Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A Supreme Court fight over the president's power to remove
Speaker 1: independent agency members has been teed up. On Monday, in
Speaker 1: a seven to four decision, the US Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: for the DC's Circuit ruled that two independent agency members
Speaker 1: could return to their jobs while they continued to challenge
Speaker 1: President Trump's efforts to fire them. Well, it didn't take
Speaker 1: long for Trump to go to the Supreme Court with
Speaker 1: yet another emergency request today, asking the justices to allow
Speaker 1: him to immediately fire the two National Labor Relations Board
Speaker 1: member Gwyn Wilcox and Kathy Harris, a member of the
Speaker 1: Merit Systems Protection Board. And late this afternoon, Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts signed in order pausing that ruling by the
Speaker 1: DC's Circuit Court of Appeals and asking the two officials
Speaker 1: to respond to Trump's request by April fifteenth. My guest
Speaker 1: is an expert in this area of law, Professor Carry Coliniesi,
Speaker 1: who directs the University of Pennsylvania Law Schools Program on Regulation.
Speaker 1: Carry start by telling us about the history of this case,
Speaker 1: what's happened in the lower courts.
Speaker 2: Well, the lower court decided that the president does not
Speaker 2: have the power to fire the officers here at issue,
Speaker 2: And we're talking about the two agency heads, Gwen Wilcox
Speaker 2: from the National Labor Relations Board and Kathy Harris, a
Speaker 2: member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, And the underlying
Speaker 2: statutes setting up these agencies provide that the heads of
Speaker 2: these agencies can only be removed for cause malfeasans misconduct,
Speaker 2: something like that. Donald Trump comes along and says, sorry,
Speaker 2: I'm firing you for no reason, really not showing any cause.
Speaker 2: I just agree with maybe your approach to how you
Speaker 2: want to take these agencies. That's something then that they challenged.
Speaker 2: The lower court said the president doesn't have that power
Speaker 2: because they're protected from removal at will. They can only
Speaker 2: be removed by the president for good cause. And there
Speaker 2: was a Supreme Court decision going back to nineteen thirty
Speaker 2: five that says Congress can set up independent agencies and
Speaker 2: protect them from presidents removing the heads of these agencies
Speaker 2: at will for no reason whatsoever. So that lower court
Speaker 2: decided to though put a hold on its order commanding
Speaker 2: that the two dismissed officials be reinstated to their positions.
Speaker 2: The case went up to the Court of Appeals. The
Speaker 2: Panel of the Court of Appeals then was appealed further
Speaker 2: to the en banc sitting of the US Court of
Speaker 2: Appeals for the dist of Columbia Circuit. That's en bank
Speaker 2: means the full Court and the DC Circuit just issued
Speaker 2: a decision lifting the stay on the trial court's order
Speaker 2: to reinstate these officials to their position, and it did
Speaker 2: so on the similar grounds that the lower court held that.
Speaker 2: There's this nineteen thirty five decision called Humphrey's Executor that
Speaker 2: says Congress can create these good cause protections, and these
Speaker 2: officials are protected from removal with these good protection clauses.
Speaker 2: So the President in firing them acted. Therefore, we're going
Speaker 2: to really force those officials back into office. They can
Speaker 2: go back and take over their positions.
Speaker 1: The majority said that the Supreme Court has repeatedly told
Speaker 1: lower courts to follow precedents unless and until the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court changes it, referring to Humphrey's Executor. There but the
Speaker 1: dissent said, in doing so, the majority threatens to send
Speaker 1: this court headlong into a clash with the executive.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, there's two issues really at stake here. One
Speaker 2: is the question that we'd say is on the merits
Speaker 2: whether what the president did was legal and whether Congress
Speaker 2: had the constitutional power to make it illegal for a
Speaker 2: president to remove certain officials that will So that's the
Speaker 2: question on the merits, and the District of Columbia Circuit
Speaker 2: Court here said, listen, you know, this is like really
Speaker 2: a no brainer from the standpoint of this Humphreys Executor
Speaker 2: decision still good law. It hasn't been overturned by the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. We have to follow it. That's one issue.
Speaker 2: But the second issue is, then, Okay, once you say
Speaker 2: that the president impermissibly and illegally removed these two officials,
Speaker 2: what do you do about it as a court? And
Speaker 2: the dissent by Judge Row said, you know, there's never
Speaker 2: really been a remedy where a court has ordered officials
Speaker 2: to be reinstated in the way that the DC Circuit
Speaker 2: now has said the District Court could do. The Humphreys
Speaker 2: Executor case from nineteen thirty five, for example, rose in
Speaker 2: a dispute over acclaim for back wages. You know, the
Speaker 2: court there said, okay, you know that was illegal to
Speaker 2: remove what was then a member of the Federal Trade Commission.
Speaker 2: Improperly for no reason, and the members actually a state
Speaker 2: was entitled to back wages. This is totally different. Judge
Speaker 2: Row says, it's totally different. You know, here we have
Speaker 2: now a court ordering that officials who have been purportedly
Speaker 2: fired by the president maybe illegally under current law. But
Speaker 2: while this litigation pending, shouldn't we just as she says,
Speaker 2: you know, keep things on hold and not force the
Speaker 2: issue of reinstating these two officials and get this up
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court and let them decide. And if
Speaker 2: at that point in time, the Supreme Court decides that
Speaker 2: the president acted illegally, and the Supreme Court can decide
Speaker 2: whether it's an appropriate remedy to force these folks back
Speaker 2: into their positions. But right now it is certainly setting
Speaker 2: up a real confrontation between an order from a lower
Speaker 2: court judge and a president's order to fire these folks,
Speaker 2: which one prevails. I think it's very clear and quite
Speaker 2: certain that the Supreme Court is going to step into
Speaker 2: this matter, and we will see what they do, probably
Speaker 2: on the remedies front, pretty soon. And then the question is,
Speaker 2: you know how long they'll take to decide the merits.
Speaker 1: The Solicitor jen said, it intends to ask the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court to overturn Humphrey's Executor, and that's a decision that
Speaker 1: conservatives have been dying to get overturned for years. Do
Speaker 1: you think it's on the chopping block.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it is certainly going to be, you know,
Speaker 2: an all probability modified, if not overturned entirely. The Supreme
Speaker 2: Court has really for the last fifteen years been cabining
Speaker 2: the scope of Humphrey's Executor through a number of decisions.
Speaker 2: In one case saying that you couldn't have a double
Speaker 2: layer of officials who have this good cause protection. That
Speaker 2: was a decision in twenty ten, and then in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty one, the Court said, well, you can't have a
Speaker 2: single headed agency with a good cause protection. Fine, Phil
Speaker 2: for these commissions or these boards that have multi members,
Speaker 2: Humphrey's Executor still stands for those, but not for agencies
Speaker 2: headed with just one person. The question is, though, if
Speaker 2: Humphrey's Executor does go, what happens to a the Federal Reserve,
Speaker 2: which I don't know. The Supreme Court and quite frankly,
Speaker 2: this administration right now is saying that monetary policy still
Speaker 2: can be kept independent We'll see how long the administration
Speaker 2: takes that position, But I think the Supreme Court is
Speaker 2: going to be certainly cognizant of what it could do
Speaker 2: to the economy if the Federal Reserve Board loses its independence,
Speaker 2: and the second issue as well, if Humphrey's executor goes,
Speaker 2: what will happen to the protections for the civil service
Speaker 2: and its independence. Maybe there's some ways that the Court could,
Speaker 2: in overturning Humphrey's executor create a carve out for the
Speaker 2: Federal Reserve Probably easier to see how it could still
Speaker 2: keep the civil service protections intact. But we're just, you know,
Speaker 2: really getting close to restructuring some fundamental aspects of US
Speaker 2: government that we've had in place for nearly, you know,
Speaker 2: ninety years now.
Speaker 1: I mean, what does it say that the Appeals Court
Speaker 1: voted seven to four the seven Democratic appointees blocking the
Speaker 1: firing and the four Republican appointees including three Trump appointees,
Speaker 1: giving a go ahead to the firing.
Speaker 2: Listen, there's no question that these structural questions of administrative
Speaker 2: governance have taken on a high level of ideological salience,
Speaker 2: and it's certainly reflective in the judiciary as it is
Speaker 2: in the polity at large. So you know, we definitely
Speaker 2: have a good number of folks who have on the
Speaker 2: political right been trumpeting the unitary executive theory now for
Speaker 2: several decades, and this is sort of the logical extension
Speaker 2: and maybe even some might say the last vestiges of
Speaker 2: a holdout on the unitary executive theory. And you know,
Speaker 2: I think it has some real consequences, and I think
Speaker 2: this is what those who are concerned with how far
Speaker 2: the Court might go if it does modify or ultimately
Speaker 2: overturn humph result together. I mean, as I said, there's
Speaker 2: real concerns about what it would do to the central
Speaker 2: bank's independence. And there's an awful lot of really extensive
Speaker 2: economic research that shows that countries that have central bank
Speaker 2: independence do better economically, that that's an important thing to protect,
Speaker 2: to preserve and not have monetary policy interest rates being
Speaker 2: dictated by what might be in the short term political
Speaker 2: interests of somebody in the White House of either party.
Speaker 2: And there's also concern about you know, political control, presidents
Speaker 2: having too much control over agencies like the Federal Communications Commission,
Speaker 2: and you know, having power to make decisions that might
Speaker 2: be reflective of their own political interests. There's the Federal
Speaker 2: Elections Commission. Some of these agencies are ones that really
Speaker 2: wield a considerable amount of power, and power that can
Speaker 2: be directly relevant to somebody who's a politician and wants
Speaker 2: to stay in office and use these powers not for
Speaker 2: the good of the country, but for the good of
Speaker 2: staying in office. And that's what's I think at stake
Speaker 2: with this litigation here, and quite for there's other lawsuits
Speaker 2: also pending with other officials of independent agencies who President
Speaker 2: Trump has fired at will. So this is going to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. It will be a blockbuster decision when
Speaker 2: it comes out, and we'll have to see what kind
Speaker 2: of waves it makes for the country and the future
Speaker 2: of its governance. You know, is it going to be
Speaker 2: just some heavy waves that we can navigate, or are
Speaker 2: we unleashing a tsunami for the country where a president
Speaker 2: can now wield control over some really important government agencies.
Speaker 2: The president acting is if Humphrey's executor has already been overturned,
Speaker 2: I mean, they've taken the position that, as you indicated,
Speaker 2: they're going to argue in court, a Humphrey's executor should
Speaker 2: be overturned. But in the meantime, the President has also
Speaker 2: issued in executive order that says, listen, I'm going to
Speaker 2: subject all all you independent agencies to white House review
Speaker 2: of your regulations, white House review of your budgets, Department
Speaker 2: of Justice review of your legal opinions and positions. We
Speaker 2: want to have a say over your strategic planning. This
Speaker 2: is all now happening, and it's unprecedented. Really, you know,
Speaker 2: there's never been an administration that has acted as if
Speaker 2: these independent agencies are no longer independent. And it's in progress.
Speaker 2: These agencies are submitting their work for review by the
Speaker 2: White House, and we're already in a world in which
Speaker 2: there's an incredible degree of White House involvement to a
Speaker 2: level we've never seen before. The only question is just
Speaker 2: whether at the end of the day President's going to
Speaker 2: be right that if there is some conflict ever between
Speaker 2: the view of somebody at the head of one of
Speaker 2: these agencies in the White House, the White House can
Speaker 2: legally fire him. Right now, that's unclear, But like I said,
Speaker 2: the administration's taking that position, and in this case and
Speaker 2: others gone ahead and made those firings.
Speaker 3: Anyway, it seems.
Speaker 1: Like another big case at the Supreme Court. Thanks so much, Carrie.
Speaker 1: That's Professor Carrey colinies He of the University of Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: Law School. Coming up next, the Justice Department shuts down
Speaker 1: its cryptocurrency fraud unit. This is Bloomberg. The Justice Department
Speaker 1: is scaling back its cryptocurrency crime investigations to focus on
Speaker 1: cases related to terrorism, drug cartels, victimizing investors in other
Speaker 1: specific categories. The Department will no longer target virtual currency exchanges,
Speaker 1: mixing and tumbling services, and offline wallets for unintentional violations
Speaker 1: of regulations, and will also close existing investigations that don't
Speaker 1: align with the new priorities. Joining me is an expert
Speaker 1: in securities law, John George Arris of Aarris Law. So
Speaker 1: tell us about this memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche about scaling back cryptocurrency enforcement.
Speaker 3: Torod Blanche and the Department of Justice have taken a
Speaker 3: step away now from focusing on crypto enforcement, which was
Speaker 3: a primary target of the Biden administration, and they've essentially said, listen,
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice, we're not going to have this
Speaker 3: crypto task force anymore. We're not looking at crypto is
Speaker 3: a key area we're refocusing to issues like immigration issues
Speaker 3: dealing with that and all human trafficking and that for now,
Speaker 3: our priority is not looking at crypto that's created or
Speaker 3: how its end users may take the product and then
Speaker 3: use it for something illegal. They're still looking at fraud
Speaker 3: obviously on a more broad level, or if any of
Speaker 3: crypto ends up being used for something that fell into
Speaker 3: those categories, let's say, you know, illegal human trafficking or
Speaker 3: something like that. But it's really been a big step
Speaker 3: by the government across the board, SEC included and the
Speaker 3: Department of Justice to now take a step back and
Speaker 3: say crypto is not something that we really even have
Speaker 3: a regulatory framework for at this time, so it feels
Speaker 3: like a hands off approach.
Speaker 1: How could this affect, you know, the average consumer.
Speaker 3: I think it's a buyer beware market now for crypto.
Speaker 3: I think it's safe to assume that any company that's
Speaker 3: based in crypto, or any individuals that are trying to
Speaker 3: start a new crypto based business or launch a coin,
Speaker 3: whatever it may be, fraud is still fraud, right lying
Speaker 3: about something to induce some investment and taking that money
Speaker 3: and misappropriating it or using it for themselves. I think
Speaker 3: that's still on the table and something that could potentially
Speaker 3: be looked at. It'll be consumer driven, right, people complaining,
Speaker 3: people filing their own lawsuits through their attorneys going after it.
Speaker 3: It does feel, however, though, that they're not going to
Speaker 3: approach this in a way anymore where they're saying, hey,
Speaker 3: this is security's fraud. Crypto is a security. We know
Speaker 3: there was that huge case with Coinbase where the SEC
Speaker 3: dropped its enforcement action against them on the basis that
Speaker 3: Coinbase had challenged what they were engaged in was not
Speaker 3: securities that crypto aren't. In fact, that the definition of
Speaker 3: a security. So without a regulatory framework of where to
Speaker 3: box this into what this digital asset actually is, fraud
Speaker 3: is fraud. Wire fraud is fraud, Mail fraud is fraud. However,
Speaker 3: that applies to everything right across the board, every single industry,
Speaker 3: and crypto is no longer getting that special treatment or
Speaker 3: that more intense look just because it's crypto. So it's
Speaker 3: a more broad approach. You know, crypto by itself doesn't
Speaker 3: raise a red flag anymore, which I think has really
Speaker 3: freed up this industry. Not that long ago, you know,
Speaker 3: under the Biden administration, crypto was under a heavy, heavy
Speaker 3: attack across the board, whether it was the SEC or
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice, that has all really been unwound.
Speaker 3: And it's at the best of Donald Trump, who is
Speaker 3: approaching his administration from a very very friendly crypto point
Speaker 3: of view.
Speaker 1: He's also issued his own crypto token just before taking office.
Speaker 3: I think that was a big indicator of what regularly
Speaker 3: was going to head and that quite a ton of
Speaker 3: people by surprise, you know, myself included, but just following
Speaker 3: across the industry that it was sort of the silent
Speaker 3: launch of this I guess what's dubbed as a technically
Speaker 3: a mean coin or just this token, that it was
Speaker 3: just a Donald Trump token, as simple as that, and
Speaker 3: he launched it. So I think that was an early
Speaker 3: indicator for Austin, for the public at large that crypto
Speaker 3: industry was going to be given much broader latitude than
Speaker 3: it had been because things were getting really narrow and
Speaker 3: if it was determined that the crypto industry was subject
Speaker 3: to the regulatory framework of the securities in exchange industry,
Speaker 3: that changes everything, right, that changes the barriers to entry,
Speaker 3: that changes every aspect of that business, and how they
Speaker 3: would deal with launching a coin. What exceptions they would
Speaker 3: have to fit into, whether they would need to be
Speaker 3: registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission is very complex.
Speaker 3: So now I know people saw this term around a lot,
Speaker 3: but you know, are we in the wild West of
Speaker 3: crypto when it comes to regulation. I'd say yes.
Speaker 1: And the person who's chosen to lead the SEC has
Speaker 1: substantial investments in crypto.
Speaker 3: Yes, this is an administration now that's saying crypto is
Speaker 3: its own asset class. The SEC has put together a
Speaker 3: team that's looking at a proposed framework for what would
Speaker 3: go around this. Right What rules and regulations would they
Speaker 3: have to have in place? Right now? We have anti
Speaker 3: money laundering rules, we have fin send, we have very
Speaker 3: basic money service businesses that you can be registered with
Speaker 3: spin SEN and be regulated by the government. But we
Speaker 3: don't have anything that's directly on points saying Okay, you're
Speaker 3: selling a crypto, you're issuing a new crypto to the public,
Speaker 3: you have to abide by these set of rules. So
Speaker 3: I think the way that they're going to approach it
Speaker 3: is I would say security is light. At some point.
Speaker 3: If they do issue their regulations or proposed regulations around this,
Speaker 3: they're really in my opinion going to take a less
Speaker 3: stringent approach, which I don't know, may or may not
Speaker 3: be good for consumers and may fall into the hands
Speaker 3: of plaintiffs attorneys if there is fraud, to go after
Speaker 3: it through the courts on their own. And I think
Speaker 3: that was kind of a message from the SEC and
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice. They're not going to put a
Speaker 3: big enforcement focus on this anymore.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the states will step in? Some
Speaker 1: states have said that they are going to step in.
Speaker 2: I think it's tough.
Speaker 3: They could be preempted by federal walls, but obviously there's
Speaker 3: no law on the books right now. If the state
Speaker 3: is against not against crypto, but is skeptical of it,
Speaker 3: or wants to put some rules around that, they could
Speaker 3: It's quite complex and there's arguments against it too. I mean,
Speaker 3: it's the free run of capital. It's allowing people to invest,
Speaker 3: will put their money into a new asset class that
Speaker 3: we've seen can generate extraordinary wealth. People could lose all
Speaker 3: their money. Some states, I think, will be even more
Speaker 3: crypto friendly and try to attract that business to them.
Speaker 3: The ones that regular against it may be missing out
Speaker 3: on those opportunities. Although I can see in some instances
Speaker 3: then stepping in, but broadly right across the United States,
Speaker 3: we've seen things that were once highly regulated and illegal
Speaker 3: are now following free. For example, the cannabis industry right
Speaker 3: we have a lot of legalizations and also with sports betting,
Speaker 3: there's been widespread legalization of it.
Speaker 2: So states view this.
Speaker 3: As a potential to generate new tax revenue to support
Speaker 3: other projects. Without federal regulations. On top of this, states
Speaker 3: could create an attractive environment for crypto businesses to set
Speaker 3: up there, as opposed to limiting that.
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think that cases like that against
Speaker 1: Sam Bekman freed would still be discovered and go forward
Speaker 1: or they might be missed.
Speaker 3: I think they'll likely be missed. I could say that,
Speaker 3: you know, personally, I work as a defense attorney in
Speaker 3: the white collar civil slash criminal space with a specific
Speaker 3: focus on securities, and I've had investigations where I've represented
Speaker 3: individuals related to crypto right in one way or another.
Speaker 3: And during the Biden administration there were a lot of inquiries,
Speaker 3: there were a lot of subpoenas, there was a lot
Speaker 3: of trying to figure out what was really going on
Speaker 3: in this industry. I can tell you that at the
Speaker 3: tail end of that administration and into President's Trump administration,
Speaker 3: it has been completely silent on ongoing investigations. So from
Speaker 3: my perspective, I don't think it will be looked into.
Speaker 3: I don't think they're going to issue subpoenas. I don't
Speaker 3: think that they're going to be investigating it in the
Speaker 3: same way. And you bring up something interesting with Sam
Speaker 3: Bangmin free, who knows maybe his sentence maybe commuted, you know,
Speaker 3: he maybe put in a position where he gets out
Speaker 3: of jail much sooner in light of these very recent changes.
Speaker 3: And we have a precedent for this was Ross Oldbrick,
Speaker 3: who was the founder of Silk Road, which was sort
Speaker 3: of the first I guess exchange for lack of a
Speaker 3: better word, where you could utilize crypto to buy anything
Speaker 3: you know on the Internet or on the dark web.
Speaker 3: And he was sentenced to I think two lifetimes in prison,
Speaker 3: like two hundred years, and when Trump got into office,
Speaker 3: he pardoned him right away. He has been in jail
Speaker 3: for ten years and now Ross Olbrick is free. So
Speaker 3: I think in regards to your question, it may even
Speaker 3: go one step further.
Speaker 2: Not only will these not.
Speaker 3: Be investigated, these type of crypto based frauds. We may
Speaker 3: see people that have been prosecuted for them, like SBF,
Speaker 3: get a reduced sentence and be set free.
Speaker 1: Before I let you go, do you think any of
Speaker 1: the cases you were handling that seemed to have stopped
Speaker 1: could be started up again.
Speaker 3: In my work, I've had really tense investigations with the
Speaker 3: Department of Justice dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 3: related to various crypto frauds that were out there that
Speaker 3: completely stopped. I never got another follow up call again.
Speaker 3: The investigations are, from what I understand, done. They don't
Speaker 3: send the closing letter, but they're done, so I think
Speaker 3: it really has changed. I was just speaking to a
Speaker 3: friend of mine who's in the crypto industry, and it's
Speaker 3: like a green light for any project they want to run.
Speaker 3: The only thing you have to watch out for is,
Speaker 3: you know, anti money laundering. Really just making sure that
Speaker 3: the money that you're getting is from real people and not,
Speaker 3: you know, from some illicit scam.
Speaker 1: It all seems to be evolving very quickly. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining me on the show. That's John. George
Speaker 1: Arris of Aris Law coming up next on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: law show the Justice Department suspended two lawyers involved in
Speaker 1: the high profile case of a man deported to an
Speaker 1: El Salvador prison because of an administrative error, a case
Speaker 1: that illustrates the position government attorneys can now find themselves
Speaker 1: in while facing the dual demands of loyalty to the
Speaker 1: Trump administration and candor to the courts. The Trump administration
Speaker 1: is facing a barrage of lawsuits challenging President Trump's executive orders,
Speaker 1: some of which have already led to judges grilling Justice
Speaker 1: Department lawyers who are defending their legal basis. The suspension
Speaker 1: of two Justice Department lawyers in a high profile deportation
Speaker 1: case illustrates the position government attorneys can find themselves in
Speaker 1: while facing the dual demands of loyalty to the Trump
Speaker 1: administration and candor to the court. Joining me is Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law reporter Justin Wise just In. The most high profile
Speaker 1: cases so far are those that involve the deportations of
Speaker 1: alleged venice a whale and gang members to prison in
Speaker 1: l Salvador, and one case involves a legal challenge by
Speaker 1: Abrego Garcia over his removal to a prison in l
Speaker 1: Salvador where the government has admitted that he was sent there.
Speaker 1: Tell us what happened at the April fourth hearing before
Speaker 1: a Maryland federal judge.
Speaker 4: Sure so, yeah, Like you said, this is a case
Speaker 4: that involves instance where the US has admitted that they
Speaker 4: made a mistake in including a Maryland resident on a
Speaker 4: flight for alleged gang members to at L Salvador in prison.
Speaker 4: During that hearing, the judge was pressing the US as
Speaker 4: to why the US's position was that it could not
Speaker 4: return this person to the US. In response to the
Speaker 4: lawyer for the Justice Department representing the government said basically
Speaker 4: that when the case landed on his desk, the first
Speaker 4: thing he did was ask his clients that very question
Speaker 4: that if they made that mistake, why was not able
Speaker 4: to return him, and that he'd yet to receive an
Speaker 4: answer that he found quote satisfactory, and that he also
Speaker 4: conceded that the US had mistakenly deported this man to
Speaker 4: El Salvador.
Speaker 1: So how long did it take before he and his
Speaker 1: boss were suspended?
Speaker 4: It was the day after, so the hearing was on
Speaker 4: April fourth. By April fifth, over the weekend, we had
Speaker 4: reported that he and his boss were put on leave.
Speaker 4: Some of the reasons. The exact specific reasons surrounding their
Speaker 4: suspension are not totally clear, but in response to inquiry
Speaker 4: about them, Attorney General Pambondi did release a statement saying
Speaker 4: that all attorneys that her direction must zealously advocate for
Speaker 4: the US and that those who failed to will quote
Speaker 4: face consequences.
Speaker 1: There are concerns about the kind of precedent this sets
Speaker 1: to suspend a lawyer for telling the truth in court.
Speaker 1: That's what lawyers are supposed to.
Speaker 4: Do, right, I mean, it kind of gets to this
Speaker 4: idea of zealous advocacy. When Attorney General Pambondi first arrived
Speaker 4: to the Justice Department, she issued this memo that kind
Speaker 4: of spelled out her expectations of the DOJ's lawyers in
Speaker 4: regards to zealous advocacy on behalf of the president and
Speaker 4: on behalf of the administration. And while vigorous advocacy on
Speaker 4: behalf of a client is a core component of the
Speaker 4: legal system, legal ethics experts and other lawyers I've spoken
Speaker 4: to as well have brought up how the obligations are
Speaker 4: balanced by a lawyer's other duties, namely exercising professional judgment
Speaker 4: and of course being truthful to the court, and.
Speaker 1: There have been several instances of exchanges between judges and
Speaker 1: DOJ lawyers where either the DOJ lawyer couldn't give the
Speaker 1: judge the information he or she was asking for, or
Speaker 1: there was a conflict. Can you tell us about some
Speaker 1: of those.
Speaker 4: Right, Yes, this is by no means an isolated instance.
Speaker 4: You know, so the Justice Department defends the administration in litigation,
Speaker 4: and that means lawyers are being put in the position
Speaker 4: of answering for a number of the executive orders from
Speaker 4: the Trump administration that are subject to litigation, and judges
Speaker 4: have in a lot of different scenarios been skeptical and
Speaker 4: grilled lawyers over the certain orders, whether it's related to
Speaker 4: birthright citizenship or an order that was barring transgender persons
Speaker 4: from the military, as well as litigation involving Eon Musk's
Speaker 4: actual role in the government efficiency effort. A judge had
Speaker 4: told a lawyer that, you know, the answers he was
Speaker 4: getting were quote, highly suspicious. So, you know, this episode
Speaker 4: kind of speaks to the position a lot of lawyers
Speaker 4: are in right now as they try to defend the
Speaker 4: legal basis of a lot of these actions in the
Speaker 4: face of really asking questions from judges who are liberating
Speaker 4: over the legality of these orders.
Speaker 1: Have any of the attorneys been sanctioned by judges.
Speaker 4: To date, No, not today. There has been no instance
Speaker 4: in which an attorney has been sanctioned that has yet
Speaker 4: to come into play here.
Speaker 1: DC Federal Judge James Boseburg was and perhaps still is,
Speaker 1: considering a contempt order in the case where the Justice
Speaker 1: Department did not obey his orders to turn two planes
Speaker 1: around carrying hundreds of Venezuelan deportees. We'll see if he
Speaker 1: goes forward with that, despite the fact that a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision has said that those cases have to be
Speaker 1: challenged in the jurisdictions where the detainees are located. These
Speaker 1: kind of moves by the Justice Department suspending lawyers who
Speaker 1: are being candid with judges could damage the Justice Department's
Speaker 1: reputation as well as hurt the credibility of government lawyers. Right.
Speaker 4: I spoke with a lawyer who once trained DOJ attorneys
Speaker 4: on some of these like professional responsibility issues, and you know,
Speaker 4: the idea is that when a lawyer is speaking before
Speaker 4: the court, there's a lot of difference that judges are
Speaker 4: giving lawyers, especially those representing the government and the you know,
Speaker 4: the question becomes if the courts begin to have some
Speaker 4: skepticism about the answers more skepticism about the answers they're
Speaker 4: getting from the government, what's that mean for how they
Speaker 4: deliberate and weigh in on the cases they're they're considering.
Speaker 1: Can state bars do anything in this regard?
Speaker 4: So what as I understand, just like how courts can
Speaker 4: get involved on this and perhaps issue sanctioned state bars
Speaker 4: can get involved and choose to respond. You know, I
Speaker 4: know that just through you know, the normal course of
Speaker 4: litigation and lawyering, really that complaints are filed to state
Speaker 4: bars as well for a certain government official or private lawyer.
Speaker 4: That those things are common practice in the legal industry.
Speaker 4: So I do know that state bars certainly can as
Speaker 4: far as whether they will or anything that we can
Speaker 4: learn about them, those things are normally tightly guarded and
Speaker 4: don't come out publicly until maybe a decision is reached
Speaker 4: and when that decision actually involves the sanctioning of a lawyer.
Speaker 4: So the details around that a bit hazy.
Speaker 1: Tell me about the person who launched a group to
Speaker 1: support DOJ employees.
Speaker 4: That's right, So Stacey Young a long time DOJ lawyer
Speaker 4: and alum of the Civil and Civil Rights Divisions, she
Speaker 4: spent nearly two decades inside the Justice Department. She resigned
Speaker 4: in January and launched a group called Justice Connection, which,
Speaker 4: as she has said, is a designed to offer support
Speaker 4: for DOJ employees come amid a time of massive upheaval
Speaker 4: inside the department. In addition, it's clear that she's using
Speaker 4: her role leading this group as a way to speak
Speaker 4: out about some of the things going on inside inside
Speaker 4: the administration and inside particularly the Justice Department, in the
Speaker 4: ways from which it's shifting under Trump.
Speaker 1: It seems like these lawyers, to use an old expression,
Speaker 1: are stuck between a rock and a hard place as
Speaker 1: they go into court. Thanks so much, Justin. That's Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law reporter Justin Wise, and that's it for this edition
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg