1
00:00:02,880 --> 00:00:07,120
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,240 --> 00:00:13,240
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump has been complaining about a legal system

3
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:15,600
Speaker 2: rigged against him for years.

4
00:00:16,200 --> 00:00:18,800
Speaker 1: We'd have a system that was rigged and disgusting.

5
00:00:18,920 --> 00:00:19,840
Speaker 3: I did nothing wrong.

6
00:00:20,239 --> 00:00:23,800
Speaker 2: That's been his basic complaint, although there have been many

7
00:00:23,920 --> 00:00:27,480
Speaker 2: variations on the theme, and now that he's back in power,

8
00:00:27,920 --> 00:00:32,559
Speaker 2: he hasn't wasted much time in targeting judges, lawyers and

9
00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:37,040
Speaker 2: law firms, especially those he feels wronged him. And it's

10
00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:40,760
Speaker 2: a fight that Trump keeps escalating. Joining me is an

11
00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:44,239
Speaker 2: expert on the legal profession, Matthew Diller, a professor at

12
00:00:44,240 --> 00:00:47,720
Speaker 2: Fordham Law School. He's written a column for Bloomberg Law

13
00:00:47,960 --> 00:00:51,520
Speaker 2: entitled Trump's orders are attacks on the rule of Law.

14
00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:55,120
Speaker 2: Tell us about the extent of Trump's attacks on the

15
00:00:55,200 --> 00:00:55,960
Speaker 2: rule of law.

16
00:00:56,360 --> 00:01:00,400
Speaker 1: The Trump administration has really broadened out at the tax.

17
00:01:00,760 --> 00:01:04,880
Speaker 1: Initially started with its attacks on the judiciary, and now

18
00:01:04,920 --> 00:01:08,640
Speaker 1: it is continuing to attack the judiciary and has added

19
00:01:08,720 --> 00:01:12,240
Speaker 1: in attacks on the legal profession really as a whole.

20
00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:16,840
Speaker 1: And the attacks go to the fundamental ethos and role

21
00:01:16,959 --> 00:01:20,080
Speaker 1: of the legal profession in our society. So from the

22
00:01:20,200 --> 00:01:24,800
Speaker 1: very start of the administration, government lawyers, lawyers who worked

23
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:28,039
Speaker 1: for the federal government were under siege, and those lawyers

24
00:01:28,040 --> 00:01:32,399
Speaker 1: play a critical role in our system of law enforcement

25
00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:37,160
Speaker 1: and upholding rules and making sure the government is not abusive.

26
00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:40,600
Speaker 1: And so almost as soon as he came into office,

27
00:01:40,800 --> 00:01:45,600
Speaker 1: President Trump began to remove the most experienced leaders within

28
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:47,560
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. And I'm not talking about the

29
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:50,160
Speaker 1: political appointees. I'm talking about the career lawyers of the

30
00:01:50,160 --> 00:01:53,920
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. We saw this with the blow up

31
00:01:53,960 --> 00:01:56,840
Speaker 1: over the lawyers working on the Eric Adams case, quite

32
00:01:56,880 --> 00:01:59,640
Speaker 1: a few of whom resigned. But there's also Denise Chung,

33
00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:04,600
Speaker 1: the top prosecutor in the DCUs Attorney's officer, who resigned

34
00:02:04,640 --> 00:02:08,440
Speaker 1: when she was asked to launch an investigation without any basis.

35
00:02:08,720 --> 00:02:13,040
Speaker 1: The Chief Irs Council was pushed out, all the inspector

36
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:16,560
Speaker 1: generals and the different agencies, and so the lawyers in

37
00:02:16,639 --> 00:02:21,520
Speaker 1: key positions who have put a premium on making sure

38
00:02:21,760 --> 00:02:25,400
Speaker 1: that governments follows the law, who put an allegiance to

39
00:02:25,440 --> 00:02:29,519
Speaker 1: the law first, are being removed and being replaced with

40
00:02:29,639 --> 00:02:33,560
Speaker 1: the lawyers who focused on loyalty to the administration. And

41
00:02:33,600 --> 00:02:37,839
Speaker 1: that to me is scary because those government lawyers play

42
00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:40,639
Speaker 1: a critical role. And then what's happened over the past

43
00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:43,600
Speaker 1: few weeks is that the attack has broadened out to

44
00:02:43,639 --> 00:02:45,880
Speaker 1: cover the private bar, and really the elements in the

45
00:02:45,880 --> 00:02:49,520
Speaker 1: private bar that are the ones that the administration used

46
00:02:49,520 --> 00:02:51,959
Speaker 1: as the biggest threat, which are the major of private

47
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:54,640
Speaker 1: law firms that have a lot of resources and a

48
00:02:54,639 --> 00:02:57,920
Speaker 1: lot of experience in litiating against the government. So it

49
00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:01,880
Speaker 1: started with a memorandum attacking the law firm of Covington

50
00:03:01,919 --> 00:03:05,160
Speaker 1: and Burwing and then expanded to two executive orders, one

51
00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:08,119
Speaker 1: targeted at the firm of Perkins koe and the other

52
00:03:08,280 --> 00:03:12,320
Speaker 1: targeted at Paul Weiss. And those executive orders just simply

53
00:03:12,440 --> 00:03:15,400
Speaker 1: shocked me. They are astounding documents to read.

54
00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:19,240
Speaker 2: He revoked the security clearances at Covington and Berlin that

55
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:23,400
Speaker 2: he stepped it up in an executive order against Perkins

56
00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:26,760
Speaker 2: Cooey and Paul Weiss. Tell us about those executive orders

57
00:03:26,760 --> 00:03:30,120
Speaker 2: and is there any legal basis for them set out

58
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:30,720
Speaker 2: in the order.

59
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:34,520
Speaker 1: So the executive orders are really attempts to take down

60
00:03:34,560 --> 00:03:38,640
Speaker 1: these firms, because you know, they go far beyond revoking

61
00:03:38,680 --> 00:03:42,760
Speaker 1: security clearances. They also terminate all contracts with the firms,

62
00:03:42,800 --> 00:03:45,080
Speaker 1: so that if the government any arm of the government

63
00:03:45,120 --> 00:03:48,000
Speaker 1: has hired the firms to do anything mose contract would end.

64
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:51,600
Speaker 1: But then the single most devastating piece of it, they

65
00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:56,520
Speaker 1: require businesses that have relationships with the firms to disclose

66
00:03:56,600 --> 00:04:02,640
Speaker 1: those relationships and then instruct the agent determinate their contracts

67
00:04:02,680 --> 00:04:05,880
Speaker 1: with those businesses. So what that does is it strikes

68
00:04:05,960 --> 00:04:08,600
Speaker 1: at the client of the firm. So what it says

69
00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:11,360
Speaker 1: to the firm's clients is that if you continue to

70
00:04:11,440 --> 00:04:14,880
Speaker 1: retain these firms, you will lose all your government contracts.

71
00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:17,600
Speaker 1: And that, of course strikes at the heart of these

72
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:21,279
Speaker 1: firms and their business model and their basic income and

73
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:24,320
Speaker 1: ability to survive as a firm. And you asked about

74
00:04:24,320 --> 00:04:27,360
Speaker 1: the legal basis for these orders, the orders cite no

75
00:04:27,560 --> 00:04:31,279
Speaker 1: legal basis. Typically in executive order and the pre Trump

76
00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:34,480
Speaker 1: euro we'd most often start with a recitation of what

77
00:04:34,520 --> 00:04:37,279
Speaker 1: the legal basis for the order is, what the authority is,

78
00:04:37,320 --> 00:04:40,240
Speaker 1: where the statutes are. These orders don't do that in

79
00:04:40,279 --> 00:04:43,480
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form, and in fact, they include

80
00:04:43,960 --> 00:04:47,120
Speaker 1: a lot of language that shows that the purposes of

81
00:04:47,160 --> 00:04:51,080
Speaker 1: these orders are clearly unconstitutional and illegal, and just to

82
00:04:51,160 --> 00:04:53,600
Speaker 1: flesh that out of it, First of all, they make

83
00:04:53,680 --> 00:04:55,839
Speaker 1: claim that the basis of the order is that the

84
00:04:55,960 --> 00:05:01,320
Speaker 1: administration doesn't like representations that that have been undertaken by

85
00:05:01,520 --> 00:05:04,520
Speaker 1: lawyers of these firms, and so those lawyers have a

86
00:05:04,600 --> 00:05:08,400
Speaker 1: right to undertake those representations. You know, the First Amendment

87
00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:11,880
Speaker 1: gives them the right to both express their views. There's

88
00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:15,360
Speaker 1: a right of access to the court system. These firms

89
00:05:15,400 --> 00:05:19,840
Speaker 1: have no obligation to only undertake litigation and representations that

90
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:24,039
Speaker 1: President Trump approves of. And then secondly, they did this

91
00:05:24,120 --> 00:05:27,560
Speaker 1: without any hearing of any kind. So these orders just

92
00:05:27,640 --> 00:05:30,760
Speaker 1: came completely out of the blue. There was no hearing

93
00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:35,120
Speaker 1: and opportunity for these firms to contest whatever the quote

94
00:05:35,240 --> 00:05:39,240
Speaker 1: charges might be against them. And then a final element

95
00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:42,760
Speaker 1: that's very concerning is that it really impinges on the

96
00:05:42,839 --> 00:05:46,120
Speaker 1: rights of the clients of these firms to choose their lawyers.

97
00:05:46,560 --> 00:05:50,760
Speaker 1: In our country, the basic system for regulating lawyer conduct

98
00:05:51,160 --> 00:05:53,320
Speaker 1: is governed by the states and by the courts, and

99
00:05:53,360 --> 00:05:57,520
Speaker 1: there are proceedings and rules about what happens when a

100
00:05:57,600 --> 00:06:01,800
Speaker 1: lawyer is accused of unethical or improper conduct. Those lawyers

101
00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:05,400
Speaker 1: received notice of the charges basically in an opportunity to

102
00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:09,480
Speaker 1: defend themselves. Nothing like that happened in these cases, and indeed,

103
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:13,440
Speaker 1: the executive branch of the federal government. The president has

104
00:06:13,520 --> 00:06:18,920
Speaker 1: no general free roaming authority to impost discipline on lawyers senilatterally,

105
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:23,240
Speaker 1: So I'm unaware of any arguments. I have trouble even

106
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:26,640
Speaker 1: thinking of an argument of how these orders can be legal.

107
00:06:27,080 --> 00:06:32,240
Speaker 2: Two firms had very different reactions to this order. There

108
00:06:32,320 --> 00:06:37,960
Speaker 2: was defiance from Perkins Coohy and capitulation from Paul Weiss.

109
00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:40,960
Speaker 2: Tell us first about what Perkins cooy has done, and

110
00:06:41,040 --> 00:06:44,040
Speaker 2: they hired this hard charging law firm.

111
00:06:44,360 --> 00:06:48,440
Speaker 1: So Perkins Coohy responded by hiring, as you say, Williams

112
00:06:48,480 --> 00:06:52,520
Speaker 1: and Connolly, which is a very well known litigation firm

113
00:06:52,640 --> 00:06:56,760
Speaker 1: in Washington, DC, and immediately filed a lawsuit and sought

114
00:06:56,880 --> 00:07:00,200
Speaker 1: a temporary restraining order, which the judge granted. And the

115
00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:03,440
Speaker 1: judge said the executive order against Perkins could we sent

116
00:07:03,640 --> 00:07:07,000
Speaker 1: chills down her spine. And to date, the government has

117
00:07:07,040 --> 00:07:10,600
Speaker 1: not put in any papers defending the legality of the

118
00:07:10,680 --> 00:07:14,840
Speaker 1: executive order against Perkins. Instead, the government has just sought

119
00:07:14,880 --> 00:07:18,080
Speaker 1: to remove the judge, arguing that she's biased. So I

120
00:07:18,120 --> 00:07:20,640
Speaker 1: don't know what the government's argument will be why the

121
00:07:20,920 --> 00:07:23,840
Speaker 1: order against Perkins was legal. We haven't seen that yet

122
00:07:24,040 --> 00:07:27,080
Speaker 1: Paul Weis took a very different path. Instead, the head

123
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:30,960
Speaker 1: of Paul Wise met with President Trump directly one on one.

124
00:07:31,280 --> 00:07:34,800
Speaker 1: The meeting was said to be three hours long. And

125
00:07:34,840 --> 00:07:37,480
Speaker 1: then President Trump and Brad carp who's the head of

126
00:07:37,480 --> 00:07:41,080
Speaker 1: Paul Weiss, ironed at an agreement and President Trump withdrew

127
00:07:41,160 --> 00:07:43,520
Speaker 1: the executive order. And I think there are a couple

128
00:07:43,600 --> 00:07:46,560
Speaker 1: of things to really focus on here. So the biggest

129
00:07:46,600 --> 00:07:49,280
Speaker 1: one is that this was a shakedown of Paul Wess,

130
00:07:49,320 --> 00:07:51,440
Speaker 1: that Paul Wise. You know, there's a lot of debate

131
00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 1: now about whether Paul Weiss did the right thing by

132
00:07:54,040 --> 00:07:56,720
Speaker 1: reaching an agreement with President Trump. But I think the

133
00:07:56,960 --> 00:07:59,640
Speaker 1: larger picture to look at is that Paul Weis never

134
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:02,360
Speaker 1: should have been in this situation in the first place.

135
00:08:02,600 --> 00:08:06,440
Speaker 1: That the White House really put Paul Weiss under an

136
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:10,560
Speaker 1: existential threat that never should have been there. So that's

137
00:08:10,640 --> 00:08:13,640
Speaker 1: the single biggest thing I think to keep at the

138
00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:16,000
Speaker 1: forefront of one's mind is that Paul why should not

139
00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:19,880
Speaker 1: have been in this situation. I myself, I'm disappointed that

140
00:08:19,960 --> 00:08:22,320
Speaker 1: it has played out this way because it firms like

141
00:08:22,400 --> 00:08:26,800
Speaker 1: Paul Weiss don't push back against illegal executive orders like this,

142
00:08:26,920 --> 00:08:29,040
Speaker 1: then who will so it sends a message to the

143
00:08:29,120 --> 00:08:33,560
Speaker 1: legal profession that is very disheartening because the Trump administration

144
00:08:33,679 --> 00:08:36,760
Speaker 1: has made plain that they're not stopping with Jess Perkins,

145
00:08:36,760 --> 00:08:39,880
Speaker 1: Pooty and Paul West. They're going to continue to target firms.

146
00:08:40,160 --> 00:08:42,240
Speaker 2: I know a lot of people who were disappointed and

147
00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:44,760
Speaker 2: a lot of people who were shocked that Paul Weiss

148
00:08:44,760 --> 00:08:47,120
Speaker 2: caved the way it did. What do you think the

149
00:08:47,160 --> 00:08:50,679
Speaker 2: message is after a firm like Paul Weiss just gives

150
00:08:50,720 --> 00:08:51,400
Speaker 2: in to Trump.

151
00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:55,880
Speaker 1: So I think it really reflects the incredible power of

152
00:08:55,920 --> 00:08:58,760
Speaker 1: the federal government that Trump is really harnessing here in

153
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:03,360
Speaker 1: an illegitimate ways. You know, Paul White's calculation was even

154
00:09:03,400 --> 00:09:06,520
Speaker 1: when they won the lawsuit, and you can be sure

155
00:09:06,679 --> 00:09:10,120
Speaker 1: they were highly confident of winning this lawsuit, it wouldn't

156
00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:13,240
Speaker 1: save them because it would send the message to all

157
00:09:13,280 --> 00:09:15,920
Speaker 1: their clients that do business with the federal government, to

158
00:09:16,000 --> 00:09:20,280
Speaker 1: all the criminal defendants whom they are represented or being

159
00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:23,400
Speaker 1: prosecuted by the federal government, that they will not get

160
00:09:23,440 --> 00:09:26,080
Speaker 1: a fair treatment from the federal government as long as

161
00:09:26,120 --> 00:09:29,600
Speaker 1: they're represented by a firm that the administration doesn't like.

162
00:09:30,080 --> 00:09:32,840
Speaker 1: And so that's an existential threat for a firm like

163
00:09:32,920 --> 00:09:35,760
Speaker 1: Paul Wite, and they never should have been in that situation.

164
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:39,240
Speaker 1: One thing that's interesting me is there are some discrepancies

165
00:09:39,280 --> 00:09:43,640
Speaker 1: between the way the White House has described the agreement

166
00:09:43,640 --> 00:09:46,360
Speaker 1: and the way Paul Weite has described it. Paul Weiss

167
00:09:46,360 --> 00:09:49,920
Speaker 1: has really broadcast that it didn't agree to much beyond

168
00:09:49,960 --> 00:09:52,600
Speaker 1: what it would ordinarily do. And if the agreement is

169
00:09:52,640 --> 00:09:55,280
Speaker 1: true to the firm's values, and some of the things

170
00:09:55,320 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 1: in the agreement, like a commitment to not accept clients

171
00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:02,200
Speaker 1: and matters based on the politics and political leanings of

172
00:10:02,320 --> 00:10:05,960
Speaker 1: the clients, is the value that Paul Weiss has always

173
00:10:06,000 --> 00:10:08,959
Speaker 1: had and saying that they would Paul Weiss would do

174
00:10:09,040 --> 00:10:12,720
Speaker 1: pro bono work on behalf of veteran's combat anti Semitism.

175
00:10:12,760 --> 00:10:16,319
Speaker 1: Paul Weiss's position is that's all fine with them. They

176
00:10:16,360 --> 00:10:19,280
Speaker 1: would do this work anyway. But to me, there are

177
00:10:19,280 --> 00:10:22,560
Speaker 1: a couple of aspects of the agreement that I have

178
00:10:22,679 --> 00:10:26,120
Speaker 1: questions about that don't strike me as business as usual.

179
00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:28,920
Speaker 1: So one is Paul Weis has agreed to an audit

180
00:10:29,320 --> 00:10:34,320
Speaker 1: of its employment practices by a mutually agreed expert, So

181
00:10:34,400 --> 00:10:37,440
Speaker 1: that means that Paul Weiss now has to reach an

182
00:10:37,480 --> 00:10:41,360
Speaker 1: agreement with the administration as to who will review their

183
00:10:41,360 --> 00:10:47,120
Speaker 1: employment practices, and the administration has taken a position, particularly

184
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:51,280
Speaker 1: around issues of race and gender discrimination that is really

185
00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:55,360
Speaker 1: incredibly aggressive and not at all clear that is required

186
00:10:55,360 --> 00:10:58,480
Speaker 1: by law. And so that we'll see what happens with that.

187
00:10:58,679 --> 00:11:01,920
Speaker 1: The audit of Paul Weis's hiring practices, who they will

188
00:11:01,960 --> 00:11:05,000
Speaker 1: find whom they can reach an agreement should be the auditor.

189
00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:08,440
Speaker 1: And then the second piece of language that particularly concerns

190
00:11:08,480 --> 00:11:12,319
Speaker 1: me is that the commitment to do forty million dollars

191
00:11:12,320 --> 00:11:14,760
Speaker 1: worth of pro bono work, it lists a couple of

192
00:11:14,880 --> 00:11:19,000
Speaker 1: projects and then it says and usually agreed projects. So

193
00:11:19,080 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 1: does that mean that Paul Weis needs to go back

194
00:11:21,280 --> 00:11:25,480
Speaker 1: to the Trump administration to get approval as to whether

195
00:11:25,679 --> 00:11:29,920
Speaker 1: particular pro bono representations counter don't count towards the forty

196
00:11:29,960 --> 00:11:33,640
Speaker 1: million dollars. That troubles me in terms of giving the

197
00:11:33,960 --> 00:11:37,240
Speaker 1: White House a direct voice in what cases Paul wise

198
00:11:37,360 --> 00:11:40,839
Speaker 1: now will select the pro bono work. We'll see how

199
00:11:40,840 --> 00:11:43,160
Speaker 1: it plays out. I mean, I think it's very unclear

200
00:11:43,640 --> 00:11:46,199
Speaker 1: what this agreement will mean in practice, But those are

201
00:11:46,200 --> 00:11:48,880
Speaker 1: some of my particular concerns with the substance of it.

202
00:11:49,200 --> 00:11:52,320
Speaker 1: Of Course, the message sent by the agreement is far broader,

203
00:11:52,640 --> 00:11:54,959
Speaker 1: and it's the message, as you said, that Paul Wis

204
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:58,320
Speaker 1: won't stand up to the Trump administration, than who will.

205
00:11:58,360 --> 00:12:01,040
Speaker 1: And I think that that's a important question to.

206
00:12:01,120 --> 00:12:05,000
Speaker 2: Ask coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. In

207
00:12:05,040 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 2: a new memo, Trump is authorizing the Attorney General and

208
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:13,560
Speaker 2: the Homeland Security Secretary to go after law firms that

209
00:12:13,679 --> 00:12:18,440
Speaker 2: file lawsuits they deem frivolous, another major escalation of his

210
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:21,920
Speaker 2: assault on law firms. I'm June Grosso when you're listening

211
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:27,560
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg. The presidential memo issued on Friday is called

212
00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:31,560
Speaker 2: Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Courts.

213
00:12:31,880 --> 00:12:36,160
Speaker 2: In it, President Trump authorizes the Attorney General and Secretary

214
00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:40,800
Speaker 2: of Homeland Security to seek sanctions against lawyers who engage

215
00:12:40,840 --> 00:12:46,480
Speaker 2: in quote frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the government.

216
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:51,600
Speaker 2: It's all part of Trump's escalating war against the legal system,

217
00:12:51,920 --> 00:12:56,040
Speaker 2: and that includes judges, lawyers, and law firms. I've been

218
00:12:56,040 --> 00:12:59,559
Speaker 2: talking to Fordham Law professor Matthew Diller, So does this

219
00:12:59,679 --> 00:13:04,920
Speaker 2: new memo mean basically that any lawyers who sue the

220
00:13:04,920 --> 00:13:07,199
Speaker 2: Trump administration can be.

221
00:13:07,200 --> 00:13:10,320
Speaker 4: Sanctioned the first part the language you read, I read

222
00:13:10,400 --> 00:13:13,560
Speaker 4: is kind of bluster in the sense of so they

223
00:13:13,600 --> 00:13:16,680
Speaker 4: will seek sanctions, but a court then has to decide

224
00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:21,440
Speaker 4: or a disciplinary arm needs to then independently decide whether.

225
00:13:21,240 --> 00:13:24,760
Speaker 1: Sanctions are warranted. So it struck me, as you know,

226
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:29,920
Speaker 1: as a threat that wasn't that potent because some independent

227
00:13:30,640 --> 00:13:33,920
Speaker 1: arbiter would then decide whether the sanctions are appropriate. And

228
00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:36,840
Speaker 1: of course the issue has been not that so many

229
00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:40,600
Speaker 1: frivolis suits are being filed against the Trump administrations, but

230
00:13:40,760 --> 00:13:44,040
Speaker 1: that so many successful suits are being filed against the

231
00:13:44,080 --> 00:13:48,640
Speaker 1: Trump administration. But then further down in this document there's

232
00:13:48,679 --> 00:13:51,680
Speaker 1: a language that really does give me pause because below

233
00:13:52,320 --> 00:13:56,479
Speaker 1: the language about referring attorneys in law firms for disciplinary

234
00:13:56,559 --> 00:14:00,040
Speaker 1: action or sanctions, it says the Attorney General and the

235
00:14:00,040 --> 00:14:05,560
Speaker 1: Secretary of Homeland Security are also instructed to recommend additional consequences,

236
00:14:05,600 --> 00:14:10,960
Speaker 1: including reassessing security clearances or terminating federal contracts for attorneys

237
00:14:10,960 --> 00:14:15,479
Speaker 1: and law firms that engage in conduct deserving of sanctions

238
00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:20,680
Speaker 1: or other disciplinary action, meaning that they themselves the Attorney

239
00:14:20,720 --> 00:14:23,600
Speaker 1: General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are are supposed

240
00:14:23,640 --> 00:14:26,640
Speaker 1: to decide whether the conduct is deserving of a sanction

241
00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:30,160
Speaker 1: rather than waiting to see others thanks and issues. And

242
00:14:30,240 --> 00:14:34,880
Speaker 1: so this is an authorization due to other firms and

243
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 1: attorneys what the administration has done to Paul Weiss into

244
00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:42,200
Speaker 1: Perkinscuies and presumably in the future we need not see

245
00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:45,400
Speaker 1: presidential executive orders doing it. We will see the Attorney

246
00:14:45,400 --> 00:14:47,720
Speaker 1: General doing it, and in the Secretary of Homeland Security.

247
00:14:48,200 --> 00:14:51,440
Speaker 1: And so this is a way of taking those examples

248
00:14:51,800 --> 00:14:55,560
Speaker 1: and really spreading them across the profession, and that troubles

249
00:14:55,640 --> 00:14:59,960
Speaker 1: moved tremendously. The other thing that's interesting about the documents

250
00:15:00,080 --> 00:15:03,040
Speaker 1: that came out Friday is it really targets both big

251
00:15:03,120 --> 00:15:07,400
Speaker 1: law firms but then also lawyers who work on immigration,

252
00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:10,520
Speaker 1: and of course immigration, you know, the top priority of

253
00:15:10,520 --> 00:15:13,720
Speaker 1: the administration, and its actions in the area of immigration

254
00:15:13,800 --> 00:15:17,359
Speaker 1: have been some of its most controversial and most contested

255
00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:20,200
Speaker 1: in terms of their legality. And so this really is

256
00:15:20,280 --> 00:15:23,960
Speaker 1: an attempt to strike at the immigration bar that's pushing

257
00:15:24,040 --> 00:15:27,080
Speaker 1: back on the Trump immigration initiatives.

258
00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:30,480
Speaker 2: What do you think this means for future litigation against

259
00:15:30,480 --> 00:15:33,560
Speaker 2: the Trump administration. Are we only going to see organizations

260
00:15:33,560 --> 00:15:38,120
Speaker 2: like the ACLU and public advocacy groups suing the Trump administration?

261
00:15:38,880 --> 00:15:41,840
Speaker 1: I think this will have a shilling aspect on big

262
00:15:41,920 --> 00:15:45,440
Speaker 1: law firms taking very controversial cases that are going to

263
00:15:45,480 --> 00:15:48,840
Speaker 1: be high profile. I think that's unfortunate. I think that's

264
00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:51,560
Speaker 1: you know, one of the functions of the legal profession

265
00:15:52,000 --> 00:15:54,800
Speaker 1: is to bring issues to the courts for resolution. That's

266
00:15:54,800 --> 00:15:57,760
Speaker 1: how our rule of law works, and so putting them

267
00:15:57,760 --> 00:16:00,600
Speaker 1: in a position where they feel threatened and in timidated

268
00:16:00,680 --> 00:16:03,240
Speaker 1: not to do that is very troubling. And so then

269
00:16:03,280 --> 00:16:07,280
Speaker 1: it does leave the work to public interest organizations places

270
00:16:07,440 --> 00:16:11,280
Speaker 1: like the ASLU, And they have their own vulnerabilities because

271
00:16:11,520 --> 00:16:15,080
Speaker 1: first they're much smaller, but then seconds they're entirely dependent

272
00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 1: on philanthropy, and the administration can put the squeeze on

273
00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:22,200
Speaker 1: them too in different ways. And so we haven't seen that,

274
00:16:22,360 --> 00:16:24,960
Speaker 1: but we may see it, and so that's something to

275
00:16:24,960 --> 00:16:29,080
Speaker 1: be concerned about. The last group of lawyers who are

276
00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:33,080
Speaker 1: very important are state attorney generals, and state attorney generals

277
00:16:33,120 --> 00:16:37,600
Speaker 1: have really risen to the challenge, particularly the attorney generals

278
00:16:37,640 --> 00:16:42,120
Speaker 1: who are Democrats. Right They're out there bringing challenges to

279
00:16:42,160 --> 00:16:46,880
Speaker 1: the most contentious Trump policies. And many of the cases

280
00:16:47,080 --> 00:16:50,160
Speaker 1: that have been most successful have been brought by attorney generals.

281
00:16:50,440 --> 00:16:53,360
Speaker 1: But Attorney generals are also limited in what they can

282
00:16:53,400 --> 00:16:59,520
Speaker 1: do because they're briefs. Their charge is to represent the state.

283
00:17:00,120 --> 00:17:02,040
Speaker 1: To bring a case, they have to show that some

284
00:17:02,440 --> 00:17:06,120
Speaker 1: entity or arm of the state government has been affected

285
00:17:06,760 --> 00:17:09,800
Speaker 1: by the policy. And so we can expect and we're

286
00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:13,840
Speaker 1: already seeing pushback from frump from the Trump administration about

287
00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:17,439
Speaker 1: whether attorneys generals has standing to bring some of the

288
00:17:17,520 --> 00:17:18,560
Speaker 1: cases they've been bringing.

289
00:17:19,000 --> 00:17:21,920
Speaker 2: All the legal experts seem to agree that Perkins Koi

290
00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:25,040
Speaker 2: is going to win its lawsuit against the Trump administration,

291
00:17:25,160 --> 00:17:29,560
Speaker 2: but explain the damage that's already being done to that

292
00:17:29,680 --> 00:17:30,160
Speaker 2: law firm.

293
00:17:30,680 --> 00:17:35,040
Speaker 1: Perkins Cooy is already suffering damage from the executive order

294
00:17:35,320 --> 00:17:38,360
Speaker 1: and will suffer damage even though it's likely to win

295
00:17:38,400 --> 00:17:42,679
Speaker 1: the case. And that's because some clients will think twice

296
00:17:43,280 --> 00:17:47,560
Speaker 1: about going to a law firm that the administration has

297
00:17:47,680 --> 00:17:51,360
Speaker 1: declared to be an enemy. The executive Order essentially declared

298
00:17:51,400 --> 00:17:54,720
Speaker 1: Perkins Cooi to be an enemy of the Trump administration.

299
00:17:55,280 --> 00:17:59,000
Speaker 1: And if you are an individual or a company that

300
00:17:59,119 --> 00:18:03,159
Speaker 1: has business under the federal government or that is under investigation,

301
00:18:03,640 --> 00:18:06,800
Speaker 1: you're going to think twice about choosing a lawyer whom

302
00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:08,960
Speaker 1: you know the federal government hates. Are you going to

303
00:18:09,000 --> 00:18:11,960
Speaker 1: get the same kind of flea deal? Is the investigation

304
00:18:12,119 --> 00:18:14,600
Speaker 1: going to be conducted in the same way? You know,

305
00:18:14,680 --> 00:18:18,680
Speaker 1: it's natural the clients would ask those questions when they're

306
00:18:18,680 --> 00:18:21,800
Speaker 1: deciding what lawyers to retain, and so that's the harm

307
00:18:21,880 --> 00:18:25,520
Speaker 1: that Perkins Coolie will suffer, whether or not a winded case.

308
00:18:26,080 --> 00:18:29,400
Speaker 2: This attack on law firms, does it seem like it's

309
00:18:30,000 --> 00:18:32,919
Speaker 2: well planned and maybe years in the making.

310
00:18:33,600 --> 00:18:36,359
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the attack on law firms, we

311
00:18:36,480 --> 00:18:40,919
Speaker 1: reflect years of grievances against law firms, since some of

312
00:18:40,960 --> 00:18:44,760
Speaker 1: the things that the administration has cited in the executive orders,

313
00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:49,080
Speaker 1: you know, date back years. So I think it reflects

314
00:18:49,080 --> 00:18:52,879
Speaker 1: a grievance that has been festering for years. And I

315
00:18:52,920 --> 00:18:56,119
Speaker 1: do think it's part of a larger strategy. You know,

316
00:18:56,440 --> 00:18:58,760
Speaker 1: it goes with the attack on the judges and the

317
00:18:58,840 --> 00:19:03,720
Speaker 1: judiciary to try and just shut down litigation against the

318
00:19:03,760 --> 00:19:09,560
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Since Congress has been relatively accommodating to the administration,

319
00:19:10,040 --> 00:19:12,639
Speaker 1: it's really the courts that have pushed back the most,

320
00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:17,000
Speaker 1: and therefore the administration is focused on attacking judges and

321
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:20,440
Speaker 1: now on attacking lawyers because if lawyers won't bring the cases,

322
00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:23,200
Speaker 1: then the judges never even come into play.

323
00:19:23,520 --> 00:19:27,639
Speaker 2: What's the best strategy for lawyers now, I mean, what

324
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:28,320
Speaker 2: should they do?

325
00:19:28,720 --> 00:19:31,680
Speaker 1: So a couple of things. So first, I do think

326
00:19:32,240 --> 00:19:36,679
Speaker 1: lawyers should come together to fight these policies and these actions.

327
00:19:36,720 --> 00:19:39,879
Speaker 1: And so I do think the law firms of the

328
00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:44,199
Speaker 1: United States should indeed back up workinscoy, which they've been

329
00:19:44,280 --> 00:19:48,720
Speaker 1: reluctant to do. They've been intimidated by the administration. And

330
00:19:49,000 --> 00:19:52,280
Speaker 1: it's the kind of situation where there's safety in numbers.

331
00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:57,320
Speaker 1: Any one firm is isolated, but to do it in numbers,

332
00:19:57,359 --> 00:20:00,560
Speaker 1: to respond in numbers would really bring much more power.

333
00:20:00,920 --> 00:20:04,160
Speaker 1: And then the second, I think the judiciary should take

334
00:20:04,200 --> 00:20:08,000
Speaker 1: a strong stand on it. So the person's coopy case

335
00:20:08,640 --> 00:20:11,560
Speaker 1: when it does get decided, if it does get decided,

336
00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:15,200
Speaker 1: I think the judiciary should really make a strong statement

337
00:20:15,320 --> 00:20:18,840
Speaker 1: about just how egregious and outrageous the government's conduct is.

338
00:20:18,880 --> 00:20:19,120
Speaker 5: Here.

339
00:20:19,920 --> 00:20:22,480
Speaker 2: In the end, this is all about Trump getting retribution,

340
00:20:22,800 --> 00:20:25,840
Speaker 2: something that he promised over and over in the campaign.

341
00:20:26,240 --> 00:20:29,800
Speaker 1: You know, retribution is backward looking, and so it is

342
00:20:29,840 --> 00:20:33,639
Speaker 1: indeed restribution, you know, payback, but it's also forward looking.

343
00:20:33,720 --> 00:20:37,080
Speaker 1: You know, it's also designed to intimidate lawyers and law

344
00:20:37,160 --> 00:20:41,960
Speaker 1: firms into thinking twice, three times, four times before going

345
00:20:42,040 --> 00:20:43,240
Speaker 1: up against the administration.

346
00:20:43,560 --> 00:20:45,520
Speaker 2: We'll see how it plays out. Thanks so much for

347
00:20:45,640 --> 00:20:48,600
Speaker 2: joining me on the show, Best Professor, Matthew Diller, a

348
00:20:48,720 --> 00:20:53,920
Speaker 2: Fordham Law School. President Donald Trump and his administration launched

349
00:20:53,960 --> 00:20:58,280
Speaker 2: an attack on DC federal Judge James Bodsburg last week,

350
00:20:58,680 --> 00:21:02,400
Speaker 2: with Trump calling him a radical left lunatic of a judge,

351
00:21:02,440 --> 00:21:06,560
Speaker 2: a troublemaker, and an agitator and calling for his impeachment.

352
00:21:07,119 --> 00:21:10,400
Speaker 2: With Trump's borders are Tom Holman saying he didn't care

353
00:21:10,440 --> 00:21:11,520
Speaker 2: what the judge said.

354
00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:13,159
Speaker 1: I don't care what that judges.

355
00:21:13,240 --> 00:21:14,560
Speaker 3: Thankers virus case.

356
00:21:14,840 --> 00:21:17,600
Speaker 4: We're going to continue to arrest public safety threats and

357
00:21:17,680 --> 00:21:18,680
Speaker 4: national security threats.

358
00:21:18,720 --> 00:21:21,440
Speaker 1: We're going to continue to deport for the United States, and.

359
00:21:21,440 --> 00:21:24,960
Speaker 2: With the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondy

360
00:21:25,280 --> 00:21:28,200
Speaker 2: saying the judge didn't have the authority to make rulings

361
00:21:28,240 --> 00:21:28,800
Speaker 2: in the case.

362
00:21:29,240 --> 00:21:32,879
Speaker 5: This judge has no right to ask those questions. You

363
00:21:32,960 --> 00:21:38,480
Speaker 5: have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies,

364
00:21:38,760 --> 00:21:42,080
Speaker 5: trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have

365
00:21:42,400 --> 00:21:44,600
Speaker 5: no business presiding over.

366
00:21:44,880 --> 00:21:48,200
Speaker 2: The nature of the attacks. Led Chief Justice John Roberts

367
00:21:48,240 --> 00:21:52,000
Speaker 2: to issue a rare rebuke, making it clear that impeachment

368
00:21:52,240 --> 00:21:56,160
Speaker 2: is not the avenue for disagreement with a judge's order. Well,

369
00:21:56,280 --> 00:21:59,920
Speaker 2: Judge Bosburg, the well respected chief judge of the Federal

370
00:22:00,119 --> 00:22:03,080
Speaker 2: Court in DC with twenty three years on the bench,

371
00:22:03,640 --> 00:22:07,960
Speaker 2: didn't back down, and today he reaffirmed his ruling blocking

372
00:22:08,000 --> 00:22:12,280
Speaker 2: the Trump administration from using a wartime law to deport

373
00:22:12,400 --> 00:22:17,000
Speaker 2: alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. The legal issue

374
00:22:17,040 --> 00:22:21,160
Speaker 2: at the heart of these hearings is Trump's unprecedented use

375
00:22:21,359 --> 00:22:25,080
Speaker 2: of the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight to

376
00:22:25,160 --> 00:22:29,760
Speaker 2: deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members without giving them

377
00:22:29,800 --> 00:22:33,800
Speaker 2: any hearings. The law has been used only three times

378
00:22:33,800 --> 00:22:38,160
Speaker 2: in US history, and that was during declared wars. Joining

379
00:22:38,160 --> 00:22:42,560
Speaker 2: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. Judge Bosburg ruled

380
00:22:42,560 --> 00:22:46,199
Speaker 2: his temporary order will remain in effect and that the

381
00:22:46,240 --> 00:22:51,600
Speaker 2: Trump administration can't keep deporting Venezuelans under that act.

382
00:22:51,920 --> 00:22:55,600
Speaker 3: Explain his reasoning, so, the judges reasoning was that the

383
00:22:55,840 --> 00:22:59,359
Speaker 3: harms that the plaintiffs were alleging that he found was

384
00:22:59,400 --> 00:23:03,040
Speaker 3: valid for the purposes of that temporary restraining order still existed.

385
00:23:03,160 --> 00:23:06,320
Speaker 3: He said that nothing had essentially been presented to change

386
00:23:06,320 --> 00:23:10,520
Speaker 3: his mind that the tro wasn't necessary, and it really

387
00:23:10,520 --> 00:23:14,600
Speaker 3: all boiled down to the judge's continued contention that these

388
00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:18,240
Speaker 3: individuals deserve to have some sort of due process before

389
00:23:18,320 --> 00:23:20,640
Speaker 3: they can be deported, that they need to be able

390
00:23:20,680 --> 00:23:23,280
Speaker 3: to argue that they are not in fact members of

391
00:23:23,280 --> 00:23:25,800
Speaker 3: that violence that isuel As gang. And we know that

392
00:23:25,840 --> 00:23:28,760
Speaker 3: the plaintiffs in the case have argued that they're not,

393
00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:33,000
Speaker 3: and many of the other individuals who have already been deported,

394
00:23:33,160 --> 00:23:34,960
Speaker 3: some of them were making the same claims too, that

395
00:23:35,000 --> 00:23:37,080
Speaker 3: they weren't members of the gang, that they had been

396
00:23:37,119 --> 00:23:40,600
Speaker 3: swept up for other reasons. So the judge says that

397
00:23:40,680 --> 00:23:42,960
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, in his view, they

398
00:23:43,000 --> 00:23:46,600
Speaker 3: deserve to have a hearing and cannot just be summarily

399
00:23:46,680 --> 00:23:48,160
Speaker 3: deported in this way.

400
00:23:48,960 --> 00:23:52,639
Speaker 2: Did he make any ruling on Trump's power to invoke

401
00:23:52,680 --> 00:23:54,320
Speaker 2: the Alien Enemies Act?

402
00:23:54,920 --> 00:23:57,320
Speaker 3: You know, he didn't. He said that at this stage

403
00:23:57,600 --> 00:24:00,600
Speaker 3: he wasn't going to make a ruling whether or not

404
00:24:00,760 --> 00:24:03,360
Speaker 3: any judge could rule on this. You know, Trump has

405
00:24:03,359 --> 00:24:06,240
Speaker 3: said that no one in the judiciary can question his

406
00:24:06,400 --> 00:24:09,080
Speaker 3: use of this act. Whether or not the Act is

407
00:24:09,080 --> 00:24:11,960
Speaker 3: being properly invoked? Is the question here? Are we in

408
00:24:11,960 --> 00:24:14,040
Speaker 3: a state of war? Is there an invasion of the

409
00:24:14,119 --> 00:24:16,960
Speaker 3: United States? You know, these are things that eventually we

410
00:24:17,040 --> 00:24:21,320
Speaker 3: might have arguments over whether or not it was properly invoked.

411
00:24:21,400 --> 00:24:23,639
Speaker 3: But the judge said, for the purposes of this ruling,

412
00:24:23,680 --> 00:24:27,359
Speaker 3: what matters is that, assuming that it was properly invoked,

413
00:24:27,520 --> 00:24:29,679
Speaker 3: you still have to give some sort of chance for

414
00:24:29,760 --> 00:24:33,320
Speaker 3: these individuals to argue that they aren't actually Part of

415
00:24:33,359 --> 00:24:34,560
Speaker 3: this game is.

416
00:24:34,520 --> 00:24:37,200
Speaker 2: Whether Trump can invoke the Alien Enemies Act. Is that

417
00:24:37,320 --> 00:24:40,760
Speaker 2: what the oral arguments in the DC circuit are about today.

418
00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:44,480
Speaker 3: I think they'll be focusing on all of the arguments.

419
00:24:44,480 --> 00:24:47,159
Speaker 3: I don't know which one, you know, the panel of

420
00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:51,439
Speaker 3: appellate judges will will focus on. But it seems to

421
00:24:51,480 --> 00:24:54,160
Speaker 3: me that just for the purposes of today's hearing whether

422
00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:58,120
Speaker 3: or not to stay that tro that judges might be

423
00:24:58,160 --> 00:25:01,360
Speaker 3: looking more closely at these claims that these plaintiffs are

424
00:25:01,359 --> 00:25:06,280
Speaker 3: not actually members of the gang, because arguably, if Trump

425
00:25:06,359 --> 00:25:10,560
Speaker 3: can invoke this law, the Alien Enemies Act, he could

426
00:25:10,800 --> 00:25:14,080
Speaker 3: deport members of the gang without having to go through

427
00:25:14,560 --> 00:25:18,840
Speaker 3: the usual immigration processes. But really it's a matter of

428
00:25:18,960 --> 00:25:21,359
Speaker 3: proving whether or not they're actually part of the gang.

429
00:25:21,520 --> 00:25:24,760
Speaker 3: So Judge Bozberg said that that was their strongest argument

430
00:25:24,880 --> 00:25:26,320
Speaker 3: so far, and.

431
00:25:26,480 --> 00:25:30,000
Speaker 2: He pointed out something that immigration lawyers have been pointing

432
00:25:30,040 --> 00:25:32,920
Speaker 2: out to me, which is that if they are gang members,

433
00:25:32,960 --> 00:25:36,280
Speaker 2: they're already subject to deportation as being a member of

434
00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:40,680
Speaker 2: a foreign terrorist organization. They don't need the Alien Enemies Act, right.

435
00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:43,840
Speaker 3: This Venezuelan gang is a known violent gang. It is real,

436
00:25:43,880 --> 00:25:48,320
Speaker 3: it is dangerous, it's been declared a terror organization, and

437
00:25:48,600 --> 00:25:52,560
Speaker 3: under the usual immigration laws, they can be deported, as

438
00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:54,560
Speaker 3: you said, and the judge pointed that out in his

439
00:25:54,640 --> 00:25:58,640
Speaker 3: decision to said, nothing in his pro prevents the government

440
00:25:58,720 --> 00:26:02,280
Speaker 3: from deporting these gang members or even from rounding the

441
00:26:02,320 --> 00:26:05,480
Speaker 3: month and attaining them. It really is just, in the

442
00:26:05,560 --> 00:26:10,360
Speaker 3: judge's view, this narrow issue about unilateral deportation without any

443
00:26:10,680 --> 00:26:13,320
Speaker 3: chance to argue that they're not a member of the gang.

444
00:26:13,400 --> 00:26:14,720
Speaker 3: That is what it boils down to.

445
00:26:15,240 --> 00:26:20,480
Speaker 2: So tell us about this extraordinary standoff last week between

446
00:26:20,640 --> 00:26:25,760
Speaker 2: government lawyers and Boseburg over information that he wanted about

447
00:26:25,800 --> 00:26:27,439
Speaker 2: the flight times. I don't know if he ever got

448
00:26:27,520 --> 00:26:28,160
Speaker 2: that information.

449
00:26:28,800 --> 00:26:30,679
Speaker 3: You know, I don't believe that he's gotten all of

450
00:26:30,680 --> 00:26:33,400
Speaker 3: his questions answered, and I think that's still very much

451
00:26:33,680 --> 00:26:36,200
Speaker 3: a live issue here in it. It may show up

452
00:26:36,520 --> 00:26:39,680
Speaker 3: and more of these court proceedings as the case progresses,

453
00:26:39,880 --> 00:26:42,520
Speaker 3: but you know, there is a possibility that the judge

454
00:26:42,560 --> 00:26:46,560
Speaker 3: could find that the government openly ignored his court orders.

455
00:26:46,600 --> 00:26:49,840
Speaker 3: The government doesn't believe that the judge has any rights

456
00:26:49,880 --> 00:26:53,879
Speaker 3: to interfere as they see it in this process at all.

457
00:26:54,240 --> 00:26:57,360
Speaker 3: So in his order to judge reiterated it is concerned

458
00:26:57,359 --> 00:27:00,640
Speaker 3: about when the flights had taken off and said that

459
00:27:00,880 --> 00:27:03,200
Speaker 3: in his view, the only reasonable way to look at

460
00:27:03,200 --> 00:27:06,080
Speaker 3: the details of what happened was that the government was

461
00:27:06,119 --> 00:27:09,960
Speaker 3: intentionally trying to rush these men onto the plane to

462
00:27:10,000 --> 00:27:12,800
Speaker 3: just get them in the air before an order could

463
00:27:12,840 --> 00:27:13,440
Speaker 3: be issued.

464
00:27:14,640 --> 00:27:19,160
Speaker 2: What seems ludicrous to me is that several news organizations

465
00:27:19,160 --> 00:27:22,399
Speaker 2: have already tracked down the flights when they left and

466
00:27:22,440 --> 00:27:25,320
Speaker 2: when they landed, so it's sort of in the public record.

467
00:27:25,920 --> 00:27:30,200
Speaker 2: Yet the government is refusing to hand over the information

468
00:27:31,040 --> 00:27:31,480
Speaker 2: so far.

469
00:27:31,880 --> 00:27:34,120
Speaker 3: I think that sums it up. I think that not

470
00:27:34,200 --> 00:27:36,920
Speaker 3: just the details, I think the judge also wants to

471
00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:40,000
Speaker 3: get a specific explanation as well, to get to the

472
00:27:40,000 --> 00:27:44,240
Speaker 3: bottom of whether someone made the call to ignore the order.

473
00:27:44,880 --> 00:27:48,160
Speaker 2: Is this the last thing happening in Judge Bozburg's courtroom?

474
00:27:48,359 --> 00:27:50,000
Speaker 2: Are they going to continue?

475
00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:55,359
Speaker 3: My expectation is that they're going to request the preliminary injunction,

476
00:27:55,600 --> 00:27:58,760
Speaker 3: something that would last much longer than the tro The

477
00:27:58,840 --> 00:28:02,720
Speaker 3: judge's decision today essentially invited the plaintiffs to make such

478
00:28:03,040 --> 00:28:06,320
Speaker 3: a request, and based on his findings so far, I

479
00:28:06,320 --> 00:28:09,120
Speaker 3: think it seems clear he's pretty open to issuing an

480
00:28:09,119 --> 00:28:15,240
Speaker 3: injunction which would prohibit the government long term from unilaterally

481
00:28:15,480 --> 00:28:19,520
Speaker 3: deporting these alleged gang members without giving them a chance

482
00:28:19,560 --> 00:28:21,479
Speaker 3: to prove that they're not part of the gang. So

483
00:28:22,080 --> 00:28:24,960
Speaker 3: I think that we'll see plenty more going on in

484
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:25,720
Speaker 3: his courtroom.

485
00:28:26,359 --> 00:28:31,280
Speaker 2: We have a new interim US Attorney for New Jersey.

486
00:28:31,680 --> 00:28:33,199
Speaker 2: Tell us who Alena Habba is.

487
00:28:34,160 --> 00:28:37,560
Speaker 3: So, Alena Habba is a lawyer from New Jersey. Most

488
00:28:37,600 --> 00:28:41,000
Speaker 3: recently she's been counselor to the President and then she

489
00:28:41,520 --> 00:28:44,600
Speaker 3: is now going to become, as you said, the US

490
00:28:44,640 --> 00:28:48,400
Speaker 3: attorney for New Jersey. But she's known Trump, I believe

491
00:28:48,440 --> 00:28:52,960
Speaker 3: since around twenty twenty one. She was a member of

492
00:28:53,600 --> 00:28:57,520
Speaker 3: his Bedminster golf Club in New Jersey. She met him there.

493
00:28:57,880 --> 00:29:01,000
Speaker 3: She'd been doing some legal work for other members there

494
00:29:01,000 --> 00:29:03,360
Speaker 3: and they had referred her to him. He had a

495
00:29:03,400 --> 00:29:06,120
Speaker 3: lot of litigation going on. She took over some of

496
00:29:06,160 --> 00:29:09,480
Speaker 3: the cases that others were working on. He wanted someone

497
00:29:09,480 --> 00:29:13,400
Speaker 3: who was more aggressive, and so she took over a

498
00:29:13,440 --> 00:29:17,200
Speaker 3: case involving some reservos who had accused him of sexual assault.

499
00:29:17,520 --> 00:29:21,200
Speaker 3: She went on to take over his representation in the

500
00:29:21,240 --> 00:29:26,000
Speaker 3: New York Attorney General's investigation into the Trump Organization for fraud,

501
00:29:26,640 --> 00:29:29,280
Speaker 3: and then of course she went on to represent Trump

502
00:29:29,520 --> 00:29:32,800
Speaker 3: in the lawsuits filed by EA Gene Carroll. So she

503
00:29:33,160 --> 00:29:35,400
Speaker 3: a lot. She's did a lot of work for him

504
00:29:35,640 --> 00:29:39,880
Speaker 3: in the years before his November election victory. He lost

505
00:29:40,240 --> 00:29:44,320
Speaker 3: those big cases and they're being appealed, but he didn't

506
00:29:44,360 --> 00:29:47,840
Speaker 3: blame PABA for that and blamed the system. And of

507
00:29:47,840 --> 00:29:50,480
Speaker 3: course when he won the election, he picked her to

508
00:29:50,480 --> 00:29:53,080
Speaker 3: be counselors of the President and now enter on the

509
00:29:53,160 --> 00:29:54,840
Speaker 3: US Attorney for New Jersey.

510
00:29:55,000 --> 00:30:01,640
Speaker 2: She has no criminal experience whatsoever. That's Todd Blanche and

511
00:30:01,640 --> 00:30:05,720
Speaker 2: Emil Beoufe also lost his cases, yet they're in among

512
00:30:05,760 --> 00:30:07,479
Speaker 2: the highest positions and the justice departments.

513
00:30:07,600 --> 00:30:10,800
Speaker 3: I think what he's looking for in these high level

514
00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:15,680
Speaker 3: legal positions. As president, he's looking for loyalty and looking

515
00:30:15,680 --> 00:30:19,160
Speaker 3: for how hard these lawyers fought for him in court,

516
00:30:19,360 --> 00:30:22,640
Speaker 3: sometimes to their own detriment, so that would seem to

517
00:30:22,680 --> 00:30:24,880
Speaker 3: be what he's looking for. I think that's true for

518
00:30:24,920 --> 00:30:27,280
Speaker 3: a lot of the positions all throughout the government and

519
00:30:27,320 --> 00:30:30,200
Speaker 3: the White House. So they really did go to that

520
00:30:30,400 --> 00:30:33,000
Speaker 3: for him. And we know that Trump does blame, as

521
00:30:33,040 --> 00:30:36,720
Speaker 3: he described it, bias judges, bias juries. You know, he

522
00:30:36,800 --> 00:30:40,960
Speaker 3: doesn't blame the lawyers for the outcomes of these cases.

523
00:30:41,680 --> 00:30:44,520
Speaker 2: Because she's been named as the interim US attorney, she

524
00:30:44,560 --> 00:30:48,440
Speaker 2: doesn't have to be confirmed by Congress.

525
00:30:48,880 --> 00:30:51,720
Speaker 3: That's my understanding, and I have no idea how long

526
00:30:51,840 --> 00:30:56,400
Speaker 3: she'll be in this position either, so remains to be seen.

527
00:30:56,760 --> 00:30:59,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe he's chosen several US attorneys in the

528
00:31:00,320 --> 00:31:04,720
Speaker 2: interim category, which you used during his first administration as well.

529
00:31:05,320 --> 00:31:08,760
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson,

530
00:31:09,360 --> 00:31:11,720
Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

531
00:31:12,040 --> 00:31:14,360
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

532
00:31:14,400 --> 00:31:18,720
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

533
00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:23,920
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast slash law,

534
00:31:24,320 --> 00:31:26,920
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

535
00:31:26,960 --> 00:31:30,880
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

536
00:31:31,000 --> 00:31:32,600
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg