1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:11,720 Speaker 2: John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his 3 00:00:11,920 --> 00:00:16,560 Speaker 2: breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of 4 00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:20,680 Speaker 2: whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of 5 00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:22,960 Speaker 2: an user of alcohol. He only had three or four 6 00:00:22,960 --> 00:00:27,280 Speaker 2: glasses of wine a nite. Okay, are they all habitual 7 00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:30,760 Speaker 2: drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life? 8 00:00:31,080 --> 00:00:35,120 Speaker 3: You may be wondering why. Justice Neil Gorsich was questioning 9 00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:38,640 Speaker 3: whether some of the Founding Fathers would have been considered 10 00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:43,400 Speaker 3: habitual drunkards. After all, the case before the justices was 11 00:00:43,440 --> 00:00:48,400 Speaker 3: about a federal law banning gun ownership by marijuana users. Well, 12 00:00:48,479 --> 00:00:53,280 Speaker 3: the Supreme Court's recent analysis of Second Amendment cases relies 13 00:00:53,360 --> 00:00:57,160 Speaker 3: on the government showing a history of analogous restrictions to 14 00:00:57,240 --> 00:01:00,760 Speaker 3: support gun control laws, and in this case, the government 15 00:01:00,800 --> 00:01:04,399 Speaker 3: pointed to Founding Error laws that restricted the rights of 16 00:01:04,600 --> 00:01:09,160 Speaker 3: habitual drunkards. But the Court wasn't convinced, and today it 17 00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:14,560 Speaker 3: ruled unanimously that the government can't categorically bar marijuana users 18 00:01:14,600 --> 00:01:19,280 Speaker 3: from possessing firearms and can't prosecute a Texas marijuana smoker 19 00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:23,440 Speaker 3: for having a gun. Justice Coursich wrote the majority opinion, 20 00:01:23,800 --> 00:01:27,600 Speaker 3: finding that the government's quote expansive approach to the federal 21 00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:32,720 Speaker 3: ban couldn't be squared with the country's historical approach toward firearms. 22 00:01:33,240 --> 00:01:38,080 Speaker 3: My guest is an expert in constitutional law, Louis Michael Sideman, 23 00:01:38,240 --> 00:01:41,800 Speaker 3: a professor at Georgetown Law. His new book is entitled 24 00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:45,720 Speaker 3: The Constitution Cannot Save Us Why we can no longer 25 00:01:45,800 --> 00:01:50,639 Speaker 3: rely on our founding document. This was about the constitutionality 26 00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:54,720 Speaker 3: of one part of the Gun Control Act. So explain 27 00:01:54,840 --> 00:01:57,000 Speaker 3: what the justices decided here. 28 00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:01,280 Speaker 1: So the Court was unanimous and they held that the 29 00:02:01,320 --> 00:02:05,920 Speaker 1: Second Amendment to the Constitution did not permit depriving somebody 30 00:02:05,960 --> 00:02:10,640 Speaker 1: of a gun just because of marijuana use. I think 31 00:02:10,680 --> 00:02:14,679 Speaker 1: that the Court in this case, it's reached results that 32 00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:19,840 Speaker 1: most Americans would think are common sense, make logical sense. 33 00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:22,960 Speaker 1: In a case a couple of years ago, the Court 34 00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:27,880 Speaker 1: rejected a claim by a violent domestic abuser that he 35 00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:32,440 Speaker 1: had a right constitutional right to have a gun. But 36 00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:36,000 Speaker 1: the court says an occasional or even a regular marijuana 37 00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:38,480 Speaker 1: user does have a right to a gun. And I 38 00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:42,880 Speaker 1: think most people can understand that distinction and would probably 39 00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:46,400 Speaker 1: agree with it. The problem with what the Court's done 40 00:02:46,480 --> 00:02:50,880 Speaker 1: is not with the particular results it's reached. The problem 41 00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:54,480 Speaker 1: is with the test it's used. So what the Court 42 00:02:54,480 --> 00:02:58,679 Speaker 1: has said is that the way you decide these cases 43 00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:04,040 Speaker 1: is by looking to the eighteenth century to the seventeen 44 00:03:04,160 --> 00:03:07,840 Speaker 1: hundreds and seeing if there was some practice that was 45 00:03:07,919 --> 00:03:11,639 Speaker 1: analogous to the regulation that's being upheld now, and that 46 00:03:12,160 --> 00:03:16,760 Speaker 1: leads to really bizarre sorts of historical inquiry. So a 47 00:03:16,800 --> 00:03:20,200 Speaker 1: lot of the Court's opinion in this case was devoted 48 00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:26,280 Speaker 1: to whether or not laws that restricted the activity of 49 00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:31,200 Speaker 1: habitual drunkards in the eighteenth century were the same or 50 00:03:31,280 --> 00:03:35,400 Speaker 1: different from laws that prohibit marijuana users in the twenty 51 00:03:35,440 --> 00:03:38,720 Speaker 1: first century from having a gun. And that kind of 52 00:03:38,800 --> 00:03:43,360 Speaker 1: analysis is kind of silly, because, of course, when you 53 00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:47,080 Speaker 1: compare any two statutes, they're going to be alike and 54 00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:51,240 Speaker 1: different in an infinite number of respects. So it largely 55 00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:54,680 Speaker 1: depends on whether you seize on the likeness of the difference. 56 00:03:55,080 --> 00:03:58,840 Speaker 1: And when you're comparing the eighteenth century to the twenty 57 00:03:58,880 --> 00:04:04,960 Speaker 1: first century, almost everything is really different because the country 58 00:04:05,120 --> 00:04:07,080 Speaker 1: was really different in the eighteenth century. 59 00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:07,600 Speaker 4: It was a. 60 00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:13,640 Speaker 1: Small, rural, slave dependent republic huddled along the eastern seaboards. 61 00:04:13,920 --> 00:04:19,520 Speaker 1: There were no automatic weapons, no dribe by shootings, no terrorism. 62 00:04:20,120 --> 00:04:24,080 Speaker 1: It was just a completely different place. So what you 63 00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:28,880 Speaker 1: end up with, I think, is the justices having more 64 00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:32,440 Speaker 1: or less free range to strite down laws that they 65 00:04:32,520 --> 00:04:36,800 Speaker 1: think finally common sense, uphold laws that they don't think. 66 00:04:37,040 --> 00:04:39,760 Speaker 1: And if that's all that the justices are going to do, 67 00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:44,600 Speaker 1: then that raises really serious questions about whether they are 68 00:04:44,680 --> 00:04:50,039 Speaker 1: to be substituting their judgment. Were democratically elected institutions. 69 00:04:49,680 --> 00:04:53,560 Speaker 3: Well, I mean, isn't that the problem with this textualist 70 00:04:53,760 --> 00:04:58,520 Speaker 3: analysis or originalist analysis that the Court is now wedded 71 00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:01,000 Speaker 3: to because of the sixth concern? So you have not 72 00:05:01,040 --> 00:05:04,640 Speaker 3: only the conservatives, but the liberal Justice is engaging in 73 00:05:04,680 --> 00:05:07,880 Speaker 3: the same kind of analysis looking back in time. 74 00:05:08,680 --> 00:05:13,520 Speaker 1: The problem with originalism they're really two separate problem and 75 00:05:13,560 --> 00:05:17,039 Speaker 1: they're both really serious. One problem, you might put it 76 00:05:17,080 --> 00:05:19,479 Speaker 1: this way. One problem is how would we ever know? 77 00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:22,400 Speaker 1: And the other is why would we ever care? 78 00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:23,440 Speaker 4: Right? 79 00:05:24,160 --> 00:05:27,320 Speaker 1: So, how would we ever know? I have no idea 80 00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:32,080 Speaker 1: what James Madison would think about gun control legislation in 81 00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:35,240 Speaker 1: twenty first century America. He didn't know anything about it. 82 00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:38,880 Speaker 1: Neither did his contemporaries. We're not going to kind of 83 00:05:38,960 --> 00:05:41,600 Speaker 1: dig him out of his grave and say, Jimmy, what 84 00:05:41,600 --> 00:05:45,080 Speaker 1: do you think about twenty first century America. That's just 85 00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:48,920 Speaker 1: not going to happen. So we really don't know the answer. 86 00:05:49,680 --> 00:05:53,200 Speaker 1: Suppose we did know the answer, why should anybody care. 87 00:05:53,720 --> 00:05:57,760 Speaker 1: The people who wrote the Second Amendment died a very 88 00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:01,120 Speaker 1: long time ago. What we do with guns today doesn't 89 00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:05,400 Speaker 1: affect them, but it does affect us, and people who 90 00:06:05,440 --> 00:06:08,280 Speaker 1: are alive now, I would have thought have some right 91 00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:10,240 Speaker 1: to be in control of their own country. 92 00:06:10,440 --> 00:06:13,880 Speaker 3: The outcome was unanimous, but the justices were divided on 93 00:06:13,920 --> 00:06:17,560 Speaker 3: some of the reasoning. And I think underlying that unanimity 94 00:06:17,880 --> 00:06:21,160 Speaker 3: was the fact that, as Justice Gorsuch puught it, millions 95 00:06:21,200 --> 00:06:25,080 Speaker 3: of Americans use marijuana, and gorse It said the ruling 96 00:06:25,279 --> 00:06:26,920 Speaker 3: was a very narrow one. 97 00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:32,120 Speaker 1: The Court's ruling is quite narrow. I think Justice gorse 98 00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:36,800 Speaker 1: It's made it narrow in an admirable attempt to get unanimity, 99 00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:39,919 Speaker 1: and that's something very rare on this court. And he 100 00:06:40,000 --> 00:06:43,800 Speaker 1: achieved that all nine justices agreed with him, And I 101 00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:46,279 Speaker 1: think a big part of the reason is because the 102 00:06:46,360 --> 00:06:50,159 Speaker 1: opinion makes sense. It makes common sense to say just 103 00:06:50,279 --> 00:06:55,839 Speaker 1: because somebody uses marijuana, a drug that, according to Justice Gorsas, 104 00:06:55,839 --> 00:06:59,520 Speaker 1: there's some evidence it's more widely used than alcohol today. 105 00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:03,159 Speaker 1: So the notion that just because of that, somebody should 106 00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:06,719 Speaker 1: be prohibited from owning a gun does seem just silly. 107 00:07:07,480 --> 00:07:11,400 Speaker 1: I think the problem is going to arise when the 108 00:07:11,560 --> 00:07:17,480 Speaker 1: intuitions of five of the justices are not intuitions widely 109 00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:20,920 Speaker 1: shared by most Americans, and then you do face the 110 00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:25,040 Speaker 1: difficulty of why they should control these decisions rather than 111 00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:29,160 Speaker 1: people who are actually responsible to the American people. 112 00:07:29,520 --> 00:07:33,200 Speaker 3: And there was an unusual, maybe even shocking pairing in 113 00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:37,320 Speaker 3: one of the concurrences. One of the most conservative Justices, 114 00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:42,920 Speaker 3: Samuel Alito, and liberal Justice Elaina Kagan, joined together to 115 00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:46,040 Speaker 3: say they would have written an even narrower opinion than 116 00:07:46,080 --> 00:07:46,800 Speaker 3: Gorsuch did. 117 00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:51,360 Speaker 1: I think that is almost certainly the only case this term, 118 00:07:51,400 --> 00:07:54,800 Speaker 1: and maybe the only case ever where the two of 119 00:07:54,840 --> 00:07:57,840 Speaker 1: them have joined in an opinion joined by nobody else. 120 00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:01,680 Speaker 1: So the opinion is written by Justice Alito, it's joined 121 00:08:01,680 --> 00:08:07,040 Speaker 1: by Justice Kagan. Justice Kagan is a very savvy operator, 122 00:08:07,720 --> 00:08:13,440 Speaker 1: and it's just become increasingly obvious that there is lots 123 00:08:13,480 --> 00:08:16,920 Speaker 1: and lots of tension between the justices. I think what 124 00:08:17,040 --> 00:08:19,720 Speaker 1: we're likely to see over the next couple of weeks 125 00:08:20,400 --> 00:08:24,920 Speaker 1: are a series of split decisions and very angry decisions. 126 00:08:25,640 --> 00:08:29,440 Speaker 1: And so Justice Kagan this was an opportunity for her. 127 00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:34,280 Speaker 1: It's important to the Court's public image that they try 128 00:08:34,320 --> 00:08:38,840 Speaker 1: to maintain some impression that they're not at each other's 129 00:08:38,920 --> 00:08:41,320 Speaker 1: throats and that they can agree about things and that 130 00:08:41,400 --> 00:08:46,720 Speaker 1: it's not just politics. So Justice Kagan seized an opportunity 131 00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:50,160 Speaker 1: both to demonstrate that and maybe to ingratiate herself some 132 00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:54,240 Speaker 1: with Justice Alito. But I wouldn't read too much into it. 133 00:08:54,400 --> 00:08:57,920 Speaker 1: The fact is the Court is very sharply divided for 134 00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:03,959 Speaker 1: the first time in generation. The division exactly mirrors the 135 00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:08,199 Speaker 1: political parties of the presidents who appointed the justices, and 136 00:09:08,280 --> 00:09:13,360 Speaker 1: that has led to a dramatic decline in public acceptance 137 00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:16,280 Speaker 1: and regard for the Supreme Court. 138 00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:22,920 Speaker 3: The Court's conservative majority has expanded Second Amendment rights since 139 00:09:22,960 --> 00:09:25,920 Speaker 3: twenty twenty two. Do you see this case as a 140 00:09:26,000 --> 00:09:28,520 Speaker 3: continuation of that or something different. 141 00:09:29,320 --> 00:09:34,000 Speaker 1: I think that having established some right to gun ownership, 142 00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:38,480 Speaker 1: it was inevitable that the Court was going to decide 143 00:09:38,480 --> 00:09:42,600 Speaker 1: it have to decide a series of cases about the 144 00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:46,440 Speaker 1: reach of that right, and so this is one of 145 00:09:46,480 --> 00:09:50,280 Speaker 1: a continuing line of cases that tries to bound the 146 00:09:50,360 --> 00:09:54,160 Speaker 1: right in some way, saying this is okay, this is 147 00:09:54,200 --> 00:10:00,160 Speaker 1: not okay. Unfortunately, as this progresses, I think it's becoming 148 00:10:00,200 --> 00:10:03,520 Speaker 1: more and more apparent that the test the Court is 149 00:10:03,679 --> 00:10:07,800 Speaker 1: using to reach those judgments doesn't really solve the problem, 150 00:10:08,200 --> 00:10:11,559 Speaker 1: and it's going to be very difficult for the Court 151 00:10:11,600 --> 00:10:15,160 Speaker 1: to convince people that it's actually acting in a principled 152 00:10:15,200 --> 00:10:19,400 Speaker 1: way and not just responding to the intuition that justices 153 00:10:19,480 --> 00:10:21,680 Speaker 1: have about various measures DC. 154 00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:26,760 Speaker 3: In sixteen states prohibit gun possession by habitual drug users, 155 00:10:26,840 --> 00:10:30,560 Speaker 3: and another twenty two restrict the rights of those people 156 00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:34,079 Speaker 3: to carry a weapon in public. Does this affect the 157 00:10:34,120 --> 00:10:34,920 Speaker 3: state laws? 158 00:10:35,760 --> 00:10:38,520 Speaker 1: Well, the Court is held at the Second Amendment right 159 00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:42,600 Speaker 1: applies not just to the federal government but to the 160 00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:46,880 Speaker 1: states as well. On the other hand, this decision is 161 00:10:46,960 --> 00:10:50,680 Speaker 1: so narrowly written that it's not at all clear that 162 00:10:50,720 --> 00:10:54,720 Speaker 1: it would invalidate the state laws you're talking about. In particularly, 163 00:10:54,760 --> 00:10:58,199 Speaker 1: the court saved the question or did not address the 164 00:10:58,280 --> 00:11:03,199 Speaker 1: question of whether it was constitutional for the government to 165 00:11:03,240 --> 00:11:06,360 Speaker 1: preim gun ownership on the part of people addicted to 166 00:11:06,720 --> 00:11:07,680 Speaker 1: illegal drugs. 167 00:11:08,360 --> 00:11:11,880 Speaker 3: Thanks so much for your analysis today. That's Georgetown Law 168 00:11:11,920 --> 00:11:16,479 Speaker 3: professor Louis Michael Sideman. His book is entitled The Constitution 169 00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:19,640 Speaker 3: Cannot Save Us? Why we can no longer rely on 170 00:11:19,679 --> 00:11:24,000 Speaker 3: our founding document. A note. Michael Bloomberg, the founder majority 171 00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:27,720 Speaker 3: owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg Radio, 172 00:11:28,280 --> 00:11:31,880 Speaker 3: is a donor to groups that support gun control, including 173 00:11:32,080 --> 00:11:35,160 Speaker 3: every Town for Gun Safety. Coming up next on the 174 00:11:35,160 --> 00:11:39,640 Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Show. Visa problems at the World Cup. I'm 175 00:11:39,720 --> 00:11:43,760 Speaker 3: June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. It was a 176 00:11:43,800 --> 00:11:49,480 Speaker 3: stunning World Cup performance as Kate Verd's goalkeeper Vozenia made 177 00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:54,000 Speaker 3: seven saves against tournament favorite Spain, with the game ending 178 00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:57,200 Speaker 3: in a goalless draw. He was named the Player of 179 00:11:57,240 --> 00:12:00,600 Speaker 3: the Match, but cried after the game because his mother 180 00:12:00,760 --> 00:12:04,480 Speaker 3: couldn't afford a visa to the United States. Cape Fird 181 00:12:04,559 --> 00:12:07,320 Speaker 3: is one of the fifty countries where citizens face a 182 00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:11,960 Speaker 3: fifteen thousand dollars fee to obtain US visas due to 183 00:12:12,000 --> 00:12:17,240 Speaker 3: President Donald Trump's border crackdown, something Vauzenia's mother couldn't afford. 184 00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:20,599 Speaker 3: The story has a happy ending, though, thanks to intervention 185 00:12:20,760 --> 00:12:24,880 Speaker 3: from House Minorti leader Jakim Jeffries. He spoke to Secretary 186 00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:28,439 Speaker 3: of State Marco Rubio and the State Department has arranged 187 00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:31,959 Speaker 3: for Vauzenia's mother to enter the country with all thieves 188 00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:35,240 Speaker 3: waived to watch her son's next match. But the World 189 00:12:35,280 --> 00:12:40,280 Speaker 3: Cup has exposed many of the problems with Trump's immigration policies. 190 00:12:40,760 --> 00:12:43,839 Speaker 3: My guest is immigration law expert ly on Fresco, a 191 00:12:43,920 --> 00:12:47,000 Speaker 3: partner Honda Night. Leon tell us about Vazenia. 192 00:12:47,800 --> 00:12:50,760 Speaker 5: He just had a remarkable game against Spain. It's almost 193 00:12:50,760 --> 00:12:53,520 Speaker 5: a Disney movie thing where he's a forty year old 194 00:12:53,920 --> 00:12:57,440 Speaker 5: has been goalie whose time has long passed and he's 195 00:12:57,520 --> 00:13:01,120 Speaker 5: working as a part time job seeing the goalie, and 196 00:13:01,160 --> 00:13:03,200 Speaker 5: he just stopped the best team in the world from 197 00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:04,439 Speaker 5: scoring any goals with. 198 00:13:04,640 --> 00:13:05,920 Speaker 4: A remarkable game. 199 00:13:05,960 --> 00:13:08,160 Speaker 5: And he wanted his mother to be able to see 200 00:13:08,240 --> 00:13:11,960 Speaker 5: the game live, but they denied her visa because the 201 00:13:12,080 --> 00:13:14,880 Speaker 5: Trump administration now has a new policy that you have 202 00:13:14,960 --> 00:13:18,320 Speaker 5: to put a fifteen thousand dollars bond in order to 203 00:13:18,360 --> 00:13:20,959 Speaker 5: come into the country as a visitor, and they didn't 204 00:13:20,960 --> 00:13:22,680 Speaker 5: have the money to pay for her to come in, 205 00:13:23,160 --> 00:13:27,199 Speaker 5: and so it's sort of a mini human tragedy where 206 00:13:27,480 --> 00:13:30,960 Speaker 5: you had this great Disney story in conjunction with this 207 00:13:31,280 --> 00:13:35,120 Speaker 5: example where clearly his mother I doubt what have overstayed 208 00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:39,400 Speaker 5: her visa after the FIFA matches. But nevertheless, you know, 209 00:13:39,720 --> 00:13:41,120 Speaker 5: sanity doesn't prevail. 210 00:13:41,840 --> 00:13:45,200 Speaker 3: I mean it took intervention by the House Minority leader 211 00:13:45,760 --> 00:13:50,040 Speaker 3: and the Secretary of State only after this guy achieved 212 00:13:50,040 --> 00:13:52,040 Speaker 3: fame to get his mother in. 213 00:13:52,440 --> 00:13:52,720 Speaker 4: Yeah. 214 00:13:52,760 --> 00:13:55,200 Speaker 5: I mean again, these are the things people are fake. 215 00:13:55,280 --> 00:13:58,320 Speaker 5: What's interesting about this is these are the things thousands 216 00:13:58,360 --> 00:14:00,520 Speaker 5: of people are facing every day. But we're all now 217 00:14:00,559 --> 00:14:03,960 Speaker 5: being exposed and uncovered as people literally in the World 218 00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:05,280 Speaker 5: Cup are having to go through. 219 00:14:05,120 --> 00:14:09,760 Speaker 3: This, including a World Cup referee. Well not a referee now, 220 00:14:09,800 --> 00:14:15,160 Speaker 3: I guess the US decided to reject one of the 221 00:14:15,200 --> 00:14:19,280 Speaker 3: fifty two referees, and FIFA had said that it undertook 222 00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:24,080 Speaker 3: a three year campaign to vet and select these World 223 00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:25,200 Speaker 3: Cup referees. 224 00:14:25,960 --> 00:14:29,160 Speaker 5: So what happened was there was a referee from Somalia. 225 00:14:29,760 --> 00:14:33,800 Speaker 5: And what happens is there are confederations, So there's an 226 00:14:33,800 --> 00:14:39,320 Speaker 5: African confederation, a European confederation, a North American confederation, a 227 00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:44,040 Speaker 5: South American confederation, et cetera. And those confederations decide who 228 00:14:44,040 --> 00:14:47,240 Speaker 5: are the best referees in the matches that are played 229 00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,600 Speaker 5: in that continent. And so one of the best referees, 230 00:14:50,680 --> 00:14:53,800 Speaker 5: who's considered one of the best referees not just in 231 00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:57,440 Speaker 5: the African continent, but amongst all the global referees, is 232 00:14:57,440 --> 00:15:01,760 Speaker 5: this referee from Somalia. And so FIFA had a rule 233 00:15:01,800 --> 00:15:06,200 Speaker 5: with the United States when people affiliated with FIFA wanted 234 00:15:06,240 --> 00:15:08,040 Speaker 5: to be able to come to the United States for 235 00:15:08,080 --> 00:15:11,360 Speaker 5: the World Cup, the United States should generally allow them in. 236 00:15:11,960 --> 00:15:15,200 Speaker 5: This individual applied for a visa to be a referee. 237 00:15:15,680 --> 00:15:19,960 Speaker 5: Interestingly enough, there's actually language in the Foreign Affairs Manual 238 00:15:20,040 --> 00:15:24,040 Speaker 5: because nothing could be done by Congress that said, well, 239 00:15:24,080 --> 00:15:27,160 Speaker 5: but there's not really a good place for these FIFA referees, 240 00:15:27,200 --> 00:15:29,560 Speaker 5: so they'll just come in on visitor visas. So he 241 00:15:29,640 --> 00:15:32,480 Speaker 5: applied for a visitor visa, and when it came time 242 00:15:32,560 --> 00:15:36,320 Speaker 5: to decide whether to approve him or not, the United 243 00:15:36,360 --> 00:15:40,880 Speaker 5: States Embassy said, no, this person has ties to al Shabab, 244 00:15:41,040 --> 00:15:47,200 Speaker 5: which is the terrorist organization that does terroristic things in Somalia. 245 00:15:47,720 --> 00:15:50,520 Speaker 5: And the question is what does that mean, because does 246 00:15:50,560 --> 00:15:52,360 Speaker 5: that mean he spoke to someone who was in al 247 00:15:52,400 --> 00:15:55,840 Speaker 5: Shabab that he did something. I mean because his daytime 248 00:15:55,920 --> 00:16:01,720 Speaker 5: occupation is referee, so it's unclear is it nighttime occupation. 249 00:16:01,400 --> 00:16:04,160 Speaker 4: Terrorists or did this go too far? 250 00:16:05,000 --> 00:16:08,120 Speaker 5: And so a lot of people were outraged that this 251 00:16:08,240 --> 00:16:11,680 Speaker 5: referee was not allowed to officiate in the United States. 252 00:16:12,040 --> 00:16:15,040 Speaker 5: But in the end, this referee wasn't assigned to any 253 00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:19,000 Speaker 5: games in Canada or Mexico either. So basically what FIFA 254 00:16:19,040 --> 00:16:22,800 Speaker 5: said is they'll pay this referee to just work even 255 00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:25,640 Speaker 5: though he's not actually gonna work, and they assigned him 256 00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:28,840 Speaker 5: to a game in Europe that's coming up in August 257 00:16:28,960 --> 00:16:32,480 Speaker 5: to sort of say here's our reparations to you. But 258 00:16:32,840 --> 00:16:37,480 Speaker 5: it was one of many situations where the immigration laws 259 00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:40,200 Speaker 5: of the United States have intersected with this World Cup 260 00:16:40,280 --> 00:16:46,360 Speaker 5: to show how things have significantly changed between twenty twenty 261 00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:47,160 Speaker 5: four and now. 262 00:16:47,400 --> 00:16:51,320 Speaker 3: You know, there were vague allegations from the Trump administration 263 00:16:52,080 --> 00:16:58,400 Speaker 3: about this ref's supposed association, but the administration never released 264 00:16:58,400 --> 00:17:01,560 Speaker 3: any evidence to support it's allegations. 265 00:17:02,040 --> 00:17:02,440 Speaker 4: Correct. 266 00:17:02,440 --> 00:17:06,359 Speaker 5: The problem is in the visa adjudication world, the only 267 00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:10,160 Speaker 5: decision maker is the State Department, so there's no federal 268 00:17:10,160 --> 00:17:12,000 Speaker 5: court lawsuit you can filed. 269 00:17:12,160 --> 00:17:14,680 Speaker 4: The Supreme Court has actually ruled on this twice. 270 00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:17,320 Speaker 5: In the last decade, where they've said there's really no 271 00:17:17,440 --> 00:17:20,920 Speaker 5: Supreme Court case you can file if the State Department 272 00:17:21,359 --> 00:17:25,000 Speaker 5: denies your visa. The people are trying to work through 273 00:17:25,320 --> 00:17:28,639 Speaker 5: some exceptions in different cases, but the point being just 274 00:17:28,680 --> 00:17:32,840 Speaker 5: for your listeners, it's very very very difficult, if not impossible, 275 00:17:32,920 --> 00:17:35,600 Speaker 5: to file a federal court lawsuit for a visa denial, 276 00:17:35,880 --> 00:17:39,320 Speaker 5: and especially when the visa denial is on issues like this, 277 00:17:39,440 --> 00:17:43,760 Speaker 5: where it's on terroristic grounds, then the problem is the 278 00:17:43,800 --> 00:17:47,040 Speaker 5: State Department really is betwixt and between, because yes, it's 279 00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:49,760 Speaker 5: possible that they're overdoing it and they shouldn't deny it. 280 00:17:50,160 --> 00:17:53,200 Speaker 5: But the problem is, what if they aren't overdoing it, 281 00:17:53,280 --> 00:17:57,240 Speaker 5: if they have to actually explain to you, the visa applicant, 282 00:17:57,240 --> 00:18:00,639 Speaker 5: here's how we know you're a terrorist, then the concern 283 00:18:00,760 --> 00:18:03,080 Speaker 5: is that that would make you have to release sources 284 00:18:03,080 --> 00:18:06,639 Speaker 5: and methods of getting information as the government, which you 285 00:18:06,640 --> 00:18:09,399 Speaker 5: wouldn't want to do to preserve the sanctity and the 286 00:18:09,440 --> 00:18:13,800 Speaker 5: safety of those sources and methods. And so from that standpoint, 287 00:18:13,880 --> 00:18:16,840 Speaker 5: everybody just has to assume that people are acting in 288 00:18:16,880 --> 00:18:20,560 Speaker 5: good faith. But because of the restrictions that have been 289 00:18:20,600 --> 00:18:23,480 Speaker 5: made in the last two years. Those presumptions of good 290 00:18:23,520 --> 00:18:26,440 Speaker 5: faith are less given by the rest of the world 291 00:18:26,440 --> 00:18:29,719 Speaker 5: when they hear those stories of denials, like the denial 292 00:18:29,760 --> 00:18:30,760 Speaker 5: of this referee. 293 00:18:31,359 --> 00:18:34,959 Speaker 3: Was there any player who was denied entry? 294 00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:38,320 Speaker 5: So interestingly there have been two players who have denied entry, 295 00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:41,080 Speaker 5: but they are both denied entry from Canada, which is 296 00:18:41,080 --> 00:18:45,240 Speaker 5: oddly enough, they haven't been denied entry from the United States. 297 00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:47,720 Speaker 4: The two that have been denied entry from Canada. 298 00:18:47,880 --> 00:18:51,879 Speaker 5: One is a player from Ghana who was arrested for rape, 299 00:18:52,320 --> 00:18:54,919 Speaker 5: but he hasn't been convicted yet. But when they asked 300 00:18:55,000 --> 00:18:58,360 Speaker 5: him in his application was he ever arrested? He put 301 00:18:58,520 --> 00:19:01,520 Speaker 5: know and so the Canadians did not allow him. And 302 00:19:01,560 --> 00:19:04,879 Speaker 5: he's a very popular player in terms of his his 303 00:19:05,040 --> 00:19:08,639 Speaker 5: high level and so this was significant harm for the 304 00:19:08,680 --> 00:19:12,160 Speaker 5: Ghanaian team. And now there's a player from the Ivory 305 00:19:12,359 --> 00:19:16,960 Speaker 5: Coast who is now implicated in a gambling scheme and 306 00:19:17,040 --> 00:19:20,080 Speaker 5: he's been denied entry into Canada. 307 00:19:20,200 --> 00:19:20,840 Speaker 4: So there's that. 308 00:19:21,119 --> 00:19:24,119 Speaker 3: Let's turn now from the World Cup to the Supreme Court. 309 00:19:24,960 --> 00:19:27,800 Speaker 3: So the Supreme Court is going to decide. They took 310 00:19:27,880 --> 00:19:32,040 Speaker 3: a case to decide whether immigrants with criminal histories can 311 00:19:32,080 --> 00:19:36,480 Speaker 3: be held for prolonged periods in federal custody without a 312 00:19:36,520 --> 00:19:39,800 Speaker 3: bond hearing. And this is because of a second Circuit decision. 313 00:19:40,640 --> 00:19:41,080 Speaker 4: Correct. 314 00:19:41,119 --> 00:19:44,000 Speaker 5: So this has been an issue that's actually been litigated 315 00:19:44,400 --> 00:19:47,600 Speaker 5: for the last twenty six years and we haven't been 316 00:19:47,640 --> 00:19:49,000 Speaker 5: able to get a solution to this. 317 00:19:49,160 --> 00:19:50,040 Speaker 4: Here's what's going on. 318 00:19:50,400 --> 00:19:54,520 Speaker 5: There's a statue called Title eight, Section twelve twenty six C, 319 00:19:55,320 --> 00:19:58,480 Speaker 5: but also known as two twenty six seed where what 320 00:19:58,640 --> 00:20:03,480 Speaker 5: happens is is if you have any kind of criminal 321 00:20:03,600 --> 00:20:06,399 Speaker 5: record and that's the reason the government is trying to 322 00:20:06,480 --> 00:20:10,360 Speaker 5: deport you. So the government is saying, you know, we're 323 00:20:10,359 --> 00:20:13,640 Speaker 5: not deporting you because you overstayed your visa, or we're 324 00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:18,720 Speaker 5: not deporting you because of some sort of technical violation. 325 00:20:18,920 --> 00:20:22,280 Speaker 5: This is because you were here legally and you committed 326 00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:25,600 Speaker 5: a crime and you were convicted of the crime in fact, 327 00:20:25,960 --> 00:20:28,280 Speaker 5: and so now we're trying to deport you for that reason. 328 00:20:28,760 --> 00:20:31,879 Speaker 5: There's a statute which says, if you just take the 329 00:20:31,960 --> 00:20:37,240 Speaker 5: literal interpretation of that statute, Hey, federal government, the second 330 00:20:37,320 --> 00:20:41,160 Speaker 5: you find this person who's a foreign national in America 331 00:20:41,240 --> 00:20:45,399 Speaker 5: with a criminal conviction, you a must detain them and 332 00:20:45,520 --> 00:20:49,640 Speaker 5: b you must keep them detained until such time as 333 00:20:49,640 --> 00:20:52,199 Speaker 5: you can effectuate their removal. And by the way, if 334 00:20:52,200 --> 00:20:54,280 Speaker 5: they happen to win their removal case, fine you can 335 00:20:54,320 --> 00:20:57,639 Speaker 5: release them then. But if they don't win their removal case, 336 00:20:58,000 --> 00:21:00,480 Speaker 5: you have to keep them detained for as long as 337 00:21:00,520 --> 00:21:06,280 Speaker 5: it takes in order to effectuate their removal. So there's 338 00:21:06,320 --> 00:21:09,000 Speaker 5: been two Supreme Court cases. One that was called the 339 00:21:09,040 --> 00:21:11,520 Speaker 5: More versus Kim, which was right in the beginning of 340 00:21:11,560 --> 00:21:16,120 Speaker 5: the millennium, and then another one called Rodriguez versus Jennings, 341 00:21:16,160 --> 00:21:19,560 Speaker 5: which was in during the first Trump administration, where courts 342 00:21:19,600 --> 00:21:22,400 Speaker 5: have tried to figure out what does that mean? Does 343 00:21:22,440 --> 00:21:25,679 Speaker 5: that really mean forever? What if the government wanted to 344 00:21:25,800 --> 00:21:31,160 Speaker 5: hold a person in sort of quote unquote removal process 345 00:21:31,440 --> 00:21:34,719 Speaker 5: but forever, just keep them in detention forever and not 346 00:21:34,800 --> 00:21:36,399 Speaker 5: actually decide their case. 347 00:21:36,840 --> 00:21:39,639 Speaker 4: Could the government get away with doing that? Could that 348 00:21:39,680 --> 00:21:40,400 Speaker 4: actually happen? 349 00:21:40,880 --> 00:21:43,120 Speaker 5: And so in the first case, the More versus Kim, 350 00:21:43,560 --> 00:21:46,399 Speaker 5: that happened at the beginning of the millennium, just as 351 00:21:46,520 --> 00:21:51,440 Speaker 5: Kennedy was the plurality fifth vote, and what he said was, look, 352 00:21:51,480 --> 00:21:53,359 Speaker 5: we don't have any evidence that this is going on. 353 00:21:53,480 --> 00:21:56,120 Speaker 5: Most of these cases take three months, which it turned 354 00:21:56,119 --> 00:21:58,399 Speaker 5: out was inaccurate, and the Department of Justice had to 355 00:21:58,440 --> 00:22:00,800 Speaker 5: take that back and it was both couple years, but 356 00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:03,760 Speaker 5: the Justice Department at that time said it was three months. 357 00:22:04,400 --> 00:22:06,719 Speaker 5: And so I said, most of these cases take three months. 358 00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:08,600 Speaker 5: And here's what he said, Here's what was the key. 359 00:22:08,600 --> 00:22:12,800 Speaker 5: He said, if there was ever a specific case where 360 00:22:12,800 --> 00:22:16,120 Speaker 5: things were taking too long, you should come back and 361 00:22:16,200 --> 00:22:21,239 Speaker 5: file a as applied challenge saying that you specifically have been 362 00:22:21,240 --> 00:22:24,480 Speaker 5: held too long, come back and figure this out. So 363 00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:27,520 Speaker 5: then what happened after that was the Ninth Circuit and 364 00:22:27,560 --> 00:22:31,440 Speaker 5: the Second Circuit said, well, that seems a little bit 365 00:22:31,480 --> 00:22:33,960 Speaker 5: crazy to force every single person to have to do 366 00:22:34,040 --> 00:22:36,120 Speaker 5: this in their case. So we're just going to put 367 00:22:36,119 --> 00:22:40,720 Speaker 5: a presumption that after six months your detention has been unreasonable. 368 00:22:40,760 --> 00:22:43,320 Speaker 5: The government has to decide your case in six months, 369 00:22:43,720 --> 00:22:45,639 Speaker 5: or if that then give you a bond hearing. That 370 00:22:45,680 --> 00:22:48,399 Speaker 5: doesn't mean release you. That means give you a bond 371 00:22:48,440 --> 00:22:52,359 Speaker 5: hearing to decide whether you are too dangerous to be 372 00:22:52,440 --> 00:22:54,960 Speaker 5: released or whether you're too much of a flight risk 373 00:22:55,040 --> 00:22:57,760 Speaker 5: to be released. And just to be clear, what is 374 00:22:57,760 --> 00:22:59,920 Speaker 5: a bond hearing. A bond hearing, even if you've been 375 00:23:00,359 --> 00:23:02,639 Speaker 5: charge for murder, you get a bond hearing, and a 376 00:23:02,640 --> 00:23:04,919 Speaker 5: lot of people who are charged for murder get bond 377 00:23:05,040 --> 00:23:09,320 Speaker 5: even where they actually are released pending the decision whether 378 00:23:09,440 --> 00:23:12,520 Speaker 5: to convict them or not. So the idea is, if 379 00:23:12,560 --> 00:23:16,560 Speaker 5: in a criminal case there are people suspected for murder 380 00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:20,320 Speaker 5: that get bond hearings and actually get bond, that how 381 00:23:20,359 --> 00:23:24,280 Speaker 5: in immigration, which is a civil case, could you just 382 00:23:24,400 --> 00:23:27,200 Speaker 5: categorically say there's a whole group of people that never 383 00:23:27,480 --> 00:23:30,000 Speaker 5: get a bond hearing, no matter how long they've been detained. 384 00:23:30,359 --> 00:23:32,560 Speaker 5: So that's why the Second Circuit of the nine second 385 00:23:32,600 --> 00:23:35,040 Speaker 5: Circuit said no, no, no, that should be six months. 386 00:23:35,320 --> 00:23:38,400 Speaker 5: The Supreme Court in twenty eighteen said absolutely not. Six 387 00:23:38,440 --> 00:23:41,119 Speaker 5: months is not what the statute says. Get out of 388 00:23:41,200 --> 00:23:44,040 Speaker 5: town with that, we meant what we said, if you 389 00:23:44,080 --> 00:23:49,439 Speaker 5: have a specific person who actually has been detained for 390 00:23:49,480 --> 00:23:53,520 Speaker 5: a long time, then that person can come back, But 391 00:23:54,119 --> 00:23:58,639 Speaker 5: not any six month presumption that that's too long. So 392 00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:02,080 Speaker 5: there have been some se cases the Second Circuit, the 393 00:24:02,119 --> 00:24:05,040 Speaker 5: Third Circuit, and the Eighth Circuit who are all trying 394 00:24:05,080 --> 00:24:10,240 Speaker 5: to figure out what does that unreasonably prolonged situation mean? 395 00:24:11,040 --> 00:24:15,280 Speaker 5: And the Second Circuit thought that a person who was 396 00:24:15,359 --> 00:24:17,680 Speaker 5: detained in total for seven months. 397 00:24:17,760 --> 00:24:20,399 Speaker 4: They said that was too long. This person deserves a 398 00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:22,040 Speaker 4: bond hearing, So they didn't. 399 00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:26,040 Speaker 5: Make a presumption everybody gets a bond hearing after seven months, but. 400 00:24:26,040 --> 00:24:27,400 Speaker 4: They said this person does. 401 00:24:27,960 --> 00:24:30,000 Speaker 5: The Third Circuit said, look, we're going to have a 402 00:24:30,040 --> 00:24:33,159 Speaker 5: different multi factor reasonable to this test. We're going to 403 00:24:33,240 --> 00:24:35,879 Speaker 5: try to figure out whose fault it is, because sometimes 404 00:24:36,119 --> 00:24:38,640 Speaker 5: if you put a time period, then the foreign national 405 00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:43,760 Speaker 5: can ask for continuances until such time as they can 406 00:24:43,800 --> 00:24:44,359 Speaker 5: get then. 407 00:24:44,320 --> 00:24:45,960 Speaker 4: This presumption of a bond hearing. 408 00:24:46,160 --> 00:24:47,600 Speaker 5: So they're saying, if that's what you're going to do, 409 00:24:47,640 --> 00:24:50,080 Speaker 5: we're not going to give you the thing, but we're 410 00:24:50,080 --> 00:24:53,760 Speaker 5: going to take into account how long, whose faults, how 411 00:24:53,800 --> 00:24:56,560 Speaker 5: close are we to the end, etc. And then you 412 00:24:56,600 --> 00:24:58,760 Speaker 5: could get a bond hearing if it's still taking too long. 413 00:24:59,080 --> 00:25:02,480 Speaker 5: The Eighth Circuit pose no time limit. They just said, hey, 414 00:25:02,880 --> 00:25:05,960 Speaker 5: the Supreme Court meant what it said, and if the 415 00:25:06,000 --> 00:25:09,159 Speaker 5: person detained twenty years and that's along their case takes, 416 00:25:09,480 --> 00:25:11,959 Speaker 5: then they can be detained for twenty years bid their 417 00:25:12,040 --> 00:25:13,800 Speaker 5: criminal That is what it is. 418 00:25:14,240 --> 00:25:18,320 Speaker 3: Okay, leon Hold, that thought coming up will continue this conversation. 419 00:25:18,640 --> 00:25:24,160 Speaker 3: Also why the Trump administration has set a goal of denaturalizations. 420 00:25:24,440 --> 00:25:27,880 Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg. I've been talking to immigration law expert 421 00:25:28,280 --> 00:25:31,520 Speaker 3: Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. Leon tell us what 422 00:25:31,600 --> 00:25:33,560 Speaker 3: the Supreme Court is going to decide. 423 00:25:33,760 --> 00:25:38,240 Speaker 5: So, now the Supreme Court has to decide these two issues, 424 00:25:38,280 --> 00:25:41,919 Speaker 5: which is how long and what is the framework for 425 00:25:42,160 --> 00:25:48,560 Speaker 5: deciding if someone can actually happen as applied constitutional challenge 426 00:25:49,000 --> 00:25:51,480 Speaker 5: to their detention. And so that's what they're going to 427 00:25:51,560 --> 00:25:54,200 Speaker 5: have to decide and they'll be taking that case. 428 00:25:54,000 --> 00:25:54,840 Speaker 4: Later in this fall. 429 00:25:55,119 --> 00:25:57,560 Speaker 3: So I mean, would this affect a lot of people? 430 00:25:58,480 --> 00:26:01,400 Speaker 4: Yes, a lot of people are in the system. 431 00:26:01,560 --> 00:26:04,600 Speaker 5: Especially when you say we're going to prioritize the worst 432 00:26:04,680 --> 00:26:08,280 Speaker 5: of the worst people with criminal convictions for deportation, then 433 00:26:08,359 --> 00:26:11,000 Speaker 5: every one of those people, if you're prioritizing them, are 434 00:26:11,040 --> 00:26:13,879 Speaker 5: the ones going through the system. And the idea is 435 00:26:13,960 --> 00:26:17,119 Speaker 5: if one of those people with a criminal conviction is apprehended, 436 00:26:17,560 --> 00:26:20,439 Speaker 5: then at the moment the law is, they will not 437 00:26:20,600 --> 00:26:22,720 Speaker 5: be released until their case is finished. 438 00:26:23,119 --> 00:26:24,879 Speaker 4: And by the way, the Congress passed that law for 439 00:26:24,960 --> 00:26:25,560 Speaker 4: good reasons. 440 00:26:25,560 --> 00:26:29,160 Speaker 5: They were worried that people would either reoffend, meaning they'd 441 00:26:29,160 --> 00:26:31,919 Speaker 5: commit more crimes while they were out, or that they 442 00:26:31,920 --> 00:26:35,480 Speaker 5: would abscond and there are some statistics that show that 443 00:26:35,600 --> 00:26:39,760 Speaker 5: these absconsin rates and the reoffending rates are high. But 444 00:26:40,080 --> 00:26:43,360 Speaker 5: you know, nevertheless, the question is do you still get 445 00:26:43,400 --> 00:26:46,359 Speaker 5: a chance at least to make your case in terms 446 00:26:46,400 --> 00:26:50,000 Speaker 5: of a bond hearing or is the risk of reoffending 447 00:26:50,280 --> 00:26:54,159 Speaker 5: and also flight so high that we shouldn't get people 448 00:26:54,200 --> 00:26:57,520 Speaker 5: bond no matter what. And I think this no matter 449 00:26:57,560 --> 00:26:59,919 Speaker 5: what issue is what the Supreme Court is now going 450 00:27:00,119 --> 00:27:02,879 Speaker 5: to have to grapple with. Is there really no limit 451 00:27:02,960 --> 00:27:05,920 Speaker 5: to how long the government can keep someone detained without 452 00:27:05,960 --> 00:27:07,000 Speaker 5: deciding their case. 453 00:27:07,359 --> 00:27:09,800 Speaker 3: Why are they keeping them detained without deciding their case? 454 00:27:10,359 --> 00:27:13,040 Speaker 5: So there's a lot of reasons, but the main reason, 455 00:27:13,119 --> 00:27:15,760 Speaker 5: and this is kind of the most troubling one, would 456 00:27:15,800 --> 00:27:20,880 Speaker 5: be you go to immigration court and you lose your case, 457 00:27:21,040 --> 00:27:23,840 Speaker 5: you appeal it, and then you win your case, and 458 00:27:23,880 --> 00:27:26,960 Speaker 5: then the judge remands it back to the immigration court 459 00:27:27,000 --> 00:27:29,040 Speaker 5: for a new case. And by the time we've done that, 460 00:27:29,080 --> 00:27:32,399 Speaker 5: we're already two years into this thing. And so the 461 00:27:32,520 --> 00:27:36,320 Speaker 5: question is whose fault is that at that point? And 462 00:27:36,359 --> 00:27:40,919 Speaker 5: should the immigrants stay in detention during that or should 463 00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:44,000 Speaker 5: the immigrant get a chance for a bond hearing? And 464 00:27:44,119 --> 00:27:46,520 Speaker 5: that's really I think the main issue the Court's going 465 00:27:46,600 --> 00:27:49,560 Speaker 5: to have to grapple with is who gets the loss. 466 00:27:49,600 --> 00:27:53,000 Speaker 5: There is the loss the government's lass because they made 467 00:27:53,040 --> 00:27:55,440 Speaker 5: a mistake and the case got appealed and now there's 468 00:27:55,480 --> 00:27:56,480 Speaker 5: a new hearing. 469 00:27:56,680 --> 00:27:57,600 Speaker 4: Or is it. 470 00:27:57,680 --> 00:28:01,200 Speaker 5: You know, if you hadn't appealed your case, you could 471 00:28:01,240 --> 00:28:03,680 Speaker 5: have been deported a lot earlier and released from detention. 472 00:28:04,080 --> 00:28:05,800 Speaker 5: So if you want to stay and fight your case, 473 00:28:05,880 --> 00:28:07,280 Speaker 5: you have to know that you have to do it 474 00:28:07,400 --> 00:28:10,199 Speaker 5: from detension. Get over it kind of thing. And so 475 00:28:10,640 --> 00:28:12,480 Speaker 5: that's what the court is going to have to grapple 476 00:28:12,560 --> 00:28:12,920 Speaker 5: with here. 477 00:28:13,440 --> 00:28:18,480 Speaker 3: Something that continues to fascinate me is the Trump administration's 478 00:28:19,320 --> 00:28:25,160 Speaker 3: aggressive efforts to denaturalize people who are citizens. I think 479 00:28:25,280 --> 00:28:30,119 Speaker 3: CBS News first reported that the administration is planning to 480 00:28:30,280 --> 00:28:33,919 Speaker 3: expand the denaturalization push, aiming for two hundred and fifty 481 00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:38,480 Speaker 3: cases by the fall, and statistics are that the government 482 00:28:38,880 --> 00:28:43,160 Speaker 3: filed an average of just eleven denaturalization cases a year 483 00:28:43,640 --> 00:28:48,280 Speaker 3: between nineteen ninety and twenty seventeen. I mean, these cases 484 00:28:48,360 --> 00:28:52,000 Speaker 3: take a long time. Why is the government going through this? 485 00:28:52,360 --> 00:28:54,000 Speaker 3: Why are they targeting them? 486 00:28:54,360 --> 00:28:58,960 Speaker 5: There's two reasons. Reason Number one is they do want 487 00:28:59,480 --> 00:29:04,280 Speaker 5: to make everyone who's going through the system very aware 488 00:29:04,360 --> 00:29:07,560 Speaker 5: of the fact that, look, if you make any misrepresentation 489 00:29:08,000 --> 00:29:10,520 Speaker 5: while you're going through this system, you're never going to 490 00:29:10,560 --> 00:29:13,440 Speaker 5: be safe in America. There's always a chance you could 491 00:29:13,440 --> 00:29:18,040 Speaker 5: be denaturalized and deported, So make sure that you're giving 492 00:29:18,080 --> 00:29:21,840 Speaker 5: accurate information to the government through this entire time. And 493 00:29:21,880 --> 00:29:25,480 Speaker 5: then for people who have been naturalized, they also want 494 00:29:25,520 --> 00:29:28,160 Speaker 5: to sort of give a deterrent of Hey, if you 495 00:29:28,280 --> 00:29:33,000 Speaker 5: do anything bad even after you're naturalized, that makes us 496 00:29:33,080 --> 00:29:36,400 Speaker 5: think that you lied on your naturalization case, and we 497 00:29:36,480 --> 00:29:40,040 Speaker 5: can somehow then go back and try to you know, 498 00:29:40,080 --> 00:29:42,600 Speaker 5: the sort of theory of show me the person, I'll 499 00:29:42,640 --> 00:29:45,920 Speaker 5: show you the crime. We can go back and figure 500 00:29:45,960 --> 00:29:47,720 Speaker 5: out that you didn't tell us you were in the 501 00:29:47,800 --> 00:29:51,120 Speaker 5: Elks club, and now it turns out you were. But 502 00:29:51,160 --> 00:29:54,120 Speaker 5: that's not really why we're denaturalizing you. We're denaturalizing you 503 00:29:54,160 --> 00:29:57,480 Speaker 5: because of something else we didn't like about you. Then 504 00:29:57,560 --> 00:30:00,800 Speaker 5: the idea is to just sort of put that sort 505 00:30:00,840 --> 00:30:05,240 Speaker 5: of control on the entire foreign born population in the 506 00:30:05,320 --> 00:30:09,600 Speaker 5: United States to basically say, hey, mind your p's and q's, 507 00:30:10,280 --> 00:30:14,680 Speaker 5: get your act together, or you could be denaturalized and 508 00:30:14,920 --> 00:30:18,320 Speaker 5: look there's gonna be very few applications where everything was perfect, 509 00:30:18,840 --> 00:30:21,000 Speaker 5: and then a lot of the adjudications are gonna have 510 00:30:21,040 --> 00:30:24,200 Speaker 5: to be by these federal judges deciding whether either the 511 00:30:24,200 --> 00:30:29,520 Speaker 5: omission or the error or the misstatement was material such 512 00:30:29,560 --> 00:30:33,320 Speaker 5: that a different decision would have been necessary had the 513 00:30:33,480 --> 00:30:38,960 Speaker 5: missing or incorrect or erroneous or actually false statement had 514 00:30:39,000 --> 00:30:41,640 Speaker 5: been made as part of the immigration process. 515 00:30:42,080 --> 00:30:44,040 Speaker 3: I mean, there haven't been that many cases, I take it, 516 00:30:44,080 --> 00:30:47,280 Speaker 3: but our judge is generally reluctant, and it's sort of 517 00:30:47,280 --> 00:30:51,360 Speaker 3: a high bar for the government to denaturalize someone. 518 00:30:52,240 --> 00:30:55,520 Speaker 5: So in my experience, so this was before I left 519 00:30:55,520 --> 00:30:59,240 Speaker 5: the private practice, these cases were a slam dunk because 520 00:30:59,400 --> 00:31:02,640 Speaker 5: the federal judges were always saying, well, there's so few 521 00:31:02,680 --> 00:31:05,760 Speaker 5: of them. If the government really went through all this 522 00:31:05,920 --> 00:31:09,000 Speaker 5: trouble to put this case together, I should be taking 523 00:31:09,000 --> 00:31:11,600 Speaker 5: this very seriously. And most of these cases used to 524 00:31:11,600 --> 00:31:15,960 Speaker 5: be for Nazi war criminals and other sort of the 525 00:31:16,080 --> 00:31:19,480 Speaker 5: kinds of people that ends the international would hate because 526 00:31:19,520 --> 00:31:23,640 Speaker 5: they terrorized an entire village or something like that. That's 527 00:31:23,640 --> 00:31:25,920 Speaker 5: what this used to be for, basically, was for all 528 00:31:25,920 --> 00:31:30,000 Speaker 5: these human rights violators. But now if it starts getting 529 00:31:30,720 --> 00:31:36,200 Speaker 5: extended out to populations where the person isn't so notorious 530 00:31:36,280 --> 00:31:39,960 Speaker 5: or has it done such bleak things. Then these federal judges, 531 00:31:40,000 --> 00:31:44,000 Speaker 5: I assume, are going to fall along the ideological lines, 532 00:31:44,040 --> 00:31:46,320 Speaker 5: and some are going to say, hey, none of these 533 00:31:46,320 --> 00:31:49,120 Speaker 5: are material, so I'm not going to grant them, and 534 00:31:49,200 --> 00:31:52,400 Speaker 5: others will say, oh, well whatever if if this administration 535 00:31:52,480 --> 00:31:55,600 Speaker 5: doesn't like them, I don't like them. And unfortunately, that's 536 00:31:55,600 --> 00:31:57,840 Speaker 5: how a lot of this is happening, and so I 537 00:31:57,880 --> 00:32:00,720 Speaker 5: can foresee a lot of that happen. Sure there will 538 00:32:00,720 --> 00:32:03,600 Speaker 5: be judges in the middle who will scrutinize and do 539 00:32:03,800 --> 00:32:09,040 Speaker 5: a very serious analysis and decide just on the facts. 540 00:32:09,080 --> 00:32:12,640 Speaker 5: But I've seen some judges who will just say, look, 541 00:32:12,720 --> 00:32:16,600 Speaker 5: I'm not finding that material disrepresentation. Sorry, this is all 542 00:32:16,640 --> 00:32:19,880 Speaker 5: ideologically driven. I'm not going to reward it. And others 543 00:32:19,920 --> 00:32:22,800 Speaker 5: will say, hey, I trust this administration, and if they 544 00:32:22,800 --> 00:32:25,400 Speaker 5: don't want someone here, I'm not going to really look 545 00:32:25,480 --> 00:32:28,520 Speaker 5: behind the reason I'm concerned if they're concerned, And so 546 00:32:28,880 --> 00:32:30,040 Speaker 5: I think there will be a lot of. 547 00:32:30,000 --> 00:32:32,760 Speaker 3: That that goes on, and we don't know yet who 548 00:32:32,800 --> 00:32:33,600 Speaker 3: they're targeting. 549 00:32:34,000 --> 00:32:37,360 Speaker 5: Well, they say they're targeting only people who lied about 550 00:32:37,360 --> 00:32:42,400 Speaker 5: criminal convictions and national security risks. So to that extent, 551 00:32:43,000 --> 00:32:45,000 Speaker 5: you know, I would be fine with that too, but 552 00:32:45,400 --> 00:32:46,560 Speaker 5: you know, we're gonna. 553 00:32:46,360 --> 00:32:48,520 Speaker 4: Have to see case by case how that plays out. 554 00:32:48,720 --> 00:32:51,480 Speaker 3: I know we hear national security risks so many times 555 00:32:51,480 --> 00:32:54,520 Speaker 3: from the Trump administration in so many different settings that 556 00:32:54,560 --> 00:32:57,440 Speaker 3: it's hard to know. Before I let you go, let's 557 00:32:57,480 --> 00:33:01,640 Speaker 3: do an update on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge 558 00:33:01,640 --> 00:33:05,840 Speaker 3: Hannah Dugan, who was convicted of obstruction of justice. 559 00:33:06,120 --> 00:33:09,120 Speaker 5: Basically, what happened was she was a judge in just 560 00:33:09,160 --> 00:33:11,920 Speaker 5: a local criminal court and she was worried that this 561 00:33:12,000 --> 00:33:15,480 Speaker 5: local criminal defendant was going to be arrested by ICE 562 00:33:15,520 --> 00:33:18,920 Speaker 5: after having a hearing in her court. And she felt like, look, 563 00:33:19,040 --> 00:33:20,800 Speaker 5: if ICE is going to be in our court house, 564 00:33:20,840 --> 00:33:22,760 Speaker 5: then people are going to show up to my hearings. 565 00:33:23,000 --> 00:33:25,000 Speaker 5: So I have to protect people so that they come 566 00:33:25,040 --> 00:33:28,120 Speaker 5: to my hearings. So she told one of the foreign nationals, hey, 567 00:33:28,120 --> 00:33:30,840 Speaker 5: go out this other door where the jury goes out, 568 00:33:30,880 --> 00:33:33,760 Speaker 5: and then you won't be able to get caught by ICE. 569 00:33:34,120 --> 00:33:37,040 Speaker 5: And then I still catches the person anyway, but they say, hey, 570 00:33:37,080 --> 00:33:41,040 Speaker 5: this judge was trying to obstruct a proceeding by making 571 00:33:41,040 --> 00:33:42,880 Speaker 5: it harder for us to catch this person. 572 00:33:43,360 --> 00:33:46,520 Speaker 4: And this judge was convicted. The judge was not acquitted here. 573 00:33:47,080 --> 00:33:50,560 Speaker 5: So then the judge filed a motion for acquittal, trying 574 00:33:50,560 --> 00:33:54,480 Speaker 5: to rely on a Fourth Circuit decision which talked about 575 00:33:54,800 --> 00:33:58,280 Speaker 5: whether a preceding is a pending preceding or not for 576 00:33:58,320 --> 00:34:01,840 Speaker 5: the purposes of deciding what is obstruction or not. And 577 00:34:01,880 --> 00:34:03,920 Speaker 5: so the judge was trying to argue, look, I wasn't 578 00:34:03,920 --> 00:34:08,759 Speaker 5: obstructing any proceeding because there wasn't actually a pending removal 579 00:34:08,800 --> 00:34:12,200 Speaker 5: proceeding going on. Only if there was a pending removal 580 00:34:12,280 --> 00:34:15,480 Speaker 5: proceeding going on, should I have been convicted. But if 581 00:34:15,520 --> 00:34:18,600 Speaker 5: there wasn't one, that would be it. But at the 582 00:34:18,719 --> 00:34:22,280 Speaker 5: end of the day, the federal judge here said, I'm sorry, 583 00:34:22,280 --> 00:34:26,720 Speaker 5: I don't agree with the fact that this thing needed 584 00:34:26,719 --> 00:34:32,520 Speaker 5: to actually have a pending removal proceeding. That's being obstructed here. 585 00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:36,279 Speaker 5: If you're obstructing what a pure law enforcement agency is 586 00:34:36,360 --> 00:34:39,719 Speaker 5: doing in terms of issuing its own warrants and removal 587 00:34:39,760 --> 00:34:43,600 Speaker 5: without court proceedings that it can issue these things, then 588 00:34:43,640 --> 00:34:46,759 Speaker 5: you could obstruct that. And so you've obstructed it. And 589 00:34:46,800 --> 00:34:51,480 Speaker 5: so at the moment the conviction has been upheld, and 590 00:34:51,560 --> 00:34:53,680 Speaker 5: so she's going to try to appeal to the Seventh 591 00:34:53,680 --> 00:34:56,560 Speaker 5: Circuit now to try to again figure out what is 592 00:34:56,600 --> 00:35:01,480 Speaker 5: a proceeding such that did she obstruct the nature of 593 00:35:01,520 --> 00:35:02,480 Speaker 5: that preceding or not? 594 00:35:02,600 --> 00:35:04,240 Speaker 4: So did you actually have to know. 595 00:35:04,280 --> 00:35:07,640 Speaker 5: This person was in a removal process in order to 596 00:35:07,680 --> 00:35:11,480 Speaker 5: obstruct it? Or could she just be convicted for obstructing 597 00:35:12,200 --> 00:35:15,440 Speaker 5: ice as efforts to put the foreign national in the 598 00:35:15,480 --> 00:35:16,800 Speaker 5: preceding so to speak. 599 00:35:17,000 --> 00:35:20,560 Speaker 3: So it becomes a technical kind of issue. But I 600 00:35:20,600 --> 00:35:23,960 Speaker 3: haven't heard of another judge doing anything similar, so maybe 601 00:35:23,960 --> 00:35:29,120 Speaker 3: this is having a deterrent effect on judges. Always a pleasure, Leon, 602 00:35:29,160 --> 00:35:33,400 Speaker 3: thanks so much. That's immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a 603 00:35:33,480 --> 00:35:36,399 Speaker 3: partner at Hollanda Knight. And that's it for this edition 604 00:35:36,440 --> 00:35:39,120 Speaker 3: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get 605 00:35:39,120 --> 00:35:42,279 Speaker 3: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You 606 00:35:42,280 --> 00:35:46,360 Speaker 3: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www 607 00:35:46,520 --> 00:35:50,800 Speaker 3: dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law, and remember 608 00:35:50,840 --> 00:35:53,799 Speaker 3: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 609 00:35:53,800 --> 00:35:57,279 Speaker 3: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're 610 00:35:57,360 --> 00:35:58,600 Speaker 3: listening to Bloomberg