1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,160 --> 00:00:12,000
Speaker 1: Forty years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the right of

3
00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:16,239
Speaker 1: all students to a public school education regardless of their

4
00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:20,200
Speaker 1: legal status in the case of Plyler Vidoux. Now, in

5
00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:24,040
Speaker 1: light of the Supreme Court's apparent willingness to overturn precedent

6
00:00:24,120 --> 00:00:26,639
Speaker 1: in the case of Roe View Wade, the Governor of

7
00:00:26,720 --> 00:00:31,280
Speaker 1: Texas Greg Abbott says the Plyler decision is another longstanding

8
00:00:31,360 --> 00:00:35,919
Speaker 1: precedent they'll challenge Water. Both of those two decisions are

9
00:00:35,920 --> 00:00:38,240
Speaker 1: going to have to go in that the Arizona decision

10
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:41,159
Speaker 1: will have to go giving states full authority to enforce

11
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:45,519
Speaker 1: usmgression laws, or Plotter would to go, saying that the

12
00:00:45,520 --> 00:00:48,280
Speaker 1: federal government is going to be responsible for paying the

13
00:00:48,360 --> 00:00:51,800
Speaker 1: states for the cost of education that we're incurring because

14
00:00:51,800 --> 00:00:54,280
Speaker 1: of the mass illegal comisation that we're seeing today compared

15
00:00:54,280 --> 00:00:56,400
Speaker 1: to the way it was forty years ago. My guest

16
00:00:56,480 --> 00:00:59,639
Speaker 1: is Leon Fresco, a partner at hollanden Knight, tell us

17
00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:03,560
Speaker 1: about Pliler versus Dough, which has been on the books

18
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:08,959
Speaker 1: for forty years. Tiler versus, though, was a very close

19
00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:14,039
Speaker 1: decision back in the eighties. It wasn't a slam dunk

20
00:01:14,080 --> 00:01:16,800
Speaker 1: by any means. And the state of Texas had said,

21
00:01:17,840 --> 00:01:21,200
Speaker 1: we have a problem where people who don't have status

22
00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:25,319
Speaker 1: are coming into Texas and they're bringing their kids to school,

23
00:01:26,000 --> 00:01:29,039
Speaker 1: and the fact that those kids are being educated in

24
00:01:29,160 --> 00:01:33,560
Speaker 1: Texas is causing a resource constraint on us, and so

25
00:01:33,680 --> 00:01:35,240
Speaker 1: we are going to make it that you have to

26
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:38,880
Speaker 1: be here legally in order to go into public schools

27
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:42,759
Speaker 1: in Texas. And so the people who sued had two

28
00:01:42,840 --> 00:01:46,360
Speaker 1: basic theories for why it is that they would too.

29
00:01:46,480 --> 00:01:48,720
Speaker 1: They said that, first of all, there should be a

30
00:01:48,720 --> 00:01:52,720
Speaker 1: fundamental rights education for all persons of the United States.

31
00:01:52,800 --> 00:01:56,240
Speaker 1: And second, they said that even if there isn't a

32
00:01:56,280 --> 00:01:59,800
Speaker 1: fundamental rights to education, there should be an equal for

33
00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:04,240
Speaker 1: election violation here because the children are in some form

34
00:02:04,400 --> 00:02:07,480
Speaker 1: or fashion and protective class that the government should have

35
00:02:07,480 --> 00:02:12,000
Speaker 1: scrutiny for. And what the court ultimately did and this

36
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:14,640
Speaker 1: was sort of a very difficult decision in terms of

37
00:02:14,840 --> 00:02:17,480
Speaker 1: precedents that would be re examined, as they said, well,

38
00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:19,960
Speaker 1: first of all, we're not going to declare a fundamental

39
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:22,919
Speaker 1: right to an education, because what ends up happening there

40
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:26,440
Speaker 1: is then you sort of engender. They didn't say this,

41
00:02:26,560 --> 00:02:29,000
Speaker 1: but the idea was that would engender all these lawsuits

42
00:02:29,120 --> 00:02:32,280
Speaker 1: then about funding and kids in certain places and not

43
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:35,680
Speaker 1: getting as much funding as kids in other places. So

44
00:02:35,720 --> 00:02:37,720
Speaker 1: they didn't want to go down that rout and so

45
00:02:37,960 --> 00:02:42,440
Speaker 1: instead they said, this is an equal protection violation. But

46
00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:45,760
Speaker 1: there's no scrutiny that needs to be given. This has

47
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:48,959
Speaker 1: to go under the rational basis test, because the government

48
00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:53,240
Speaker 1: is allowed to discriminate between people with immigration status and

49
00:02:53,280 --> 00:02:57,880
Speaker 1: people without. But we can see no rational basis whatsoever

50
00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:03,760
Speaker 1: for X polluting children who don't have legal status from

51
00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:07,200
Speaker 1: the school. That's too cool. It doesn't solve anything about

52
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:10,480
Speaker 1: the parents motivations to come here, and so there's no

53
00:03:10,639 --> 00:03:14,840
Speaker 1: tie to it. And so the question is given how

54
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:18,160
Speaker 1: close a case of decision that was back then, and

55
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:23,160
Speaker 1: given a at least idea now that's out there that

56
00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:26,760
Speaker 1: the courts may start looking at past presidents. The state

57
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:29,120
Speaker 1: of Texas is saying, well, why don't we take a

58
00:03:29,360 --> 00:03:33,240
Speaker 1: run at this issue, given that we believe we could

59
00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:36,680
Speaker 1: find at least five, maybe six justices to say that

60
00:03:36,760 --> 00:03:40,920
Speaker 1: there is a rational basis to say that kids without

61
00:03:41,000 --> 00:03:44,120
Speaker 1: status shouldn't be going to public school as opposed to

62
00:03:44,200 --> 00:03:47,360
Speaker 1: kids with status, and so that's really what it would

63
00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:50,520
Speaker 1: tie down to, is would the Supreme Court be willing

64
00:03:50,560 --> 00:03:53,400
Speaker 1: to say that that there is a rational basis for

65
00:03:53,440 --> 00:03:57,840
Speaker 1: a law that actually discriminates between kids with status and

66
00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:00,920
Speaker 1: kids without status, or would they make their decision that

67
00:04:01,000 --> 00:04:04,680
Speaker 1: there is no such rational basis. Wh Texas have to

68
00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:11,800
Speaker 1: show that the expenses for educating immigrant children have skyrocketed

69
00:04:11,960 --> 00:04:14,760
Speaker 1: anything like that, correct, Texas isn't going to have to

70
00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:18,880
Speaker 1: show economic harm that would provide their rational basis for

71
00:04:18,960 --> 00:04:23,719
Speaker 1: doing this. And what Texas is saying now is if

72
00:04:23,760 --> 00:04:27,960
Speaker 1: this was just immigrants coming in speaking English or Spanish,

73
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:31,719
Speaker 1: we'd be fine. But now we actually have a new dimension,

74
00:04:32,120 --> 00:04:34,640
Speaker 1: which is immigrants are coming in who speak all sorts

75
00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:38,160
Speaker 1: of languages that aren't just limited to English and Spanish.

76
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:40,520
Speaker 1: And when we need to put those kids in our

77
00:04:40,560 --> 00:04:44,000
Speaker 1: public schools, we have to employ English as a second

78
00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:48,640
Speaker 1: language teachers who will then move these children from their

79
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:52,720
Speaker 1: language into English. And all of that requires immense expenditures

80
00:04:52,760 --> 00:04:55,560
Speaker 1: to get students to learn English from all of these

81
00:04:55,600 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 1: different second languages. So that's what Governor Rabbitt is saying

82
00:04:59,200 --> 00:05:03,400
Speaker 1: in Texas. And so if that lawsuit is filed, I

83
00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:07,520
Speaker 1: think there will be a very interesting year or two

84
00:05:08,160 --> 00:05:11,440
Speaker 1: where it's to analyze whether the court actually will reverse

85
00:05:11,440 --> 00:05:15,480
Speaker 1: Plyler versus though, which would of course have some pretty

86
00:05:15,560 --> 00:05:19,159
Speaker 1: devastating consequences for all of the kids who are in

87
00:05:19,279 --> 00:05:21,920
Speaker 1: school right now who don't have satus. I mean, we

88
00:05:21,960 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 1: hear all of the stories about the dreamers, and none

89
00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:28,599
Speaker 1: of those dreamers who have all these oppressive stories would

90
00:05:28,640 --> 00:05:30,800
Speaker 1: have been possible have they not been permitted to go

91
00:05:30,880 --> 00:05:34,200
Speaker 1: into the public schools in the first place. And so

92
00:05:34,560 --> 00:05:38,880
Speaker 1: this becomes quite a complicated story. What Abbot said Texas

93
00:05:39,000 --> 00:05:43,400
Speaker 1: wants is that the federal government should foot the bill. Well,

94
00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:48,400
Speaker 1: that's certainly one way to eliminate the rational basis from Texas,

95
00:05:48,440 --> 00:05:50,960
Speaker 1: which is that if the federal government were to fund

96
00:05:51,520 --> 00:05:56,240
Speaker 1: all of the additional costs for educating children without status

97
00:05:56,279 --> 00:05:59,280
Speaker 1: in the United States, then State of Texas would be

98
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:02,240
Speaker 1: toward of reliefs of its standings to be able to

99
00:06:02,279 --> 00:06:05,360
Speaker 1: see in that regard. So, both from a rational and

100
00:06:05,400 --> 00:06:08,960
Speaker 1: a judicial perspective, it does seem like the right argument

101
00:06:09,080 --> 00:06:11,560
Speaker 1: for the governor effects Us to be making, But it

102
00:06:11,640 --> 00:06:14,120
Speaker 1: remains to be seen whether any such funding would be

103
00:06:14,120 --> 00:06:16,919
Speaker 1: forthcoming given the sort of splits that we have in

104
00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:19,680
Speaker 1: the Congress right now, it'd be very unlikely that you

105
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:22,600
Speaker 1: would see a whole new batch of government funding to

106
00:06:22,720 --> 00:06:26,320
Speaker 1: sort of make up for the gaps that are caused

107
00:06:26,360 --> 00:06:29,520
Speaker 1: by educating people without status. You do see this in

108
00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:33,120
Speaker 1: the healthcare field. There actually are healthcare streams of funding

109
00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:37,040
Speaker 1: that are there for what it's called emergency medical services.

110
00:06:37,279 --> 00:06:41,680
Speaker 1: And even though that's not actually targeted towards people without status,

111
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:44,760
Speaker 1: that's the lion chair of the people appearing at a

112
00:06:44,760 --> 00:06:48,520
Speaker 1: lot of these emergency rooms now who don't have any

113
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:51,680
Speaker 1: kind of healthcare benefits of any kind, And there is

114
00:06:51,720 --> 00:06:56,600
Speaker 1: this sort of emergency disparate share Medicare Medicaid funding that

115
00:06:56,640 --> 00:06:59,240
Speaker 1: does go to the states for this purpose, and so

116
00:06:59,320 --> 00:07:01,840
Speaker 1: would be interesting to see if the federal government would

117
00:07:01,839 --> 00:07:06,320
Speaker 1: consider something like that for education. But nevertheless, it's something

118
00:07:06,360 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 1: that remains to be seen whether that would be able

119
00:07:08,880 --> 00:07:12,120
Speaker 1: to happen in time to release Texas of spending. If

120
00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:15,320
Speaker 1: Texas wins this, the federal government will have to come

121
00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:18,120
Speaker 1: in probably and pick up the tab. Well, I mean,

122
00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:21,600
Speaker 1: if they win it, then it's unclear how that could happen,

123
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:24,720
Speaker 1: because if they win a case that that they don't

124
00:07:24,760 --> 00:07:28,480
Speaker 1: have to educate students without status. Then the question is

125
00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:32,119
Speaker 1: does that second issue of the federal government being able

126
00:07:32,160 --> 00:07:35,960
Speaker 1: to relieve the states of that duty actually get decided

127
00:07:36,400 --> 00:07:39,440
Speaker 1: and litigated there. My fear would be that you would

128
00:07:39,560 --> 00:07:42,840
Speaker 1: even get to that second issue of whether the federal

129
00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:45,960
Speaker 1: government could actually alleviate this by paying. I mean, it

130
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:49,320
Speaker 1: would be logical, but it's unclear that we get there,

131
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:53,080
Speaker 1: because it would just be decided like Pliler was, is

132
00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:57,320
Speaker 1: there a rational basis to discriminate between students with status

133
00:07:57,320 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 1: and students without status? So I'm one ding how Texis

134
00:08:01,000 --> 00:08:03,840
Speaker 1: would go about this because it's not like the Biden

135
00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:06,520
Speaker 1: administration is telling them to do this. So they can't

136
00:08:06,520 --> 00:08:09,560
Speaker 1: sue the Biden administration. This is a Supreme Court decision.

137
00:08:09,600 --> 00:08:12,160
Speaker 1: They can't sue the Supreme Court. How would they even

138
00:08:12,200 --> 00:08:14,880
Speaker 1: get this before the court? Well, what has to happen

139
00:08:15,040 --> 00:08:19,000
Speaker 1: is the Texas state legislature would actually have to pass

140
00:08:19,080 --> 00:08:21,600
Speaker 1: the law that would again they would be at the

141
00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:25,080
Speaker 1: beginning and unconstitutional laws, but they have to pass on

142
00:08:25,280 --> 00:08:31,400
Speaker 1: unconstitutional laws that banned undocumented students from being able to

143
00:08:31,440 --> 00:08:35,120
Speaker 1: go to school, or maybe would do something like some

144
00:08:35,240 --> 00:08:37,760
Speaker 1: of the laws they've been doing with abortion, where it's

145
00:08:37,880 --> 00:08:40,440
Speaker 1: a decent of that, so it's not the exact same thing. So,

146
00:08:40,559 --> 00:08:44,679
Speaker 1: for instance, they might pass the law that charges undocumented

147
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:47,760
Speaker 1: students full tuition in order to go to school, so

148
00:08:47,800 --> 00:08:49,840
Speaker 1: it doesn't ban them, but says, if if you want

149
00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:52,040
Speaker 1: to come, you have to pay full tuition, whatever that

150
00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,720
Speaker 1: might be. And so then that would create a situation

151
00:08:55,800 --> 00:08:59,400
Speaker 1: where if it's not challenged, the kids can't go to school.

152
00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:02,480
Speaker 1: If it's challenged, then it would go all the way

153
00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:05,840
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court to decide whether that law can prevail.

154
00:09:05,920 --> 00:09:08,240
Speaker 1: Or Now this is years in the making because the

155
00:09:08,240 --> 00:09:11,720
Speaker 1: Texas legislature isn't even in session right now, right it

156
00:09:11,720 --> 00:09:13,839
Speaker 1: would it would not be something unless there was a

157
00:09:13,880 --> 00:09:19,000
Speaker 1: special session dictated, or unless some other states tried to

158
00:09:19,040 --> 00:09:21,800
Speaker 1: do the same thing. It doesn't seem to be something

159
00:09:22,120 --> 00:09:24,800
Speaker 1: that we would get a decision on any time soon.

160
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:28,520
Speaker 1: But of course, if any state did this, or if

161
00:09:28,520 --> 00:09:31,040
Speaker 1: Texas were to do a special session and then they

162
00:09:31,040 --> 00:09:34,920
Speaker 1: would vile an injunction, and then that injunction would be denied,

163
00:09:35,640 --> 00:09:38,800
Speaker 1: you could pretty quickly start getting working that way up

164
00:09:38,840 --> 00:09:42,840
Speaker 1: through the injunctive process. And so while now it remains

165
00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:46,000
Speaker 1: in the theoretical it's an important decision to be on

166
00:09:46,040 --> 00:09:49,200
Speaker 1: the lookout for, as is the one in Arizona versus

167
00:09:49,240 --> 00:09:52,160
Speaker 1: the United States. That's the second decision that people have

168
00:09:52,240 --> 00:09:54,000
Speaker 1: been saying, well, at the Court, it's going to start

169
00:09:54,040 --> 00:09:58,440
Speaker 1: reversing prior decisions in the immigration realm. There's Splidler versus though,

170
00:09:58,480 --> 00:10:01,839
Speaker 1: but also there's Arizona, Una versus the United States. Tell

171
00:10:01,920 --> 00:10:06,400
Speaker 1: us just briefly what Arizona versus United States did sure

172
00:10:06,440 --> 00:10:09,360
Speaker 1: in Arizona versus United States, we remember this in the

173
00:10:09,360 --> 00:10:13,240
Speaker 1: Obama administration that Arizona said, we don't think the Obama

174
00:10:13,240 --> 00:10:17,600
Speaker 1: administration is sufficiently enforcing the immigration law, so we are

175
00:10:17,640 --> 00:10:21,360
Speaker 1: going to start arresting and detaining people who don't have

176
00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:25,000
Speaker 1: dimmigration statics. And so the federal government challenge that and

177
00:10:25,040 --> 00:10:28,280
Speaker 1: said they can't enforce immigration law unless they're doing it

178
00:10:28,440 --> 00:10:31,280
Speaker 1: with the consent of the federal government and in conjunction

179
00:10:31,320 --> 00:10:33,880
Speaker 1: with them, not just on their own. And the Court

180
00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:37,959
Speaker 1: at that time agreed, and Justice Roberts agreed. So that's

181
00:10:37,960 --> 00:10:39,800
Speaker 1: an important vote. That means there would be at least

182
00:10:39,840 --> 00:10:44,640
Speaker 1: four votes for maintaining Arizona. But there are justices who

183
00:10:44,640 --> 00:10:49,160
Speaker 1: were there at the time Alito and Thomas, who supported

184
00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:52,000
Speaker 1: the position of Arizona, and now there's three justices that

185
00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:55,720
Speaker 1: are unaccounted for Coney, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsage. And so the

186
00:10:55,800 --> 00:11:00,079
Speaker 1: idea is, could they provide the five judge majority to

187
00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:03,120
Speaker 1: overturn that Arizona case and allow states like Texas and

188
00:11:03,160 --> 00:11:07,040
Speaker 1: Arizona to start arresting and detaining for who knows how

189
00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:10,679
Speaker 1: long people without status and their states. Has the Court

190
00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:16,520
Speaker 1: changed enough since Flyler on immigration decisions? I mean, do

191
00:11:16,559 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 1: we know how these new justices are going to rule

192
00:11:19,880 --> 00:11:24,480
Speaker 1: on immigration decisions? There have been some decisions so far

193
00:11:25,200 --> 00:11:29,280
Speaker 1: that have been very helpful for the immigrants rights community.

194
00:11:29,280 --> 00:11:32,319
Speaker 1: There was a decision called the Javes which dealt with

195
00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:35,280
Speaker 1: notice that needs to be given to immigrants in order

196
00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:38,679
Speaker 1: to exclude them from applying for relief, and the court

197
00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:41,800
Speaker 1: ruled in favor of the immigrants there. So there's some

198
00:11:41,880 --> 00:11:44,440
Speaker 1: of that, But there's also some of the litigations such

199
00:11:44,480 --> 00:11:49,240
Speaker 1: as the Remain in Mexico litigation, where it's clear that

200
00:11:49,440 --> 00:11:53,840
Speaker 1: the court is kind of sympathetic to enforcement related positions

201
00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:57,200
Speaker 1: and so it becomes complicated. And there's also been some

202
00:11:57,280 --> 00:12:00,240
Speaker 1: of the mandatory detension front, where the courts have been

203
00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:03,920
Speaker 1: sympathetics to the enforcement positions, And so at the moment,

204
00:12:04,440 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 1: I think there are probably easily bankable in any given

205
00:12:09,040 --> 00:12:12,200
Speaker 1: immigration case for justices who are going to rule in

206
00:12:12,240 --> 00:12:15,679
Speaker 1: the enforcement position. And so the question is on any

207
00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:19,680
Speaker 1: of the questions because the three new justices seem to

208
00:12:19,679 --> 00:12:23,880
Speaker 1: all have their own particular theories that sometimes makes them

209
00:12:23,920 --> 00:12:26,719
Speaker 1: rule in a different way that they all don't necessarily

210
00:12:26,760 --> 00:12:29,439
Speaker 1: meant with one another. So the question is, on a

211
00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:33,160
Speaker 1: particular theory, could you get one of the three new

212
00:12:33,240 --> 00:12:36,680
Speaker 1: justices to come on your side? And so that's gonna

213
00:12:36,679 --> 00:12:39,959
Speaker 1: be the question in Plyler and in Arizona, is could

214
00:12:39,960 --> 00:12:42,800
Speaker 1: you do that? But I do think it's fair to

215
00:12:42,840 --> 00:12:46,959
Speaker 1: say that by the time this Biden administration finishes its

216
00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:50,080
Speaker 1: first term, you probably will see decisions in both of

217
00:12:50,080 --> 00:12:53,640
Speaker 1: those cases. Will Plyler be uppelled and will Arizona be uppelled?

218
00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:58,600
Speaker 1: This was tested, but it was back in by proposition

219
00:12:59,600 --> 00:13:05,480
Speaker 1: in California, which prohibited illegal immigrants from receiving public healthcare, education,

220
00:13:05,600 --> 00:13:09,960
Speaker 1: or other social services. What happened there, but when proposition

221
00:13:11,000 --> 00:13:14,319
Speaker 1: was passed, which required, among other things, for police and

222
00:13:14,440 --> 00:13:18,319
Speaker 1: healthcare professionals and teachers to verify and report the immigration

223
00:13:18,400 --> 00:13:22,520
Speaker 1: status of all individuals, including children. There was a district

224
00:13:22,520 --> 00:13:26,280
Speaker 1: court lawsuits that was filed. That district court held that

225
00:13:26,400 --> 00:13:29,959
Speaker 1: it violated the U. S Constitution and issued an injunction,

226
00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:33,040
Speaker 1: and then there was a lot of settlement negotiations at

227
00:13:33,040 --> 00:13:36,000
Speaker 1: the time, and the case actually ended in a settlement

228
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:41,040
Speaker 1: in where that would confirm that those child in the

229
00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:44,480
Speaker 1: state of California could be deprived of their education or

230
00:13:44,480 --> 00:13:47,640
Speaker 1: of healthcare because of their status. So that's how that is.

231
00:13:48,640 --> 00:13:51,960
Speaker 1: Abbott also talked about how the costs are going to

232
00:13:52,280 --> 00:13:57,160
Speaker 1: escalate when Title forty two is ended and a federal

233
00:13:57,240 --> 00:14:01,200
Speaker 1: judge ordered a two week halt to the phasing out

234
00:14:01,320 --> 00:14:05,800
Speaker 1: of Title forty two. Where does that stand well in

235
00:14:06,080 --> 00:14:09,000
Speaker 1: the Title forty two cases, We're still now working our

236
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:12,840
Speaker 1: way towards that temporary restraining order being made into a

237
00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:17,280
Speaker 1: preliminary injunction. It's likely that a preliminary injunction will be

238
00:14:17,320 --> 00:14:21,600
Speaker 1: issued in either the Louisiana case or the Texas case.

239
00:14:22,160 --> 00:14:25,720
Speaker 1: And then once that preliminary injunction goes into place, I mean,

240
00:14:25,960 --> 00:14:28,040
Speaker 1: they haven't till make twenty three, so I think you'd

241
00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:33,680
Speaker 1: probably see the preliminary injunction ruling on is most likely,

242
00:14:33,760 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 1: or and then at that point, the federal government is

243
00:14:37,600 --> 00:14:40,040
Speaker 1: going to have to appeal to the Fifth Circuits and

244
00:14:40,520 --> 00:14:43,920
Speaker 1: or the Supreme Court after the Fifth Circuit does their ruling.

245
00:14:44,440 --> 00:14:47,320
Speaker 1: But that's the likely route of what we're gonna see,

246
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:51,240
Speaker 1: and then we'll know. But I would look towards by

247
00:14:51,280 --> 00:14:54,240
Speaker 1: one may to see where we're actually going to be

248
00:14:54,320 --> 00:14:57,200
Speaker 1: headed on this Title forty two, whether it will be

249
00:14:57,240 --> 00:15:00,640
Speaker 1: allowed to be refended or whether the courts will require

250
00:15:00,680 --> 00:15:03,240
Speaker 1: that it remained in place. Do you think the Biden

251
00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:07,680
Speaker 1: administration is secretly breathing a sigh of relief that this

252
00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:10,680
Speaker 1: decision has been taken from them. I don't know, It's

253
00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:13,680
Speaker 1: hard to say. I do think the more times that

254
00:15:13,680 --> 00:15:17,480
Speaker 1: the Biden administration has to prepare for a post Title

255
00:15:17,560 --> 00:15:20,040
Speaker 1: forty two worlds, the better it is for them in

256
00:15:20,160 --> 00:15:23,680
Speaker 1: terms of building resources that I'm building the infrastructure for this.

257
00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:27,200
Speaker 1: But at the same token, I do think they genuinely

258
00:15:27,280 --> 00:15:29,920
Speaker 1: believe that at some point there will be a world

259
00:15:30,040 --> 00:15:32,920
Speaker 1: without COVID and that at some point then you will

260
00:15:32,960 --> 00:15:37,160
Speaker 1: have to administer the ending of Title forty two. And

261
00:15:37,240 --> 00:15:39,360
Speaker 1: so the question is that now, is it a month

262
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:42,760
Speaker 1: from now, is it three months from now? And so

263
00:15:43,280 --> 00:15:46,640
Speaker 1: while I think any extra time is good. I don't

264
00:15:46,640 --> 00:15:50,080
Speaker 1: know that they want an indefinite say of this, and

265
00:15:50,120 --> 00:15:53,280
Speaker 1: so you will see them push pretty aggressively to try

266
00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:57,560
Speaker 1: to challenge these injunctions. Thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco,

267
00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:00,560
Speaker 1: a partner at Hondon Knight and that's for this edition

268
00:16:00,560 --> 00:16:03,240
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

269
00:16:03,280 --> 00:16:06,400
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

270
00:16:06,440 --> 00:16:10,520
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

271
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:14,920
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

272
00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:17,640
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every week night

273
00:16:17,720 --> 00:16:21,200
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

274
00:16:21,280 --> 00:16:22,720
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg