1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,520 --> 00:00:13,600
Speaker 2: Columbia graduate student and pro Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil has

3
00:00:13,640 --> 00:00:17,119
Speaker 2: become a symbol of the Trump administrations cracked down on

4
00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:22,520
Speaker 2: international students at several American universities. Khalil was the first

5
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 2: target of Trump's effort to deport non citizen students with

6
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 2: pro Palestinian or anti Israeli views. He spent one hundred

7
00:00:31,040 --> 00:00:35,280
Speaker 2: and four days in federal immigration detention before being released

8
00:00:35,400 --> 00:00:36,080
Speaker 2: last month.

9
00:00:36,760 --> 00:00:42,040
Speaker 3: They tried to portray me as a violent person. They

10
00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:48,320
Speaker 3: tried to portray me as a terrorist, as some lunatic,

11
00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:52,600
Speaker 3: but not presenting any evidence, not presenting any shred of

12
00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:55,320
Speaker 3: credibility to their claims.

13
00:00:55,680 --> 00:00:59,640
Speaker 2: Until this week, legal proceedings have focused on the detentions

14
00:00:59,680 --> 00:01:04,080
Speaker 2: of individual students, but now a federal judge in Boston

15
00:01:04,440 --> 00:01:08,720
Speaker 2: is holding the first trial challenging the Trump administration's policy

16
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:13,920
Speaker 2: of revoking visas, arresting, detaining, and deporting non citizen students

17
00:01:13,920 --> 00:01:19,160
Speaker 2: and faculty who engage in pro Palestinian advocacy. Groups representing

18
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:23,440
Speaker 2: university professors say the policy is chilling free speech on

19
00:01:23,520 --> 00:01:27,280
Speaker 2: campuses in violation of the First Amendment, but lawyers for

20
00:01:27,319 --> 00:01:31,600
Speaker 2: the government argue that no such policy exists. My guest

21
00:01:31,680 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 2: is immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partner at Holland

22
00:01:35,000 --> 00:01:37,160
Speaker 2: and Knight Leah, and there have been lots of orders

23
00:01:37,200 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 2: by judges over these arrests of non citizen students, but

24
00:01:41,760 --> 00:01:44,560
Speaker 2: this is the first trial. Explain how we got to

25
00:01:44,600 --> 00:01:45,119
Speaker 2: this point.

26
00:01:45,480 --> 00:01:48,880
Speaker 4: The Trump administration has been trying to crack down on

27
00:01:48,960 --> 00:01:53,800
Speaker 4: what it believes is excessive protests on university campuses by

28
00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:57,320
Speaker 4: foreign students. And it thinks that there are some number

29
00:01:57,360 --> 00:01:59,280
Speaker 4: of students that are coming to the United States that

30
00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:03,600
Speaker 4: are not coming for legitimate academic reasons, but are instead

31
00:02:03,640 --> 00:02:07,760
Speaker 4: coming to rabl rouse or cause trouble or otherwise create

32
00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:11,359
Speaker 4: anti Semitic activities in schools. And so what it's been

33
00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:15,280
Speaker 4: doing is it's been revoking visas, and it's been revoking

34
00:02:15,320 --> 00:02:18,400
Speaker 4: them in a number of matters. It's been actually either

35
00:02:18,600 --> 00:02:21,600
Speaker 4: just saying to students they can't re enter if they leave.

36
00:02:22,040 --> 00:02:26,240
Speaker 4: Sometimes it's been actually terminating them from the student visa database,

37
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:29,520
Speaker 4: and in other times for people who are actually lawful

38
00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:35,000
Speaker 4: permanent residents, it's actually revoked their lawful permanent residence status,

39
00:02:35,040 --> 00:02:38,200
Speaker 4: and all under a provision in the Immigration Code which

40
00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:42,320
Speaker 4: says that the Secretary of State can revoke either lawful

41
00:02:42,320 --> 00:02:46,720
Speaker 4: permanent residency or a student visa, either one any immigration

42
00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:50,840
Speaker 4: status that's not citizenship. The Secretary of State can revoke

43
00:02:50,960 --> 00:02:54,480
Speaker 4: that status if the Secretary of State believes that doing

44
00:02:54,520 --> 00:02:58,120
Speaker 4: so is necessary because the foreign national is acting contrary

45
00:02:58,240 --> 00:03:01,600
Speaker 4: to the interests of the foreign policy of the United States,

46
00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:06,519
Speaker 4: And so in other cases involving specific individuals like Mahmoud

47
00:03:06,560 --> 00:03:10,600
Speaker 4: Khalil or other individuals, the judges have just taken these

48
00:03:10,639 --> 00:03:13,720
Speaker 4: claims at face value and said, Okay, I'm going to

49
00:03:13,800 --> 00:03:16,880
Speaker 4: rule on the legality of the question of whether what

50
00:03:17,040 --> 00:03:20,160
Speaker 4: Secretary of Rubio is doing violates the First Amendment or not.

51
00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:25,320
Speaker 4: And that statute is unconstitutional either on its face or

52
00:03:25,360 --> 00:03:28,400
Speaker 4: in the way it's being applied, such that these foreign

53
00:03:28,440 --> 00:03:31,680
Speaker 4: students are not being allowed to express themselves under the

54
00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:35,440
Speaker 4: First Amendment. But in this case, this particular judge, who's

55
00:03:35,480 --> 00:03:38,920
Speaker 4: known for basically not taking any claims at face value,

56
00:03:38,920 --> 00:03:42,160
Speaker 4: has decided that he would actually bring this to a trial.

57
00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:44,520
Speaker 2: So what's the main issue in the trial.

58
00:03:44,880 --> 00:03:48,320
Speaker 4: So what he's having a trial on is whether the

59
00:03:48,440 --> 00:03:52,560
Speaker 4: Secretary of State Marco Rubio is actually revoking these visas

60
00:03:52,560 --> 00:03:55,880
Speaker 4: in good faith because he's concerned about the foreign policy

61
00:03:55,880 --> 00:04:00,440
Speaker 4: of the United States, or whether it's being done as

62
00:04:00,560 --> 00:04:04,240
Speaker 4: a pretext to violate the First Amendment rights of these

63
00:04:04,280 --> 00:04:07,320
Speaker 4: foreign national students. Now, the problem is, there are a

64
00:04:07,360 --> 00:04:10,160
Speaker 4: lot of precursor issues in this case, like whether this

65
00:04:10,280 --> 00:04:12,600
Speaker 4: judge even has jurisdiction to be doing any of this,

66
00:04:12,880 --> 00:04:15,440
Speaker 4: whether this should be done in a removal process, whether

67
00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:19,359
Speaker 4: this statute doesn't even permit any judicial review of any kind.

68
00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:22,359
Speaker 4: And so the judge is sort of skipping all of

69
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:24,839
Speaker 4: those steps, and it is saying, yes, I have jurisdiction, I

70
00:04:24,839 --> 00:04:27,359
Speaker 4: can review all of this, and it is just basically trying

71
00:04:27,400 --> 00:04:30,000
Speaker 4: to get to the end of the book first and

72
00:04:30,120 --> 00:04:32,279
Speaker 4: say I'm going to actually just get to the merits

73
00:04:32,279 --> 00:04:35,960
Speaker 4: of this. What is the administration doing? Is it illegal?

74
00:04:36,400 --> 00:04:39,599
Speaker 4: And then leading to the courts all of these questions

75
00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:43,160
Speaker 4: later the threshold questions about whether he even had jurisdiction

76
00:04:43,279 --> 00:04:45,760
Speaker 4: to do any of this in the first place, where

77
00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:48,480
Speaker 4: these cases are supposed to be brought, et cetera.

78
00:04:49,120 --> 00:04:52,520
Speaker 2: So Leon, the judge said that the trial's likely to

79
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:56,520
Speaker 2: center on the question of whether non citizens lawfully present

80
00:04:56,560 --> 00:05:00,000
Speaker 2: in the country have the same free speech rights as citizen.

81
00:05:00,960 --> 00:05:02,640
Speaker 2: Is there case law on that?

82
00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:05,480
Speaker 4: Well, there actually is case law on that, and that

83
00:05:05,520 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 4: case law is pretty bad. There's a case called Haresiatis

84
00:05:09,520 --> 00:05:13,039
Speaker 4: versus Shaughnessy from the nineteen fifties, and it dealt with

85
00:05:13,240 --> 00:05:16,560
Speaker 4: actual lawful permanent residents of the United States, so not

86
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:20,880
Speaker 4: non immigrant visa holders like student visa or visitor visa holders.

87
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:24,400
Speaker 4: These were actual lawful permanent residents. And many of them

88
00:05:24,400 --> 00:05:29,120
Speaker 4: in that case had US citizens spouses and US citizen children.

89
00:05:29,160 --> 00:05:32,400
Speaker 4: Some had US citizen grandchildren. And the issue was there

90
00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:36,440
Speaker 4: was a statute that said not just current communists, but

91
00:05:36,600 --> 00:05:40,400
Speaker 4: even former members of the Communist Party could be deported

92
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:43,960
Speaker 4: if they were just identified for deportation. And this was

93
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:46,920
Speaker 4: in the height of the Cold War, and these folks argued,

94
00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:49,960
Speaker 4: wait a second, I'm not even in the Communist Party anymore.

95
00:05:50,000 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 4: I've renounced my affiliation with the Communist Party. And they

96
00:05:54,800 --> 00:05:57,600
Speaker 4: said the courts shouldn't be able to deport me, because

97
00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:00,520
Speaker 4: even if I was a Communist, what differ what it

98
00:06:00,520 --> 00:06:04,719
Speaker 4: make if I wasn't actually violently seeking to overthrow the government,

99
00:06:04,760 --> 00:06:06,919
Speaker 4: if I was just some sort of communists who just

100
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:10,120
Speaker 4: was an economic person not trying to overthrow the government.

101
00:06:10,400 --> 00:06:13,880
Speaker 4: Why would I be deported for my First Amendment values?

102
00:06:14,400 --> 00:06:17,920
Speaker 4: And that court in nineteen fifty two said no, in

103
00:06:18,000 --> 00:06:22,800
Speaker 4: these statutes involving non citizens, the First Amendment does not

104
00:06:23,240 --> 00:06:27,640
Speaker 4: overcome the security concerns, the legitimate security concerns of the government,

105
00:06:27,960 --> 00:06:30,480
Speaker 4: even if the person is a lawful, permanent residence. So

106
00:06:31,120 --> 00:06:36,320
Speaker 4: if the Supreme Court actually upholds that doctrine here again

107
00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:38,880
Speaker 4: in twenty twenty five or twenty twenty six, whenever it

108
00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:41,760
Speaker 4: gets this case, then it will remain the same, which

109
00:06:41,800 --> 00:06:44,600
Speaker 4: is that when you're not a citizen of the United States,

110
00:06:44,960 --> 00:06:48,920
Speaker 4: your First Amendment right are not superior to the rights

111
00:06:48,920 --> 00:06:51,160
Speaker 4: of the government to be able to deport you for

112
00:06:51,360 --> 00:06:55,200
Speaker 4: conduct that they feel is deportable conduct. We shall see,

113
00:06:55,680 --> 00:06:56,480
Speaker 4: and the judge.

114
00:06:56,320 --> 00:06:59,839
Speaker 2: Is also going to consider whether the Secretary of State

115
00:07:00,160 --> 00:07:02,719
Speaker 2: is revoking these visas in good faith.

116
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:05,440
Speaker 4: The other issue that they're trying to get at in

117
00:07:05,480 --> 00:07:08,800
Speaker 4: this trial is, yes, first, what First Amendment rights do

118
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:11,840
Speaker 4: the non citizens have? But then number two, the judge

119
00:07:11,920 --> 00:07:14,640
Speaker 4: may say, well, fine, that's all fined in dandy. But

120
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:19,120
Speaker 4: if the adjudications here are pretextual and I can find

121
00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:23,440
Speaker 4: that they're completely pretextual, meaning there actually is no threat

122
00:07:23,520 --> 00:07:27,440
Speaker 4: to foreign policy of any kind. I can still halt

123
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:31,440
Speaker 4: these deportations because fine, maybe the statute does allow a

124
00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:34,280
Speaker 4: deportation when there's conduct that's a threat to the US

125
00:07:34,360 --> 00:07:37,360
Speaker 4: foreign policy. So, for instance, the number one version of

126
00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:40,760
Speaker 4: this would be that sub dictator gets a visitor visa

127
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:43,440
Speaker 4: and comes to the United States, and nobody likes that

128
00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:46,640
Speaker 4: this dictator is being given safe haven to visit the

129
00:07:46,760 --> 00:07:50,280
Speaker 4: United States, So that would be the number one version

130
00:07:50,320 --> 00:07:53,480
Speaker 4: of this. But at the end of the day, that

131
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:56,480
Speaker 4: might also be something that's not subject to judicial review.

132
00:07:56,560 --> 00:07:59,240
Speaker 4: And that's what the Court of Appeals, the District Court,

133
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:01,520
Speaker 4: and the Supreme Court are going to need to decide,

134
00:08:01,760 --> 00:08:05,040
Speaker 4: is is this issue about whether the Secretary of State

135
00:08:05,160 --> 00:08:07,880
Speaker 4: is actually acting in good faith in a particular case

136
00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:11,160
Speaker 4: something that a judge actually can review in the first place.

137
00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:13,520
Speaker 4: And none of this is settled law, none of this

138
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:15,920
Speaker 4: is established. All of this is being made up at

139
00:08:15,920 --> 00:08:18,800
Speaker 4: the beginning now as issues of first impression. I think

140
00:08:18,840 --> 00:08:21,080
Speaker 4: this judge is going to say he has jurisdiction, which

141
00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:23,760
Speaker 4: is why he's going through a trial. But we're going

142
00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:26,160
Speaker 4: to have to see where the First Circuit ultimately goes

143
00:08:26,200 --> 00:08:29,240
Speaker 4: down on this, and also where the Supreme Court actually

144
00:08:29,280 --> 00:08:32,160
Speaker 4: says at the end of the day, what actually happens.

145
00:08:32,200 --> 00:08:35,640
Speaker 4: What is the procedure that needs to be followed when

146
00:08:35,679 --> 00:08:38,679
Speaker 4: the Secretary of State decides that someone is acting contrary

147
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:41,400
Speaker 4: to the foreign policy interests of the United States. Can

148
00:08:41,480 --> 00:08:43,720
Speaker 4: it be challenged in the district court? Does it have

149
00:08:43,800 --> 00:08:47,000
Speaker 4: to be challenged in the administrative removal proceeding? And then,

150
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:50,760
Speaker 4: depending on which court, what is the nature of the challenge.

151
00:08:50,800 --> 00:08:53,960
Speaker 4: Can you actually prove this is pretextual or does the

152
00:08:53,960 --> 00:08:57,960
Speaker 4: administration get enough deference that you really can't even challenge

153
00:08:57,960 --> 00:08:59,880
Speaker 4: it at all? And so those are going to be

154
00:08:59,880 --> 00:09:01,960
Speaker 4: the questions we're going to be deciding in the next

155
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:02,520
Speaker 4: year or so.

156
00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:06,040
Speaker 2: Let's move from the First Circuit to the Fifth Circuit,

157
00:09:06,360 --> 00:09:10,040
Speaker 2: the most conservative circuit in the country, and it upheld

158
00:09:10,040 --> 00:09:15,120
Speaker 2: an injunction that that stops a Texas anti immigration law

159
00:09:15,240 --> 00:09:18,960
Speaker 2: from being enforced in a victory for immigrants rights. Is

160
00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:20,920
Speaker 2: that a surprise coming from the Fifth Circuit?

161
00:09:21,320 --> 00:09:22,319
Speaker 1: Well, it is a surprise.

162
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:24,320
Speaker 4: In the center was a two to one decision, with

163
00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:28,560
Speaker 4: one of the Republican judges taking the side that the

164
00:09:28,720 --> 00:09:33,440
Speaker 4: statute from Texas was unconstitutional. If you recall what happened

165
00:09:33,480 --> 00:09:36,520
Speaker 4: in this This was during the Biden administration when the

166
00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:39,439
Speaker 4: State of Texas was saying that there was an inundation

167
00:09:39,559 --> 00:09:42,520
Speaker 4: of people coming into the United States. The Biden administration

168
00:09:42,559 --> 00:09:44,880
Speaker 4: didn't want to do anything about it, so it needed

169
00:09:44,920 --> 00:09:47,560
Speaker 4: to act, and the State of Texas passed the law

170
00:09:47,600 --> 00:09:50,960
Speaker 4: basically saying we can do three things that have never

171
00:09:51,000 --> 00:09:54,480
Speaker 4: been done before. Number One, we can actually deport people

172
00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:59,280
Speaker 4: ourselves to the border of Texas and Mexico. Maybe we

173
00:09:59,320 --> 00:10:02,040
Speaker 4: can't bring them into Mexico, but what we can do

174
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,320
Speaker 4: is take them to the US side of the actual

175
00:10:05,320 --> 00:10:07,880
Speaker 4: physical border. And what we can say to them is

176
00:10:07,920 --> 00:10:10,120
Speaker 4: if you try to come back into the interior, if

177
00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:13,480
Speaker 4: you don't actually then take the next step yourself and

178
00:10:13,559 --> 00:10:17,560
Speaker 4: go into Mexico, then we're going to prosecute you for

179
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:19,440
Speaker 4: a crime. And if we do it a second time,

180
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:23,319
Speaker 4: it'll be an even worse crime. And so from that perspective,

181
00:10:23,400 --> 00:10:26,680
Speaker 4: the question was is that violate federal law. There was

182
00:10:26,840 --> 00:10:30,000
Speaker 4: a district court injunction that said that yes, this violate

183
00:10:30,120 --> 00:10:33,760
Speaker 4: federal law under the Arizona versus the United States case

184
00:10:33,800 --> 00:10:37,600
Speaker 4: that came during the Omama administration in twenty twelve. That

185
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:41,160
Speaker 4: was the Arizona Law, where Arizona said, We're going to

186
00:10:41,240 --> 00:10:44,880
Speaker 4: basically take matters into our own hands and enforce immigration

187
00:10:45,000 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 4: law and ask people for their papers, and if they're

188
00:10:47,080 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 4: not here legally, we will arrest them and prosecute them

189
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:53,719
Speaker 4: for a misdemeanor. That was rule to be unconstitutional. So

190
00:10:53,880 --> 00:10:56,920
Speaker 4: this is further than that. And in a two to

191
00:10:56,920 --> 00:11:01,280
Speaker 4: one decision, the Court of Appeals upheld in a permanent

192
00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:05,320
Speaker 4: way the stay that it had issued that had prevented

193
00:11:05,360 --> 00:11:08,720
Speaker 4: this Texas Statute from going into effect in the first place. Now,

194
00:11:08,920 --> 00:11:12,200
Speaker 4: what's interesting about this is the factual backdrop, and we're

195
00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:14,560
Speaker 4: going to be talking about factual backdrops a lot today,

196
00:11:15,000 --> 00:11:17,840
Speaker 4: but the sexual backdrop of this case is completely different

197
00:11:17,920 --> 00:11:22,240
Speaker 4: now than it was back when the Biden administration was

198
00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:24,920
Speaker 4: in office and there were these concerns about the amount

199
00:11:24,920 --> 00:11:28,000
Speaker 4: of people streaming in to the state of Texas. Now

200
00:11:28,360 --> 00:11:31,120
Speaker 4: pretty much everyone would admit I would think that there

201
00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:34,240
Speaker 4: are anybody streaming into the state of Texas anymore. That

202
00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:38,200
Speaker 4: this traffic has stopped in its entirety. And so the

203
00:11:38,280 --> 00:11:42,000
Speaker 4: question is, what is this emergency that Texas is claiming

204
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,280
Speaker 4: is necessary now in order to have a law like this,

205
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:47,480
Speaker 4: and I think that's going to be its biggest problem

206
00:11:47,559 --> 00:11:49,959
Speaker 4: if it tries to move forward to the Supreme Court

207
00:11:50,160 --> 00:11:51,040
Speaker 4: coming up next.

208
00:11:51,559 --> 00:11:55,920
Speaker 2: A judge blocks the administration from denying all asylum claims

209
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:59,320
Speaker 2: at the southern border. You're listening to Bloomberg. A DC

210
00:11:59,480 --> 00:12:04,880
Speaker 2: federal judge has barred the Trump administration from expelling asylum seekers,

211
00:12:05,240 --> 00:12:10,720
Speaker 2: saying President Trump overstepped his legal and constitutional authority. Judge

212
00:12:10,800 --> 00:12:15,360
Speaker 2: Randolph Mass said portions of Trump's January twentieth executive order

213
00:12:15,800 --> 00:12:20,240
Speaker 2: violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and the US constitutions

214
00:12:20,280 --> 00:12:24,640
Speaker 2: separation of powers. The US Constitution can't be read to

215
00:12:24,720 --> 00:12:28,880
Speaker 2: grant the President or his delegees authority to adopt an

216
00:12:28,920 --> 00:12:34,000
Speaker 2: alternative immigration system which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.

217
00:12:34,360 --> 00:12:37,720
Speaker 2: I've been talking to immigration attorney Leon Fresco of Holland

218
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:43,960
Speaker 2: and Knight. Has the Trump administration been denying asylum claims?

219
00:12:43,960 --> 00:12:47,200
Speaker 4: Correct? What has happened since the Trump administration has taken

220
00:12:47,400 --> 00:12:51,240
Speaker 4: power in January of twenty twenty five is they tightened

221
00:12:51,400 --> 00:12:55,040
Speaker 4: a regulation that was already being challenged through the Biden administration.

222
00:12:55,080 --> 00:12:58,319
Speaker 4: What the Biden administration was saying was you can't come

223
00:12:58,400 --> 00:13:02,040
Speaker 4: across the border illegal and ask for asylum. You have

224
00:13:02,160 --> 00:13:06,040
Speaker 4: to make an appointment using the CBP one app and

225
00:13:06,240 --> 00:13:09,160
Speaker 4: go to a port of entry and ask for asylum

226
00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:11,320
Speaker 4: at the port of entry. But if you try to

227
00:13:11,360 --> 00:13:14,840
Speaker 4: go in between the ports of entry, you are not

228
00:13:14,960 --> 00:13:16,880
Speaker 4: going to be allowed asylum. You're going to be pushed

229
00:13:16,920 --> 00:13:20,640
Speaker 4: back into Mexico because you're going to be banned. So

230
00:13:20,720 --> 00:13:23,680
Speaker 4: that was a provision that the Biden administration has. When

231
00:13:23,679 --> 00:13:26,640
Speaker 4: Trump comes into power, he then says, not only will

232
00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:29,360
Speaker 4: you be pushed back, not only will there be this band,

233
00:13:29,760 --> 00:13:31,439
Speaker 4: but there's not going to be a legal way to

234
00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:33,960
Speaker 4: come into the port of entries. We're closing the CDP

235
00:13:34,120 --> 00:13:37,120
Speaker 4: one app, We're closing the parole programs that allow you

236
00:13:37,200 --> 00:13:40,040
Speaker 4: to apply to come in legally. And so there's no

237
00:13:40,080 --> 00:13:44,040
Speaker 4: way in period. There's no asylum, there's no requesting it

238
00:13:44,080 --> 00:13:47,120
Speaker 4: at the ports of entry, there's no requesting paroles, nothing,

239
00:13:47,280 --> 00:13:50,720
Speaker 4: there's no way to ask for refugee status. If you're

240
00:13:50,760 --> 00:13:53,640
Speaker 4: just basically trying to arrive to the United States to

241
00:13:53,720 --> 00:13:57,160
Speaker 4: ask for a refugee status aka asylum, there's no way

242
00:13:57,200 --> 00:14:00,720
Speaker 4: to do that. And so when that happened. There literally

243
00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:02,880
Speaker 4: is a provision in the law that you can challenge

244
00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:06,679
Speaker 4: that in the District Court for the District of Columbia,

245
00:14:06,760 --> 00:14:09,840
Speaker 4: and that's what people did. They first challenged the Biden administration.

246
00:14:10,440 --> 00:14:13,560
Speaker 4: That case never got to a decision, so it got

247
00:14:13,600 --> 00:14:17,400
Speaker 4: converted into a challenge to the Trump administration's policies. And

248
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:20,560
Speaker 4: now after a lot of excessive briefing back and forth,

249
00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:25,760
Speaker 4: because the Supreme Court had issued doctrines earlier in the

250
00:14:25,760 --> 00:14:30,320
Speaker 4: Biden administration saying you can't get preliminary injunctive relief like this.

251
00:14:30,480 --> 00:14:33,560
Speaker 4: You can only basically get summary judgment, and then that

252
00:14:33,640 --> 00:14:35,480
Speaker 4: has to go all the way up to the Supreme

253
00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:39,600
Speaker 4: Court before something like this can be stopped. So they

254
00:14:39,600 --> 00:14:42,040
Speaker 4: were saying that district courts and circuit courts, on their

255
00:14:42,160 --> 00:14:47,480
Speaker 4: various statutory regimes, don't have the jurisdiction to enjoin these

256
00:14:47,600 --> 00:14:52,120
Speaker 4: kinds of asylum programs. They can only enter a final

257
00:14:52,200 --> 00:14:55,080
Speaker 4: judgment saying that they think it's illegal, and then that

258
00:14:55,120 --> 00:14:56,840
Speaker 4: has to work its way up to the Supreme Court,

259
00:14:56,880 --> 00:14:59,600
Speaker 4: who then has to decide whether it's illegal or not.

260
00:15:00,000 --> 00:15:02,920
Speaker 4: So that's what's happened here. A district judge from the

261
00:15:02,920 --> 00:15:06,200
Speaker 4: District of Columbia has said this is illegal. You have

262
00:15:06,320 --> 00:15:09,440
Speaker 4: to provide some way for people who are outside of

263
00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:11,840
Speaker 4: the United States who when they arrive at the United

264
00:15:11,880 --> 00:15:14,840
Speaker 4: States are able to apply for asylum. You can't just

265
00:15:14,920 --> 00:15:18,880
Speaker 4: have a wholesale ban on people applying for asylum. And

266
00:15:18,920 --> 00:15:22,360
Speaker 4: that that's what's basically happened here, and so that the

267
00:15:22,560 --> 00:15:26,480
Speaker 4: executive orders and regulations that have been issued by the

268
00:15:26,520 --> 00:15:32,120
Speaker 4: Trump administration banning asylum are declared illegal. Now that declaration

269
00:15:32,240 --> 00:15:35,440
Speaker 4: won't go into effects again unless and until the Supreme

270
00:15:35,480 --> 00:15:38,640
Speaker 4: Court allows it to go into effect. But nevertheless, if

271
00:15:38,680 --> 00:15:41,160
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court agrees that there has to be some

272
00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:45,600
Speaker 4: way for people to apply for asylum, then the numbers

273
00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:48,920
Speaker 4: will eventually change from the zero numbers that we have now.

274
00:15:48,960 --> 00:15:51,440
Speaker 4: I mean they may not change immediately because there will

275
00:15:51,480 --> 00:15:54,320
Speaker 4: be this game of sort of you know, touching the

276
00:15:54,400 --> 00:15:57,200
Speaker 4: stove and seeing what happens when you touch the stove, etc.

277
00:15:58,000 --> 00:16:01,120
Speaker 4: But once people touch the stove enough to see that no,

278
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:03,400
Speaker 4: the government does indeed have to let them in and

279
00:16:03,440 --> 00:16:06,280
Speaker 4: then let them apply for asylum, then you will see

280
00:16:06,320 --> 00:16:07,480
Speaker 4: people doing this again.

281
00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:10,560
Speaker 2: I mean, asylum is a pretty basic concept in this

282
00:16:10,800 --> 00:16:13,840
Speaker 2: country through our history. What do you think the Supreme

283
00:16:13,920 --> 00:16:16,120
Speaker 2: Court will do well.

284
00:16:16,200 --> 00:16:19,560
Speaker 4: It's difficult because if you're actually going to look at this,

285
00:16:19,720 --> 00:16:22,600
Speaker 4: and I always try to use the either AI judge

286
00:16:22,680 --> 00:16:25,000
Speaker 4: or the robot judge, or the judge that has no

287
00:16:25,160 --> 00:16:28,400
Speaker 4: political sentiment of any kind, it's hard to read the

288
00:16:28,440 --> 00:16:32,840
Speaker 4: statutory framework which says that regardless of how you enter

289
00:16:32,960 --> 00:16:35,960
Speaker 4: the United States, if you're in the territory of the

290
00:16:36,040 --> 00:16:39,040
Speaker 4: United States, you're permitted to apply for asylum, which is

291
00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:42,480
Speaker 4: what the statute literally says, and then say, well, there's

292
00:16:42,480 --> 00:16:45,480
Speaker 4: no way to apply for the asylum because what's happening

293
00:16:45,600 --> 00:16:49,800
Speaker 4: is the administration is using a second statute which says

294
00:16:49,880 --> 00:16:55,840
Speaker 4: that they can pick places or reasons, discretionary reasons why

295
00:16:55,880 --> 00:16:59,040
Speaker 4: people cannot get asylums. So, for instance, let's say there's

296
00:16:59,080 --> 00:17:02,000
Speaker 4: some new AI crime that nobody thought of when they

297
00:17:02,040 --> 00:17:05,000
Speaker 4: read the statute. They can say, anybody who's committed this

298
00:17:05,119 --> 00:17:09,439
Speaker 4: AI crime can't get asylum. Okay, fine, nobody thought of

299
00:17:09,440 --> 00:17:12,200
Speaker 4: that when there was a statute, fair enough, But people

300
00:17:12,359 --> 00:17:16,119
Speaker 4: did think of the fact that if you came illegally

301
00:17:16,520 --> 00:17:18,840
Speaker 4: you could apply for asylum, because that's literally what it

302
00:17:18,880 --> 00:17:22,120
Speaker 4: says in the statute. So can that be a reason?

303
00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:25,320
Speaker 4: Is that really a permissible reason that you can use

304
00:17:25,359 --> 00:17:29,080
Speaker 4: your discretion for to not allow people to get asylum,

305
00:17:29,200 --> 00:17:32,840
Speaker 4: because that's literally one that's covered in the statute. It's

306
00:17:32,880 --> 00:17:35,440
Speaker 4: not like AI where it would be a brand new

307
00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:37,920
Speaker 4: thing nobody thought about, which was the whole point of

308
00:17:37,960 --> 00:17:42,760
Speaker 4: Congress giving this authority to add new discretionary reasons why

309
00:17:42,800 --> 00:17:46,960
Speaker 4: somebody couldn't get asylum. This is one that was already contemplated.

310
00:17:47,359 --> 00:17:51,760
Speaker 4: So I do think if you have a disinterested, non political,

311
00:17:51,840 --> 00:17:56,000
Speaker 4: computerized judge, it would seem to me that that judge

312
00:17:56,040 --> 00:17:58,480
Speaker 4: would say, yeah, there has to be some way you

313
00:17:58,520 --> 00:18:01,440
Speaker 4: can apply for asylum if you enter the United States.

314
00:18:01,680 --> 00:18:03,720
Speaker 4: But we're going to see what the Supreme Court does.

315
00:18:03,800 --> 00:18:07,080
Speaker 4: Because the Supreme Court may just say I get all that,

316
00:18:07,160 --> 00:18:08,919
Speaker 4: and that's fine and dandy, but I don't want to

317
00:18:08,960 --> 00:18:14,000
Speaker 4: return to the state of affairs in the Biden administration

318
00:18:14,080 --> 00:18:17,000
Speaker 4: where there were hundreds of thousands of people coming each

319
00:18:17,080 --> 00:18:20,399
Speaker 4: month across the border, and so they may just say

320
00:18:20,720 --> 00:18:24,359
Speaker 4: too bad. We'll really just have to see where the

321
00:18:24,400 --> 00:18:26,840
Speaker 4: Supreme Court will go down. As I sit here now,

322
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:29,800
Speaker 4: I cannot make a good faith prediction because of other

323
00:18:29,880 --> 00:18:32,160
Speaker 4: cases we'll talk about in a second, where I would

324
00:18:32,200 --> 00:18:34,119
Speaker 4: never have guessed the Supreme Court would have ruled the

325
00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:36,439
Speaker 4: way it did. And I think the Supreme Court is

326
00:18:36,520 --> 00:18:41,520
Speaker 4: just tired of interventions that don't allow the Trump administration

327
00:18:41,600 --> 00:18:45,480
Speaker 4: to enforce immigration laws. And so they may just say, look,

328
00:18:45,520 --> 00:18:47,960
Speaker 4: if the Congress wants to do something, that's great, But

329
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:50,080
Speaker 4: if the Congress isn't going to do anything, we're not

330
00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:54,480
Speaker 4: going to recap the president's ability to enforce immigration law.

331
00:18:54,760 --> 00:18:58,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean on the emergency docket. The Supreme Court

332
00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:03,959
Speaker 2: has basically given Trump everything he asks for regarding immigration,

333
00:19:04,400 --> 00:19:10,040
Speaker 2: including last Friday where they said he can deport people

334
00:19:10,240 --> 00:19:11,399
Speaker 2: to third countries.

335
00:19:12,160 --> 00:19:14,760
Speaker 4: Correct. So in this case, here's what happened. You had

336
00:19:15,040 --> 00:19:17,920
Speaker 4: eight individuals from all over the world, the notorious sort

337
00:19:17,960 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 4: of countries. We can't deport people to Cuba, Allos, Cambodia,

338
00:19:22,040 --> 00:19:25,320
Speaker 4: et cetera. And so what the Trump administration is basically

339
00:19:25,359 --> 00:19:28,919
Speaker 4: trying to accomplish as it's basically saying, look, I think

340
00:19:29,280 --> 00:19:33,560
Speaker 4: these countries are acting in a pretextual manner not allowing

341
00:19:33,640 --> 00:19:36,520
Speaker 4: us to deport their citizens back to their countries. If

342
00:19:36,560 --> 00:19:40,359
Speaker 4: we actually make things onerous enough and difficult enough, they'll

343
00:19:40,359 --> 00:19:44,920
Speaker 4: eventually start taking their people back. Whether it's directly or

344
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:49,400
Speaker 4: if we deport them to very strange places, then those

345
00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:53,240
Speaker 4: individuals will starve to death unless those countries accept them back.

346
00:19:53,280 --> 00:19:56,199
Speaker 4: So they will eventually give them a travel permit to

347
00:19:56,240 --> 00:19:59,560
Speaker 4: go back to Cambodia or Loos or Cuba or something,

348
00:19:59,560 --> 00:20:01,359
Speaker 4: because they're that's just going to let people start to

349
00:20:01,400 --> 00:20:04,639
Speaker 4: death in the middle of some strange country. So it

350
00:20:04,880 --> 00:20:07,720
Speaker 4: tried to test out this theory in South Sudan. It

351
00:20:07,800 --> 00:20:11,480
Speaker 4: tried to deport people from Cuba and Laos and Cambodia

352
00:20:11,480 --> 00:20:14,520
Speaker 4: and other places, eight people to South Sudan. But in

353
00:20:14,560 --> 00:20:17,359
Speaker 4: the process of trying to do that, it didn't allow

354
00:20:17,480 --> 00:20:20,679
Speaker 4: these individuals to raise a claim that they would be

355
00:20:20,720 --> 00:20:23,760
Speaker 4: subject to torture if they were deported to South Sudan.

356
00:20:24,320 --> 00:20:26,760
Speaker 4: And so there was a district judge who said stop that,

357
00:20:26,920 --> 00:20:30,640
Speaker 4: you can't continue this process. And the problem was by

358
00:20:30,680 --> 00:20:34,359
Speaker 4: the time that order was entered, the individuals were already

359
00:20:34,440 --> 00:20:37,200
Speaker 4: in Djibouti. And I think this is another issue of

360
00:20:37,280 --> 00:20:40,520
Speaker 4: bad facts make bad laws, because now there was eight

361
00:20:40,560 --> 00:20:44,399
Speaker 4: people in Djibouti where the US basically was stuck. What

362
00:20:44,480 --> 00:20:46,760
Speaker 4: was it supposed to do with these people? You know,

363
00:20:46,920 --> 00:20:49,320
Speaker 4: do you do trials for whether they're going to be

364
00:20:49,359 --> 00:20:52,440
Speaker 4: torture or not. Who are these Americans having to take

365
00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:55,560
Speaker 4: care of these people in Djibouti? You know they can't

366
00:20:55,560 --> 00:20:58,159
Speaker 4: go home now. It was a big mess, and so

367
00:20:58,240 --> 00:21:01,000
Speaker 4: I think the Supreme Court was worried about just this

368
00:21:01,160 --> 00:21:04,560
Speaker 4: logistical nightmare of having at least a month or two

369
00:21:04,640 --> 00:21:07,760
Speaker 4: or maybe more of hearings and trials for these eight

370
00:21:07,800 --> 00:21:11,200
Speaker 4: individuals to may claims about whether they would face torture

371
00:21:11,320 --> 00:21:14,679
Speaker 4: in South Sudan, and so basically threw its hands up

372
00:21:14,720 --> 00:21:17,040
Speaker 4: and said, you know what, we're done with this. Allow

373
00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:20,000
Speaker 4: these people to be sent to South Sudan. But in

374
00:21:20,040 --> 00:21:24,000
Speaker 4: the meantime, that's created a president now where the Trump

375
00:21:24,040 --> 00:21:27,960
Speaker 4: administration will be able to send anybody to South Sudan

376
00:21:28,280 --> 00:21:31,080
Speaker 4: or Libya or any other country it wants to. You

377
00:21:31,160 --> 00:21:33,399
Speaker 4: won't have an opportunity to be able to raise a

378
00:21:33,480 --> 00:21:36,159
Speaker 4: claim that you would be tortured in that country. You

379
00:21:36,200 --> 00:21:38,880
Speaker 4: can only raise a claim that you will be tortured

380
00:21:38,960 --> 00:21:42,560
Speaker 4: in your country a citizenship. But they'll say, fine, okay,

381
00:21:42,640 --> 00:21:46,240
Speaker 4: so you'll be tortured in your country a citizenship, whatever

382
00:21:46,280 --> 00:21:48,960
Speaker 4: that may be. But who cares, We're now going to

383
00:21:49,000 --> 00:21:52,480
Speaker 4: send you to Libya or South Sudan or some other country,

384
00:21:52,880 --> 00:21:55,840
Speaker 4: and so I did not expect the Supreme Court to

385
00:21:56,080 --> 00:21:59,280
Speaker 4: not allow for some due process to be able to

386
00:21:59,280 --> 00:22:02,280
Speaker 4: make these claims. But that is where we are, and

387
00:22:02,400 --> 00:22:05,040
Speaker 4: so at the moment, unless the Supreme Court comes back

388
00:22:05,080 --> 00:22:07,680
Speaker 4: and revisits this later, which by the way, it has

389
00:22:07,760 --> 00:22:10,600
Speaker 4: done in other issues. There were some times during the

390
00:22:10,600 --> 00:22:14,440
Speaker 4: Biden administration where it lets certain things go into effect

391
00:22:14,920 --> 00:22:17,560
Speaker 4: that then it later said, this makes no sense, why

392
00:22:17,600 --> 00:22:20,880
Speaker 4: did that happen, and then it actually enjoined them. And

393
00:22:20,960 --> 00:22:24,160
Speaker 4: so this could and maybe even probably would happen later

394
00:22:24,320 --> 00:22:27,760
Speaker 4: moving on in the future, especially depending on if the

395
00:22:27,880 --> 00:22:31,280
Speaker 4: news starts getting really stark and people start actually dying,

396
00:22:31,720 --> 00:22:34,080
Speaker 4: you know, if they get deported to certain places, then

397
00:22:34,480 --> 00:22:37,400
Speaker 4: the facts may get bad enough that the Court does

398
00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:40,800
Speaker 4: revisit this, and maybe more quickly than not. But at

399
00:22:40,800 --> 00:22:43,680
Speaker 4: the moment, the current state of affairs is the Trump

400
00:22:43,720 --> 00:22:48,000
Speaker 4: administration can deport any foreign national to any country it

401
00:22:48,119 --> 00:22:51,240
Speaker 4: wants to, as long as it's not their country of

402
00:22:51,320 --> 00:22:54,400
Speaker 4: citizenship where they fear persecution or torture.

403
00:22:55,160 --> 00:22:58,560
Speaker 2: So in the past month, the Trump administration has ramped

404
00:22:58,680 --> 00:23:03,159
Speaker 2: up raids on home holmes, workplaces, courthouses, some more than

405
00:23:03,160 --> 00:23:06,360
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty lawsuits across the US have been

406
00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:10,840
Speaker 2: filed alleging that federal agents are using excessive force and

407
00:23:11,000 --> 00:23:16,680
Speaker 2: warrantless arrests while engaging in illegal racial profiling to target

408
00:23:16,800 --> 00:23:20,200
Speaker 2: non white people. I see why they're suing. Do these

409
00:23:20,240 --> 00:23:21,560
Speaker 2: suits have a chance.

410
00:23:21,920 --> 00:23:26,080
Speaker 4: Well, the problem is these are very fact intensive suits

411
00:23:26,080 --> 00:23:29,159
Speaker 4: that don't really lend themselves to class action. What they

412
00:23:29,240 --> 00:23:32,400
Speaker 4: lend themselves really, if you're looking at this again from

413
00:23:32,400 --> 00:23:37,439
Speaker 4: the dispassionate computerized judge, issue is, in a specific case,

414
00:23:38,080 --> 00:23:42,320
Speaker 4: was a specific person apprehended by ICE because of an

415
00:23:42,440 --> 00:23:46,399
Speaker 4: enforcement action that violated the need to go get a warrant. So,

416
00:23:46,520 --> 00:23:50,800
Speaker 4: for instance, as an example, suppose that ICE was in

417
00:23:50,840 --> 00:23:54,520
Speaker 4: an apartment building and had a warrant to get one person,

418
00:23:54,920 --> 00:23:57,960
Speaker 4: Joe Smith at apartment one oh one, and then ICE

419
00:23:58,000 --> 00:24:01,359
Speaker 4: just started knocking on all the doors. Than anytime someone

420
00:24:01,440 --> 00:24:05,320
Speaker 4: opened a door who look you of a certain ethnic group,

421
00:24:05,359 --> 00:24:08,480
Speaker 4: that I just apprehended that person and been asked questions later,

422
00:24:09,200 --> 00:24:12,680
Speaker 4: that would be a situation where that person's apprehension would

423
00:24:12,760 --> 00:24:15,600
Speaker 4: violate the Fourth Amendment. And then they could say, within

424
00:24:15,640 --> 00:24:18,680
Speaker 4: the context of their removal proceedings, you need to dismiss

425
00:24:18,720 --> 00:24:22,240
Speaker 4: my removal proceedings because they started on the basis of

426
00:24:22,320 --> 00:24:26,880
Speaker 4: this violation of my Fourth Amendment right, So that would

427
00:24:26,960 --> 00:24:30,199
Speaker 4: be the way to handle that. As a class, it

428
00:24:30,280 --> 00:24:34,720
Speaker 4: becomes more complicated because there unfortunately does need to be

429
00:24:35,040 --> 00:24:37,720
Speaker 4: This is sort of one of the oddest debates. And

430
00:24:37,800 --> 00:24:40,320
Speaker 4: this debate I saw it a lot when I was

431
00:24:40,359 --> 00:24:43,119
Speaker 4: a staffer in the Congress, and I'd have this debate

432
00:24:43,160 --> 00:24:46,600
Speaker 4: with many of my fellow Democratic colleagues. I'd say, look,

433
00:24:46,640 --> 00:24:50,040
Speaker 4: the whole point of these alienage statutes, whether you like

434
00:24:50,080 --> 00:24:52,239
Speaker 4: it or not, is there does need to be a

435
00:24:52,240 --> 00:24:55,879
Speaker 4: certain racial profiling component to it, because the whole point

436
00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:58,399
Speaker 4: is we need to profile are you a citizen or

437
00:24:58,400 --> 00:25:01,639
Speaker 4: are you not? And so we need to get to

438
00:25:01,680 --> 00:25:03,440
Speaker 4: the bottom of that, and so we do need to

439
00:25:03,480 --> 00:25:07,200
Speaker 4: treat people differently on this. This isn't like another law

440
00:25:07,600 --> 00:25:10,360
Speaker 4: where you know it's burglary and that we don't care

441
00:25:10,400 --> 00:25:13,679
Speaker 4: about the human being who's doing the burglary. We just

442
00:25:13,760 --> 00:25:16,280
Speaker 4: ask are you in the house? We find, we arrestue.

443
00:25:16,440 --> 00:25:18,199
Speaker 4: If you're not in the house, you're not the burglar.

444
00:25:18,320 --> 00:25:21,680
Speaker 4: We don't arrestue. Okay, those are easy, but the whole

445
00:25:21,720 --> 00:25:26,400
Speaker 4: purpose of these crimes. Unfortunately is these are status based crimes.

446
00:25:26,480 --> 00:25:30,040
Speaker 4: This is not like other crimes. So you do have

447
00:25:30,200 --> 00:25:34,520
Speaker 4: to treat certain people differently just based on their status.

448
00:25:34,960 --> 00:25:37,959
Speaker 4: And so because of that, this becomes very complicated because

449
00:25:38,400 --> 00:25:42,280
Speaker 4: the government does have to arrest people on the basis

450
00:25:42,320 --> 00:25:45,440
Speaker 4: of these sort of immutable factors which are their status.

451
00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:50,440
Speaker 4: And so that's why I don't think as these cases

452
00:25:50,520 --> 00:25:53,320
Speaker 4: percolate up the courts. They may be successful at the

453
00:25:53,320 --> 00:25:57,280
Speaker 4: beginning in certain individual district courts, but as these cases

454
00:25:57,320 --> 00:26:00,480
Speaker 4: percolate up the courts, I think that the Supreme which

455
00:26:00,480 --> 00:26:04,400
Speaker 4: has been very very adverse to any kind of facial

456
00:26:04,520 --> 00:26:07,960
Speaker 4: challenges of any kind and has always really been trying

457
00:26:08,000 --> 00:26:12,000
Speaker 4: to push litigants towards these as applied challenges in their

458
00:26:12,040 --> 00:26:16,920
Speaker 4: particular case, especially in this type of framework, is really

459
00:26:16,960 --> 00:26:20,479
Speaker 4: going to say to individuals, look, if I did something

460
00:26:20,560 --> 00:26:24,280
Speaker 4: to you in your particular case, challenge it either within

461
00:26:24,320 --> 00:26:27,720
Speaker 4: the context of your removal proceeding, or sue them. You know,

462
00:26:27,800 --> 00:26:30,320
Speaker 4: let's say you're a US citizen and you got placed

463
00:26:30,320 --> 00:26:33,120
Speaker 4: in nice custody for ten days, to them and say

464
00:26:33,160 --> 00:26:35,639
Speaker 4: why was I placed a nice custody for ten days?

465
00:26:36,040 --> 00:26:38,680
Speaker 4: And you know, get civil damages or something like that.

466
00:26:39,119 --> 00:26:43,480
Speaker 4: But to actually have injunctive relief that sort of creates

467
00:26:43,600 --> 00:26:47,120
Speaker 4: new procedures that ICE has to follow. I don't think

468
00:26:47,160 --> 00:26:48,960
Speaker 4: that the Supreme Court is going to allow that to

469
00:26:49,160 --> 00:26:50,000
Speaker 4: be put in place.

470
00:26:50,200 --> 00:26:53,920
Speaker 2: Class actions are not easy. Thanks so much, Leon. That's

471
00:26:54,000 --> 00:26:57,560
Speaker 2: Leon Fresco of Hound and Knight. Coming up. Who wins

472
00:26:57,600 --> 00:27:01,960
Speaker 2: Who loses? In Trump's Tax Bill? This is Bloomberg and

473
00:27:02,119 --> 00:27:06,560
Speaker 2: nearly nine hundred pages. President Trump's new tax bill is

474
00:27:06,600 --> 00:27:10,440
Speaker 2: a sprawling collection of tax breaks, spending cuts, and other

475
00:27:10,480 --> 00:27:15,800
Speaker 2: Republican priorities, including new money for national defense and deportations.

476
00:27:16,119 --> 00:27:19,359
Speaker 2: So who wins and who loses? My guest is an

477
00:27:19,440 --> 00:27:23,520
Speaker 2: expert in tax law, Alex Raskolnikov, a professor at Columbia

478
00:27:23,600 --> 00:27:27,040
Speaker 2: Law School. Alex, what are your biggest takeaways from the bill?

479
00:27:27,440 --> 00:27:32,919
Speaker 1: Well, the two biggest takeaways is one, it's enormously expensive,

480
00:27:33,400 --> 00:27:37,000
Speaker 1: and it just drings the moment of reckoning much closer.

481
00:27:37,320 --> 00:27:41,320
Speaker 1: It's going to increase the deficit by trillions of dollars,

482
00:27:41,680 --> 00:27:44,480
Speaker 1: and sooner or later the bond market is going to

483
00:27:44,520 --> 00:27:47,199
Speaker 1: make us pay. That's in terms of revenue and then

484
00:27:47,240 --> 00:27:52,000
Speaker 1: in terms of distribution. It is basically an extension of

485
00:27:52,160 --> 00:27:56,560
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen bill, which favored the better off, and this

486
00:27:56,640 --> 00:28:00,320
Speaker 1: one favors the better off even more because of the

487
00:28:00,840 --> 00:28:04,640
Speaker 1: pretty harsh measures having to do with health care and

488
00:28:04,880 --> 00:28:08,320
Speaker 1: food stems at the bottom of the distribution, So it's

489
00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:09,240
Speaker 1: pretty regressive.

490
00:28:09,600 --> 00:28:14,080
Speaker 2: The Congressional Budget Office projected the bill would increase federal

491
00:28:14,119 --> 00:28:19,360
Speaker 2: deficits by nearly three point three trillion, But Senate Republicans

492
00:28:19,359 --> 00:28:23,119
Speaker 2: are proposing a different strategy of figuring that out.

493
00:28:23,760 --> 00:28:27,720
Speaker 1: Yes, okay, it's easier to understand with spending than with taxes.

494
00:28:27,800 --> 00:28:31,120
Speaker 1: So I'll just give you an example of what Democrats

495
00:28:31,160 --> 00:28:34,160
Speaker 1: may do next time they're in power. So let's say

496
00:28:34,880 --> 00:28:38,240
Speaker 1: they want to help people who are struggling economically, and

497
00:28:38,360 --> 00:28:42,160
Speaker 1: they decide to enact the program that's going to guarantee

498
00:28:42,440 --> 00:28:46,560
Speaker 1: every American an annual income of let's say forty thousand

499
00:28:46,640 --> 00:28:50,160
Speaker 1: dollars a year. Okay, so if you make twenty, you're

500
00:28:50,160 --> 00:28:52,200
Speaker 1: going to get extra twenty, and if you make ten,

501
00:28:52,240 --> 00:28:54,800
Speaker 1: you're going to get extra thirty. And if you make nothing,

502
00:28:54,840 --> 00:28:57,840
Speaker 1: you get forty thousand a year. So, you know, not lavish,

503
00:28:57,880 --> 00:29:00,960
Speaker 1: but pretty good. Obviously, it's going to cost enormous amount

504
00:29:01,040 --> 00:29:04,360
Speaker 1: of money, right, so the Democrats are going to say, oh,

505
00:29:04,480 --> 00:29:08,160
Speaker 1: but we're going to enact this program only for one month.

506
00:29:08,480 --> 00:29:12,480
Speaker 1: So they pass a law that enacts is unbelievably generous

507
00:29:12,520 --> 00:29:15,960
Speaker 1: program for one month, and a week later they convene again.

508
00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:19,920
Speaker 1: Congress convenes again and say, well, we're now going to

509
00:29:20,080 --> 00:29:23,920
Speaker 1: extend this program permanently. How much is going to cost?

510
00:29:24,160 --> 00:29:27,280
Speaker 1: And so what Republicans are saying now equivalent to what

511
00:29:27,440 --> 00:29:29,920
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to say, then it's going to cost nothing.

512
00:29:30,280 --> 00:29:33,280
Speaker 1: It's going to cost nothing because there's already a forty

513
00:29:33,360 --> 00:29:37,160
Speaker 1: thousand dollars payment. And so we're just continuing with what

514
00:29:37,280 --> 00:29:41,320
Speaker 1: Republicans call current policy. It's not the law. The law

515
00:29:41,440 --> 00:29:44,400
Speaker 1: is that the program expires, but the policy is that

516
00:29:44,440 --> 00:29:47,760
Speaker 1: the program is active now, and so it costs nothing.

517
00:29:47,800 --> 00:29:51,160
Speaker 1: To extend something forever that costs enormous amount of money.

518
00:29:51,240 --> 00:29:52,160
Speaker 1: So that's the trick.

519
00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:56,640
Speaker 2: It's quite a trick. You mentioned the Medicaid and snap

520
00:29:57,040 --> 00:30:00,480
Speaker 2: how many people are going to be out of health insurance.

521
00:30:01,080 --> 00:30:05,080
Speaker 1: So here too, they're varying forecasts, and of course Democrats

522
00:30:05,120 --> 00:30:07,600
Speaker 1: are saying more in Republicans are saying less. So I

523
00:30:07,640 --> 00:30:11,640
Speaker 1: think a pretty reasonable forecast is about ten million people

524
00:30:11,800 --> 00:30:15,200
Speaker 1: will lose insurance, will lose Medicaid. The big reason is

525
00:30:15,240 --> 00:30:18,120
Speaker 1: there's going to be work requirements, and so people who

526
00:30:18,160 --> 00:30:20,880
Speaker 1: can't meet them will lose coverage. Half of the ten

527
00:30:20,960 --> 00:30:23,600
Speaker 1: million roughly these are all estimates, but half of the

528
00:30:23,640 --> 00:30:27,200
Speaker 1: ten million is estimated to lose medicaid because they will

529
00:30:27,200 --> 00:30:30,680
Speaker 1: not comply with work requirements because you know, it's like

530
00:30:30,960 --> 00:30:33,320
Speaker 1: they may not have access to the internet, or they

531
00:30:33,360 --> 00:30:36,600
Speaker 1: may not just understand how to feel forms, or they

532
00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:38,880
Speaker 1: may not know that they need to feal forms. So

533
00:30:38,960 --> 00:30:42,360
Speaker 1: these people would not comply with requirements even though they

534
00:30:42,520 --> 00:30:45,400
Speaker 1: could comply, they just won't feel the right form in

535
00:30:45,440 --> 00:30:49,800
Speaker 1: the right place. Now you're talking about low income population

536
00:30:50,720 --> 00:30:54,640
Speaker 1: with you know, hard lives and a lot of worries about,

537
00:30:54,720 --> 00:30:57,240
Speaker 1: you know, where the food is going to come from tomorrow.

538
00:30:57,800 --> 00:31:01,160
Speaker 1: So it's not unreasonable to say that some people will

539
00:31:01,200 --> 00:31:04,160
Speaker 1: just not do what they should do and could in

540
00:31:04,240 --> 00:31:07,760
Speaker 1: principle do. But it's an estimate. But under any estimate,

541
00:31:08,320 --> 00:31:11,160
Speaker 1: any estimate, I think it's safe to say that millions

542
00:31:11,160 --> 00:31:14,120
Speaker 1: of people are going to lose medicale And what about.

543
00:31:13,840 --> 00:31:18,840
Speaker 2: The claim that you know, the very very rich billionaires, etc.

544
00:31:19,240 --> 00:31:21,280
Speaker 2: Are going to benefit from the bill?

545
00:31:21,600 --> 00:31:24,280
Speaker 1: They're definitely going to benefit from the bill. I don't

546
00:31:24,360 --> 00:31:27,640
Speaker 1: understand where the claims are coming on the Democratic side,

547
00:31:27,680 --> 00:31:30,120
Speaker 1: but there's the greatest beneficiary or that this is the

548
00:31:30,200 --> 00:31:34,440
Speaker 1: bill that's like the biggest giveaway to billionaires. Official scoring

549
00:31:34,840 --> 00:31:40,520
Speaker 1: from the government does not show distributional consequences above two

550
00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:43,880
Speaker 1: million a year of income, so we're not definitely talking

551
00:31:43,880 --> 00:31:46,280
Speaker 1: about billionaires, and you know, these people are going to

552
00:31:46,280 --> 00:31:49,360
Speaker 1: be better off. The bill is fairly regressive, but it's

553
00:31:49,440 --> 00:31:53,880
Speaker 1: not specific to billionaires. When I'm thinking about what specific

554
00:31:54,000 --> 00:31:59,840
Speaker 1: provisions in the bill can disproportionately benefit billionaires, I don't

555
00:31:59,840 --> 00:32:04,240
Speaker 1: think them. So there are definitely provisions that benefit millionaires

556
00:32:04,280 --> 00:32:08,720
Speaker 1: and multimillionaires and billionaires, but in terms of the impact

557
00:32:08,760 --> 00:32:11,320
Speaker 1: in terms of how it's going to feel compared to

558
00:32:11,360 --> 00:32:14,760
Speaker 1: the taxes they pay. Now, it's going to be millionaires

559
00:32:15,000 --> 00:32:18,360
Speaker 1: and people making you know, somewhere from two to five

560
00:32:18,440 --> 00:32:21,040
Speaker 1: hundred thousand a year who are going to really feel

561
00:32:21,080 --> 00:32:24,200
Speaker 1: the biggest difference in terms of comparing to what they're paying.

562
00:32:24,240 --> 00:32:27,640
Speaker 2: Now, what about the salt taxes? I mean they raise

563
00:32:27,720 --> 00:32:29,000
Speaker 2: those just for a time.

564
00:32:29,480 --> 00:32:32,120
Speaker 1: That's why I said that, you know, it's millionaires and

565
00:32:32,280 --> 00:32:34,959
Speaker 1: people making two to hundred thousands a year, so two

566
00:32:35,040 --> 00:32:37,520
Speaker 1: to five hundred thousand a year reference was about soul,

567
00:32:37,720 --> 00:32:44,080
Speaker 1: So it's a pretty noticeable change. It's temporary, but noticeable

568
00:32:44,440 --> 00:32:50,280
Speaker 1: extra allowance of a deduction that will be felt by

569
00:32:50,320 --> 00:32:53,280
Speaker 1: people making about that amount, like two to five hundred

570
00:32:53,320 --> 00:32:56,720
Speaker 1: thousand something like that. So, of course, state taxes vary

571
00:32:56,800 --> 00:32:59,040
Speaker 1: by state and the thresholds vary by state, so it's

572
00:32:59,040 --> 00:33:01,880
Speaker 1: hard to be prec but roughly, like you know, the

573
00:33:01,960 --> 00:33:05,520
Speaker 1: affluent people who are not rich probably but doing well.

574
00:33:05,640 --> 00:33:10,880
Speaker 1: Now you said it's temporary, Yeah, it's temporary. The entire

575
00:33:11,240 --> 00:33:16,960
Speaker 1: personal income tax side of twenty seventeen reform was temporary

576
00:33:17,040 --> 00:33:20,320
Speaker 1: and guess what, it just became permanent. So this is

577
00:33:20,360 --> 00:33:24,040
Speaker 1: the thing both parties tried to do. Democrats tried to

578
00:33:24,080 --> 00:33:27,280
Speaker 1: do it with build back better you know, if something

579
00:33:27,360 --> 00:33:32,160
Speaker 1: is expensive. They passed these changes in law that's temporary

580
00:33:32,280 --> 00:33:37,040
Speaker 1: changes fully hoping and planning to make them permanent, because

581
00:33:37,600 --> 00:33:40,800
Speaker 1: not making them permanent, you could argue, is a tax increase.

582
00:33:41,240 --> 00:33:43,600
Speaker 2: And what about some of the promises that Trump made,

583
00:33:43,760 --> 00:33:45,640
Speaker 2: like no tax on tips.

584
00:33:46,000 --> 00:33:49,200
Speaker 1: Yes, it's also temporary, but it's enacted. There will be

585
00:33:49,240 --> 00:33:51,520
Speaker 1: no tax on tips. How much money is going to

586
00:33:51,600 --> 00:33:55,960
Speaker 1: save is a question. You need to remember that about

587
00:33:56,120 --> 00:34:01,680
Speaker 1: forty percent of taxpayers they know federal income tax, and

588
00:34:01,720 --> 00:34:04,040
Speaker 1: that's what we're talking about here, we're talking about changes

589
00:34:04,080 --> 00:34:07,200
Speaker 1: in federal income tax law. So about forty percent being

590
00:34:07,440 --> 00:34:10,640
Speaker 1: no federal income tax at all, and so no tax

591
00:34:10,680 --> 00:34:14,040
Speaker 1: on tips means nothing to them. Then of course it

592
00:34:14,120 --> 00:34:18,120
Speaker 1: won't surprise you that the compliance rate on reporting kIPS

593
00:34:18,280 --> 00:34:20,920
Speaker 1: is not super high. So some people who are not

594
00:34:21,080 --> 00:34:23,680
Speaker 1: reporting any kIPS even though they get them, you know,

595
00:34:23,880 --> 00:34:25,600
Speaker 1: that doesn't matter for them that there's going to be

596
00:34:25,600 --> 00:34:27,600
Speaker 1: no tax on chips. But for some people it will

597
00:34:28,040 --> 00:34:30,480
Speaker 1: and it feels good, you know, if you're getting kIPS.

598
00:34:30,600 --> 00:34:32,799
Speaker 1: But there's like this new rule that you don't have

599
00:34:32,840 --> 00:34:36,160
Speaker 1: to pay tax. It's also temporary. So just like this

600
00:34:36,440 --> 00:34:39,880
Speaker 1: state in local tax xtra reduction is going to expire,

601
00:34:40,440 --> 00:34:42,440
Speaker 1: I think by the end of twenty eight and then

602
00:34:42,480 --> 00:34:45,080
Speaker 1: those see it's going to be the same game again

603
00:34:45,120 --> 00:34:48,160
Speaker 1: and again that not extending, it will be a tax increase.

604
00:34:48,360 --> 00:34:52,600
Speaker 2: And what about no taxes on Social Security? That didn't happen,

605
00:34:52,640 --> 00:34:52,920
Speaker 2: did it?

606
00:34:53,440 --> 00:34:56,760
Speaker 1: No, that did not happen. I'll tell you something happened.

607
00:34:57,239 --> 00:35:02,040
Speaker 1: But whatever happened definitely is not no tax on Social Security.

608
00:35:02,160 --> 00:35:07,240
Speaker 1: What happened is that seniors get an extra deduction six thousand,

609
00:35:07,680 --> 00:35:12,319
Speaker 1: double for married couples. Extra deduction. Now, what does it

610
00:35:12,400 --> 00:35:14,920
Speaker 1: mean in terms of Social Security? And seniors are people

611
00:35:14,960 --> 00:35:17,960
Speaker 1: who get Social Security most of them, So a lot

612
00:35:18,000 --> 00:35:21,839
Speaker 1: of people who already get Social Security now are part

613
00:35:21,880 --> 00:35:24,880
Speaker 1: of that forty percent that don't owe any federal income taxes.

614
00:35:25,000 --> 00:35:29,000
Speaker 1: So a deduction is useless if you don't owe any tax.

615
00:35:29,239 --> 00:35:32,360
Speaker 1: For some people who do pay some taxes, this deduction

616
00:35:33,000 --> 00:35:38,520
Speaker 1: will possibly reduce or possibly eliminate the tax, so for

617
00:35:38,560 --> 00:35:42,000
Speaker 1: them it's going to be a valuable deduction. But it's

618
00:35:42,040 --> 00:35:45,879
Speaker 1: not specifically tied to Social Security income. And for some

619
00:35:45,960 --> 00:35:48,760
Speaker 1: people who paid a lot of money into the system

620
00:35:49,040 --> 00:35:52,480
Speaker 1: and received pretty or maybe have some other sources of income,

621
00:35:52,920 --> 00:35:56,319
Speaker 1: they will take a deduction of extra six thousand and

622
00:35:56,600 --> 00:35:59,320
Speaker 1: will still low tax. So there's no rule that says

623
00:35:59,360 --> 00:36:01,200
Speaker 1: social secure the income is not subject.

624
00:36:01,560 --> 00:36:05,440
Speaker 2: I've been hearing from people who have heavy student loan debt,

625
00:36:05,800 --> 00:36:10,879
Speaker 2: usually medical school or graduate school debt, complaining about what

626
00:36:10,960 --> 00:36:13,560
Speaker 2: this bill does, what have they changed there?

627
00:36:14,040 --> 00:36:18,640
Speaker 1: So they definitely may changes to long repaining programs. They're complicated,

628
00:36:19,040 --> 00:36:21,680
Speaker 1: I mean it depends on what kind of loans these are,

629
00:36:21,920 --> 00:36:24,440
Speaker 1: It depends on the kinds of jobs people do, and

630
00:36:24,480 --> 00:36:27,399
Speaker 1: it also depends on how much money people learned. These

631
00:36:27,480 --> 00:36:34,560
Speaker 1: changes affect people whose loan payments were reduced because their

632
00:36:35,160 --> 00:36:39,120
Speaker 1: incomes were sufficiently low. So doctors are not the first

633
00:36:39,120 --> 00:36:41,279
Speaker 1: people who come to mind when you think about this,

634
00:36:41,640 --> 00:36:45,000
Speaker 1: But for people whose incomes are fairly low, you know,

635
00:36:45,560 --> 00:36:49,920
Speaker 1: for some of them, loan repayments under the old program

636
00:36:50,120 --> 00:36:53,399
Speaker 1: were just eliminated basically as long as the income is law,

637
00:36:53,600 --> 00:36:57,040
Speaker 1: and that has gone away, so as I understand that

638
00:36:57,040 --> 00:37:00,759
Speaker 1: there will be either many fewer or no people who

639
00:37:00,880 --> 00:37:04,759
Speaker 1: owe student loan payments who will be allowed to pay

640
00:37:04,800 --> 00:37:07,520
Speaker 1: nothing at all. But I think the minimum payment from

641
00:37:07,520 --> 00:37:10,600
Speaker 1: what I've seen, is something like ten dollars a month,

642
00:37:10,840 --> 00:37:14,880
Speaker 1: So it's more of an instrument for the government like

643
00:37:14,960 --> 00:37:20,040
Speaker 1: to know who owes something than a real payment. Ten dollars,

644
00:37:20,080 --> 00:37:23,320
Speaker 1: I think is a pretty phenomenal amount. That's one big

645
00:37:23,400 --> 00:37:26,320
Speaker 1: change in student loan repayment. I'm sure there are others,

646
00:37:26,360 --> 00:37:28,400
Speaker 1: but these are complex programs.

647
00:37:28,600 --> 00:37:30,280
Speaker 2: Is it still a boon to businesses?

648
00:37:30,760 --> 00:37:36,520
Speaker 1: So yes, there are new deductions very favorable basically allowing

649
00:37:36,560 --> 00:37:40,800
Speaker 1: businesses to subtract what they pay on equipment, and also

650
00:37:40,840 --> 00:37:43,000
Speaker 1: on R and B. You know, if a business buy

651
00:37:43,080 --> 00:37:46,200
Speaker 1: the machine that's going to last ten years or twenty years,

652
00:37:46,840 --> 00:37:52,239
Speaker 1: the economic depreciation lasts for twenty years. The value of

653
00:37:52,280 --> 00:37:55,759
Speaker 1: the machine gradually declines with where and care. But these

654
00:37:55,800 --> 00:38:02,040
Speaker 1: provisions allow subtraction immediately of whatever is spent the equipment

655
00:38:02,080 --> 00:38:05,480
Speaker 1: and also on R and B. The argument where this

656
00:38:05,600 --> 00:38:11,320
Speaker 1: is not terrible is that it's supposed to be promoting

657
00:38:11,440 --> 00:38:16,320
Speaker 1: economic growth. Right, so if businesses can invest in equipment

658
00:38:16,440 --> 00:38:20,279
Speaker 1: and this and that long lived asset and take deductions

659
00:38:20,360 --> 00:38:24,000
Speaker 1: right away, it makes it more profitable for the business

660
00:38:24,080 --> 00:38:27,839
Speaker 1: to do so, so they will do the investment, they

661
00:38:27,880 --> 00:38:30,160
Speaker 1: will invest in research and so on. So that's the

662
00:38:30,239 --> 00:38:36,120
Speaker 1: standard economic rationale for allowing this generous deduction. It's basically

663
00:38:36,120 --> 00:38:40,960
Speaker 1: a subsidy. It's not reflecting economic deterioration. The counter argument

664
00:38:41,400 --> 00:38:45,600
Speaker 1: is that this is a subsidy for equipment like long

665
00:38:45,719 --> 00:38:50,480
Speaker 1: lasting equipment, and long lasting equipment these days is robots,

666
00:38:50,680 --> 00:38:54,279
Speaker 1: and so this is a tax incentive. And you know,

667
00:38:54,840 --> 00:38:58,480
Speaker 1: the machines are replacing people increasingly, so maybe it's not

668
00:38:58,600 --> 00:39:02,640
Speaker 1: a good idea to facilitate them. And further replacements of

669
00:39:02,680 --> 00:39:05,880
Speaker 1: people by machine. So that's sort of a more recent

670
00:39:06,040 --> 00:39:10,400
Speaker 1: concern that this bill does not address and intact makes

671
00:39:10,640 --> 00:39:12,280
Speaker 1: more serious.

672
00:39:12,160 --> 00:39:15,359
Speaker 2: The rise of AI. Can't get away from it. There

673
00:39:15,360 --> 00:39:18,120
Speaker 2: were a lot of promises made with the last tax

674
00:39:18,160 --> 00:39:22,399
Speaker 2: bill passed during Trump's first administration. What was the real

675
00:39:22,440 --> 00:39:23,640
Speaker 2: effect of the last bill?

676
00:39:23,880 --> 00:39:27,959
Speaker 1: There was nothing like, nothing like what Republicans were saying

677
00:39:27,960 --> 00:39:33,040
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. There was some economic growth in nominal terms,

678
00:39:33,040 --> 00:39:35,839
Speaker 1: meaning if you just look at dollars that was attributed

679
00:39:35,880 --> 00:39:38,719
Speaker 1: to the exchanges, and I think if you look at

680
00:39:38,760 --> 00:39:42,640
Speaker 1: the growth of the economy as percentage of growth domestic product,

681
00:39:42,719 --> 00:39:45,880
Speaker 1: they basically was not. So again, you know, there are

682
00:39:46,000 --> 00:39:50,359
Speaker 1: many ways to do this estimates and democratic economists and

683
00:39:50,480 --> 00:39:56,279
Speaker 1: Republican economists again come out with predictable differences. But it

684
00:39:56,400 --> 00:39:59,920
Speaker 1: was pretty clear then, I mean, there was really no significant,

685
00:40:00,160 --> 00:40:03,319
Speaker 1: serious doubts that the growth effects are not going to

686
00:40:03,320 --> 00:40:06,360
Speaker 1: be large, and they weren't, and so it's going to

687
00:40:06,360 --> 00:40:09,360
Speaker 1: be the same this time. Well, of course this comes

688
00:40:09,360 --> 00:40:13,359
Speaker 1: on top of massive threat of tariffs that are really

689
00:40:13,400 --> 00:40:16,880
Speaker 1: bad for growth. So you know, like this is hardly

690
00:40:17,000 --> 00:40:21,200
Speaker 1: a Congress and the president for super focused on economic growth.

691
00:40:20,920 --> 00:40:23,640
Speaker 2: And that may be an understatement, we'll see. Thanks so

692
00:40:23,719 --> 00:40:24,440
Speaker 2: much for joining me.

693
00:40:24,520 --> 00:40:24,840
Speaker 4: Alex.

694
00:40:24,960 --> 00:40:29,399
Speaker 2: That's Professor Alex Raskolnikov of Columbia Law School. And that's

695
00:40:29,440 --> 00:40:32,040
Speaker 2: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

696
00:40:32,080 --> 00:40:34,160
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our

697
00:40:34,200 --> 00:40:38,359
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

698
00:40:38,520 --> 00:40:43,560
Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,

699
00:40:43,960 --> 00:40:46,560
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

700
00:40:46,600 --> 00:40:50,520
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grosso

701
00:40:50,640 --> 00:40:52,239
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg