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

2
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:11,959
Speaker 2: If I didn't send the National Guard into Los Angeles,

3
00:00:12,000 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 2: you wouldn't I would be making an announcement today, I'd

4
00:00:14,760 --> 00:00:18,440
Speaker 2: be talking about Huntsville, and I'd simultaneously be saying, by

5
00:00:18,440 --> 00:00:21,560
Speaker 2: the way, the Olympics is not coming to Los Angeles.

6
00:00:22,079 --> 00:00:25,440
Speaker 3: But a federal judge has found there was no rebellion,

7
00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:29,600
Speaker 3: nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the

8
00:00:29,720 --> 00:00:33,400
Speaker 3: protests and enforce the law in Los Angeles. This summer,

9
00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:38,400
Speaker 3: Judge Stephen Bryer ruled that the Trump administration wilfully violated

10
00:00:38,440 --> 00:00:42,639
Speaker 3: federal law by deploying National Guard troops and US Marines

11
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:46,640
Speaker 3: to carry out local law enforcement in Los Angeles. In

12
00:00:46,720 --> 00:00:50,000
Speaker 3: a scathing ruling, Briar noted that Trump has stated his

13
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:54,400
Speaker 3: intention to deploy National Guard troops to other cities across

14
00:00:54,480 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 3: the country, raising concerns that Trump is creating a national

15
00:00:58,960 --> 00:01:02,960
Speaker 3: police force with the president as its chief. And today

16
00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:07,000
Speaker 3: in the Oval Office, Trump confirmed that Chicago is next

17
00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:11,920
Speaker 3: that he'll direct federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime

18
00:01:12,040 --> 00:01:17,360
Speaker 3: in Chicago, despite staunch opposition from state and local officials.

19
00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:21,920
Speaker 2: If the governor Illinois would call up, call me up.

20
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:24,480
Speaker 2: I would love to do it. Now we're going to

21
00:01:24,520 --> 00:01:26,720
Speaker 2: do it anyway. We have the right to do it

22
00:01:27,160 --> 00:01:30,200
Speaker 2: because I have an obligation to protect this country and

23
00:01:30,240 --> 00:01:35,199
Speaker 2: that includes Baltimore. I saw where Governor Moore was asking

24
00:01:35,200 --> 00:01:37,400
Speaker 2: me to take a walk down the street of Baltimore. Well,

25
00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:39,760
Speaker 2: Baltimore is a very unsafe place.

26
00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:45,600
Speaker 3: Illinois Governor JB. Pritzker reiterated today that crime is down

27
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:49,320
Speaker 3: in Chicago and that the city doesn't need, nor does

28
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:51,480
Speaker 3: it want, federal troops there.

29
00:01:52,760 --> 00:01:57,160
Speaker 4: None of this is about fighting crime or making Chicago safer.

30
00:01:57,720 --> 00:02:01,440
Speaker 4: None of it. For Trump, it's about testing his power

31
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:05,880
Speaker 4: and producing a political drama to cover up for his corruption.

32
00:02:07,080 --> 00:02:11,079
Speaker 4: If you need any proof of this that it's all

33
00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:12,639
Speaker 4: a big show.

34
00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:17,079
Speaker 3: My guest is constitutional law expert Harold Krant, a professor

35
00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 3: at the Chicago Kent College of Law. Hal is judge

36
00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:27,080
Speaker 3: Briar's decision a complete refutation of Trump sending troops into

37
00:02:27,120 --> 00:02:27,960
Speaker 3: Los Angeles.

38
00:02:28,360 --> 00:02:32,320
Speaker 5: It's a partial reputation, and indeed, just Buyer's order allows

39
00:02:32,440 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 5: the military to remain. What he has done is delineate

40
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 5: what they can and cannot do. And so this is

41
00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:43,520
Speaker 5: an effort by the judge this steer clear of the

42
00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:46,880
Speaker 5: earlier Ninth Circuit decision which lifted a day on his

43
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:50,720
Speaker 5: earlier preliminary injunction. So the court here is trying to

44
00:02:50,760 --> 00:02:54,280
Speaker 5: be careful in trying to say what the National Guard

45
00:02:54,400 --> 00:02:57,239
Speaker 5: can do and can't do. And it's up to the

46
00:02:57,360 --> 00:02:59,440
Speaker 5: Ninth Circuit to react, and I'm sure they'll react one

47
00:02:59,480 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 5: way or the other.

48
00:03:00,200 --> 00:03:03,239
Speaker 3: But how didn't he find that sending the National Guard

49
00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:06,560
Speaker 3: in was a violation of the Passikamatatis Act.

50
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:09,359
Speaker 5: He did, but he said that there were some duties

51
00:03:09,760 --> 00:03:15,600
Speaker 5: that the federalized National Guard could in fact undertake consistent

52
00:03:15,639 --> 00:03:18,720
Speaker 5: with the pass Coomatatas Act, but that the fact was

53
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:21,680
Speaker 5: that he made a factual finding that the troops had

54
00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:24,840
Speaker 5: done more than that they had engaged in general law

55
00:03:24,960 --> 00:03:30,240
Speaker 5: enforcement activity, which she said was proscribed under the Pussikamatatis

56
00:03:30,280 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 5: Act and tradition. So he made it more narrow nuanced

57
00:03:34,320 --> 00:03:37,520
Speaker 5: finding that they had previously saying he didn't even question

58
00:03:37,920 --> 00:03:41,440
Speaker 5: the ability of the President to federalize the National Guard

59
00:03:41,480 --> 00:03:45,640
Speaker 5: against the governor's wishes, which obviously took place earlier in

60
00:03:45,680 --> 00:03:48,360
Speaker 5: the year. But he said, even if the president can

61
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:53,880
Speaker 5: do that, they can't engage in general law enforcement activities,

62
00:03:53,920 --> 00:04:01,040
Speaker 5: including covering ice agents, including dispersing crowd and so forth.

63
00:04:01,160 --> 00:04:01,840
Speaker 6: So it's a.

64
00:04:01,880 --> 00:04:06,840
Speaker 5: More narrow decision than he issued previously, and we'll see

65
00:04:06,840 --> 00:04:08,800
Speaker 5: how the Ninth Circuit again reacts to it.

66
00:04:09,240 --> 00:04:12,720
Speaker 3: So he said, there were indeed protests in Los Angeles

67
00:04:12,920 --> 00:04:16,880
Speaker 3: and some individuals engaged in violence, yet there was no rebellion,

68
00:04:17,279 --> 00:04:20,800
Speaker 3: nor was civilian law enforcement unable to respond to the

69
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:22,679
Speaker 3: protests and enforce the law.

70
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:26,040
Speaker 6: There was really two sides. The earlier had ruled that.

71
00:04:26,040 --> 00:04:29,719
Speaker 5: The President lacked authority to federalize the National Guard because

72
00:04:29,720 --> 00:04:32,440
Speaker 5: of the reasons you suggested, And so he is trying

73
00:04:32,480 --> 00:04:36,040
Speaker 5: to create a decision, in my mind here that is

74
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:40,760
Speaker 5: consistent with the broad principles he articulated, previously limiting the

75
00:04:40,800 --> 00:04:44,480
Speaker 5: president's abilities to nationalize the Federal Guard, but then, realizing

76
00:04:44,520 --> 00:04:47,840
Speaker 5: that the Ninth Circuit had overruled him in part previously,

77
00:04:48,240 --> 00:04:51,840
Speaker 5: then decided to add more granually that even if the

78
00:04:51,880 --> 00:04:55,560
Speaker 5: President could nationalize the National Guard, that they could not

79
00:04:55,839 --> 00:05:00,640
Speaker 5: engage in sort of typical law enforcement authority, which he said,

80
00:05:00,680 --> 00:05:05,479
Speaker 5: including you know, dispersing crowds, including protecting ice agents and

81
00:05:05,560 --> 00:05:09,560
Speaker 5: so forth. But I think the consensus has been that

82
00:05:09,760 --> 00:05:15,359
Speaker 5: the president cannot nationalize the National Guard. You know, unless

83
00:05:15,560 --> 00:05:19,880
Speaker 5: all typical law enforcement has collapsed, you can't enforce court

84
00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:24,560
Speaker 5: orders or there's an insurrection, and obviously those two things

85
00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:27,320
Speaker 5: are not in place in Los Angeles. In my mind, though,

86
00:05:27,360 --> 00:05:32,440
Speaker 5: this is a sideshow because President Trump continually says that

87
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:36,240
Speaker 5: he can federalize the National Guard and send them wherever

88
00:05:36,279 --> 00:05:39,599
Speaker 5: he wants, to include Chicago, just for ordinary criminal law enforcements.

89
00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:42,880
Speaker 5: So it's clear that there's a clash between the Court's

90
00:05:42,960 --> 00:05:47,640
Speaker 5: view of the limits of the president's authority under the

91
00:05:47,720 --> 00:05:51,560
Speaker 5: Pasi Comatatus Act and what the President thinks he can

92
00:05:51,640 --> 00:05:54,719
Speaker 5: do and has continually espoused he can do in terms

93
00:05:54,720 --> 00:05:57,800
Speaker 5: of federalizing the troops at a moment's notice.

94
00:05:58,160 --> 00:06:03,640
Speaker 3: The judge cited us he span broadcast of Trump's August

95
00:06:03,680 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 3: twenty seventh Cabinet meeting where he discussed sending the National

96
00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:09,640
Speaker 3: Guard into Chicago and said, quote, I have the right

97
00:06:09,680 --> 00:06:11,160
Speaker 3: to do anything I want to do.

98
00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:14,040
Speaker 1: So Judge Briar cited.

99
00:06:13,640 --> 00:06:19,120
Speaker 3: That, and then he expanded his order beyond Los Angeles

100
00:06:19,160 --> 00:06:20,800
Speaker 3: to all of California.

101
00:06:21,480 --> 00:06:25,279
Speaker 5: You're currently limited the order to California, but decided that

102
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:29,360
Speaker 5: because California itself was a plaintiff, he was empowered to

103
00:06:29,480 --> 00:06:34,120
Speaker 5: extend the relief to grant protection to the plaintiff in

104
00:06:34,160 --> 00:06:34,520
Speaker 5: the case.

105
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:36,480
Speaker 1: Do you think that went too far?

106
00:06:36,920 --> 00:06:41,120
Speaker 5: Well, My only concern about the Court's opinion is that

107
00:06:41,200 --> 00:06:44,760
Speaker 5: the Court seemed to be dismissing the present's sort of

108
00:06:44,800 --> 00:06:48,280
Speaker 5: inherent authority as a statutory matter. I think the Court

109
00:06:48,360 --> 00:06:51,440
Speaker 5: is on strong ground, both historically and in terms of

110
00:06:51,520 --> 00:06:55,000
Speaker 5: textually of understanding the limits of the passe comatatus Act.

111
00:06:55,120 --> 00:06:57,840
Speaker 5: I think the Court was a little bit quick in

112
00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:02,200
Speaker 5: terms of dismissing the presence sort of inherent authority under

113
00:07:02,760 --> 00:07:06,880
Speaker 5: the Commander and Chief clause of the Constitution. Clearly, presidents

114
00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:09,120
Speaker 5: have to make tough costs, tough calls in terms of

115
00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:13,920
Speaker 5: lias on street, tough cause in terms of potential invasions

116
00:07:14,040 --> 00:07:16,880
Speaker 5: and so forth, and so if the president is said,

117
00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:21,520
Speaker 5: we need to protect federal buildings, we need to protect

118
00:07:21,640 --> 00:07:26,320
Speaker 5: federal instrumentalities, I think that article to itself might give

119
00:07:26,360 --> 00:07:28,600
Speaker 5: the president arguably does give it the president that kind

120
00:07:28,640 --> 00:07:33,120
Speaker 5: of authority to order troops to protect those even if

121
00:07:33,200 --> 00:07:35,640
Speaker 5: states say they don't need it. So that's not at

122
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:40,400
Speaker 5: stake here, and President Trump's news conference clearly illustrates that

123
00:07:40,440 --> 00:07:43,480
Speaker 5: that's not at stake here. But I think that might

124
00:07:43,560 --> 00:07:47,920
Speaker 5: be a weakness in the Court's opinion, because I do

125
00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:50,040
Speaker 5: think that the chief executive has to make those tough

126
00:07:50,080 --> 00:07:53,640
Speaker 5: calls if there are threats in the president's mind to

127
00:07:53,840 --> 00:07:56,240
Speaker 5: federal instrumentalities within the States.

128
00:07:56,840 --> 00:08:00,880
Speaker 3: What Trump has said today is there are lots of

129
00:08:00,960 --> 00:08:05,080
Speaker 3: murderers in Chicago, and crime is up in Chicago, and

130
00:08:05,680 --> 00:08:06,520
Speaker 3: they're going in.

131
00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:07,760
Speaker 1: But he didn't say when.

132
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:11,520
Speaker 5: But there's absolutely no justification for what the President say

133
00:08:11,600 --> 00:08:14,679
Speaker 5: he's going to do in Chicago, which is even more

134
00:08:15,320 --> 00:08:20,400
Speaker 5: indefensible than what he did in California. And I would

135
00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:23,760
Speaker 5: expect that the mayor of Chicago, Mayor Johnson, and the

136
00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:27,480
Speaker 5: governor of Illinois, Governor Pritsko, will immediately go to court

137
00:08:27,880 --> 00:08:30,400
Speaker 5: not only cite the most recent Judge Briar decision, but

138
00:08:30,840 --> 00:08:34,600
Speaker 5: cite just more convincingly that the President has acknowledged the

139
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:38,360
Speaker 5: purpose for why he's sending in troops into Chicago, and

140
00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:42,120
Speaker 5: that's absolutely prohibited by the pussy com pat effect under

141
00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:45,240
Speaker 5: any construction of the terms of the statute.

142
00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:52,560
Speaker 3: So Judge Briar's decision has no effect in Illinois correct,

143
00:08:52,720 --> 00:08:56,920
Speaker 3: But is the reasoning strong enough to apply to Illinois.

144
00:08:57,080 --> 00:09:01,960
Speaker 5: I think that reasoning will over the same situation, and again,

145
00:09:02,160 --> 00:09:05,120
Speaker 5: Chicago is an easier case. And I think that to

146
00:09:05,160 --> 00:09:09,760
Speaker 5: the extent that the President would say that ICE agents

147
00:09:09,840 --> 00:09:13,640
Speaker 5: are under attack and that Key as Caman achieved, can't

148
00:09:13,760 --> 00:09:17,720
Speaker 5: ensure an orderly function of immigration processes in this country

149
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:21,520
Speaker 5: without calling in supportive troops. That would be the strongest

150
00:09:21,720 --> 00:09:25,720
Speaker 5: sort of justification that I can understand in the California context,

151
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:28,800
Speaker 5: for the use of either the federalized National Guard or

152
00:09:28,800 --> 00:09:32,920
Speaker 5: for the Marines. But he clearly in Chicago's basically is

153
00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:35,520
Speaker 5: that I don't even need that justification. I can send

154
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:38,000
Speaker 5: troops wherever I want, whenever I want, because I'm the

155
00:09:38,040 --> 00:09:40,920
Speaker 5: President of the United States. And that downright is frightening.

156
00:09:41,600 --> 00:09:44,600
Speaker 5: Not only is it clearly outlawed by the pussy Coomatata

157
00:09:44,679 --> 00:09:47,360
Speaker 5: fact and by the history that led to the Act,

158
00:09:47,800 --> 00:09:50,400
Speaker 5: but it's a huge step towards autocracy.

159
00:09:51,240 --> 00:09:54,120
Speaker 3: What if he just instead of sending in the National

160
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:58,560
Speaker 3: Guard or military troops, if you just sent in lots

161
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:04,079
Speaker 3: and lots of federal agbi dea ice, Is there any

162
00:10:04,120 --> 00:10:04,839
Speaker 3: a problem with that?

163
00:10:05,120 --> 00:10:05,480
Speaker 1: Legally?

164
00:10:06,000 --> 00:10:09,000
Speaker 5: There may be pockets of restrictions, but I think ordinarily

165
00:10:09,480 --> 00:10:12,640
Speaker 5: that would be within his power, and certainly he can

166
00:10:12,880 --> 00:10:17,040
Speaker 5: shift FBI agents over to EIST as temporary details. He

167
00:10:17,120 --> 00:10:19,640
Speaker 5: has the power to do that under prior statute. So

168
00:10:20,400 --> 00:10:23,240
Speaker 5: in that respect he could accomplish at least some of

169
00:10:23,320 --> 00:10:27,079
Speaker 5: his goals. But again, he could not engage those FBI

170
00:10:27,240 --> 00:10:30,640
Speaker 5: agents in terms of taking over for general law enforcement

171
00:10:31,080 --> 00:10:33,840
Speaker 5: for Chicago, because the FBI is not authorized. The EE

172
00:10:33,960 --> 00:10:39,720
Speaker 5: agents aren't authorized to deal with conventional robbery, theft, et cetera.

173
00:10:39,840 --> 00:10:41,800
Speaker 5: That are state crimes, not federal crimes.

174
00:10:42,520 --> 00:10:45,640
Speaker 3: So the Insurrection Act is an exception to the posse

175
00:10:45,760 --> 00:10:46,760
Speaker 3: comma tatis law.

176
00:10:47,400 --> 00:10:49,800
Speaker 5: That's correct. And so if he would deem that we

177
00:10:49,920 --> 00:10:52,600
Speaker 5: are under insurrection, I don't even know what the theory

178
00:10:52,600 --> 00:10:55,080
Speaker 5: would be in Chicago. But if he says that there

179
00:10:55,360 --> 00:11:01,559
Speaker 5: is an insurrection because undocumented worker are rising up in

180
00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:04,839
Speaker 5: arms against the authority, or he would say that some

181
00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:08,200
Speaker 5: other kind of indirection is taking place, then he could

182
00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:12,080
Speaker 5: justifiably use federal troops. He has not made that claim,

183
00:11:12,600 --> 00:11:16,439
Speaker 5: and indeed one is very far fetched given the facts

184
00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:17,480
Speaker 5: as we know them.

185
00:11:17,440 --> 00:11:20,280
Speaker 3: Now, and particularly in light of the fact that he

186
00:11:20,440 --> 00:11:26,120
Speaker 3: did not declare an insurrection on January sixth of twenty

187
00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:29,319
Speaker 3: twenty one. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show,

188
00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:32,640
Speaker 3: I'll continue this conversation with Professor Harold Krant of the

189
00:11:32,720 --> 00:11:37,040
Speaker 3: Chicago Kent College of Law. So what can Illinois governor

190
00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:40,920
Speaker 3: and Chicago's mayor do? I'm June Gross. When you're listening

191
00:11:41,000 --> 00:11:45,600
Speaker 3: to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump said today that he'll direct

192
00:11:45,679 --> 00:11:50,720
Speaker 3: federal law enforcement intervention to combat crime in Chicago, despite

193
00:11:50,920 --> 00:11:54,959
Speaker 3: staunch opposition from Chicago's mayor and Illinois governor.

194
00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:56,000
Speaker 5: Well, we're going in.

195
00:11:56,480 --> 00:11:57,760
Speaker 2: I didn't say when we're going in.

196
00:11:58,440 --> 00:12:02,120
Speaker 4: We know before anything has happened here that the Trump

197
00:12:02,240 --> 00:12:06,280
Speaker 4: plan is to use any excuse to deploy armed military

198
00:12:06,360 --> 00:12:11,280
Speaker 4: personnel to Chicago. If someone flings a sandwich at an

199
00:12:11,360 --> 00:12:13,920
Speaker 4: Ice agent, Trump will try and go on TV and

200
00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:15,640
Speaker 4: declare an emergency in Chicago.

201
00:12:16,679 --> 00:12:19,160
Speaker 3: I've been talking to Professor Harold Krent of the Chicago

202
00:12:19,320 --> 00:12:22,120
Speaker 3: Kent College of Law. So how before the break, we

203
00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:25,880
Speaker 3: were talking about Judge Briar's decision that the Trump administration

204
00:12:26,120 --> 00:12:30,280
Speaker 3: willfully broke federal law when they sent National Guard troops

205
00:12:30,600 --> 00:12:34,079
Speaker 3: to Los Angeles, and we were talking about the Insurrection

206
00:12:34,280 --> 00:12:37,640
Speaker 3: Act and that that's an exception to the Posse Comitatis

207
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:41,280
Speaker 3: Act that Judge Briar said the president could have invoked.

208
00:12:41,520 --> 00:12:44,520
Speaker 3: Judge said, if the president wants to avoid the act's restrictions,

209
00:12:44,800 --> 00:12:47,960
Speaker 3: he must invoke a valid exception like the Insurrection Act,

210
00:12:48,400 --> 00:12:51,640
Speaker 3: along with its requisite showing that state and local law

211
00:12:51,720 --> 00:12:54,400
Speaker 3: enforcement are unable or unwilling to act.

212
00:12:54,840 --> 00:12:58,040
Speaker 5: But when we had riots in the wake of the

213
00:12:58,520 --> 00:13:01,679
Speaker 5: sesssination of Martin Luther King, whom he had the unrest

214
00:13:01,800 --> 00:13:05,880
Speaker 5: because of the George Floyd murder, arguably local law enforcement

215
00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:09,000
Speaker 5: could not take the helm and preserve law and order.

216
00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:13,880
Speaker 5: And that is an exception of the Putico Tatus Act.

217
00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:18,000
Speaker 5: And indeed, the courts would be in difficult position if

218
00:13:18,120 --> 00:13:20,800
Speaker 5: the president made a careful finding that that is why

219
00:13:20,880 --> 00:13:24,800
Speaker 5: he is sending troops, that there is no local law

220
00:13:24,880 --> 00:13:28,680
Speaker 5: enforcement that can take care of law enforcement activities. He's

221
00:13:28,720 --> 00:13:31,040
Speaker 5: never made that finding, and given the fact that the

222
00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:33,480
Speaker 5: clim has gone down into these like Washington, d C

223
00:13:33,559 --> 00:13:38,320
Speaker 5: in Chicago, it's simply far fetched, which is understandably why

224
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:42,240
Speaker 5: he doesn't want to make that kind of specific finding. So, yes,

225
00:13:42,679 --> 00:13:46,120
Speaker 5: presidents have sent in troops, and President Trump could in

226
00:13:46,160 --> 00:13:50,840
Speaker 5: the future respecting Congress, but not in these situations. Obviously,

227
00:13:50,960 --> 00:13:55,680
Speaker 5: the Constitution ascribes a principal role to Congress and deciding

228
00:13:56,160 --> 00:14:01,559
Speaker 5: when to introduce the military into civil in situations. Congress

229
00:14:01,600 --> 00:14:03,800
Speaker 5: has done so in the Passacacomma Titus Act as well

230
00:14:03,960 --> 00:14:07,000
Speaker 5: as the limitations in the Insurrection Act. And that's the

231
00:14:07,160 --> 00:14:11,520
Speaker 5: role that the Constitution gives to Congress, and pusident Trump

232
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:14,360
Speaker 5: is just writing luckshot over the constitutional structure.

233
00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:19,080
Speaker 3: The mayor of Chicago and the governor and other officials

234
00:14:19,160 --> 00:14:23,160
Speaker 3: held this press conference, and is there anything that the

235
00:14:23,320 --> 00:14:27,080
Speaker 3: governor or the mayor can do to stop him from

236
00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:30,560
Speaker 3: federalizing the National Guard? I mean, the National Guard is

237
00:14:30,600 --> 00:14:34,600
Speaker 3: supposedly under the governor's control, right, absolutely.

238
00:14:34,240 --> 00:14:37,520
Speaker 5: But there are circumstances where the president can federalize the

239
00:14:37,600 --> 00:14:41,960
Speaker 5: National Guard. And at this point they may preemptibly go

240
00:14:42,040 --> 00:14:44,600
Speaker 5: to court. I'm sure they're discussing it both in terms

241
00:14:44,720 --> 00:14:48,160
Speaker 5: of filing lawsuit before the President sends troops or they'll

242
00:14:48,200 --> 00:14:50,560
Speaker 5: wait them out and at the first sign of when

243
00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:53,600
Speaker 5: the President does introduce troops into the streets of Chicago,

244
00:14:54,040 --> 00:14:55,840
Speaker 5: then they'll run into the federal.

245
00:14:55,600 --> 00:14:59,040
Speaker 6: Court and hope for the best. I think they will.

246
00:14:58,960 --> 00:15:03,240
Speaker 5: Receive a favorable reception in the Seventh Circuit in this area.

247
00:15:03,360 --> 00:15:04,360
Speaker 5: But time will tell.

248
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:07,560
Speaker 3: Suppose they started using the National Guard for other things

249
00:15:07,640 --> 00:15:11,320
Speaker 3: in Chicago or in Illinois, cleaning up the streets of

250
00:15:11,400 --> 00:15:13,840
Speaker 3: every town or something like that. Suppose they just use

251
00:15:13,920 --> 00:15:15,160
Speaker 3: the National Guard themselves.

252
00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:17,440
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, the governor can do that, and the

253
00:15:17,480 --> 00:15:19,480
Speaker 5: governors in the past, have you used the National Guard

254
00:15:19,560 --> 00:15:22,480
Speaker 5: to help enhance the safety of their communities, But absent

255
00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:26,160
Speaker 5: the governor's directions, that president lacks the authority to do

256
00:15:26,280 --> 00:15:29,520
Speaker 5: so except for these delineated exceptions that Congress has carefully

257
00:15:29,600 --> 00:15:31,760
Speaker 5: fought through, And it would be up to the courts

258
00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:35,400
Speaker 5: then to respect that dividing line between Congress and the

259
00:15:35,480 --> 00:15:38,600
Speaker 5: President at least. Otherwise we're going to have not a

260
00:15:38,680 --> 00:15:41,480
Speaker 5: separation of powers of three equal branches, but everything will

261
00:15:41,480 --> 00:15:43,160
Speaker 5: be totally dominated by one branch.

262
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:46,840
Speaker 6: And that's something that the Framers were very cognizant.

263
00:15:46,360 --> 00:15:49,640
Speaker 5: About, the fear of having one branch exceed too much

264
00:15:49,720 --> 00:15:52,560
Speaker 5: power to its own, and that's what we're confronting in

265
00:15:52,640 --> 00:15:53,280
Speaker 5: the near future.

266
00:15:54,160 --> 00:15:57,040
Speaker 3: Tell us what the Ninth Circuit ruled before.

267
00:15:58,840 --> 00:16:02,120
Speaker 5: It's said that it really difficult for courts of second

268
00:16:02,160 --> 00:16:07,360
Speaker 5: guests a justification by the President that there was simply

269
00:16:07,760 --> 00:16:13,040
Speaker 5: not sufficient local law enforcement to protect federal undertakings. In

270
00:16:13,160 --> 00:16:15,920
Speaker 5: this case, the federal undertakers, of course, were the Ice

271
00:16:15,960 --> 00:16:20,680
Speaker 5: agents attempting to round up undocumented individuals and sending them

272
00:16:20,760 --> 00:16:23,880
Speaker 5: out of the country. And so the court decided two.

273
00:16:23,720 --> 00:16:27,080
Speaker 6: To one to not weigh in and say that they

274
00:16:27,280 --> 00:16:28,560
Speaker 6: have a hearing on whether.

275
00:16:28,480 --> 00:16:32,400
Speaker 5: Or not the president's justification was pretext or not. And

276
00:16:32,520 --> 00:16:35,640
Speaker 5: so again the District Court here, Judge Bryer cleverly said,

277
00:16:36,040 --> 00:16:38,720
Speaker 5: even if that's true, that the president has violated the

278
00:16:38,760 --> 00:16:44,400
Speaker 5: comatatis Statute because it has not limited the use of

279
00:16:44,560 --> 00:16:48,040
Speaker 5: the troops for those permissible functions. So they didn't want

280
00:16:48,080 --> 00:16:50,800
Speaker 5: to get into pretext or non pretext, but rather just

281
00:16:50,920 --> 00:16:54,480
Speaker 5: said that what in fact the troops did in Los

282
00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:58,480
Speaker 5: Angeles exceeded their permissible bounds under the statute.

283
00:16:59,240 --> 00:17:02,040
Speaker 3: So, I mean, if the Seventh Circuit follows the Ninth Circuit,

284
00:17:02,600 --> 00:17:05,000
Speaker 3: then they wouldn't stop the troops from coming in.

285
00:17:05,480 --> 00:17:07,159
Speaker 5: I don't think that's going to happen. I mean, I

286
00:17:07,240 --> 00:17:10,240
Speaker 5: think that it obviously depends on what district court judge

287
00:17:10,520 --> 00:17:14,200
Speaker 5: gets the case. Once it's filed, assumably by Governor Pritzker,

288
00:17:14,480 --> 00:17:18,919
Speaker 5: But I think that the logical outcome here is different

289
00:17:19,359 --> 00:17:22,080
Speaker 5: because of the fact that there's no fig leaf. The

290
00:17:22,160 --> 00:17:25,639
Speaker 5: President has not even come close to complying with the

291
00:17:26,119 --> 00:17:29,800
Speaker 5: Postacoma Thomas Act. He's just said local law enforcement time

292
00:17:29,840 --> 00:17:33,680
Speaker 5: and a time at news conferences and not even suggesting

293
00:17:34,280 --> 00:17:38,160
Speaker 5: that there's an insurrection or a failure of the state

294
00:17:38,200 --> 00:17:41,840
Speaker 5: and local government to comply with judicial commands. So I

295
00:17:41,920 --> 00:17:44,960
Speaker 5: think the role is quite clear here in a lawsuit

296
00:17:45,080 --> 00:17:49,479
Speaker 5: is simply issue an injunction to say here outside your

297
00:17:49,560 --> 00:17:52,520
Speaker 5: lane and it would be up then into the Seventh

298
00:17:52,520 --> 00:17:55,040
Speaker 5: Circuit if there is an a junction to determine whether

299
00:17:55,119 --> 00:17:56,920
Speaker 5: to grant it or not, and I think they would

300
00:17:56,960 --> 00:17:57,320
Speaker 5: uphold it.

301
00:17:57,880 --> 00:18:02,160
Speaker 3: And Judge Bryer said something that really resonates in light

302
00:18:02,240 --> 00:18:05,440
Speaker 3: of the fact that President Trump has talked about Chicago

303
00:18:06,160 --> 00:18:11,080
Speaker 3: and next Baltimore and New York. He said, it raises

304
00:18:11,200 --> 00:18:14,960
Speaker 3: concerns that they're creating a national police force with the

305
00:18:15,119 --> 00:18:18,000
Speaker 3: president as its chief. And that's what it seems to

306
00:18:18,040 --> 00:18:21,199
Speaker 3: be because it's about crime, which is usually a local issue.

307
00:18:21,359 --> 00:18:24,679
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's one thing for the president as quasi governor

308
00:18:24,720 --> 00:18:28,040
Speaker 5: for DC to decide what's needed to maintain law and

309
00:18:28,160 --> 00:18:31,240
Speaker 5: order on DC streets. Obviously that's very controversial in his

310
00:18:31,400 --> 00:18:33,480
Speaker 5: own but it's another thing for him to do that

311
00:18:33,960 --> 00:18:38,280
Speaker 5: in states where there are governors trying to displace ubernatorial authority.

312
00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:40,480
Speaker 5: And of course, if you step back and look at this,

313
00:18:41,040 --> 00:18:44,119
Speaker 5: you know the President has said he's doing this in Chicago,

314
00:18:44,240 --> 00:18:47,000
Speaker 5: maybe New York, maybe Baltimore, But you don't hear about

315
00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:52,200
Speaker 5: New Orleans, Memphis, Saint Louis, places with higher crime rates

316
00:18:52,400 --> 00:18:56,520
Speaker 5: that are in Republican states. So again, to think about

317
00:18:56,920 --> 00:19:00,840
Speaker 5: what the president's accomplishing here, he's trying to flexis muscles

318
00:19:00,840 --> 00:19:03,720
Speaker 5: in a way which creates an incredibly dangerous precedent for

319
00:19:03,840 --> 00:19:04,719
Speaker 5: the entire country.

320
00:19:05,200 --> 00:19:08,280
Speaker 3: Well, let's hope it doesn't happen. If it does, there's

321
00:19:08,280 --> 00:19:10,639
Speaker 3: certainly going to be a lot of litigation about it.

322
00:19:11,080 --> 00:19:13,960
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harold Krent of the

323
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:17,560
Speaker 3: Chicago Kent College of Law, coming up next on the

324
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:21,159
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Show. A federal appeals court has ruled that

325
00:19:21,720 --> 00:19:25,920
Speaker 3: President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs

326
00:19:25,960 --> 00:19:29,480
Speaker 3: on almost every country. But the next stop is the

327
00:19:29,560 --> 00:19:34,160
Speaker 3: Supreme Court. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

328
00:19:36,040 --> 00:19:39,399
Speaker 3: A federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump

329
00:19:39,520 --> 00:19:43,800
Speaker 3: had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs on almost

330
00:19:44,000 --> 00:19:47,359
Speaker 3: every country. In a seven to four ruling, the US

331
00:19:47,480 --> 00:19:50,760
Speaker 3: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Trump

332
00:19:51,000 --> 00:19:55,399
Speaker 3: overstepped his authority under an emergency powers law. It's a

333
00:19:55,480 --> 00:19:58,920
Speaker 3: major legal blow, but it largely upheld a made decision

334
00:19:59,200 --> 00:20:02,200
Speaker 3: by a special federal Trade court in New York.

335
00:20:03,000 --> 00:20:06,320
Speaker 2: But it's a liberal court and it's going up to

336
00:20:06,400 --> 00:20:10,280
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, who I think have been incredible people.

337
00:20:10,359 --> 00:20:15,560
Speaker 2: I think they've made very wise decisions. But the tariff question,

338
00:20:16,240 --> 00:20:20,680
Speaker 2: because without the tariffs' countries in serious, serious trouble. We've

339
00:20:20,720 --> 00:20:24,440
Speaker 2: taken in. Almost seventeen trillion dollars of investment is coming in.

340
00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:26,920
Speaker 2: Most of it is come in because of tariffs.

341
00:20:27,240 --> 00:20:31,479
Speaker 3: The appeals court didn't strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing

342
00:20:31,520 --> 00:20:35,760
Speaker 3: the administration until mid October to appeal to the Supreme Court,

343
00:20:36,200 --> 00:20:39,639
Speaker 3: although Trump says they'll do so immediately. My guest is

344
00:20:39,760 --> 00:20:42,840
Speaker 3: Jimmy Garul, a professor at Notre Dame Law School and

345
00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:46,880
Speaker 3: the former Undersecretary for Enforcement at the Department of the Treasury.

346
00:20:47,280 --> 00:20:50,560
Speaker 3: Jimmy will you explain why the Federal Circuit Court of

347
00:20:50,600 --> 00:20:52,960
Speaker 3: Appeals ruled against Trump's tariffs.

348
00:20:53,480 --> 00:20:56,120
Speaker 7: Well, first let me meet us back up. So on Friday,

349
00:20:56,200 --> 00:20:57,960
Speaker 7: as you state of, the US Court of Appeals for

350
00:20:58,040 --> 00:21:01,520
Speaker 7: the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court decision by the

351
00:21:01,560 --> 00:21:05,520
Speaker 7: Court of International Trade. That decision was issued back in May,

352
00:21:05,920 --> 00:21:09,080
Speaker 7: and in that decision, the Court of International Trade set

353
00:21:09,119 --> 00:21:13,560
Speaker 7: aside five executive orders issued by President Trump that imposed

354
00:21:13,880 --> 00:21:17,879
Speaker 7: tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from merely

355
00:21:18,040 --> 00:21:22,080
Speaker 7: every country across the globe. So that decision was affirmed,

356
00:21:22,760 --> 00:21:25,160
Speaker 7: and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

357
00:21:25,480 --> 00:21:30,159
Speaker 7: held that AIPA the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that

358
00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:35,119
Speaker 7: the authority under that statute to authorize the President to

359
00:21:35,359 --> 00:21:38,080
Speaker 7: regulate and this is an important term in the statute,

360
00:21:38,359 --> 00:21:43,440
Speaker 7: regulate imports. Does not authorize President Trump to impose tariffs

361
00:21:43,520 --> 00:21:48,360
Speaker 7: under either the reciprocal tariffs or the drug trafficking tariffs.

362
00:21:48,640 --> 00:21:53,600
Speaker 7: And so largely it was a statutory construction issue before

363
00:21:53,680 --> 00:21:57,359
Speaker 7: the court. And again the specific issue focused on this

364
00:21:57,560 --> 00:22:02,200
Speaker 7: term regulate and specifically that AIPA authorized as a president

365
00:22:02,280 --> 00:22:06,760
Speaker 7: to regulate imports and whether or not that authority includes

366
00:22:06,920 --> 00:22:10,359
Speaker 7: the authority to impose tariffs, and the Federal Court said, no,

367
00:22:10,520 --> 00:22:10,920
Speaker 7: it does not.

368
00:22:11,640 --> 00:22:15,399
Speaker 3: So they didn't get into, you know, his claims about

369
00:22:15,400 --> 00:22:17,879
Speaker 3: the tariffs that they were to try to settle the

370
00:22:18,000 --> 00:22:21,959
Speaker 3: trade imbalance and the importation of fentenol.

371
00:22:22,040 --> 00:22:23,480
Speaker 1: Do they reach that at all?

372
00:22:24,040 --> 00:22:27,600
Speaker 7: No, there really wasn't. It focused again on this particular language,

373
00:22:27,640 --> 00:22:30,240
Speaker 7: you know, the term regulate and what's the scope of

374
00:22:30,280 --> 00:22:30,880
Speaker 7: the meaning.

375
00:22:30,680 --> 00:22:31,320
Speaker 5: Of that term.

376
00:22:31,760 --> 00:22:35,440
Speaker 7: The court went on, you know, focusing on statutory construction

377
00:22:36,119 --> 00:22:39,960
Speaker 7: and look to other statutes that Congress had enacted that

378
00:22:40,359 --> 00:22:44,640
Speaker 7: authorized the president to impost tariffs and said, well, look,

379
00:22:44,720 --> 00:22:51,120
Speaker 7: with those federal statutes, Congress had imposed requirements on when

380
00:22:51,200 --> 00:22:56,320
Speaker 7: the president could impose tariffs and imposed limitations and said, well,

381
00:22:56,359 --> 00:22:58,520
Speaker 7: that's not the case here. You know that there were

382
00:22:58,680 --> 00:23:03,200
Speaker 7: very very few, you know, limitations on the president's authority

383
00:23:03,320 --> 00:23:07,360
Speaker 7: to impost tariffs under iepis has been leveraged by by

384
00:23:07,440 --> 00:23:11,320
Speaker 7: President Trump. They talked about legislative intent, that there was

385
00:23:11,400 --> 00:23:15,959
Speaker 7: no legislative intent and the statute to authorize the President

386
00:23:16,040 --> 00:23:18,840
Speaker 7: to impose triiffs. They highlighted the fact that the word

387
00:23:19,040 --> 00:23:23,399
Speaker 7: tariffs does not appear anywhere in the statute and therefore,

388
00:23:23,440 --> 00:23:27,600
Speaker 7: from a statutory construction perspective, the Court said, you know, no,

389
00:23:27,880 --> 00:23:31,720
Speaker 7: IPA doesn't provide the president of that authority. Now, having

390
00:23:31,840 --> 00:23:35,400
Speaker 7: said that, there were a couple of additional interesting arguments

391
00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:39,080
Speaker 7: that the Federal Court race. You know, one, they talked

392
00:23:39,080 --> 00:23:42,720
Speaker 7: about something called the major questions doctrine, and they said

393
00:23:42,800 --> 00:23:46,280
Speaker 7: that under the major questions doctrine, the Supreme Court has

394
00:23:46,400 --> 00:23:50,480
Speaker 7: held that if there is an asserted delegation of authority,

395
00:23:51,200 --> 00:23:55,040
Speaker 7: or if the president the executive branch is claiming that

396
00:23:55,200 --> 00:24:00,679
Speaker 7: Congress has transferred certain authority to the executive branch, if

397
00:24:00,800 --> 00:24:03,840
Speaker 7: based upon the history in the breast of that authority

398
00:24:04,520 --> 00:24:08,800
Speaker 7: that it would have vast economic and political significance, and

399
00:24:08,920 --> 00:24:13,360
Speaker 7: that's the term, you know, economic and political significance, then

400
00:24:13,400 --> 00:24:17,879
Speaker 7: there must be clear congressional authorization for the asserted power.

401
00:24:18,320 --> 00:24:21,879
Speaker 7: And here they claimed that there was no such clear

402
00:24:22,480 --> 00:24:28,920
Speaker 7: congressional authorization from Congress to the president to impose tariffs.

403
00:24:29,320 --> 00:24:32,120
Speaker 7: And then lastly, I think that the next major argument

404
00:24:32,240 --> 00:24:35,639
Speaker 7: that the Court raised and reaching its conclusion is they

405
00:24:36,000 --> 00:24:39,440
Speaker 7: argue that the government's argument that the president had this

406
00:24:39,560 --> 00:24:44,120
Speaker 7: authority was delegated to the executive branch by Congress violated

407
00:24:44,200 --> 00:24:49,680
Speaker 7: the non delegation doctrine, that this was an unconstitutional delegation

408
00:24:50,400 --> 00:24:56,080
Speaker 7: of power because Congress did not provide a sufficiently intelligible

409
00:24:56,200 --> 00:25:01,679
Speaker 7: principle that set forth the purpose of why Congress delegated

410
00:25:01,760 --> 00:25:05,720
Speaker 7: this power to impose tariffs to the president. And then

411
00:25:05,840 --> 00:25:08,840
Speaker 7: what were the boundaries, what were the legal boundaries on

412
00:25:09,000 --> 00:25:13,720
Speaker 7: this delegation of authority. So it was these combination of arguments,

413
00:25:13,760 --> 00:25:18,680
Speaker 7: again focusing primarily on the language of the statute that

414
00:25:19,200 --> 00:25:23,800
Speaker 7: the courts relied on in this conclusion striking down the tariffs.

415
00:25:24,119 --> 00:25:27,520
Speaker 3: So what about the descent, the four judges and the descent,

416
00:25:27,640 --> 00:25:28,560
Speaker 3: why didn't they agree?

417
00:25:29,160 --> 00:25:33,480
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's an excellent question, And so it was almost

418
00:25:33,560 --> 00:25:35,600
Speaker 7: kind of a tet for tet arguments, so that the

419
00:25:35,680 --> 00:25:38,360
Speaker 7: Center's arguing, well, you know, we think that the term

420
00:25:38,480 --> 00:25:43,240
Speaker 7: regulate is sufficient, that it does include the authority to

421
00:25:43,400 --> 00:25:47,480
Speaker 7: impose tariffs. And then with respect to the argument regarding

422
00:25:47,680 --> 00:25:51,440
Speaker 7: the major question doctrine and the non delegation doctrine, the

423
00:25:51,720 --> 00:25:54,680
Speaker 7: Descent raised a really interesting argument, and they said, well, yeah,

424
00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:59,720
Speaker 7: but this involves issues implicating national security and foreign policy,

425
00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:04,200
Speaker 7: and we think that the major questioned doctrine doesn't apply

426
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:07,800
Speaker 7: in the context of the exercise of power by the

427
00:26:07,880 --> 00:26:12,080
Speaker 7: president to protect national security, defend national security, or in

428
00:26:12,119 --> 00:26:14,480
Speaker 7: the field of foreign affairs, and if it does, it

429
00:26:14,520 --> 00:26:17,320
Speaker 7: should be liberally applied, not in a narrow way, but

430
00:26:17,880 --> 00:26:21,359
Speaker 7: to afford the president to exercise terrorf authority, and the

431
00:26:21,440 --> 00:26:24,399
Speaker 7: same thing with a non delegation doctrine. That again, the

432
00:26:24,520 --> 00:26:28,000
Speaker 7: court should be very deferential to the president in the

433
00:26:28,040 --> 00:26:32,160
Speaker 7: field of national security and foreign policy. And that could

434
00:26:32,240 --> 00:26:36,760
Speaker 7: very well be an argument that the Supreme Court finds

435
00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:41,720
Speaker 7: persuasive in striking down the Federal Court decision and affirming

436
00:26:42,240 --> 00:26:42,760
Speaker 7: the tariffs.

437
00:26:43,359 --> 00:26:47,399
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in the president's favor,

438
00:26:47,840 --> 00:26:51,280
Speaker 3: expanding and expanding and expanding presidential power.

439
00:26:51,880 --> 00:26:54,200
Speaker 1: Do you think they're likely to do the same here.

440
00:26:54,880 --> 00:26:57,480
Speaker 7: Well, the US Supreme Court is ruled in favor of

441
00:26:57,640 --> 00:27:01,399
Speaker 7: President Trump and against lower federal court decisions, and at

442
00:27:01,520 --> 00:27:05,560
Speaker 7: least sixteen rulings since April of twenty twenty five, and

443
00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:09,359
Speaker 7: you know, they've lifted injunctions that have been imposed on

444
00:27:09,640 --> 00:27:13,080
Speaker 7: actions taken by the president, again in favor of the

445
00:27:13,119 --> 00:27:17,679
Speaker 7: Trump administration. This is the so called you know, shadow docket.

446
00:27:18,240 --> 00:27:23,520
Speaker 7: And so the Supreme Court, based upon these decisions, they

447
00:27:23,600 --> 00:27:28,840
Speaker 7: seem to be very deferential to the president's exercise of

448
00:27:29,000 --> 00:27:33,359
Speaker 7: executive authority, and they seem to be comfortable and fine

449
00:27:33,760 --> 00:27:37,840
Speaker 7: with an expansion of the president's executive authority based upon

450
00:27:38,000 --> 00:27:41,639
Speaker 7: these previous rulings. And so I think if this pattern continues,

451
00:27:42,280 --> 00:27:44,720
Speaker 7: if we see this pattern continue, then then I think

452
00:27:44,840 --> 00:27:48,240
Speaker 7: it would likely result in a decision that's favorable to

453
00:27:48,359 --> 00:27:52,960
Speaker 7: President Trump and affirming his authority to impose Tariff's under AVA.

454
00:27:53,400 --> 00:27:58,080
Speaker 3: I keep waiting to see what move by Trump will

455
00:27:58,160 --> 00:28:01,639
Speaker 3: be outrageous enough or extend his authority enough that the

456
00:28:01,720 --> 00:28:05,240
Speaker 3: Court is going to finally say, Okay, stop there.

457
00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:11,240
Speaker 7: Yeah, it's hard to identify that benchmark, you know, when

458
00:28:11,400 --> 00:28:15,680
Speaker 7: that red line would be crossed, especially considering the fact

459
00:28:15,920 --> 00:28:19,640
Speaker 7: that the Supreme Court not that long ago, relatively recently

460
00:28:20,119 --> 00:28:23,639
Speaker 7: a role that the president is virtually immune for prosecution.

461
00:28:24,119 --> 00:28:27,399
Speaker 7: But any action taken by the President pursuing who is

462
00:28:28,119 --> 00:28:31,120
Speaker 7: Article two authorities, you know, he's immune and he can't

463
00:28:31,119 --> 00:28:35,040
Speaker 7: be criminally prosecuted, which I'm sure has only in bold

464
00:28:35,080 --> 00:28:37,719
Speaker 7: in the president in terms of really stretching the bounds,

465
00:28:37,800 --> 00:28:41,040
Speaker 7: you know, pressing the boundaries, you know, the extreme boundaries

466
00:28:41,080 --> 00:28:41,840
Speaker 7: of his authority.

467
00:28:42,080 --> 00:28:44,280
Speaker 1: There are other laws that he could use.

468
00:28:44,760 --> 00:28:48,480
Speaker 3: Scott Besant was talking about section three three eight to

469
00:28:48,520 --> 00:28:52,000
Speaker 3: the smooth Holly Terar Effect of nineteen thirty. Then I've

470
00:28:52,440 --> 00:28:55,960
Speaker 3: heard about the Trade Act of nineteen seventy four, So

471
00:28:56,200 --> 00:28:58,200
Speaker 3: I mean, what could he use if he wants to

472
00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:01,080
Speaker 3: stay away from a well.

473
00:29:01,000 --> 00:29:07,000
Speaker 7: That's a secretary Vessent has recently commented on the Federal

474
00:29:07,480 --> 00:29:12,240
Speaker 7: Circuit Court decision and basically making two two points, you know. One,

475
00:29:12,360 --> 00:29:15,040
Speaker 7: he says that he is extremely confident that the Supreme

476
00:29:15,080 --> 00:29:19,040
Speaker 7: Court is going to uphold the Trump tariffs, and that

477
00:29:19,640 --> 00:29:23,520
Speaker 7: even if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration

478
00:29:23,720 --> 00:29:27,560
Speaker 7: or limits its authority under AEPA, that there are several

479
00:29:27,720 --> 00:29:32,240
Speaker 7: other statutes enacted by Congress that the president could use

480
00:29:32,840 --> 00:29:38,080
Speaker 7: to continue the tariffs. Now, those statutes are not as

481
00:29:38,280 --> 00:29:43,280
Speaker 7: broad in scope as IEPA. Therefore, there would be certain

482
00:29:43,400 --> 00:29:47,600
Speaker 7: there would be additional prerequisites, you know, conditions and limitations

483
00:29:48,000 --> 00:29:51,800
Speaker 7: placed on the president with respect to imposing tariffs under

484
00:29:52,480 --> 00:29:56,600
Speaker 7: those statutes. But there certainly are other statutes that the

485
00:29:56,640 --> 00:29:59,719
Speaker 7: Trump administration could leverage to continue the tariffs.

486
00:30:00,760 --> 00:30:04,880
Speaker 1: So they picked this because it was fast and easy.

487
00:30:05,160 --> 00:30:09,520
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, largely largely so because again the requirements are

488
00:30:09,600 --> 00:30:12,320
Speaker 7: not as demanding as they are in some of these

489
00:30:12,400 --> 00:30:16,000
Speaker 7: other statutes, and the kind of limitations that are imposed

490
00:30:16,080 --> 00:30:20,600
Speaker 7: on those statutes aren't present with the International Emergency Economic

491
00:30:20,640 --> 00:30:25,400
Speaker 7: Powers Act. So I eba cleaner, quicker, easier. Let's take

492
00:30:25,480 --> 00:30:28,800
Speaker 7: the path of least resistance, which is ABA, instead of

493
00:30:28,920 --> 00:30:31,160
Speaker 7: going through these other statutes that are more complicated.

494
00:30:31,560 --> 00:30:35,600
Speaker 3: So the tariffs still on steel, aluminum, and automobiles are

495
00:30:35,720 --> 00:30:37,240
Speaker 3: unaffected by this decision.

496
00:30:37,680 --> 00:30:41,120
Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct, and the reason being is that those

497
00:30:41,320 --> 00:30:46,160
Speaker 7: tariffs were enacted under a different statute. They weren't authorized

498
00:30:46,240 --> 00:30:46,840
Speaker 7: under AEPA.

499
00:30:47,200 --> 00:30:48,920
Speaker 1: I mean, so, how much of a setback is this

500
00:30:49,080 --> 00:30:49,520
Speaker 1: for Trump?

501
00:30:50,160 --> 00:30:54,520
Speaker 7: Well, we'll see. I do think even if let's assume

502
00:30:54,680 --> 00:30:59,840
Speaker 7: that the Supreme Court affirms the Federal Circuit Court decision

503
00:31:00,640 --> 00:31:04,960
Speaker 7: striking down tariffs and RIPA, so then the administration has

504
00:31:05,080 --> 00:31:09,600
Speaker 7: to pursue Plan B. I do think that those other statutes, again,

505
00:31:10,120 --> 00:31:14,360
Speaker 7: they weren't narrow and focused, and they impose greater restrictions

506
00:31:14,400 --> 00:31:18,960
Speaker 7: and limitations. So that is going to I think cumulatively

507
00:31:19,760 --> 00:31:24,040
Speaker 7: limit the scope of the tariffs that are currently in place.

508
00:31:24,400 --> 00:31:26,080
Speaker 7: But at the end of the day, what does that mean?

509
00:31:26,520 --> 00:31:28,560
Speaker 7: You know, the president doesn't get one hundred percent of

510
00:31:28,600 --> 00:31:31,240
Speaker 7: the tariffs that he's imposed. He only gets eighty percent

511
00:31:31,640 --> 00:31:34,640
Speaker 7: or seventy five percent. We'll see, and I think that

512
00:31:35,280 --> 00:31:38,760
Speaker 7: that many of the tariffs will continue, but just based

513
00:31:38,800 --> 00:31:41,959
Speaker 7: on different authority. But I think that maybe the more

514
00:31:42,000 --> 00:31:46,240
Speaker 7: fundamental issue here is the uncertainty this decision by the

515
00:31:46,360 --> 00:31:51,560
Speaker 7: Federal Circuit is creating for investors in the economy. And

516
00:31:51,680 --> 00:31:54,560
Speaker 7: then what are the implications? So if the if the

517
00:31:54,880 --> 00:31:58,440
Speaker 7: AEPA tariffs are struck down, what are the implications of that?

518
00:31:59,320 --> 00:32:02,040
Speaker 7: So does that I mean, the tariffs that have been

519
00:32:02,120 --> 00:32:08,080
Speaker 7: paid under these executive orders have to be repaid, the

520
00:32:08,200 --> 00:32:11,680
Speaker 7: businesses that pay those tariffs have to be compensated. So

521
00:32:11,800 --> 00:32:15,160
Speaker 7: there's a lot of complicated What are the implications of

522
00:32:15,320 --> 00:32:20,000
Speaker 7: this with respect to ongoing negotiations with other countries the

523
00:32:20,080 --> 00:32:24,840
Speaker 7: United States and other countries involving the current tariffs. So

524
00:32:25,040 --> 00:32:27,680
Speaker 7: if the tariffs are struck down on RAIPA, is that

525
00:32:27,840 --> 00:32:31,760
Speaker 7: going to disrupt those negotiations or those negotiations going to

526
00:32:32,280 --> 00:32:36,280
Speaker 7: going to terminate? What's the effect going to be? And

527
00:32:36,680 --> 00:32:41,360
Speaker 7: so the ripple effects of the Supreme Court's decision, whichever

528
00:32:41,520 --> 00:32:45,040
Speaker 7: way it rules, is going to have I think a

529
00:32:45,200 --> 00:32:48,360
Speaker 7: substantial significant impact on the global economy.

530
00:32:48,680 --> 00:32:49,760
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining me.

531
00:32:49,880 --> 00:32:50,160
Speaker 5: Jimmy.

532
00:32:50,480 --> 00:32:53,800
Speaker 3: That's Professor Jimmy Garoul of Notre Dame Law School. And

533
00:32:53,920 --> 00:32:56,040
Speaker 3: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

534
00:32:56,440 --> 00:32:58,720
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

535
00:32:58,800 --> 00:33:02,400
Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law PODCAS. You can find them on Apple Podcasts,

536
00:33:02,480 --> 00:33:07,360
Speaker 3: Spotify and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast

537
00:33:07,640 --> 00:33:10,520
Speaker 3: Slash Law, And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law

538
00:33:10,600 --> 00:33:14,480
Speaker 3: Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm

539
00:33:14,560 --> 00:33:17,000
Speaker 3: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg