1 00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:06,519 --> 00:00:10,400 Speaker 1: Good morning, Mr Zimmer and welcome back. Uh sure seems 3 00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:13,840 Speaker 1: a little bit like prera Groundhog Day to me. The 4 00:00:13,880 --> 00:00:17,479 Speaker 1: immigration case was about the stop time rule, but Justice 5 00:00:17,520 --> 00:00:20,400 Speaker 1: Neil Gorst's quip that it seemed more like the Supreme 6 00:00:20,440 --> 00:00:23,960 Speaker 1: Court was going back in time to relieve their prior 7 00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:26,360 Speaker 1: eight to one opinion in the case of Pariera the 8 00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:30,560 Speaker 1: sessions that case ended the government practice of sending notices 9 00:00:30,600 --> 00:00:34,120 Speaker 1: to appear for deportation proceedings without the time and date 10 00:00:34,159 --> 00:00:37,000 Speaker 1: of the hearing. But I would have thought the government 11 00:00:37,080 --> 00:00:40,279 Speaker 1: might have taken the hint from an ah Justice majority 12 00:00:40,280 --> 00:00:45,160 Speaker 1: in Peror. A notice of appeal means what it seems 13 00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:47,519 Speaker 1: to me. The question now in the case of an 14 00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:51,839 Speaker 1: undocumented Guatemalan national is whether the government can deliver that 15 00:00:51,960 --> 00:00:56,120 Speaker 1: information in follow up documents join me is Leon Fresco, 16 00:00:56,240 --> 00:00:58,480 Speaker 1: a partner at Holland and Knight and the former head 17 00:00:58,480 --> 00:01:01,520 Speaker 1: of the Office of Immigration Letting Asian at the Justice Department. 18 00:01:01,920 --> 00:01:04,880 Speaker 1: Leon tell us about this case and the stop time 19 00:01:05,080 --> 00:01:09,240 Speaker 1: rule at issue. So this case, this Jovez versus the 20 00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:13,200 Speaker 1: Attorney General, is a continuation of a different case that 21 00:01:13,319 --> 00:01:18,240 Speaker 1: had existed earlier in the Trump administration called Pereira versus Session. 22 00:01:19,040 --> 00:01:22,679 Speaker 1: And in both of those cases, the issue is that 23 00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:26,200 Speaker 1: you have people who are foreign nationals who are trying 24 00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:31,920 Speaker 1: to avoid deportation by getting a release called cancelation of removal, 25 00:01:32,000 --> 00:01:36,720 Speaker 1: meaning it's a waiver of deportation. And the problem is 26 00:01:37,040 --> 00:01:40,440 Speaker 1: that the eligibility for that waiver depends on how long 27 00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:45,600 Speaker 1: the government takes to place you into deportation proceedings. And 28 00:01:45,680 --> 00:01:49,240 Speaker 1: so if the government takes longer than ten years to 29 00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:53,279 Speaker 1: place you in deportation proceedings, you can get this waiver 30 00:01:53,440 --> 00:01:57,200 Speaker 1: of deportation. But if the government takes less than ten years, 31 00:01:57,320 --> 00:02:00,880 Speaker 1: then you can't get the waiver. And in the government 32 00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:06,200 Speaker 1: gives you a notice of deportation proceedings, that's what stopped 33 00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:10,240 Speaker 1: the clock on the ten years. And so the issue 34 00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:14,120 Speaker 1: is does the notice have to be perfect in its form, 35 00:02:14,800 --> 00:02:17,600 Speaker 1: meaning does it have to give you the date, time 36 00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:20,880 Speaker 1: and place of the hearing or can the notice be 37 00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:24,640 Speaker 1: blank and then they can update it later. So the 38 00:02:24,720 --> 00:02:27,959 Speaker 1: first case for a REVERSEUS Sessions said, look, if you 39 00:02:28,000 --> 00:02:31,960 Speaker 1: don't get this information at all, it's over. The government 40 00:02:32,040 --> 00:02:35,040 Speaker 1: doesn't get to say that the time stops, the time 41 00:02:35,200 --> 00:02:38,760 Speaker 1: keeps picking and you get to say, look, the government 42 00:02:38,800 --> 00:02:41,560 Speaker 1: waited more than ten years to deport me, so I 43 00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:45,480 Speaker 1: can apply for this waiver. Here, the question is if 44 00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:48,080 Speaker 1: the government forgot to give you the information in the 45 00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:51,640 Speaker 1: first place, but later sent you a different paper that 46 00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:55,919 Speaker 1: wasn't the actual required notice, but the different paper gave 47 00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:59,080 Speaker 1: you a hearing date, time and place, did that cure 48 00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:02,200 Speaker 1: the fact that the actual notice that is required in 49 00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:06,079 Speaker 1: the statute didn't provide the information that was required in 50 00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:10,920 Speaker 1: the statute. So the average person, maybe even the average lawyer, 51 00:03:11,320 --> 00:03:15,760 Speaker 1: might ask, why can't the government get it together enough 52 00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:19,760 Speaker 1: to give one notice with a time and date in 53 00:03:19,760 --> 00:03:23,240 Speaker 1: the notice? Well, in fact, I read the transcript, I 54 00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:25,920 Speaker 1: think to myself, and perhaps I'm confessing too much, but 55 00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:28,400 Speaker 1: you know, I've gotten a speeding ticket or two in 56 00:03:28,480 --> 00:03:31,960 Speaker 1: my day, And did you get a speeding ticket? That 57 00:03:32,080 --> 00:03:34,600 Speaker 1: ticket actually has the date and time of the hearing 58 00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:36,840 Speaker 1: on it, and they literally give it to you that 59 00:03:37,040 --> 00:03:42,080 Speaker 1: second and that's the hearing date. And so there's absolutely 60 00:03:42,080 --> 00:03:44,440 Speaker 1: no reason why the government couldn't do the same thing 61 00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:46,840 Speaker 1: and give you a notice with a date and time 62 00:03:46,880 --> 00:03:49,520 Speaker 1: of your hearing on it. And in fact, when that 63 00:03:49,680 --> 00:03:54,880 Speaker 1: was pressed to the government attorney. The government attorney simply said, well, 64 00:03:54,960 --> 00:03:59,560 Speaker 1: it's a burden something, but it's not impossible to do justice. Course, 65 00:03:59,640 --> 00:04:02,600 Speaker 1: it seems a little annoyed that the case was even 66 00:04:03,080 --> 00:04:06,120 Speaker 1: in front of the justices. Again, well, this is a 67 00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:11,360 Speaker 1: recurring scene in Supreme Court jurisprudence with regard to immigration, 68 00:04:11,560 --> 00:04:15,080 Speaker 1: which is that a controversial issue will come before the 69 00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:18,600 Speaker 1: Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court actually more often than 70 00:04:18,600 --> 00:04:21,600 Speaker 1: people give it credit for, will decide the case in 71 00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:24,720 Speaker 1: favor of the foreign national, as it did in the 72 00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:28,800 Speaker 1: Prayer of versus Sessions case and what Ice plus the 73 00:04:28,839 --> 00:04:32,600 Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security. But mainly I will do is 74 00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:35,479 Speaker 1: they will say, well, the Supreme Court couldn't have met this, 75 00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:39,080 Speaker 1: so we're gonna try another way to accomplish the exact 76 00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:42,640 Speaker 1: same thing that the Supreme Court told us we couldn't do, 77 00:04:43,240 --> 00:04:45,480 Speaker 1: and let's see if we can get away with doing 78 00:04:45,520 --> 00:04:49,760 Speaker 1: it this way. And that's what happened here, which is 79 00:04:50,040 --> 00:04:52,600 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court set in prayer reverse successions. If you 80 00:04:52,640 --> 00:04:57,200 Speaker 1: don't get a notice, then the time continues. The time 81 00:04:57,320 --> 00:05:00,680 Speaker 1: stops only when you get a notice that has attained 82 00:05:00,920 --> 00:05:05,040 Speaker 1: the time, date and place of the immigration hearing. And 83 00:05:05,120 --> 00:05:08,240 Speaker 1: so now I said, well, they couldn't have been that 84 00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:11,960 Speaker 1: the actual notice to appear has to be the document. 85 00:05:12,080 --> 00:05:14,480 Speaker 1: It could have been some other documents that gave them 86 00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:17,520 Speaker 1: the time, date and place. And the whole argument in 87 00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:21,080 Speaker 1: this case is that the statute require that's the document 88 00:05:21,200 --> 00:05:24,240 Speaker 1: that is given be the documents that's referred to in 89 00:05:24,279 --> 00:05:27,640 Speaker 1: the statute, which is the actual document called the notice 90 00:05:27,640 --> 00:05:32,320 Speaker 1: to appear. Is the government's problem that they don't know 91 00:05:32,600 --> 00:05:35,480 Speaker 1: at the time they send the notice what the date 92 00:05:35,560 --> 00:05:37,480 Speaker 1: will be for the hearing, and so they don't want 93 00:05:37,520 --> 00:05:40,720 Speaker 1: to put just any old date in there. Well, there's 94 00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:43,800 Speaker 1: a logistical problem. And the logistical problem, which is a 95 00:05:43,839 --> 00:05:48,680 Speaker 1: genuine logistical problem, is as followed that when you are 96 00:05:48,720 --> 00:05:52,520 Speaker 1: apprehended on the southern border, if you are released from 97 00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:56,880 Speaker 1: the tension, you usually leave the Southern border. You don't 98 00:05:56,960 --> 00:06:01,279 Speaker 1: say in El Paso or Brownsville or Laredo. You go 99 00:06:01,480 --> 00:06:04,960 Speaker 1: to Chicago or Los Angeles or Miami or somewhere else. 100 00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:08,640 Speaker 1: And so the point is at that point the foreign 101 00:06:08,720 --> 00:06:11,799 Speaker 1: national is not in the venue of the immigration court, 102 00:06:12,160 --> 00:06:15,400 Speaker 1: and so a change of venue need to occur. But 103 00:06:16,040 --> 00:06:21,400 Speaker 1: that problem isn't an obvious disaster that can't be solved 104 00:06:21,760 --> 00:06:25,720 Speaker 1: because all that needs to happen is the hearing can 105 00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:29,360 Speaker 1: still be played for Brownsville or El Paso three months 106 00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:32,920 Speaker 1: later from the date of apprehensive and then that gives 107 00:06:33,080 --> 00:06:36,599 Speaker 1: everyone's sufficient trying to file a change of venue and 108 00:06:36,720 --> 00:06:39,440 Speaker 1: to change the court to the court that the immigrant 109 00:06:39,520 --> 00:06:43,040 Speaker 1: is actually settling in after their release from the tension. 110 00:06:43,520 --> 00:06:46,200 Speaker 1: That's literally all that's required. And the fact that that 111 00:06:46,240 --> 00:06:49,240 Speaker 1: hasn't been adopted after we've gone through a hood an 112 00:06:49,360 --> 00:06:53,040 Speaker 1: entire round of the pre court litigation seems a bit strange. 113 00:06:53,080 --> 00:06:56,159 Speaker 1: But I think the larger concern that they have is 114 00:06:56,240 --> 00:07:00,839 Speaker 1: there's a trance of foreign nationals in the tween these 115 00:07:00,839 --> 00:07:04,000 Speaker 1: cases that didn't get this notice, and what they really 116 00:07:04,040 --> 00:07:07,320 Speaker 1: don't want is that tron to foreign nationals to be 117 00:07:07,400 --> 00:07:10,160 Speaker 1: able to have a claim that their notice was wrong. 118 00:07:10,200 --> 00:07:12,880 Speaker 1: I don't think they have as much of problem moving forward, 119 00:07:13,440 --> 00:07:15,200 Speaker 1: but what they wanted to still be able to do, 120 00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:17,800 Speaker 1: at least the Trump administration, that won't be the case 121 00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:20,640 Speaker 1: with Biden. Biden will go back, I'm sure, to the 122 00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:25,480 Speaker 1: prosecutorial discristion guidelines of President Obama. But for the remainder 123 00:07:25,520 --> 00:07:29,080 Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, as they were they would want 124 00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:32,560 Speaker 1: to be able to have this trone to people who 125 00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:37,120 Speaker 1: got improper notice still be subjects to removal. So there 126 00:07:37,120 --> 00:07:42,040 Speaker 1: were some hypotheticals, and Chief Justice Roberts he said, well, 127 00:07:42,080 --> 00:07:45,920 Speaker 1: suppose you get two separate documents mailed together in the 128 00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:48,960 Speaker 1: same envelope. You know, is it really going to come 129 00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:53,040 Speaker 1: down to taking the original notice and stapling on the 130 00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:57,960 Speaker 1: next notice. I mean, it seems like it's gone too far, right, 131 00:07:58,040 --> 00:08:00,280 Speaker 1: I mean, Justice Crawford was trying to get that's the 132 00:08:00,400 --> 00:08:04,520 Speaker 1: point that you cannot be that if you've been given 133 00:08:04,560 --> 00:08:07,480 Speaker 1: the information of the time data place of the hearing, 134 00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:11,960 Speaker 1: that that's always not adequate just because it's not on 135 00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:16,000 Speaker 1: the actual form itself called the notice to appear. But 136 00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:19,920 Speaker 1: I think Justice Kagan persuaded her colleagues that look, whateether 137 00:08:20,000 --> 00:08:22,520 Speaker 1: you like it or not, you're the folks who are 138 00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:26,200 Speaker 1: the quote unquote read the text of the statute, folks. 139 00:08:26,320 --> 00:08:30,880 Speaker 1: And the text of the statute says a quote notice 140 00:08:30,960 --> 00:08:36,440 Speaker 1: to appear and as as indicated in section twelve, and 141 00:08:36,480 --> 00:08:39,040 Speaker 1: then it actually lays out what has to be in 142 00:08:39,080 --> 00:08:41,480 Speaker 1: the notice to appear in section two of forty lives. 143 00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:44,959 Speaker 1: And so they might say, well, Congress wrote in a 144 00:08:45,120 --> 00:08:49,320 Speaker 1: third statute. But if you're from the textualist camp, who says, hey, 145 00:08:49,360 --> 00:08:52,679 Speaker 1: whatever Congress rights, that's what we have to enforce, this 146 00:08:52,760 --> 00:08:55,280 Speaker 1: is a very tough case for you because you may 147 00:08:55,360 --> 00:08:57,880 Speaker 1: want to side in favor of the government and give 148 00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:00,719 Speaker 1: it the flexibility it needs to remove people when it's 149 00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:03,960 Speaker 1: provided the information that people are worried about whether it 150 00:09:04,040 --> 00:09:06,480 Speaker 1: was provided or not. But at the end of the day, 151 00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:08,719 Speaker 1: it's not what the statue says. And so if you're 152 00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:12,679 Speaker 1: gonna take this textualism car out for a sin, you 153 00:09:12,840 --> 00:09:15,760 Speaker 1: have to actually take it out for a spin. You 154 00:09:15,800 --> 00:09:17,920 Speaker 1: can't say, well, now I don't want to use this anymore, 155 00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:22,920 Speaker 1: just explain why Congress wanted it to be in one notice. 156 00:09:23,160 --> 00:09:26,840 Speaker 1: And you know the confusion factor for immigrants. I think 157 00:09:26,840 --> 00:09:29,960 Speaker 1: that Justice Sonia so to Mayor harped on this a 158 00:09:29,960 --> 00:09:34,760 Speaker 1: little bit right the prior to which is where the 159 00:09:34,840 --> 00:09:38,959 Speaker 1: statue was amended, they had multiple notices because again, the 160 00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:42,880 Speaker 1: technology You've got to remember, prior to nine who knew 161 00:09:42,880 --> 00:09:45,320 Speaker 1: where anybody was or there was you know, we barely 162 00:09:45,320 --> 00:09:49,360 Speaker 1: had the internet in and so we weren't able to 163 00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:52,280 Speaker 1: keep track of how we would do hearing and so 164 00:09:52,400 --> 00:09:57,040 Speaker 1: people had these multiple notices and in every case, basically 165 00:09:57,520 --> 00:09:59,880 Speaker 1: you had a foreign national who didn't show up the 166 00:10:00,040 --> 00:10:03,280 Speaker 1: Cord who said, I didn't get that second notice where 167 00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:06,560 Speaker 1: you mailed it to me and you said that they 168 00:10:06,800 --> 00:10:10,120 Speaker 1: was going to be a mark twel I didn't get it, 169 00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:11,839 Speaker 1: So what do you want me to do? That's why 170 00:10:11,880 --> 00:10:14,199 Speaker 1: I didn't show up. And so what they didn't want 171 00:10:14,280 --> 00:10:18,480 Speaker 1: is these multiple rounds of litigation on whether you've got 172 00:10:18,520 --> 00:10:21,280 Speaker 1: that notice or not. And so what they tried to 173 00:10:21,320 --> 00:10:23,840 Speaker 1: do is say, look, there has to be a notice, 174 00:10:24,000 --> 00:10:26,000 Speaker 1: and if the notice doesn't have these things in it, 175 00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:29,760 Speaker 1: bide times date in place of the hearing, it's not 176 00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:34,839 Speaker 1: a notice psotic with to put you in immigration removal proceedings. So, now, 177 00:10:34,880 --> 00:10:36,600 Speaker 1: which way do you think the court is going to go? 178 00:10:36,720 --> 00:10:42,160 Speaker 1: Is there any indication? My guess is that there will 179 00:10:42,240 --> 00:10:48,280 Speaker 1: be this annoyance that ultimately fuels the Chords to say, look, 180 00:10:48,320 --> 00:10:53,880 Speaker 1: we're not very excited about the prospect um you telling 181 00:10:54,040 --> 00:10:57,320 Speaker 1: us that you're gonna take every loophole in our decision 182 00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:00,439 Speaker 1: and try to relitigate it, and so we're are gonna 183 00:11:00,520 --> 00:11:04,120 Speaker 1: say that, yes, you have to give the notice. That's 184 00:11:04,120 --> 00:11:07,480 Speaker 1: the sign in the document. I think the plane sifts 185 00:11:07,640 --> 00:11:10,720 Speaker 1: or the four nationals obviously has the better end of 186 00:11:10,760 --> 00:11:14,040 Speaker 1: this case. The other interesting things that could happen, and 187 00:11:14,120 --> 00:11:16,640 Speaker 1: it will just depend on the timing of this, is 188 00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:20,600 Speaker 1: that a Biden administration, as it were, could issue a 189 00:11:20,679 --> 00:11:24,079 Speaker 1: supplemental memorandum saying we changed our mind on this case, 190 00:11:24,160 --> 00:11:26,840 Speaker 1: and you know, we now take the position that this 191 00:11:27,000 --> 00:11:30,480 Speaker 1: is this is indeed improper notice. I don't know that 192 00:11:30,480 --> 00:11:34,320 Speaker 1: that will happen. I'm just guessing it could happen. And 193 00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:37,000 Speaker 1: if that happened, that could certainly throw a wrinkle in 194 00:11:37,120 --> 00:11:40,920 Speaker 1: this in this in these proceedings. Does this happen often? 195 00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:44,200 Speaker 1: I mean there often times where you know, immigrants say, 196 00:11:44,280 --> 00:11:47,040 Speaker 1: wait a second, I didn't get the right notification. How 197 00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:50,280 Speaker 1: big a problem is this? Well, so, what will happen 198 00:11:50,480 --> 00:11:54,160 Speaker 1: is if you're an immigration lawyer and you have a 199 00:11:54,200 --> 00:11:57,120 Speaker 1: client who has just been picked up by eyes or 200 00:11:57,360 --> 00:11:59,640 Speaker 1: if they had that what's called an annual check in, 201 00:12:00,160 --> 00:12:02,719 Speaker 1: and now I decided in this annual check and that 202 00:12:02,840 --> 00:12:05,760 Speaker 1: this is the time they're actually gonna try to effectuate 203 00:12:05,840 --> 00:12:09,880 Speaker 1: the removal, then one of the main defenses you look 204 00:12:09,920 --> 00:12:12,160 Speaker 1: at is to see, well, let me check your removal 205 00:12:12,160 --> 00:12:14,200 Speaker 1: notice to see if the time, date and place was 206 00:12:14,240 --> 00:12:17,559 Speaker 1: on this because if it wasn't, then you can come 207 00:12:17,600 --> 00:12:19,800 Speaker 1: in and aren't you as long as the person now 208 00:12:19,880 --> 00:12:24,439 Speaker 1: has US citizens children, that they are eligible for a 209 00:12:24,480 --> 00:12:28,880 Speaker 1: waiver from removal. And so this is common for I 210 00:12:28,880 --> 00:12:33,480 Speaker 1: would say some you know, heads of thousands of people troncha, 211 00:12:33,600 --> 00:12:38,439 Speaker 1: people who were not given an adequate notice that actually 212 00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:41,760 Speaker 1: had the time, date and place on the notice to appear. 213 00:12:41,800 --> 00:12:44,760 Speaker 1: It's it's kind of a it's kind of a common 214 00:12:44,840 --> 00:12:48,240 Speaker 1: claim that you would see for a batch of people 215 00:12:48,240 --> 00:12:52,040 Speaker 1: who came in in the early two thousands. I was 216 00:12:52,080 --> 00:12:54,880 Speaker 1: just wondering why the court even took this case. What 217 00:12:55,000 --> 00:12:59,719 Speaker 1: did the court below rule? The cases are split a 218 00:13:00,000 --> 00:13:03,560 Speaker 1: own the country and there's two layers of what the 219 00:13:03,600 --> 00:13:06,840 Speaker 1: court below rules, and what that means is this, first, 220 00:13:07,120 --> 00:13:09,600 Speaker 1: the case has to go through a body that was 221 00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:13,320 Speaker 1: an administrative body called the Board of Immigration Appeal. And 222 00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:16,640 Speaker 1: the Board of Immigration Appeals rule that any piece of 223 00:13:16,679 --> 00:13:18,680 Speaker 1: paper that you get that gives you the date and 224 00:13:18,760 --> 00:13:21,760 Speaker 1: time and place of the hearing is sufficient to stop 225 00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:24,840 Speaker 1: the clock in terms of when you were given this motive. 226 00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:28,760 Speaker 1: And so the six Circuits agreed with the Board of 227 00:13:28,800 --> 00:13:32,480 Speaker 1: Immigration Appeals and the government actually made an argument in 228 00:13:32,520 --> 00:13:35,440 Speaker 1: this case that that Board of Immigration Appeals decision should 229 00:13:35,440 --> 00:13:39,400 Speaker 1: be given deference under the Chevron doctrine, which the government 230 00:13:39,440 --> 00:13:42,840 Speaker 1: knows Justice Gorse that hates and Justice Kavnant hate amount 231 00:13:42,920 --> 00:13:47,040 Speaker 1: just as Cony Barron hate, and so you know, Justice 232 00:13:47,080 --> 00:13:49,120 Speaker 1: Gorse had said that was kind of a brave argument 233 00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:52,640 Speaker 1: for the government to try to make that argument under Chevros. 234 00:13:52,679 --> 00:13:57,600 Speaker 1: But nevertheless, the point is they had ruled against the 235 00:13:57,880 --> 00:14:00,959 Speaker 1: foreign national and said any notice is sufficient. But there 236 00:14:01,000 --> 00:14:03,600 Speaker 1: are other circuits who had split and said that's not 237 00:14:03,760 --> 00:14:07,040 Speaker 1: the case, and that you actually, like the third Circuit 238 00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:11,600 Speaker 1: had said, you actually need to provide the document that 239 00:14:11,800 --> 00:14:14,839 Speaker 1: is called the notice to appear, and that notice to 240 00:14:14,920 --> 00:14:17,160 Speaker 1: appear has to be the document that has the date, 241 00:14:17,400 --> 00:14:20,160 Speaker 1: time and place of the hearing. Tell us about the 242 00:14:20,200 --> 00:14:24,440 Speaker 1: first things that Joe Biden is going to do regarding immigration. 243 00:14:24,760 --> 00:14:27,760 Speaker 1: Are these cases that the Trump administration is pressing, are 244 00:14:27,800 --> 00:14:31,040 Speaker 1: some of them just going to die? Well, there's there's 245 00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:33,040 Speaker 1: so much we can talk about, June. We can almost 246 00:14:33,080 --> 00:14:36,480 Speaker 1: do a series if you want about different things, just 247 00:14:36,520 --> 00:14:39,680 Speaker 1: give yes. But I will just say, if you look 248 00:14:39,720 --> 00:14:43,040 Speaker 1: at what can be done the first day, the very 249 00:14:43,120 --> 00:14:46,040 Speaker 1: first day without needing to go through the regulatory process 250 00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:49,120 Speaker 1: or any memos or anything. Would be the revocation of 251 00:14:49,160 --> 00:14:53,440 Speaker 1: the immigration band that were placed on people based on 252 00:14:53,520 --> 00:14:58,400 Speaker 1: different ethnics and other country reeves. That's easy to do. 253 00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:00,560 Speaker 1: You just literally revoked the man. You don't have to 254 00:15:00,560 --> 00:15:02,720 Speaker 1: go through note as a comment, You don't need some 255 00:15:02,840 --> 00:15:07,040 Speaker 1: formal agency anything. You can just revoke those. One we 256 00:15:07,160 --> 00:15:10,120 Speaker 1: get a little deeper in it, then we might have 257 00:15:10,160 --> 00:15:16,440 Speaker 1: a memo restoring DOCTA to its original banner, or perhaps 258 00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:18,760 Speaker 1: expanding it, although that's gonna be frought with a lot 259 00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:20,400 Speaker 1: of peril, and I'd love to talk to you some 260 00:15:20,440 --> 00:15:24,880 Speaker 1: other time about maybe using something else called temporary protective status, 261 00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:30,680 Speaker 1: which is more sensitatorially firm than DOCTA. But nevertheless, you know, 262 00:15:30,760 --> 00:15:33,680 Speaker 1: the DOCTA issue will need to be resolved, and then 263 00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:37,360 Speaker 1: a lot of these COVID related bands will need to 264 00:15:37,360 --> 00:15:39,760 Speaker 1: be looked at. But I don't expect the COVID related 265 00:15:39,800 --> 00:15:43,160 Speaker 1: bands to be looked at immediately. I do expect the 266 00:15:43,280 --> 00:15:47,440 Speaker 1: ethnic related bands to be looked at immediately. Thanks Leon, 267 00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:52,880 Speaker 1: that's Leon Fresco of Hollandon Knight. President Trump has refused 268 00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:55,680 Speaker 1: to accept results, showing that Joe Biden has won the 269 00:15:55,720 --> 00:15:59,840 Speaker 1: presidential election, and the Trump campaign and Republican supporters have 270 00:16:00,040 --> 00:16:05,240 Speaker 1: sued in at least five battleground states, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, 271 00:16:05,320 --> 00:16:09,680 Speaker 1: and Pennsylvania. The campaign filed another lawsuit in Michigan, this 272 00:16:09,760 --> 00:16:13,040 Speaker 1: time in federal court, seeking to stop the state's top 273 00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:18,280 Speaker 1: election official from certifying Biden's win. Two prior lawsuits contesting 274 00:16:18,280 --> 00:16:21,720 Speaker 1: the Michigan election results have already been rejected by judges. 275 00:16:22,240 --> 00:16:26,000 Speaker 1: The Trump campaign filed a similar lawsuit in Pennsylvania, which 276 00:16:26,040 --> 00:16:29,720 Speaker 1: the Secretary of State moved to dismiss, arguing that Trump's 277 00:16:29,760 --> 00:16:33,200 Speaker 1: lawyers failed to present a case. The Trump campaign also 278 00:16:33,240 --> 00:16:36,400 Speaker 1: demanded a recount in Georgia, and its Secretary of States 279 00:16:36,440 --> 00:16:39,840 Speaker 1: said Georgia would begin a county by county hand audit 280 00:16:39,880 --> 00:16:42,720 Speaker 1: of ballots in the presidential race that would be completed 281 00:16:42,760 --> 00:16:47,000 Speaker 1: by November. Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Lawson, 282 00:16:47,000 --> 00:16:50,120 Speaker 1: who has been following all the lawsuits Erica is. The 283 00:16:50,120 --> 00:16:53,240 Speaker 1: strategy of the Trump campaign now seemed to be focused 284 00:16:53,280 --> 00:16:57,640 Speaker 1: on blocking or slowing down some battleground states from certifying 285 00:16:57,720 --> 00:17:00,960 Speaker 1: their votes in time for the December the ninth safe 286 00:17:00,960 --> 00:17:04,520 Speaker 1: Harvard deadline for nanny electors. Well, that certainly seems to 287 00:17:04,520 --> 00:17:07,439 Speaker 1: be the aim of the lawsuits that was filed in 288 00:17:07,560 --> 00:17:11,399 Speaker 1: Michigan and a few days before that in Pennsylvania, both 289 00:17:11,440 --> 00:17:14,240 Speaker 1: to speak, to stop the Secretary of the State in 290 00:17:14,240 --> 00:17:17,879 Speaker 1: these states from certifying the election and results. And clearly, 291 00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:19,960 Speaker 1: I mean they have said openly that this is part 292 00:17:20,000 --> 00:17:23,200 Speaker 1: of the strategy to reverse the outcome of the election. 293 00:17:23,400 --> 00:17:26,400 Speaker 1: So they seem convinced that one way or the other, 294 00:17:26,520 --> 00:17:30,000 Speaker 1: they can also prevail in these cases. And when those 295 00:17:30,040 --> 00:17:33,920 Speaker 1: states election experts and legal experts say that seems extremely 296 00:17:33,960 --> 00:17:36,280 Speaker 1: far fetched. You know, even if they were able to 297 00:17:36,320 --> 00:17:39,000 Speaker 1: succeed in one of the cases, they need to succeed 298 00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:42,560 Speaker 1: in several and it just seems like an incredible long shot, 299 00:17:42,640 --> 00:17:45,000 Speaker 1: which you know, begs the question why are they going 300 00:17:45,040 --> 00:17:47,720 Speaker 1: to so much trouble in these cases? But you know, 301 00:17:47,720 --> 00:17:49,560 Speaker 1: it does seem to be part of a pretty solid 302 00:17:49,640 --> 00:17:54,399 Speaker 1: strategy that they're working on nationwide. Two prior lawsuits contesting 303 00:17:54,440 --> 00:17:58,520 Speaker 1: the Michigan election results have already been rejected by judges. 304 00:17:59,040 --> 00:18:02,600 Speaker 1: Were the elegators in the latest suit in Michigan. There 305 00:18:02,600 --> 00:18:06,399 Speaker 1: have been previous lawsuits over the ballot counting incedures that 306 00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:10,080 Speaker 1: were in state courts in both Pennsylvania and Michigan. Those 307 00:18:10,160 --> 00:18:14,119 Speaker 1: cases failed, so these new ones are filed in federal courts. 308 00:18:14,119 --> 00:18:18,320 Speaker 1: And they both broadly claimed that the ballot counting procedures 309 00:18:18,359 --> 00:18:21,960 Speaker 1: were irregular and fraudulents, that observers were not allowed to 310 00:18:22,520 --> 00:18:26,560 Speaker 1: properly witnessed the ballot counting, and that witnesses for the 311 00:18:26,640 --> 00:18:29,440 Speaker 1: campaign and other voters that signed after David saying that 312 00:18:29,520 --> 00:18:32,480 Speaker 1: they saw things that were suspicious and things like that, 313 00:18:32,840 --> 00:18:35,479 Speaker 1: and they want to have these ballots that were counted 314 00:18:35,520 --> 00:18:39,439 Speaker 1: in this process thrown out, hundreds of thousands, regardless of 315 00:18:39,480 --> 00:18:42,399 Speaker 1: how exactly they are accounting, whether it's they're valid voters, 316 00:18:42,480 --> 00:18:44,200 Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. They say, any of the ballots that 317 00:18:44,240 --> 00:18:46,960 Speaker 1: are counted in these particular counties that did it wrong, 318 00:18:47,400 --> 00:18:50,520 Speaker 1: they should all be thrown out. Are these the same 319 00:18:50,640 --> 00:18:55,560 Speaker 1: basic allegations that they've been alleging before in Michigan? It 320 00:18:55,600 --> 00:18:58,280 Speaker 1: sounds the same. Well, the difference here, I mean it 321 00:18:58,400 --> 00:19:01,200 Speaker 1: is the same, but difference heres that of course is 322 00:19:01,240 --> 00:19:04,359 Speaker 1: in settle for it. And now they have affidavits or 323 00:19:04,440 --> 00:19:07,520 Speaker 1: sworn affidavits signed by people who say that they saw 324 00:19:07,880 --> 00:19:11,520 Speaker 1: um some various Shenanigans taking place in their ballot counting process. 325 00:19:11,560 --> 00:19:14,639 Speaker 1: Some of these are handwritten affidavits that are photocopied and 326 00:19:14,720 --> 00:19:18,600 Speaker 1: attached to the complaints UM, alleging things that you know, 327 00:19:18,680 --> 00:19:22,520 Speaker 1: they're saying that they saw things that were suspicious or improper. 328 00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:25,320 Speaker 1: For example, some brief cases of boxes and one of 329 00:19:25,320 --> 00:19:28,840 Speaker 1: these affidavits, a woman said that she saw some shrink 330 00:19:28,880 --> 00:19:32,040 Speaker 1: wraps boxes by a window and she thought it was suspicious, 331 00:19:32,040 --> 00:19:34,200 Speaker 1: and someone at one point told her to go move 332 00:19:34,240 --> 00:19:37,280 Speaker 1: away from them, and so for her that seemed sufficient 333 00:19:37,400 --> 00:19:40,920 Speaker 1: enough to file an affidavit in this case. I lost 334 00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:45,760 Speaker 1: track of the number of lawsuits in Pennsylvania. What's the latest. 335 00:19:46,880 --> 00:19:49,480 Speaker 1: The latest is the federal court case that the Trump 336 00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:52,879 Speaker 1: Can Pay, filed a few nights ago. UM. It is 337 00:19:53,280 --> 00:19:56,240 Speaker 1: alleging much the same as what we just said in Michigan, 338 00:19:56,280 --> 00:20:00,159 Speaker 1: that there were improprieties UH in various counties UM, and 339 00:20:00,359 --> 00:20:03,359 Speaker 1: especially in the two big counties where they claim that 340 00:20:03,440 --> 00:20:07,199 Speaker 1: their observers were kept too far away UM and in 341 00:20:07,240 --> 00:20:09,840 Speaker 1: those two counties about they're trying to have about six 342 00:20:09,920 --> 00:20:14,280 Speaker 1: hundred thousand mail in ballots nasty ballots tossed out based 343 00:20:14,320 --> 00:20:16,280 Speaker 1: on the claim that they didn't think that the state 344 00:20:16,359 --> 00:20:20,480 Speaker 1: properly followed the procedures for allowing observers access. Of course, 345 00:20:20,480 --> 00:20:23,600 Speaker 1: the state completely reject this, says that observers from both 346 00:20:23,640 --> 00:20:27,239 Speaker 1: parties were present the entire time. Um, they plan on, 347 00:20:27,720 --> 00:20:30,720 Speaker 1: you know, proving that in court. I'm sure. Uh. And 348 00:20:31,000 --> 00:20:33,000 Speaker 1: they say, this is a lot of a lot of 349 00:20:33,040 --> 00:20:36,160 Speaker 1: sali grapes and false information flying around. But it's really 350 00:20:36,240 --> 00:20:39,080 Speaker 1: the big case now is that federal court case. And 351 00:20:39,160 --> 00:20:42,320 Speaker 1: of course there's also the Supreme Court case um, in 352 00:20:42,359 --> 00:20:45,640 Speaker 1: which the Republicans want to have all mail in ballots 353 00:20:45,640 --> 00:20:48,960 Speaker 1: that were um arrived in the states between in the 354 00:20:49,040 --> 00:20:52,720 Speaker 1: three days after the election during that extended period, as 355 00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:55,720 Speaker 1: long as the vote the ballots the postmarked by November three, 356 00:20:56,200 --> 00:20:58,440 Speaker 1: um that they can be counted if they arrived three 357 00:20:58,520 --> 00:21:00,959 Speaker 1: days after that. Of course they're going to argue at 358 00:21:00,960 --> 00:21:04,400 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to have those thrown out. The federal 359 00:21:04,520 --> 00:21:08,720 Speaker 1: judge has set a hearing in the Pennsylvania case, that's 360 00:21:08,800 --> 00:21:14,920 Speaker 1: right on Tuesday, on November seventeen, the judge in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, 361 00:21:15,000 --> 00:21:18,520 Speaker 1: has set an or argument um in what is going 362 00:21:18,560 --> 00:21:21,040 Speaker 1: to be the state's motion to dismiss the Trump campaign 363 00:21:21,119 --> 00:21:24,000 Speaker 1: suit that hasn't been filed yet, but it's supposed to 364 00:21:24,000 --> 00:21:26,679 Speaker 1: be filed as soon as tomorrow, UM. And then they 365 00:21:26,680 --> 00:21:30,000 Speaker 1: will perhaps be a motion for an injunction against the 366 00:21:30,040 --> 00:21:32,040 Speaker 1: state that the Trump campaign will have a chance to file. 367 00:21:32,280 --> 00:21:34,480 Speaker 1: And there's going to be all arguments on both of these. 368 00:21:35,040 --> 00:21:37,920 Speaker 1: On the on the member seventeen, Well, in Georgia, they're 369 00:21:37,960 --> 00:21:41,080 Speaker 1: already doing a recount, so I guess no lawsuit was 370 00:21:41,200 --> 00:21:44,800 Speaker 1: necessary there. Right, they had a press calls in which 371 00:21:45,359 --> 00:21:49,640 Speaker 1: Republican officials said that they expect the recount to results 372 00:21:49,760 --> 00:21:53,480 Speaker 1: in the state going to President Trump. Well, let's talk 373 00:21:53,520 --> 00:21:57,800 Speaker 1: about observers. There have been observers, as you've written, for 374 00:21:57,840 --> 00:22:01,080 Speaker 1: at least a hundred years. But even if there's a 375 00:22:01,119 --> 00:22:04,679 Speaker 1: problem with observers, how likely is it that accord is 376 00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:08,440 Speaker 1: going to throw out the ballots that they were supposed 377 00:22:08,440 --> 00:22:11,959 Speaker 1: to be watching? Right, We should be very clear that 378 00:22:12,000 --> 00:22:14,520 Speaker 1: there has never been any precedent for that. And I 379 00:22:15,400 --> 00:22:20,520 Speaker 1: spoke with legal experts, multiple legal experts who who said that, um, outright, 380 00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:24,679 Speaker 1: that no court has you know, taken a huge batch 381 00:22:24,880 --> 00:22:28,959 Speaker 1: of validly cast ballots and decided because there was an 382 00:22:28,960 --> 00:22:31,440 Speaker 1: issue with the observers that they were going to throw 383 00:22:31,480 --> 00:22:33,879 Speaker 1: them out. And that's one of the main reasons that 384 00:22:34,000 --> 00:22:36,000 Speaker 1: people are, you know, the people that we've spoken to 385 00:22:36,119 --> 00:22:39,560 Speaker 1: for these stories are saying that these lawsuits had such 386 00:22:39,560 --> 00:22:44,280 Speaker 1: a small chance of such a slim chance of of working. 387 00:22:45,000 --> 00:22:47,600 Speaker 1: Eric one of Trump's cases ended with a whimper in 388 00:22:47,680 --> 00:22:51,000 Speaker 1: Nevada tell us about that. This was a case that 389 00:22:51,080 --> 00:22:54,280 Speaker 1: was filed in Nevada over the ballot um the poll 390 00:22:54,640 --> 00:22:59,439 Speaker 1: watching the ballot observe observation procedure that Nevada put in 391 00:22:59,480 --> 00:23:02,840 Speaker 1: place because of the pandemics was social distancing and things 392 00:23:02,880 --> 00:23:06,439 Speaker 1: like that. And the Trump campaign sued before the election 393 00:23:06,520 --> 00:23:09,040 Speaker 1: to complained that they they was they were being kept 394 00:23:09,040 --> 00:23:11,840 Speaker 1: too far away up to watch the counting of the ballot, 395 00:23:12,960 --> 00:23:16,360 Speaker 1: very similar allegations to what we're seeing in Pennsylvania and Michigan. 396 00:23:16,400 --> 00:23:19,840 Speaker 1: Now um that case was thrown out in state court 397 00:23:20,320 --> 00:23:23,800 Speaker 1: um In the Trump campaign appealed, but November four they 398 00:23:23,840 --> 00:23:27,719 Speaker 1: reached the settlement with uh, the election top election official 399 00:23:27,760 --> 00:23:30,320 Speaker 1: in Clark County, the home of Las Vegas, the biggest 400 00:23:30,320 --> 00:23:35,960 Speaker 1: population center Nevada, agreed to let the campaigns observers get 401 00:23:36,119 --> 00:23:39,560 Speaker 1: a little bit closer and that was sufficient and as 402 00:23:39,920 --> 00:23:42,760 Speaker 1: they dropped their appeal. The Trump campaign filed and motioned 403 00:23:42,800 --> 00:23:46,240 Speaker 1: to voluntarily dismisses appeal, and that was granted by the court. 404 00:23:46,600 --> 00:23:49,480 Speaker 1: So the same type of allegations that you saw that 405 00:23:49,560 --> 00:23:52,159 Speaker 1: you're seeing now they sort of backed away from. And 406 00:23:52,400 --> 00:23:54,840 Speaker 1: I guess one of the main reasons just might be 407 00:23:54,880 --> 00:23:57,400 Speaker 1: that Nevada isn't quite as important as the other state. 408 00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:00,960 Speaker 1: That also happened in Pennsylvania. I believe during one of 409 00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:04,720 Speaker 1: the early suits about letting the observers get closer to 410 00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:08,360 Speaker 1: the vote count, they reached an agreement. Now also, and 411 00:24:08,560 --> 00:24:11,520 Speaker 1: this question sort of changes with the idea that they're 412 00:24:11,520 --> 00:24:15,040 Speaker 1: going after. You know, so many states and so many 413 00:24:15,520 --> 00:24:20,000 Speaker 1: recounts and lawsuits. But as you look at it, couldn't 414 00:24:20,040 --> 00:24:24,680 Speaker 1: these lawsuits change the tallies enough to make a difference 415 00:24:24,840 --> 00:24:29,840 Speaker 1: to go from Biden to Trump? Right? Well, my colleagues 416 00:24:29,840 --> 00:24:32,040 Speaker 1: have reported that if you if you look at the 417 00:24:32,280 --> 00:24:36,840 Speaker 1: various amounts of ballots that are being challenged in each 418 00:24:36,880 --> 00:24:40,560 Speaker 1: of the cases, uh, and and and just add them up, 419 00:24:40,640 --> 00:24:44,080 Speaker 1: that the mass just isn't there to make it difference. Um. 420 00:24:44,080 --> 00:24:45,919 Speaker 1: And that is one of the another one of the 421 00:24:45,960 --> 00:24:50,040 Speaker 1: reasons that that folks are comfortable saying that this legal 422 00:24:50,040 --> 00:24:54,040 Speaker 1: strategy isn't going to result in a Trump's victory in court. 423 00:24:54,800 --> 00:24:58,240 Speaker 1: The first date that counts is the safe harbor date. 424 00:24:58,359 --> 00:25:03,600 Speaker 1: That's December nine. Let's talk about just why it's important 425 00:25:03,840 --> 00:25:07,520 Speaker 1: that the states start certifying the results. That there are 426 00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:13,400 Speaker 1: a range of deadlines in place, right, that is correct, 427 00:25:13,480 --> 00:25:16,119 Speaker 1: and they differ for each of these states. There's about 428 00:25:16,119 --> 00:25:18,679 Speaker 1: six states. Um, you know that the Spring states that 429 00:25:18,720 --> 00:25:24,120 Speaker 1: are being argued over here, and uh for example, Pennsylvania 430 00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:28,439 Speaker 1: has to certify its results on November twenty three, the 431 00:25:28,520 --> 00:25:32,360 Speaker 1: same day as Michigan. Uh So, really, these these lawsuits 432 00:25:32,400 --> 00:25:34,480 Speaker 1: are really just have about a week and a half 433 00:25:34,560 --> 00:25:37,920 Speaker 1: less before they need to to be resolved in order 434 00:25:38,280 --> 00:25:42,600 Speaker 1: for those states to to certify. UM. And then the 435 00:25:43,040 --> 00:25:48,520 Speaker 1: electoral the Electoral Electoral College meets on December fourteen. Thanks 436 00:25:48,520 --> 00:25:50,280 Speaker 1: for being on the Bloomberg Law Show, Eric, and for 437 00:25:50,400 --> 00:25:54,320 Speaker 1: following all these cases with us. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter 438 00:25:54,640 --> 00:26:01,440 Speaker 1: Eric Larson. Doug Amhoff, vice President elect Kamala Harris's husband, 439 00:26:01,720 --> 00:26:03,840 Speaker 1: plans to leave his role as a partner at the 440 00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:07,560 Speaker 1: law firm of d L. A. Piper. A campaign spokesperson 441 00:26:07,640 --> 00:26:10,120 Speaker 1: said that m Hoff will wind down his work and 442 00:26:10,160 --> 00:26:14,200 Speaker 1: sever all ties with the firm before Harrison President elect 443 00:26:14,280 --> 00:26:18,199 Speaker 1: Joe Biden are sworn in on January. M Hoff has 444 00:26:18,240 --> 00:26:20,280 Speaker 1: been on a leave of absence from the firm since 445 00:26:20,320 --> 00:26:23,960 Speaker 1: August when Biden named Harris as his running mate. There 446 00:26:23,960 --> 00:26:27,119 Speaker 1: are ethical reasons why m Hoff decided to sever his 447 00:26:27,240 --> 00:26:30,440 Speaker 1: ties with the law firm, and Bloomberg Law team leader 448 00:26:30,480 --> 00:26:32,879 Speaker 1: for the Business of Law, Chris Offer is here to 449 00:26:32,920 --> 00:26:36,000 Speaker 1: tell us about them. So Chris first tell us about 450 00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:40,760 Speaker 1: em Hoff's career. So. M Hoff is a commercial and 451 00:26:41,400 --> 00:26:45,760 Speaker 1: entertainment litigator who's been working primarily for some of the 452 00:26:45,840 --> 00:26:49,160 Speaker 1: largest off firms in the country over the last three decades. 453 00:26:49,480 --> 00:26:53,200 Speaker 1: He's got a long history of litigating actually in court 454 00:26:53,400 --> 00:26:56,399 Speaker 1: and also advising company. He says, a little bit of 455 00:26:56,440 --> 00:26:59,720 Speaker 1: everything on the commercial side. Some of the major company 456 00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:04,400 Speaker 1: said he's represented includes Walmart and Mark the pharmaceuticals company. 457 00:27:04,800 --> 00:27:08,080 Speaker 1: But primarily, and especially in the last ten years or so, 458 00:27:08,200 --> 00:27:11,480 Speaker 1: he's really seemed to have shifted his focus to media 459 00:27:11,560 --> 00:27:18,639 Speaker 1: and entertainment types of cases, representing smaller indie film houses, UM, 460 00:27:18,680 --> 00:27:25,200 Speaker 1: advertisement agencies, other media companies in UH, intellectual property, copyright 461 00:27:25,760 --> 00:27:29,360 Speaker 1: UM and other types of disputes. So you know, two 462 00:27:29,359 --> 00:27:31,760 Speaker 1: of the ones that that jumped out that that folks 463 00:27:31,880 --> 00:27:34,560 Speaker 1: might be familiar with or at least um you know, 464 00:27:34,640 --> 00:27:38,119 Speaker 1: have some reference to. Are He was involved in a 465 00:27:38,160 --> 00:27:41,040 Speaker 1: forty five million dollar lawsuit that had to do with 466 00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:45,200 Speaker 1: the Taco Bell Chihuahua uh. If you recall UM that 467 00:27:45,760 --> 00:27:51,800 Speaker 1: chihuahua was a main central part of Taco Bells advertising 468 00:27:52,320 --> 00:27:56,240 Speaker 1: platform and they were UM the company within a copyright 469 00:27:56,280 --> 00:28:00,400 Speaker 1: dispute over that, and so m Haff represented UM, the 470 00:28:00,480 --> 00:28:05,440 Speaker 1: advertising agency that came up with the chihuahua commercials and 471 00:28:05,520 --> 00:28:09,119 Speaker 1: some of that litigation. He also was involved in in 472 00:28:09,320 --> 00:28:16,520 Speaker 1: some multimillion dollar litigation over the viral YouTube video of 473 00:28:16,560 --> 00:28:19,879 Speaker 1: the New York City subway pizza rat if you recall 474 00:28:20,040 --> 00:28:24,320 Speaker 1: that one. UM. So those are among his more notable cases. Recently, 475 00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:27,960 Speaker 1: he's a partner now at the firm of DL Piper, 476 00:28:28,160 --> 00:28:31,080 Speaker 1: pulling in about two point eight million dollars last year. 477 00:28:31,560 --> 00:28:35,240 Speaker 1: Are there any kinds of rules in place ethical rules 478 00:28:35,480 --> 00:28:42,320 Speaker 1: for vps and their spouses as far as careers so 479 00:28:42,520 --> 00:28:45,640 Speaker 1: here as in many of these ethical quandaries that we 480 00:28:45,760 --> 00:28:49,040 Speaker 1: see in Watchington, be the issue and the potential problem 481 00:28:49,320 --> 00:28:53,160 Speaker 1: for m hof is the appearance of the conflict rather 482 00:28:53,240 --> 00:28:57,160 Speaker 1: than an actual violation of federal ethics laws related to 483 00:28:57,200 --> 00:29:00,000 Speaker 1: any work that he may or may not do uh 484 00:29:00,080 --> 00:29:04,840 Speaker 1: UM after inauguration day. So, first of all, the federal 485 00:29:05,560 --> 00:29:09,760 Speaker 1: ethics laws, the main one in particular that really limits 486 00:29:09,800 --> 00:29:14,080 Speaker 1: what posts can and cannot do, including spouses, doesn't apply 487 00:29:14,200 --> 00:29:18,520 Speaker 1: to the president and vice president. And so although in 488 00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:22,640 Speaker 1: the past UM many presidents and vps as at least 489 00:29:22,840 --> 00:29:25,360 Speaker 1: paid lift service to the idea that they're going to 490 00:29:25,640 --> 00:29:29,680 Speaker 1: abide by those uh laws uh certainly under the Trump 491 00:29:29,720 --> 00:29:33,520 Speaker 1: administration that sort of has been thrown out the window 492 00:29:33,880 --> 00:29:37,600 Speaker 1: UM with all kinds of criticisms with respect to post 493 00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:41,120 Speaker 1: the president's UM commercial activities and those of his family 494 00:29:41,160 --> 00:29:46,080 Speaker 1: members slash White House advisors. At the second level, there 495 00:29:46,080 --> 00:29:50,960 Speaker 1: are state rules with respect to UM, the state bars 496 00:29:51,000 --> 00:29:54,080 Speaker 1: that put limits on conflicts of interest, and there are 497 00:29:54,240 --> 00:29:56,680 Speaker 1: a number of ways around that, and some of those 498 00:29:56,720 --> 00:29:59,560 Speaker 1: came up when m hoff And and Harris were both 499 00:29:59,640 --> 00:30:03,120 Speaker 1: in California when they married. Harris of course was the 500 00:30:03,240 --> 00:30:06,360 Speaker 1: California Attorney General, the top lawyer in the state, and 501 00:30:06,400 --> 00:30:08,440 Speaker 1: so there are things that you can do to avoid 502 00:30:08,520 --> 00:30:11,320 Speaker 1: direct conflicts of interest, and that's really what the rules 503 00:30:11,520 --> 00:30:16,400 Speaker 1: boiled down to are the direct where, for example, hypothetically speaking, 504 00:30:16,440 --> 00:30:19,440 Speaker 1: Harris as a G would participate in a matter in 505 00:30:19,480 --> 00:30:22,640 Speaker 1: which the outcome of that matter had a direct financial interest, 506 00:30:22,720 --> 00:30:25,520 Speaker 1: whether that's because m Hoff was himself on the other 507 00:30:25,600 --> 00:30:28,880 Speaker 1: side or because the firm was on the other side 508 00:30:29,160 --> 00:30:32,040 Speaker 1: and therefore that the outcome of the case could impact 509 00:30:32,160 --> 00:30:34,640 Speaker 1: his financial interests as a partner in the firm. The 510 00:30:34,720 --> 00:30:37,400 Speaker 1: firm venable that that m Hof was at at the 511 00:30:37,480 --> 00:30:40,520 Speaker 1: time told me that they avoided that by just number one, 512 00:30:40,560 --> 00:30:43,640 Speaker 1: not having m Hoff participated in in anything that that 513 00:30:43,720 --> 00:30:46,480 Speaker 1: could even come close to crossing paths with the a G. 514 00:30:46,800 --> 00:30:49,720 Speaker 1: But number two having the firm itself largely sit out 515 00:30:49,840 --> 00:30:52,360 Speaker 1: a lot of those cases. We did not hear back 516 00:30:52,400 --> 00:30:55,480 Speaker 1: from the a G to get their sort of side 517 00:30:55,480 --> 00:30:57,680 Speaker 1: of how they handled those things. But we also didn't 518 00:30:57,760 --> 00:31:01,520 Speaker 1: find any evidence or examples of any cases in which 519 00:31:01,560 --> 00:31:03,800 Speaker 1: Herrick said, you know what, I'm gonna sit this one 520 00:31:03,840 --> 00:31:06,840 Speaker 1: out just because of the the actual conflict or the 521 00:31:07,240 --> 00:31:11,400 Speaker 1: potential appearance of one with her husband's firms. Even if 522 00:31:11,400 --> 00:31:14,160 Speaker 1: the firm didn't take those cases, they're still, as you mentioned, 523 00:31:14,160 --> 00:31:19,240 Speaker 1: the perception, and a perception might be that certain companies 524 00:31:19,280 --> 00:31:23,880 Speaker 1: are going to DL Piper because of the connection to 525 00:31:24,000 --> 00:31:27,960 Speaker 1: the Vice president. Absolutely, and so in addition to the 526 00:31:28,160 --> 00:31:31,320 Speaker 1: l A. Piper, just seeing this massive law firm representing 527 00:31:31,960 --> 00:31:35,040 Speaker 1: companies around the world, they also have a huge lobbying 528 00:31:35,080 --> 00:31:38,440 Speaker 1: shop that does an active practice of lobbying at the 529 00:31:38,480 --> 00:31:41,720 Speaker 1: federal level, composed for domestic clients that run a wide 530 00:31:41,840 --> 00:31:45,360 Speaker 1: range of corporate interests, as well as some foreign clients 531 00:31:45,360 --> 00:31:49,360 Speaker 1: that include foreign governments like the government of Afghanistan. And 532 00:31:49,440 --> 00:31:52,840 Speaker 1: so while em Hawkins self is not all obvious and 533 00:31:53,000 --> 00:31:55,480 Speaker 1: does not represent any of those clients and has not 534 00:31:55,600 --> 00:31:58,440 Speaker 1: lobbied on their behalf, he has a financial interest as 535 00:31:58,480 --> 00:32:01,000 Speaker 1: a partner because he shared ring in the profits from 536 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:03,960 Speaker 1: the firm, and so while that may not violate the 537 00:32:04,040 --> 00:32:07,320 Speaker 1: letter of the law when it comes to the ethics rules, 538 00:32:07,360 --> 00:32:11,760 Speaker 1: certainly raises the perception problem. That's Chris Offer, Bloomberg Law 539 00:32:11,800 --> 00:32:14,360 Speaker 1: team leader for the Business of Law. And that's it 540 00:32:14,440 --> 00:32:17,440 Speaker 1: for the sedition of The Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grasso. 541 00:32:17,600 --> 00:32:19,960 Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening, and remember to tune to 542 00:32:19,960 --> 00:32:23,000 Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show every week night at ten pm Eastern. 543 00:32:23,200 --> 00:32:24,760 Speaker 1: Pride to your on Bloomberg Radio.