1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,120
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg.

2
00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:10,600
Speaker 2: Radio City Elections.

3
00:00:12,520 --> 00:00:17,520
Speaker 3: My fellow New Yorkists, as you may have heard, the

4
00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:21,799
Speaker 3: Department of Justice has directed that the case against me

5
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:29,159
Speaker 3: be dismissed, finally ending a month's long saga that put me,

6
00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:33,760
Speaker 3: my family, and the city to an unnecessary ordeal.

7
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:39,000
Speaker 2: In a stunning memo, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Beauvey

8
00:00:39,440 --> 00:00:43,800
Speaker 2: told federal prosecutors in Manhattan to dismiss the criminal corruption

9
00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:48,360
Speaker 2: case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Even more

10
00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:52,400
Speaker 2: stunning are the political reasons given for dropping the case.

11
00:00:52,840 --> 00:00:56,319
Speaker 2: The merits of the bribery charges against Adams were not

12
00:00:56,360 --> 00:01:01,760
Speaker 2: even considered. Adams is accused of accepting illegal campaign contributions

13
00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:05,679
Speaker 2: and lavish travel perks worth more than one hundred thousand dollars.

14
00:01:05,959 --> 00:01:08,560
Speaker 2: He spoke today as if he'd been vindicated.

15
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:13,319
Speaker 3: So I thank the Justice Department for its honesty. Now

16
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:17,560
Speaker 3: we can put this cruel episode behind us and focus

17
00:01:17,720 --> 00:01:20,000
Speaker 3: entirely on the future about city.

18
00:01:20,560 --> 00:01:23,760
Speaker 2: Adams may want to put the episode behind him, but

19
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:27,039
Speaker 2: under the terms laid out in the memo, the charges

20
00:01:27,080 --> 00:01:31,160
Speaker 2: against him could still be refiled after the November mayoral election.

21
00:01:31,920 --> 00:01:35,240
Speaker 2: My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner

22
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:38,520
Speaker 2: maccarter in English, Bob, I want to put this dismissal

23
00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:42,759
Speaker 2: of the case against Adams in context. According to the memo,

24
00:01:43,240 --> 00:01:48,120
Speaker 2: the decision was made without considering the evidence against Adams

25
00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:51,600
Speaker 2: or the theory of the case against him. The decision

26
00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:56,400
Speaker 2: was made for a string of political reasons, including that

27
00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:01,360
Speaker 2: the prosecution has impeded Adam's ability to asston. Trump's crackdown

28
00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:05,800
Speaker 2: on immigration and crime, interfered with Adam's re election campaign,

29
00:02:06,120 --> 00:02:09,480
Speaker 2: and the case has been tainted by pre trial publicity.

30
00:02:09,560 --> 00:02:14,280
Speaker 2: So how unusual is it to have Main Justice tell

31
00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:18,600
Speaker 2: a US Attorney's office to drop a case for these reasons.

32
00:02:19,240 --> 00:02:22,440
Speaker 4: Well, this decision by the Department of Justice, it directs

33
00:02:22,480 --> 00:02:25,760
Speaker 4: the Southern District to drop this case, as highly unusual

34
00:02:25,840 --> 00:02:28,639
Speaker 4: for a number of reasons. First of all, it's highly

35
00:02:28,680 --> 00:02:31,919
Speaker 4: unusual because it's a pending case. It's not a question

36
00:02:32,000 --> 00:02:34,880
Speaker 4: about whether or not to bring the charges in the

37
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:39,000
Speaker 4: first place. It's asking the US Attorney's office to drop

38
00:02:39,040 --> 00:02:41,680
Speaker 4: the case in the middle of the prosecution. And there

39
00:02:41,680 --> 00:02:44,720
Speaker 4: were two other reasons that were cited in the memo,

40
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:48,760
Speaker 4: by the acting Deputy Attorney General as the reason to

41
00:02:48,840 --> 00:02:52,280
Speaker 4: dismiss the case. One of them was that they said

42
00:02:52,280 --> 00:02:55,000
Speaker 4: that the case was brought too close to the election.

43
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:59,000
Speaker 4: It was brought about nine months before the mayoral primary

44
00:02:59,080 --> 00:03:02,240
Speaker 4: in New York, and the argument was that by doing

45
00:03:02,320 --> 00:03:06,800
Speaker 4: that it interfered with the election, interfered with the primary,

46
00:03:06,840 --> 00:03:10,360
Speaker 4: and of course those charges are still pending as Mayor

47
00:03:10,440 --> 00:03:14,080
Speaker 4: Eric Adams is running for reelection. That's something that the

48
00:03:14,120 --> 00:03:17,239
Speaker 4: Department of Justice has paid attention to in the past.

49
00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:20,440
Speaker 4: There's always been a directive not to bring cases close

50
00:03:20,480 --> 00:03:23,880
Speaker 4: to an election so as to impact the election without

51
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 4: having voters know the result of the prosecution. But pushing

52
00:03:28,040 --> 00:03:32,600
Speaker 4: it out nine months before a primary is really pushing

53
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:35,400
Speaker 4: it out far beyond what had been done in the past.

54
00:03:35,400 --> 00:03:38,760
Speaker 4: The usual rule had been not to bring into indictment,

55
00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:42,560
Speaker 4: not to bring charges, not to take investigative steps in

56
00:03:42,600 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 4: an overt way within about sixty days of an election,

57
00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:49,480
Speaker 4: So that made it unusual by pushing it out as

58
00:03:49,520 --> 00:03:52,080
Speaker 4: far as nine months. But the other reason was even

59
00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:54,920
Speaker 4: more unusual, which is to say that by indicting a

60
00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:59,000
Speaker 4: sitting politician, it interfederate their ability to perform their job.

61
00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:01,560
Speaker 4: I mean that would be the case in any political

62
00:04:01,600 --> 00:04:06,080
Speaker 4: corruption case. Any sitting senator, any sitting governor, any elected

63
00:04:06,080 --> 00:04:09,600
Speaker 4: official who was indicted for corruption obviously is going to

64
00:04:09,640 --> 00:04:13,240
Speaker 4: be distracted in defending themselves from those charges and will

65
00:04:13,280 --> 00:04:16,120
Speaker 4: not be able to fully devote their attentions to their

66
00:04:16,120 --> 00:04:20,960
Speaker 4: political position. So that seemed like an extremely strange reason,

67
00:04:21,000 --> 00:04:23,919
Speaker 4: and certainly the Department of Justice has never before to

68
00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:28,040
Speaker 4: my knowledge, used that as a basis not to prosecute

69
00:04:28,040 --> 00:04:30,120
Speaker 4: a case, or in this case, to ask that the

70
00:04:30,160 --> 00:04:34,839
Speaker 4: case be dismissed at this time. What is absolutely significant here,

71
00:04:34,880 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 4: as you mentioned June, is that clearly the Department of

72
00:04:38,680 --> 00:04:42,039
Speaker 4: Justice has not made this decision based on the merits

73
00:04:42,080 --> 00:04:44,359
Speaker 4: of the case, So they have never said that this

74
00:04:44,520 --> 00:04:46,760
Speaker 4: case should never have been brought in the first place.

75
00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:49,200
Speaker 4: In fact, the Department of Justice went out of its

76
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:53,040
Speaker 4: way to say that the prosecutors who brought this case

77
00:04:53,480 --> 00:04:55,880
Speaker 4: did not do anything wrong, They did not question the

78
00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:59,000
Speaker 4: integrity of the prosecutors bringing the case, and they said

79
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:02,599
Speaker 4: that the case would be reevaluate it after the election.

80
00:05:02,960 --> 00:05:07,120
Speaker 4: So this was, according to the Department of Justice main justice,

81
00:05:07,400 --> 00:05:09,960
Speaker 4: not a decision based on the merits of the case

82
00:05:10,120 --> 00:05:13,680
Speaker 4: or the legal theory upon which this prostitution was brought.

83
00:05:14,000 --> 00:05:17,000
Speaker 4: The decision was made to sophistic case at this time

84
00:05:17,480 --> 00:05:20,000
Speaker 4: because of the fact that it would interfere with the

85
00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:23,920
Speaker 4: election and that it would in some way impede the

86
00:05:23,920 --> 00:05:27,400
Speaker 4: mayor's ability to continue to act as mayor while he's

87
00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:28,760
Speaker 4: fighting these charges.

88
00:05:29,080 --> 00:05:32,520
Speaker 2: Also unusual. Under the terms of the memo, Adams will

89
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:36,640
Speaker 2: have to agree in writing that prosecutors are legally allowed

90
00:05:36,680 --> 00:05:40,960
Speaker 2: to bring the charges again if they decide to after

91
00:05:41,279 --> 00:05:46,440
Speaker 2: the mayoral election, so the charges would be dismissed without prejudice.

92
00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:47,480
Speaker 1: Well.

93
00:05:47,520 --> 00:05:50,880
Speaker 4: In order to effectuate this directive, a couple things have

94
00:05:50,960 --> 00:05:54,560
Speaker 4: to happen. First of all, the acting US Attorney in

95
00:05:54,600 --> 00:05:58,600
Speaker 4: the Southern District will have to agree to direct her

96
00:05:58,640 --> 00:06:01,520
Speaker 4: staff to go to court and to dismiss the case.

97
00:06:01,560 --> 00:06:04,880
Speaker 4: And it's a dismissal, as you say, without prejudice, which

98
00:06:04,920 --> 00:06:08,159
Speaker 4: means that the government does have the ability to bring

99
00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:10,640
Speaker 4: the case again if they want to at some point

100
00:06:10,680 --> 00:06:13,599
Speaker 4: in the future, and that the defense here would have

101
00:06:13,680 --> 00:06:16,400
Speaker 4: to agree that it's a dismissal without prejudice, which they

102
00:06:16,440 --> 00:06:19,880
Speaker 4: clearly will, because a dismissal even without prejudice is better

103
00:06:19,920 --> 00:06:23,000
Speaker 4: than having the case proceed So the next thing that

104
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:26,479
Speaker 4: will have to happen, even after the prosecutors take the

105
00:06:26,480 --> 00:06:29,560
Speaker 4: case to court and request the dismissal without prejudice, is

106
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:32,080
Speaker 4: that it has to go before the judge and the disrecord.

107
00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:36,839
Speaker 4: Judge has to agree to the basis for this dismissal. Now,

108
00:06:37,000 --> 00:06:40,120
Speaker 4: the judge could in fact even hold a hearing and

109
00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:43,839
Speaker 4: make prosecutors put on the records the reason for taking

110
00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:47,400
Speaker 4: this unusual step and dismissing this case without prejudice at

111
00:06:47,400 --> 00:06:51,320
Speaker 4: this time and in theory, the judge could reject the

112
00:06:51,360 --> 00:06:55,440
Speaker 4: motion by the prosecution to dismiss the case without prejudice.

113
00:06:55,480 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 4: But as a practical matter, the judge really can't stop

114
00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:01,640
Speaker 4: the dismissal from proceeding because of the Department of Justice.

115
00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:04,720
Speaker 4: Says judge, We're not going to pursue this case this time.

116
00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:06,920
Speaker 4: There's no one to prosecute the case. Even if the

117
00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:09,880
Speaker 4: judge believes that the dismissal is ill advised.

118
00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:13,160
Speaker 2: The task of carrying out the order will fall to

119
00:07:13,400 --> 00:07:17,760
Speaker 2: Danielle Sassoon, who's the acting US Attorney for the Southern District.

120
00:07:18,160 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 2: She's been at the US Attorney's Office since twenty sixteen

121
00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:24,200
Speaker 2: as an Assistant US Attorney. She was part of the

122
00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:28,960
Speaker 2: team that prosecuted Sam Bankman freed, and she'll have to

123
00:07:28,960 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 2: make this decision whether or not to drop the charges,

124
00:07:33,320 --> 00:07:37,680
Speaker 2: despite the fact that in early January prosecutors had told

125
00:07:37,760 --> 00:07:42,320
Speaker 2: the court that additional charges would be coming and that

126
00:07:42,480 --> 00:07:47,920
Speaker 2: investigators had continued to uncover additional criminal conduct by the mayor.

127
00:07:48,240 --> 00:07:52,040
Speaker 2: But I assume she either drops the charges or she's fired.

128
00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:55,600
Speaker 5: Well, she's put it in a difficult position, but ultimately

129
00:07:55,600 --> 00:07:59,200
Speaker 5: I think she has to follow the directive from Nain Justice,

130
00:07:59,480 --> 00:08:03,040
Speaker 5: from the Acting Deputy Attorney General to dismiss the case

131
00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:06,080
Speaker 5: because if she doesn't do it, then somebody else will.

132
00:08:06,360 --> 00:08:09,680
Speaker 5: So ultimately its case is going to be dismissed because

133
00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:12,880
Speaker 5: that's the directive coming from Washington. The other thing that

134
00:08:12,920 --> 00:08:15,600
Speaker 5: the memo said in directing the Southern Distric to drop

135
00:08:15,640 --> 00:08:17,720
Speaker 5: the case was to say that not only are you

136
00:08:17,760 --> 00:08:20,960
Speaker 5: dismissing the case without prejudice, but also that the Southern

137
00:08:21,000 --> 00:08:24,520
Speaker 5: District was to take no additional investigative steps at this

138
00:08:24,720 --> 00:08:29,239
Speaker 5: time again until after the election. So what's interesting here

139
00:08:29,360 --> 00:08:29,840
Speaker 5: is this.

140
00:08:29,720 --> 00:08:34,680
Speaker 4: Is not a merit based decision. The Acting Deputy Attorney

141
00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:38,160
Speaker 4: General made clear that the decision to ask that this

142
00:08:38,240 --> 00:08:40,800
Speaker 4: case be dismissed at this time has nothing to do

143
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:43,560
Speaker 4: with the merits of the case, with the wisdom of

144
00:08:43,600 --> 00:08:46,319
Speaker 4: bringing it in the first place, with the legal basis

145
00:08:46,400 --> 00:08:51,520
Speaker 4: upon which these charges are brought. It was being done because,

146
00:08:51,840 --> 00:08:55,600
Speaker 4: according to the Department of Justice, it was interfering with

147
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:58,800
Speaker 4: the election. It was brought nine months before the primary,

148
00:08:58,840 --> 00:09:02,480
Speaker 4: which is a significant amount of time before the primary.

149
00:09:02,720 --> 00:09:05,040
Speaker 4: But the case, of course, has extended not only through

150
00:09:05,080 --> 00:09:08,439
Speaker 4: the primary season but now into the mayoral election itself

151
00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:13,440
Speaker 4: and will no doubt have some impact on the election. Ironically,

152
00:09:13,800 --> 00:09:16,360
Speaker 4: the dismissal of this case may also have an impact

153
00:09:16,400 --> 00:09:19,040
Speaker 4: on the election, because I think we will see and

154
00:09:19,080 --> 00:09:22,160
Speaker 4: have already begun to see, that those who are challenging

155
00:09:22,160 --> 00:09:25,560
Speaker 4: Mayor Adams are using this dismissal as a way of

156
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:29,040
Speaker 4: arguing that he is now beholding to the Trump administration,

157
00:09:29,520 --> 00:09:31,760
Speaker 4: and some of them have actually called for him to

158
00:09:31,840 --> 00:09:36,560
Speaker 4: resign under the circumstances. So ironically, a decision that was

159
00:09:36,600 --> 00:09:40,959
Speaker 4: made in order to try to remove political influence from

160
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:44,480
Speaker 4: the election is at the same time also injecting an

161
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:48,520
Speaker 4: air of political influence into the election by dismissing the

162
00:09:48,520 --> 00:09:49,520
Speaker 4: case at this time.

163
00:09:50,040 --> 00:09:54,160
Speaker 2: For months, Adams has been making overtures to Trump, including

164
00:09:54,520 --> 00:09:58,400
Speaker 2: flying down tomorrow lago going to his inauguration, and he

165
00:09:58,520 --> 00:10:01,439
Speaker 2: told top officials this week that they shouldn't criticize the

166
00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:07,240
Speaker 2: Trump administration or interfere with federal immigration authorities arrests on

167
00:10:07,400 --> 00:10:11,000
Speaker 2: city property, that's according to the city. And now this

168
00:10:11,320 --> 00:10:16,720
Speaker 2: threat of renewed prosecution is going to hang over him.

169
00:10:17,040 --> 00:10:19,840
Speaker 4: Well, certainly that's going to be the argument that's raised

170
00:10:19,880 --> 00:10:23,440
Speaker 4: by those who are challenging him for the mayor's office

171
00:10:23,480 --> 00:10:26,760
Speaker 4: in this election. So we will continue to see this

172
00:10:26,920 --> 00:10:30,640
Speaker 4: issue as something that has an impact on the election,

173
00:10:31,080 --> 00:10:34,320
Speaker 4: whether the case is dismissed or not, and ultimately it

174
00:10:34,360 --> 00:10:37,000
Speaker 4: will be up to the voters to decide whether to

175
00:10:37,080 --> 00:10:40,800
Speaker 4: return may Or Adam's office or not. And after the election,

176
00:10:40,960 --> 00:10:43,680
Speaker 4: it will be interesting to see whether the Department of

177
00:10:43,880 --> 00:10:48,080
Speaker 4: Justice ultimately decide to reinstate this case, as they have

178
00:10:48,160 --> 00:10:51,320
Speaker 4: the ability to do, to file a new indictment and

179
00:10:51,400 --> 00:10:53,160
Speaker 4: perhaps even bring additional charges.

180
00:10:53,200 --> 00:10:57,160
Speaker 2: Here the Southern District, it's one of the most prestigious

181
00:10:57,360 --> 00:11:01,160
Speaker 2: US Attorney's offices in the country, has a reputation for

182
00:11:01,360 --> 00:11:06,520
Speaker 2: independence from Maine Justice, sometimes referred to as the sovereign

183
00:11:06,600 --> 00:11:10,480
Speaker 2: district and a history of bringing public corruption cases. What

184
00:11:10,679 --> 00:11:15,280
Speaker 2: does this memo say about the future of that office

185
00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:16,040
Speaker 2: under Trump.

186
00:11:16,559 --> 00:11:20,480
Speaker 4: Well, it's really hard to say exactly where this is headed,

187
00:11:20,559 --> 00:11:24,679
Speaker 4: and if we will see other instances of Main Justice

188
00:11:24,800 --> 00:11:29,600
Speaker 4: trying to influence and in fact directing US Attorney's office

189
00:11:30,000 --> 00:11:33,320
Speaker 4: on whether or not to bring political corruption cases, and

190
00:11:33,440 --> 00:11:36,880
Speaker 4: after they brought them, whether those cases should be dismissed.

191
00:11:37,120 --> 00:11:39,600
Speaker 4: As you say, the Southern District of New York has

192
00:11:39,600 --> 00:11:44,120
Speaker 4: a history of being fiercely independent, even more so than

193
00:11:44,200 --> 00:11:47,200
Speaker 4: other US Attorney's offices around the country. But as a

194
00:11:47,280 --> 00:11:51,200
Speaker 4: general rule throughout the years, the Department of Justice has

195
00:11:51,240 --> 00:11:54,320
Speaker 4: allowed the US Attorneys in the various districts around the

196
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:58,400
Speaker 4: country to be fairly independent in making decisions about which

197
00:11:58,520 --> 00:12:01,960
Speaker 4: cases to bring, an even when it comes to political

198
00:12:02,000 --> 00:12:07,040
Speaker 4: corruption cases, although those have always historically been elevated to

199
00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:10,880
Speaker 4: Washington to take a look at those cases before they're brought.

200
00:12:11,160 --> 00:12:13,960
Speaker 2: It'll be interesting to see what the judge says here.

201
00:12:14,120 --> 00:12:17,280
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints of maccarter and

202
00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:21,120
Speaker 2: English coming up next. Will non citizens be able to

203
00:12:21,200 --> 00:12:24,199
Speaker 2: vote in New York City elections? This is Bloomberg.

204
00:12:25,679 --> 00:12:30,120
Speaker 6: There is something exceptional about this particular law, right. I mean,

205
00:12:30,160 --> 00:12:31,720
Speaker 6: this is the argument in the briefs that this is

206
00:12:31,760 --> 00:12:34,400
Speaker 6: going to expand on both sides. This is going to

207
00:12:34,480 --> 00:12:38,479
Speaker 6: expand the franchise to a very large number of individuals,

208
00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:44,520
Speaker 6: may indeed change the political representation in particular districts. Yes,

209
00:12:44,600 --> 00:12:46,560
Speaker 6: this is not like some other little process.

210
00:12:47,080 --> 00:12:50,280
Speaker 2: And that exceptional law made New York City the first

211
00:12:50,400 --> 00:12:54,000
Speaker 2: major US city to grant non citizens the right to

212
00:12:54,120 --> 00:12:58,200
Speaker 2: vote in municipal elections in January of twenty twenty two.

213
00:12:58,880 --> 00:13:01,560
Speaker 2: But the law, which was approved by the Democratic led

214
00:13:01,640 --> 00:13:06,040
Speaker 2: City Council, has never been implemented due to court challenges

215
00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:09,640
Speaker 2: by Republicans, and both a trial judge and a state

216
00:13:09,640 --> 00:13:13,760
Speaker 2: depellate court ruled that the law violated the state constitution

217
00:13:14,240 --> 00:13:17,360
Speaker 2: and a legal requirement to hold a public referendum on

218
00:13:17,400 --> 00:13:21,160
Speaker 2: the proposal. Today, the seven judges on New York's highest

219
00:13:21,200 --> 00:13:24,840
Speaker 2: court heard arguments about whether to uphold the law. The

220
00:13:25,040 --> 00:13:30,480
Speaker 2: arguments focused on how to interpret specific constitutional language and

221
00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:32,560
Speaker 2: how to define words like citizen.

222
00:13:32,760 --> 00:13:36,800
Speaker 7: How do you define citizen under the constitutionistics?

223
00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:39,920
Speaker 6: Now, could the state allow my thirteen year old daughter

224
00:13:39,960 --> 00:13:42,000
Speaker 6: and other thirteen year olds to vote for governor in

225
00:13:42,040 --> 00:13:43,040
Speaker 6: the next election. Yes.

226
00:13:43,440 --> 00:13:46,720
Speaker 2: Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner

227
00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:48,680
Speaker 2: at Holland and Knight. He was the head of the

228
00:13:48,720 --> 00:13:53,240
Speaker 2: Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration. Lee and

229
00:13:53,240 --> 00:13:56,280
Speaker 2: I just want to start with some basics because we

230
00:13:56,320 --> 00:13:59,319
Speaker 2: heard Trump claim over and over and over again that

231
00:13:59,760 --> 00:14:04,679
Speaker 2: not citizens we're voting in elections. So it is clearly

232
00:14:04,760 --> 00:14:08,640
Speaker 2: illegal for non citizens to vote in federal elections.

233
00:14:09,280 --> 00:14:12,080
Speaker 1: The rule is that in federal elections, it is illegal

234
00:14:12,160 --> 00:14:14,400
Speaker 1: for a non citizen to vote. And not only is

235
00:14:14,400 --> 00:14:17,480
Speaker 1: that a crime and a crime that gets prosecuted every

236
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:19,880
Speaker 1: now and then, but it's also a ground for deportation.

237
00:14:20,520 --> 00:14:24,080
Speaker 1: It's a question that's asked in every immigration form and

238
00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:28,360
Speaker 1: in every immigration interview that somebody has for an immigration benefit,

239
00:14:28,440 --> 00:14:31,840
Speaker 1: have you ever unlawfully voted in a federal election. So

240
00:14:31,880 --> 00:14:35,080
Speaker 1: it's actually quite a serious thing that a person who's

241
00:14:35,120 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 1: not a citizen cannot vote in a federal election.

242
00:14:38,120 --> 00:14:42,880
Speaker 2: But cities and municipalities can allow non citizens to vote

243
00:14:43,000 --> 00:14:47,880
Speaker 2: in local elections. More than a dozen communities across the country,

244
00:14:48,400 --> 00:14:52,880
Speaker 2: including eleven towns in Maryland and Vermont, have allowed non

245
00:14:52,920 --> 00:14:56,720
Speaker 2: citizens to cast ballots in local elections, they.

246
00:14:56,600 --> 00:15:01,200
Speaker 1: Have theoretically the authority because elections are a state run

247
00:15:01,480 --> 00:15:06,240
Speaker 1: thing other than for federal election purposes, and so a

248
00:15:06,280 --> 00:15:09,440
Speaker 1: state or a locality, if a locality is permitted to

249
00:15:09,480 --> 00:15:14,200
Speaker 1: do so by a state, can theoretically allow a person

250
00:15:14,240 --> 00:15:17,440
Speaker 1: who is here who is not a US citizen to

251
00:15:17,560 --> 00:15:20,960
Speaker 1: vote in their election, and it would just be up

252
00:15:21,000 --> 00:15:23,840
Speaker 1: to that state or that locality to do so.

253
00:15:23,840 --> 00:15:25,880
Speaker 2: Se Leon tell us about this New York City law

254
00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:28,560
Speaker 2: that was passed back in twenty twenty two but never

255
00:15:28,600 --> 00:15:30,080
Speaker 2: went into effect.

256
00:15:30,400 --> 00:15:33,400
Speaker 1: So the New York City law that actually came into

257
00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:38,320
Speaker 1: account says that if you are a lawful permanent resident

258
00:15:38,480 --> 00:15:41,440
Speaker 1: or even someone with a lawful ability to work in

259
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:44,440
Speaker 1: the United States, meaning that you actually have a work

260
00:15:44,520 --> 00:15:48,880
Speaker 1: permit from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is interesting

261
00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:52,560
Speaker 1: because there are some statuses which are very sort of

262
00:15:52,680 --> 00:15:58,800
Speaker 1: tenuous statuses like deferred action and temporary protected status, and

263
00:15:58,880 --> 00:16:02,160
Speaker 1: even you can actually have an order of removal that

264
00:16:02,360 --> 00:16:06,240
Speaker 1: just can't be executed at the moment because the country

265
00:16:06,280 --> 00:16:09,280
Speaker 1: that they want to remove you to won't actually accept you.

266
00:16:09,720 --> 00:16:12,480
Speaker 1: And even those individuals are allowed to get work permits,

267
00:16:12,960 --> 00:16:15,400
Speaker 1: and so the idea of the new York law is

268
00:16:15,480 --> 00:16:18,400
Speaker 1: any of those people with work permits, even with such

269
00:16:18,480 --> 00:16:22,080
Speaker 1: tenuous statuses, would be allowed to vote. Now, a purely

270
00:16:22,680 --> 00:16:26,480
Speaker 1: undocumented person that is here illegally and has no right

271
00:16:26,520 --> 00:16:29,240
Speaker 1: to work of any kind would not be allowed to

272
00:16:29,320 --> 00:16:30,360
Speaker 1: vote under that law.

273
00:16:30,880 --> 00:16:33,400
Speaker 2: And you just have to be a lawful, permanent resident

274
00:16:33,920 --> 00:16:37,360
Speaker 2: of the city for thirty days. So Republicans filed the

275
00:16:37,440 --> 00:16:41,240
Speaker 2: lawsuit to stop the law from going into effect. What

276
00:16:41,320 --> 00:16:43,120
Speaker 2: are their arguments against the law.

277
00:16:43,680 --> 00:16:47,040
Speaker 1: So essentially, what they're trying to say is that there

278
00:16:47,080 --> 00:16:49,280
Speaker 1: are a few problems with the law. First, that the

279
00:16:49,360 --> 00:16:54,760
Speaker 1: law violates the New York State Constitution, which actually says

280
00:16:54,920 --> 00:16:59,360
Speaker 1: that citizens are the individuals who are permitted to vote

281
00:16:59,360 --> 00:17:01,720
Speaker 1: in election. Now, there's fights and we can get into

282
00:17:01,760 --> 00:17:04,840
Speaker 1: this about whether that meant New York citizens or US

283
00:17:04,920 --> 00:17:08,119
Speaker 1: citizens and whether that's a floor or a ceiling. But

284
00:17:08,200 --> 00:17:10,479
Speaker 1: their argument is that if you look at the New

285
00:17:10,560 --> 00:17:14,760
Speaker 1: York State Constitution, that meant that only US citizens are

286
00:17:14,800 --> 00:17:17,640
Speaker 1: allowed to vote and nobody else. That's their first argument,

287
00:17:18,000 --> 00:17:23,280
Speaker 1: and then their second argument is that the actual voting,

288
00:17:23,480 --> 00:17:27,000
Speaker 1: allowing eight hundred thousand potential more people to vote in

289
00:17:27,040 --> 00:17:30,240
Speaker 1: the New York City election would actually dilute the right

290
00:17:30,320 --> 00:17:33,960
Speaker 1: to vote that the US citizens have in New York,

291
00:17:34,400 --> 00:17:38,240
Speaker 1: which would then violate the municipal home rule laws in

292
00:17:38,320 --> 00:17:39,159
Speaker 1: New York City.

293
00:17:39,480 --> 00:17:42,320
Speaker 2: I just want to note the specific language in the

294
00:17:42,359 --> 00:17:46,080
Speaker 2: state constitution that a lot of the Republican arguments are

295
00:17:46,119 --> 00:17:50,399
Speaker 2: focused on. It says, quote, every citizen shall be entitled

296
00:17:50,480 --> 00:17:54,600
Speaker 2: to vote at every election for all officers elected by

297
00:17:54,600 --> 00:17:58,520
Speaker 2: the people, and upon all questions submitted to the vote

298
00:17:58,560 --> 00:18:02,320
Speaker 2: of the people. Seems pretty clear every citizen.

299
00:18:02,920 --> 00:18:06,440
Speaker 1: Right the question that they say. So, there's a couple

300
00:18:06,480 --> 00:18:10,359
Speaker 1: of areas where the dispute is tried to be created. Here.

301
00:18:10,600 --> 00:18:14,879
Speaker 1: The first argument is that is a floor of rights,

302
00:18:14,920 --> 00:18:20,840
Speaker 1: meaning that what the Constitution is saying is, hey, state legislator,

303
00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:24,960
Speaker 1: hey local legislators, you are not allowed to do anything

304
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:29,520
Speaker 1: to diminish the right of a citizen to vote in

305
00:18:29,600 --> 00:18:32,800
Speaker 1: an election. But that that's not a ceiling, meaning that

306
00:18:32,840 --> 00:18:36,520
Speaker 1: you can add other people to this from that perspective,

307
00:18:36,560 --> 00:18:40,000
Speaker 1: so you could add non citizens to this. That's one argument.

308
00:18:40,680 --> 00:18:44,359
Speaker 1: And so the court in this oral argument was really

309
00:18:44,400 --> 00:18:47,320
Speaker 1: trying to ask the lawyers, hey, does that mean a

310
00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:49,920
Speaker 1: twelve year old or a thirteen year old can vote here?

311
00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:52,480
Speaker 1: Where does this thing, go, I mean, does this really

312
00:18:52,520 --> 00:18:56,480
Speaker 1: mean what you're saying it means? And the Council for

313
00:18:56,520 --> 00:18:59,159
Speaker 1: New York City I had to say yes because they

314
00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:01,800
Speaker 1: wouldn't have had any to say anything else, Which is,

315
00:19:01,800 --> 00:19:04,280
Speaker 1: if you're arguing that this is a floor, then that

316
00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:08,080
Speaker 1: means that for a local election, the localities can add

317
00:19:08,119 --> 00:19:11,080
Speaker 1: people and there's no limit basically to what they could

318
00:19:11,080 --> 00:19:14,399
Speaker 1: add in that situation. So that's one side. Now the

319
00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:18,040
Speaker 1: argument for the people opposing that is to say no, no,

320
00:19:18,040 --> 00:19:20,680
Speaker 1: no, no no. If they wanted other kinds of people to vote,

321
00:19:20,720 --> 00:19:24,000
Speaker 1: they would have added them within this protection. So this

322
00:19:24,160 --> 00:19:26,600
Speaker 1: is not a floor. This is actually both the floor

323
00:19:26,640 --> 00:19:29,879
Speaker 1: and the ceiling, because it's just enumerating the people who

324
00:19:29,960 --> 00:19:34,240
Speaker 1: can vote. The other argument is because it says citizens

325
00:19:34,600 --> 00:19:39,199
Speaker 1: and not United States citizens, that this basically refers to

326
00:19:39,240 --> 00:19:42,960
Speaker 1: a amorphous set of New York citizens who would basically

327
00:19:43,040 --> 00:19:45,040
Speaker 1: be people who are just in New York for the

328
00:19:45,160 --> 00:19:47,840
Speaker 1: last thirty days. But I don't think the court was

329
00:19:47,880 --> 00:19:51,560
Speaker 1: willing to accept that argument, and a very strong argument

330
00:19:51,760 --> 00:19:56,040
Speaker 1: in favor of not accepting that argument was made by

331
00:19:56,160 --> 00:19:58,960
Speaker 1: the opponents of this New York law, which said, look,

332
00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:03,480
Speaker 1: if this really meant New York citizens and not US citizens.

333
00:20:03,520 --> 00:20:06,160
Speaker 1: And for the last one hundred or so years, there's

334
00:20:06,200 --> 00:20:09,120
Speaker 1: been people who have been disenfranchised who we've not allowed

335
00:20:09,119 --> 00:20:13,280
Speaker 1: to vote, who were constitutionally permitted to vote and protected

336
00:20:13,359 --> 00:20:16,560
Speaker 1: to vote, because we've only been letting US citizens vote

337
00:20:16,600 --> 00:20:18,959
Speaker 1: this whole time. But if this had really meant New

338
00:20:19,040 --> 00:20:21,840
Speaker 1: York citizens, then anybody who'd been in New York for

339
00:20:21,880 --> 00:20:24,240
Speaker 1: a certain period of time would have been allowed to

340
00:20:24,320 --> 00:20:26,960
Speaker 1: vote too, And we didn't know this, so it can't

341
00:20:27,040 --> 00:20:27,600
Speaker 1: have meant that.

342
00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:32,879
Speaker 2: There were also several questions about why isn't this a

343
00:20:33,000 --> 00:20:36,359
Speaker 2: method that requires a referendum?

344
00:20:36,800 --> 00:20:39,119
Speaker 1: Well, I think the issue is if you're going to

345
00:20:39,800 --> 00:20:43,280
Speaker 1: say if this was a problem that the people defending

346
00:20:43,320 --> 00:20:45,600
Speaker 1: the New York City law were having in this argument

347
00:20:45,880 --> 00:20:48,879
Speaker 1: was they kept saying, who gets to decide what the

348
00:20:48,920 --> 00:20:53,480
Speaker 1: word citizen means? And they were saying that either the

349
00:20:53,520 --> 00:20:56,879
Speaker 1: state legislature could decide it or the city could decide it,

350
00:20:56,920 --> 00:20:59,800
Speaker 1: And the court was saying, well, can't we decided and

351
00:21:00,200 --> 00:21:02,240
Speaker 1: aren't we the one who are supposed to make the

352
00:21:02,280 --> 00:21:05,240
Speaker 1: actual decision about what the words of the constitution mean?

353
00:21:05,720 --> 00:21:08,000
Speaker 1: And so then there was this debate about, well, maybe

354
00:21:08,000 --> 00:21:10,480
Speaker 1: you should be put up for the voters. But I

355
00:21:10,520 --> 00:21:13,400
Speaker 1: think where the court is going to decide here is look,

356
00:21:13,840 --> 00:21:17,400
Speaker 1: unless the Constitution is amended, which it can always be amended,

357
00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:21,400
Speaker 1: we are going to decide what the constitution means. And

358
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:25,439
Speaker 1: while it is unclear whether they will decide that the

359
00:21:25,480 --> 00:21:29,439
Speaker 1: constitution sets a floor or whether they will decide that

360
00:21:29,480 --> 00:21:33,240
Speaker 1: the constitution actually sets a floor and a ceiling, meaning

361
00:21:33,280 --> 00:21:36,800
Speaker 1: that only the people listed in the constitution are the

362
00:21:36,800 --> 00:21:41,280
Speaker 1: ones that can vote, meaning citizens, meaning US citizens, which

363
00:21:41,320 --> 00:21:45,640
Speaker 1: I think seems like it's slightly where they're headed. Nevertheless,

364
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:47,679
Speaker 1: I think they are headed there, and they're not going

365
00:21:47,760 --> 00:21:51,000
Speaker 1: to say that this needs to be decided by a referendum,

366
00:21:51,040 --> 00:21:53,400
Speaker 1: except to the extent that what they are saying is, look,

367
00:21:53,640 --> 00:21:56,640
Speaker 1: if you want to change our ruling, have a referendum

368
00:21:56,680 --> 00:21:59,880
Speaker 1: and decide this, and decide to change the constitution, bea

369
00:22:00,119 --> 00:22:00,959
Speaker 1: be a referendum.

370
00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:01,440
Speaker 5: Yeah.

371
00:22:01,480 --> 00:22:05,040
Speaker 2: I just want to play that interchange because it was

372
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:08,440
Speaker 2: kind of amusing where the judges were saying, but that's

373
00:22:08,480 --> 00:22:09,440
Speaker 2: our role, isn't it.

374
00:22:09,800 --> 00:22:12,840
Speaker 7: What definition would you ask this court to give? I

375
00:22:12,880 --> 00:22:15,040
Speaker 7: would say that the legislature is in the best position

376
00:22:15,080 --> 00:22:17,960
Speaker 7: to define a citizen because it is ambiguous and The

377
00:22:18,000 --> 00:22:19,600
Speaker 7: reasons why are because.

378
00:22:19,640 --> 00:22:22,920
Speaker 6: The state how can the legislation legislature do that?

379
00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:24,400
Speaker 3: This is a constitutional provision.

380
00:22:24,960 --> 00:22:27,760
Speaker 7: So there's a constitutional provision with an ambiguous term and

381
00:22:27,760 --> 00:22:30,520
Speaker 7: there's not enough evidence before this court to support a

382
00:22:30,560 --> 00:22:32,160
Speaker 7: more restrictive or a broader reading.

383
00:22:32,320 --> 00:22:35,560
Speaker 4: Isn't that our role to determine what this language.

384
00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:37,680
Speaker 7: Is where there is sufficient evidence to support one reading

385
00:22:37,720 --> 00:22:38,600
Speaker 7: and otherwise it.

386
00:22:38,560 --> 00:22:40,880
Speaker 4: Just goes to the legislature to determine what the state

387
00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:41,919
Speaker 4: constitution means.

388
00:22:42,600 --> 00:22:45,480
Speaker 7: Well, when the provision is ambiguous and there's not enough evidence,

389
00:22:45,600 --> 00:22:45,840
Speaker 7: we have.

390
00:22:45,880 --> 00:22:48,760
Speaker 1: Ever said that because the New York lawyer was saying

391
00:22:49,119 --> 00:22:51,480
Speaker 1: that it is not up to the court to define

392
00:22:51,480 --> 00:22:54,159
Speaker 1: what the constitution meant and the court that isn't that

393
00:22:54,240 --> 00:22:56,840
Speaker 1: our role? Well, I asked, are we here other than

394
00:22:56,880 --> 00:23:00,720
Speaker 1: to decide what the constitution means? So yes, the like

395
00:23:00,800 --> 00:23:02,240
Speaker 1: or rather odd argument to make.

396
00:23:02,520 --> 00:23:05,720
Speaker 2: You don't want to be telling judges their role is superfluous.

397
00:23:06,359 --> 00:23:06,879
Speaker 2: Stay with me.

398
00:23:07,000 --> 00:23:07,280
Speaker 5: Leon.

399
00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:09,840
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue

400
00:23:09,880 --> 00:23:14,760
Speaker 2: this conversation with immigration law expert Leon Fresco. Though it

401
00:23:14,800 --> 00:23:17,960
Speaker 2: was very hard to read this court from the oral arguments,

402
00:23:18,240 --> 00:23:20,360
Speaker 2: we'll discuss how they might come out and what their

403
00:23:20,400 --> 00:23:26,119
Speaker 2: concerns were. I've been talking to immigration law expert Leon

404
00:23:26,240 --> 00:23:30,520
Speaker 2: Fresco about oral arguments today at New York's highest court

405
00:23:30,920 --> 00:23:34,040
Speaker 2: over a law passed in twenty twenty two that grants

406
00:23:34,119 --> 00:23:38,560
Speaker 2: non citizens the right to vote in municipal elections. Leon,

407
00:23:38,600 --> 00:23:41,560
Speaker 2: the courts below, the District Court and the Appellate Court,

408
00:23:42,000 --> 00:23:44,760
Speaker 2: ruled against the law tell us about the grounds for

409
00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:45,640
Speaker 2: their decisions.

410
00:23:45,960 --> 00:23:49,640
Speaker 1: Well. First, the lowest court found that it violated both

411
00:23:49,680 --> 00:23:53,080
Speaker 1: the New York state constitutions, the New York State election law,

412
00:23:53,359 --> 00:23:56,480
Speaker 1: and the municipal home rule law for the reasons that

413
00:23:56,520 --> 00:23:58,680
Speaker 1: we've already talked about, which said, for the New York

414
00:23:58,680 --> 00:24:04,000
Speaker 1: State Constitution, those words really only meant US citizens, and

415
00:24:04,080 --> 00:24:07,840
Speaker 1: there wasn't a floor that could then be added above that.

416
00:24:07,840 --> 00:24:10,840
Speaker 1: That was both a Florana ceiling that they guaranteed the

417
00:24:10,920 --> 00:24:13,560
Speaker 1: right to US citizens, And the only reason that that's

418
00:24:13,560 --> 00:24:16,600
Speaker 1: the only people they guaranteed the right to is because

419
00:24:16,880 --> 00:24:19,800
Speaker 1: that's the only people they wanted voting. So instead of

420
00:24:19,800 --> 00:24:23,560
Speaker 1: flor Aana ceiling, the municipal home rule law because of

421
00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:27,639
Speaker 1: this sense that there would be a dilution in the

422
00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:31,160
Speaker 1: voter pool, because of the fact that non citizens could

423
00:24:31,200 --> 00:24:34,560
Speaker 1: potentially make up more than fifteen percent of the electorate

424
00:24:34,600 --> 00:24:37,560
Speaker 1: in future elections, which would be greater than the margin

425
00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:41,439
Speaker 1: of victory in many municipal elections. So it would dramatically

426
00:24:41,480 --> 00:24:45,280
Speaker 1: increase the pool of eligible voters and dilute the votes

427
00:24:45,320 --> 00:24:49,600
Speaker 1: of US citizens. So that was another route. And then

428
00:24:49,640 --> 00:24:52,200
Speaker 1: there was also that the New York state election law

429
00:24:52,280 --> 00:24:55,960
Speaker 1: was violated as well. Now the Court in the intermediate

430
00:24:55,960 --> 00:25:00,560
Speaker 1: appeals said that the state statue wasn't violated. Still, the

431
00:25:00,680 --> 00:25:04,000
Speaker 1: municipal home rule law and the New York State Constitution

432
00:25:04,280 --> 00:25:07,639
Speaker 1: was violated in that case, so they agreed there. That

433
00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:11,639
Speaker 1: basically comes down to the crux of Look, at the

434
00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:15,680
Speaker 1: end of the day, the Constitution said that here who

435
00:25:15,880 --> 00:25:19,320
Speaker 1: Here's who has a guarantee to vote, which is the

436
00:25:19,480 --> 00:25:24,240
Speaker 1: US citizen. And because of that, that means that that

437
00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:27,600
Speaker 1: guarantee wouldn't have been given only to US citizens if

438
00:25:27,600 --> 00:25:29,680
Speaker 1: they had wanted other people to be allowed to vote

439
00:25:29,680 --> 00:25:30,520
Speaker 1: in that situation.

440
00:25:31,240 --> 00:25:33,760
Speaker 2: After the oral arguments, do you have any feel for

441
00:25:33,880 --> 00:25:35,120
Speaker 2: which way the court might go?

442
00:25:35,640 --> 00:25:38,359
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems very difficult to try to pin the

443
00:25:38,400 --> 00:25:41,640
Speaker 1: court down as to where they were headed here. I mean,

444
00:25:42,040 --> 00:25:44,119
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, there seemed to be

445
00:25:44,600 --> 00:25:48,440
Speaker 1: at least one judge on each of the sides where

446
00:25:48,480 --> 00:25:50,679
Speaker 1: it was clear that they had at least one judge

447
00:25:50,680 --> 00:25:52,679
Speaker 1: that was going to vote in favor of the New

448
00:25:52,760 --> 00:25:55,760
Speaker 1: York law, and there was one judge who seemed particularly

449
00:25:55,840 --> 00:25:58,680
Speaker 1: hostile to the New York law. But that leads five

450
00:25:58,720 --> 00:26:02,040
Speaker 1: other judges, and I really didn't get a good sense

451
00:26:02,080 --> 00:26:04,879
Speaker 1: of where those five other judges were going to be

452
00:26:05,000 --> 00:26:10,919
Speaker 1: heading there. I don't think given where the potential implications

453
00:26:10,960 --> 00:26:13,360
Speaker 1: of this are, which is that if you vote for this,

454
00:26:13,760 --> 00:26:17,639
Speaker 1: then you're basically leaving the localities to again let twelve

455
00:26:17,680 --> 00:26:20,520
Speaker 1: year olds vote, and let you know, all kinds of

456
00:26:20,560 --> 00:26:23,520
Speaker 1: other people vote that wouldn't necessarily be allowed to vote

457
00:26:23,600 --> 00:26:27,280
Speaker 1: normally in an election that I don't think they're going

458
00:26:27,320 --> 00:26:29,520
Speaker 1: to want to open up the floodgates in this manner,

459
00:26:29,560 --> 00:26:31,280
Speaker 1: but we'll have to wait and see.

460
00:26:31,560 --> 00:26:33,760
Speaker 2: Would you say that it would be more of a

461
00:26:33,840 --> 00:26:36,679
Speaker 2: novel ruling and they would have to go sort of

462
00:26:36,720 --> 00:26:40,399
Speaker 2: outside the box to uphol this law. In other words,

463
00:26:40,400 --> 00:26:43,159
Speaker 2: it would be easier to strike it down correct.

464
00:26:43,240 --> 00:26:46,520
Speaker 1: You'd have to do much more verbal gymnastics in order

465
00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:50,760
Speaker 1: to say that the non US citizens could vote in

466
00:26:51,080 --> 00:26:54,359
Speaker 1: the New York City elections than you would just to

467
00:26:54,359 --> 00:26:57,640
Speaker 1: affirm the principle that the New York Constitution meant that

468
00:26:57,720 --> 00:27:00,280
Speaker 1: only US citizens could vote, you would have to make

469
00:27:00,320 --> 00:27:04,640
Speaker 1: the machination that all of these qualifications that were put

470
00:27:04,640 --> 00:27:08,119
Speaker 1: in were meant to be a floor, but that localities

471
00:27:08,160 --> 00:27:11,400
Speaker 1: could add more people. And then the question would be, well,

472
00:27:11,440 --> 00:27:14,160
Speaker 1: why why would the constitution of the State of New

473
00:27:14,200 --> 00:27:19,640
Speaker 1: York wanted to have had an ability for state elections

474
00:27:19,640 --> 00:27:24,160
Speaker 1: to only be US citizens but somehow incorporate this principle

475
00:27:24,200 --> 00:27:27,880
Speaker 1: that localities could add more kinds of voters that can't

476
00:27:27,960 --> 00:27:30,639
Speaker 1: vote in the state elections. But there is where I

477
00:27:30,680 --> 00:27:33,040
Speaker 1: think there really wasn't a good job of trying to

478
00:27:33,080 --> 00:27:36,960
Speaker 1: explain why would that be? Was that even contemplated, And

479
00:27:37,040 --> 00:27:39,600
Speaker 1: if it was, why would it have been that they

480
00:27:39,600 --> 00:27:42,320
Speaker 1: would have wanted different kinds of people or different pools

481
00:27:42,320 --> 00:27:45,119
Speaker 1: of people voting in the local elections than in the

482
00:27:45,160 --> 00:27:45,960
Speaker 1: state elections.

483
00:27:46,440 --> 00:27:48,359
Speaker 2: And for anyone who thought this was going to be

484
00:27:48,560 --> 00:27:52,440
Speaker 2: kind of a raw, raw argument about why non citizens

485
00:27:52,440 --> 00:27:55,800
Speaker 2: should be allowed to vote, it was nothing like that.

486
00:27:56,000 --> 00:27:59,760
Speaker 2: It was so technical. I mean, they were parsing words

487
00:27:59,800 --> 00:28:03,479
Speaker 2: to talking about the meaning of for example, method correct.

488
00:28:03,560 --> 00:28:06,879
Speaker 1: I think one they really wanted to avoid the sense

489
00:28:07,280 --> 00:28:11,480
Speaker 1: that there was any political agenda behind their decision making process.

490
00:28:11,640 --> 00:28:15,199
Speaker 1: So they really tried to approach this everybody, to their credit,

491
00:28:15,280 --> 00:28:18,360
Speaker 1: from all the arguments and from all of the justices,

492
00:28:18,880 --> 00:28:24,600
Speaker 1: to the real of the dictionary and of the interpretation,

493
00:28:25,200 --> 00:28:27,600
Speaker 1: rather than in the realm of the political and as

494
00:28:27,640 --> 00:28:30,880
Speaker 1: you know, making equitable arguments about why this is right,

495
00:28:31,280 --> 00:28:33,960
Speaker 1: you know, why immigrants pay taxes, they should be allowed

496
00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:37,040
Speaker 1: to mote. None of that really was part of this.

497
00:28:37,560 --> 00:28:40,080
Speaker 1: And so from that perspective, it's really going to come

498
00:28:40,120 --> 00:28:43,400
Speaker 1: down to, well, what did the drafters of the New

499
00:28:43,480 --> 00:28:47,040
Speaker 1: York Constitution actually intend? Which is really what it should

500
00:28:47,080 --> 00:28:48,760
Speaker 1: come down to at the end of the day, because

501
00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:51,520
Speaker 1: that's the job of the court is, here's a New

502
00:28:51,600 --> 00:28:55,120
Speaker 1: York Constitution, here are the words. What did the people

503
00:28:55,120 --> 00:28:58,440
Speaker 1: who wrote those words intended to mean when they wrote

504
00:28:58,440 --> 00:29:01,680
Speaker 1: those words? And that's going to come down to it.

505
00:29:01,720 --> 00:29:05,240
Speaker 1: And I think if you really bring it down to

506
00:29:05,280 --> 00:29:10,160
Speaker 1: that standpoint, it seems unlikely that they would have intended

507
00:29:10,760 --> 00:29:13,800
Speaker 1: people who are not US citizens to be able to vote,

508
00:29:13,840 --> 00:29:16,960
Speaker 1: because at the time this was written, this really wasn't

509
00:29:17,000 --> 00:29:20,680
Speaker 1: a thing. There wasn't really Yet this process of you

510
00:29:20,800 --> 00:29:23,280
Speaker 1: came to the country and you got a work permit

511
00:29:23,440 --> 00:29:26,160
Speaker 1: or a green card or any of that, none of

512
00:29:26,160 --> 00:29:29,320
Speaker 1: that existed back then. And so all of those are

513
00:29:29,360 --> 00:29:33,640
Speaker 1: relatively new creations of the last not even one hundred years,

514
00:29:33,640 --> 00:29:37,440
Speaker 1: of the last seventy years. And so from that perspective,

515
00:29:37,480 --> 00:29:39,880
Speaker 1: I just find it very hard to believe that they're

516
00:29:39,880 --> 00:29:43,680
Speaker 1: going to think that this was incorporated somehow at the

517
00:29:43,720 --> 00:29:45,959
Speaker 1: time of the writing of the New York Constitution.

518
00:29:46,840 --> 00:29:50,200
Speaker 2: Let's turn out to New York and sanctuary cities. And

519
00:29:50,360 --> 00:29:53,680
Speaker 2: this has come up more recently because New York City

520
00:29:53,720 --> 00:29:56,720
Speaker 2: Mayor Eric Adams is being given a pass by the

521
00:29:56,960 --> 00:30:00,000
Speaker 2: Justice Department, and one of the big reasons, according to

522
00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:02,720
Speaker 2: to the memo from the Justice Department, was so that

523
00:30:02,800 --> 00:30:07,800
Speaker 2: he could help the Trump administration enforce immigration laws. And

524
00:30:07,960 --> 00:30:13,480
Speaker 2: also he apparently has told his staff, his top officials,

525
00:30:13,480 --> 00:30:17,040
Speaker 2: according to the city publication, he's told them not to

526
00:30:17,080 --> 00:30:22,560
Speaker 2: criticize the Trump administration and basically not to interfere with ice.

527
00:30:22,680 --> 00:30:24,800
Speaker 2: I mean, is that how you read what he's been doing?

528
00:30:25,960 --> 00:30:29,400
Speaker 1: Well. I think that he has certainly expressed a desire

529
00:30:29,560 --> 00:30:32,760
Speaker 1: to work with the Trump administration. He got a meeting

530
00:30:32,800 --> 00:30:35,479
Speaker 1: with Tom Holman in New York. Tom Holman was a

531
00:30:35,520 --> 00:30:39,000
Speaker 1: former New York police officer. He understands the city, he

532
00:30:39,080 --> 00:30:43,120
Speaker 1: understands the politics. He had a meeting with Mayor Adams.

533
00:30:43,560 --> 00:30:49,240
Speaker 1: Mayor Adams has certainly expressed, even before Trump was elected president,

534
00:30:49,320 --> 00:30:53,120
Speaker 1: to be fair, an exasperation with the state of affairs

535
00:30:53,120 --> 00:30:56,640
Speaker 1: in the city. In the city of New York. Unclear,

536
00:30:57,160 --> 00:31:02,280
Speaker 1: you know what the motivation was for the prosecution. Obviously,

537
00:31:02,360 --> 00:31:05,280
Speaker 1: there are three sites to that story there, so I

538
00:31:05,280 --> 00:31:07,680
Speaker 1: don't want to weigh in on that. Yes, at least

539
00:31:07,680 --> 00:31:10,400
Speaker 1: three sites to that story, although I will make one

540
00:31:10,440 --> 00:31:12,680
Speaker 1: personal editors though to say that at the end of

541
00:31:12,720 --> 00:31:16,240
Speaker 1: the day, I don't know really, you know, in terms

542
00:31:16,280 --> 00:31:18,720
Speaker 1: of all of the horrible things people have done in life,

543
00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:22,120
Speaker 1: is what he was accused of doing didn't seem to

544
00:31:22,160 --> 00:31:26,520
Speaker 1: be one of the more horrific things you've ever heard

545
00:31:26,560 --> 00:31:30,000
Speaker 1: in the history of humanity. So, at least from that perspective,

546
00:31:30,440 --> 00:31:33,000
Speaker 1: there was some argument to be made one way or

547
00:31:33,000 --> 00:31:37,600
Speaker 1: the other about whether this was a useful case to

548
00:31:37,640 --> 00:31:41,560
Speaker 1: bring forward in the grand scheme of everything that happens

549
00:31:41,560 --> 00:31:46,600
Speaker 1: in politics. And so from that perspective, if there was

550
00:31:46,680 --> 00:31:50,200
Speaker 1: a belief that this was going to be the best

551
00:31:50,240 --> 00:31:55,960
Speaker 1: possible person for this administration to work with with regard

552
00:31:56,080 --> 00:32:00,920
Speaker 1: to enforcing the laws of the Immigration Court New York City.

553
00:32:01,480 --> 00:32:06,640
Speaker 1: Then I think from that perspective, baby, an outcome was

554
00:32:06,680 --> 00:32:09,240
Speaker 1: reached that, at least from the Trump perspective, in the

555
00:32:09,280 --> 00:32:13,440
Speaker 1: mayor's perspective, made sense. Now, what does that mean for

556
00:32:13,640 --> 00:32:18,040
Speaker 1: the average undocumented person in New York unclear? Because New

557
00:32:18,120 --> 00:32:23,960
Speaker 1: York certainly still has sanctuary state laws and sanctuary city

558
00:32:24,040 --> 00:32:29,000
Speaker 1: laws that do not allow this kind of cooperation where

559
00:32:29,080 --> 00:32:32,440
Speaker 1: Ice is allowed to go into the jails in New York,

560
00:32:32,680 --> 00:32:36,480
Speaker 1: or where Ice can put what's called an administrative warrant

561
00:32:36,840 --> 00:32:41,280
Speaker 1: and say to a state or local jail, hey, just

562
00:32:41,440 --> 00:32:44,160
Speaker 1: hold this person here for a day or two extra

563
00:32:44,520 --> 00:32:47,240
Speaker 1: while we get our resources together to come pick them up.

564
00:32:47,600 --> 00:32:51,240
Speaker 1: New York doesn't currently accept those kinds of requests, and

565
00:32:51,320 --> 00:32:55,120
Speaker 1: they would still just release people in that situation. And

566
00:32:55,160 --> 00:32:57,720
Speaker 1: if Ice doesn't get them, well, that's the way it is.

567
00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:02,080
Speaker 1: And so what will make your atoms do? I think? Basically,

568
00:33:02,120 --> 00:33:04,719
Speaker 1: the only thing that I think is within his authority

569
00:33:05,560 --> 00:33:07,880
Speaker 1: if he's not going to be held to account for

570
00:33:08,000 --> 00:33:11,800
Speaker 1: violating the state laws and the local laws, is to

571
00:33:11,840 --> 00:33:15,920
Speaker 1: basically say, look where there are operations in place to

572
00:33:16,800 --> 00:33:21,080
Speaker 1: actually catch people, help them, help the federal officials touch people,

573
00:33:21,160 --> 00:33:25,360
Speaker 1: you know, you know, don't let people interfere with ices operation,

574
00:33:25,600 --> 00:33:28,719
Speaker 1: protect the ICE officers, that kind of thing. And I

575
00:33:28,760 --> 00:33:32,520
Speaker 1: do think at least if the city officials are doing that,

576
00:33:32,520 --> 00:33:35,880
Speaker 1: that is, from ICE's perspective, more helpful than if they

577
00:33:35,920 --> 00:33:37,000
Speaker 1: don't have that support.

578
00:33:37,360 --> 00:33:41,680
Speaker 2: But isn't that against the New York City sanctuary policy?

579
00:33:41,720 --> 00:33:44,880
Speaker 2: And the way New York has been operating until this

580
00:33:45,040 --> 00:33:49,400
Speaker 2: point was you know, if an ICE officer comes to

581
00:33:49,480 --> 00:33:52,360
Speaker 2: a school, let's say, show me your warrant and let

582
00:33:52,440 --> 00:33:54,920
Speaker 2: me call a lawyer right now. So I mean, isn't

583
00:33:54,920 --> 00:33:58,120
Speaker 2: that against the sanctuary city laws?

584
00:33:58,160 --> 00:34:03,440
Speaker 1: So the actual technical sanctuary city policies are twofold. Number one,

585
00:34:04,000 --> 00:34:07,640
Speaker 1: not to let ICE into the jails of the states

586
00:34:07,640 --> 00:34:11,040
Speaker 1: and the cities where they could go look for identifying

587
00:34:11,600 --> 00:34:15,400
Speaker 1: undocumented people or people that could be deported, and not

588
00:34:15,600 --> 00:34:20,400
Speaker 1: accepting the detainers of ICE saying hey, hold on to

589
00:34:20,520 --> 00:34:23,799
Speaker 1: this undocument the person while we can come and try

590
00:34:23,840 --> 00:34:25,880
Speaker 1: to pick them up, so that they would have to

591
00:34:25,920 --> 00:34:29,520
Speaker 1: actually hold people, So that's part of it. And then

592
00:34:29,560 --> 00:34:33,960
Speaker 1: also not enforcing the immigration law themselves, meaning the police

593
00:34:34,000 --> 00:34:37,040
Speaker 1: officers of the state of New York and the cities

594
00:34:37,040 --> 00:34:40,080
Speaker 1: within New York. They are not allowed to arrest people

595
00:34:40,320 --> 00:34:43,560
Speaker 1: like you'll see this in some cities around Red States.

596
00:34:43,719 --> 00:34:46,719
Speaker 1: The local officers will arrest people and then they'll say,

597
00:34:46,760 --> 00:34:49,640
Speaker 1: you just wait one minute, we're going to call licensee

598
00:34:49,640 --> 00:34:53,000
Speaker 1: if you're here legally. And the Supreme Court has permitted

599
00:34:53,000 --> 00:34:55,759
Speaker 1: that in Arizona versus the United States. That was the

600
00:34:55,800 --> 00:34:58,959
Speaker 1: one thing that was allowed under that case. Everything else

601
00:34:59,080 --> 00:35:01,719
Speaker 1: was not allowed. But that is allowed, and so New

602
00:35:01,800 --> 00:35:04,400
Speaker 1: York is not allowed to do that either. But what

603
00:35:04,480 --> 00:35:07,880
Speaker 1: I was saying they can do is sometimes you go

604
00:35:07,960 --> 00:35:10,600
Speaker 1: on some of these enforcement operations and people might be

605
00:35:10,760 --> 00:35:13,920
Speaker 1: very violent toward the ICE agents, or they might be

606
00:35:14,000 --> 00:35:17,239
Speaker 1: creating a commotion or a scene or something like that.

607
00:35:17,600 --> 00:35:20,800
Speaker 1: And so the New York law enforcement officers can protect

608
00:35:20,960 --> 00:35:25,440
Speaker 1: the ICE officers in that situation, or they can, you know,

609
00:35:25,600 --> 00:35:28,400
Speaker 1: say hey, we're not gonna we're not gonna intervene here

610
00:35:28,760 --> 00:35:33,120
Speaker 1: in a way that helps the local people avoid deportations.

611
00:35:33,120 --> 00:35:36,080
Speaker 1: So let's say a school calls the police and says, hey,

612
00:35:36,120 --> 00:35:38,480
Speaker 1: get these ICE people out of here. They're not going

613
00:35:38,560 --> 00:35:39,879
Speaker 1: to do that. That kind of thing.

614
00:35:40,200 --> 00:35:42,160
Speaker 2: We'll have to see how it all plays out, at

615
00:35:42,239 --> 00:35:45,799
Speaker 2: least in New York City. Thanks so much, Leon. As always,

616
00:35:46,160 --> 00:35:50,319
Speaker 2: that's immigration law expert Leon Fresco of Honda Night. And

617
00:35:50,360 --> 00:35:52,479
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

618
00:35:52,840 --> 00:35:55,200
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

619
00:35:55,239 --> 00:35:59,520
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

620
00:35:59,680 --> 00:36:04,760
Speaker 2: and it www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

621
00:36:05,160 --> 00:36:07,720
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

622
00:36:07,760 --> 00:36:11,680
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

623
00:36:11,800 --> 00:36:13,440
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg