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

2
00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:13,720
Speaker 1: This week, the Supreme Court, divided down ideological lines, gave

3
00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:18,320
Speaker 1: the Trump administration the ok to resume quickly deporting migrants

4
00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:22,000
Speaker 1: to countries other than their own, lifting a judge's order

5
00:00:22,040 --> 00:00:24,720
Speaker 1: that gave them notice and a chance to argue that

6
00:00:24,840 --> 00:00:28,080
Speaker 1: they would be at risk of torture. Over a scathing

7
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:32,599
Speaker 1: descent from the court's three liberals, the court's conservatives granted

8
00:00:32,640 --> 00:00:37,320
Speaker 1: an emergency request from the administration, joining me is Alara Mukherjee,

9
00:00:37,440 --> 00:00:40,680
Speaker 1: a professor at Columbia Law School who directs the school's

10
00:00:40,720 --> 00:00:44,279
Speaker 1: immigrants rights clinic. I Laura tell us about the judge's

11
00:00:44,560 --> 00:00:49,680
Speaker 1: order that the Trump administration was appealing on an emergency basis.

12
00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:54,560
Speaker 2: A federal district court judged in Massachusetts was concerned that

13
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:59,240
Speaker 2: people would be deported to countries third countries where they

14
00:00:59,240 --> 00:01:02,840
Speaker 2: would be tortured, where they would be persecuted, where they

15
00:01:02,920 --> 00:01:06,960
Speaker 2: might die and be killed. And what the judge did

16
00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:11,560
Speaker 2: is require that before non citizens if the United States

17
00:01:11,640 --> 00:01:15,040
Speaker 2: be deported to countries that are not their home countries,

18
00:01:15,160 --> 00:01:18,360
Speaker 2: countries that they are not nationals of, that the US

19
00:01:18,440 --> 00:01:23,559
Speaker 2: government provides them an opportunity to contest and explain why

20
00:01:23,600 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 2: they shouldn't be deported to that country. So that is

21
00:01:26,959 --> 00:01:31,000
Speaker 2: called a credible fear interview process. And the judge held

22
00:01:31,040 --> 00:01:34,800
Speaker 2: that people must get at least fifteen days to challenge

23
00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:38,680
Speaker 2: their deportations to countries where they fear torture and persecution.

24
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:44,480
Speaker 1: Why are these non citizens not being sent to their

25
00:01:44,520 --> 00:01:47,119
Speaker 1: home countries? Why is the government trying to send them

26
00:01:47,160 --> 00:01:48,280
Speaker 1: to third countries?

27
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:53,680
Speaker 2: The Trump administration would like the ability, the power, the

28
00:01:53,720 --> 00:01:57,920
Speaker 2: authorization to deport people to third countries when their home

29
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:01,760
Speaker 2: governments won't take them back. The men in these case

30
00:02:01,880 --> 00:02:06,520
Speaker 2: hail from various countries including Me and mar Laos, Vietnam, Cuba,

31
00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:10,240
Speaker 2: and Mexico, and some of these governments actually do take

32
00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 2: back their own nationals, but the Trump administration would like

33
00:02:14,240 --> 00:02:18,560
Speaker 2: sweeping authority to deport people basically to anywhere in the world.

34
00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:23,160
Speaker 1: The government made an emergency request to the Supreme Court.

35
00:02:23,280 --> 00:02:24,680
Speaker 1: What did they argue?

36
00:02:25,040 --> 00:02:28,400
Speaker 2: The Executive branch argued to the Supreme Court that the

37
00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:33,640
Speaker 2: lower court order interfered with their ability to deport nationals

38
00:02:33,880 --> 00:02:39,120
Speaker 2: to third countries. And the Supreme Court sided with the

39
00:02:39,200 --> 00:02:42,600
Speaker 2: executive branch in that case and blocked the lower court

40
00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:47,600
Speaker 2: order that required fifteen days notice before individuals could be

41
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:50,000
Speaker 2: deported to countries other than their own.

42
00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:55,839
Speaker 1: So the six conservatives granted this without any opinion. Can

43
00:02:55,880 --> 00:02:58,320
Speaker 1: we assume they bought the government's argument?

44
00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:03,680
Speaker 2: Then I think that's affair reading of the unreasoned order

45
00:03:03,880 --> 00:03:08,160
Speaker 2: issued by the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that three

46
00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:14,240
Speaker 2: justices dissented from the opinion and accused the conservative majority

47
00:03:14,240 --> 00:03:16,840
Speaker 2: of quote unquote, rewarding lawlessness.

48
00:03:17,080 --> 00:03:22,120
Speaker 1: So Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who wrote that dissent, said that

49
00:03:22,480 --> 00:03:27,840
Speaker 1: the administration had twice violated the Court's orders in this case.

50
00:03:28,240 --> 00:03:32,200
Speaker 1: The Conservatives just ignored that. And does that send a

51
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:36,320
Speaker 1: message to the Trump administration that they can violate court orders?

52
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:40,040
Speaker 2: Yes, this sends a message to the Trump administration that

53
00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:43,000
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court is willing to turn a blind eye

54
00:03:43,320 --> 00:03:48,480
Speaker 2: to the executive branch's flouting of federal court orders. Justice

55
00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 2: Soto Mayor recognized in her opinion that the government had

56
00:03:51,760 --> 00:03:55,560
Speaker 2: removed six people to South Sudan with less than sixteen

57
00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:59,920
Speaker 2: hours notice, without any opportunity to contact their lawyers or

58
00:04:00,120 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 2: be heard in court. And it is lawlessness. As Justice

59
00:04:05,240 --> 00:04:09,080
Speaker 2: Sodomyor wrote, quote this is not the first time the

60
00:04:09,120 --> 00:04:13,160
Speaker 2: Court closes its eyes to non compliance, nor I fear

61
00:04:13,280 --> 00:04:15,120
Speaker 2: will it be the last? End quote.

62
00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:19,400
Speaker 1: Doesn't this conflict with the decision in April, where the

63
00:04:19,440 --> 00:04:22,680
Speaker 1: Court said that the government has to give people a

64
00:04:22,760 --> 00:04:25,719
Speaker 1: reasonable time to challenge their deportations.

65
00:04:26,120 --> 00:04:29,640
Speaker 2: The April case was in the context of a different

66
00:04:29,800 --> 00:04:32,640
Speaker 2: set of laws. It was in the context of the

67
00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:37,719
Speaker 2: President invoking the Alien Enemies Act, and in that case,

68
00:04:37,880 --> 00:04:41,680
Speaker 2: the Court held that individuals who were subject to the

69
00:04:41,720 --> 00:04:45,960
Speaker 2: Alien Enemies Act needed to first be given notice that

70
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:49,600
Speaker 2: they would be subject to the Alien Enemies Act and

71
00:04:49,680 --> 00:04:54,400
Speaker 2: then a meaningful opportunity to file a habeas petition. But

72
00:04:54,680 --> 00:04:59,719
Speaker 2: what that meaningful period of time is is not resolved

73
00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:03,919
Speaker 2: by US Supreme Court. That issue is currently being litigated

74
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:08,719
Speaker 2: in lower courts across the country where the Executive branch

75
00:05:08,760 --> 00:05:13,200
Speaker 2: has invoked the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan nationals who

76
00:05:13,240 --> 00:05:16,400
Speaker 2: are accused of being members of STRA in the Aragua

77
00:05:16,560 --> 00:05:17,320
Speaker 2: Criminal Gang.

78
00:05:17,920 --> 00:05:22,880
Speaker 1: The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court yesterday in

79
00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:25,400
Speaker 1: the case of those eight men and wants to deport

80
00:05:25,440 --> 00:05:28,680
Speaker 1: to South Sudan. So tell us what's happening there?

81
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:34,120
Speaker 2: So, after the Supreme Court issued its ruling. On Monday,

82
00:05:34,640 --> 00:05:39,080
Speaker 2: the Federal District judge issued another order saying that a

83
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:43,040
Speaker 2: previous order in his case protected a group of men

84
00:05:43,080 --> 00:05:47,080
Speaker 2: from being deported to South Sudan. The Executive Branch then

85
00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:51,320
Speaker 2: filed a motion to clarify the Court's June twenty third

86
00:05:51,520 --> 00:05:56,120
Speaker 2: opinion on June twenty fourth, and that motion has now

87
00:05:56,200 --> 00:06:00,400
Speaker 2: been fully briefed as of today, June twenty fifth, and

88
00:06:00,520 --> 00:06:02,200
Speaker 2: we will see what the Court does next.

89
00:06:03,279 --> 00:06:07,000
Speaker 1: Is it a problem because the Court is issuing these

90
00:06:07,080 --> 00:06:10,520
Speaker 1: rulings this time without any opinion at all on the

91
00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:14,800
Speaker 1: emergency docket, where they're not fully briefed, and so is

92
00:06:14,839 --> 00:06:17,720
Speaker 1: it hard to interpret what they mean?

93
00:06:18,279 --> 00:06:23,200
Speaker 2: Yes, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has exploded in recent

94
00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:27,240
Speaker 2: years and especially in recent months, and the Supreme Court

95
00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:32,800
Speaker 2: is taking sweeping actions on the shadow docket that have

96
00:06:33,320 --> 00:06:36,800
Speaker 2: just in the last eight weeks deprived more than eight

97
00:06:36,920 --> 00:06:41,320
Speaker 2: hundred thousand non citizens of their legal status in the

98
00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:46,080
Speaker 2: United States. This current case that we're discussing now, DVD,

99
00:06:46,520 --> 00:06:51,320
Speaker 2: is another example of the Supreme Court making extremely consequential

100
00:06:51,400 --> 00:06:55,200
Speaker 2: decisions on the shadow docket without the benefit of full

101
00:06:55,279 --> 00:06:56,560
Speaker 2: briefing and arguments.

102
00:06:57,440 --> 00:06:59,080
Speaker 1: What does it mean on the ground. I mean, how

103
00:06:59,120 --> 00:07:04,039
Speaker 1: many people might be affected by this order.

104
00:07:04,560 --> 00:07:09,760
Speaker 2: That's a really good question. The Executive Branch wants to

105
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:15,440
Speaker 2: implement third country deportations on a sweeping basis. It's one

106
00:07:15,480 --> 00:07:19,640
Speaker 2: of the pillars of their effort to deport one million

107
00:07:19,960 --> 00:07:24,640
Speaker 2: people from the United States this year. I think it's

108
00:07:24,720 --> 00:07:29,200
Speaker 2: fair to expect that thousands of people could be subject

109
00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:34,720
Speaker 2: to third country deportations under the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday.

110
00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:39,679
Speaker 1: This is a temporary order while the litigation continues. What's

111
00:07:39,760 --> 00:07:42,360
Speaker 1: left of that litigation So.

112
00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:46,840
Speaker 2: To date, the judge has only issued preliminary injunctions, that

113
00:07:47,040 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 2: is a form of temporary relief. The full case hasn't

114
00:07:51,160 --> 00:07:54,640
Speaker 2: been presented to the court. There hasn't been a trial

115
00:07:54,720 --> 00:07:57,640
Speaker 2: before the court yet. The judge doesn't have all the

116
00:07:57,720 --> 00:08:02,720
Speaker 2: evidence needed in the case to issue a final decision. Typically,

117
00:08:03,360 --> 00:08:07,280
Speaker 2: a federal district court will rule on all the evidence

118
00:08:07,320 --> 00:08:10,560
Speaker 2: in the case and then issue a final injunction. Then

119
00:08:10,640 --> 00:08:13,680
Speaker 2: the case would be heard by a federal Court of Appeals,

120
00:08:14,080 --> 00:08:17,200
Speaker 2: and then the Supreme Court would take up the matter.

121
00:08:17,280 --> 00:08:20,840
Speaker 2: It's a process of litigation that can easily take years,

122
00:08:21,280 --> 00:08:25,680
Speaker 2: so it's extremely unusual that the Supreme Court intervened in

123
00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:29,280
Speaker 2: this case. At such an early stage.

124
00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:35,280
Speaker 1: In the government's filing, the Solicitor General assured the court

125
00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:39,319
Speaker 1: that under the Convention against Torture, the administration will not

126
00:08:39,440 --> 00:08:43,040
Speaker 1: remove an alien to any country where he's likely to

127
00:08:43,080 --> 00:08:46,160
Speaker 1: be tortured. Does that deserve any credence.

128
00:08:46,559 --> 00:08:49,880
Speaker 2: When it's coming from the same government that is trying

129
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:53,800
Speaker 2: to deport people to South Dudan with less than sixteen

130
00:08:53,920 --> 00:08:57,920
Speaker 2: hours notice, that claim seems meaningless.

131
00:08:58,559 --> 00:09:02,000
Speaker 1: Is there a question of what what the Trump administration

132
00:09:02,160 --> 00:09:05,400
Speaker 1: is doing violates the Convention against Torture.

133
00:09:05,880 --> 00:09:09,880
Speaker 2: The US government is a signatory to the Convention against Torture.

134
00:09:10,280 --> 00:09:13,800
Speaker 2: We as a nation will not support people to countries

135
00:09:13,880 --> 00:09:17,360
Speaker 2: where they are more likely than not to face torture.

136
00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 2: Deporting people to South Sudan with less than sixteen hours

137
00:09:21,960 --> 00:09:26,200
Speaker 2: notice raises a very high risk that the US government

138
00:09:26,400 --> 00:09:30,079
Speaker 2: is deporting people to a country where they will face torture.

139
00:09:31,000 --> 00:09:36,120
Speaker 1: Another escalation, the Trump administration has sued all the judges

140
00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:41,360
Speaker 1: on the Maryland Federal Trial Court over a standing order

141
00:09:41,400 --> 00:09:44,320
Speaker 1: that prevents the government from deporting a person for two

142
00:09:44,400 --> 00:09:49,000
Speaker 1: business days after a Habeast challenge is filed. Two business

143
00:09:49,080 --> 00:09:51,800
Speaker 1: days doesn't seem like a long time. What is the

144
00:09:51,920 --> 00:09:53,520
Speaker 1: rush with all these cases?

145
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:59,520
Speaker 2: The executive branch seeks to extend its power well beyond

146
00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:03,520
Speaker 2: the of checks and balances set up in the US Constitution,

147
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:09,400
Speaker 2: and it is breaking our constitutional democracy. This is most

148
00:10:09,520 --> 00:10:13,880
Speaker 2: evident in the immigration space and the lawless actions the

149
00:10:13,920 --> 00:10:18,240
Speaker 2: executive branch is taking there, and it is exemplified by

150
00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:21,360
Speaker 2: this case that is pending now in the District of Maryland,

151
00:10:21,679 --> 00:10:26,800
Speaker 2: where the executive branch is suing federal judges for simply

152
00:10:26,880 --> 00:10:31,280
Speaker 2: trying to afford them due process before individuals can be

153
00:10:31,320 --> 00:10:32,720
Speaker 2: deported out of this country.

154
00:10:33,200 --> 00:10:35,880
Speaker 1: In the order from the Maryland court, it says that

155
00:10:36,280 --> 00:10:41,640
Speaker 1: it's a response to an increase in habeas petitions filed

156
00:10:41,760 --> 00:10:46,760
Speaker 1: outside of normal business hours from immigrants facing imminent deportation.

157
00:10:47,800 --> 00:10:52,960
Speaker 2: People including children, are being picked up off the streets

158
00:10:53,080 --> 00:10:57,800
Speaker 2: at courthouses outside of school and being swept into a

159
00:10:57,880 --> 00:11:01,880
Speaker 2: process that could very rapidly lead to their deportation, and

160
00:11:02,000 --> 00:11:07,000
Speaker 2: federal habeas petitions are among the last bulwarks to protect

161
00:11:07,080 --> 00:11:12,320
Speaker 2: people's due process right and afford them an opportunity to

162
00:11:12,520 --> 00:11:15,360
Speaker 2: prove why they should be allowed to stay in the

163
00:11:15,480 --> 00:11:19,360
Speaker 2: United States, why it's unlawful to summarily deport them.

164
00:11:19,679 --> 00:11:22,800
Speaker 1: Thanks for joining me a Laura. That's Professor Laura Mokerjee

165
00:11:22,880 --> 00:11:26,640
Speaker 1: of Columbia Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg

166
00:11:26,720 --> 00:11:30,240
Speaker 1: Law Show. President Trump's pick to sit on the Third

167
00:11:30,320 --> 00:11:35,199
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals gets a heated confirmation hearing. I'm

168
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:41,440
Speaker 1: June Grasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's pick

169
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:44,080
Speaker 1: for a New Jersey based seat on the US Court

170
00:11:44,120 --> 00:11:47,160
Speaker 1: of Appeals for the Third Circuit is his former criminal

171
00:11:47,160 --> 00:11:51,640
Speaker 1: defense lawyer, Emil beauvet a former federal prosecutor in the

172
00:11:51,679 --> 00:11:55,199
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York. He was on Trump's legal

173
00:11:55,240 --> 00:11:58,920
Speaker 1: team during his New York hush money trial and defended

174
00:11:58,920 --> 00:12:02,640
Speaker 1: Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the

175
00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:08,160
Speaker 1: Justice Department. Beauveay now serves as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney

176
00:12:08,240 --> 00:12:11,280
Speaker 1: in the Justice Department and has been at the forefront

177
00:12:11,360 --> 00:12:15,439
Speaker 1: of some of the most contentious Justice Department actions since

178
00:12:15,480 --> 00:12:19,200
Speaker 1: Trump's return to the White House, including the dismissal of

179
00:12:19,240 --> 00:12:23,320
Speaker 1: the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams,

180
00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:26,880
Speaker 1: ordering the firings of a group of prosecutors involved in

181
00:12:26,920 --> 00:12:31,800
Speaker 1: the January sixth criminal cases, and accusing FBI officials of

182
00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:36,040
Speaker 1: insubordination for refusing to hand over the names of agents

183
00:12:36,080 --> 00:12:40,199
Speaker 1: who investigated the US Capital Riot. Democrats on the Senate

184
00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:44,800
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee Grille Beauvet over those incidents, as well as

185
00:12:44,800 --> 00:12:49,360
Speaker 1: a whistleblower's allegations that Beauvay had suggested at a March

186
00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:53,720
Speaker 1: meeting that the government lawyers ignore court orders against the

187
00:12:53,760 --> 00:12:59,520
Speaker 1: Trump administration's deportation policies. Here's Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of

188
00:12:59,559 --> 00:13:01,840
Speaker 1: Californifornia questioning Beauvea.

189
00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:07,439
Speaker 3: In the complaint, it says Beauvey stated that DOJ would

190
00:13:07,440 --> 00:13:10,840
Speaker 3: need to consider telling the courts and ignoring any such

191
00:13:10,920 --> 00:13:14,679
Speaker 3: court order. Did you say anything of that kind in the.

192
00:13:14,600 --> 00:13:19,160
Speaker 4: Meeting, Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of

193
00:13:19,160 --> 00:13:21,319
Speaker 4: that kind to the extent I should.

194
00:13:21,080 --> 00:13:24,520
Speaker 3: Recall, mister bouve if you said or suggested during a

195
00:13:24,559 --> 00:13:28,280
Speaker 3: meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling

196
00:13:28,320 --> 00:13:30,680
Speaker 3: the court to you. It seems to me that would

197
00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:33,160
Speaker 3: be something you'd remember, unless that's the kind of thing

198
00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:34,520
Speaker 3: you say frequently.

199
00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:39,559
Speaker 4: Well, I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the Department

200
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:42,920
Speaker 4: to fight hard for valid positions that we have to

201
00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:45,360
Speaker 4: take into it and if you frequently, I did not

202
00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:49,440
Speaker 4: suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring

203
00:13:49,480 --> 00:13:51,600
Speaker 4: court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were

204
00:13:51,640 --> 00:13:52,960
Speaker 4: no court orders to discuss.

205
00:13:53,800 --> 00:13:57,120
Speaker 3: Well, did you suggest telling the courts you in any manner?

206
00:13:58,360 --> 00:14:02,720
Speaker 1: I don't recall joining me is Bloomberg Lawn Judiciary reporter

207
00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:07,880
Speaker 1: Suzanne Mognac. Suzanne, it appears that this confirmation hearing got

208
00:14:08,000 --> 00:14:08,720
Speaker 1: quite heated.

209
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:11,840
Speaker 5: It was heated in some respects. I certainly the Judiciary

210
00:14:11,880 --> 00:14:14,280
Speaker 5: Committee gets heated pretty often, so I can't say it's

211
00:14:14,280 --> 00:14:16,520
Speaker 5: the most heated hearing I've seen. I think a lot

212
00:14:16,520 --> 00:14:18,640
Speaker 5: of the grilling was what we more or less expected

213
00:14:18,679 --> 00:14:21,320
Speaker 5: it to be. I mean, Emil Bouvet, you know, really

214
00:14:21,320 --> 00:14:24,480
Speaker 5: emerges a pretty controversial candidate for this seat and someone

215
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:27,200
Speaker 5: that we've really seen Democrats rally against. And in recent

216
00:14:27,280 --> 00:14:29,160
Speaker 5: we've seen months, we've seen quite a bit of reporting

217
00:14:29,160 --> 00:14:31,640
Speaker 5: in the news, and by recently just this week, a

218
00:14:31,680 --> 00:14:35,040
Speaker 5: whistleblower making some pretty serious allegations against him, and so

219
00:14:35,040 --> 00:14:37,240
Speaker 5: those were all things that we saw Democrats really pressed

220
00:14:37,320 --> 00:14:40,360
Speaker 5: him on. But I generally did see that the nominee

221
00:14:40,400 --> 00:14:42,560
Speaker 5: kind of kept his composure and and did answer the

222
00:14:42,640 --> 00:14:45,200
Speaker 5: questions and in some insuses didn't answer the questions, but

223
00:14:45,320 --> 00:14:47,200
Speaker 5: most of the fire was coming from the side of

224
00:14:47,240 --> 00:14:47,800
Speaker 5: the senators.

225
00:14:48,120 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 1: Tell us about the questions that related to the whistle

226
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:56,320
Speaker 1: blower and allegations that Beauvey suggested ignoring court orders.

227
00:14:56,680 --> 00:14:59,200
Speaker 5: Earlier this week, just one day before the hearing, we

228
00:14:59,280 --> 00:15:02,640
Speaker 5: had a blower complaint made public by a former Justice

229
00:15:02,640 --> 00:15:05,960
Speaker 5: Department lawyer than the Department for over a decade, or Azravenni,

230
00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:08,960
Speaker 5: who alleged that Emil Bovie had in a meeting in

231
00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:12,480
Speaker 5: March suggested that Justice Department lawyers actually ignore a court

232
00:15:12,560 --> 00:15:16,280
Speaker 5: ruling against the administration's deportation policy if they were to

233
00:15:16,320 --> 00:15:19,280
Speaker 5: receive one. That's a charge that Bobe was asked about

234
00:15:19,320 --> 00:15:21,120
Speaker 5: quite a few times during the hearings, and one that

235
00:15:21,160 --> 00:15:24,120
Speaker 5: he pretty blatantly denied. He said that he has never

236
00:15:24,240 --> 00:15:26,760
Speaker 5: advised the DOJ lawyer to violate a court order and

237
00:15:26,760 --> 00:15:29,120
Speaker 5: that what was said about him should not disqualify him

238
00:15:29,160 --> 00:15:31,600
Speaker 5: for the judgeship. That's also been the statement we've gotten

239
00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:34,480
Speaker 5: from other Justice Department officials when the whistle blower complaint

240
00:15:34,480 --> 00:15:37,400
Speaker 5: was first made public, to say absolutely not that didn't happen,

241
00:15:37,680 --> 00:15:39,760
Speaker 5: but that was certainly a scene that we saw come

242
00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:43,040
Speaker 5: up quite a few times during Democrats questioning both.

243
00:15:42,760 --> 00:15:47,080
Speaker 1: A is probably most well known as the Justice Department

244
00:15:47,240 --> 00:15:52,480
Speaker 1: official who moved to dismiss the corruption charges against New

245
00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:56,680
Speaker 1: York City Mayor Eric Adams, leading to mass resignations at

246
00:15:56,720 --> 00:15:59,560
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. I take it there was a lot

247
00:15:59,600 --> 00:16:00,760
Speaker 1: of quests about that.

248
00:16:01,240 --> 00:16:03,600
Speaker 5: Absolutely. That initially was maybe one of the ways that

249
00:16:03,640 --> 00:16:05,760
Speaker 5: he was most infamous on the Hill was for his

250
00:16:05,880 --> 00:16:08,920
Speaker 5: directive to dismiss coruption charges against the New York City

251
00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:12,720
Speaker 5: mayor that led to resignations of high profile prosecutors in

252
00:16:12,720 --> 00:16:15,320
Speaker 5: New York and Washington, including the US attorneys for the

253
00:16:15,360 --> 00:16:18,480
Speaker 5: Southern District of New York, who resigned rather than carry

254
00:16:18,480 --> 00:16:21,240
Speaker 5: out that directive. That was obviously something that we saw

255
00:16:21,280 --> 00:16:24,320
Speaker 5: Democrats pressed Bovie about and he, you know, pretty much

256
00:16:24,320 --> 00:16:27,200
Speaker 5: defended that decision, and you felt that that, you know,

257
00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:29,840
Speaker 5: the dismissal was granted, so it must not have been,

258
00:16:30,000 --> 00:16:32,520
Speaker 5: you know, an extreme position. He denied the idea that

259
00:16:32,560 --> 00:16:35,320
Speaker 5: it was political or any type of quid pro quo

260
00:16:35,480 --> 00:16:38,440
Speaker 5: in any way. Democrats didn't seem convinced that he did

261
00:16:38,440 --> 00:16:41,120
Speaker 5: maintain that line of denial on that accusation.

262
00:16:41,640 --> 00:16:45,040
Speaker 1: If I remember correctly, the judge in that case, Dale

263
00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:50,600
Speaker 1: Hole was critical of the Justice Department, and, contrary to

264
00:16:50,640 --> 00:16:55,120
Speaker 1: the Justice Department's contention that there was no quid pro quo,

265
00:16:55,800 --> 00:16:59,000
Speaker 1: said that everything in the case smacked of a bargain

266
00:16:59,360 --> 00:17:04,560
Speaker 1: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.

267
00:17:05,160 --> 00:17:07,920
Speaker 1: I mean, he's done a lot in the Justice Department

268
00:17:08,000 --> 00:17:10,359
Speaker 1: in the short time he's been there. Was he the

269
00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:14,520
Speaker 1: one who decided to fire the prosecutors who worked on

270
00:17:14,560 --> 00:17:16,120
Speaker 1: the capital riot cases.

271
00:17:17,000 --> 00:17:19,200
Speaker 5: Yes, that was yet another charge that we really saw

272
00:17:19,240 --> 00:17:22,320
Speaker 5: brought up quite a bit by Democrats, was that he

273
00:17:22,440 --> 00:17:24,720
Speaker 5: had really, at the beginning of his tenure, while he

274
00:17:24,760 --> 00:17:27,760
Speaker 5: was still serving as the acting Deputy Attorney General for

275
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:30,720
Speaker 5: the Justice Department at the second in command, he directed

276
00:17:30,880 --> 00:17:34,439
Speaker 5: then PC and a REMUS attorney Ed Martin, to fire

277
00:17:34,840 --> 00:17:38,000
Speaker 5: a number of prosecutors who had worked on capital riot cases,

278
00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:41,240
Speaker 5: the cases against participants in the January sixth, twenty twenty

279
00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:44,960
Speaker 5: one at the US Capitol during certification of that presidential election.

280
00:17:45,680 --> 00:17:48,080
Speaker 5: Those have been prosecutors who had not been in office

281
00:17:48,080 --> 00:17:50,440
Speaker 5: as long, which meant that they didn't have the same

282
00:17:50,520 --> 00:17:52,600
Speaker 5: level of protections and it was easier for them to

283
00:17:52,680 --> 00:17:55,359
Speaker 5: be fired, but it was something that was really heavily

284
00:17:55,359 --> 00:17:57,520
Speaker 5: criticized at the time by people who saw it as

285
00:17:58,080 --> 00:18:01,000
Speaker 5: retribution against career lawyers who were doing what they had

286
00:18:01,080 --> 00:18:04,200
Speaker 5: been asked to do. Again, Bovy denied that this was

287
00:18:04,240 --> 00:18:08,400
Speaker 5: any type of political or retributive decision and really maintained

288
00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:11,200
Speaker 5: that it was more of a personnel decision. He brought

289
00:18:11,240 --> 00:18:14,959
Speaker 5: up that the prosecutors had been hired to be temporary

290
00:18:15,000 --> 00:18:18,119
Speaker 5: and had been placed in a more permanent disposition by

291
00:18:18,160 --> 00:18:20,720
Speaker 5: the Biden administration toward the end of their term, and

292
00:18:20,760 --> 00:18:23,280
Speaker 5: that he didn't agree with that decision. So again just

293
00:18:23,320 --> 00:18:26,320
Speaker 5: really like maintained his position that the decisions that he

294
00:18:26,440 --> 00:18:29,200
Speaker 5: made that he was getting criticism for were not political.

295
00:18:29,600 --> 00:18:33,360
Speaker 1: What kind of questions did the Republican senators ask him

296
00:18:33,359 --> 00:18:36,560
Speaker 1: and did they try to sort of rehabilitate him?

297
00:18:37,600 --> 00:18:39,760
Speaker 5: You know, I think as his typical during these hearings,

298
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:43,080
Speaker 5: you tend to get tougher questions from the opposing side

299
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,000
Speaker 5: than you do from the side that nominated him. We

300
00:18:46,040 --> 00:18:48,840
Speaker 5: did get some interesting questions from as Senator Josh Howley

301
00:18:49,359 --> 00:18:52,000
Speaker 5: just done sort of how Bovey would be as a

302
00:18:52,080 --> 00:18:54,800
Speaker 5: judge and what his approach to judging would be kind

303
00:18:54,800 --> 00:18:58,240
Speaker 5: of separate from his past actions at the Justice Department.

304
00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:02,280
Speaker 5: Bove said that he was a textualist and that he

305
00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:05,360
Speaker 5: would really like consult the statutory statue, look at usages,

306
00:19:05,480 --> 00:19:08,320
Speaker 5: try to look at the legislation at the time, and

307
00:19:08,440 --> 00:19:11,680
Speaker 5: also indicated that he would be one to exercise restraint

308
00:19:11,840 --> 00:19:16,040
Speaker 5: and avoid inserting himself or declaring a definition of a

309
00:19:16,119 --> 00:19:19,200
Speaker 5: law that was ambiguous, and would more prefer to defer

310
00:19:19,280 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 5: back to Congress where language is ambiguous. So that kind

311
00:19:22,040 --> 00:19:23,320
Speaker 5: of gave us a bit of a window on the

312
00:19:23,320 --> 00:19:26,160
Speaker 5: more like technical judging side of things. How at least

313
00:19:26,200 --> 00:19:28,159
Speaker 5: he would see his own philosophy as a judge if

314
00:19:28,160 --> 00:19:29,080
Speaker 5: he were to be confirmed.

315
00:19:29,600 --> 00:19:34,760
Speaker 1: I believe there's a two person Republican majority on this committee.

316
00:19:35,200 --> 00:19:38,879
Speaker 1: Is there any indication that he won't get through this committee?

317
00:19:40,359 --> 00:19:42,479
Speaker 5: Not that I have heard so far, though of course

318
00:19:42,520 --> 00:19:44,800
Speaker 5: I always say with politics, never say never. We have

319
00:19:44,960 --> 00:19:48,800
Speaker 5: seen the occasional Trump nominee taken down. I think of

320
00:19:49,240 --> 00:19:51,840
Speaker 5: Martin from the DCUs Attorney's Office that I had mentioned

321
00:19:51,840 --> 00:19:54,159
Speaker 5: earlier as an example, is he lost the support of

322
00:19:54,200 --> 00:19:56,720
Speaker 5: one Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that

323
00:19:56,800 --> 00:19:59,520
Speaker 5: was enough to tank his nomination. But of course in

324
00:19:59,560 --> 00:20:03,160
Speaker 5: this inte and the blue split process whereby the majority

325
00:20:03,160 --> 00:20:06,720
Speaker 5: party would consider the home state senator's consent and approval

326
00:20:06,840 --> 00:20:09,840
Speaker 5: before moving forward to nominee, is no longer in effect

327
00:20:09,880 --> 00:20:13,000
Speaker 5: for Circuit court picks and Emmelsove of course, is nominated

328
00:20:13,040 --> 00:20:14,959
Speaker 5: for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,

329
00:20:15,320 --> 00:20:18,000
Speaker 5: So the opposition from the two Democrats who are the

330
00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:20,879
Speaker 5: two senators from New Jersey is not a problem for

331
00:20:20,920 --> 00:20:24,000
Speaker 5: his nomination to move forward. I did not hear any

332
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:27,760
Speaker 5: opposition from Senate Republicans from what I observed during that hearing,

333
00:20:27,880 --> 00:20:30,679
Speaker 5: but we will have to see. I think at this

334
00:20:30,800 --> 00:20:34,280
Speaker 5: point it seems that there are no obstacles, but of

335
00:20:34,320 --> 00:20:36,720
Speaker 5: course he's facing a lot of opposition from Democrats and

336
00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:39,080
Speaker 5: some ethics complaints, So we'll have to see how he

337
00:20:39,119 --> 00:20:39,719
Speaker 5: moves forward.

338
00:20:39,960 --> 00:20:42,560
Speaker 1: And what can you tell us about those ethics complaints.

339
00:20:42,880 --> 00:20:46,160
Speaker 5: He's been subject to some ethics complaints, various complaints by

340
00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:49,760
Speaker 5: mostly Democrats and other critics, including to relate to his

341
00:20:49,920 --> 00:20:51,720
Speaker 5: conducts during the Eric Adams litigation.

342
00:20:52,560 --> 00:20:55,600
Speaker 1: Interesting that during his time as a federal prosecutor in

343
00:20:55,760 --> 00:21:00,760
Speaker 1: New York, Bovet was involved in several high profile cases,

344
00:21:01,600 --> 00:21:06,879
Speaker 1: but his actions apparently rankled some fellow prosecutors and defense attorneys.

345
00:21:07,359 --> 00:21:11,760
Speaker 1: In twenty eighteen, the Federal Public Defender's Office compile complaints

346
00:21:11,800 --> 00:21:15,639
Speaker 1: about his behavior from defense attorneys and sent them to

347
00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:20,600
Speaker 1: two top officials in the US Attorney's Office. Yet, about

348
00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:25,520
Speaker 1: eighteen months after the email was sent, Beauve was promoted

349
00:21:25,560 --> 00:21:29,199
Speaker 1: to be co chief of the office's National Security and

350
00:21:29,560 --> 00:21:35,600
Speaker 1: International Narcotics Unit. He certainly has an interesting history. Thanks

351
00:21:35,640 --> 00:21:40,600
Speaker 1: so much, Suzanne. That's Suzanne Monnac, Bloomberg Law Judiciary Reporter,

352
00:21:41,359 --> 00:21:43,680
Speaker 1: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

353
00:21:44,040 --> 00:21:46,359
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

354
00:21:46,440 --> 00:21:50,720
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

355
00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:55,920
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

356
00:21:56,320 --> 00:21:58,919
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

357
00:21:58,960 --> 00:22:02,880
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten Tim Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,

358
00:22:03,000 --> 00:22:04,600
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg