1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:11,560 --> 00:00:14,000
Speaker 1: There have been an unending number of legal threats to

3
00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:19,640
Speaker 1: the Dakota Access pipeline since, and the pipeline faces continued

4
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:23,600
Speaker 1: threats to its existence even after surviving another shutdown battle

5
00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:27,080
Speaker 1: in federal court. A federal district court refused to halt

6
00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:31,520
Speaker 1: the oil pipeline last week, an important win for Dakota Access,

7
00:00:31,520 --> 00:00:34,640
Speaker 1: but an appeal or agency action could change its fate.

8
00:00:35,040 --> 00:00:38,440
Speaker 1: Joining me as Brandon Barnes, Bloomberg Intelligence Senior analyst for

9
00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:42,120
Speaker 1: energy litigation, Brandon tell us why the judge decided not

10
00:00:42,200 --> 00:00:45,639
Speaker 1: to shut down the pipeline. Well, there's a long underlying

11
00:00:45,720 --> 00:00:49,040
Speaker 1: history here with the same court and the same judge

12
00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:55,760
Speaker 1: dating well back into but this decision was predicated on

13
00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:58,880
Speaker 1: the fact that judge didn't believe he had the authority

14
00:00:59,720 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 1: to go so far as to stop the pipeline based

15
00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:06,160
Speaker 1: on the injuries that were being complained of by the

16
00:01:06,240 --> 00:01:08,560
Speaker 1: challenges here, which were some of the tribes. Why did

17
00:01:08,640 --> 00:01:11,840
Speaker 1: you think he had the authority? So a number of

18
00:01:11,880 --> 00:01:15,160
Speaker 1: the issues that the tribes had brought up as it

19
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:19,440
Speaker 1: relates to the environmental review that had been done. Um

20
00:01:19,520 --> 00:01:22,200
Speaker 1: that triggered this review to go back to the U. S.

21
00:01:22,319 --> 00:01:27,959
Speaker 1: Army Corps were possible injuries um and wouldn't rise, according

22
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:32,080
Speaker 1: to the court, to this level requiring a shutdown. So

23
00:01:32,200 --> 00:01:36,080
Speaker 1: you need an irreparable harm. You need you know, likelihood

24
00:01:36,160 --> 00:01:38,760
Speaker 1: that goes along with that in terms of the harm

25
00:01:38,840 --> 00:01:41,760
Speaker 1: that's out there, and not just a possible harm. The

26
00:01:41,760 --> 00:01:44,759
Speaker 1: the injuries that or the potential injuries that were being

27
00:01:44,760 --> 00:01:48,440
Speaker 1: claimed by the tribes were related to what if scenarios

28
00:01:48,640 --> 00:01:51,440
Speaker 1: that are you know, have chances attached them there you know,

29
00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:53,600
Speaker 1: one in a hundred thousand, one in a million based

30
00:01:53,640 --> 00:01:56,920
Speaker 1: on industry statistics. So this was a you know, the

31
00:01:56,960 --> 00:02:00,280
Speaker 1: likelihood of any of these issues being actually occur ring

32
00:02:00,320 --> 00:02:03,720
Speaker 1: and the harm accompanying it actually occurring was so low

33
00:02:03,760 --> 00:02:07,440
Speaker 1: that the judge couldn't then attach that to the legal

34
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:11,440
Speaker 1: standard for putting an injunction in place. The standing Rock

35
00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:15,200
Speaker 1: Sioux Tribe has been fighting this for years. Is it

36
00:02:15,320 --> 00:02:18,400
Speaker 1: likely that they'll appeal this decision? You know, that's a

37
00:02:18,600 --> 00:02:23,560
Speaker 1: I don't know that they've come out publicly as to that.

38
00:02:23,560 --> 00:02:29,200
Speaker 1: That question, however, certainly would would preserve their rights if

39
00:02:29,200 --> 00:02:32,840
Speaker 1: they were going to appeal. Um. They've they've essentially won

40
00:02:33,320 --> 00:02:37,760
Speaker 1: everything they've they've tried except for shutting the project down.

41
00:02:37,760 --> 00:02:41,480
Speaker 1: So they have in hand the idea that there is

42
00:02:41,520 --> 00:02:46,040
Speaker 1: no federal easement here and the because the environmental review

43
00:02:46,120 --> 00:02:50,760
Speaker 1: that underpinned the easement for this lake crossing was judged

44
00:02:50,760 --> 00:02:52,800
Speaker 1: in firm and they got that confirmed by the Court

45
00:02:52,800 --> 00:02:56,519
Speaker 1: of Appeals in April, but neither but the lower court

46
00:02:56,600 --> 00:03:01,079
Speaker 1: was not willing to go further to at b I.

47
00:03:01,200 --> 00:03:04,880
Speaker 1: It's unlikely that the Court of Appeals would would overturn

48
00:03:04,919 --> 00:03:06,960
Speaker 1: the lower court here because they've kind of gone with

49
00:03:06,960 --> 00:03:09,920
Speaker 1: what lower courts said to date for the most part.

50
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:12,280
Speaker 1: But certainly you know, that may be part of the

51
00:03:12,360 --> 00:03:15,320
Speaker 1: litigation strategy for the TRIST but it's in our view

52
00:03:15,320 --> 00:03:21,080
Speaker 1: it's unlikely that's going to be successful. Since federal judges

53
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:25,960
Speaker 1: have issued three different decisions concluding that the Dakota Access

54
00:03:26,120 --> 00:03:31,000
Speaker 1: Pipeline was permitted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act.

55
00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: So to most people, the question would be, well, if

56
00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:37,720
Speaker 1: it's in violation of NIPA, why is it still allowed

57
00:03:37,800 --> 00:03:42,600
Speaker 1: to go on? That question has been sort of bandied

58
00:03:42,640 --> 00:03:45,600
Speaker 1: about as a remedy issue back and forth between a

59
00:03:45,640 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: couple of courts and It's an interesting question because it's

60
00:03:47,840 --> 00:03:51,400
Speaker 1: not you're right. Typically, you know, NIPA violation is pretty

61
00:03:51,400 --> 00:03:54,360
Speaker 1: easy to kind of address, and that's where the court,

62
00:03:54,480 --> 00:03:57,800
Speaker 1: the lower court originally tripped up because what we're talking

63
00:03:57,800 --> 00:04:01,280
Speaker 1: about here isn't necessarily a permit. It's actually it's you know,

64
00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:04,600
Speaker 1: the land right. It's a property right because it's an easement.

65
00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:09,640
Speaker 1: The federal government owns Lake Owahi because they created it

66
00:04:09,680 --> 00:04:13,640
Speaker 1: back in the fifties via you know, a dam, and

67
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:17,240
Speaker 1: so the permission to go underneath that lake and use

68
00:04:17,360 --> 00:04:22,400
Speaker 1: that path be an easement or land right grant goes

69
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:27,240
Speaker 1: through a different regulatory structure under Army Corps. And so

70
00:04:28,080 --> 00:04:30,520
Speaker 1: what in fact has happened is, even though there's nep

71
00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:34,440
Speaker 1: A violations, there's a process that Army Corps has to

72
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:38,719
Speaker 1: decide what happens to an encroachment, which is, you know,

73
00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:43,599
Speaker 1: basically an illegal easement. You're on our land with something

74
00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:48,680
Speaker 1: some structure without permission, and so what Army Corps decided

75
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:51,760
Speaker 1: to do is nothing. And what that does is if

76
00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:54,880
Speaker 1: they make no decision on what to do with an encroachment,

77
00:04:55,400 --> 00:04:59,000
Speaker 1: and there can be no sort of legal ramifications after

78
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:01,159
Speaker 1: the fact, and that's something the judge lamented in his

79
00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:04,839
Speaker 1: opinion most recently, how does the Army Corps just decide

80
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:08,680
Speaker 1: not to do anything? Don't they have a responsibility? Well so,

81
00:05:09,040 --> 00:05:12,760
Speaker 1: they certainly do have a duty to do something, but

82
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 1: their take on this is revolved around, Look, you ordered

83
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:19,839
Speaker 1: us to go back and redo this environmental assessment and

84
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:23,040
Speaker 1: turn it into a much more robust environmental impact statement,

85
00:05:23,320 --> 00:05:24,839
Speaker 1: and that's going to take time. In fact, it's going

86
00:05:24,880 --> 00:05:27,920
Speaker 1: to take us until March at this point. So why

87
00:05:27,920 --> 00:05:30,000
Speaker 1: don't you let us do that and then decide what

88
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:32,880
Speaker 1: to do? And you know, that's sort of a it's

89
00:05:32,920 --> 00:05:35,600
Speaker 1: a good argument because it leaves the court and the

90
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:37,919
Speaker 1: challengers saying, well, you know, we can't force you to

91
00:05:37,960 --> 00:05:41,400
Speaker 1: make that decision on the current status of when we

92
00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:45,359
Speaker 1: forced you to make another report so and more robusts.

93
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:47,560
Speaker 1: So the interesting thing here, I think with all of

94
00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:50,200
Speaker 1: this is that there has been no real change in

95
00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:53,240
Speaker 1: heart with the change in administration in terms of how

96
00:05:53,320 --> 00:05:55,800
Speaker 1: Army Corps responded, saying that they will still continue to

97
00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:59,040
Speaker 1: support their stance, which is sort of a status quote

98
00:05:59,080 --> 00:06:02,080
Speaker 1: do nothing stance, but they have said that if something

99
00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:05,320
Speaker 1: comes up in this more robust process, they're certainly willing

100
00:06:05,360 --> 00:06:09,200
Speaker 1: to revisit. So the judge sort of scolded the Biden

101
00:06:09,200 --> 00:06:13,280
Speaker 1: administration for refusing to take a clear stance on the pipeline.

102
00:06:13,960 --> 00:06:16,720
Speaker 1: I had thought, maybe I have my pipeline is confused.

103
00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:19,560
Speaker 1: I had thought that in his first days in office,

104
00:06:20,240 --> 00:06:24,560
Speaker 1: Biden had issued an executive order about the Dakota Access pipeline.

105
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:29,279
Speaker 1: He issued an executive order restending the Keystone Excel permit,

106
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:34,000
Speaker 1: which was well within his powers to do so, because

107
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:38,880
Speaker 1: he's basically doing the mirror image of what President Trump

108
00:06:38,920 --> 00:06:44,680
Speaker 1: had done for Keystone, which is exercising executive power to

109
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:48,320
Speaker 1: issue a permit to cross the border for an energy project,

110
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 1: and by circumventing sort of the U. S. State Department

111
00:06:52,880 --> 00:06:56,000
Speaker 1: process which President Trump did to issue that March I

112
00:06:56,040 --> 00:07:00,440
Speaker 1: think twenty nineteen permit presidential permit um that set that

113
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:03,599
Speaker 1: permit up for being able to be rescinded by President

114
00:07:03,600 --> 00:07:09,560
Speaker 1: Biden with very little, UH procedure or oversight around it. Um.

115
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:11,520
Speaker 1: That is not the case of the Code Access because

116
00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:16,880
Speaker 1: right now we're not in a place where yet, you know,

117
00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:20,280
Speaker 1: Army Corps can do something because they they've got this

118
00:07:20,440 --> 00:07:26,040
Speaker 1: pending environmental review on their plate um. So they could

119
00:07:26,080 --> 00:07:27,720
Speaker 1: have taken more of a stance in front of the

120
00:07:27,760 --> 00:07:31,080
Speaker 1: court here, but they did not, and maybe that's sort

121
00:07:31,080 --> 00:07:33,440
Speaker 1: of in deference to the work that the Army Corps

122
00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:36,720
Speaker 1: done over the years. Anyway, cording to analysis last week

123
00:07:36,760 --> 00:07:40,800
Speaker 1: by clear View Energy Partners, it said Dakota Access opponents

124
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:43,960
Speaker 1: could also get creative in the courtroom and raise an

125
00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:48,480
Speaker 1: Administrative Procedure Act claim that challenges the Army Corps in

126
00:07:48,520 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 1: action in response to the encroachment on federal land. Is

127
00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:55,400
Speaker 1: that a possibility in your mind? I think it is.

128
00:07:55,520 --> 00:07:58,120
Speaker 1: I think so the form they could more formally raise

129
00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:01,480
Speaker 1: that as an issue, um, it is. It has been

130
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:04,760
Speaker 1: discussed at the lower court as but only part of

131
00:08:04,760 --> 00:08:06,640
Speaker 1: the remedy phace. So it's really you know, it's kind

132
00:08:06,640 --> 00:08:11,120
Speaker 1: of we're talking about legal shades of gray here. But

133
00:08:11,200 --> 00:08:13,600
Speaker 1: to really get at and get a ruling of final

134
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:16,600
Speaker 1: ruling from court on the issue of Army Corps not

135
00:08:16,720 --> 00:08:20,680
Speaker 1: moving fast enough or moving at all, um, they would

136
00:08:20,720 --> 00:08:22,360
Speaker 1: have to file that sort of a separate claimant that

137
00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:25,440
Speaker 1: I'm within the remedy portion of the lower court in

138
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:29,440
Speaker 1: this bigger case. Uh, you know, I think you could

139
00:08:29,480 --> 00:08:32,600
Speaker 1: do that, but the Army Corps is going to be

140
00:08:32,640 --> 00:08:36,720
Speaker 1: given a lot of leeway here and the fact that

141
00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:40,760
Speaker 1: they've got a pending environmental review that they're doing, and

142
00:08:40,800 --> 00:08:43,400
Speaker 1: that's going to give them a much better set of

143
00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:46,640
Speaker 1: information and data to work with because it's supposed to

144
00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:51,560
Speaker 1: be more robust. UM. But environmental groups have been you know,

145
00:08:51,679 --> 00:08:54,160
Speaker 1: this this case and many others involving pipelines, have been

146
00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:58,280
Speaker 1: very creative and they have not shirked on spending the

147
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:00,880
Speaker 1: resources on these different cases. I wouldn't be surprised if

148
00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:05,959
Speaker 1: that happened. I would not give it great odds of

149
00:09:06,040 --> 00:09:08,920
Speaker 1: success at this point. Kind of thinking it through theoretically though,

150
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 1: so was this lawsuit the greatest threat to the pipeline? Yes,

151
00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 1: in this the short answer at the at at all points,

152
00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:25,560
Speaker 1: this was really the threat because it reaches all the

153
00:09:25,559 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 1: way back to preconstruction and permitting. UM. Now that this

154
00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:33,439
Speaker 1: is sort of out of the way, although obviously appeals

155
00:09:33,440 --> 00:09:40,000
Speaker 1: are available, the newest threat is what happens with a

156
00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:44,280
Speaker 1: President Biden administration Army Corps when they get the chance

157
00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:48,360
Speaker 1: to do take over this environmental impact teament. How does

158
00:09:48,400 --> 00:09:50,960
Speaker 1: that play out? They've mentioned this is going to be

159
00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:55,360
Speaker 1: probably at least until March until we see anything from

160
00:09:55,400 --> 00:09:57,760
Speaker 1: them in terms of a final decision, But they've got

161
00:09:57,800 --> 00:10:00,760
Speaker 1: a lot of works to before them, which includes consultation

162
00:10:00,800 --> 00:10:06,120
Speaker 1: with various parties, including the Native American tribes, and they've

163
00:10:06,160 --> 00:10:09,360
Speaker 1: got a lot of public comments to take. So that

164
00:10:09,720 --> 00:10:11,959
Speaker 1: process is going to play out, and there's a lot

165
00:10:11,960 --> 00:10:15,559
Speaker 1: of uncertainty there around what the end products will look like.

166
00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:18,559
Speaker 1: And so now the biggest threat is probably outside of

167
00:10:18,559 --> 00:10:20,880
Speaker 1: the court is now back in the agency hands. So

168
00:10:21,080 --> 00:10:24,280
Speaker 1: let me ask you this, the Army Corps of Engineers.

169
00:10:24,800 --> 00:10:26,640
Speaker 1: I sort of think of the Army Corps of Engineers

170
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:30,880
Speaker 1: as being not partisan, but does their position change depending

171
00:10:30,920 --> 00:10:34,120
Speaker 1: on the administration or the way they approach things change?

172
00:10:35,520 --> 00:10:36,640
Speaker 1: You know? Do you know I would have thought of

173
00:10:36,679 --> 00:10:39,800
Speaker 1: a lot of different agencies non Parson before the past

174
00:10:39,840 --> 00:10:44,040
Speaker 1: few years. I feel like we've had a bit of

175
00:10:44,080 --> 00:10:46,240
Speaker 1: a seismic shift on that if you think of what's

176
00:10:46,240 --> 00:10:50,200
Speaker 1: happening with FIRK these days as well. But you know,

177
00:10:50,720 --> 00:10:54,480
Speaker 1: Army Corps has been involved in this bankline since before

178
00:10:54,480 --> 00:10:57,679
Speaker 1: it was built, and just based on who was in

179
00:10:57,840 --> 00:11:03,840
Speaker 1: office pushing the button or directing Army Corps policy, we

180
00:11:03,920 --> 00:11:08,360
Speaker 1: had a change at the snap of a finger between

181
00:11:08,400 --> 00:11:11,079
Speaker 1: the Obama administration the Trump administration in terms of what

182
00:11:11,120 --> 00:11:15,240
Speaker 1: was being ordered done on the ground for these environmental reviews,

183
00:11:16,200 --> 00:11:18,120
Speaker 1: and you know, for Army Corps, they're really just these

184
00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:22,160
Speaker 1: are procedural changes, not necessarily substanti decision making changes. But

185
00:11:22,960 --> 00:11:25,640
Speaker 1: you know, those can those can mean a lot of

186
00:11:25,880 --> 00:11:29,200
Speaker 1: different things for these projects once those play out in

187
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:32,480
Speaker 1: the courts after the fact. So I think I would

188
00:11:32,520 --> 00:11:34,400
Speaker 1: never say the Army Corps is partisan, but I think

189
00:11:34,440 --> 00:11:37,480
Speaker 1: that they have the ability to look at something like

190
00:11:37,520 --> 00:11:41,000
Speaker 1: an environmental review and the information that comes in from

191
00:11:41,040 --> 00:11:43,760
Speaker 1: a different angle if they need, if they're directed to,

192
00:11:43,840 --> 00:11:45,959
Speaker 1: which I think that wouldn't be surprised if that's how

193
00:11:45,960 --> 00:11:51,480
Speaker 1: this administration would would want them to go. So bottom line,

194
00:11:51,520 --> 00:11:54,840
Speaker 1: we can say that the Dakota Access pipeline is in

195
00:11:54,920 --> 00:11:59,760
Speaker 1: the clear for now until the spring of I think

196
00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:01,720
Speaker 1: that right. I think bottom line, they're in the clear

197
00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:05,200
Speaker 1: until at least then, and then you know, and then

198
00:12:05,240 --> 00:12:09,959
Speaker 1: it's back into the uncertainty around around shipping anything via

199
00:12:10,040 --> 00:12:13,920
Speaker 1: pipeline these days, very difficult to to be able to

200
00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:17,000
Speaker 1: kind of get any certainty out of the midstream world.

201
00:12:17,480 --> 00:12:19,679
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg Glass Show, Brandon.

202
00:12:20,040 --> 00:12:24,320
Speaker 1: That's Brandon Barnes Bloomberg Intelligence Senior analyst for energy litigation.

203
00:12:26,280 --> 00:12:29,280
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court sided with the government on Monday and

204
00:12:29,320 --> 00:12:33,600
Speaker 1: found that an immigrant to was wrongfully deported in can

205
00:12:33,640 --> 00:12:37,440
Speaker 1: be charged with re entering the country illegally. Joining me

206
00:12:37,480 --> 00:12:40,920
Speaker 1: is Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. The facts

207
00:12:40,960 --> 00:12:45,239
Speaker 1: here are a bit confusing. Tell us about the applicant

208
00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:48,200
Speaker 1: here the plaintiff. Sure, so, the plaintiff was a man

209
00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:52,320
Speaker 1: named Refudio Palomars Bantiago, and he was a person who

210
00:12:52,400 --> 00:12:56,000
Speaker 1: had a green card when he lived in the United States.

211
00:12:56,120 --> 00:12:59,520
Speaker 1: But what happened was he was convicted of a felony

212
00:12:59,679 --> 00:13:04,000
Speaker 1: dry thing under the influence charge, which back then was

213
00:13:04,120 --> 00:13:06,920
Speaker 1: thought of as a crime of violence. So it was

214
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:12,280
Speaker 1: considered an aggravated felony. And because of that, he was

215
00:13:12,320 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 1: deported to Mexico. And he was deported to Mexico. But

216
00:13:17,760 --> 00:13:22,120
Speaker 1: then what happened was in two thousand four, there was

217
00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:26,440
Speaker 1: a U. S. Supreme Court case called Leatal versus Ashcroft,

218
00:13:27,040 --> 00:13:32,520
Speaker 1: which said that a driving under the influence conviction isn't

219
00:13:32,600 --> 00:13:36,439
Speaker 1: a crime of violence because you're not intending violence. Yes,

220
00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:39,920
Speaker 1: violent acts may happen with your car while you're driving

221
00:13:40,000 --> 00:13:44,200
Speaker 1: under the influence, but the person really only intends to

222
00:13:44,840 --> 00:13:48,800
Speaker 1: drink and drive, They don't intense actually hurt somebody, So

223
00:13:48,880 --> 00:13:53,120
Speaker 1: you can't call that a aggravated felony crime of violence.

224
00:13:53,600 --> 00:13:57,480
Speaker 1: And so what happened was this person's conviction, Mr Palomar

225
00:13:57,640 --> 00:14:01,640
Speaker 1: Santiago was actually no longer under the basis for a

226
00:14:01,760 --> 00:14:06,280
Speaker 1: removal order. Meanings, had Mr Palomar Santiago not been removed,

227
00:14:06,600 --> 00:14:10,040
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have been able to remove Palomar Santiago because

228
00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:15,680
Speaker 1: the conviction wasn't a proper basis for his removal. So

229
00:14:15,880 --> 00:14:22,280
Speaker 1: we fast forward and in ten, Mr Palomar Santiago actually

230
00:14:22,640 --> 00:14:28,080
Speaker 1: crosses illegally into the United States and he's prosecuted for this,

231
00:14:28,320 --> 00:14:32,440
Speaker 1: and they say, you can't cross the United States illegally

232
00:14:32,560 --> 00:14:36,720
Speaker 1: if you've already been deported. That's a crime. And so

233
00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:40,600
Speaker 1: what happened was he tried to make a very creative defense,

234
00:14:40,960 --> 00:14:45,640
Speaker 1: which was wait a second, I wasn't deported because the

235
00:14:45,720 --> 00:14:50,040
Speaker 1: deportation order against me was invalid. If you had tried

236
00:14:50,040 --> 00:14:53,880
Speaker 1: to enter this deportation order, now there's no way you

237
00:14:53,960 --> 00:14:57,360
Speaker 1: could have entered it. And so because of that, there

238
00:14:57,520 --> 00:15:02,600
Speaker 1: is no way I should be allowed to be prosecuted

239
00:15:02,640 --> 00:15:05,680
Speaker 1: for entering illegally with a removal order because I don't

240
00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:08,920
Speaker 1: have a removal order. So tell us what the Ninth

241
00:15:08,960 --> 00:15:12,720
Speaker 1: Circuit ruled. So what happened was there's a split in

242
00:15:12,760 --> 00:15:17,680
Speaker 1: the circuit, and every other circuit held that you can't

243
00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:23,280
Speaker 1: challenge a prosecution on the basis of illegally re entering

244
00:15:23,320 --> 00:15:27,520
Speaker 1: with a removal order. If you are saying that, it's

245
00:15:27,560 --> 00:15:32,040
Speaker 1: because the removal order in the past was now subsequently

246
00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:36,400
Speaker 1: invalidated by a Supreme Court decision. So that's what the

247
00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:39,600
Speaker 1: other circuits held. But the Ninth Circuit held that, yes,

248
00:15:39,640 --> 00:15:43,720
Speaker 1: you can, you can challenge that order because what had

249
00:15:43,760 --> 00:15:49,920
Speaker 1: happened was the conviction being vacated makes it so that

250
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:53,680
Speaker 1: there actually is no removal order to challenge, meaning you're

251
00:15:53,720 --> 00:15:58,000
Speaker 1: not actually challenging a removal order. There just is no

252
00:15:58,120 --> 00:16:02,040
Speaker 1: removal order. It doesn't exist. Hence, what happens is you

253
00:16:02,120 --> 00:16:06,120
Speaker 1: can't be prosecuted for entering with the removal order because

254
00:16:06,120 --> 00:16:10,120
Speaker 1: the removal order has already been eliminated by operation of law.

255
00:16:10,520 --> 00:16:12,800
Speaker 1: That was the theory that the Ninth Circuit had put

256
00:16:12,800 --> 00:16:15,840
Speaker 1: in the play, and so the Supreme Court needed to

257
00:16:15,840 --> 00:16:19,200
Speaker 1: resolve the circuit split. I know there's a circuit split,

258
00:16:19,280 --> 00:16:22,400
Speaker 1: but it seems like this scenario wouldn't apply in that

259
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:27,600
Speaker 1: many cases. It depends because it currently doesn't apply in

260
00:16:27,640 --> 00:16:30,680
Speaker 1: a lot of cases, and now because of this Supreme

261
00:16:30,680 --> 00:16:36,360
Speaker 1: Court holding, it won't apply in many cases. But interestingly,

262
00:16:37,200 --> 00:16:39,880
Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court that held that you can re

263
00:16:40,120 --> 00:16:43,960
Speaker 1: enter the United States illegally in order to sort of

264
00:16:44,040 --> 00:16:48,520
Speaker 1: reclaim your green card status because your removal order goes away,

265
00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:54,120
Speaker 1: you might have seen several thousand individuals try this, because

266
00:16:54,160 --> 00:16:58,440
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people who have been deported who

267
00:16:58,600 --> 00:17:03,240
Speaker 1: subsequently because of this lecal drinking and driving case, and

268
00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:08,359
Speaker 1: then there are subsequent cases involving drawn and burglary and

269
00:17:08,680 --> 00:17:12,760
Speaker 1: possession of tools and this kind of thing. There's a

270
00:17:12,800 --> 00:17:15,040
Speaker 1: lot of people, I would say, at least in the

271
00:17:15,119 --> 00:17:18,520
Speaker 1: tens of thousands, who have been deported from the United

272
00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:22,760
Speaker 1: States in the past with orders that are now no

273
00:17:22,840 --> 00:17:27,680
Speaker 1: longer valid removal orders and so, and what they would

274
00:17:27,720 --> 00:17:30,359
Speaker 1: have gotten was a message that would have said, just

275
00:17:30,760 --> 00:17:33,560
Speaker 1: enter the United States. Find some way to enter. So

276
00:17:33,800 --> 00:17:35,520
Speaker 1: that's how they would have done it, to try to

277
00:17:35,640 --> 00:17:39,040
Speaker 1: reclaim their green card status instead of trying to follow

278
00:17:39,440 --> 00:17:42,480
Speaker 1: a more formal process. Which is what's known as the

279
00:17:42,520 --> 00:17:47,520
Speaker 1: motion to reopen process, which gives discretion to the Board

280
00:17:47,520 --> 00:17:51,159
Speaker 1: of Immigration appealc either granted or not granted. And so

281
00:17:51,320 --> 00:17:54,480
Speaker 1: that's the issue is that is not a certain thing.

282
00:17:54,600 --> 00:17:58,680
Speaker 1: It requires discretion. Whereas if this decision had been decided

283
00:17:58,720 --> 00:18:02,159
Speaker 1: in favor of the foreign national, then it would have

284
00:18:02,200 --> 00:18:05,120
Speaker 1: been a guarantee thing that if you enter the United States,

285
00:18:05,520 --> 00:18:09,480
Speaker 1: you're triggering back your green card, because the basis for

286
00:18:09,640 --> 00:18:13,359
Speaker 1: saying that you can't be convicted under the statute is

287
00:18:13,359 --> 00:18:16,720
Speaker 1: that you don't have a removal order meeting, you automatically

288
00:18:16,840 --> 00:18:19,600
Speaker 1: got your green card back. So tell us what the

289
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:24,000
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decided. So what's the Supreme Court decided was

290
00:18:24,280 --> 00:18:28,240
Speaker 1: that the statute the way it's written, which requires three

291
00:18:28,359 --> 00:18:32,840
Speaker 1: different elements in order for someone to challenge a removal

292
00:18:32,960 --> 00:18:35,640
Speaker 1: order as part of one of these persecutions, is a

293
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:41,840
Speaker 1: very clear statute, and that statute requires all three things

294
00:18:41,880 --> 00:18:46,440
Speaker 1: to be done by the person who's challenging it. Number One,

295
00:18:46,560 --> 00:18:50,360
Speaker 1: that they had to exhaust any administrative remedies that they

296
00:18:50,400 --> 00:18:54,879
Speaker 1: had before challenging it, meaning that when the removal order

297
00:18:55,000 --> 00:18:59,200
Speaker 1: was first given, they had to appeal the removal order

298
00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:02,399
Speaker 1: to the Board of it Aggration Appeals. Second, that the

299
00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:07,719
Speaker 1: removal proceedings improperly depride them of the opportunity for judicial review,

300
00:19:08,240 --> 00:19:10,520
Speaker 1: meaning not only did they have to appeal to the

301
00:19:10,520 --> 00:19:13,159
Speaker 1: Board of Immigration Appeals, they actually have to take a

302
00:19:13,200 --> 00:19:16,600
Speaker 1: petition for review in the Court of Appeals and lose

303
00:19:16,640 --> 00:19:19,600
Speaker 1: that too. And then three, that entry of the order

304
00:19:19,680 --> 00:19:23,400
Speaker 1: was fundamentally unfair, and so they had already won under

305
00:19:23,440 --> 00:19:26,439
Speaker 1: that third prong that it was unfair because obviously the

306
00:19:26,480 --> 00:19:29,679
Speaker 1: court decided that the basis for the removal order no

307
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:34,679
Speaker 1: longer existed. But these individuals had lost under the first

308
00:19:34,800 --> 00:19:37,919
Speaker 1: and the second prong as well everyone else, because everyone

309
00:19:37,920 --> 00:19:40,840
Speaker 1: who's gone through the criminal process will have had an

310
00:19:40,880 --> 00:19:46,480
Speaker 1: opportunity to administratively exhaust the remedies and go to the

311
00:19:46,520 --> 00:19:49,320
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals. And so from that standpoint, what the

312
00:19:49,359 --> 00:19:52,800
Speaker 1: court is basically saying is this isn't the way we

313
00:19:52,840 --> 00:19:57,480
Speaker 1: wanted to challenge and the removal order that became invalid.

314
00:19:57,920 --> 00:20:00,400
Speaker 1: What we wanted to do is to file these oceans

315
00:20:00,400 --> 00:20:04,160
Speaker 1: to reopen in the Board of Immigration Appeals. We don't

316
00:20:04,160 --> 00:20:07,200
Speaker 1: want to just meeking in the country and then saying

317
00:20:07,240 --> 00:20:10,240
Speaker 1: your green card has been returned because you snuck into

318
00:20:10,280 --> 00:20:14,080
Speaker 1: the country. So now is it surprising that this was

319
00:20:14,280 --> 00:20:18,040
Speaker 1: unanimous and that the majority opinion was written by Justice Sonia.

320
00:20:18,160 --> 00:20:21,199
Speaker 1: So to Mayor, the reason I think this ended up

321
00:20:21,240 --> 00:20:25,320
Speaker 1: being a unanimous opinion is for two reasons. One, I

322
00:20:25,400 --> 00:20:28,320
Speaker 1: do think there's a desire amongst the members of the court,

323
00:20:28,359 --> 00:20:31,959
Speaker 1: given a polarized things, are to try to compromise in

324
00:20:32,040 --> 00:20:37,040
Speaker 1: cases where compromise is available. And here all the Court

325
00:20:37,119 --> 00:20:40,600
Speaker 1: really did is say the statute says what the statute says.

326
00:20:40,880 --> 00:20:44,040
Speaker 1: If you want to come back later and to on

327
00:20:44,200 --> 00:20:48,719
Speaker 1: a theory that it's unconstitutional in a particular case because

328
00:20:48,760 --> 00:20:52,120
Speaker 1: it's so unfair that this person should have an opportunity

329
00:20:52,119 --> 00:20:54,679
Speaker 1: to get their green card back, do it. But what

330
00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:57,000
Speaker 1: you can't do is do what the Ninth Circuit said

331
00:20:57,320 --> 00:21:00,440
Speaker 1: and say that the statute doesn't really mean what it needs. Yes,

332
00:21:00,480 --> 00:21:02,879
Speaker 1: it does. And so if you think that the result

333
00:21:03,000 --> 00:21:07,320
Speaker 1: is an unconstitutional, you aconian result, you can come back

334
00:21:07,359 --> 00:21:10,440
Speaker 1: and sue and say that and say the result here

335
00:21:10,560 --> 00:21:15,040
Speaker 1: was unconstitutional because it's so aconian it violates the process.

336
00:21:15,119 --> 00:21:17,159
Speaker 1: You can do that. But what you can't do is

337
00:21:17,240 --> 00:21:20,719
Speaker 1: reinterpret the meaning of a very clear statue. And so

338
00:21:20,800 --> 00:21:23,520
Speaker 1: that's Why I think you saw the nine to zero

339
00:21:24,280 --> 00:21:27,399
Speaker 1: is the ruling ends up being very very narrow. It

340
00:21:27,440 --> 00:21:30,919
Speaker 1: doesn't go into the constitutional realm. It leads that for

341
00:21:30,960 --> 00:21:35,399
Speaker 1: another day and tea. It provides a sign of good

342
00:21:35,480 --> 00:21:39,280
Speaker 1: faith from the more liberal wing of the court, we

343
00:21:39,440 --> 00:21:43,199
Speaker 1: will join you when we can. We're asking you on

344
00:21:43,240 --> 00:21:46,119
Speaker 1: a future case to join us when you can. And

345
00:21:46,160 --> 00:21:47,800
Speaker 1: I think you've seen that in a couple of these

346
00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:52,600
Speaker 1: other immigration cases, where you've had Justice Course that reach out,

347
00:21:52,640 --> 00:21:55,160
Speaker 1: where you've had Justice Robert reach out, where you've had

348
00:21:55,200 --> 00:21:58,480
Speaker 1: Justice Cony Barrett reach out, and so I do think

349
00:21:58,520 --> 00:22:01,639
Speaker 1: you're seeing some of this fourth trading going on in

350
00:22:01,640 --> 00:22:07,520
Speaker 1: the immigration real This case span the Trump and Biden administrations,

351
00:22:07,560 --> 00:22:12,200
Speaker 1: and the Biden administration has changed positions in several cases,

352
00:22:12,280 --> 00:22:14,639
Speaker 1: but not in this case. Why do you think it

353
00:22:14,720 --> 00:22:18,120
Speaker 1: chose not to change positions in this case? I think

354
00:22:18,160 --> 00:22:21,920
Speaker 1: for the same reason that Justice sort of myorrothy opinion here,

355
00:22:22,200 --> 00:22:25,080
Speaker 1: which is that the statute is clear. So when you

356
00:22:25,200 --> 00:22:28,760
Speaker 1: have a statute that's clear, the Department of Justice, even

357
00:22:28,800 --> 00:22:31,679
Speaker 1: if they don't like what the statute says, has an

358
00:22:31,720 --> 00:22:35,280
Speaker 1: obligation to defend the clear statute. There is a separate

359
00:22:35,359 --> 00:22:39,000
Speaker 1: question as to whether the statute is unconstitutional. But the

360
00:22:39,119 --> 00:22:42,960
Speaker 1: way that should be resolved, in my view, especially by

361
00:22:43,080 --> 00:22:46,879
Speaker 1: this Department of Justice, is to just instruct the Board

362
00:22:46,880 --> 00:22:51,000
Speaker 1: of Immigration Appeal whenever you have a motion to reopen

363
00:22:51,720 --> 00:22:54,800
Speaker 1: on the basis of a conviction that no longer is valid,

364
00:22:55,080 --> 00:22:57,320
Speaker 1: you should reopen the case and give the person their

365
00:22:57,359 --> 00:23:00,480
Speaker 1: green card back. And that's the way they can solve that,

366
00:23:00,720 --> 00:23:03,280
Speaker 1: and they should issue that guidance. I would encourage them

367
00:23:03,320 --> 00:23:06,920
Speaker 1: to do that, and that way you eliminate this horrible,

368
00:23:06,960 --> 00:23:10,400
Speaker 1: perverse incentive for the way people to get their green

369
00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:13,600
Speaker 1: card back would be to sneak across the country. What

370
00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:17,960
Speaker 1: are the long term implications here as far as federal prosecutors,

371
00:23:18,240 --> 00:23:23,560
Speaker 1: are they more likely to pursue criminal reentry charges? Yes?

372
00:23:23,680 --> 00:23:27,119
Speaker 1: I think Now what you will see is that as

373
00:23:27,280 --> 00:23:33,040
Speaker 1: the immigration enforcement portfolio moves away from the interior, because

374
00:23:33,119 --> 00:23:36,800
Speaker 1: the Biden administration doesn't want to be deporting people who

375
00:23:36,840 --> 00:23:39,920
Speaker 1: have roots into the United States, and as that portfolio

376
00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:43,160
Speaker 1: moves to the border, what you will see is more

377
00:23:43,240 --> 00:23:46,080
Speaker 1: of these prosecutions in cases where the government has spent

378
00:23:46,200 --> 00:23:50,760
Speaker 1: resources in trying to already remove someone from the United States.

379
00:23:50,800 --> 00:23:53,520
Speaker 1: And what I think will be key is this balanced

380
00:23:53,520 --> 00:23:56,760
Speaker 1: perspective where you say, the reason we're doing this is

381
00:23:56,800 --> 00:24:00,159
Speaker 1: because you have this other avenue available to you, and

382
00:24:00,240 --> 00:24:02,640
Speaker 1: so you should have used this other avenue. You shouldn't

383
00:24:02,640 --> 00:24:05,439
Speaker 1: be speaking across the border. That creates all kinds of

384
00:24:05,480 --> 00:24:08,399
Speaker 1: problems with people trying to speak across the border that

385
00:24:08,480 --> 00:24:12,360
Speaker 1: we'd rather prevent. Has there been a difference in enforcement

386
00:24:13,440 --> 00:24:18,920
Speaker 1: under the immigration enforcement under the Biden administration. Absolutely, there

387
00:24:18,920 --> 00:24:21,879
Speaker 1: has been a huge difference in enforcement, and in fact,

388
00:24:21,920 --> 00:24:26,000
Speaker 1: there's actually some new stories today about this difference in enforcement,

389
00:24:26,000 --> 00:24:29,240
Speaker 1: about how the numbers are at historic lows with regard

390
00:24:29,359 --> 00:24:32,879
Speaker 1: to interior enforcement, meaning people who are living in the

391
00:24:32,920 --> 00:24:36,879
Speaker 1: United States being placed into removal proceedings and being removed

392
00:24:37,080 --> 00:24:40,840
Speaker 1: outside of the United States. You're seeing dramatic decreases, and

393
00:24:40,920 --> 00:24:44,639
Speaker 1: that almost historic decreases that you haven't seen for twenty

394
00:24:44,720 --> 00:24:47,640
Speaker 1: or thirty years. On that frame, there used to be

395
00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:51,359
Speaker 1: this rule of thumb that Ice would or Sugar could

396
00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:55,359
Speaker 1: deport four hundred thousand people per year, and we're talking

397
00:24:55,400 --> 00:24:58,920
Speaker 1: about maybe forty thousand this year. So it's a dramatic

398
00:24:58,960 --> 00:25:01,919
Speaker 1: decrease in the number of people being removed from the

399
00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:06,120
Speaker 1: United States. And we haven't heard much lately, maybe because

400
00:25:06,119 --> 00:25:08,640
Speaker 1: there's so much other news that we haven't heard about

401
00:25:08,680 --> 00:25:12,600
Speaker 1: the situation at the border. Is it still untenable at

402
00:25:12,600 --> 00:25:16,280
Speaker 1: the border? Well, the complication with the border right now

403
00:25:16,680 --> 00:25:21,040
Speaker 1: is that the processing of individuals is actually moving much

404
00:25:21,080 --> 00:25:23,840
Speaker 1: faster than they used to, and so it becomes a

405
00:25:23,880 --> 00:25:27,960
Speaker 1: more complicated debate because then the debate becomes solely about

406
00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:31,199
Speaker 1: are the numbers of individuals growing up at the border

407
00:25:31,640 --> 00:25:35,920
Speaker 1: unacceptable visa the Some desire to keep that number down

408
00:25:35,960 --> 00:25:39,520
Speaker 1: to zero, but it's not a problem anymore in terms

409
00:25:39,600 --> 00:25:42,840
Speaker 1: of the processing speed of getting people out of facilities

410
00:25:43,080 --> 00:25:47,440
Speaker 1: that have terrible conditions, that's moving quite quickly through the process.

411
00:25:47,720 --> 00:25:50,399
Speaker 1: And so there's nowhere you can film as a video

412
00:25:50,480 --> 00:25:54,919
Speaker 1: group to show a border catastrophe right now. And that

413
00:25:55,160 --> 00:25:59,040
Speaker 1: is actually creating quite a political conundrum because you have

414
00:25:59,520 --> 00:26:02,920
Speaker 1: individual was on one end of the political spectrum saying, yeah,

415
00:26:02,960 --> 00:26:04,960
Speaker 1: but that doesn't matter. There's still going to be over

416
00:26:05,000 --> 00:26:08,840
Speaker 1: a million people coming near illegally entering the United States

417
00:26:08,880 --> 00:26:12,119
Speaker 1: New Years, and so they'll make, from an American perspective,

418
00:26:12,160 --> 00:26:16,480
Speaker 1: a claim that that's unacceptable, and you'll have other individuals saying,

419
00:26:16,520 --> 00:26:18,600
Speaker 1: what is the problem they're going to go through the

420
00:26:18,640 --> 00:26:21,719
Speaker 1: system and hopefully they will show up the court and

421
00:26:21,840 --> 00:26:24,240
Speaker 1: if they win, they'll say and if they lose, they'll

422
00:26:24,240 --> 00:26:27,000
Speaker 1: be deported. And so that will be the argument on

423
00:26:27,040 --> 00:26:29,119
Speaker 1: the other side, and it will just be up to

424
00:26:29,160 --> 00:26:31,880
Speaker 1: the American people to decide if that's the way they

425
00:26:31,920 --> 00:26:35,560
Speaker 1: wanted the southern border to be processed or that, because

426
00:26:35,600 --> 00:26:38,399
Speaker 1: that's basically what we're setting up to have happened for

427
00:26:38,440 --> 00:26:41,720
Speaker 1: the remainder of the year, a million compared to what

428
00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:48,480
Speaker 1: in other years. So historically talking about the nineties and

429
00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:51,840
Speaker 1: the first decade of the thousands, that was what we

430
00:26:51,840 --> 00:26:54,680
Speaker 1: were seeing. We were seeing about a million people being

431
00:26:54,720 --> 00:26:59,400
Speaker 1: apprehended trying to cross the border. Those numbers decreased dramatically,

432
00:26:59,520 --> 00:27:02,520
Speaker 1: both of them of the Obama administration and the Trump

433
00:27:02,520 --> 00:27:08,439
Speaker 1: administration as different wall mechanisms inventing mechanisms to place, and

434
00:27:08,560 --> 00:27:14,000
Speaker 1: twenty thousand border patrol people were installed into the southern border,

435
00:27:14,440 --> 00:27:17,080
Speaker 1: and so those numbers had decreased, and then COVID had

436
00:27:17,119 --> 00:27:20,639
Speaker 1: made it dramatically decreased. And so it just depends what

437
00:27:20,800 --> 00:27:24,320
Speaker 1: you're using as your baseline. If you're using the last

438
00:27:24,520 --> 00:27:28,720
Speaker 1: year of the Trump administration, well then certainly that's going

439
00:27:28,760 --> 00:27:30,760
Speaker 1: to be a huge difference because of the last year

440
00:27:30,760 --> 00:27:33,640
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration. We were talking about one hundred

441
00:27:33,680 --> 00:27:37,119
Speaker 1: thousand or so people being allowed to enter through the

442
00:27:37,200 --> 00:27:40,480
Speaker 1: southern border and make their claim, So we were not

443
00:27:40,560 --> 00:27:42,879
Speaker 1: talking about a lot of people. But if you just

444
00:27:42,960 --> 00:27:45,720
Speaker 1: reverse it to the first year of the Trump administration,

445
00:27:46,200 --> 00:27:49,919
Speaker 1: we were talking about maybe four or five hundred thousand people.

446
00:27:50,359 --> 00:27:52,720
Speaker 1: So it just depends what you're talking about. Now, it

447
00:27:52,840 --> 00:27:56,480
Speaker 1: is greater than a year during the Trump administration, that's

448
00:27:56,480 --> 00:27:59,879
Speaker 1: certainly true, but it's not greater than it used to

449
00:27:59,920 --> 00:28:03,280
Speaker 1: be under the Bush administration. And so the question is

450
00:28:03,320 --> 00:28:07,360
Speaker 1: just what is your historical perspective for this? And finally,

451
00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:11,680
Speaker 1: are there any other immigration decisions coming from the Supreme

452
00:28:11,720 --> 00:28:16,000
Speaker 1: Court this term? Not this term, but I think in

453
00:28:16,040 --> 00:28:18,000
Speaker 1: the future you're going to be looking up, I think

454
00:28:18,000 --> 00:28:20,800
Speaker 1: for the BCA litigation, which is gonna be the big

455
00:28:20,880 --> 00:28:24,320
Speaker 1: litigation that's coming. Uh, that's going to be coming. And

456
00:28:24,359 --> 00:28:26,480
Speaker 1: then as some of these you know that we will

457
00:28:26,520 --> 00:28:30,200
Speaker 1: come from Judge Ayman in the Southern Districts of Texas

458
00:28:30,200 --> 00:28:32,840
Speaker 1: that he invalidates DACCA, and then that works its way

459
00:28:32,920 --> 00:28:35,639
Speaker 1: up to the Court of Appeals of the Supreme Court,

460
00:28:35,680 --> 00:28:39,040
Speaker 1: So you'll be seeing that litigation, and then you'll also

461
00:28:39,120 --> 00:28:43,640
Speaker 1: be seeing some other litigation moving forward on these issues

462
00:28:43,800 --> 00:28:48,560
Speaker 1: of state challenging what the Biden administration is doing in

463
00:28:48,720 --> 00:28:53,120
Speaker 1: terms of its prosebutorial discrisis on immigration enforcement, and so

464
00:28:53,240 --> 00:28:55,760
Speaker 1: those we'll be talking about those in the in the

465
00:28:55,840 --> 00:28:58,720
Speaker 1: upcoming months. Thanks for being in the Bloomberg Law Show. Leon.

466
00:28:59,080 --> 00:29:02,240
Speaker 1: That's Leon fresh Go of Hollanden Knight and that's Difference

467
00:29:02,400 --> 00:29:05,040
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Lawn Show. Remember you can always

468
00:29:05,040 --> 00:29:07,520
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn Podcast.

469
00:29:07,680 --> 00:29:10,360
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

470
00:29:10,520 --> 00:29:15,520
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law. I'm

471
00:29:15,600 --> 00:29:17,920
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg