WEBVTT - Weekend Law: NYC Mayor, ICE Arrest & Conversion Therapy 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:12.399 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:15.240 --> 0:00:18.520 Several protests in New York City over the arrest by 0:00:18.640 --> 0:00:23.200 ICE agents of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia grad student 0:00:23.400 --> 0:00:27.600 who was the lead negotiator and spokesman during protests against 0:00:27.640 --> 0:00:29.639 Israel on campus last spring. 0:00:30.080 --> 0:00:30.680 This is a. 0:00:30.600 --> 0:00:32.559 Movement, an anti war movement. 0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:37.640 We have sparked similar Gazza solidarity encampments across the nation 0:00:38.120 --> 0:00:39.839 and even across the globe. 0:00:39.920 --> 0:00:44.440 Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked Khalil's green card under 0:00:44.440 --> 0:00:48.199 a rarely used provision of the immigration law that allows 0:00:48.240 --> 0:00:52.840 for revocation when a foreigner's presence is detrimental to US 0:00:52.880 --> 0:00:53.760 foreign policy. 0:00:54.080 --> 0:00:56.280 This is not about free speech. This is about people 0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:57.840 that don't have a right to be in the United States. 0:00:57.840 --> 0:00:59.960 To begin with, No one has a right to a student. 0:01:00.600 --> 0:01:01.920 No one has a right to a green card. 0:01:01.960 --> 0:01:05.320 By the way, New York federal Judge Jesse Furman has 0:01:05.360 --> 0:01:09.880 blocked Khalil's deportation while he considers the case. Joining me 0:01:09.959 --> 0:01:13.440 is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland 0:01:13.480 --> 0:01:15.520 and Knight. He was the head of the Office of 0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:19.720 Immigration litigation in the Obama administration. Leon tell us about 0:01:19.720 --> 0:01:23.000 the provision of the immigration law that the Trump administration 0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:26.120 is using to try to deport Khalil. 0:01:26.600 --> 0:01:30.120 So, there is a statute, which is Title eight USC. 0:01:30.200 --> 0:01:34.200 Twelve twenty seven, which lays out an entire list. It's 0:01:34.240 --> 0:01:37.720 basically a menu of choices that the government can use 0:01:37.840 --> 0:01:40.520 to say why they're deporting someone. And so if you 0:01:40.560 --> 0:01:43.600 meet any of those grounds, you could be deported based 0:01:43.640 --> 0:01:45.800 on one of those grounds. And so the ground that 0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:49.200 the government has chosen is the one called foreign policies. 0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:53.680 The exact word, say, an alien whose presence or activities 0:01:53.720 --> 0:01:56.960 in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable 0:01:57.000 --> 0:02:01.040 ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy 0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:06.559 consequences for the United States is deportable. So what Secretary 0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:11.600 Rubio is saying is that he has the sole, unreviewable 0:02:11.680 --> 0:02:15.320 discretion to decide that any person who is not a 0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:18.480 citizen of the United States can be deported if he 0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:22.600 believes that their presence in the United States would have 0:02:22.720 --> 0:02:27.639 potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences, and he has decided 0:02:28.080 --> 0:02:32.120 that this Mahmoud Khalil beats that criteria because of the 0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:36.200 conduct that he committed in the university. 0:02:37.080 --> 0:02:40.360 So is it true that it's solely up to the 0:02:40.400 --> 0:02:43.640 Secretary of State that there's no court review. 0:02:44.639 --> 0:02:48.639 Well, so this is where there's a debate right now. 0:02:49.080 --> 0:02:53.320 There's a famous case that actually the sister who's now deceased, 0:02:53.360 --> 0:02:56.799 the sister of President Trump, Mary and Trump Berry, when 0:02:56.880 --> 0:02:59.720 she was a district court judge in nineteen ninety six, 0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:03.840 said that that statute was not constitutional because it was 0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:06.880 too vague, because it did not allow for an opportunity 0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:09.720 for the non citizen to actually be heard and be 0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:13.400 able to make any discussion about this. But then the 0:03:13.400 --> 0:03:16.560 Third Circuit, which at that time had Judge Alito who's 0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:21.320 now Justice Alito on it, actually vacated the judgment because 0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:26.440 they had to go through the ordinary immigration process, meaning 0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:29.440 a federal judge couldn't hijack that process, which is one 0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:31.760 of the issues that Judge Furman is going to have 0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:33.880 to deal with. This Can he hijack this and make 0:03:33.919 --> 0:03:36.720 this analysis now or does it have to go through 0:03:36.760 --> 0:03:40.800 the whole immigration process first, and then you can make 0:03:40.840 --> 0:03:43.840 the challenge at the end if you still been't ordered deported. 0:03:44.240 --> 0:03:48.280 So the point is we don't know yet if this 0:03:48.520 --> 0:03:53.560 law will be ruled unconstitutional or not. The problem is 0:03:54.000 --> 0:03:58.080 there was a similar law in the nineteen sixty two 0:03:58.160 --> 0:04:03.000 case of Heiresiatis versus Sean, which talks about this concept 0:04:03.160 --> 0:04:07.840 of you could deport lawful permanent residents aka Green card 0:04:07.880 --> 0:04:11.280 holders if they were not just communists, they could have 0:04:11.320 --> 0:04:14.040 been past communists, meaning if at any time in their 0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:18.240 life they had ever espoused communism, you could deport them. 0:04:18.240 --> 0:04:20.919 Even if they had ten US citizen children and a 0:04:21.080 --> 0:04:25.000 US citizen spouse, et cetera. Didn't matter. And the Court 0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:28.479 in Heresiata said, yep, if Congress makes a ground of 0:04:28.520 --> 0:04:32.160 deportation and it's in a statue and it's law, we're 0:04:32.160 --> 0:04:35.400 not going to declare that unconstitutional. You change it if 0:04:35.400 --> 0:04:37.520 you don't like it, makes the Congress change the law. 0:04:37.920 --> 0:04:40.200 And so the question will be whether this Supreme Court 0:04:40.279 --> 0:04:44.080 in twenty twenty five, seventy five years later, thinks that 0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:49.080 that's true, that there's no constraints around this ground of deportations. 0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:54.080 Before you get anywhere near the constitutional question, there's an 0:04:54.120 --> 0:04:58.560 issue of jurisdiction that New York Judge Jesse furmanh has 0:04:58.600 --> 0:05:03.320 to decide in this habeas corpus petition that Khalil's lawyers 0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:07.159 have filed habeas, basically being a request that the judge 0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:11.480 require the government to bring a person in custody before 0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:15.440 the court. Because right now Khalil is being held in Louisiana, 0:05:16.040 --> 0:05:18.960 more than one thousand miles away from where he was arrested. 0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:22.680 Obviously, there's going to be a larger discussion about whether 0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:26.680 a habeas is even the appropriate mechanism for challenging these 0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:29.440 kinds of decisions. But first we have to figure out 0:05:29.480 --> 0:05:31.680 what's the right court to even make any of those 0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:34.840 decisions in that's what we're fighting about now. And so 0:05:34.920 --> 0:05:37.920 the question is would New York ever be the right 0:05:38.080 --> 0:05:42.920 forum given that the detention facility for the people who 0:05:42.960 --> 0:05:46.279 are detained in New York for immigration purposes is in 0:05:46.320 --> 0:05:49.680 New Jersey. Number one, and then also number two that 0:05:49.760 --> 0:05:53.280 at the moment that the person filed the habeas, which 0:05:53.320 --> 0:05:55.320 was at four in the morning or whenever they filed it, 0:05:55.640 --> 0:05:58.479 they were already detained in New Jersey. So the human 0:05:58.520 --> 0:06:02.120 body had actually left New York and was detained in 0:06:02.160 --> 0:06:07.240 New Jersey. Then after that the person is transferred to Louisiana. 0:06:07.920 --> 0:06:11.520 And so the government is saying, well, since they're in Louisiana. 0:06:11.720 --> 0:06:15.200 That's now where the habeas has to be filed. And 0:06:15.240 --> 0:06:17.559 so now what the court has to debate is whether 0:06:17.640 --> 0:06:22.839 that transfer to Louisiana was done for nefarious purposes to 0:06:22.920 --> 0:06:27.400 evade jurisdiction in New York or New Jersey, or whether 0:06:27.520 --> 0:06:30.600 it was done for a legitimate reason like that there 0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:34.680 was no detention space in New Jersey. And so the 0:06:34.760 --> 0:06:37.000 court is going to have I think a tough time 0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:39.159 saying that the case should be in the Southern District 0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:43.120 of New York because mister Macmoud Khalil was not in 0:06:43.279 --> 0:06:45.839 New York when the habeas was filed, and there was 0:06:45.880 --> 0:06:48.839 nothing irregular about having him in New Jersey because that's 0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:53.080 where the immigration detention facility is for New York City. 0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:56.560 So I do think it's possible that he will at 0:06:56.640 --> 0:06:58.279 least be reassigned to New Jersey. 0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:01.640 You mentioned the issue of whether the transfer was done 0:07:01.720 --> 0:07:07.159 for nefarious purposes. Khalil's lawyers called shipping him to Louisiana 0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:10.160 a shell game by ice designed to take him out 0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:13.720 of the New York Court's jurisdiction and isolate him far 0:07:13.760 --> 0:07:16.720 from his lawyers and his family. I'll just mention that 0:07:16.800 --> 0:07:19.720 Louisiana is in the Fifth Circuit, which is the most 0:07:19.800 --> 0:07:22.120 conservative circuit court in the country. 0:07:22.640 --> 0:07:25.720 Certainly, there are some strong arguments that they're making that 0:07:25.840 --> 0:07:27.920 the court is going to have to grapple with with 0:07:28.040 --> 0:07:32.320 regard to whether the transfer to Louisiana serve some purpose 0:07:32.400 --> 0:07:37.840 other than evasion of jurisdiction. And that is in a 0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:42.040 twenty ten opinion in the Supreme Court about Guantanamo and 0:07:42.080 --> 0:07:46.080 about transfers and habeas jurisdiction. So there is pretty good 0:07:46.120 --> 0:07:49.120 case law that discusses what courts are supposed to look 0:07:49.120 --> 0:07:52.239 at with regard to these transfers. There's a difference certainly 0:07:52.240 --> 0:07:55.560 between Louisiana and New Jersey with regards to access to 0:07:55.640 --> 0:07:59.680 the detayee and closest to the family, and even the 0:07:59.720 --> 0:08:02.679 Third Circuit versus the Fifth Circuit. So those things all matter. 0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:05.120 But the point is it may not end up mattering 0:08:05.160 --> 0:08:08.200 with regard to this particular judge in New York City 0:08:08.720 --> 0:08:11.840 because it seems difficult to figure out how he has 0:08:11.920 --> 0:08:15.400 jurisdiction in New York City when the habeas was filed 0:08:15.400 --> 0:08:16.880 when the person was in New Jersey. 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:20.320 The Trump administration has said that Khalil is a threat 0:08:20.360 --> 0:08:24.160 to national security. His lawyers say, he's just a protest 0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:28.960 exercising his free speech rights. When does that issue get litigated. 0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:33.880 Here's what's interesting about this. Once you take this ground 0:08:33.920 --> 0:08:38.800 of deportability, which simply asks the question as to whether 0:08:38.880 --> 0:08:42.800 the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that 0:08:43.000 --> 0:08:46.840 this human being's presence in the United States can cause 0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:51.800 serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Once that's the issue, what 0:08:52.000 --> 0:08:56.120 the human being did is irrelevant in that sense, that 0:08:56.280 --> 0:08:59.760 is not part of the determination. The determination if there 0:08:59.840 --> 0:09:03.560 is going to be quote unquote a trial, which is 0:09:03.559 --> 0:09:05.280 going to need to be a decision, by the way, 0:09:05.440 --> 0:09:08.480 is there even a trial. The trial will just be 0:09:09.360 --> 0:09:12.960 about whether the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to 0:09:13.080 --> 0:09:17.199 believe that this would have foreign policy consequences. So you 0:09:17.280 --> 0:09:21.160 would be an interesting thought experiment. Why couldn't Secretary Rubio 0:09:21.360 --> 0:09:24.160 just get picked any country in the world, just pick 0:09:24.200 --> 0:09:27.280 one and have them issue an affi. David say, yeah, 0:09:27.400 --> 0:09:30.400 we would be very upset if the US kept this 0:09:30.480 --> 0:09:34.720 person into the United States, and in that scenario, you've 0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:38.600 met your burden significant adverse foreign policy consequences. If this 0:09:38.640 --> 0:09:41.440 person remains in the United States, the court will have 0:09:41.480 --> 0:09:45.320 to decide whether that's a constitutional statute, but it certainly 0:09:45.360 --> 0:09:48.720 would have meant the factual threshold, which has nothing to 0:09:48.760 --> 0:09:51.680 do with terrorism. In the end, the threshold in this 0:09:51.800 --> 0:09:55.360 statute is just whether this human being's presence in the 0:09:55.440 --> 0:09:59.440 United States would cause serious adverse foreign policy consequences for 0:09:59.440 --> 0:09:59.959 the United State. 0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:04.559 Faith wouldn't a court be reluctant to substitute its opinion 0:10:04.679 --> 0:10:08.640 for the Secretary of States in a matter of foreign policy. 0:10:09.400 --> 0:10:12.120 It seems very likely that that will be true, but 0:10:12.240 --> 0:10:14.560 we will have to wait and see. And so I 0:10:14.600 --> 0:10:16.720 think what the student is going to say is, Look, 0:10:16.720 --> 0:10:19.880 the Secretary of State doesn't have any reasonable ground to 0:10:19.960 --> 0:10:23.920 believe that my individual presence, as just one person is 0:10:23.960 --> 0:10:28.160 going to affect US foreign policy? Why would they think that? 0:10:28.600 --> 0:10:31.640 So that's going to be their argument, and maybe a 0:10:31.720 --> 0:10:33.959 court is receptive to that argument. 0:10:34.440 --> 0:10:37.800 So Rubio said, this is not about free speech? Is 0:10:37.800 --> 0:10:38.240 he right? 0:10:39.040 --> 0:10:43.439 The question is does the First Amendment provide a defense 0:10:44.000 --> 0:10:48.240 to this deportation ground? So this is where the heresiatis 0:10:48.320 --> 0:10:52.560 versus Shaughnessy case says that the First Amendment basically doesn't 0:10:52.640 --> 0:10:56.560 apply to any deportation ground. At the end of the day, 0:10:57.040 --> 0:10:59.560 it's not a defense to any of them, because these 0:10:59.600 --> 0:11:04.000 issues involving non citizens are given such deference that when 0:11:04.000 --> 0:11:07.720 the Congress actually passes the law and the President signs it, 0:11:07.840 --> 0:11:11.240 the courts aren't going to overturn a ground of deportation. 0:11:11.360 --> 0:11:13.760 They're just going to allow it to remain. But is 0:11:13.800 --> 0:11:18.600 that even relevant to this ground of deportation? Because maybe 0:11:18.679 --> 0:11:21.440 Rubio's doing it to placate that other countries so that 0:11:21.520 --> 0:11:26.480 there aren't serious adverse foreign policy consequences, then why isn't 0:11:26.520 --> 0:11:29.840 he within his grounds to do that? And so you 0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:33.440 do that? Plus the jurisdictional issues, whether it's avieas and 0:11:33.559 --> 0:11:36.040 whether it's challengeable at the beginning or whether you have 0:11:36.080 --> 0:11:39.240 to wait till the end. Those are the players. That's 0:11:39.320 --> 0:11:40.760 the real complication here. 0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:45.080 So many complications in this case. Thanks so much for 0:11:45.120 --> 0:11:48.600 explaining them to us. Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland 0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:51.680 and Knight. Coming up next, the Supreme Court is taking 0:11:51.720 --> 0:11:55.720 up a case involving a ban on conversion therapy, and 0:11:55.760 --> 0:11:59.439 that's causing some concern. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening 0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:02.040 to Bloomberg, your parents. 0:12:01.800 --> 0:12:04.720 Sends you up for a program to fix you. Welcome 0:12:04.760 --> 0:12:06.760 to the refuge. Program. 0:12:06.800 --> 0:12:09.360 You cannot be born a home sexual This is a lie. 0:12:09.480 --> 0:12:10.439 It's a choice. 0:12:10.600 --> 0:12:13.000 Come fake it till you make it. A come to man. 0:12:13.080 --> 0:12:15.880 You are not save yourself, Jared. 0:12:16.040 --> 0:12:18.959 God will not love you the way that you are. 0:12:19.840 --> 0:12:20.720 Is this what you love? 0:12:21.040 --> 0:12:22.640 Who's going to strike this demon down? 0:12:22.840 --> 0:12:26.400 The movie boy Erased is about the gay son of 0:12:26.679 --> 0:12:30.959 ultra religious parents who sent a conversion therapy to change 0:12:31.040 --> 0:12:34.679 his sexual identity. It's based on the memoir by Garret 0:12:34.720 --> 0:12:38.720 Conley chronicling the abuses of that therapy. About half the 0:12:38.800 --> 0:12:43.000 states now bar conversion therapy for minors, and all major 0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:47.199 medical and mental health organizations have condemned the therapy as 0:12:47.400 --> 0:12:52.160 unscientific and potentially dangerous for young people, increasing the risk 0:12:52.240 --> 0:12:56.720 of depression, substance abuse, and suicide. And now the Supreme 0:12:56.800 --> 0:13:00.000 Court has decided to take up a First Amendment check 0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:05.160 challenge to Colorado's ban on conversion therapy from minors. A 0:13:05.240 --> 0:13:08.640 licensed counselor who says she views her work as an 0:13:08.679 --> 0:13:12.559 outgrowth of her Christian faith, claims the ban violates her 0:13:12.600 --> 0:13:16.240 free speech rights. My guest is First Amendment law expert 0:13:16.320 --> 0:13:20.000 Caroline Mallet Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami, 0:13:20.080 --> 0:13:22.520 law school Caroline tell us about this case. 0:13:23.160 --> 0:13:28.200 The Supreme Court has granted THR meaning it will hear 0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:32.760 a case involving a law that bans what is known 0:13:32.880 --> 0:13:38.400 as conversion therapy. It's more official designation is sexual orientation 0:13:38.840 --> 0:13:43.720 change efforts, and this is basically an attempt to make 0:13:44.160 --> 0:13:50.560 gay kids straight, that's their historical origins. More specifically, the 0:13:50.800 --> 0:13:58.760 law says that licensed counselors cannot practice conversion therapy on minors. 0:13:59.000 --> 0:14:03.080 So if you want to undergo this so called counseling 0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:08.120 as an adult, you are allowed to, but licensed practitioners 0:14:08.240 --> 0:14:13.840 of mental health cannot practice conversion therapy on minors. I 0:14:14.000 --> 0:14:17.960 also note that there is an exemption for therapists engaged 0:14:18.000 --> 0:14:22.560 in the practice of religious ministry. So the reason why 0:14:23.080 --> 0:14:30.600 the law has banned conversion therapy is that it is unscientific, harmful, 0:14:30.720 --> 0:14:38.760 and futile. So all the reputable medical associations have come 0:14:38.840 --> 0:14:43.960 out against it for two reasons. One, you can't change 0:14:44.000 --> 0:14:49.200 someone's sexual orientation, and second, studies show that it actually 0:14:49.760 --> 0:14:55.320 hurts kids. So, for example, one study found that even 0:14:55.680 --> 0:15:01.520 holding constant other valuables, the children who have been subjected 0:15:01.640 --> 0:15:06.080 to this therapy or twice as likely to think about 0:15:06.160 --> 0:15:10.680 suicide and at least twice as likely to try suicide. 0:15:10.920 --> 0:15:14.360 So states who have a long history of regulating the 0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:20.280 medical profession and ensuring that practices conform with standard care 0:15:21.200 --> 0:15:23.960 decided this is not a practice we should allow in 0:15:24.000 --> 0:15:28.840 our states, and Colorado is one of about twenty states 0:15:28.920 --> 0:15:34.480 that therefore have forbidden this practice four licensed medical professions 0:15:34.760 --> 0:15:37.800 as applied to kids children under eighteen. 0:15:38.520 --> 0:15:41.920 So what does the counselor's speech claim turn on? 0:15:42.680 --> 0:15:48.680 The legal question turns on whether you think of counseling 0:15:49.360 --> 0:15:53.240 as conduct the practice of medicine, or you think of 0:15:53.320 --> 0:15:58.360 counseling as pure speech. And this matters because the government 0:15:58.560 --> 0:16:03.760 has a lot more viewway to regulate the practice of medicine, 0:16:04.040 --> 0:16:10.200 even if it incidentally affects speech, then it does regulating speech. Generally, 0:16:10.320 --> 0:16:15.760 the presumption is that if the government is regulating speech 0:16:15.920 --> 0:16:20.360 because of its content or viewpoint, if it's trying to 0:16:20.400 --> 0:16:23.200 tell people what they are allowed or not allowed to say, 0:16:23.720 --> 0:16:29.720 that kind of content regulation is presumptively unconstitutional. Generally, we 0:16:29.840 --> 0:16:33.400 don't want the government deciding what we're allowed to say 0:16:33.680 --> 0:16:36.760 or what we're allowed to hear. So if this is 0:16:36.920 --> 0:16:42.520 considered a regulation of speech, then it is problematic under 0:16:42.560 --> 0:16:47.960 the free speech clause. It's not automatically unconstitutional, it's presumptively unconstitutional. 0:16:48.360 --> 0:16:52.120 On the other hand, if it is viewed as the 0:16:52.200 --> 0:16:58.000 regulation of medical practice the regulation of conduct, then the 0:16:58.080 --> 0:17:01.480 state is going to have a much easier time showing 0:17:01.800 --> 0:17:05.600 this is just ensuring that people who are licensed by 0:17:05.640 --> 0:17:09.600 the state are meeting standards of care in the medical practice. 0:17:09.720 --> 0:17:13.240 And this is something the states have always done regulate 0:17:13.480 --> 0:17:17.800 what doctors can and can't do, and including folding into 0:17:17.800 --> 0:17:20.359 that what they can and can't say as part of 0:17:20.400 --> 0:17:21.920 their practice of medicine. 0:17:22.080 --> 0:17:26.359 The tense Circuit Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion 0:17:26.880 --> 0:17:30.240 sided with Colorado, explain what their reasoning was. 0:17:30.800 --> 0:17:34.879 Okay, here's the thing. This is not the first time 0:17:35.200 --> 0:17:39.439 court has ever encountered the question of how should we 0:17:39.520 --> 0:17:43.679 think about regulation of medicine even if it involves speech. 0:17:44.280 --> 0:17:48.680 And the backdrop to this case is the Supreme Court's 0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:53.600 ruling about abortion counseling. So this case is about mental 0:17:53.640 --> 0:17:59.840 health counseling. There is precedence on abortion counseling. By abortion counseling, 0:18:00.200 --> 0:18:05.439 I mean the laws in many states that require doctors 0:18:05.600 --> 0:18:09.359 before they provide an abortion to a woman requires the 0:18:09.480 --> 0:18:15.240 doctors to read, often a state dictated script about the 0:18:15.359 --> 0:18:20.400 dangers and perils of abortion and about the alternatives to abortion. 0:18:20.680 --> 0:18:25.879 So just about every state requires that abortion providers say 0:18:26.440 --> 0:18:30.959 this script or provide this information to women before they 0:18:30.960 --> 0:18:35.359 are allowed to have an abortion. And doctors challenge those 0:18:35.440 --> 0:18:39.560 regulations as violating their free speech. They said, you are 0:18:39.920 --> 0:18:43.639 compelling us to say things that aren't necessarily accurate and 0:18:43.720 --> 0:18:47.119 certainly not what we would normally say under our normal 0:18:47.160 --> 0:18:51.440 practice of medicine. And the Supreme Court upheld the abortion 0:18:51.640 --> 0:18:56.640 counseling on the grounds that it was not a direct 0:18:56.760 --> 0:19:01.920 regulation of speech, but a regulation of the medical profession 0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:08.960 that happened to affect speech. So basically, the precedent that 0:19:09.040 --> 0:19:13.639 the Tenth Circuit relied on was precedent the Supreme Court 0:19:13.760 --> 0:19:18.800 had created when ruling about abortion counseling. And so the 0:19:18.840 --> 0:19:23.080 Tenth Circuit to just said, listen, if the state telling 0:19:23.119 --> 0:19:26.480 the doctors what they must say to women before they 0:19:26.480 --> 0:19:30.879 have an abortion, if abortion counseling is merely the regulation 0:19:31.480 --> 0:19:36.320 of the medical profession, then surely the regulation of a 0:19:36.440 --> 0:19:41.680 kind of therapy in mental health counseling is also the 0:19:41.800 --> 0:19:47.480 regulation of medicine that incidentally affects speech. That was the 0:19:47.600 --> 0:19:51.600 argument that the Tenth Circuit made to support their claim 0:19:51.800 --> 0:19:55.840 that this is not a direct attack on speech, it's 0:19:55.840 --> 0:19:57.400 a regulation of medicine. 0:19:57.720 --> 0:20:00.439 In twenty twenty three, the Court with you used to 0:20:00.480 --> 0:20:04.480 take a challenge to a similar ban in Washington State. 0:20:04.880 --> 0:20:09.879 That was over the dessense of three justices, Conservatives Clarence Thomas, 0:20:09.920 --> 0:20:13.240 Samuel Alito, and Brett Cavanaugh. So that means that they've 0:20:13.280 --> 0:20:16.919 gotten at least one other justice on their side, because 0:20:16.960 --> 0:20:19.440 they need four votes to take a case. 0:20:20.040 --> 0:20:24.800 Exactly right. So generally one of the major reasons that 0:20:24.880 --> 0:20:28.159 the Supreme Court will decide to hear a case is 0:20:28.200 --> 0:20:30.720 if there's a circuit split, and there is a circuit 0:20:30.720 --> 0:20:34.080 split on this issue. So the Eleventh Circuit has held 0:20:34.160 --> 0:20:38.520 that these bands violate free speech clause, and the Ninth 0:20:38.560 --> 0:20:43.280 and tenth have held no, they are perfectly constitutional. And 0:20:43.359 --> 0:20:45.840 there was a split even a couple of years ago. 0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:50.560 But as you explain, the Supreme Court doesn't hear every 0:20:50.600 --> 0:20:53.800 appeal that goes before it. They only hear an appeal 0:20:53.840 --> 0:20:57.479 that at least four justices want to hear, And in 0:20:57.520 --> 0:21:00.840 twenty twenty three they were not four, but this year 0:21:01.080 --> 0:21:04.960 there are four, so that's enough to hear the case. 0:21:05.680 --> 0:21:09.200 We don't know who the fourth is because they don't 0:21:09.200 --> 0:21:11.560 announce who they are. I mean, we can guess that 0:21:11.680 --> 0:21:14.720 the dissenters are three of them, but we don't know 0:21:14.720 --> 0:21:16.119 who the fourth is. Now. 0:21:16.160 --> 0:21:18.439 I can't give one hundred percent guarantee on this, but 0:21:18.520 --> 0:21:21.720 it's most likely that the fourth vote is one of 0:21:21.760 --> 0:21:25.080 the other Conservative justices. Does the fact that it's the 0:21:25.160 --> 0:21:28.439 Conservatives that want to take this case up tell you 0:21:28.480 --> 0:21:31.919 that they're looking to reverse the Tenth Circuit, in other words, 0:21:31.960 --> 0:21:34.680 strike down the ban on conversion therapy. 0:21:35.320 --> 0:21:40.520 Personally, I am always nervous when the Supreme Court grants 0:21:40.600 --> 0:21:45.359 circ in a case involving a Conservative Christian who wants 0:21:45.400 --> 0:21:50.000 to inflict some kind of harm on a vulnerable community 0:21:50.160 --> 0:21:53.399 like the LGBT community, because I think the Supreme Court 0:21:53.600 --> 0:21:58.880 is exceptionally receptive to the claims of conservative Christians, and 0:21:59.080 --> 0:22:02.720 I think they real they don't show much care about 0:22:02.800 --> 0:22:07.960 the consequences of the religious practices of conservative Christians and 0:22:08.000 --> 0:22:12.160 how they harm those in the LGBT community. So I'm worried. 0:22:12.400 --> 0:22:15.560 On the other hand, at this point, we know there 0:22:15.680 --> 0:22:18.879 are four votes but we don't yet know if there 0:22:18.920 --> 0:22:24.280 are five votes though that is not all that reassuring, 0:22:24.960 --> 0:22:28.560 but at least it's not a completely foregone conclusion. 0:22:28.880 --> 0:22:32.840 Caroline, the licensed counselor, is being represented by the Alliance 0:22:32.960 --> 0:22:36.919 Defending Freedom, which is a conservative Christian law firm and 0:22:37.040 --> 0:22:39.880 advocacy group that has one case is at the Supreme 0:22:39.920 --> 0:22:43.880 Court before in Colorado involving the baker who didn't want 0:22:43.920 --> 0:22:48.159 to bake cakes for gay weddings and the web designer 0:22:48.200 --> 0:22:51.600 who didn't want to design websites for gay couples, even 0:22:51.600 --> 0:22:54.399 though no one had actually asked her to design a 0:22:54.440 --> 0:22:56.000 website for a gay couple. 0:22:56.800 --> 0:22:59.399 Yeah, the group that's bringing this is a group that 0:22:59.560 --> 0:23:05.359 regularly brings challenges to anti discrimination laws on behalf of 0:23:05.480 --> 0:23:09.920 conservative Christians, and this is yet another one, and they've 0:23:09.960 --> 0:23:13.600 had incredible success before the Supreme Court. They were also 0:23:14.320 --> 0:23:22.280 the group that challenged California's attempt to require crisis pregnancy centers, 0:23:22.440 --> 0:23:26.560 which often pretend to be comprehensive medical centers when they're not. 0:23:26.880 --> 0:23:30.679 They're just anti abortion places that try and lure women 0:23:30.920 --> 0:23:33.880 into their doors to try and prevent them from having 0:23:33.920 --> 0:23:38.320 an abortion. Anyhow, California tried to deal with this practice 0:23:38.359 --> 0:23:42.960 by requiring crisis pregnancy centers to let people know that 0:23:43.040 --> 0:23:46.560 they were not, in fact a licensed medical provider, even 0:23:46.600 --> 0:23:49.880 though they often pretended to be one, and the Supreme 0:23:49.920 --> 0:23:54.000 Court held that violated the crisis pregnancy center's pre speech 0:23:54.080 --> 0:23:58.600 rights as well. So there is definitely a pattern of 0:23:59.160 --> 0:24:05.040 cases brought claiming free speech violations of regulations that are 0:24:05.080 --> 0:24:10.600 designed to protect from harm and to protect from discrimination, 0:24:11.160 --> 0:24:14.000 and these are getting struck down in the name of 0:24:14.520 --> 0:24:15.399 pre speech. 0:24:15.640 --> 0:24:18.360 The oral argument should be interesting, but we won't hear 0:24:18.400 --> 0:24:22.520 them until the Supreme Court's next term, which starts in October. 0:24:22.760 --> 0:24:26.720 Thanks Caroline. That's Professor Caroline Malik Corbin of the University 0:24:26.760 --> 0:24:30.000 of Miami Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg 0:24:30.119 --> 0:24:32.960 Law Show. It looks like New York City Mayor Eric 0:24:33.000 --> 0:24:35.879 Adams is going to score a get out of jail 0:24:35.960 --> 0:24:39.159 free card. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. 0:24:40.880 --> 0:24:43.840 New York City Mayor Eric Adams was one of four 0:24:43.920 --> 0:24:48.520 Democratic mayors of sanctuary cities to testify before the House 0:24:48.560 --> 0:24:52.760 Oversight Committee last week, but the criminal corruption case against 0:24:52.800 --> 0:24:56.640 Adams took center stage as the mayor was grilled by 0:24:56.720 --> 0:25:01.760 several Democratic lawmakers about the allegations that the Justice Department 0:25:01.960 --> 0:25:05.919 agreed to dismiss the charges against Adams in return for 0:25:06.000 --> 0:25:10.480 his helping the Trump administration with its efforts to deport immigrants. 0:25:10.840 --> 0:25:14.880 California Representative Robert Garcia quized Adams. 0:25:15.200 --> 0:25:17.040 And Mayor Adams. I also want to be very clear, 0:25:17.560 --> 0:25:20.720 are you selling out New Yorkers to save yourself from prosecution. 0:25:23.640 --> 0:25:27.680 There's no deal, no quick pro qual and I did 0:25:27.720 --> 0:25:30.760 nothing wrong, and anything dealing with this case had a 0:25:30.800 --> 0:25:35.720 deference to Judge Hoe, who's now addressing it. I'm going 0:25:35.760 --> 0:25:37.160 to refer to his actions. 0:25:37.480 --> 0:25:39.960 Well, mister Mayor, it appears to me at least that 0:25:40.040 --> 0:25:42.800 you are selling New Yorkers out. It appears that you 0:25:42.840 --> 0:25:46.600 are working with Tom Homan, who is clearly clearly focused 0:25:46.600 --> 0:25:48.800 on family separation and deportations. 0:25:49.359 --> 0:25:52.960 And now it appears that Adams will almost certainly score 0:25:53.160 --> 0:25:56.199 a get out of jail free card. Paul Clement, the 0:25:56.240 --> 0:26:00.600 former US Solicitor General appointed by Judge Dale as a 0:26:00.600 --> 0:26:04.200 friend of the Court, has recommended the case against Adams 0:26:04.240 --> 0:26:09.720