

55
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:31,040
Speaker 1: that were done that day, but he also looked at

56
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:34,000
Speaker 1: the fact that this particular individual had no criminal background.

57
00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:37,720
Speaker 1: This individual did not engage in violence or destroy property,

58
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:40,480
Speaker 1: and he was among the first to offer a plea

59
00:03:40,600 --> 00:03:43,840
Speaker 1: of guilty so sometimes what judges are doing are trying

60
00:03:43,880 --> 00:03:46,520
Speaker 1: to set the bar and send a message to the

61
00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:49,200
Speaker 1: many other defendants who are out there who have not

62
00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:53,040
Speaker 1: yet decided to plead guilty, that if they do plead guilty,

63
00:03:53,160 --> 00:03:55,600
Speaker 1: they will get a particular kind of sentence. And so

64
00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 1: to some extent, what the judge is doing is trying

65
00:03:58,200 --> 00:04:01,680
Speaker 1: to encourage other defendants out there to consider edering guilty. Please,

66
00:04:02,200 --> 00:04:05,000
Speaker 1: what about the prosecutors wanting to send a message that

67
00:04:05,640 --> 00:04:09,840
Speaker 1: this is unacceptable behavior. She also cited the need to

68
00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:13,040
Speaker 1: deter domestic terrorism. Yes, and that was sort of an

69
00:04:13,040 --> 00:04:18,400
Speaker 1: interesting paction between the prosecutors and the defense. Prosecutors were

70
00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:22,279
Speaker 1: describing the actions of January six as an act of

71
00:04:22,320 --> 00:04:25,640
Speaker 1: domestic terrorism, and some of the defense lawyers in this

72
00:04:25,680 --> 00:04:28,719
Speaker 1: case and in other cases have pushed back on that

73
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:32,200
Speaker 1: characterization and things was simply a riot that had gone

74
00:04:32,240 --> 00:04:35,359
Speaker 1: too far. The judge in this case sort of struck

75
00:04:35,400 --> 00:04:39,120
Speaker 1: the middle ground. He clearly shot down any suggestion that

76
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:42,359
Speaker 1: this was an exercise of First Amendment rights. He said

77
00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:45,159
Speaker 1: that this was an instance in which the chambers of

78
00:04:45,240 --> 00:04:47,800
Speaker 1: Congress were empty during the most solemn act of the

79
00:04:47,920 --> 00:04:51,640
Speaker 1: democracy certifying who the next president is. This was clearly

80
00:04:51,640 --> 00:04:54,920
Speaker 1: not an act of First Amendment speech and would not

81
00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:56,920
Speaker 1: be viewed that way by this judge or I think

82
00:04:56,920 --> 00:04:59,640
Speaker 1: any other judge. So on the whole, would you say

83
00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:05,720
Speaker 1: that haul Hodgkinson sentence, Well, the judge did specifically single

84
00:05:05,760 --> 00:05:09,040
Speaker 1: out the symbolism of the actions that day, So, in

85
00:05:09,080 --> 00:05:11,760
Speaker 1: other words, he did not simply look at the fact

86
00:05:11,800 --> 00:05:15,360
Speaker 1: that this individual had entered the Senate floor and marched

87
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:18,240
Speaker 1: around with a Trump flag. The judge went on to

88
00:05:18,360 --> 00:05:21,760
Speaker 1: say that this was an act of symbolism that was

89
00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:25,599
Speaker 1: unmistakable that the defendant in this case, by entering the

90
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:29,039
Speaker 1: Senate floor carrying a flag for Trump rather than the

91
00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:33,040
Speaker 1: American flag, was declaring his loyalty to a single individual

92
00:05:33,520 --> 00:05:35,760
Speaker 1: over the nation, and he went so far as to

93
00:05:35,839 --> 00:05:39,000
Speaker 1: characterize it as a threat to democracy. He then did

94
00:05:39,080 --> 00:05:41,640
Speaker 1: give the defendant a sentence that was, as you say,

95
00:05:41,760 --> 00:05:44,560
Speaker 1: below the guideline range, and some would consider it to

96
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:48,279
Speaker 1: be perhaps too lenient under the circumstances. What's going to

97
00:05:48,320 --> 00:05:51,279
Speaker 1: be interesting going forward is to look at how this

98
00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:54,640
Speaker 1: sentence has set the bar for future defendants who may

99
00:05:54,680 --> 00:05:58,840
Speaker 1: be sentenced. There's essentially three classes of individuals here. There

100
00:05:58,839 --> 00:06:01,960
Speaker 1: are non violent fell ones such as this individual. There

101
00:06:01,960 --> 00:06:04,360
Speaker 1: are others who have put guilty to misdemeanors, and then

102
00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:07,680
Speaker 1: there are those who committed violent felony acts, who have

103
00:06:07,760 --> 00:06:11,920
Speaker 1: injured police officers and who have destroyed property in the

104
00:06:11,920 --> 00:06:15,440
Speaker 1: course of the actions of January six. We have yet

105
00:06:15,480 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 1: to see one of those violent felons sentenced, and it

106
00:06:18,400 --> 00:06:21,200
Speaker 1: would be interesting to see how harsh those sentences will be.

107
00:06:21,760 --> 00:06:24,400
Speaker 1: As you said, this will set a bar. But do

108
00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:27,960
Speaker 1: other judges sentencing defendants in this case have to follow this?

109
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:31,680
Speaker 1: Do they have to say, Oh, Judge Moss only sentenced

110
00:06:31,800 --> 00:06:34,680
Speaker 1: a man who wasn't violent to eight months, I can

111
00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:37,840
Speaker 1: sentence this person two more than that. No, not at all.

112
00:06:37,880 --> 00:06:41,240
Speaker 1: Each judge has the right to make the individual decision

113
00:06:41,800 --> 00:06:44,560
Speaker 1: as to what the sentence should be for the individual defendant.

114
00:06:44,640 --> 00:06:47,400
Speaker 1: No two cases are the same. No two defendants are

115
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:50,640
Speaker 1: the same. Their backgrounds are different, their conduct is different,

116
00:06:50,640 --> 00:06:53,279
Speaker 1: what they were charged with is different, The time in

117
00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: which they decided to plead guilty might be different, the

118
00:06:56,040 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 1: extent to which they cooperated with prosecutors might be different.

119
00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:02,080
Speaker 1: So every single defendant will have a set effects and

120
00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:05,719
Speaker 1: circumstances that is different for them, unique to them, and

121
00:07:05,800 --> 00:07:08,240
Speaker 1: each judge will decide for him or herself what the

122
00:07:08,279 --> 00:07:11,720
Speaker 1: appropriate sentence will be. I expect that we will see

123
00:07:11,840 --> 00:07:16,000
Speaker 1: some disparity in sentencing among the various sederal judges who

124
00:07:16,080 --> 00:07:19,960
Speaker 1: handle these cases because they are so unique. There really

125
00:07:20,080 --> 00:07:23,440
Speaker 1: is no precedent for this type of conduct. That capital

126
00:07:23,560 --> 00:07:26,080
Speaker 1: has not been stormed in this country for more than

127
00:07:26,080 --> 00:07:29,800
Speaker 1: two hundred years, and so it's something that is not

128
00:07:29,960 --> 00:07:32,720
Speaker 1: within the history of any of the judges who were

129
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 1: sitting on the bench. And they're gonna look at these

130
00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:37,240
Speaker 1: facts and circumstances, and they're gonna have to weigh the

131
00:07:37,320 --> 00:07:42,040
Speaker 1: individual conduct against the symbolic impact of what the sentence

132
00:07:42,080 --> 00:07:44,120
Speaker 1: will be. They're gonna have to look at what the

133
00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:46,640
Speaker 1: individual did, and they're also gonna have to look at

134
00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:49,880
Speaker 1: the impact that that conduct may have had on the

135
00:07:50,040 --> 00:07:52,880
Speaker 1: larger group of individuals and on the country as a whole.

136
00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:55,680
Speaker 1: That's gonna be a very difficult balancing test, and I

137
00:07:55,720 --> 00:07:58,120
Speaker 1: think we're going to see different judges come out with

138
00:07:58,200 --> 00:08:02,280
Speaker 1: different sentences under those circumstances this I expect that we

139
00:08:02,320 --> 00:08:06,560
Speaker 1: will see some disparity in sentencing among the various sederal

140
00:08:06,640 --> 00:08:10,280
Speaker 1: judges who handle these cases because they are so unique.

141
00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:13,640
Speaker 1: There really is no precedent for this type of conduct.

142
00:08:13,920 --> 00:08:16,880
Speaker 1: That capital has not been stormed in this country for

143
00:08:16,960 --> 00:08:20,119
Speaker 1: more than two hundred years, and so it's something that

144
00:08:20,400 --> 00:08:23,600
Speaker 1: is not within the history of any of the judges

145
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:25,080
Speaker 1: who were sitting on the bench. And they're going to

146
00:08:25,160 --> 00:08:27,840
Speaker 1: look at these facts and circumstances, and they're gonna have

147
00:08:27,920 --> 00:08:32,440
Speaker 1: to weigh the individual conduct against the symbolic impact of

148
00:08:32,480 --> 00:08:34,840
Speaker 1: what the sentence will be. They're gonna have to look

149
00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:37,280
Speaker 1: at what the individual did, and they're also gonna have

150
00:08:37,400 --> 00:08:40,320
Speaker 1: to look at the impact that that conduct may have

151
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:43,080
Speaker 1: had on the larger group of individuals and on the

152
00:08:43,120 --> 00:08:45,160
Speaker 1: country as a whole. That's going to be a very

153
00:08:45,200 --> 00:08:47,680
Speaker 1: difficult balancing test, and I think we're going to see

154
00:08:47,679 --> 00:08:52,680
Speaker 1: different judges come out with different sentences under those circumstances. Hodgkins,

155
00:08:53,080 --> 00:08:56,439
Speaker 1: though he was among the first two offered to plead guilty,

156
00:08:56,840 --> 00:09:00,679
Speaker 1: he didn't enter a cooperation deal with prosecutors. What does

157
00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:03,640
Speaker 1: that mean? Do you get less time with you enter cooperation?

158
00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:05,599
Speaker 1: Do you what does it mean? Yeah? So, if the

159
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:09,760
Speaker 1: defendant decides to cooperate with prosecutors, that means that they

160
00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:15,120
Speaker 1: provide some substantial assistance in the prosecution of other individuals. So,

161
00:09:15,160 --> 00:09:18,600
Speaker 1: for example, in these cases where they are talking about

162
00:09:18,600 --> 00:09:21,320
Speaker 1: the riots that occurred on January six, the defendant might

163
00:09:21,360 --> 00:09:26,160
Speaker 1: assist prosecutors in identifying other defendants who may have breached

164
00:09:26,160 --> 00:09:29,280
Speaker 1: the capital grounds, who may have engaged in acts of violence,

165
00:09:29,520 --> 00:09:32,320
Speaker 1: who may have destroyed property, and that leads to the

166
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:36,120
Speaker 1: prosecution of other individuals, and in that case, prosecutors will

167
00:09:36,160 --> 00:09:40,600
Speaker 1: recommend a sentence below the guideline range to reward them

168
00:09:40,800 --> 00:09:43,960
Speaker 1: for assisting them in prosecuting other individuals who are involved

169
00:09:43,960 --> 00:09:49,480
Speaker 1: in criminal conduct. Now, prosecutors did not seek enhanced domestic

170
00:09:49,600 --> 00:09:53,320
Speaker 1: terrorism penalties against Hodgkins. If they did that in the future,

171
00:09:54,040 --> 00:09:57,719
Speaker 1: that would enhance his sentence, right. You know, there are

172
00:09:57,760 --> 00:10:01,800
Speaker 1: certainly opportunities for prosecutors to large these cases in ways

173
00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:04,720
Speaker 1: that will result in longer sentences. So some of what

174
00:10:04,800 --> 00:10:07,880
Speaker 1: we saw in this particular sentencing was a decision by

175
00:10:07,960 --> 00:10:11,400
Speaker 1: prosecutors not to charge a more serious crime than they

176
00:10:11,400 --> 00:10:14,160
Speaker 1: could have under these circumstances. But that's not to say

177
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:17,640
Speaker 1: with other defendants they might not take a much harder line,

178
00:10:17,920 --> 00:10:21,400
Speaker 1: particularly those who were engaged in violence with police officers

179
00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:24,560
Speaker 1: and those who destroyed property on federal grounds. I think

180
00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:28,000
Speaker 1: we'll see prosecutors throw the book at those individuals, and

181
00:10:28,040 --> 00:10:31,160
Speaker 1: we will certainly see longer prison sentences handed down by

182
00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:34,480
Speaker 1: judges in those cases. So, talking about some of the

183
00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:37,320
Speaker 1: defenses that have been raised so far, a lot of

184
00:10:37,320 --> 00:10:39,640
Speaker 1: the defendants to they were caught up in the chaos.

185
00:10:40,120 --> 00:10:43,080
Speaker 1: Then other defendants say that they've been going through a

186
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:48,199
Speaker 1: lot the pandemic, or hardships, bad childhoods have been mentioned,

187
00:10:48,600 --> 00:10:52,080
Speaker 1: They were subject to misinformation. One man's attorneys said the

188
00:10:52,160 --> 00:10:54,440
Speaker 1: reason he was there is because he was a dumb

189
00:10:54,840 --> 00:10:58,280
Speaker 1: blank and believed what he heard on Fox News. But

190
00:10:58,400 --> 00:11:01,319
Speaker 1: then as opposed to what they there are the selfies

191
00:11:01,400 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 1: they took bragging about their participation in the riot, and

192
00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:09,760
Speaker 1: there was paramilitary equipment they carried with them. How did

193
00:11:09,760 --> 00:11:13,200
Speaker 1: the judge weigh those factors? Well, you've identified what are

194
00:11:13,200 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 1: the real tensions here? So you see defense lawyers following

195
00:11:17,400 --> 00:11:21,319
Speaker 1: the well worn path of trying to make their clients

196
00:11:21,679 --> 00:11:24,160
Speaker 1: humanized in front of the judge. Show them as real

197
00:11:24,240 --> 00:11:28,120
Speaker 1: people struggling with typical day to day experiences. And in

198
00:11:28,120 --> 00:11:30,640
Speaker 1: this case, you did have a circumstance because of the

199
00:11:30,640 --> 00:11:35,080
Speaker 1: pandemic where people were suffering, There was unemployment, people were

200
00:11:35,080 --> 00:11:39,840
Speaker 1: affected health wise, lots of stress that was put on individuals,

201
00:11:40,080 --> 00:11:43,240
Speaker 1: and defense lawyers are trying to point to those circumstances

202
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:45,880
Speaker 1: to show that this was an aberrant act. If their

203
00:11:45,880 --> 00:11:48,680
Speaker 1: clients have no criminal history, they're looking to say that

204
00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:50,960
Speaker 1: these people are not a threat to commit a similar

205
00:11:51,000 --> 00:11:53,840
Speaker 1: crime in the future, and the judge should be lenient

206
00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:57,400
Speaker 1: in terms of their sentencing. On the other hand, prosecutors

207
00:11:57,679 --> 00:12:00,400
Speaker 1: can look to exactly where you're talking about the fact

208
00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:05,319
Speaker 1: that individuals showed up with combat attire, they brought walkie talkies. Uh,

209
00:12:05,360 --> 00:12:08,640
Speaker 1: there was acts of premeditation. This was not a spur

210
00:12:08,720 --> 00:12:11,240
Speaker 1: of the moment kind of decision where they showed up

211
00:12:11,520 --> 00:12:16,280
Speaker 1: to peacefully protest. Necessarily, there's examples and some evidence that

212
00:12:16,320 --> 00:12:21,320
Speaker 1: there was some planning and some uh thought given to

213
00:12:22,080 --> 00:12:26,160
Speaker 1: possibly getting involved in violence based upon the attire of

214
00:12:26,160 --> 00:12:28,959
Speaker 1: many of the people who showed up. So in that case,

215
00:12:29,160 --> 00:12:31,480
Speaker 1: I think a judge could look at that and say,

216
00:12:31,520 --> 00:12:35,600
Speaker 1: this was not an act of somebody who acted impulsively.

217
00:12:35,720 --> 00:12:38,800
Speaker 1: This is something that was planned, There was thought given

218
00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:42,080
Speaker 1: to this, this is something that was premeditated and therefore

219
00:12:42,160 --> 00:12:46,800
Speaker 1: deserves a harsher sentence. But how much reliance would a

220
00:12:46,920 --> 00:12:51,120
Speaker 1: judge place on what the defendant does between the time

221
00:12:51,320 --> 00:12:56,160
Speaker 1: arrested and the time of sentencing. For example, Hodgkins volunteered

222
00:12:56,200 --> 00:12:59,480
Speaker 1: at an animal shelter. There was a woman who wrote

223
00:12:59,520 --> 00:13:03,080
Speaker 1: book and movie reports on Schindler's List, and the legal

224
00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:08,760
Speaker 1: memoir Just Mercy. So these obvious ploys I'm a good person.

225
00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:11,920
Speaker 1: How much do they weigh with a judge, Well, it

226
00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:16,040
Speaker 1: really varies from judge to judge. Judges will look to

227
00:13:16,120 --> 00:13:19,800
Speaker 1: see whether they believe a defendant is truly remorseful, whether

228
00:13:19,840 --> 00:13:23,079
Speaker 1: they are truly contrite, and whether they really do understand

229
00:13:23,800 --> 00:13:27,480
Speaker 1: the significance of their conduct. This is something that was

230
00:13:27,520 --> 00:13:30,640
Speaker 1: a true aberration or something that is likely to be

231
00:13:30,679 --> 00:13:34,080
Speaker 1: repeated in the future. And defense lawyers will often have

232
00:13:34,320 --> 00:13:38,240
Speaker 1: their clients take certain actions, maybe do some community service

233
00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:41,800
Speaker 1: or other things to show the judge, even prior to sentencing,

234
00:13:42,080 --> 00:13:44,920
Speaker 1: that they have learned their lesson, that they are remorseful,

235
00:13:45,240 --> 00:13:48,760
Speaker 1: and that they're looking for a lighter sentence here. So

236
00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:51,560
Speaker 1: sometimes that will affect the judge. Sometimes they will be

237
00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:54,240
Speaker 1: swayed by that and be convinced that this really is

238
00:13:54,280 --> 00:13:57,439
Speaker 1: a good person who simply did one bad thing, as

239
00:13:57,440 --> 00:14:01,199
Speaker 1: opposed to a bad person. Who mayly repeat this conduct

240
00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:04,439
Speaker 1: sometime in the future. Thanks Bob. That's Robert Mints of

241
00:14:04,480 --> 00:14:09,680
Speaker 1: McCarter and English. More than six hundred thousand Dreamers got

242
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:13,160
Speaker 1: a joke last Friday when a Texas judge declared the

243
00:14:13,240 --> 00:14:18,680
Speaker 1: DOCTA program illegal. On Thursday, Vice President Kamala Harris met

244
00:14:18,720 --> 00:14:22,640
Speaker 1: with Dreamers who came into this country as undocumented children

245
00:14:22,880 --> 00:14:27,160
Speaker 1: to reassure them. I want to make clear to the

246
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:30,600
Speaker 1: Dreamers who are here and those who are watching from home,

247
00:14:31,520 --> 00:14:36,760
Speaker 1: this is your home. This is your home, and we

248
00:14:36,880 --> 00:14:40,000
Speaker 1: see you, and you are not alone. The judge put

249
00:14:40,000 --> 00:14:43,320
Speaker 1: his order on hold as the appeals process plays out.

250
00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:46,200
Speaker 1: Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and

251
00:14:46,360 --> 00:14:49,000
Speaker 1: Night and the former head of the Justice Department's Office

252
00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:53,920
Speaker 1: of Immigration Litigation. Leon why did the judge declare DOCCA illegal?

253
00:14:54,440 --> 00:14:59,600
Speaker 1: He ruled that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because

254
00:14:59,840 --> 00:15:06,479
Speaker 1: the change of the immigration law or procedure for permitting

255
00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:11,000
Speaker 1: people who didn't have status to a not just evade removal,

256
00:15:11,160 --> 00:15:17,160
Speaker 1: but be actually obtain employment authorization and have legal status

257
00:15:17,240 --> 00:15:20,600
Speaker 1: and even get in some cases what's called evans parole

258
00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:23,960
Speaker 1: that allows you to travel and re enter the country.

259
00:15:24,400 --> 00:15:28,800
Speaker 1: That process that's all known as data needed to be

260
00:15:28,840 --> 00:15:31,840
Speaker 1: done through a procedure called notice and comment, where a

261
00:15:31,960 --> 00:15:37,000
Speaker 1: proposed rule was promulgated and a comment period would be

262
00:15:37,040 --> 00:15:40,040
Speaker 1: given and then only after that would a final rule

263
00:15:40,160 --> 00:15:43,520
Speaker 1: be issued. And the failure to do that in twelve

264
00:15:43,800 --> 00:15:48,840
Speaker 1: or since between one continues to be fatal to the

265
00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:52,240
Speaker 1: DOCCER program such that it's not valid. This has been

266
00:15:52,280 --> 00:15:55,160
Speaker 1: in the court several times, it's been up to the

267
00:15:55,200 --> 00:15:57,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, but this was never brought up that it

268
00:15:57,760 --> 00:16:02,080
Speaker 1: should go through the administrative c direct. Well, here's what's happened.

269
00:16:02,080 --> 00:16:05,360
Speaker 1: This case has had a very tortured procedural history. So

270
00:16:05,440 --> 00:16:10,080
Speaker 1: when DOCCA first came out in the Ice Union was

271
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:12,960
Speaker 1: the only group that actually sued it wasn't the State

272
00:16:13,000 --> 00:16:18,040
Speaker 1: of Texas about the case related to DACA. And there

273
00:16:18,080 --> 00:16:21,040
Speaker 1: in that case, that case didn't end up going anywhere

274
00:16:21,080 --> 00:16:23,720
Speaker 1: because there was a belief by the courts that the

275
00:16:23,760 --> 00:16:28,000
Speaker 1: Ice Union did not have standing to sue because they

276
00:16:28,040 --> 00:16:31,480
Speaker 1: weren't harmed by the lack of enforcement of immigration law.

277
00:16:31,920 --> 00:16:34,880
Speaker 1: And so that case when nowhere the Ice Union case.

278
00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:40,640
Speaker 1: Then what happened was in when the Obama administration issued

279
00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:44,480
Speaker 1: a different program called DOPA, not DOCA, which was for

280
00:16:44,560 --> 00:16:49,160
Speaker 1: the parents of people who were US citizen children and

281
00:16:49,240 --> 00:16:52,360
Speaker 1: lawful permanent residents children, but the parents who were here

282
00:16:52,400 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 1: were undocumented, that they would be able to get a

283
00:16:55,360 --> 00:17:00,360
Speaker 1: similar deferred action and a work permit as the data children.

284
00:17:00,920 --> 00:17:04,000
Speaker 1: When that program was issued. That's when the State of

285
00:17:04,080 --> 00:17:07,640
Speaker 1: Texas sued in the Southern District of Texas in front

286
00:17:07,680 --> 00:17:11,280
Speaker 1: of this judge, Judge Haynan, And that process was about

287
00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:14,000
Speaker 1: a year long process that ended up going to the

288
00:17:14,000 --> 00:17:16,920
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit in the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court

289
00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:20,040
Speaker 1: didn't actually hear the case, they just split four four.

290
00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:23,080
Speaker 1: But that meant that the Fifth Circuit decision saying that

291
00:17:23,240 --> 00:17:27,200
Speaker 1: top PA was illegal for lack of notice and comment,

292
00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:32,000
Speaker 1: that that program went away. Then what happened was Trump

293
00:17:32,040 --> 00:17:36,400
Speaker 1: got elected and so people said, well, let's do this

294
00:17:36,440 --> 00:17:39,600
Speaker 1: for dot Com, let's get rid of DOTA, and they

295
00:17:39,600 --> 00:17:42,600
Speaker 1: actually filed that case in front of Judge Haynan. But

296
00:17:42,680 --> 00:17:45,600
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration said is no need to worry

297
00:17:45,600 --> 00:17:48,720
Speaker 1: about that, because we are going to end the doctor

298
00:17:48,840 --> 00:17:52,560
Speaker 1: program ourselves. They ended the DOCTA program that went up

299
00:17:52,600 --> 00:17:54,879
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said that

300
00:17:55,000 --> 00:17:58,960
Speaker 1: the way that the DOCTA program was ended was improper,

301
00:17:59,560 --> 00:18:02,240
Speaker 1: and then the suit went all the way back to

302
00:18:02,320 --> 00:18:07,359
Speaker 1: Judge Haynan during now the Biden administration, where now finally

303
00:18:07,480 --> 00:18:10,479
Speaker 1: this issue has been reckoned with, which is whether the

304
00:18:10,520 --> 00:18:14,639
Speaker 1: original dot CO program suffered the same flaws as the

305
00:18:15,080 --> 00:18:18,880
Speaker 1: pop program that was stricken. Is she saying that it's

306
00:18:18,920 --> 00:18:21,960
Speaker 1: not legal to do it as an executive order? The

307
00:18:22,160 --> 00:18:25,080
Speaker 1: enter to your question is yes. But there are two

308
00:18:25,080 --> 00:18:27,840
Speaker 1: schools of thought. There's a school of thought that's held

309
00:18:27,880 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 1: pretty much by fifty percent of the legal community that says,

310
00:18:31,520 --> 00:18:36,600
Speaker 1: this is simply about prosecutorial discretion, and so any administration

311
00:18:36,720 --> 00:18:39,719
Speaker 1: can decide who to prosecute and who not to, and

312
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:43,360
Speaker 1: can even set guidance for who to prosecute and not prosecute.

313
00:18:43,720 --> 00:18:46,960
Speaker 1: And so that's what the Biden and the Obama administration

314
00:18:47,040 --> 00:18:50,320
Speaker 1: previously had thought. And then there's the group of thought

315
00:18:50,440 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 1: that's held by about the other fifty percent of the

316
00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:56,399
Speaker 1: legal community that says, no, you can do on a

317
00:18:56,440 --> 00:19:02,000
Speaker 1: case by case individual basis, all the prosecutorial discretion you want,

318
00:19:02,359 --> 00:19:05,840
Speaker 1: but once you write a memo that says these people

319
00:19:06,000 --> 00:19:09,600
Speaker 1: get prosecutorial discretion and these other people who are not

320
00:19:09,680 --> 00:19:13,840
Speaker 1: part of this memo are not guaranteed prosecutorial discretion. That

321
00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:18,240
Speaker 1: is a regulation basically, and that that regulation needs to

322
00:19:18,280 --> 00:19:21,840
Speaker 1: go through the formal rulemaking process. It can't just be

323
00:19:21,960 --> 00:19:26,800
Speaker 1: a memo. So why did the judge stay his decision?

324
00:19:27,119 --> 00:19:30,520
Speaker 1: What he's really saying is, look, I'm staying my decision

325
00:19:31,000 --> 00:19:34,280
Speaker 1: with regard to people already in this program, and I'm

326
00:19:34,280 --> 00:19:37,879
Speaker 1: going to punt it to the Fifth Circuit and or

327
00:19:37,960 --> 00:19:42,560
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to decide whether my stay should be lifted. So, I,

328
00:19:42,840 --> 00:19:45,760
Speaker 1: Judge Haynan, don't want to be the person that ended

329
00:19:45,800 --> 00:19:49,399
Speaker 1: the DOCCA program for all of the people who are

330
00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:53,200
Speaker 1: already on DACA, because I understand how much reliance there

331
00:19:53,280 --> 00:19:55,680
Speaker 1: is and how many hundreds of thousands of people are

332
00:19:55,720 --> 00:19:59,040
Speaker 1: in that program. So if I'm wrong, I don't want

333
00:19:59,080 --> 00:20:01,040
Speaker 1: to be the person who did this. So I'm going

334
00:20:01,119 --> 00:20:03,040
Speaker 1: to give you a decision on what I think the

335
00:20:03,160 --> 00:20:06,200
Speaker 1: legal outcome is, and I think the legal outcome is

336
00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:09,280
Speaker 1: that DOCCA is illegal. But I'm not going to implement

337
00:20:09,320 --> 00:20:12,240
Speaker 1: that decision. I'm going to stay that decision and allow

338
00:20:12,280 --> 00:20:16,520
Speaker 1: another court to opine on the legality and let them

339
00:20:16,560 --> 00:20:20,160
Speaker 1: decide whether that's it. Now, it's time to issue the

340
00:20:20,280 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 1: data recision, or whether we wait till the Supreme Court

341
00:20:23,840 --> 00:20:26,560
Speaker 1: then issues a Docta decision, or maybe the Supreme Court

342
00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:29,320
Speaker 1: says data is legal and there was no need to

343
00:20:29,359 --> 00:20:32,960
Speaker 1: have created this turmoil in the program. So Haynan is

344
00:20:32,960 --> 00:20:37,600
Speaker 1: a George W. Bush appointee. Vox said, he's been described

345
00:20:37,640 --> 00:20:41,960
Speaker 1: as possibly the most anti immigrant judge in the country.

346
00:20:42,359 --> 00:20:45,919
Speaker 1: Does he have a record on immigration? I think what

347
00:20:46,240 --> 00:20:51,439
Speaker 1: where those where those statements come from, is there was

348
00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:55,320
Speaker 1: a decision prior to the Dappa decision, So there's not

349
00:20:55,440 --> 00:20:58,439
Speaker 1: the Dappa case and there's this Docta case. But I

350
00:20:58,480 --> 00:21:02,000
Speaker 1: think where these statements come from like that in the articles,

351
00:21:02,240 --> 00:21:04,479
Speaker 1: is there was a case prior to those two that

352
00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:09,600
Speaker 1: was related to people who are unaccompanied miners coming into

353
00:21:09,680 --> 00:21:15,240
Speaker 1: the United States. And the judge described the process under

354
00:21:15,320 --> 00:21:18,360
Speaker 1: the t v p r A, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act,

355
00:21:18,400 --> 00:21:21,359
Speaker 1: which is the law that was passed unanimously by Congress.

356
00:21:21,400 --> 00:21:25,360
Speaker 1: Mind you, he described that process which requires the government

357
00:21:25,600 --> 00:21:29,159
Speaker 1: to take in an unaccompanied minor and to find a

358
00:21:29,320 --> 00:21:32,960
Speaker 1: guardian for that minor and allow the minor to stay

359
00:21:33,000 --> 00:21:35,720
Speaker 1: with that guardian while their immigration case is pending, not

360
00:21:36,080 --> 00:21:40,879
Speaker 1: in detention, He described that as the US government doing,

361
00:21:41,640 --> 00:21:44,320
Speaker 1: you know, the final piece of the work for the smuggler.

362
00:21:44,440 --> 00:21:47,600
Speaker 1: So the smuggler takes the child to the US government,

363
00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:51,480
Speaker 1: and the US government finishes the smugglers work by providing

364
00:21:51,520 --> 00:21:54,600
Speaker 1: the child exactly to who the smuggler wanted the child

365
00:21:54,640 --> 00:21:58,119
Speaker 1: to be provided to. And so by making that statement

366
00:21:58,400 --> 00:22:01,680
Speaker 1: in that decision, that to where I think sort of

367
00:22:01,720 --> 00:22:06,440
Speaker 1: all of the comments about Judge Hanen were generated from

368
00:22:06,480 --> 00:22:09,119
Speaker 1: because they said, well, that's just the law, so you know,

369
00:22:09,720 --> 00:22:13,720
Speaker 1: the cast it in that manner, uh seemed to show

370
00:22:13,800 --> 00:22:17,400
Speaker 1: that the disagreed with that law. And so then adding

371
00:22:17,440 --> 00:22:19,960
Speaker 1: that to the Doctor decision, the not By decision, and

372
00:22:20,000 --> 00:22:24,359
Speaker 1: now the Docka decision, this is why people levy that criticism.

373
00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:28,119
Speaker 1: So the Supreme Court last year issued a ruling that

374
00:22:28,280 --> 00:22:32,600
Speaker 1: upheld DOCCA, but it doesn't address this issue that would

375
00:22:32,640 --> 00:22:35,600
Speaker 1: be before the court this time. Right, So the Supreme

376
00:22:35,600 --> 00:22:38,719
Speaker 1: Court decision was about whether the manner in which the

377
00:22:38,760 --> 00:22:43,840
Speaker 1: Trump administration revoked DOCTA, whether that manner was procedurally correct,

378
00:22:44,359 --> 00:22:48,879
Speaker 1: because the Trump administration had only said that the reason

379
00:22:48,920 --> 00:22:52,439
Speaker 1: it was revoking DOCCA was because it was illegal. That

380
00:22:52,560 --> 00:22:54,400
Speaker 1: was it. That was the only reason that they gave

381
00:22:55,080 --> 00:22:58,720
Speaker 1: and Justice Roberts had written a decision which said, well,

382
00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:00,639
Speaker 1: you can't say that because you have to take a

383
00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:04,240
Speaker 1: bunch of different interests into account in how you revoked

384
00:23:04,280 --> 00:23:06,960
Speaker 1: the programs, such as the reliance interests of the people

385
00:23:07,000 --> 00:23:09,320
Speaker 1: in the program, and so you have to go back

386
00:23:09,359 --> 00:23:12,120
Speaker 1: and try to do it again. And the Trump administration

387
00:23:12,200 --> 00:23:14,119
Speaker 1: was in the process of trying to do that again

388
00:23:14,200 --> 00:23:18,680
Speaker 1: when obviously the election happened, and so you know, there

389
00:23:18,720 --> 00:23:21,120
Speaker 1: was lower court cases working on that getting its way

390
00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:23,679
Speaker 1: back to Supreme Court. So they never grappled with the

391
00:23:23,720 --> 00:23:28,200
Speaker 1: actual underlying issue. Is the DOCTA program legal? And so

392
00:23:28,240 --> 00:23:32,480
Speaker 1: now that's what's going to be inevitably before the Supreme

393
00:23:32,520 --> 00:23:35,119
Speaker 1: Court is whether the DOCCA program is legal or not.

394
00:23:35,840 --> 00:23:41,080
Speaker 1: Did three conservative justices say DOCCA was illegal? Well? Right,

395
00:23:41,160 --> 00:23:44,240
Speaker 1: so you had the Justice Thomas and Justice Alito and

396
00:23:44,359 --> 00:23:49,280
Speaker 1: Justice Gore said group that said yes that DACA was illegal,

397
00:23:49,320 --> 00:23:52,280
Speaker 1: and they wanted to call it illegal right there. And

398
00:23:52,359 --> 00:23:54,359
Speaker 1: so what you're gonna see in this case is we're

399
00:23:54,359 --> 00:23:58,879
Speaker 1: gonna have to see now what the Roberts and Coney

400
00:23:59,040 --> 00:24:02,959
Speaker 1: Barrett's and having a group decides to do about this.

401
00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:07,280
Speaker 1: And Kavanaugh wanted to do an interesting sort of compromise situation,

402
00:24:08,040 --> 00:24:10,480
Speaker 1: which now we're going to just have to see where

403
00:24:11,240 --> 00:24:16,639
Speaker 1: those three Cavanaugh, Coney, Barrett, and Roberts come into play

404
00:24:16,800 --> 00:24:19,800
Speaker 1: with the decision as to whether DOCCA ends up being

405
00:24:20,200 --> 00:24:23,480
Speaker 1: legal or illegal. Now, everybody's gonna have to grapple with that,

406
00:24:23,840 --> 00:24:25,600
Speaker 1: and that's what we're going to have to wait and see.

407
00:24:25,960 --> 00:24:28,359
Speaker 1: It was a five to four decision that was the

408
00:24:28,440 --> 00:24:32,760
Speaker 1: Chief Justice with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and

409
00:24:32,880 --> 00:24:35,159
Speaker 1: the three liberals who are now on the court. So

410
00:24:35,240 --> 00:24:38,760
Speaker 1: it's a way different court now, right, it's a different court,

411
00:24:39,080 --> 00:24:42,520
Speaker 1: And so Kavanaugh, who didn't want to actually grapple with

412
00:24:42,560 --> 00:24:45,600
Speaker 1: the legality of DOCCA, is going to have to do it,

413
00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:48,080
Speaker 1: as is Coney Barrett, who was not on the court,

414
00:24:48,320 --> 00:24:52,199
Speaker 1: and Roberts, who had ruled that DACCA should stay in

415
00:24:52,240 --> 00:24:55,800
Speaker 1: place but hadn't ruled on the legality of DACA. So

416
00:24:55,920 --> 00:24:59,240
Speaker 1: Biden says, the Department of Justice is going to appeal

417
00:24:59,280 --> 00:25:03,200
Speaker 1: the decision that goes to the Fifth Circuit, the most

418
00:25:03,240 --> 00:25:07,879
Speaker 1: conservative circuit in the country. Have they ruled in immigration

419
00:25:07,960 --> 00:25:11,600
Speaker 1: matters before, So the Fifth Circuit has ruled in this

420
00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:16,040
Speaker 1: exact same case for top the program that does the

421
00:25:16,080 --> 00:25:19,480
Speaker 1: exact same things, but for the parents of people who

422
00:25:19,520 --> 00:25:23,000
Speaker 1: have US cities in children. They said the exact same thing,

423
00:25:23,119 --> 00:25:27,760
Speaker 1: that this notice and comment non issuance threatens the whole

424
00:25:27,840 --> 00:25:32,119
Speaker 1: law and makes it fatally flawed such that the program

425
00:25:32,200 --> 00:25:35,280
Speaker 1: is illegal. So they've already done that, And there's no

426
00:25:35,320 --> 00:25:39,080
Speaker 1: reason to expect, because that's binding Fifth Circuit precedent, that

427
00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:42,119
Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit will change its mind here. And so

428
00:25:42,280 --> 00:25:45,680
Speaker 1: the question is really what happens at the Supreme Court?

429
00:25:45,800 --> 00:25:48,679
Speaker 1: And so there and there's actually a different question too.

430
00:25:48,760 --> 00:25:50,720
Speaker 1: There's two different questions happening at the same time. What

431
00:25:50,760 --> 00:25:55,200
Speaker 1: happened that the Supreme Court? And then secondly, will either

432
00:25:55,400 --> 00:25:59,280
Speaker 1: Congress act in the mean time visa the reconciliation or

433
00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:03,119
Speaker 1: something else, And will the administration actually do a notice

434
00:26:03,119 --> 00:26:06,679
Speaker 1: and comment rule in the meantime that will change the

435
00:26:06,720 --> 00:26:10,120
Speaker 1: matters in this case? President Biden as soon as he

436
00:26:10,200 --> 00:26:13,280
Speaker 1: was in office, he signed an executive order that called

437
00:26:13,280 --> 00:26:15,639
Speaker 1: on the Secretary of Homeland Security and the a G

438
00:26:16,600 --> 00:26:20,119
Speaker 1: to take all actions he deems appropriate consistent with applicable

439
00:26:20,200 --> 00:26:26,160
Speaker 1: law to preserve and fortified DOCCA and DHS reiterated on

440
00:26:26,280 --> 00:26:31,000
Speaker 1: Friday that it remains focused on safeguarding doc and we

441
00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:34,600
Speaker 1: will engage the public in a rulemaking process to preserve

442
00:26:34,640 --> 00:26:38,240
Speaker 1: and fortify DOCCA. Are they talking about a whole new

443
00:26:38,359 --> 00:26:42,000
Speaker 1: rule that will go through rulemaking process and they're talking

444
00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:45,720
Speaker 1: about they're talking about issuing a rule that does exactly

445
00:26:45,760 --> 00:26:49,720
Speaker 1: what Judge Haynan said needed to be done. And so

446
00:26:49,920 --> 00:26:51,960
Speaker 1: I think that rule they've been working on it, So

447
00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:54,239
Speaker 1: it would just be a matter of strategically do they

448
00:26:54,240 --> 00:26:56,160
Speaker 1: want to do it or do they want to wait

449
00:26:56,240 --> 00:27:00,440
Speaker 1: till the litigation is much further along and then do it.

450
00:27:00,720 --> 00:27:02,920
Speaker 1: And I think that's going to be a strategic question,

451
00:27:03,359 --> 00:27:05,480
Speaker 1: but at some point they're gonna want to do it.

452
00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:09,760
Speaker 1: And when they do that, then that will actually make

453
00:27:09,840 --> 00:27:13,440
Speaker 1: the case go all the way back for the real

454
00:27:13,520 --> 00:27:16,760
Speaker 1: issue that hasn't been adjudicated yet, which is does it

455
00:27:16,920 --> 00:27:20,760
Speaker 1: violate to take Care Clause of the Constitution. Jayna didn't

456
00:27:20,760 --> 00:27:23,320
Speaker 1: want to even go down that route because he said

457
00:27:23,760 --> 00:27:27,679
Speaker 1: that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act. So if the

458
00:27:27,720 --> 00:27:32,160
Speaker 1: new rule doesn't violate the Administrative Procedure Act, then they'll

459
00:27:32,160 --> 00:27:35,000
Speaker 1: have to relitigate this issue yet again about to take

460
00:27:35,040 --> 00:27:37,800
Speaker 1: Care clause. How would it violate to take care clause.

461
00:27:38,160 --> 00:27:40,879
Speaker 1: So what the argument of the people who say this

462
00:27:41,160 --> 00:27:44,720
Speaker 1: is that because there are laws that specifically say that

463
00:27:44,800 --> 00:27:49,000
Speaker 1: when the government encounters someone without status, it shall place

464
00:27:49,080 --> 00:27:52,760
Speaker 1: them in removal proceedings, the decision not to do that

465
00:27:52,880 --> 00:27:57,320
Speaker 1: on a categorical basis, not not in the prosecutorial discretion

466
00:27:57,400 --> 00:28:01,440
Speaker 1: one off basis, but in any kind of a grammatic basis,

467
00:28:01,880 --> 00:28:06,359
Speaker 1: would be the president openly flouting the instruction that a

468
00:28:06,600 --> 00:28:10,280
Speaker 1: person shall be placed into removal proceedings when they're encountered

469
00:28:10,280 --> 00:28:13,080
Speaker 1: by the government and they don't have status. Why wouldn't

470
00:28:13,080 --> 00:28:16,159
Speaker 1: they just issue the rule as soon as possible. I

471
00:28:16,200 --> 00:28:20,480
Speaker 1: think the reason is there may be some value so

472
00:28:20,640 --> 00:28:25,160
Speaker 1: long as there's this stay present and even though new

473
00:28:25,200 --> 00:28:27,360
Speaker 1: people can't join the program, at least the people who

474
00:28:27,359 --> 00:28:29,520
Speaker 1: have been relying on the program can stay in it.

475
00:28:30,119 --> 00:28:32,840
Speaker 1: There may be some value in dragging that out as

476
00:28:32,880 --> 00:28:36,520
Speaker 1: long as possible, and then maybe mooting the case out

477
00:28:36,640 --> 00:28:39,480
Speaker 1: later with the rule and making it start all over again.

478
00:28:39,520 --> 00:28:41,880
Speaker 1: If that makes sense that if you do the rule,

479
00:28:42,480 --> 00:28:45,040
Speaker 1: you lose some of that time you might otherwise be

480
00:28:45,160 --> 00:28:48,840
Speaker 1: able to sort of extend by not issuing the rules

481
00:28:48,880 --> 00:28:54,000
Speaker 1: so quickly. The reconciliation process just explain what that is. Sure,

482
00:28:54,200 --> 00:28:58,920
Speaker 1: So what happens is this Congress normally requires a majority

483
00:28:59,000 --> 00:29:01,760
Speaker 1: vote in the House and then sixty votes in the

484
00:29:01,800 --> 00:29:05,480
Speaker 1: Senate in order to pass a law because of what's

485
00:29:05,520 --> 00:29:08,320
Speaker 1: been known in the tradition as the filibuster. And so

486
00:29:08,400 --> 00:29:12,240
Speaker 1: what reconciliation is it's a actual rule that was placed

487
00:29:12,240 --> 00:29:15,000
Speaker 1: in the seventies in the Senate that said, if you're

488
00:29:15,000 --> 00:29:18,680
Speaker 1: going to actually do something for budgetary purposes, this is

489
00:29:18,720 --> 00:29:20,520
Speaker 1: so important that we don't want to have that be

490
00:29:20,640 --> 00:29:24,480
Speaker 1: subject to the filibuster. So that only requires a majority

491
00:29:24,560 --> 00:29:27,800
Speaker 1: vote in the Senate to pass something that will allow

492
00:29:27,840 --> 00:29:30,960
Speaker 1: the budget to be affected in one way or the other.

493
00:29:31,360 --> 00:29:34,640
Speaker 1: And that's called budget reconciliation. And so there's an open

494
00:29:34,760 --> 00:29:40,800
Speaker 1: question as to whether immigration provisions can survive this budget

495
00:29:40,840 --> 00:29:44,120
Speaker 1: reconciliation process, because what can happen is if you oppose

496
00:29:44,520 --> 00:29:48,480
Speaker 1: the provision, you can make what's called the parliamentarian objection,

497
00:29:49,120 --> 00:29:52,200
Speaker 1: and the parliamentarian can decide is this something that has

498
00:29:52,240 --> 00:29:54,960
Speaker 1: a budget impact or not. And so it will really

499
00:29:55,000 --> 00:29:59,080
Speaker 1: depend on how these things are drafted, how narrowly, how broadly,

500
00:29:59,600 --> 00:30:02,800
Speaker 1: and the or broadly there draft him. The harder it

501
00:30:02,960 --> 00:30:05,440
Speaker 1: is to say, this is a budgetary thing and not

502
00:30:05,560 --> 00:30:08,320
Speaker 1: an immigration thing. But if you can really drive some

503
00:30:08,480 --> 00:30:13,520
Speaker 1: very narrow language around generating a fee and exchange for

504
00:30:13,640 --> 00:30:17,480
Speaker 1: people being able to have legal status, it's possible that

505
00:30:17,600 --> 00:30:23,840
Speaker 1: that can survive the reconciliation process and actually be included

506
00:30:23,840 --> 00:30:26,400
Speaker 1: in a fifty vote bill, which will make it much

507
00:30:26,400 --> 00:30:29,960
Speaker 1: easier to save DOTA. Thanks Leon, that's Leon Fresco of

508
00:30:30,040 --> 00:30:32,880
Speaker 1: Hollanden Night. Remember you can always at the latest legal

509
00:30:32,920 --> 00:30:35,600
Speaker 1: news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them

510
00:30:35,600 --> 00:30:40,000
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg dot

511
00:30:40,040 --> 00:30:44,240
Speaker 1: com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso. Thanks so

512
00:30:44,320 --> 00:30:46,840
Speaker 1: much for listening, and please turn into The Bloomberg Law

513
00:30:46,880 --> 00:30:49,440
Speaker 1: Show every week night at ten p m. Eastern right

514
00:30:49,480 --> 00:30:50,760
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Radio.