Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio. Hello, Walgreens,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the ARNS. We're gonna launch in September, but
Speaker 1: we're gonna launch in phases. Phase one. We're gonna use
Speaker 1: the Semens machines to run the tests. I think I
Speaker 1: can program new software for it that says I love
Speaker 1: you all Greens. Just need to know exactly what we're
Speaker 1: running the tests on. Yes, just phase one. The Dropout
Speaker 1: on Hulu is the latest recounting of the spectacular rise
Speaker 1: and fall of Elizabeth Holmes and her blood testing start up,
Speaker 1: paras with a sort of co starring role for her
Speaker 1: former boyfriend and Tharahns president Ramesh Sunny bell Wanni. The
Speaker 1: first episode premiered just in time for the start of
Speaker 1: bell Wanni's trial in the same courthouse where Holmes was
Speaker 1: convicted of de frauding investors in January and on the
Speaker 1: same charges. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Joel Rosenblatt,
Speaker 1: who also covered the Holmes trial. This trial started about
Speaker 1: two and a half months after the conviction of Elizabeth Holmes.
Speaker 1: Was it difficult to get a jury who didn't know
Speaker 1: about that trial? Incredibly difficult. So the attorneys and the
Speaker 1: court ran into all the same problems that they had
Speaker 1: with Elizabeth Holmes in terms of the exposure to the
Speaker 1: book and just the coverage generally. But now add the
Speaker 1: dropout this docu dropped my series, which has this only
Speaker 1: added to the exposure. So it took five or six
Speaker 1: days and a number of groups of jurors who were excused.
Speaker 1: There was a media circus for Elizabeth Holmes trial. What
Speaker 1: about Balwannies, it's greatly diminished. I mean, it's basically non existent.
Speaker 1: There are journalists covering the trial for sure, but the
Speaker 1: members of the public you don't see them. It's a
Speaker 1: rather a quiet affair. In the opening statements, the prosecutor
Speaker 1: repeatedly started sentences with Bale and Holmes. Tell us what
Speaker 1: that indicates. The opening arguments were very much the same
Speaker 1: as they were against Elizabeth Holmes. They were streamlined, so
Speaker 1: there was a lot cleaner. The rough edges kind of
Speaker 1: weren't there. And by pairing him with Elizabeth, they're really
Speaker 1: aiming at the conspiracy theory. They were indicted as co conspirators,
Speaker 1: so that's an important charge. But also they're just trying
Speaker 1: to pair him with everything that she did, and that's
Speaker 1: not difficult because the texts and emails, all the conversations,
Speaker 1: really all the functions of the company, and they were
Speaker 1: romantically involved. Was there a differentiation between what bal Wanni
Speaker 1: did and what Holmes did or is the prosecution just
Speaker 1: lumping them in together for everything. They're lumping them together
Speaker 1: for most things. I would say, but there is a distinction.
Speaker 1: Sonny boy was in charge of the laboratories, so he
Speaker 1: had more exposure to two important facts. One is the
Speaker 1: bad blood results the inaccuracies of the fair Noose technology.
Speaker 1: He had more exposure to that from both just the
Speaker 1: results themselves, but also complaints from employees about the inaccuracies.
Speaker 1: He also was in charge of finances, or more in
Speaker 1: charge of revenue projections. Elizabeth Holmes tried to blame him
Speaker 1: for that, but he did have more of a Hammond
Speaker 1: in those projections, as well as the company's relationship with Walgreens.
Speaker 1: So there are some differences, and the prosecution wills teek
Speaker 1: to kind of emphasize those areas in which Sonny Boltwani
Speaker 1: was more exposed or had a greater responsibility for what
Speaker 1: they say are the inaccuracies in the fraud. Much was
Speaker 1: made at Holmes trial. She accused Belwanni of emotional and
Speaker 1: sexual abuse, but there won't be any mention of that
Speaker 1: at this trial. I don't think so. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: kind of one very sensational question, which is whether or
Speaker 1: not she's now cooperating with the government to reduce her
Speaker 1: sentence marginally. That would be marginally at this point, given
Speaker 1: how long she waited to cooperate, and whether she'll testify,
Speaker 1: in which case maybe that testimony comes out. But I
Speaker 1: think the chances of her testifying are unlikely, and there's
Speaker 1: no reason she was the one who leveled those charges
Speaker 1: at him, not the government. To the government has no
Speaker 1: interest or really right to mention any of that. Do
Speaker 1: some people actually think that she will testify. Many media,
Speaker 1: of course want her to testify because it would be
Speaker 1: so great, you know, really kind of bring the whole
Speaker 1: thing back. But there's just a lot of risks, and
Speaker 1: it's also been pointed out to me repeatedly that the
Speaker 1: government really doesn't need her for its case. The downside
Speaker 1: of the risk don't outweigh what seemed to be the
Speaker 1: risks of kind of making the trial about her Again.
Speaker 1: I don't think the government wants to do that. Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Holmes made the risky decision of taking the stand. That
Speaker 1: didn't help ultimately, but it might have helped with some
Speaker 1: of the counts against her. What about Bell Wannie, any
Speaker 1: indication that he might take the stand as well? No, again,
Speaker 1: very unlikely. She was compelling, right, I mean, she was believable.
Speaker 1: Whether or not you actually did end up believing what
Speaker 1: she said, she at least had a chance of convincing
Speaker 1: jurors of her side of the story. And it was believable,
Speaker 1: even though maybe it doesn't sound it went there. But
Speaker 1: he didn't have that kind of charisma. He seems uncomfortable
Speaker 1: just generally in the courtroom, in the spotlight, and it's
Speaker 1: just almost unimaginable to believe that he or his lawyers
Speaker 1: would feel that his testimony would serve his defense. It
Speaker 1: would be hard to top her magnetism, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: What did Bani's attorney reveal about the defense in his
Speaker 1: opening statement? You know, this is where this case is
Speaker 1: very interesting to me, and it stands to be completely
Speaker 1: different from Elizabeth Holmes's trial. There's a database at Sarakos
Speaker 1: that collected the results of patient tests giant database and
Speaker 1: it was, for lack of a better word, destroyed, And
Speaker 1: Sunny Bolani and his lawyers are pointing to that database
Speaker 1: to say, the government has selected, you know, just a
Speaker 1: sliver the thinnest fraction of test results of bad test
Speaker 1: results for its case. They're gonna bring patients on saying
Speaker 1: we got inaccurate results. But what Sonny balt Wannis lawyers
Speaker 1: are saying is that there were nine million results in
Speaker 1: this database and you didn't even bother to look at them,
Speaker 1: and so we're being unfairly impugned. There are inaccuracies at
Speaker 1: laboratories all the time, and we suffered maybe a reasonable
Speaker 1: number of inaccuracies, but you failed to look at all
Speaker 1: the great test, all the perfectly accurate results. That's a
Speaker 1: kind of fraught defense in its own way. The government
Speaker 1: alleges that Saranos intentionally destroyed this database. So this trial
Speaker 1: looks like it's going to be headed towards a kind
Speaker 1: of trial about this database. If Sonny Baltwanna continues to
Speaker 1: go down that road, I think it's actually strategically a
Speaker 1: great choice for him. I think it gives them at
Speaker 1: least a chance. Did the defense attorney also point at
Speaker 1: Homes as the real guilty party here. They did. They
Speaker 1: pointed out that she founded the company, she was the CEO,
Speaker 1: she was in charge of the company for years before
Speaker 1: he came on as president, and that's all accurate, and
Speaker 1: so they kind of brushed at that. They didn't go
Speaker 1: as forcefully in that direction as I had expected. As
Speaker 1: I mentioned, it looks like they're relying more on this
Speaker 1: defense based on the defunct database then pointing at her.
Speaker 1: She suffered from the same problem as you mentioned. She
Speaker 1: pointed the finger at him, and now he's left the
Speaker 1: door open to doing that to her. But like I said,
Speaker 1: they're so paired, the text and the communications, the romantic involvements,
Speaker 1: they're just so completely tied together that it's I think
Speaker 1: very difficult for either one to extract themselves from the
Speaker 1: alleged co conspiracy. Holmes was the face of the business
Speaker 1: and she was the darling of the media. There are
Speaker 1: all these different interviews with her, and she was on
Speaker 1: the cover of magazines, all the boasting two investors and
Speaker 1: the media. So was that all done by Holmes? Will
Speaker 1: Bell wanna get a pass on some of that? I
Speaker 1: think he doesn't get a pass on that. I mean,
Speaker 1: he just wasn't. Her testimony her trial showed that he
Speaker 1: had dressed her up and he had prepared her, and
Speaker 1: he had a strong hand in making her be that person.
Speaker 1: But he also revealed that she enjoyed that and that
Speaker 1: was a role that she embraced and he wasn't. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he didn't make many of these public statements. He wasn't
Speaker 1: out there, uh, making these claims as publicly as she was.
Speaker 1: And I think that helps him, but not enough, not
Speaker 1: enough to absolve him. So the charges are the same,
Speaker 1: Are many of the witnesses going to be the same.
Speaker 1: Is it going to be like a rerun? It is?
Speaker 1: It is. I think the one question is whether the
Speaker 1: patients will be different or the government will spend more
Speaker 1: time on patients who claimed that they got bad results
Speaker 1: and what the what the kind of bad effects of
Speaker 1: those bad results were, because the government spent very little
Speaker 1: time on that actually in her trial and she was absolved.
Speaker 1: She was vindicated on all the accounts of patient fraud,
Speaker 1: all of them. So it remains to be seen whether
Speaker 1: or not the government is kind of happy just to
Speaker 1: kind of paint him with these patients, even if they
Speaker 1: don't quite connect him to the fraud against them, or
Speaker 1: if they look to shore up their case and bring
Speaker 1: in more patients or patients with kind of darker, more
Speaker 1: disturbing stories about the test results, and whether or not
Speaker 1: they choose to emphasize that part of their case more. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this isn't a retrial, but it seems a lot like
Speaker 1: a retrial. Who do you think has the advantage, the
Speaker 1: prosecution or the defense. It's hard to say, really. I
Speaker 1: mentioned the opening arguments. The government's opening arguments were really
Speaker 1: strong because they have been through this before and they won, right,
Speaker 1: they won, so you can kind of do what you
Speaker 1: did before and if it isn't broke, then don't fix
Speaker 1: it kind of attitude. On the other hand, sunny Balhalwani
Speaker 1: got to see the whole thing before he has to
Speaker 1: go to trial, and so he knows what's coming, and
Speaker 1: so hard to say. I think the advantage, you have
Speaker 1: to say, on balance goes to the government because of
Speaker 1: the government won the first time, so it's kind of
Speaker 1: like you've got a winning hand and Sunny Balwanni is
Speaker 1: gonna have to do something very special in order to
Speaker 1: up end that. What's happening with Holmes right now, has
Speaker 1: she filed a motion for a retrial. That's a great question,
Speaker 1: because those motions were due and the deadline came and passed,
Speaker 1: and so that, to me, you've raised a lot of questions.
Speaker 1: She's awaiting her sentencing, which isn't until September, and that's
Speaker 1: because the judge wants to see what Sunny bans well.
Speaker 1: First of all, what happens with him, whether he's convicted
Speaker 1: or not, and either way kind of what his role was.
Speaker 1: Especially if he's convicted, he needs to figure out who
Speaker 1: was more culpable in terms of kind of meeting out
Speaker 1: their respective sentences. So he wants the information from this
Speaker 1: trial for sentencing both of them. Whether or not that
Speaker 1: miss deeadline means that she's not going to make those
Speaker 1: filings and is cooperating is a question that I have.
Speaker 1: I don't know the answer, but she could still file
Speaker 1: an appeal. But these kind of routine motions for a retrial,
Speaker 1: like I said, came and went, and that's unusual. That's
Speaker 1: very interesting because as you say, those are usually filed
Speaker 1: after trial. Tell us about the aggravating and mitigating factors
Speaker 1: the judge will consider in sentencing homes well. So she
Speaker 1: was the CEO, and like you said, the face of
Speaker 1: the company and also the person who was the point
Speaker 1: person for the contact with investors, and so she was
Speaker 1: really very heavily involved in deceiving investors. So that's an
Speaker 1: aggravating role. If you're seen as the person who was
Speaker 1: really leading the fraud, that can at some time. But
Speaker 1: the biggest problem for her is the amount of money
Speaker 1: that investors were defrauded of, which if you add up
Speaker 1: accounts that she was convicted on, is a hundred and
Speaker 1: forty four million dollars. That's just an astounding sum of
Speaker 1: money in a wire fraud case. And that some of
Speaker 1: money gets her to around ten years and I think
Speaker 1: that's going to be difficult for her to get out
Speaker 1: from underneath. And so we also have these mitigating factors,
Speaker 1: which is that she is a new mother. Her baby
Speaker 1: was born in July, I believe, and she's likely to
Speaker 1: raise that point as well as the fact that she's
Speaker 1: the first time felon the child. Though is is not
Speaker 1: legally a mitigating factor, it's something that she can raise.
Speaker 1: So depending on what the judge feels about those various
Speaker 1: factors will determine what sentence he arrives. At but he
Speaker 1: also has to send a message to Silicon Valley, and
Speaker 1: you know this is a widely watched case, and he's
Speaker 1: going to want to I think give her some serious time, thanks, Joel.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Joe Rosenblatt on Maye. The c
Speaker 1: d C is lifting the asylum band known as Title
Speaker 1: forty two, which allows migrants and asylum seekers to be
Speaker 1: turned away at the border under a pandemic public health order,
Speaker 1: and three Republican states are taking the Biden administration to
Speaker 1: court over its plans to end the Trump era policy.
Speaker 1: Here's White House Press Secretary Jen Saki. This is a
Speaker 1: decision made by the CDC. It's a public health decision.
Speaker 1: It's not one that should be wrapped up, of course
Speaker 1: in politics. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at
Speaker 1: Hollandon Night. Leon. Is this purely a decision by the
Speaker 1: c d C with public health in mind? Or are
Speaker 1: there political factors at play? Well? I think there are
Speaker 1: a number of issues that the person who is none
Speaker 1: of this has been done in a vactive There's litigation
Speaker 1: in the challenging the dutility of Title forty two. That
Speaker 1: litigation is pricing them in the district of Columbia. B'm
Speaker 1: not using it towards families, And so then the question is,
Speaker 1: is the policy works do things just for single adults?
Speaker 1: And then you start having a difficult question about, well,
Speaker 1: what is the public health reason to use it only
Speaker 1: for single adults and not for families or for kids.
Speaker 1: It's either a public health thing or it's not a
Speaker 1: public health thing. And as other public health restrictions start
Speaker 1: to lessen across the United States, then it becomes more
Speaker 1: and more difficult to justify the use of site afforty too.
Speaker 1: There's political pressure for many Democrats in Congress to live
Speaker 1: site afforty too, and all of that in conjunction then
Speaker 1: of the CDC, who originally wasn't a big plan of
Speaker 1: using tide A forty two has to sort of be
Speaker 1: voted into using it. Now makes it easier for the
Speaker 1: CDC sort of to return to their original position that
Speaker 1: these public health exclusions weren't necessarily the greatest idea to
Speaker 1: begin with. What the use of title for you two did,
Speaker 1: and some called it a pretext to end a asylum claims,
Speaker 1: is that it expelled people before they could make an
Speaker 1: asylum claim. Correct, the normal law is that if anybody
Speaker 1: appears either at the port of entry or even in
Speaker 1: between the ports of entry, meaning they crossed the border illegally,
Speaker 1: the very first thing that happens is whoever encounters them
Speaker 1: has to ask them if they have a fear of
Speaker 1: being returned to the country that they take from, and
Speaker 1: if they do, they have to go through this intricate
Speaker 1: process that decides whether they can stay and make a
Speaker 1: claim here or not. And the point of Pride of
Speaker 1: forty two is it completely short circuited that in the
Speaker 1: anxiety events, we have a public health crisis. This crisis
Speaker 1: is of such intensity that we must not even ask
Speaker 1: you any questions. We must immediately turn you back into Mexico.
Speaker 1: And that's maybe the state of affairs for about two
Speaker 1: years now in the United States, and that created this
Speaker 1: massive backlog of people seeking asylum of the Mexican border.
Speaker 1: And we're going to wait to see how this plays
Speaker 1: out as Tide of forty two starts to uh wind down.
Speaker 1: That's my next question, because according to US Customs and
Speaker 1: Border Protection, more than one point six million migrants have
Speaker 1: been expelled under Title forty two since March of Some
Speaker 1: simply were returned to Mexico. So is there a build
Speaker 1: up of people waiting across when the policy is lifted?
Speaker 1: According to US Customs and Border Protection, more than one
Speaker 1: point six million migrants have been expelled under Title forty
Speaker 1: two since March of Some simply were returned to Mexico.
Speaker 1: So is there a build up of people waiting across
Speaker 1: when the policy is lifted. I think there's seeing three
Speaker 1: types of individuals. First, within the one point million, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of repeat crossers who keep trying to
Speaker 1: get through and hope the title won't be applied to them.
Speaker 1: But having said that, there's a second group, which our
Speaker 1: people coming across the border. And these are people from Ukraine,
Speaker 1: from Russia, from the Karagwa, from Cuba, from Venezuela, from Colombia,
Speaker 1: from Brazil, Katie. All kinds of places around the world
Speaker 1: are sending people to the southern border. And so there
Speaker 1: are people already there waiting in Mexico and either standing
Speaker 1: Teabrow in San Diego or Brownville or laurezell pass O.
Speaker 1: There's people waiting all over the border. But in addition,
Speaker 1: once it becomes clearer that people will be able to
Speaker 1: come across the border, then the question is you start
Speaker 1: to see not just the people waiting there trying across,
Speaker 1: but people coming from all over the world, is right
Speaker 1: to answer. Through the southern border, the Secretary of Homeland
Speaker 1: Security was saying that they're prepared for this. What does
Speaker 1: it take to process someone when people arrive at the
Speaker 1: border and they say they're seeking asylum, Well, it's a
Speaker 1: very kind consuming process because for the very first thing
Speaker 1: you have to do is apprehend the individual or the family.
Speaker 1: And when they're you apprehending individual or the family, that
Speaker 1: will then depend on what kind of center their place into,
Speaker 1: whether they placed into a processing center that's holding families
Speaker 1: or a little kids, or whether they placed into one
Speaker 1: that's holding just signal adult. Then you have to take
Speaker 1: the fingerprints to make sure they're not a reduced crosser
Speaker 1: or that they actually have God forbid, some sort of
Speaker 1: criminal or terrorist record. And then once youven Tabli said send.
Speaker 1: The question is what the government wants to do in
Speaker 1: a situation where someone doesn't have any status at all
Speaker 1: is to do what's called an expedited removal order, which
Speaker 1: is to say we will we will re transmut you
Speaker 1: back to your home country as soon as possible, but
Speaker 1: What then happens is the defense to expedited removal is
Speaker 1: that you try to do that to me, I will
Speaker 1: be persecuted based on my rage, religion, national origin, social group,
Speaker 1: or political opinion. And here the government just has to say, well,
Speaker 1: does the person have what's called a credible fear, And
Speaker 1: a credible fear is a very very low threshold, and
Speaker 1: say we reason about possibility of think an asylum claim,
Speaker 1: and an asylum claim is considered even a one intent
Speaker 1: chance of persecution in your home country, So reasonable possibility
Speaker 1: I'm a one in contance of persecution is not a
Speaker 1: very high threshold. And in the Trump administration that got
Speaker 1: to as low as high sevties. In the Obama and
Speaker 1: the Biden administration has been at the low nineties. So
Speaker 1: somewhere between the high seventy percent and low ninety percent
Speaker 1: of people can meet this credible fear threshold. And then
Speaker 1: the question is what happens to them? And here it's
Speaker 1: a little bit dicey because there's still a litigation going
Speaker 1: on about remain in Mexico, which means that there's a
Speaker 1: court order that some number of these people still have
Speaker 1: to be sent back to Mexico to wait to make
Speaker 1: their asylum claims. So they've weighed in Mexico still the
Speaker 1: day of their immigration court hearing, whereas others are going
Speaker 1: to be allowed to enter the United States. And the
Speaker 1: question is, well, how is that going to be determined?
Speaker 1: And I think a lot of people will be monitoring
Speaker 1: that to see if there's either any kind of discriminatory
Speaker 1: treatment um who's getting in and who's getting out, or
Speaker 1: how many people are being forced to wait in the
Speaker 1: remaining Mexical program. And so there's a lot of that
Speaker 1: uncertainty that's going to be surrounding this ending of prilep
Speaker 1: forts too. To get asylum in this country. It's not
Speaker 1: enough that you want a better life economically. You want
Speaker 1: to you know, better your condition. So could the standard
Speaker 1: for credible fear be changed be made more difficult? Well,
Speaker 1: the problem is this is tasatory language from the ninety
Speaker 1: eighties that would have to be changed by Congress, and
Speaker 1: we know how difficult it is for Congress to change anything.
Speaker 1: And the standards could have been raised. The Trump administration
Speaker 1: would have raised the standards, But the Trump administration tried
Speaker 1: to do because it couldn't raise the standards for credible
Speaker 1: fear is it tries to basically take away the two
Speaker 1: kinds of asylum claims predominantly made by Central American asylum seekers,
Speaker 1: which were for males gang related claims, and that is
Speaker 1: that if you were asked to join the gang and
Speaker 1: you refuse, you you see into what's called the social groups,
Speaker 1: because you have to have persecution based from one of
Speaker 1: five factors. And so they were using social group to
Speaker 1: say I refused to join a gang. I'm a known
Speaker 1: entity who was used to join a gang, and so
Speaker 1: now the gang is gonna kill me, and the the
Speaker 1: government of my Central American country to do anything to
Speaker 1: solve that, and so the some administration really takes the
Speaker 1: Vietnam like that's not from the violent place, that doesn't count.
Speaker 1: And then for winning, the primary claim was that they
Speaker 1: were going to be victims of domestic violence and that
Speaker 1: they were being persecuted on the basis of being women
Speaker 1: because the government in whatever country in Central America that
Speaker 1: they were applying from was not seriously protecting domestic violence plays.
Speaker 1: And both of those were very foreclosed by the trump
Speaker 1: of Ministrates and the Biden administrations actually working on regulations
Speaker 1: to resuscitate those plays and so if that happens, you're
Speaker 1: likely to see more of these Central American claims. But
Speaker 1: in addition, you're seeing actual political asylum claims for people
Speaker 1: from Cuba, Nicaragua, and as Raila, Columbia, and the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: that are now coming across the border, of the Russians
Speaker 1: that are coming across the border. So even changing the
Speaker 1: same aren'thin't gonna work because there's actually quite a number
Speaker 1: of garden varieties, you know, brand backed normal asylum plays
Speaker 1: that we're starting to see on the border. So this
Speaker 1: is really a complicated situation for the president. Let's say
Speaker 1: you pass the credible fear interview, they release you at
Speaker 1: that point into the country awaiting a court right. So
Speaker 1: this is interesting too because there's a new regulation that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration actually promulgated that said that for some
Speaker 1: people who are apprehended at the border, they would not
Speaker 1: have to wait even for their court proceeding. They would
Speaker 1: actually get interviewed for their actual emerits asylum proceedings pretty
Speaker 1: soon after they arrived by a U. S c I
Speaker 1: s adjudicating officer, hoping that what they can do is
Speaker 1: lead out the successful claims. So most claims don't have
Speaker 1: to wait years and years and years, and also so
Speaker 1: that they don't have to make the unsuccessful claims also
Speaker 1: have to take years and years and years. But the
Speaker 1: question is they've got to stack this thing up so
Speaker 1: that so normally what happens, you'd have an immigration for
Speaker 1: daring and now some segment of this group, and it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be, in fact, the entire segment of the
Speaker 1: group both to be everyone. So we have to wait
Speaker 1: and see how that works, stopping wise with U s
Speaker 1: c I S. But technically everybody's down supposed to go
Speaker 1: through a U s c I S officers. And if
Speaker 1: that U s c I S officers says you've ward
Speaker 1: your asylum place you've you're supposed to get it actually
Speaker 1: very quickly now, such that the only ones that will
Speaker 1: go to immigration court are ones that have sailed in
Speaker 1: this first round asylum adjudication. Is the Biden administration prepared
Speaker 1: for this influx. They're predicting about eighteen thousand a day,
Speaker 1: up from seven thousand a day. If there are eighteen
Speaker 1: thousand a day, it's basically going to be impossible to
Speaker 1: say you're quote unquote prepared for day. The amount of traffic,
Speaker 1: the amount of processing that's going to need to happen,
Speaker 1: while you're simultaneously trying to do a new asylum regulation,
Speaker 1: while you're tympineously trying to implement Romain in Mexico to
Speaker 1: some extent for some people, while you're simultaneously allowing Ukrainians
Speaker 1: to come across the border and you're giving them poles,
Speaker 1: all of these naked white a pytical environment for the
Speaker 1: CVP to be dealing with on the southern border, and
Speaker 1: for people to think this is going to go smoothly
Speaker 1: is unreal listing. The question really is what is the alternative?
Speaker 1: Then you have Tydal forty two forever. And I think
Speaker 1: this is the complication because obviously the answer the one
Speaker 1: question to go. So that brings us to Republican led
Speaker 1: states are taking the Biden administration to court over these plans.
Speaker 1: What's the basis of their lawsuit? Well, they're using the
Speaker 1: traditional administrative procedure at playing, which is that there is
Speaker 1: a change in policy. That change in policy is both
Speaker 1: arbitury and capricious and not supported by notice and comment rulemaking. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't think you would need notice and comment rulemaking
Speaker 1: to eliminate Title forty two, since you didn't necessarily need it.
Speaker 1: To implement Title forty two, you need a proclamation from
Speaker 1: the CDC. But in any case, I do think you
Speaker 1: get the right judges. These days, it seems like people
Speaker 1: are getting rulings in these cases that you might not
Speaker 1: have predicted normally based on a just simple doctrinal analysis
Speaker 1: of the law. I could literally see a judge saying
Speaker 1: something as simple as well, how do you have mass
Speaker 1: mandates on playing and that had Title forty two. You've
Speaker 1: got to pick one or the other. This is arbitrarian
Speaker 1: capriction and just you know, thrown away based on that
Speaker 1: and continue ordering the Biden administration to youth Title forty two.
Speaker 1: I would say in enough lawsuits that file, the odds
Speaker 1: you'll find the judge will say something like that will
Speaker 1: be incredibly high. But I do think that at some point,
Speaker 1: once there are no COVID restrictions that the federal government
Speaker 1: is operating in any area, then it will be far
Speaker 1: easier to justify the recision of Final forty two. I
Speaker 1: do think in this world where there are mixed messages
Speaker 1: that the federal government is issuing with regards to COVID,
Speaker 1: specifically with regard to mass mandates and other things. I
Speaker 1: do think they're it becomes a little bit complicated. It's
Speaker 1: kind a clean argument why you're ending Title forty two
Speaker 1: and leon. Some of these Republican challenges to Biden administration
Speaker 1: policy have been successful, right like remain in Mexico as one.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the others are. Well, the Republican
Speaker 1: attorney generals have been able to successfully enjoin the prosecutorial
Speaker 1: describe some guidelines that the Biden administration has don DOCTA.
Speaker 1: They've been challenging very successfully pretty much anything that's been
Speaker 1: tried to be accomplished with regards to the lessoning of
Speaker 1: enforcement on immigration law, they're getting injunctions. Now what the
Speaker 1: end result of these injunctions are going to be as
Speaker 1: tough because they can't actually take over ICE and for
Speaker 1: its removals that doesn't want to actually remove people for
Speaker 1: but they are doing a job on the edge. Is
Speaker 1: basically saying, hey, look, whether it's pervading in Mexico, whether
Speaker 1: it's GOATA, whether it's the classecutorial dispersion of guideline, whether
Speaker 1: it's any kind of elimination of enforcement into any circumstances,
Speaker 1: the chords are enjoining vote. Thanks for being on the show. Leon.
Speaker 1: That's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. And that's
Speaker 1: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news, Honor Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at w ww dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast
Speaker 1: slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law
Speaker 1: Show every week night at ten BM Wall Street Time.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grossow, and you're listening to Bloomberg