Speaker 1: On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a high
Speaker 1: stakes case over the strictest abortion law in the country,
Speaker 1: the Texas law that has stopped most abortions in the state.
Speaker 1: A key focus was on the unusual provision Texas included
Speaker 1: that makes the law enforceable only through private lawsuits in
Speaker 1: order to keep federal courts from getting involved and blocking it.
Speaker 1: Four of the Justices, Stephen Bryer, Elina Kagan, Sonya Soto Mayor,
Speaker 1: and the Chief Justice John Roberts, had already voted to
Speaker 1: pause the law before it went into effect, and Justice
Speaker 1: Kagan was the most vocal critic of the law, arguing
Speaker 1: that its purpose was to get around the courts earlier
Speaker 1: rulings about who can be sued to enforce constitutional rights.
Speaker 1: And essentially, we would be like, you know, we're open
Speaker 1: for you're open for business. There's there's ah, there's there's
Speaker 1: nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. Guns, same
Speaker 1: sex marriage, religious rights, whatever you don't like, go ahead.
Speaker 1: And it came as a bit of a surprise when
Speaker 1: Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled he agreed with Kagan. What are
Speaker 1: you saying, absent that uh, that Second Amendment rights free
Speaker 1: exercise of religion rights, free speech rights could be targeted
Speaker 1: by other states in this using the ex part a
Speaker 1: young uh language on one sixty three, and to really
Speaker 1: infringe those and to put huge penalties. To the Chief
Speaker 1: justice hypothetical say everyone who sells an a R fifteen
Speaker 1: is liable for a million dollars to any citizen. My
Speaker 1: guest is Leah Littman, a professor of constitutional law at
Speaker 1: the University of Michigan Law School. Tell us about what
Speaker 1: you saw as some of the major concerns that the
Speaker 1: justices voice, so their concerns they had for both sides.
Speaker 1: On the plaintift side, they were concerned about the prospect
Speaker 1: that plaintifts could sue judges and kirks. In one moment,
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice said to the advocates, you know, you
Speaker 1: might understand our hesitation about allowing people to sue judges.
Speaker 1: You know, they are judges themselves, and that's just not
Speaker 1: kind of the ordinary course of this litigation. On the
Speaker 1: other side, to Texas, several justices indicated a real discomfort
Speaker 1: with the prospect that states could nullify disfavored constitutional rights
Speaker 1: and essentially undermine the Supreme Court authority to decide whether
Speaker 1: state laws are constitutional. Justice Kagan argued that Texas was
Speaker 1: making an end run around the Supreme Court precedent, and
Speaker 1: it would be inviting other states to try to flout
Speaker 1: other precedent. Justice Kavanaugh talked about a loophole that's being
Speaker 1: exploited here. So did he seem to suggest that the
Speaker 1: Court should close up the loophole. So I don't think
Speaker 1: it is a loophole for the Court to close up
Speaker 1: so much as a structured state law that no court
Speaker 1: has ever really confronted, or at least the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has not. That is, no state, as Solicitor General Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Prelocker said, has ever done what Texas has tried to do, namely,
Speaker 1: to box out the federal judiciary entirely from enforcing its
Speaker 1: decisions recognizing a constitutional rights. And so the loophole that
Speaker 1: Texas exploited was just the general rule m the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court's decisions that you ordinarily do state executive officials who
Speaker 1: have some connection to the enforcement of a law. And
Speaker 1: what Texas did is it tried to remove all state
Speaker 1: executive officials from the enforcement of this law and therefore
Speaker 1: remove any possible defendant that the plantifts could do. In
Speaker 1: order to prevent this law for being in effect. It
Speaker 1: seemed like Justice Coursage was pushing back on that and
Speaker 1: kept asking, you know, have you ever done this before?
Speaker 1: Has there ever been a suit like this before? Has
Speaker 1: there ever been an injunction like this before? Does it
Speaker 1: seem as if some of the conservative justices were looking
Speaker 1: for ways to validate that. Yes, I think that concern
Speaker 1: just doesn't account for the fact that no state has
Speaker 1: ever tried to entirely boxed out the Supreme Court from
Speaker 1: enforcing a constitutional right that the Supreme Court has recognized
Speaker 1: and that the Supreme Court, at least in the here
Speaker 1: and now has said continues to exist. And so the
Speaker 1: other justices just didn't seem bothered by the fact that
Speaker 1: there hasn't been a similar kind of lawsuit to this one.
Speaker 1: Chief Justice rock I think Justice Elena Kagan and Samuel
Speaker 1: Alito referred to this. But Chief Justice Roberts said that
Speaker 1: the authority the US was claiming and bringing its lawsuit
Speaker 1: was a limitless, ill defined authority. So they were questioning
Speaker 1: whether they're ruling if there was a ruling in favor
Speaker 1: of the justice to par could it be limited appropriately? Yes,
Speaker 1: So one question was when if ever, should the United
Speaker 1: States be allowed to do a state under circumstances like
Speaker 1: this one um Given that a premise of the United
Speaker 1: States lawsuit was that Texas had attempted to insulate its
Speaker 1: law from constitutional challenge in the federal courts, their questions were, well,
Speaker 1: what other kinds of laws that might be insulated from
Speaker 1: challenges in federal courts? Could the United States also do?
Speaker 1: Did it seem as if, at least at the beginning
Speaker 1: of the argument that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, she was
Speaker 1: making an argument that this law would not allow abortion
Speaker 1: providers to make a full defense in state court if
Speaker 1: they get sued. So there was this some of the
Speaker 1: justices saying that state court could take care of this. Yes.
Speaker 1: So part of her point was responding to a question
Speaker 1: from Justice Alito, which is, why isn't it sufficient that
Speaker 1: if abortion providers are sued, they could just say this
Speaker 1: law is unconstitutional and air the constitutional arguments in that way?
Speaker 1: And Justice Bara's point was that wouldn't actually solve the
Speaker 1: constitutional problem given that Texas has limited the provider's ability
Speaker 1: to assert the constitutional defense in these SPA lawsuits, and
Speaker 1: also Texas has made it so these providers can just
Speaker 1: be sued again and again and again, and so merely
Speaker 1: succeeding in one lawsuit isn't going to solve the problem,
Speaker 1: which of which is you could possibly be sued in
Speaker 1: future cases. Did it seem to you as if on
Speaker 1: the conservative side, Justice Alito, and perhaps on the liberal side,
Speaker 1: Justice Kagan, they were both trying to make out and
Speaker 1: clarify the arguments for the conservatives in Aldo's case and
Speaker 1: for the liberal side in Kagan's case. I think that
Speaker 1: some of Deffice Kagan's questions were definitely designed to do that.
Speaker 1: That she wanted to know from the Solicitor General under
Speaker 1: what circumstances the United States could bring suit. She also
Speaker 1: wanted to know what the Solicitor General thought should happen
Speaker 1: with the United States lawsuit if the Supreme Court allowed
Speaker 1: the provider's lawsuits to um continue and air the constitutional
Speaker 1: arguments against SP eight. I don't think Justice Alido was
Speaker 1: trying to do the same that as I think his
Speaker 1: questions were much more designed to advocate for a particular
Speaker 1: position than to clarify the position and to advocate for
Speaker 1: the position in favor of the law. Yes, there's a
Speaker 1: brief and support of abortion clinics that was filed by
Speaker 1: Second Amendment advocates. Justice Kavanaugh questioned Texas over the prospect
Speaker 1: that they could use this kind of law against other things,
Speaker 1: including gun rights. I think the fact that plaintiffs in
Speaker 1: lawsuits for more favored constitutional rights argue that the Texas
Speaker 1: scheme should not be able to foreclose judicial review helps
Speaker 1: the justices to see that this Texas scheme isn't about
Speaker 1: or limited to abortion. Instead, the justices wanted to know
Speaker 1: whether states could use the scheme to undermine religious rights,
Speaker 1: whether states could use the scheme to undermine gun rights,
Speaker 1: whether states could use the scheme to undermine contraception, whether
Speaker 1: states could use the scheme to undermine numerous other constitutional rights.
Speaker 1: And that question was definitely indicating that concern lurking in
Speaker 1: the background is Roe v. Wade. And did it seem
Speaker 1: as if any of the justices sort of acknowledge that
Speaker 1: it was a constitutional right that's in jeopardy. So Justice
Speaker 1: Alito was most explicit in acknowledging that Row and Casey
Speaker 1: are in jeopardy. So he asked whether the provider's decision
Speaker 1: not to perform abortion was not due to spia but
Speaker 1: was instead due to the fact that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: was reconsidering Rowan Casey in a case this term the
Speaker 1: challenge to the Mississippi statute restricting abortion more than fifteen
Speaker 1: weeks after a person's last period. Justice Corsage, I think
Speaker 1: was the one who said, you know, you're seeking an
Speaker 1: injunction against the world. I think that was actually the
Speaker 1: Chief Justice. Okay, so what about that? Who who would
Speaker 1: be enjoined here? Well? I think the question was about
Speaker 1: who exactly this injunction extended to did extend to every
Speaker 1: private individual who might bring a lawsuit under sp A.
Speaker 1: The Solicitor General clarifies that their position is that the
Speaker 1: injunction extended to state court judges, state court clerks, as
Speaker 1: well as any individual who actually brought a lawsuit, so
Speaker 1: they were not seeking an injunction against the world. Um,
Speaker 1: but I think you're right that the uncertainty about who
Speaker 1: exactly this injunction should apply to all is because of
Speaker 1: the novelty of this law. It makes it no longer
Speaker 1: possible to do the ordinary state officials who plantiff typically
Speaker 1: stew in these cases. They could rule in favor of
Speaker 1: the abortion providers, or in favor of the federal government
Speaker 1: or any which way on combinations of those, did you
Speaker 1: think that one suit held up better than the other? Um.
Speaker 1: I think it is possible that the provider's lawsuits is
Speaker 1: more likely to proceed. Just the justices seemed to be
Speaker 1: more sympathetic to the arguments from the providers and view
Speaker 1: that case as a more straightforward extension of existing cases
Speaker 1: than the lawsuit by the United States. What do you
Speaker 1: think about the new way these oral arguments are going,
Speaker 1: which seemed to go on and on and on. To me,
Speaker 1: it's not as in much of a hot bench as
Speaker 1: it used to be. The justfices are certainly interrupting each
Speaker 1: other less and interrupting the advocates Blessed. I think that
Speaker 1: is partially just a product of the fact that they
Speaker 1: got off a year in which they were just questioning
Speaker 1: people feriata, that is, not asking questions. At the same time,
Speaker 1: it's possible that we will revert more back to the
Speaker 1: previous format as additional time passes, But I do think
Speaker 1: this is a new norm. The last time case was
Speaker 1: heard this quickly was Bush Fie Gore, and the decision
Speaker 1: came down the next day. Are we expecting uh fast
Speaker 1: decision here as well? I am certainly hoping, and I
Speaker 1: would have been the Franks are hoping for UH decision
Speaker 1: quickly because every day that passes. You know, this lower
Speaker 1: isn't a fact that I had not worked care individual.
Speaker 1: So I think people are hoping that the court will
Speaker 1: act quickly, but no one knows. Thanks for being the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Lasso. Leah. That's Professor Leah Littman of the University
Speaker 1: of Michigan School. A federal jury has decided that a
Speaker 1: private prison operator must pay more than seventeen million dollars
Speaker 1: to immigration detainees who were paid one dollar a day
Speaker 1: to perform tasks such as cooking and cleaning at the
Speaker 1: company's for profit detention center in Washington State. The jury
Speaker 1: also determined that Geo Group must pay its detainee workforce
Speaker 1: minimum wage. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at
Speaker 1: Hollandon Night. Leon, Have you ever heard of a verdict
Speaker 1: on similar grounds? No, In fact, I was a first
Speaker 1: of its kind litigation. That's still a legal issue that
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna expect to see go all the
Speaker 1: way up to the Supreme Court because it's a bit complicated.
Speaker 1: There is a federal appropriation blow from the nineteen seventies
Speaker 1: that says that individuals in immigration detention should be given
Speaker 1: one dollar a day to engage in voluntary work. And
Speaker 1: then there was this Washington lawsuit that talked about, well,
Speaker 1: that's still violating a bunch of different laws, including in
Speaker 1: this case, the one that prevailed was the state minimum
Speaker 1: wage laws. And so you ended up getting this big
Speaker 1: verdict that the work violated the state minimum wage laws.
Speaker 1: And so I do think this case isn't going to
Speaker 1: end without it getting to the Supreme Court, because it
Speaker 1: does implicate a lot of other federal versus state interests
Speaker 1: in terms of, well, why camp federal prisoners also be
Speaker 1: given this option of of of getting minimum wage under
Speaker 1: state laws. And so the complication is, well, this has
Speaker 1: sort of been done that way because the contractor is
Speaker 1: operating the facility, but contractors operate all kinds of facilities,
Speaker 1: and so it is a fascinating legal issue. It's right
Speaker 1: there in the interstases of is it right, is it wrong?
Speaker 1: I mean, there's just a lot of interesting debate about it.
Speaker 1: And so while while I do think this verdict is
Speaker 1: very substantial and it definitely sends a major message, it's
Speaker 1: not I don't think the last word, I think there's
Speaker 1: still a lot of litigation to go. They might prevail
Speaker 1: in the Ninth Circuit, but then the question is they
Speaker 1: get to the Supreme Court. Work would the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: be there? And it sounds like a lot of money.
Speaker 1: It is a lot of money, but per person it
Speaker 1: doesn't come out to be that much because there are
Speaker 1: think are people in the class. Yeah, well, I think
Speaker 1: here's the issue. It's not a lot of money per person,
Speaker 1: that's correct, but it is prohibitive from the standpoint of
Speaker 1: what happens if people at these facilities and the operators
Speaker 1: of the facilities are forced to pay actual minimum wage
Speaker 1: to the individuals who are doing Because the idea of
Speaker 1: the voluntary work is that it prevents sort of idol't
Speaker 1: tie in the facility. It does that the contractors actually
Speaker 1: need the people in the facility to do the work.
Speaker 1: They don't, but it's the dea is you get people
Speaker 1: working and something that they're doing, and so they're not
Speaker 1: idle in the facilities. And so the question is that
Speaker 1: if you have to pay for that voluntary work, what's
Speaker 1: going to happen is the contractors are just gonna provide
Speaker 1: it and they're going to just give it to other
Speaker 1: workers instead, not to the not to the people in
Speaker 1: the detention facilities. And so it will have a couple
Speaker 1: of effects. Number One, it will it will move the workout,
Speaker 1: So yes, it might increase some some jobs to people
Speaker 1: who aren't in the facilities, but it will also create
Speaker 1: this idleness in the facility, which is what was this
Speaker 1: was trying to avoid in the first place. But it
Speaker 1: certainly it won't moving forward allow people in these contract
Speaker 1: facilities to get paid minimum wage to do work at
Speaker 1: the facilities. That that's not going to be the response
Speaker 1: to this if this actually ends up being what happened
Speaker 1: moving forward. Let's talk about remain in Mexico, because this
Speaker 1: is a policy that the Biden administration didn't want to continue,
Speaker 1: and the Department of Homeland Security issued a new memo
Speaker 1: terminating it. Where does that stand, Well, here is where
Speaker 1: it stands. On October. The bid administration has said, we
Speaker 1: know that there's a court injunction that forces us to
Speaker 1: continue this Remain in Mexico policy, but we are going
Speaker 1: to nevertheless try to provide another justification that will convince
Speaker 1: the courts to get rid of its injunction. So that
Speaker 1: we actually can terminate the Remain in Mexico slash Migrant
Speaker 1: Protection Protocol policy, and so they actually, I mean, you
Speaker 1: read this thing. It's incredibly invested thirty nine blog, and
Speaker 1: it goes through all of the different justifications of why
Speaker 1: the Biden administration thanks to Remain in Mexico policy won't work,
Speaker 1: and it goes through access to council problems. And notice
Speaker 1: the hearing problem, that people are unsafe at the facilities
Speaker 1: where they are met Togo, that the US government really
Speaker 1: can't do anything to create faith facilities in Mexico because
Speaker 1: we don't have jurisdictions the police these facilities in Mexico,
Speaker 1: and to keep people saying if it is of course
Speaker 1: a sovereign country, the fact that people miss their hearing,
Speaker 1: the fact that it causes people to keep re entering
Speaker 1: over and over again because they want to see if
Speaker 1: they can get themselves up from under this Remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico policy, and the fact that it would require huge
Speaker 1: investment in Mexico in order for Mexico to continue to
Speaker 1: allow this, which was not the case during the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: So Leon, who will decide whether or not the administration's
Speaker 1: memo can go into effect. The question is in the end,
Speaker 1: is the Northern Disference of Texas going to agree that
Speaker 1: this meets the standard for not being an arbitrary and
Speaker 1: capricious revocation of the remaining in Mexico policy and finally
Speaker 1: allow the Biden administration to remove the policy, or will
Speaker 1: they say Nope, this is yet again arbitrary and capricious,
Speaker 1: because there is no justification you can give us for
Speaker 1: removing this policy. This policy from a purely immigration enforcement perspective,
Speaker 1: makes sense to us, and that what you should do
Speaker 1: is either detain every single person who comes to America
Speaker 1: while their proceedings are pending, and if you can't maintain them,
Speaker 1: have them weight in Mexico. But no one should be
Speaker 1: allowed to just walk in and be free within the
Speaker 1: United States while their court case is pending, because there's
Speaker 1: too much of a likelihood that they won't show up
Speaker 1: the court. That's what the judge said last time. And
Speaker 1: so I don't know if the judge is going to
Speaker 1: be convinced by even this thirty nine page justification that
Speaker 1: anything should change from that basic view of the world
Speaker 1: that the judge has that why would you get rid
Speaker 1: of this policy? You know, there's just the the the
Speaker 1: the No matter what you think of abut humanitarian concerns,
Speaker 1: those those are of little concern to me as a
Speaker 1: judge because I'm looking at this purely from an immigration
Speaker 1: enforcement angle. So I don't know if the original District
Speaker 1: court judge will change, But the question is will the
Speaker 1: Fifth Certain or the Supreme Court change and say, look,
Speaker 1: even if the immigration enforcement argument isn't great, all of
Speaker 1: these other things about the humanitarian costs and the resources
Speaker 1: and other things are sufficient for an administration to change
Speaker 1: the policy. Otherwise an administration will never be able to
Speaker 1: change any policy no matter what, because as long as
Speaker 1: one judge thinks it doesn't make any sense, that will
Speaker 1: be the end of it. And so that will be
Speaker 1: a very interesting debate to see. Moving forwards, what strikes
Speaker 1: me is this is a policy put in place by
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. So it should be a policy that
Speaker 1: after an election the Biden administration can change. I mean,
Speaker 1: can the courts force administrations to retain old policies that
Speaker 1: they don't believe in? Right? I mean, this is what
Speaker 1: we're gonna see. We saw this in Data to be fair,
Speaker 1: where the Trump administration tried to get rid of DACA,
Speaker 1: and Justice Roberts was the deciding vote. Thing, look the
Speaker 1: way you try to get rid of DACAS arbitrary and capricius.
Speaker 1: Try again. And then we never got to litigate the
Speaker 1: second round of that. Trump was voted out of office,
Speaker 1: and now we're litigating whether doctor is legal or not.
Speaker 1: That's the whole separate issue. But that will be an
Speaker 1: issue that will work its way up to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: But now on the flip side, we're seeing this, which
Speaker 1: is Trump's version of DACA was the remain in Mexical policy.
Speaker 1: And so the question is will there be five justices
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court and say, hey, just like DOCCA,
Speaker 1: guess what, we don't think there's any way that you
Speaker 1: can terminate this remain in Mexical policy. That is an
Speaker 1: arbitrary and capricius because if we're looking at this purely
Speaker 1: from the immigration enforcement angle, and why would you allow
Speaker 1: any human being to be able to just walk into
Speaker 1: the United States, And that's what you're essentially doing if
Speaker 1: you don't have this remain in Mexico policy. And so
Speaker 1: that's the perspective. If you're looking at it from that
Speaker 1: pure perspective of that, then there's no justification that's going
Speaker 1: to overcome that if you're viewing it from well, but
Speaker 1: in Mexico, people are getting a beaten, they're getting a view,
Speaker 1: there's no way to secure the facilities, they're not getting
Speaker 1: counsels to show up for the earring, so everybody's losing
Speaker 1: their case. People don't even know where they're hearing is,
Speaker 1: so you can't even get them. You know, there's tons
Speaker 1: of justifications that they give it that are all very powerful,
Speaker 1: but none of those have anything to do with ending
Speaker 1: a legal immigration so to speak. And so that's the
Speaker 1: question is will any of these other sort of human
Speaker 1: human first or humanitarian justifications be sufficient to overcome the
Speaker 1: the pure immigration enforcement reason why this was allowed to
Speaker 1: remain in the first place. But there are a couple
Speaker 1: of differences between DHAKA and remain in Mexico. One the
Speaker 1: reliance interest that the dreamers have had for years on
Speaker 1: the policy. But also are the Court's going to tell
Speaker 1: Mexico what to do? And so suppose Mexico says no, no,
Speaker 1: we won't. Absolutely, I mean, those are two huge differences,
Speaker 1: as you point out. One, the reliance interest in DACA
Speaker 1: was something Justice Roberts specifically bided as one of his
Speaker 1: reasons for I think this was an arbitrary and comprecions
Speaker 1: withdrawal of Dacca. And there isn't necessarily a reliance interest here,
Speaker 1: although maybe the state of Texas would say, well, we
Speaker 1: were not being uh faced with so many people coming
Speaker 1: in without sattist. Now we are, and so now you
Speaker 1: know we have to change our budgetary plans or whatever.
Speaker 1: That's not going to be the same kind of reliance interests, Docca.
Speaker 1: And so you make an excellent point there, and then
Speaker 1: from the from the standpoint of the Mexican government, and
Speaker 1: you're not gonna be able to hold the Mexican government
Speaker 1: in condemned. So the question is, are our courts really
Speaker 1: prepared to hold the DHS secretary and other DHS officials
Speaker 1: in content of court if they can't force people from
Speaker 1: other countries, not Mexicans. These are people from Central America
Speaker 1: or Haiti or Ecuador or other places to go back
Speaker 1: into Mexico above Mexico's objective, Our courts really going to
Speaker 1: intervene in foreign policy in a way they were they
Speaker 1: you know, for two hundred years I've said they can't
Speaker 1: do and won't do. Uh If this oneted, and that's
Speaker 1: really going to be the question is it at the
Speaker 1: district court again or is it up at the Fifth Circuit.
Speaker 1: So there's two parts of this litigation. So the first
Speaker 1: one on the injunction phase is finished and now they're
Speaker 1: going on the merit phasing in the Fifth Circuit now
Speaker 1: trying to say on the merits, this first termination of
Speaker 1: the Migration Protection Protocol should be taken away. That litigation continues.
Speaker 1: Now there's Memo two and Memo two. So Memo one,
Speaker 1: litigation on the temporary injunction stuff has been upheld, and
Speaker 1: Memo one has been stricten and and remain in Mexico
Speaker 1: staves in place. But they're doing the full merits briefing
Speaker 1: now in the Pittcier case. In that case, now in
Speaker 1: the second issue Memo two, well, Membo two has to
Speaker 1: start again with the Northern Districts of Texas court and
Speaker 1: work its way up again all the way up to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. So there's both phases of litigation litigating
Speaker 1: Memo one, litigating Memo two. To another immigration story, the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration is looking
Speaker 1: to settle with the immigrant families who were separate from
Speaker 1: their children. During the Trump administration, the administration is reportedly
Speaker 1: considering paying as much as four dollars per person. That
Speaker 1: seems like a lot of money. Yeah, I think here,
Speaker 1: So let's start with it. Let's start with Obviously, any
Speaker 1: person who's reading a newspaper article is extremely confused. What
Speaker 1: are we doing here? Should people be getting money for
Speaker 1: having come across the United States border without lawful status?
Speaker 1: Because at the end, the argument goes, if somebody is
Speaker 1: drunk driving and they have a child in their car,
Speaker 1: they don't keep the parent who's drunk driving and the
Speaker 1: child together. They put the parent in jail and they
Speaker 1: put the child in and protect the services. So why
Speaker 1: can't you do the same thing here. So that's the argument,
Speaker 1: and certainly the Biden administration could if it chooses to
Speaker 1: litigate this a course all the way through. Now here's
Speaker 1: the thing. You have many, many families going through this situation,
Speaker 1: and they're all in separate cases, and so all you
Speaker 1: would need is one big verdict in one of the
Speaker 1: chords in order for potentially not be able to settle
Speaker 1: these cases globally. Because you've got one big verdict of
Speaker 1: that encourages other of these groups to go forward. The
Speaker 1: question is, well, will the Supreme Chord actually allow this
Speaker 1: kind of claim to move forward and why shouldn't they
Speaker 1: at least try that, And that's a legitimate argument, But
Speaker 1: I mean, you do have a lot of fact based
Speaker 1: claims here about the government knowingly I mean you had
Speaker 1: watch dogs say this, knowingly put forth these policies knowing
Speaker 1: that there is it going to be a way to
Speaker 1: keep tracks of the children who are separated from the parents,
Speaker 1: and that there would be this massive harm that would
Speaker 1: take place. They were warned about all of this by
Speaker 1: people like Jonathan White from h H who was the
Speaker 1: person in charge at the time of the UH Settlement
Speaker 1: of Children, and he had said, I don't want to
Speaker 1: go along with this because it's going to cause all
Speaker 1: of this tropics. We won't be able to keep track
Speaker 1: of the kids. And so once you move forward with that,
Speaker 1: it's maybe not something that even the Supreme Court can
Speaker 1: overturn as a factual basis because the government isn't allowed
Speaker 1: to endanger children knowingly. Regardless of what the reason is,
Speaker 1: whatever your law enforcement reason is, you still can't knowingly
Speaker 1: endanger children. And if if a factual finding is made
Speaker 1: that that's what happened in this case, then the only
Speaker 1: issue will be about managers, but it won't be a
Speaker 1: legal issue anymore. But that's the legal issue, and that's
Speaker 1: a separate issue about whether politically it is wise to
Speaker 1: engage in these settlements, because of course you have massive
Speaker 1: political ball dot from the simplistic arguments that why would
Speaker 1: anyone pay people here without saddest for just enforcing the law,
Speaker 1: and so man that's the who nobody wants to be
Speaker 1: in the middle of. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Law Show. Leon. That's immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a
Speaker 1: partner at Hollanden Night And that's it for this edition
Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
Speaker 1: the latest legal news, honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at www dot
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and don't forget
Speaker 1: to catch The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street time right here on Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: I'm joom Boso and you're a list