1
00:00:01,160 --> 00:00:04,000
Speaker 1: On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a high

2
00:00:04,080 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: stakes case over the strictest abortion law in the country,

3
00:00:07,920 --> 00:00:11,080
Speaker 1: the Texas law that has stopped most abortions in the state.

4
00:00:11,760 --> 00:00:15,520
Speaker 1: A key focus was on the unusual provision Texas included

5
00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:19,520
Speaker 1: that makes the law enforceable only through private lawsuits in

6
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:22,960
Speaker 1: order to keep federal courts from getting involved and blocking it.

7
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:27,600
Speaker 1: Four of the Justices, Stephen Bryer, Elina Kagan, Sonya Soto Mayor,

8
00:00:27,680 --> 00:00:31,159
Speaker 1: and the Chief Justice John Roberts, had already voted to

9
00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:34,479
Speaker 1: pause the law before it went into effect, and Justice

10
00:00:34,560 --> 00:00:38,120
Speaker 1: Kagan was the most vocal critic of the law, arguing

11
00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:40,720
Speaker 1: that its purpose was to get around the courts earlier

12
00:00:40,800 --> 00:00:44,520
Speaker 1: rulings about who can be sued to enforce constitutional rights.

13
00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:48,440
Speaker 1: And essentially, we would be like, you know, we're open

14
00:00:48,560 --> 00:00:53,080
Speaker 1: for you're open for business. There's there's ah, there's there's

15
00:00:53,080 --> 00:00:56,280
Speaker 1: nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. Guns, same

16
00:00:56,320 --> 00:01:00,760
Speaker 1: sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don't like, go ahead.

17
00:01:01,080 --> 00:01:02,920
Speaker 1: And it came as a bit of a surprise when

18
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:06,600
Speaker 1: Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled he agreed with Kagan. What are

19
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:10,880
Speaker 1: you saying, absent that uh, that Second Amendment rights free

20
00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:15,080
Speaker 1: exercise of religion rights, free speech rights could be targeted

21
00:01:15,959 --> 00:01:19,760
Speaker 1: by other states in this using the ex part a

22
00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:23,720
Speaker 1: young uh language on one sixty three, and to really

23
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: infringe those and to put huge penalties. To the Chief

24
00:01:27,520 --> 00:01:31,640
Speaker 1: justice hypothetical say everyone who sells an a R fifteen

25
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:35,080
Speaker 1: is liable for a million dollars to any citizen. My

26
00:01:35,160 --> 00:01:38,080
Speaker 1: guest is Leah Littman, a professor of constitutional law at

27
00:01:38,080 --> 00:01:41,479
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan Law School. Tell us about what

28
00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:44,800
Speaker 1: you saw as some of the major concerns that the

29
00:01:44,920 --> 00:01:49,640
Speaker 1: justices voice, so their concerns they had for both sides.

30
00:01:49,960 --> 00:01:54,559
Speaker 1: On the plaintift side, they were concerned about the prospect

31
00:01:55,040 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 1: that plaintifts could sue judges and kirks. In one moment,

32
00:02:00,560 --> 00:02:03,880
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice said to the advocates, you know, you

33
00:02:03,960 --> 00:02:09,840
Speaker 1: might understand our hesitation about allowing people to sue judges.

34
00:02:09,919 --> 00:02:12,320
Speaker 1: You know, they are judges themselves, and that's just not

35
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:15,360
Speaker 1: kind of the ordinary course of this litigation. On the

36
00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:20,800
Speaker 1: other side, to Texas, several justices indicated a real discomfort

37
00:02:20,880 --> 00:02:26,079
Speaker 1: with the prospect that states could nullify disfavored constitutional rights

38
00:02:26,120 --> 00:02:31,480
Speaker 1: and essentially undermine the Supreme Court authority to decide whether

39
00:02:31,520 --> 00:02:37,120
Speaker 1: state laws are constitutional. Justice Kagan argued that Texas was

40
00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:40,560
Speaker 1: making an end run around the Supreme Court precedent, and

41
00:02:40,560 --> 00:02:43,240
Speaker 1: it would be inviting other states to try to flout

42
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:47,960
Speaker 1: other precedent. Justice Kavanaugh talked about a loophole that's being

43
00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:52,600
Speaker 1: exploited here. So did he seem to suggest that the

44
00:02:52,639 --> 00:02:56,320
Speaker 1: Court should close up the loophole. So I don't think

45
00:02:56,360 --> 00:02:58,760
Speaker 1: it is a loophole for the Court to close up

46
00:02:58,919 --> 00:03:03,040
Speaker 1: so much as a structured state law that no court

47
00:03:03,080 --> 00:03:06,120
Speaker 1: has ever really confronted, or at least the Supreme Court

48
00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:10,239
Speaker 1: has not. That is, no state, as Solicitor General Elizabeth

49
00:03:10,240 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 1: Prelocker said, has ever done what Texas has tried to do, namely,

50
00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:20,600
Speaker 1: to box out the federal judiciary entirely from enforcing its

51
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:26,080
Speaker 1: decisions recognizing a constitutional rights. And so the loophole that

52
00:03:26,200 --> 00:03:30,920
Speaker 1: Texas exploited was just the general rule m the Supreme

53
00:03:30,960 --> 00:03:37,000
Speaker 1: Court's decisions that you ordinarily do state executive officials who

54
00:03:37,040 --> 00:03:40,360
Speaker 1: have some connection to the enforcement of a law. And

55
00:03:40,400 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 1: what Texas did is it tried to remove all state

56
00:03:43,560 --> 00:03:47,240
Speaker 1: executive officials from the enforcement of this law and therefore

57
00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:51,880
Speaker 1: remove any possible defendant that the plantifts could do. In

58
00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:55,760
Speaker 1: order to prevent this law for being in effect. It

59
00:03:55,840 --> 00:04:00,560
Speaker 1: seemed like Justice Coursage was pushing back on that and

60
00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:03,880
Speaker 1: kept asking, you know, have you ever done this before?

61
00:04:03,880 --> 00:04:05,720
Speaker 1: Has there ever been a suit like this before? Has

62
00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:08,600
Speaker 1: there ever been an injunction like this before? Does it

63
00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:11,440
Speaker 1: seem as if some of the conservative justices were looking

64
00:04:11,480 --> 00:04:16,040
Speaker 1: for ways to validate that. Yes, I think that concern

65
00:04:16,400 --> 00:04:19,039
Speaker 1: just doesn't account for the fact that no state has

66
00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:22,920
Speaker 1: ever tried to entirely boxed out the Supreme Court from

67
00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:26,920
Speaker 1: enforcing a constitutional right that the Supreme Court has recognized

68
00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:29,839
Speaker 1: and that the Supreme Court, at least in the here

69
00:04:29,880 --> 00:04:33,039
Speaker 1: and now has said continues to exist. And so the

70
00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:36,000
Speaker 1: other justices just didn't seem bothered by the fact that

71
00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:39,560
Speaker 1: there hasn't been a similar kind of lawsuit to this one.

72
00:04:40,120 --> 00:04:43,120
Speaker 1: Chief Justice rock I think Justice Elena Kagan and Samuel

73
00:04:43,120 --> 00:04:47,760
Speaker 1: Alito referred to this. But Chief Justice Roberts said that

74
00:04:48,080 --> 00:04:51,359
Speaker 1: the authority the US was claiming and bringing its lawsuit

75
00:04:51,839 --> 00:04:56,480
Speaker 1: was a limitless, ill defined authority. So they were questioning

76
00:04:56,520 --> 00:04:59,000
Speaker 1: whether they're ruling if there was a ruling in favor

77
00:04:59,000 --> 00:05:03,560
Speaker 1: of the justice to par could it be limited appropriately? Yes,

78
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:08,120
Speaker 1: So one question was when if ever, should the United

79
00:05:08,160 --> 00:05:11,080
Speaker 1: States be allowed to do a state under circumstances like

80
00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:14,680
Speaker 1: this one um Given that a premise of the United

81
00:05:14,680 --> 00:05:18,200
Speaker 1: States lawsuit was that Texas had attempted to insulate its

82
00:05:18,279 --> 00:05:23,400
Speaker 1: law from constitutional challenge in the federal courts, their questions were, well,

83
00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:26,400
Speaker 1: what other kinds of laws that might be insulated from

84
00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:29,800
Speaker 1: challenges in federal courts? Could the United States also do?

85
00:05:30,839 --> 00:05:33,280
Speaker 1: Did it seem as if, at least at the beginning

86
00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:38,159
Speaker 1: of the argument that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, she was

87
00:05:38,240 --> 00:05:41,880
Speaker 1: making an argument that this law would not allow abortion

88
00:05:41,920 --> 00:05:45,880
Speaker 1: providers to make a full defense in state court if

89
00:05:45,920 --> 00:05:47,719
Speaker 1: they get sued. So there was this some of the

90
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:51,279
Speaker 1: justices saying that state court could take care of this. Yes.

91
00:05:51,480 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 1: So part of her point was responding to a question

92
00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:59,360
Speaker 1: from Justice Alito, which is, why isn't it sufficient that

93
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:03,600
Speaker 1: if abortion providers are sued, they could just say this

94
00:06:03,680 --> 00:06:09,640
Speaker 1: law is unconstitutional and air the constitutional arguments in that way?

95
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:13,320
Speaker 1: And Justice Bara's point was that wouldn't actually solve the

96
00:06:13,400 --> 00:06:19,760
Speaker 1: constitutional problem given that Texas has limited the provider's ability

97
00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:25,200
Speaker 1: to assert the constitutional defense in these SPA lawsuits, and

98
00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:29,919
Speaker 1: also Texas has made it so these providers can just

99
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:34,520
Speaker 1: be sued again and again and again, and so merely

100
00:06:34,640 --> 00:06:38,160
Speaker 1: succeeding in one lawsuit isn't going to solve the problem,

101
00:06:38,400 --> 00:06:42,640
Speaker 1: which of which is you could possibly be sued in

102
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:46,800
Speaker 1: future cases. Did it seem to you as if on

103
00:06:46,839 --> 00:06:52,080
Speaker 1: the conservative side, Justice Alito, and perhaps on the liberal side,

104
00:06:52,160 --> 00:06:56,160
Speaker 1: Justice Kagan, they were both trying to make out and

105
00:06:56,320 --> 00:07:01,599
Speaker 1: clarify the arguments for the conservatives in Aldo's case and

106
00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:05,120
Speaker 1: for the liberal side in Kagan's case. I think that

107
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:08,640
Speaker 1: some of Deffice Kagan's questions were definitely designed to do that.

108
00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:11,880
Speaker 1: That she wanted to know from the Solicitor General under

109
00:07:11,880 --> 00:07:15,760
Speaker 1: what circumstances the United States could bring suit. She also

110
00:07:15,800 --> 00:07:19,119
Speaker 1: wanted to know what the Solicitor General thought should happen

111
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:22,120
Speaker 1: with the United States lawsuit if the Supreme Court allowed

112
00:07:22,120 --> 00:07:26,760
Speaker 1: the provider's lawsuits to um continue and air the constitutional

113
00:07:26,800 --> 00:07:30,840
Speaker 1: arguments against SP eight. I don't think Justice Alido was

114
00:07:30,880 --> 00:07:32,920
Speaker 1: trying to do the same that as I think his

115
00:07:33,080 --> 00:07:37,200
Speaker 1: questions were much more designed to advocate for a particular

116
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:40,640
Speaker 1: position than to clarify the position and to advocate for

117
00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:44,320
Speaker 1: the position in favor of the law. Yes, there's a

118
00:07:44,320 --> 00:07:47,760
Speaker 1: brief and support of abortion clinics that was filed by

119
00:07:47,880 --> 00:07:55,080
Speaker 1: Second Amendment advocates. Justice Kavanaugh questioned Texas over the prospect

120
00:07:55,160 --> 00:08:00,280
Speaker 1: that they could use this kind of law against other things,

121
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:06,240
Speaker 1: including gun rights. I think the fact that plaintiffs in

122
00:08:06,320 --> 00:08:10,840
Speaker 1: lawsuits for more favored constitutional rights argue that the Texas

123
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:15,559
Speaker 1: scheme should not be able to foreclose judicial review helps

124
00:08:15,640 --> 00:08:19,160
Speaker 1: the justices to see that this Texas scheme isn't about

125
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:22,960
Speaker 1: or limited to abortion. Instead, the justices wanted to know

126
00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:26,480
Speaker 1: whether states could use the scheme to undermine religious rights,

127
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:29,080
Speaker 1: whether states could use the scheme to undermine gun rights,

128
00:08:29,080 --> 00:08:32,800
Speaker 1: whether states could use the scheme to undermine contraception, whether

129
00:08:32,840 --> 00:08:36,760
Speaker 1: states could use the scheme to undermine numerous other constitutional rights.

130
00:08:36,800 --> 00:08:40,760
Speaker 1: And that question was definitely indicating that concern lurking in

131
00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:45,840
Speaker 1: the background is Roe v. Wade. And did it seem

132
00:08:45,920 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 1: as if any of the justices sort of acknowledge that

133
00:08:51,000 --> 00:08:56,680
Speaker 1: it was a constitutional right that's in jeopardy. So Justice

134
00:08:56,679 --> 00:09:01,080
Speaker 1: Alito was most explicit in acknowledging that Row and Casey

135
00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:05,840
Speaker 1: are in jeopardy. So he asked whether the provider's decision

136
00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:09,960
Speaker 1: not to perform abortion was not due to spia but

137
00:09:10,040 --> 00:09:12,120
Speaker 1: was instead due to the fact that the Supreme Court

138
00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:16,040
Speaker 1: was reconsidering Rowan Casey in a case this term the

139
00:09:16,120 --> 00:09:19,720
Speaker 1: challenge to the Mississippi statute restricting abortion more than fifteen

140
00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:23,760
Speaker 1: weeks after a person's last period. Justice Corsage, I think

141
00:09:23,840 --> 00:09:26,400
Speaker 1: was the one who said, you know, you're seeking an

142
00:09:26,400 --> 00:09:29,959
Speaker 1: injunction against the world. I think that was actually the

143
00:09:30,000 --> 00:09:33,400
Speaker 1: Chief Justice. Okay, so what about that? Who who would

144
00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:37,040
Speaker 1: be enjoined here? Well? I think the question was about

145
00:09:37,120 --> 00:09:41,160
Speaker 1: who exactly this injunction extended to did extend to every

146
00:09:41,240 --> 00:09:44,079
Speaker 1: private individual who might bring a lawsuit under sp A.

147
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:47,440
Speaker 1: The Solicitor General clarifies that their position is that the

148
00:09:47,480 --> 00:09:52,079
Speaker 1: injunction extended to state court judges, state court clerks, as

149
00:09:52,080 --> 00:09:55,920
Speaker 1: well as any individual who actually brought a lawsuit, so

150
00:09:56,400 --> 00:10:00,000
Speaker 1: they were not seeking an injunction against the world. Um,

151
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:03,160
Speaker 1: but I think you're right that the uncertainty about who

152
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:09,120
Speaker 1: exactly this injunction should apply to all is because of

153
00:10:09,160 --> 00:10:12,760
Speaker 1: the novelty of this law. It makes it no longer

154
00:10:12,800 --> 00:10:16,120
Speaker 1: possible to do the ordinary state officials who plantiff typically

155
00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:20,000
Speaker 1: stew in these cases. They could rule in favor of

156
00:10:20,040 --> 00:10:24,559
Speaker 1: the abortion providers, or in favor of the federal government

157
00:10:24,880 --> 00:10:28,720
Speaker 1: or any which way on combinations of those, did you

158
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:35,079
Speaker 1: think that one suit held up better than the other? Um.

159
00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:39,439
Speaker 1: I think it is possible that the provider's lawsuits is

160
00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:42,920
Speaker 1: more likely to proceed. Just the justices seemed to be

161
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:46,360
Speaker 1: more sympathetic to the arguments from the providers and view

162
00:10:46,400 --> 00:10:50,320
Speaker 1: that case as a more straightforward extension of existing cases

163
00:10:50,440 --> 00:10:53,320
Speaker 1: than the lawsuit by the United States. What do you

164
00:10:53,360 --> 00:10:56,280
Speaker 1: think about the new way these oral arguments are going,

165
00:10:56,360 --> 00:10:59,760
Speaker 1: which seemed to go on and on and on. To me,

166
00:11:00,000 --> 00:11:02,679
Speaker 1: it's not as in much of a hot bench as

167
00:11:02,679 --> 00:11:06,720
Speaker 1: it used to be. The justfices are certainly interrupting each

168
00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:09,280
Speaker 1: other less and interrupting the advocates Blessed. I think that

169
00:11:09,360 --> 00:11:11,480
Speaker 1: is partially just a product of the fact that they

170
00:11:11,520 --> 00:11:13,760
Speaker 1: got off a year in which they were just questioning

171
00:11:13,760 --> 00:11:16,840
Speaker 1: people feriata, that is, not asking questions. At the same time,

172
00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:20,280
Speaker 1: it's possible that we will revert more back to the

173
00:11:20,320 --> 00:11:23,600
Speaker 1: previous format as additional time passes, But I do think

174
00:11:23,640 --> 00:11:28,200
Speaker 1: this is a new norm. The last time case was

175
00:11:28,280 --> 00:11:31,600
Speaker 1: heard this quickly was Bush Fie Gore, and the decision

176
00:11:31,640 --> 00:11:35,679
Speaker 1: came down the next day. Are we expecting uh fast

177
00:11:35,720 --> 00:11:38,880
Speaker 1: decision here as well? I am certainly hoping, and I

178
00:11:38,920 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 1: would have been the Franks are hoping for UH decision

179
00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:45,440
Speaker 1: quickly because every day that passes. You know, this lower

180
00:11:45,480 --> 00:11:48,920
Speaker 1: isn't a fact that I had not worked care individual.

181
00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:52,640
Speaker 1: So I think people are hoping that the court will

182
00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:55,480
Speaker 1: act quickly, but no one knows. Thanks for being the

183
00:11:55,480 --> 00:11:59,280
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Lasso. Leah. That's Professor Leah Littman of the University

184
00:11:59,280 --> 00:12:04,560
Speaker 1: of Michigan School. A federal jury has decided that a

185
00:12:04,600 --> 00:12:08,760
Speaker 1: private prison operator must pay more than seventeen million dollars

186
00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:12,360
Speaker 1: to immigration detainees who were paid one dollar a day

187
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:15,000
Speaker 1: to perform tasks such as cooking and cleaning at the

188
00:12:15,000 --> 00:12:19,520
Speaker 1: company's for profit detention center in Washington State. The jury

189
00:12:19,600 --> 00:12:23,600
Speaker 1: also determined that Geo Group must pay its detainee workforce

190
00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:27,280
Speaker 1: minimum wage. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at

191
00:12:27,280 --> 00:12:30,800
Speaker 1: Hollandon Night. Leon, Have you ever heard of a verdict

192
00:12:30,880 --> 00:12:34,400
Speaker 1: on similar grounds? No, In fact, I was a first

193
00:12:34,400 --> 00:12:37,760
Speaker 1: of its kind litigation. That's still a legal issue that

194
00:12:37,840 --> 00:12:40,000
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna expect to see go all the

195
00:12:40,040 --> 00:12:43,440
Speaker 1: way up to the Supreme Court because it's a bit complicated.

196
00:12:43,520 --> 00:12:48,000
Speaker 1: There is a federal appropriation blow from the nineteen seventies

197
00:12:48,040 --> 00:12:52,439
Speaker 1: that says that individuals in immigration detention should be given

198
00:12:52,480 --> 00:12:56,640
Speaker 1: one dollar a day to engage in voluntary work. And

199
00:12:56,679 --> 00:13:00,320
Speaker 1: then there was this Washington lawsuit that talked about, well,

200
00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:04,040
Speaker 1: that's still violating a bunch of different laws, including in

201
00:13:04,120 --> 00:13:07,160
Speaker 1: this case, the one that prevailed was the state minimum

202
00:13:07,160 --> 00:13:10,640
Speaker 1: wage laws. And so you ended up getting this big

203
00:13:10,760 --> 00:13:15,080
Speaker 1: verdict that the work violated the state minimum wage laws.

204
00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:18,439
Speaker 1: And so I do think this case isn't going to

205
00:13:18,600 --> 00:13:22,719
Speaker 1: end without it getting to the Supreme Court, because it

206
00:13:22,760 --> 00:13:26,160
Speaker 1: does implicate a lot of other federal versus state interests

207
00:13:26,640 --> 00:13:30,520
Speaker 1: in terms of, well, why camp federal prisoners also be

208
00:13:31,360 --> 00:13:35,640
Speaker 1: given this option of of of getting minimum wage under

209
00:13:35,720 --> 00:13:39,480
Speaker 1: state laws. And so the complication is, well, this has

210
00:13:39,480 --> 00:13:41,760
Speaker 1: sort of been done that way because the contractor is

211
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:46,800
Speaker 1: operating the facility, but contractors operate all kinds of facilities,

212
00:13:46,840 --> 00:13:50,720
Speaker 1: and so it is a fascinating legal issue. It's right

213
00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:55,880
Speaker 1: there in the interstases of is it right, is it wrong?

214
00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:59,120
Speaker 1: I mean, there's just a lot of interesting debate about it.

215
00:13:59,480 --> 00:14:02,640
Speaker 1: And so while while I do think this verdict is

216
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:06,680
Speaker 1: very substantial and it definitely sends a major message, it's

217
00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:09,439
Speaker 1: not I don't think the last word, I think there's

218
00:14:09,440 --> 00:14:11,800
Speaker 1: still a lot of litigation to go. They might prevail

219
00:14:12,160 --> 00:14:14,679
Speaker 1: in the Ninth Circuit, but then the question is they

220
00:14:14,720 --> 00:14:17,040
Speaker 1: get to the Supreme Court. Work would the Supreme Court

221
00:14:17,120 --> 00:14:20,080
Speaker 1: be there? And it sounds like a lot of money.

222
00:14:20,120 --> 00:14:22,800
Speaker 1: It is a lot of money, but per person it

223
00:14:22,840 --> 00:14:24,640
Speaker 1: doesn't come out to be that much because there are

224
00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:28,800
Speaker 1: think are people in the class. Yeah, well, I think

225
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:30,920
Speaker 1: here's the issue. It's not a lot of money per person,

226
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:34,520
Speaker 1: that's correct, but it is prohibitive from the standpoint of

227
00:14:35,320 --> 00:14:39,240
Speaker 1: what happens if people at these facilities and the operators

228
00:14:39,240 --> 00:14:43,000
Speaker 1: of the facilities are forced to pay actual minimum wage

229
00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:47,600
Speaker 1: to the individuals who are doing Because the idea of

230
00:14:47,640 --> 00:14:51,560
Speaker 1: the voluntary work is that it prevents sort of idol't

231
00:14:51,560 --> 00:14:55,160
Speaker 1: tie in the facility. It does that the contractors actually

232
00:14:55,200 --> 00:14:57,880
Speaker 1: need the people in the facility to do the work.

233
00:14:57,960 --> 00:15:01,240
Speaker 1: They don't, but it's the dea is you get people

234
00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:04,000
Speaker 1: working and something that they're doing, and so they're not

235
00:15:04,280 --> 00:15:07,040
Speaker 1: idle in the facilities. And so the question is that

236
00:15:07,240 --> 00:15:10,400
Speaker 1: if you have to pay for that voluntary work, what's

237
00:15:10,400 --> 00:15:13,800
Speaker 1: going to happen is the contractors are just gonna provide

238
00:15:13,840 --> 00:15:16,040
Speaker 1: it and they're going to just give it to other

239
00:15:16,160 --> 00:15:18,840
Speaker 1: workers instead, not to the not to the people in

240
00:15:18,920 --> 00:15:22,760
Speaker 1: the detention facilities. And so it will have a couple

241
00:15:22,760 --> 00:15:26,440
Speaker 1: of effects. Number One, it will it will move the workout,

242
00:15:26,520 --> 00:15:30,240
Speaker 1: So yes, it might increase some some jobs to people

243
00:15:30,280 --> 00:15:32,960
Speaker 1: who aren't in the facilities, but it will also create

244
00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:36,040
Speaker 1: this idleness in the facility, which is what was this

245
00:15:36,120 --> 00:15:38,680
Speaker 1: was trying to avoid in the first place. But it

246
00:15:38,800 --> 00:15:44,200
Speaker 1: certainly it won't moving forward allow people in these contract

247
00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:47,120
Speaker 1: facilities to get paid minimum wage to do work at

248
00:15:47,160 --> 00:15:49,760
Speaker 1: the facilities. That that's not going to be the response

249
00:15:49,840 --> 00:15:52,680
Speaker 1: to this if this actually ends up being what happened

250
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:56,280
Speaker 1: moving forward. Let's talk about remain in Mexico, because this

251
00:15:56,400 --> 00:16:01,400
Speaker 1: is a policy that the Biden administration didn't want to continue,

252
00:16:02,040 --> 00:16:04,920
Speaker 1: and the Department of Homeland Security issued a new memo

253
00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:09,480
Speaker 1: terminating it. Where does that stand, Well, here is where

254
00:16:09,480 --> 00:16:15,080
Speaker 1: it stands. On October. The bid administration has said, we

255
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:18,040
Speaker 1: know that there's a court injunction that forces us to

256
00:16:18,120 --> 00:16:22,200
Speaker 1: continue this Remain in Mexico policy, but we are going

257
00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:27,120
Speaker 1: to nevertheless try to provide another justification that will convince

258
00:16:27,160 --> 00:16:30,360
Speaker 1: the courts to get rid of its injunction. So that

259
00:16:30,400 --> 00:16:34,960
Speaker 1: we actually can terminate the Remain in Mexico slash Migrant

260
00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:38,560
Speaker 1: Protection Protocol policy, and so they actually, I mean, you

261
00:16:38,640 --> 00:16:42,880
Speaker 1: read this thing. It's incredibly invested thirty nine blog, and

262
00:16:42,960 --> 00:16:46,360
Speaker 1: it goes through all of the different justifications of why

263
00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:51,080
Speaker 1: the Biden administration thanks to Remain in Mexico policy won't work,

264
00:16:51,600 --> 00:16:55,120
Speaker 1: and it goes through access to council problems. And notice

265
00:16:55,160 --> 00:16:59,119
Speaker 1: the hearing problem, that people are unsafe at the facilities

266
00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:02,080
Speaker 1: where they are met Togo, that the US government really

267
00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:06,000
Speaker 1: can't do anything to create faith facilities in Mexico because

268
00:17:06,040 --> 00:17:10,040
Speaker 1: we don't have jurisdictions the police these facilities in Mexico,

269
00:17:10,160 --> 00:17:12,040
Speaker 1: and to keep people saying if it is of course

270
00:17:12,119 --> 00:17:16,359
Speaker 1: a sovereign country, the fact that people miss their hearing,

271
00:17:17,160 --> 00:17:20,399
Speaker 1: the fact that it causes people to keep re entering

272
00:17:20,520 --> 00:17:22,800
Speaker 1: over and over again because they want to see if

273
00:17:22,800 --> 00:17:25,560
Speaker 1: they can get themselves up from under this Remain in

274
00:17:25,640 --> 00:17:29,320
Speaker 1: Mexico policy, and the fact that it would require huge

275
00:17:29,320 --> 00:17:33,359
Speaker 1: investment in Mexico in order for Mexico to continue to

276
00:17:33,440 --> 00:17:36,680
Speaker 1: allow this, which was not the case during the Trump administration.

277
00:17:37,080 --> 00:17:40,480
Speaker 1: So Leon, who will decide whether or not the administration's

278
00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:44,040
Speaker 1: memo can go into effect. The question is in the end,

279
00:17:44,160 --> 00:17:47,640
Speaker 1: is the Northern Disference of Texas going to agree that

280
00:17:47,760 --> 00:17:52,359
Speaker 1: this meets the standard for not being an arbitrary and

281
00:17:52,440 --> 00:17:57,320
Speaker 1: capricious revocation of the remaining in Mexico policy and finally

282
00:17:57,359 --> 00:18:02,160
Speaker 1: allow the Biden administration to remove the policy, or will

283
00:18:02,200 --> 00:18:05,640
Speaker 1: they say Nope, this is yet again arbitrary and capricious,

284
00:18:05,680 --> 00:18:10,360
Speaker 1: because there is no justification you can give us for

285
00:18:10,720 --> 00:18:16,560
Speaker 1: removing this policy. This policy from a purely immigration enforcement perspective,

286
00:18:16,960 --> 00:18:19,720
Speaker 1: makes sense to us, and that what you should do

287
00:18:19,880 --> 00:18:23,680
Speaker 1: is either detain every single person who comes to America

288
00:18:24,040 --> 00:18:27,760
Speaker 1: while their proceedings are pending, and if you can't maintain them,

289
00:18:28,000 --> 00:18:30,119
Speaker 1: have them weight in Mexico. But no one should be

290
00:18:30,200 --> 00:18:34,359
Speaker 1: allowed to just walk in and be free within the

291
00:18:34,440 --> 00:18:37,280
Speaker 1: United States while their court case is pending, because there's

292
00:18:37,320 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 1: too much of a likelihood that they won't show up

293
00:18:39,600 --> 00:18:42,280
Speaker 1: the court. That's what the judge said last time. And

294
00:18:42,480 --> 00:18:45,480
Speaker 1: so I don't know if the judge is going to

295
00:18:45,560 --> 00:18:49,800
Speaker 1: be convinced by even this thirty nine page justification that

296
00:18:49,960 --> 00:18:52,720
Speaker 1: anything should change from that basic view of the world

297
00:18:52,760 --> 00:18:55,800
Speaker 1: that the judge has that why would you get rid

298
00:18:55,840 --> 00:18:58,520
Speaker 1: of this policy? You know, there's just the the the

299
00:18:58,520 --> 00:19:01,960
Speaker 1: the No matter what you think of abut humanitarian concerns,

300
00:19:02,119 --> 00:19:05,040
Speaker 1: those those are of little concern to me as a

301
00:19:05,160 --> 00:19:08,080
Speaker 1: judge because I'm looking at this purely from an immigration

302
00:19:08,440 --> 00:19:12,080
Speaker 1: enforcement angle. So I don't know if the original District

303
00:19:12,119 --> 00:19:15,040
Speaker 1: court judge will change, But the question is will the

304
00:19:15,119 --> 00:19:18,400
Speaker 1: Fifth Certain or the Supreme Court change and say, look,

305
00:19:18,880 --> 00:19:24,600
Speaker 1: even if the immigration enforcement argument isn't great, all of

306
00:19:24,640 --> 00:19:28,080
Speaker 1: these other things about the humanitarian costs and the resources

307
00:19:28,119 --> 00:19:31,840
Speaker 1: and other things are sufficient for an administration to change

308
00:19:31,840 --> 00:19:34,840
Speaker 1: the policy. Otherwise an administration will never be able to

309
00:19:34,920 --> 00:19:38,600
Speaker 1: change any policy no matter what, because as long as

310
00:19:38,600 --> 00:19:41,240
Speaker 1: one judge thinks it doesn't make any sense, that will

311
00:19:41,280 --> 00:19:43,840
Speaker 1: be the end of it. And so that will be

312
00:19:43,840 --> 00:19:47,520
Speaker 1: a very interesting debate to see. Moving forwards, what strikes

313
00:19:47,600 --> 00:19:50,560
Speaker 1: me is this is a policy put in place by

314
00:19:50,560 --> 00:19:54,920
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. So it should be a policy that

315
00:19:55,200 --> 00:19:59,480
Speaker 1: after an election the Biden administration can change. I mean,

316
00:19:59,560 --> 00:20:06,000
Speaker 1: can the courts force administrations to retain old policies that

317
00:20:06,280 --> 00:20:09,119
Speaker 1: they don't believe in? Right? I mean, this is what

318
00:20:09,160 --> 00:20:12,320
Speaker 1: we're gonna see. We saw this in Data to be fair,

319
00:20:13,000 --> 00:20:16,159
Speaker 1: where the Trump administration tried to get rid of DACA,

320
00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:19,199
Speaker 1: and Justice Roberts was the deciding vote. Thing, look the

321
00:20:19,240 --> 00:20:23,119
Speaker 1: way you try to get rid of DACAS arbitrary and capricius.

322
00:20:23,320 --> 00:20:26,119
Speaker 1: Try again. And then we never got to litigate the

323
00:20:26,160 --> 00:20:29,320
Speaker 1: second round of that. Trump was voted out of office,

324
00:20:29,920 --> 00:20:32,520
Speaker 1: and now we're litigating whether doctor is legal or not.

325
00:20:32,640 --> 00:20:34,679
Speaker 1: That's the whole separate issue. But that will be an

326
00:20:34,680 --> 00:20:37,359
Speaker 1: issue that will work its way up to the Supreme Court.

327
00:20:37,720 --> 00:20:40,600
Speaker 1: But now on the flip side, we're seeing this, which

328
00:20:40,680 --> 00:20:44,240
Speaker 1: is Trump's version of DACA was the remain in Mexical policy.

329
00:20:45,200 --> 00:20:48,080
Speaker 1: And so the question is will there be five justices

330
00:20:48,119 --> 00:20:50,919
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court and say, hey, just like DOCCA,

331
00:20:51,440 --> 00:20:54,840
Speaker 1: guess what, we don't think there's any way that you

332
00:20:54,880 --> 00:20:57,800
Speaker 1: can terminate this remain in Mexical policy. That is an

333
00:20:57,880 --> 00:21:01,360
Speaker 1: arbitrary and capricius because if we're looking at this purely

334
00:21:01,840 --> 00:21:05,000
Speaker 1: from the immigration enforcement angle, and why would you allow

335
00:21:05,440 --> 00:21:07,800
Speaker 1: any human being to be able to just walk into

336
00:21:07,840 --> 00:21:11,800
Speaker 1: the United States, And that's what you're essentially doing if

337
00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:14,800
Speaker 1: you don't have this remain in Mexico policy. And so

338
00:21:15,040 --> 00:21:17,600
Speaker 1: that's the perspective. If you're looking at it from that

339
00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:22,760
Speaker 1: pure perspective of that, then there's no justification that's going

340
00:21:22,800 --> 00:21:25,720
Speaker 1: to overcome that if you're viewing it from well, but

341
00:21:26,119 --> 00:21:29,440
Speaker 1: in Mexico, people are getting a beaten, they're getting a view,

342
00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:32,760
Speaker 1: there's no way to secure the facilities, they're not getting

343
00:21:32,800 --> 00:21:36,080
Speaker 1: counsels to show up for the earring, so everybody's losing

344
00:21:36,080 --> 00:21:38,320
Speaker 1: their case. People don't even know where they're hearing is,

345
00:21:38,680 --> 00:21:41,639
Speaker 1: so you can't even get them. You know, there's tons

346
00:21:41,680 --> 00:21:44,879
Speaker 1: of justifications that they give it that are all very powerful,

347
00:21:45,480 --> 00:21:48,720
Speaker 1: but none of those have anything to do with ending

348
00:21:48,760 --> 00:21:51,960
Speaker 1: a legal immigration so to speak. And so that's the

349
00:21:52,080 --> 00:21:54,840
Speaker 1: question is will any of these other sort of human

350
00:21:55,000 --> 00:22:02,040
Speaker 1: human first or humanitarian justifications be sufficient to overcome the

351
00:22:02,040 --> 00:22:07,399
Speaker 1: the pure immigration enforcement reason why this was allowed to

352
00:22:07,440 --> 00:22:10,359
Speaker 1: remain in the first place. But there are a couple

353
00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:15,520
Speaker 1: of differences between DHAKA and remain in Mexico. One the

354
00:22:15,640 --> 00:22:19,960
Speaker 1: reliance interest that the dreamers have had for years on

355
00:22:20,040 --> 00:22:23,440
Speaker 1: the policy. But also are the Court's going to tell

356
00:22:23,480 --> 00:22:27,159
Speaker 1: Mexico what to do? And so suppose Mexico says no, no,

357
00:22:27,359 --> 00:22:30,720
Speaker 1: we won't. Absolutely, I mean, those are two huge differences,

358
00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:33,760
Speaker 1: as you point out. One, the reliance interest in DACA

359
00:22:33,840 --> 00:22:37,879
Speaker 1: was something Justice Roberts specifically bided as one of his

360
00:22:38,000 --> 00:22:41,280
Speaker 1: reasons for I think this was an arbitrary and comprecions

361
00:22:41,320 --> 00:22:46,320
Speaker 1: withdrawal of Dacca. And there isn't necessarily a reliance interest here,

362
00:22:46,400 --> 00:22:49,280
Speaker 1: although maybe the state of Texas would say, well, we

363
00:22:49,280 --> 00:22:53,520
Speaker 1: were not being uh faced with so many people coming

364
00:22:53,560 --> 00:22:56,679
Speaker 1: in without sattist. Now we are, and so now you

365
00:22:56,720 --> 00:22:59,119
Speaker 1: know we have to change our budgetary plans or whatever.

366
00:22:59,400 --> 00:23:02,119
Speaker 1: That's not going to be the same kind of reliance interests, Docca.

367
00:23:02,520 --> 00:23:06,359
Speaker 1: And so you make an excellent point there, and then

368
00:23:06,480 --> 00:23:09,520
Speaker 1: from the from the standpoint of the Mexican government, and

369
00:23:09,760 --> 00:23:11,880
Speaker 1: you're not gonna be able to hold the Mexican government

370
00:23:11,880 --> 00:23:15,719
Speaker 1: in condemned. So the question is, are our courts really

371
00:23:15,760 --> 00:23:21,040
Speaker 1: prepared to hold the DHS secretary and other DHS officials

372
00:23:21,080 --> 00:23:25,000
Speaker 1: in content of court if they can't force people from

373
00:23:25,040 --> 00:23:28,960
Speaker 1: other countries, not Mexicans. These are people from Central America

374
00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:32,960
Speaker 1: or Haiti or Ecuador or other places to go back

375
00:23:33,200 --> 00:23:37,840
Speaker 1: into Mexico above Mexico's objective, Our courts really going to

376
00:23:37,960 --> 00:23:41,480
Speaker 1: intervene in foreign policy in a way they were they

377
00:23:41,680 --> 00:23:44,440
Speaker 1: you know, for two hundred years I've said they can't

378
00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:48,320
Speaker 1: do and won't do. Uh If this oneted, and that's

379
00:23:48,359 --> 00:23:50,760
Speaker 1: really going to be the question is it at the

380
00:23:50,840 --> 00:23:53,600
Speaker 1: district court again or is it up at the Fifth Circuit.

381
00:23:54,119 --> 00:23:57,040
Speaker 1: So there's two parts of this litigation. So the first

382
00:23:57,080 --> 00:24:00,000
Speaker 1: one on the injunction phase is finished and now they're

383
00:24:00,040 --> 00:24:04,240
Speaker 1: going on the merit phasing in the Fifth Circuit now

384
00:24:04,560 --> 00:24:09,000
Speaker 1: trying to say on the merits, this first termination of

385
00:24:09,080 --> 00:24:15,399
Speaker 1: the Migration Protection Protocol should be taken away. That litigation continues.

386
00:24:15,600 --> 00:24:19,160
Speaker 1: Now there's Memo two and Memo two. So Memo one,

387
00:24:19,200 --> 00:24:23,520
Speaker 1: litigation on the temporary injunction stuff has been upheld, and

388
00:24:23,760 --> 00:24:27,480
Speaker 1: Memo one has been stricten and and remain in Mexico

389
00:24:27,720 --> 00:24:30,920
Speaker 1: staves in place. But they're doing the full merits briefing

390
00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:34,600
Speaker 1: now in the Pittcier case. In that case, now in

391
00:24:34,680 --> 00:24:38,080
Speaker 1: the second issue Memo two, well, Membo two has to

392
00:24:38,119 --> 00:24:41,320
Speaker 1: start again with the Northern Districts of Texas court and

393
00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:44,159
Speaker 1: work its way up again all the way up to

394
00:24:44,200 --> 00:24:47,880
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. So there's both phases of litigation litigating

395
00:24:47,920 --> 00:24:53,280
Speaker 1: Memo one, litigating Memo two. To another immigration story, the

396
00:24:53,359 --> 00:24:57,399
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration is looking

397
00:24:57,440 --> 00:25:00,359
Speaker 1: to settle with the immigrant families who were separate from

398
00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:05,240
Speaker 1: their children. During the Trump administration, the administration is reportedly

399
00:25:05,280 --> 00:25:10,399
Speaker 1: considering paying as much as four dollars per person. That

400
00:25:10,480 --> 00:25:12,760
Speaker 1: seems like a lot of money. Yeah, I think here,

401
00:25:12,840 --> 00:25:15,480
Speaker 1: So let's start with it. Let's start with Obviously, any

402
00:25:15,520 --> 00:25:20,000
Speaker 1: person who's reading a newspaper article is extremely confused. What

403
00:25:20,040 --> 00:25:23,080
Speaker 1: are we doing here? Should people be getting money for

404
00:25:23,200 --> 00:25:27,160
Speaker 1: having come across the United States border without lawful status?

405
00:25:27,520 --> 00:25:30,399
Speaker 1: Because at the end, the argument goes, if somebody is

406
00:25:30,440 --> 00:25:33,720
Speaker 1: drunk driving and they have a child in their car,

407
00:25:33,840 --> 00:25:36,240
Speaker 1: they don't keep the parent who's drunk driving and the

408
00:25:36,359 --> 00:25:39,240
Speaker 1: child together. They put the parent in jail and they

409
00:25:39,240 --> 00:25:43,320
Speaker 1: put the child in and protect the services. So why

410
00:25:43,359 --> 00:25:46,280
Speaker 1: can't you do the same thing here. So that's the argument,

411
00:25:46,880 --> 00:25:50,639
Speaker 1: and certainly the Biden administration could if it chooses to

412
00:25:51,240 --> 00:25:54,480
Speaker 1: litigate this a course all the way through. Now here's

413
00:25:54,520 --> 00:25:58,360
Speaker 1: the thing. You have many, many families going through this situation,

414
00:25:59,000 --> 00:26:01,879
Speaker 1: and they're all in separate cases, and so all you

415
00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:05,480
Speaker 1: would need is one big verdict in one of the

416
00:26:05,560 --> 00:26:09,119
Speaker 1: chords in order for potentially not be able to settle

417
00:26:09,119 --> 00:26:12,440
Speaker 1: these cases globally. Because you've got one big verdict of

418
00:26:12,520 --> 00:26:16,040
Speaker 1: that encourages other of these groups to go forward. The

419
00:26:16,160 --> 00:26:21,560
Speaker 1: question is, well, will the Supreme Chord actually allow this

420
00:26:21,680 --> 00:26:25,240
Speaker 1: kind of claim to move forward and why shouldn't they

421
00:26:25,240 --> 00:26:28,240
Speaker 1: at least try that, And that's a legitimate argument, But

422
00:26:28,320 --> 00:26:30,920
Speaker 1: I mean, you do have a lot of fact based

423
00:26:30,960 --> 00:26:34,840
Speaker 1: claims here about the government knowingly I mean you had

424
00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:40,040
Speaker 1: watch dogs say this, knowingly put forth these policies knowing

425
00:26:40,119 --> 00:26:42,159
Speaker 1: that there is it going to be a way to

426
00:26:42,280 --> 00:26:47,040
Speaker 1: keep tracks of the children who are separated from the parents,

427
00:26:47,200 --> 00:26:51,359
Speaker 1: and that there would be this massive harm that would

428
00:26:51,400 --> 00:26:54,000
Speaker 1: take place. They were warned about all of this by

429
00:26:54,080 --> 00:26:57,119
Speaker 1: people like Jonathan White from h H who was the

430
00:26:57,160 --> 00:27:00,480
Speaker 1: person in charge at the time of the UH Settlement

431
00:27:00,520 --> 00:27:02,639
Speaker 1: of Children, and he had said, I don't want to

432
00:27:02,640 --> 00:27:05,480
Speaker 1: go along with this because it's going to cause all

433
00:27:05,520 --> 00:27:07,800
Speaker 1: of this tropics. We won't be able to keep track

434
00:27:07,880 --> 00:27:11,040
Speaker 1: of the kids. And so once you move forward with that,

435
00:27:11,640 --> 00:27:15,040
Speaker 1: it's maybe not something that even the Supreme Court can

436
00:27:15,080 --> 00:27:20,760
Speaker 1: overturn as a factual basis because the government isn't allowed

437
00:27:20,800 --> 00:27:24,679
Speaker 1: to endanger children knowingly. Regardless of what the reason is,

438
00:27:24,760 --> 00:27:28,240
Speaker 1: whatever your law enforcement reason is, you still can't knowingly

439
00:27:28,960 --> 00:27:32,679
Speaker 1: endanger children. And if if a factual finding is made

440
00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:36,480
Speaker 1: that that's what happened in this case, then the only

441
00:27:36,520 --> 00:27:39,280
Speaker 1: issue will be about managers, but it won't be a

442
00:27:39,359 --> 00:27:43,280
Speaker 1: legal issue anymore. But that's the legal issue, and that's

443
00:27:43,280 --> 00:27:46,720
Speaker 1: a separate issue about whether politically it is wise to

444
00:27:46,840 --> 00:27:49,560
Speaker 1: engage in these settlements, because of course you have massive

445
00:27:49,600 --> 00:27:53,520
Speaker 1: political ball dot from the simplistic arguments that why would

446
00:27:53,560 --> 00:27:57,480
Speaker 1: anyone pay people here without saddest for just enforcing the law,

447
00:27:57,720 --> 00:28:01,080
Speaker 1: and so man that's the who nobody wants to be

448
00:28:01,119 --> 00:28:03,160
Speaker 1: in the middle of. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg

449
00:28:03,280 --> 00:28:07,280
Speaker 1: Law Show. Leon. That's immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a

450
00:28:07,320 --> 00:28:10,160
Speaker 1: partner at Hollanden Night And that's it for this edition

451
00:28:10,200 --> 00:28:12,960
Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

452
00:28:12,960 --> 00:28:16,360
Speaker 1: the latest legal news, honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

453
00:28:16,400 --> 00:28:20,680
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at www dot

454
00:28:20,720 --> 00:28:25,119
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and don't forget

455
00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:27,879
Speaker 1: to catch The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at

456
00:28:27,920 --> 00:28:31,520
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street time right here on Bloomberg Radio.

457
00:28:31,640 --> 00:28:33,200
Speaker 1: I'm joom Boso and you're a list