1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:08,280
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,960 --> 00:00:14,000
Speaker 2: Continuing clashes on the streets of Minneapolis between protesters and

3
00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:19,400
Speaker 2: ICE agents. As tensions escalated following two shootings by agents,

4
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:23,400
Speaker 2: one of them deadly. Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Brooley

5
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:27,560
Speaker 2: says that his office has been fielding NonStop complaints about

6
00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:31,960
Speaker 2: civil rights violations and that his own officers went off duty,

7
00:00:32,240 --> 00:00:35,960
Speaker 2: have been stopped and racially profiled by federal officers.

8
00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:40,560
Speaker 3: Every one of these individuals is a person of color

9
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:42,239
Speaker 3: who has had this happen to them.

10
00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:47,080
Speaker 2: Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bavino, who was seen recently on

11
00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:51,080
Speaker 2: a video tossing a smoke canister into a crowd, said

12
00:00:51,080 --> 00:00:55,400
Speaker 2: the tactics employed by ICE are justified, but the Minnesota

13
00:00:55,440 --> 00:00:58,320
Speaker 2: Attorney General, Keith Ellison, disagrees.

14
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:03,680
Speaker 4: Our operations are lawful. They're targeted, and they're focused on

15
00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:08,240
Speaker 4: individuals who pose a serious threat to this community. They

16
00:01:08,240 --> 00:01:11,640
Speaker 4: are not random, and they are not political.

17
00:01:12,959 --> 00:01:16,360
Speaker 3: These tactics that we've seen from MICE are brutal, they

18
00:01:16,400 --> 00:01:20,880
Speaker 3: are unfair, they are racial profiling, they are hurting our economy,

19
00:01:21,040 --> 00:01:23,399
Speaker 3: and they're running up our costs in terms of policing

20
00:01:23,560 --> 00:01:27,160
Speaker 3: and other public expenses. It is damaging to our state.

21
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:31,399
Speaker 2: Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner

22
00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:34,160
Speaker 2: at Honda Knight Leo. Let's start with this order from

23
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:38,040
Speaker 2: a federal judge that the Eighth Circuit has put on hold.

24
00:01:38,520 --> 00:01:44,520
Speaker 2: Federal Judge Catherine Menendez had granted the ACLU's request and

25
00:01:44,760 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 2: ruled that the federal agents are prohibited from arresting or

26
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:53,920
Speaker 2: detaining peaceful protesters in retaliation for their protected conduct and

27
00:01:54,040 --> 00:01:58,120
Speaker 2: absent a showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that

28
00:01:58,120 --> 00:02:01,720
Speaker 2: the person has committed a crime or obstructing or interfering

29
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:05,240
Speaker 2: with the activities. Is this order anything more than her

30
00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:08,799
Speaker 2: basically saying follow the law eyes. Is there anything extraordinary

31
00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:09,280
Speaker 2: about it?

32
00:02:10,120 --> 00:02:13,240
Speaker 1: Well, a couple of things. First of all, I suppose

33
00:02:13,720 --> 00:02:17,919
Speaker 1: so to this extent that the Eighth Circuit on Wednesday

34
00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:23,600
Speaker 1: issued an administrative stay temporarily lifting that injunction, which did

35
00:02:23,680 --> 00:02:28,359
Speaker 1: block the federal agents from retaliating against her detaining peaceful

36
00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:34,040
Speaker 1: protesters without probable cause. I think the reason that the

37
00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:38,400
Speaker 1: Eighth Circuit did stay the district court order is that

38
00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:44,440
Speaker 1: perhaps there was some confusion about how you would implement

39
00:02:44,560 --> 00:02:48,840
Speaker 1: this order in the sense of if an ICE agent

40
00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:54,200
Speaker 1: does something illegal against a peaceful protester, then the recourse

41
00:02:54,240 --> 00:02:57,680
Speaker 1: would be a civil lawsuit or a criminal action. So

42
00:02:58,320 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 1: adding an injunction that does it change the law, but

43
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:07,640
Speaker 1: just says enforced the law doesn't really add anything except

44
00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:12,240
Speaker 1: it adds confusion as to whether the injunction does anything more.

45
00:03:12,480 --> 00:03:17,280
Speaker 1: So the issue would be, are you adding additional requirements

46
00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: that other than those that exist in the law, And

47
00:03:21,040 --> 00:03:23,760
Speaker 1: then what so now you sue for a violation of

48
00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:27,840
Speaker 1: this injunction as opposed to a civil lawsuit, because perhaps

49
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:30,760
Speaker 1: what you're saying is that you're worried that the federal

50
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:34,560
Speaker 1: government won't prosecute an ICE agent who violates the law.

51
00:03:34,760 --> 00:03:37,360
Speaker 1: This is sort of the complex issues there, and so

52
00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:39,960
Speaker 1: I think the Eighth Circuit said, we're going to need

53
00:03:40,000 --> 00:03:43,440
Speaker 1: more time to consider this. Let's pause this for a while,

54
00:03:44,120 --> 00:03:48,440
Speaker 1: because it seemed like it was going to be too complicated.

55
00:03:48,440 --> 00:03:52,280
Speaker 1: That every use of potentially, for instance, chemical agents, or

56
00:03:52,320 --> 00:03:57,880
Speaker 1: every arrest of a protester, or every discussion about a

57
00:03:57,920 --> 00:04:03,400
Speaker 1: protester perhaps following to close and perhaps potentially obstructing, were

58
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:07,600
Speaker 1: they obstructing or were they peacefully protesting? Perhaps every single

59
00:04:07,960 --> 00:04:10,560
Speaker 1: instance of that could have led to a contempt of

60
00:04:10,680 --> 00:04:15,120
Speaker 1: court injunction violation hearing. And the question was from the

61
00:04:15,160 --> 00:04:19,400
Speaker 1: Eighth Circuits perspective, I suppose did they want to have

62
00:04:19,560 --> 00:04:24,040
Speaker 1: that granular hearing every single time in front of this

63
00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:26,400
Speaker 1: district cord or did they just think, look at the end,

64
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:29,560
Speaker 1: that there's something really wrong. People can file civil suit

65
00:04:29,720 --> 00:04:32,160
Speaker 1: or criminal actions can be filed.

66
00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:35,479
Speaker 2: The problem is it's hard to deny what you can

67
00:04:35,520 --> 00:04:38,599
Speaker 2: see on the videos. I saw one video where a

68
00:04:38,640 --> 00:04:42,599
Speaker 2: man was already restrained and on the ground and an

69
00:04:42,640 --> 00:04:46,880
Speaker 2: ice officer was spraying some kind of yellow chemical into

70
00:04:46,920 --> 00:04:49,760
Speaker 2: his face while he's on the ground. So the ice

71
00:04:49,800 --> 00:04:53,520
Speaker 2: officers don't seem to be exhibiting any kind of restraint,

72
00:04:53,600 --> 00:04:57,200
Speaker 2: and there are multiple reports of US citizens getting arrested.

73
00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:02,040
Speaker 1: Well, this is what becomes complicated from the standpoint of

74
00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:05,160
Speaker 1: in a normal course of action, when you have an

75
00:05:05,200 --> 00:05:10,159
Speaker 1: agent that you believe violates the federal laws, then you

76
00:05:10,200 --> 00:05:12,800
Speaker 1: can have a prosecution of that agent by a US

77
00:05:12,880 --> 00:05:15,680
Speaker 1: Attorney's office who says that that agent acted in correctly,

78
00:05:16,200 --> 00:05:19,480
Speaker 1: or you can of course obviously file a civil lawsuit

79
00:05:19,839 --> 00:05:24,039
Speaker 1: in that situation. But I think what motivated this injunction

80
00:05:24,360 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: was all of that would take far too long or

81
00:05:27,080 --> 00:05:29,320
Speaker 1: might not even occur at all, and so you needed

82
00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:33,039
Speaker 1: to have something in place that was faster in order

83
00:05:33,120 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: to try to tamp down any actions that might violate

84
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:39,880
Speaker 1: the law. But the problem was how do you do

85
00:05:39,920 --> 00:05:43,640
Speaker 1: that and who sets the line for when one of

86
00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:46,440
Speaker 1: those uses of chemical agents did cross the line or

87
00:05:46,440 --> 00:05:50,920
Speaker 1: when it was necessary to protect the agents. This situation

88
00:05:51,080 --> 00:05:56,280
Speaker 1: in Minnesota has become so intense and so high octane

89
00:05:56,960 --> 00:06:00,640
Speaker 1: that you may have in fifty percent of this situations

90
00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:05,080
Speaker 1: the ice agents acting completely correctly, and in fifty percent

91
00:06:05,120 --> 00:06:08,240
Speaker 1: of the time, perhaps they do not completely correctly. And

92
00:06:08,720 --> 00:06:11,760
Speaker 1: now you're having a debate every single day in the

93
00:06:11,760 --> 00:06:14,800
Speaker 1: federal court who did what when? What does that mean?

94
00:06:15,360 --> 00:06:19,160
Speaker 1: And I think that this is just a situation that

95
00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:23,719
Speaker 1: needs to be handled, perhaps in a new manner. Irrespective

96
00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 1: of either this injunction or anything else where, the targeted

97
00:06:28,240 --> 00:06:32,960
Speaker 1: operations happen in a way that are not intersecting with

98
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:35,479
Speaker 1: all of these protests and not causing all of these

99
00:06:36,000 --> 00:06:39,440
Speaker 1: city skirmishes, and so I think that's a matter for

100
00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:42,560
Speaker 1: everybody involved to try to figure out. But I think

101
00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:47,120
Speaker 1: this injunction, the reason it was stayed is because the

102
00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:51,000
Speaker 1: Eighth Circuit may have believed that it just wasn't the

103
00:06:51,080 --> 00:06:54,719
Speaker 1: right approach to have a district judge basically trying to

104
00:06:54,760 --> 00:06:57,840
Speaker 1: be a referee for every single thing that was happening

105
00:06:57,839 --> 00:06:59,279
Speaker 1: in Minneapolis at that point.

106
00:07:00,000 --> 00:07:03,880
Speaker 2: The problem is one of perception. You have the FEDS

107
00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:09,080
Speaker 2: refusing to open a civil rights investigation into the killing

108
00:07:09,120 --> 00:07:12,320
Speaker 2: of Renee Good by an ICE officer, with the Vice

109
00:07:12,360 --> 00:07:15,600
Speaker 2: President again declaring today that it was her own fault.

110
00:07:16,160 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 2: At the same time, they're serving the governor of Minnesota

111
00:07:19,240 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 2: and the mayor of Minneapolis with subpoenas over their refusal

112
00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:28,240
Speaker 2: to cooperate with federal law enforcement. It doesn't help to

113
00:07:28,360 --> 00:07:29,720
Speaker 2: quell the protests.

114
00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:34,800
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I understand why the injunction was sought and why

115
00:07:34,840 --> 00:07:38,040
Speaker 1: the injunction was issued to the extent that people believe

116
00:07:38,160 --> 00:07:42,520
Speaker 1: that any actions that are taken would not be dealt

117
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:44,840
Speaker 1: with in a normal course of action where there would

118
00:07:44,840 --> 00:07:47,640
Speaker 1: be an investigation and a prosecution, So you needed to

119
00:07:47,680 --> 00:07:50,200
Speaker 1: do something else so that you could have a content order.

120
00:07:50,520 --> 00:07:52,320
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, even that, let's

121
00:07:52,360 --> 00:07:55,480
Speaker 1: say you have a content order from a court saying

122
00:07:55,640 --> 00:07:58,840
Speaker 1: this person is held in content, then what at the

123
00:07:58,920 --> 00:08:01,280
Speaker 1: end of the day, the federal agents aren't going to

124
00:08:01,280 --> 00:08:04,960
Speaker 1: put anyone in detention. We end up just back where

125
00:08:04,960 --> 00:08:08,760
Speaker 1: we were, which is with a constitutional crisis. So it's

126
00:08:08,840 --> 00:08:11,160
Speaker 1: not like this injunction at the end of the day

127
00:08:11,640 --> 00:08:16,200
Speaker 1: would avoid the constitutional crisis, because you could still have

128
00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:19,800
Speaker 1: an injunction from a court that says this ICE agent

129
00:08:19,880 --> 00:08:23,520
Speaker 1: acted incorrectly, they are now in contempt of court and

130
00:08:23,640 --> 00:08:27,920
Speaker 1: put them in jail, and the administration will just say, well, no, sorry,

131
00:08:28,200 --> 00:08:31,320
Speaker 1: too bad. And then what is the actual judge going

132
00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:34,960
Speaker 1: to start picking up ICE agents and you know, putting

133
00:08:34,960 --> 00:08:39,240
Speaker 1: them in detention. No, they require federal agents to implement

134
00:08:39,280 --> 00:08:42,240
Speaker 1: these orders, and so we're back at square one. And

135
00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:44,400
Speaker 1: so I think that's what makes this complicated.

136
00:08:44,640 --> 00:08:49,600
Speaker 2: According to reports, hundreds of soldiers are on standby to

137
00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:54,359
Speaker 2: enter Minneapolis, and the preparations are tied to the possibility

138
00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:59,439
Speaker 2: that Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act. He's threatened that before.

139
00:09:00,400 --> 00:09:01,199
Speaker 2: How would that go.

140
00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:06,559
Speaker 1: Well, the way the Insurrection Act works, there's two main ways.

141
00:09:06,760 --> 00:09:08,760
Speaker 1: One is not going to happen, which is that the

142
00:09:08,800 --> 00:09:13,880
Speaker 1: state actually requests the assistance of the federal government through

143
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:16,920
Speaker 1: the governor or the state legislature. That's the opposite of

144
00:09:16,920 --> 00:09:19,720
Speaker 1: what's happening here. Here you have the state governor and

145
00:09:19,800 --> 00:09:22,400
Speaker 1: the local officials and everyone else saying that they don't

146
00:09:22,679 --> 00:09:25,760
Speaker 1: want the federal authorities. So then the second way is

147
00:09:25,800 --> 00:09:29,600
Speaker 1: what's called the federal authority standard, which allows the president

148
00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:33,559
Speaker 1: to act unilaterally to enforce the federal law. And there

149
00:09:33,679 --> 00:09:36,840
Speaker 1: the president has to say that there's been some sort

150
00:09:36,880 --> 00:09:41,599
Speaker 1: of unlawful obstruction or rebellion against the authority of the

151
00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:45,040
Speaker 1: United States and makes it impracticable to enforce the laws

152
00:09:45,360 --> 00:09:48,440
Speaker 1: of the United States. And here the president would say,

153
00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:51,880
Speaker 1: I'm trying to just enforce immigration law, and I have

154
00:09:52,480 --> 00:09:58,360
Speaker 1: a number of individuals that are causing me problems because

155
00:09:58,400 --> 00:10:03,240
Speaker 1: they're basically like the Civil War, it's refusing certain things

156
00:10:03,280 --> 00:10:05,440
Speaker 1: to happen that the federal government wants to happen in

157
00:10:05,520 --> 00:10:08,120
Speaker 1: particular states. And so I have to come in and

158
00:10:08,160 --> 00:10:11,920
Speaker 1: protect the ICE agents who are being followed around by

159
00:10:12,040 --> 00:10:16,080
Speaker 1: protesters and everywhere they go, they're being followed around or obstructed.

160
00:10:16,400 --> 00:10:18,920
Speaker 1: I need to be able to come in and solve

161
00:10:19,000 --> 00:10:21,760
Speaker 1: that problem. And then what would happen is the president

162
00:10:21,800 --> 00:10:25,200
Speaker 1: access to the issue of proclamations, saying I'm going to

163
00:10:25,320 --> 00:10:29,800
Speaker 1: be invoking the Insurrection Act unless you disperse, give people

164
00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:33,880
Speaker 1: time to disperse, and if they don't, then insert the

165
00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:38,760
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act. And then we're back to if there's a lawsuit, Okay, well,

166
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:42,800
Speaker 1: who has the authority? Is this reviewable? Is their judicial review?

167
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:46,160
Speaker 1: If there is judicial review? How much different? And we're

168
00:10:46,160 --> 00:10:49,880
Speaker 1: back to all of that again. And those are going

169
00:10:49,920 --> 00:10:51,400
Speaker 1: to be the issues that would then need to be

170
00:10:51,440 --> 00:10:54,120
Speaker 1: decided ultimately by the Supreme Court. I mean, yes, there'll

171
00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:56,600
Speaker 1: be lower courts that way in, but the Supreme Court

172
00:10:56,640 --> 00:10:59,800
Speaker 1: would ultimately need to decide is this reviewable? If so,

173
00:11:00,080 --> 00:11:05,000
Speaker 1: how much deference is given to the president, and who

174
00:11:05,040 --> 00:11:07,720
Speaker 1: can challenge it, etc. So we'd be back to all

175
00:11:07,800 --> 00:11:09,280
Speaker 1: of those ar givens.

176
00:11:08,880 --> 00:11:12,400
Speaker 2: Again, seemingly back to square one. Coming up next on

177
00:11:12,440 --> 00:11:16,640
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Lawn Show, more with immigration expert Leon Fresco.

178
00:11:17,160 --> 00:11:21,920
Speaker 2: Vice President JD Vance visits Minneapolis and defends the Trump

179
00:11:21,960 --> 00:11:27,920
Speaker 2: Administration's aggressive deportation raids. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

180
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:34,360
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg. Vice President JD Vance visited Minneapolis today, where

181
00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:39,160
Speaker 2: he sought to defend the Trump Administration's aggressive deportation raids,

182
00:11:39,360 --> 00:11:44,600
Speaker 2: which have set off street confrontations between demonstrators and immigration agents.

183
00:11:45,200 --> 00:11:50,040
Speaker 2: ICE operations turned deadly earlier this month when agent Jonathan

184
00:11:50,160 --> 00:11:54,240
Speaker 2: Ross shot and killed Renee Good, something the federal government

185
00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:58,800
Speaker 2: is not investigating and refuses to allow the state access

186
00:11:58,880 --> 00:12:02,439
Speaker 2: to the evidence. Here's what Van said about his previous

187
00:12:02,480 --> 00:12:05,599
Speaker 2: statement that ICE officers have absolute immunity.

188
00:12:06,080 --> 00:12:08,720
Speaker 5: When federal law enforcement officers violate the law, that is

189
00:12:08,760 --> 00:12:11,720
Speaker 5: typically something that federal officials would look into. We don't

190
00:12:11,720 --> 00:12:14,319
Speaker 5: want these guys to have kangaroo courts. We want them

191
00:12:14,320 --> 00:12:17,160
Speaker 5: to actually have real due process, real investigation.

192
00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:20,160
Speaker 2: Of course that's not happening in the case of Renee

193
00:12:20,160 --> 00:12:24,120
Speaker 2: Good shooting. I've been talking to immigration expertly on Fresco

194
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:28,280
Speaker 2: of Holland and Knight back to the beginning. So, immigration

195
00:12:28,520 --> 00:12:33,280
Speaker 2: advocates and legal aid groups have warned people or urged

196
00:12:33,280 --> 00:12:36,880
Speaker 2: them not to open their doors to immigration agents to

197
00:12:37,000 --> 00:12:41,120
Speaker 2: ICE agents unless they're shown a warrant signed by a judge.

198
00:12:41,840 --> 00:12:45,480
Speaker 2: But according to an internal ICE memo obtained by the

199
00:12:45,480 --> 00:12:50,320
Speaker 2: Associated Press, the federal immigration officers are asserting power to

200
00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:55,600
Speaker 2: forcibly enter people's homes without a judge's warrant to do

201
00:12:55,720 --> 00:13:00,920
Speaker 2: it based on an administrative warrant. Isn't that on constitutional?

202
00:13:01,840 --> 00:13:04,920
Speaker 1: So let's give you both of the arguments, and let's

203
00:13:04,920 --> 00:13:08,000
Speaker 1: give you some facts. What is an administrative warrant. It's

204
00:13:08,000 --> 00:13:11,600
Speaker 1: a form document. You can look at the ICE administrative warrant.

205
00:13:11,840 --> 00:13:14,600
Speaker 1: It's called an I two five. You can google it

206
00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:17,959
Speaker 1: and see the blank warrant. But basically, an ICE agent

207
00:13:18,320 --> 00:13:21,160
Speaker 1: could fill out that warrant and then get their supervisor

208
00:13:21,240 --> 00:13:24,880
Speaker 1: to sign it, and on that basis, ICE is arguing

209
00:13:24,920 --> 00:13:27,360
Speaker 1: that it can then enter the home. Now, to be

210
00:13:27,559 --> 00:13:29,520
Speaker 1: very clear, because they're important that we get all the

211
00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:33,440
Speaker 1: facts right. ICE is not currently taking the position now.

212
00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:36,319
Speaker 1: It may it may evolve and take this position if

213
00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:39,760
Speaker 1: its first position become successful, but let's just go with

214
00:13:39,880 --> 00:13:42,520
Speaker 1: what the facts are. They're not currently taking the position

215
00:13:42,880 --> 00:13:45,040
Speaker 1: that they can go into any home they want with

216
00:13:45,120 --> 00:13:50,000
Speaker 1: an administrative warrant and knock things down and go around

217
00:13:50,040 --> 00:13:54,640
Speaker 1: and grab people. What they're currently saying is if someone

218
00:13:54,880 --> 00:13:59,480
Speaker 1: has a final order of removal, meaning that they were

219
00:13:59,520 --> 00:14:03,720
Speaker 1: already served with what's called a notice to appear, which

220
00:14:03,800 --> 00:14:07,240
Speaker 1: is saying, look, you're in deportation proceedings, and then they've

221
00:14:07,240 --> 00:14:11,000
Speaker 1: gone to immigration court and then they've lost, then all

222
00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:14,720
Speaker 1: of that due process was already done. So it's not

223
00:14:14,880 --> 00:14:17,440
Speaker 1: like barging into your house in the first place and

224
00:14:17,640 --> 00:14:20,800
Speaker 1: taking your computer and then convicting you of a crime

225
00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:24,040
Speaker 1: based on that. It's not any's. They would say, it's

226
00:14:24,040 --> 00:14:26,640
Speaker 1: not anything like that. They would say, this is the

227
00:14:26,680 --> 00:14:30,640
Speaker 1: equivalent of somebody escaped from jail, and now we're just

228
00:14:30,680 --> 00:14:33,200
Speaker 1: trying to find them, and so we don't need to

229
00:14:33,280 --> 00:14:36,800
Speaker 1: go through the whole judicial warrant process to do this.

230
00:14:37,760 --> 00:14:40,920
Speaker 2: Are they relying on any case law or precedent.

231
00:14:41,000 --> 00:14:44,560
Speaker 1: The case they rely on for that is very interesting

232
00:14:44,640 --> 00:14:47,480
Speaker 1: because it's if you've seen the movie The Bridge of

233
00:14:47,520 --> 00:14:52,360
Speaker 1: Spies with Tom Hanks and the Academy Award winning Supporting

234
00:14:52,360 --> 00:14:56,440
Speaker 1: actor Mark Rylands, that Rudolph Abel case, whereas the Russian

235
00:14:56,480 --> 00:15:00,520
Speaker 1: spy from the nineteen sixties, he was taken pursue it

236
00:15:00,560 --> 00:15:04,040
Speaker 1: to an administrative warrant for immigration. Originally that's what it's

237
00:15:04,080 --> 00:15:06,920
Speaker 1: also searched for. And so there's some dicta in that

238
00:15:07,080 --> 00:15:10,760
Speaker 1: case that says that because immigration is a civil matter,

239
00:15:10,840 --> 00:15:14,360
Speaker 1: it's not a criminal matter, the concerns of the administrative

240
00:15:14,400 --> 00:15:20,600
Speaker 1: warrant aren't necessarily valid in that instance, and so that's

241
00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:23,840
Speaker 1: dick that wasn't necessary for the able case. But the

242
00:15:23,880 --> 00:15:28,280
Speaker 1: point is ice wants to build off of that precedent

243
00:15:28,440 --> 00:15:31,000
Speaker 1: and say, look, immigration is a civil matter. There's a

244
00:15:31,000 --> 00:15:35,040
Speaker 1: final order of removal. We're just now trying to execute

245
00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:39,080
Speaker 1: this civil removal that is not a criminal matter. There's

246
00:15:39,120 --> 00:15:41,800
Speaker 1: already been the due process of the notice to appear

247
00:15:42,120 --> 00:15:45,360
Speaker 1: and the hearing, and we should be allowed to do that.

248
00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:49,520
Speaker 1: From the perspective obviously of the opponents of this, they say,

249
00:15:49,680 --> 00:15:52,840
Speaker 1: when you're going into someone's home, that's literally if you're

250
00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:57,280
Speaker 1: talking about rock scissors paper, someone's home is nuclear war.

251
00:15:57,520 --> 00:16:01,560
Speaker 1: You know, it beats everything. It's the Fourth Amendment most

252
00:16:01,600 --> 00:16:05,560
Speaker 1: sanctity location that there is. And so you can't go

253
00:16:05,640 --> 00:16:09,800
Speaker 1: into anyone's home without a judicial warrant. Why because maybe

254
00:16:09,800 --> 00:16:12,280
Speaker 1: you're gonna go into the wrong home. And now what

255
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:15,840
Speaker 1: you've just barged into somebody's home, there wasn't any judicial

256
00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:19,360
Speaker 1: oversight to make sure that everything was correct before you

257
00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:23,880
Speaker 1: started barging into people's homes. You're going to cause collateral damage.

258
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:27,560
Speaker 1: There's a lot of untrained people being deployed out onto

259
00:16:27,600 --> 00:16:31,080
Speaker 1: the field, and so that's why you need this judicial

260
00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:33,960
Speaker 1: warrant to sort of make sure that these untrained people

261
00:16:34,040 --> 00:16:36,560
Speaker 1: are doing what they're doing. And of course, if people

262
00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:40,400
Speaker 1: have unfettered anything in any aspect of the government, there's

263
00:16:40,440 --> 00:16:42,680
Speaker 1: always going to be more mistakes than if they have

264
00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:47,160
Speaker 1: to answer to independent authorities before they do things. And

265
00:16:47,240 --> 00:16:50,840
Speaker 1: so from that perspective, this is where you have the tension.

266
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:54,240
Speaker 1: But it is possible that if they're allowed to do this,

267
00:16:54,920 --> 00:16:57,600
Speaker 1: if the courts don't join this, then they may expand

268
00:16:57,640 --> 00:17:01,520
Speaker 1: this to other immigration actions or the person doesn't currently

269
00:17:01,560 --> 00:17:04,800
Speaker 1: have a final order of removal, but at the moment

270
00:17:04,920 --> 00:17:07,480
Speaker 1: they're saying that they're limiting it to people who have

271
00:17:07,600 --> 00:17:09,040
Speaker 1: a final order of removal.

272
00:17:09,359 --> 00:17:12,639
Speaker 2: But there's also the point that perhaps most likely there

273
00:17:12,640 --> 00:17:16,320
Speaker 2: are other people in the house, correct, and they're violating

274
00:17:16,320 --> 00:17:20,920
Speaker 2: their constitutional rights. I mean they have a constitutional right absolutely.

275
00:17:20,960 --> 00:17:23,040
Speaker 1: I think you know they have constitutional rights to the

276
00:17:23,080 --> 00:17:25,840
Speaker 1: sanctity of their home. And especially if ICE is going

277
00:17:25,920 --> 00:17:29,120
Speaker 1: to start engaging in what are called collateral operations once

278
00:17:29,160 --> 00:17:32,080
Speaker 1: they're in there and say who else is undocumented here,

279
00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:36,440
Speaker 1: or this is very interesting what we've uncovered, then that

280
00:17:36,600 --> 00:17:39,359
Speaker 1: is going to weaken their argument for being able to

281
00:17:39,359 --> 00:17:42,080
Speaker 1: come in with an administrative warrant as opposed to a

282
00:17:42,160 --> 00:17:44,879
Speaker 1: judicial warrant. But we're going to have to wait and

283
00:17:44,920 --> 00:17:48,600
Speaker 1: see what the courts say, and also in what procedural

284
00:17:48,640 --> 00:17:51,639
Speaker 1: posture this ends up getting challenged. Does it only end

285
00:17:51,720 --> 00:17:56,400
Speaker 1: up getting challenged in the context of a final order

286
00:17:56,440 --> 00:17:59,040
Speaker 1: of removal or do the people who challenge it have

287
00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:02,760
Speaker 1: better facts like you've talked about, where there are collateral

288
00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:06,280
Speaker 1: cases that they're also challenging, and then that'll make the

289
00:18:06,280 --> 00:18:08,800
Speaker 1: government's defense much more complicated.

290
00:18:09,119 --> 00:18:14,560
Speaker 2: So, speaking of procedural issues, former Columbia grad student Mood Khalil,

291
00:18:14,640 --> 00:18:16,800
Speaker 2: who was one of the first to be rounded up

292
00:18:16,920 --> 00:18:22,119
Speaker 2: during the government's crackdown on anti Israel campus protests, is

293
00:18:22,160 --> 00:18:25,200
Speaker 2: set to be deported to Algeria, according to a Homeland

294
00:18:25,240 --> 00:18:28,800
Speaker 2: Security official. So it seemed as if Khalil was on

295
00:18:29,080 --> 00:18:31,800
Speaker 2: a winning streak he was released from ice to attention.

296
00:18:32,240 --> 00:18:35,080
Speaker 2: Tell us what happened with this third circuit decision.

297
00:18:35,400 --> 00:18:38,960
Speaker 1: Mister Khalil was out of detention because a district judge

298
00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:42,040
Speaker 1: at held that he should be released from detention because

299
00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:48,240
Speaker 1: his deportation violated potentially the First Amendment because of concerns

300
00:18:48,280 --> 00:18:51,199
Speaker 1: that he was just being penalized for his views on

301
00:18:51,480 --> 00:18:56,080
Speaker 1: Middle Eastern conflicts. The Third Circuit comes in and says, wait,

302
00:18:56,080 --> 00:18:59,119
Speaker 1: a second district court you shouldn't have been looking at

303
00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:02,280
Speaker 1: any of this. All of this needed to go in

304
00:19:02,359 --> 00:19:06,840
Speaker 1: the following mode. The government apprehends Khalil, places him in

305
00:19:07,000 --> 00:19:11,119
Speaker 1: detention proceeding and removal proceedings, places him in detention and

306
00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:15,320
Speaker 1: places him in removal proceedings. The removal proceedings go until

307
00:19:15,320 --> 00:19:18,200
Speaker 1: the end, and then at the end of those administrative

308
00:19:18,240 --> 00:19:22,159
Speaker 1: removal proceedings, you then make an appeal of every legal

309
00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:26,240
Speaker 1: and constitutional claim you have directly to the Court of Appeals.

310
00:19:26,240 --> 00:19:29,680
Speaker 1: The district judge should never have any view of any

311
00:19:29,760 --> 00:19:32,840
Speaker 1: of this, because that's the way the statute is written,

312
00:19:33,400 --> 00:19:35,640
Speaker 1: and so it was a two to one decision. There

313
00:19:35,680 --> 00:19:37,800
Speaker 1: was assent saying, look, we don't have time for all

314
00:19:37,840 --> 00:19:40,960
Speaker 1: of that. That could take years, and you unjustly are

315
00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:44,320
Speaker 1: holding people in detention who are nice people for years

316
00:19:44,359 --> 00:19:46,200
Speaker 1: while you're doing this. They'll never be able to make

317
00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:49,000
Speaker 1: these claims if you don't let them file a habeas

318
00:19:49,640 --> 00:19:53,280
Speaker 1: and you could just have unfettered chaos where administration just

319
00:19:53,280 --> 00:19:56,040
Speaker 1: start putting people in jail and what are they supposed

320
00:19:56,080 --> 00:20:00,760
Speaker 1: to do. And that's certainly very very sympathetic, but you

321
00:20:00,840 --> 00:20:04,040
Speaker 1: can also take a view that the statutes don't care

322
00:20:04,080 --> 00:20:07,720
Speaker 1: about any of that, and the statutes understand that all

323
00:20:07,760 --> 00:20:11,520
Speaker 1: of these things may happen, but nevertheless they still say

324
00:20:12,160 --> 00:20:14,159
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. You've got to go first go to

325
00:20:14,160 --> 00:20:17,800
Speaker 1: the Immigration judge, then go to the Board of Immigration Appeals,

326
00:20:18,119 --> 00:20:20,919
Speaker 1: and then if you actually have these constitutional claims to

327
00:20:20,960 --> 00:20:24,720
Speaker 1: make about the First Amendment or retaliation or anything else,

328
00:20:25,160 --> 00:20:27,359
Speaker 1: you've then make it in what's called the petition for

329
00:20:27,480 --> 00:20:30,840
Speaker 1: review in a final order of removal to the appropriate

330
00:20:31,280 --> 00:20:34,040
Speaker 1: circuit Court of Appeals. And so that's what the Third

331
00:20:34,080 --> 00:20:36,920
Speaker 1: Circuit said. It didn't say that the government was right

332
00:20:37,040 --> 00:20:40,920
Speaker 1: or Khalil was wrong, or that Khalil was rightment didn't

333
00:20:40,920 --> 00:20:43,280
Speaker 1: say any of that. It just said these all of

334
00:20:43,280 --> 00:20:46,000
Speaker 1: these proceedings are just canceled because they shouldn't have happened

335
00:20:46,000 --> 00:20:49,920
Speaker 1: in the first place. And when there's a final order

336
00:20:49,960 --> 00:20:53,040
Speaker 1: of removal, the circuit court will deal with that. Now,

337
00:20:53,119 --> 00:20:55,640
Speaker 1: the issue there is that that findal order of removal

338
00:20:56,040 --> 00:20:58,480
Speaker 1: would be in the Fifth Circuit, and so it would

339
00:20:58,520 --> 00:21:01,160
Speaker 1: be the Fifth Circuit, who's known as a conservative court,

340
00:21:01,600 --> 00:21:04,080
Speaker 1: who would actually end up dealing with that. And then

341
00:21:04,080 --> 00:21:08,119
Speaker 1: the other specific problem in the Khalil case is he

342
00:21:08,200 --> 00:21:11,920
Speaker 1: doesn't just have this Middle Eastern speech issue. He also

343
00:21:12,040 --> 00:21:15,920
Speaker 1: has a lying on his green card application issue, which

344
00:21:15,960 --> 00:21:19,280
Speaker 1: I think he probably understands is fatal to his case,

345
00:21:19,760 --> 00:21:24,440
Speaker 1: because even if he wins his constitutional argument, he still

346
00:21:24,520 --> 00:21:27,879
Speaker 1: may be deported on this lying on his green card

347
00:21:27,920 --> 00:21:28,440
Speaker 1: part of it.

348
00:21:29,280 --> 00:21:32,679
Speaker 2: Despite what the Trump administration says. He hasn't agreed to

349
00:21:32,760 --> 00:21:36,440
Speaker 2: go to Algeria yet. His lawyers are still fighting, right.

350
00:21:36,480 --> 00:21:39,639
Speaker 1: I mean, he's still trying to fight the third Circuit

351
00:21:39,760 --> 00:21:43,160
Speaker 1: order and take it on bank on appeal and try

352
00:21:43,200 --> 00:21:45,560
Speaker 1: to make sure he can't be put in detention. But

353
00:21:45,680 --> 00:21:49,640
Speaker 1: he may soon be forced to make this calculation, do

354
00:21:49,720 --> 00:21:54,040
Speaker 1: I want to go to Algeria or do I want

355
00:21:54,119 --> 00:21:57,080
Speaker 1: to fight this even if I'm in detention this whole time.

356
00:21:57,160 --> 00:22:01,320
Speaker 1: And so he does have Algerian citizenship through his mother's family,

357
00:22:01,640 --> 00:22:04,960
Speaker 1: which is why Algeria was designated as the country for removal.

358
00:22:05,240 --> 00:22:07,800
Speaker 1: He's not saying I'm leaving today, but I think the

359
00:22:07,880 --> 00:22:11,199
Speaker 1: reason they've settled on Algeria is because he does have

360
00:22:11,280 --> 00:22:15,960
Speaker 1: that citizenship, and perhaps they think if he's put to

361
00:22:16,000 --> 00:22:18,399
Speaker 1: this choice, he may end up taking it instead of

362
00:22:18,600 --> 00:22:20,920
Speaker 1: having to fight two three years more in detention.

363
00:22:21,520 --> 00:22:24,960
Speaker 2: The panel was composed of two Republican appointed judges who

364
00:22:25,040 --> 00:22:28,160
Speaker 2: voted for the government and a Democratic appointee who voted

365
00:22:28,200 --> 00:22:31,520
Speaker 2: against the government. If he goes to the Third Circuit,

366
00:22:32,000 --> 00:22:36,000
Speaker 2: the balance there is still seven judges appointed by Democrats,

367
00:22:36,000 --> 00:22:40,439
Speaker 2: but eight appointed by Republicans, including six Trump appointees. Is

368
00:22:40,480 --> 00:22:42,600
Speaker 2: he going to have a better chance at an on

369
00:22:42,800 --> 00:22:43,479
Speaker 2: bank hearing.

370
00:22:44,040 --> 00:22:48,480
Speaker 1: Here's the problem with this. If the judge in this case,

371
00:22:48,640 --> 00:22:51,480
Speaker 1: I mean, I might be biased. People can accuse me

372
00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:53,600
Speaker 1: on either side of being biased. I really tried to

373
00:22:53,640 --> 00:22:56,199
Speaker 1: give it as down the middle as I can. So

374
00:22:56,280 --> 00:22:58,320
Speaker 1: I try to use this if the judge was a

375
00:22:58,440 --> 00:23:02,240
Speaker 1: robot standard, and I would say it is my belief

376
00:23:02,280 --> 00:23:05,720
Speaker 1: that if the judge was a robot, unmotivated in any

377
00:23:05,760 --> 00:23:09,840
Speaker 1: way by human concerns, but only looking at language patterns,

378
00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:13,800
Speaker 1: you would have to rule that the Third Circuit two

379
00:23:13,800 --> 00:23:18,520
Speaker 1: to one decision is correct. That the statute says that

380
00:23:18,600 --> 00:23:21,560
Speaker 1: where you make these arguments is in a petition for

381
00:23:21,680 --> 00:23:24,760
Speaker 1: review in the Court of Appeals. The statue couldn't be

382
00:23:24,800 --> 00:23:29,320
Speaker 1: any clearer about that. The problem is that that basically

383
00:23:29,359 --> 00:23:34,320
Speaker 1: denies you due process for any random, arbitrary thing that

384
00:23:34,359 --> 00:23:36,680
Speaker 1: the government wants to do. Now we're not talking about

385
00:23:36,720 --> 00:23:40,040
Speaker 1: this specific case. This is anything. If you really take

386
00:23:40,119 --> 00:23:44,320
Speaker 1: that statute to its logical conclusion, the government can impose

387
00:23:44,359 --> 00:23:48,800
Speaker 1: all sorts of harm on foreign nationals without any checker

388
00:23:48,920 --> 00:23:51,680
Speaker 1: balance for the entire time it's doing it. It could

389
00:23:51,720 --> 00:23:54,400
Speaker 1: be a year, two year, three years, and who knows,

390
00:23:54,440 --> 00:23:57,879
Speaker 1: they could potentially delay the proceedings for many years so

391
00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:01,320
Speaker 1: that you never even get to the end of the proceedings,

392
00:24:01,400 --> 00:24:04,239
Speaker 1: in which case you'd have to file what's called an

393
00:24:04,320 --> 00:24:08,800
Speaker 1: unapplied challenge to your due process rights being taken away

394
00:24:08,800 --> 00:24:10,840
Speaker 1: from you. So you would file, you would file this

395
00:24:10,880 --> 00:24:14,760
Speaker 1: as applied challenge and say the Constitution is not being

396
00:24:14,800 --> 00:24:18,199
Speaker 1: applied correctly in my case. But how long would that be?

397
00:24:18,359 --> 00:24:21,920
Speaker 1: After eighteen months, twenty four months? The courts have had

398
00:24:21,960 --> 00:24:25,280
Speaker 1: all kinds of deadlines in these immigration cases, but certainly

399
00:24:25,359 --> 00:24:28,680
Speaker 1: not two months, three months, six months. They never say

400
00:24:29,040 --> 00:24:32,040
Speaker 1: that that short of a period allows you to get

401
00:24:32,080 --> 00:24:35,160
Speaker 1: back into court. So then the problem is how many

402
00:24:35,160 --> 00:24:38,440
Speaker 1: people are you essentially coercing over two months or six

403
00:24:38,480 --> 00:24:42,240
Speaker 1: months of detention to leave and not pursue their rights

404
00:24:42,240 --> 00:24:45,640
Speaker 1: and everything else. And so that's the sort of challenge,

405
00:24:45,680 --> 00:24:48,840
Speaker 1: is that the human side of this, it seems obvious

406
00:24:48,920 --> 00:24:52,800
Speaker 1: you wouldn't want to have a system that was vulnerable

407
00:24:52,880 --> 00:24:57,920
Speaker 1: to this level of hardship. But on the linguistic side,

408
00:24:58,320 --> 00:25:02,120
Speaker 1: that seems to be absolutely what Congress road. And so

409
00:25:02,480 --> 00:25:03,960
Speaker 1: this is what the courts are going to have.

410
00:25:03,880 --> 00:25:07,440
Speaker 2: To wrestle with leon you know, on the ground, if

411
00:25:07,440 --> 00:25:10,680
Speaker 2: this Third Circuit decision is affirmed, et cetera, et cetera,

412
00:25:10,760 --> 00:25:14,919
Speaker 2: I mean, what implications would that have for immigration lawyers

413
00:25:15,080 --> 00:25:17,200
Speaker 2: using habeas to.

414
00:25:17,400 --> 00:25:19,679
Speaker 1: Get very well? I mean if it gets to the

415
00:25:19,720 --> 00:25:23,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and the Supreme Court agrees that there's just

416
00:25:23,400 --> 00:25:27,040
Speaker 1: no habeas anymore for any reason, because that's what they'd

417
00:25:27,080 --> 00:25:29,159
Speaker 1: have to decide, because this is honestly one of the

418
00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:31,040
Speaker 1: most compelled If you're going to say, what's one of

419
00:25:31,040 --> 00:25:34,520
Speaker 1: the most compelling reasons you would ever need a habeas,

420
00:25:34,760 --> 00:25:38,240
Speaker 1: it would be because a lawful permanent resident was being

421
00:25:38,320 --> 00:25:44,680
Speaker 1: placed in detention for a nebulous, vague situation where it's

422
00:25:44,760 --> 00:25:48,439
Speaker 1: unclear whether something applied to that Green card holder or not.

423
00:25:48,720 --> 00:25:51,359
Speaker 1: I'm not saying Khalil is a good person or a

424
00:25:51,400 --> 00:25:54,399
Speaker 1: bad person. I'm not talking about that he baby Khalil

425
00:25:54,480 --> 00:25:57,920
Speaker 1: did some horrible things and should be deported. So I'm

426
00:25:57,920 --> 00:26:00,159
Speaker 1: not taking any position there I'm just saying, you have

427
00:26:00,200 --> 00:26:03,840
Speaker 1: a statute which says, if the Secretary of State deems

428
00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:08,439
Speaker 1: you to be contrary to the interests of the foreign

429
00:26:08,480 --> 00:26:11,199
Speaker 1: policy interests of the United States, they can deport you,

430
00:26:11,280 --> 00:26:13,639
Speaker 1: even if you're a Green card holder. So the point is,

431
00:26:13,680 --> 00:26:17,199
Speaker 1: what does that mean? How can I govern my conduct

432
00:26:17,520 --> 00:26:20,359
Speaker 1: in order to avoid the Secretary of State thinking that

433
00:26:20,480 --> 00:26:23,760
Speaker 1: about me? And so that's not exactly clear. It's different

434
00:26:23,800 --> 00:26:27,320
Speaker 1: than a statute which says if I commit a felony,

435
00:26:27,400 --> 00:26:30,080
Speaker 1: I can be deported. Okay, well, I know, don't commit

436
00:26:30,080 --> 00:26:33,840
Speaker 1: a felony. Fine, But how do I govern my conduct

437
00:26:33,880 --> 00:26:36,680
Speaker 1: so as to not have the Secretary of State mad

438
00:26:36,720 --> 00:26:40,520
Speaker 1: at me? Hard to know in that situation. And so

439
00:26:40,760 --> 00:26:45,160
Speaker 1: from that standpoint, if in that situation the court says

440
00:26:45,200 --> 00:26:48,080
Speaker 1: there's no habeas, that's going to mean there's no habeas

441
00:26:48,119 --> 00:26:51,600
Speaker 1: for anyone because this is going to be very much

442
00:26:52,119 --> 00:26:54,480
Speaker 1: a sensitive case and that they're saying, Look, I could

443
00:26:54,520 --> 00:26:58,000
Speaker 1: be held for detention for one year two years on

444
00:26:58,040 --> 00:27:00,679
Speaker 1: the basis of a statute I don't even know to follow.

445
00:27:00,920 --> 00:27:03,119
Speaker 1: When I'm a lawful permanent resident and I have a

446
00:27:03,240 --> 00:27:05,400
Speaker 1: US it is in child, and I have a US

447
00:27:05,440 --> 00:27:08,919
Speaker 1: citizens spouse, what are we doing here? And so I

448
00:27:08,960 --> 00:27:12,119
Speaker 1: do think this is it. This is the test case.

449
00:27:12,800 --> 00:27:15,480
Speaker 1: And if the Supreme Court says there's no habs here,

450
00:27:15,560 --> 00:27:17,560
Speaker 1: that's going to mean there's no habeas for anyone.

451
00:27:19,119 --> 00:27:22,200
Speaker 2: Finally, I want to talk about in the Massachusetts case

452
00:27:22,240 --> 00:27:26,639
Speaker 2: by university professors that accuse the administration of having an

453
00:27:26,760 --> 00:27:30,960
Speaker 2: unconstitutional policy of deporting people based on their political views.

454
00:27:31,800 --> 00:27:35,879
Speaker 2: The trial focused on the targeting of five non citizen students,

455
00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:42,200
Speaker 2: including Khalil and Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, has

456
00:27:42,320 --> 00:27:47,280
Speaker 2: criticized what he said, we're breathtaking constitutional violations by senior

457
00:27:47,280 --> 00:27:52,640
Speaker 2: Trump administration officials and call the president an authoritarian who

458
00:27:52,640 --> 00:27:56,840
Speaker 2: expects everyone in the executive branch to tow the line. Absolutely.

459
00:27:57,359 --> 00:27:59,520
Speaker 2: So he's going to come out with a decision. First

460
00:27:59,560 --> 00:28:02,560
Speaker 2: of all, what's your reaction to the judge's sort of

461
00:28:02,840 --> 00:28:04,600
Speaker 2: astonishment at what he saw?

462
00:28:05,119 --> 00:28:08,160
Speaker 1: Well, yes, the judge is clearly upset by Again, we're

463
00:28:08,160 --> 00:28:11,400
Speaker 1: talking about the same statute here, which is a very

464
00:28:11,400 --> 00:28:15,400
Speaker 1: difficult statue to comply with, because you're saying that anybody

465
00:28:15,440 --> 00:28:18,919
Speaker 1: can be deported. If the Secretary of State thinks that

466
00:28:19,040 --> 00:28:23,000
Speaker 1: your speech is running a file of US foreign policy interests.

467
00:28:23,359 --> 00:28:27,320
Speaker 1: So how do people comply, how do people voice their opinions,

468
00:28:27,320 --> 00:28:31,960
Speaker 1: et cetera, if they're not actually engaging any any illegal action.

469
00:28:32,080 --> 00:28:35,360
Speaker 1: And so Judge Young didn't want that and said, basically,

470
00:28:35,520 --> 00:28:39,320
Speaker 1: very clearly, this is something authoritarians do, and in order

471
00:28:39,400 --> 00:28:41,960
Speaker 1: to implement this, you have to be engaging in a

472
00:28:42,000 --> 00:28:45,880
Speaker 1: conspiracy and you have to have people writing you out

473
00:28:46,000 --> 00:28:48,240
Speaker 1: like in the Fugitive Slave Act. And so he was

474
00:28:48,280 --> 00:28:51,520
Speaker 1: saying all of these very strong words. But at the

475
00:28:51,640 --> 00:28:54,080
Speaker 1: end of the day, we're going to be back to

476
00:28:54,160 --> 00:28:56,280
Speaker 1: what I just said a few minutes ago, which is,

477
00:28:56,640 --> 00:28:59,600
Speaker 1: does Judge Young have any authority to be doing any

478
00:28:59,640 --> 00:29:02,680
Speaker 1: of this? Or do these challenges have to be brought

479
00:29:03,000 --> 00:29:07,400
Speaker 1: by individual foreign nationals who are going through their proceedings

480
00:29:07,600 --> 00:29:12,000
Speaker 1: and suffering these these arms, as opposed to it a

481
00:29:12,240 --> 00:29:16,040
Speaker 1: separate proceeding a district judge being able to deal with this.

482
00:29:16,120 --> 00:29:19,480
Speaker 1: So this is literally part and parcel again of the

483
00:29:19,560 --> 00:29:23,440
Speaker 1: exact same argument. And here this will be decided by

484
00:29:23,480 --> 00:29:26,320
Speaker 1: the first Circuit, and so we'll have a first circuit

485
00:29:26,320 --> 00:29:29,520
Speaker 1: and a third circuit situation, and then it'll again go

486
00:29:29,640 --> 00:29:32,720
Speaker 1: back to the Supreme Court. Maybe if they break in

487
00:29:32,800 --> 00:29:35,280
Speaker 1: a way where it needs to, and the Supreme Court

488
00:29:35,320 --> 00:29:38,160
Speaker 1: would have to decide can these kinds of claims be

489
00:29:38,240 --> 00:29:42,280
Speaker 1: brought in the district courts or is the only solution

490
00:29:42,560 --> 00:29:47,120
Speaker 1: for an individual foreign national in deportation proceedings to bring

491
00:29:47,200 --> 00:29:50,600
Speaker 1: these claims administratively where first of all these judges can't

492
00:29:50,640 --> 00:29:54,360
Speaker 1: do anything about that, lose, and then a year later,

493
00:29:54,520 --> 00:29:57,719
Speaker 1: two years later, bring it to a Court of Appeals

494
00:29:57,920 --> 00:29:59,920
Speaker 1: as part of a petition for review of a final

495
00:30:00,160 --> 00:30:03,400
Speaker 1: order removal. And so I think that's the issue is

496
00:30:03,480 --> 00:30:05,840
Speaker 1: people are saying, man, that's going to take a long time,

497
00:30:05,880 --> 00:30:08,600
Speaker 1: what are we doing here? But this is this is

498
00:30:08,640 --> 00:30:11,040
Speaker 1: potentially what might need to be done under the law.

499
00:30:11,320 --> 00:30:14,160
Speaker 2: And then the question is whether you're in detention or not.

500
00:30:14,240 --> 00:30:17,920
Speaker 2: That makes a huge difference. Thanks so much, Leon, I've

501
00:30:17,920 --> 00:30:21,680
Speaker 2: been talking to immigration expert lyon Fresco of Holland and Knight.

502
00:30:22,320 --> 00:30:24,640
Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

503
00:30:24,960 --> 00:30:27,320
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

504
00:30:27,360 --> 00:30:31,000
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts,

505
00:30:31,000 --> 00:30:35,959
Speaker 2: Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast

506
00:30:36,160 --> 00:30:39,080
Speaker 2: Slash Law, and remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law

507
00:30:39,120 --> 00:30:43,040
Speaker 2: Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm

508
00:30:43,120 --> 00:30:48,360
Speaker 2: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg, all right,