1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:04,520
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso, a federal appeals

2
00:00:04,559 --> 00:00:08,360
Speaker 1: court ordered Judge Emmett Sullivan to immediately dismiss the criminal

3
00:00:08,400 --> 00:00:12,800
Speaker 1: case against President Trump's former national security advisor, Michael Flynn,

4
00:00:13,080 --> 00:00:16,600
Speaker 1: who twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. The

5
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:20,560
Speaker 1: panel divided along party lines, with Trump appointee Naomi Row

6
00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:24,279
Speaker 1: joining with George H. W. Bush appointee Karen Henderson in

7
00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:29,320
Speaker 1: the majority, and Obama appointee Robert Wilkins dissenting. The Justice

8
00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:31,960
Speaker 1: Department had made a surprise motion to dismiss the case

9
00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:35,400
Speaker 1: against Flynn before his sentencing, but the divided three judge

10
00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:39,040
Speaker 1: panel decided that Judge Sullivan did not have the authority

11
00:00:39,120 --> 00:00:42,120
Speaker 1: to decide on his own whether to grant that government motion.

12
00:00:43,120 --> 00:00:46,560
Speaker 1: Joining me, his national security attorney, Bradley Moss, a partner

13
00:00:46,560 --> 00:00:50,159
Speaker 1: at Mark, said this was a surprise too many, because

14
00:00:50,200 --> 00:00:54,480
Speaker 1: you had Flynn requesting an extraordinary remedy, and during oral

15
00:00:54,600 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: arguments the judges appeared skeptical of granting that. Yeah. Well,

16
00:00:59,400 --> 00:01:01,560
Speaker 1: this is the reminder that so many of us always

17
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:04,839
Speaker 1: say when people start live tweeting oral arguments and start

18
00:01:04,880 --> 00:01:07,759
Speaker 1: making conclusions about how judges will rule based on them.

19
00:01:08,240 --> 00:01:11,959
Speaker 1: Never ever read too much into oral arguments because you

20
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:14,760
Speaker 1: never know whether or not the judges are simply road

21
00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:18,400
Speaker 1: testing some ideas for themselves, or you know, just putting

22
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:21,080
Speaker 1: you through the motions, or if they actually are an

23
00:01:21,120 --> 00:01:25,200
Speaker 1: agreement with the particular line of questions they're bringing against you.

24
00:01:25,280 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: And this was very much that case. You listen to

25
00:01:27,480 --> 00:01:29,039
Speaker 1: oral arguments, you would have thought it was gonna be

26
00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:31,800
Speaker 1: three zip denying the rate of man damus, but instead

27
00:01:31,840 --> 00:01:34,560
Speaker 1: it was to one in favor of granting it, which

28
00:01:34,600 --> 00:01:37,840
Speaker 1: certainly caught some people by surprise this morning. This was

29
00:01:38,000 --> 00:01:42,759
Speaker 1: a somewhat controversial ruling to say the least. There's certainly,

30
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:46,959
Speaker 1: you know, some weakness in the citations provided by the

31
00:01:47,000 --> 00:01:50,040
Speaker 1: majority opinion to back up some of their arguments as

32
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:53,120
Speaker 1: a point where they're literally just pointing to a legal

33
00:01:53,160 --> 00:01:57,360
Speaker 1: treatise and no case law as justification for the premise

34
00:01:57,480 --> 00:01:59,960
Speaker 1: that it was any standard for seeking relief or any

35
00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:02,440
Speaker 1: precedent for it, where there's already been a guilty flea

36
00:02:02,800 --> 00:02:05,520
Speaker 1: and the judge hasn't even ruled on anything yet. So

37
00:02:06,000 --> 00:02:09,760
Speaker 1: it's likely, although not guaranteed, that this will go before

38
00:02:09,760 --> 00:02:12,560
Speaker 1: the full DC Circuit. Any of the current judges on

39
00:02:12,600 --> 00:02:15,680
Speaker 1: the circuit can ask for an on bond hearing and

40
00:02:15,720 --> 00:02:18,280
Speaker 1: then it goes before a vote. At least six judges

41
00:02:18,320 --> 00:02:19,840
Speaker 1: have to vote in favor of it for it to

42
00:02:19,960 --> 00:02:22,640
Speaker 1: have that full circuit hearing. If they do so, they'll

43
00:02:22,639 --> 00:02:26,480
Speaker 1: likely vacate this to one opinion. But there's no guarantees

44
00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:28,079
Speaker 1: on that, and there's no guarantees on how the full

45
00:02:28,120 --> 00:02:31,480
Speaker 1: circuit might it's entirely possible to full circuit might agree

46
00:02:31,600 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 1: with this opinion by Judge Rows, So we're just gonna

47
00:02:33,919 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 1: have to wait and see. But needless to say, this

48
00:02:36,120 --> 00:02:38,480
Speaker 1: was a bit of a surprise today. So in the

49
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:42,720
Speaker 1: majority opinion, Judge Naomi Row said, this is not the

50
00:02:42,840 --> 00:02:47,800
Speaker 1: unusual case where a more searching inquiry is justified, but

51
00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:53,040
Speaker 1: this case has been anything but usual. Yes, So the

52
00:02:53,760 --> 00:03:00,799
Speaker 1: premise essentially of her um analysis was that for there

53
00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:03,960
Speaker 1: to be a basis for this relief to for there

54
00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:07,480
Speaker 1: to be a basis to rebut the presumption of regularity

55
00:03:07,560 --> 00:03:11,440
Speaker 1: that is accorded to the submissions made by the Justice

56
00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:16,040
Speaker 1: Department in support of Flynn uh the starters being dropped.

57
00:03:16,440 --> 00:03:19,880
Speaker 1: There need to be something to extraordinary, something similar to

58
00:03:19,919 --> 00:03:22,120
Speaker 1: what they've seen in the past. When they've been willing

59
00:03:23,000 --> 00:03:27,639
Speaker 1: to um reject this idea and to find that allowing

60
00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:31,040
Speaker 1: a judge to inquire prior to granting the Rule forty

61
00:03:31,080 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 1: eight motion would be warranted. And the reason they that

62
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:39,160
Speaker 1: Judge Rouse said it was not warranted here was given

63
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:43,000
Speaker 1: the agreement between the parties to drop it in the

64
00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:45,360
Speaker 1: sense that Justice for I would agreed that they should

65
00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:47,360
Speaker 1: drop the charges against Mr Flynn, which is something the

66
00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:50,600
Speaker 1: Just Department does do to be fair from time to time,

67
00:03:50,760 --> 00:03:53,760
Speaker 1: is decided to pull back cases they brought. It was

68
00:03:53,800 --> 00:03:56,560
Speaker 1: in light of submissions again made by the Justice Department

69
00:03:56,720 --> 00:04:01,840
Speaker 1: which the Court gave the presumption of regularity, and it

70
00:04:01,920 --> 00:04:04,000
Speaker 1: was the fact that the only cases in the past

71
00:04:04,000 --> 00:04:07,920
Speaker 1: where they've ever early authorized this kind of judicial inquiry

72
00:04:08,120 --> 00:04:11,760
Speaker 1: was where they were concerned about prosecutorial harassment and there

73
00:04:11,840 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 1: was a dispute, and there was the parties were still

74
00:04:13,960 --> 00:04:18,400
Speaker 1: in disagreement over how to proceed. Essentially, Judge Rowle's assessment

75
00:04:18,400 --> 00:04:21,440
Speaker 1: here is the Court should not take over the role

76
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:25,200
Speaker 1: of prosecutor in any way or start second guessing the

77
00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:30,720
Speaker 1: executive branches authority to conduct or withdraw prosecution, because it

78
00:04:30,760 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 1: would usurp that, you know, balance of power between the

79
00:04:33,560 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 1: separate branches. Did it seem that there was a concern

80
00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:43,040
Speaker 1: on Row's part with what might happen at future hearings

81
00:04:43,120 --> 00:04:47,200
Speaker 1: by Judge Sullivan, that Judge Sullivan would be inquiring as

82
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:51,279
Speaker 1: to the process that the Justice Department went through and

83
00:04:51,360 --> 00:04:55,640
Speaker 1: coming to this decision to drop the charges. Correct, Yeah,

84
00:04:55,760 --> 00:04:59,159
Speaker 1: so what she didn't want and what obviously would have

85
00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:03,359
Speaker 1: happened if the proceedings if such Salvan ultimately refused to

86
00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:06,320
Speaker 1: grant the motion, was that there would have been appealing

87
00:05:06,400 --> 00:05:08,440
Speaker 1: back of some of the inner workings of how the

88
00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:11,200
Speaker 1: just Partment came to this conclusion. Whether you know what

89
00:05:11,320 --> 00:05:15,200
Speaker 1: the internal discussions were beyond what Sporty been submitted into

90
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:17,479
Speaker 1: the record, we know what what just Parmac gave. The

91
00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:21,440
Speaker 1: Justice Department did not withdraw any of their prior AFFI

92
00:05:21,520 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 1: David's concluding that all Brady disclosures were complied with and

93
00:05:25,520 --> 00:05:29,120
Speaker 1: things along those lines, denying that there was misconduct. What

94
00:05:29,240 --> 00:05:33,800
Speaker 1: the government submitted was in an explanation that the original

95
00:05:33,960 --> 00:05:37,960
Speaker 1: premise for the inquiry was no longer justified or valid

96
00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:41,360
Speaker 1: when the interviews with Michael Flynn occurred, and that because

97
00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:44,320
Speaker 1: of that they were withdrawing it. Not bas stuff misconduct,

98
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:46,880
Speaker 1: not bring stuff up, Brady violations and all the things

99
00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:49,560
Speaker 1: that the Flynn team had argued, but merely that the

100
00:05:49,600 --> 00:05:51,719
Speaker 1: investment of the inquiry should never have occurred in the

101
00:05:51,800 --> 00:05:55,680
Speaker 1: first place, a very limited the narrow legal technicality, and

102
00:05:55,880 --> 00:05:59,760
Speaker 1: that the analysis beyond that. That's what Judge Row was

103
00:06:00,040 --> 00:06:03,080
Speaker 1: scerned about Judge Sullivan digging into is that it would

104
00:06:03,080 --> 00:06:05,839
Speaker 1: become too much of an inquiry into the inner workings

105
00:06:05,839 --> 00:06:08,559
Speaker 1: of the Justice Department, and that it was unwarranted given

106
00:06:08,560 --> 00:06:14,720
Speaker 1: the Sir prominence indescent was Obama appointee Judge Robert Wilkins,

107
00:06:14,760 --> 00:06:18,960
Speaker 1: and he said that the majority had ironically exceeded their

108
00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:24,520
Speaker 1: own authority while accusing Sullivan of overstepping his Is he right, Well,

109
00:06:24,560 --> 00:06:26,400
Speaker 1: it depends on how you tend to view some of

110
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:28,640
Speaker 1: this case law and some of the existing precedent. So

111
00:06:28,640 --> 00:06:31,560
Speaker 1: there was an existing precedent in the circuits that the

112
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:35,360
Speaker 1: Flint team was relying upon. It's this soccer case that

113
00:06:35,720 --> 00:06:39,680
Speaker 1: so that served as kind of a baseline for saying

114
00:06:39,720 --> 00:06:42,520
Speaker 1: that there's limits to what judges are really allowed to

115
00:06:42,560 --> 00:06:45,400
Speaker 1: do in this context where there is an effort by

116
00:06:45,440 --> 00:06:48,320
Speaker 1: the by the Just Department to withdraw charges that originally

117
00:06:48,360 --> 00:06:50,919
Speaker 1: had brought. And you know, the argument by the Flint

118
00:06:50,960 --> 00:06:54,360
Speaker 1: team was that precedent ruled here and therefore you should

119
00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:57,919
Speaker 1: grant the damous because judges are supposed to be going

120
00:06:57,960 --> 00:07:01,880
Speaker 1: into this anyways based off that precedent. What wilkins concern was,

121
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:05,240
Speaker 1: and what the concern of several individuals such as myself is,

122
00:07:05,240 --> 00:07:07,520
Speaker 1: is that that ruling from the previous case, from the

123
00:07:07,520 --> 00:07:11,240
Speaker 1: soccer case didn't have a similar set of circumstances sufficient

124
00:07:11,520 --> 00:07:15,480
Speaker 1: to warrant applying it here, because here the guilty pleas

125
00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:18,600
Speaker 1: had already been entered into, there had already been motions

126
00:07:18,640 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: to vacate emotions throughout the charges that had been denied

127
00:07:22,560 --> 00:07:25,200
Speaker 1: by the judge, and then all of a sudden d

128
00:07:25,280 --> 00:07:27,440
Speaker 1: o J decided to drop charges at the last minute.

129
00:07:27,640 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: It was a different set of circumstances. So what Wilkins

130
00:07:30,040 --> 00:07:33,679
Speaker 1: was concerned about was that by providing this extraordinary relief

131
00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:38,080
Speaker 1: of man Daneus, the circuit was, as he said, us

132
00:07:38,080 --> 00:07:41,520
Speaker 1: surfing it's authority by intervening before the judge had even

133
00:07:41,600 --> 00:07:45,920
Speaker 1: done anything. Because Judge Sultan hasn't denied the motion to

134
00:07:45,960 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 1: dismiss the charges. He just asked traditional information and that

135
00:07:50,520 --> 00:07:53,440
Speaker 1: is wilkins concern, and it's entirely possible Judge Sullivan would

136
00:07:53,480 --> 00:07:56,560
Speaker 1: have granted the dismissal of the charges. But this is

137
00:07:56,760 --> 00:07:59,200
Speaker 1: this is getting into the nuances and the very granular

138
00:07:59,240 --> 00:08:03,760
Speaker 1: level of detail of legal technicalities that Judge Wilkins was

139
00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:06,560
Speaker 1: concerned about. And if this goes before the full Circuit,

140
00:08:06,640 --> 00:08:08,280
Speaker 1: I think you're going to see a lot of discussion

141
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:11,240
Speaker 1: on that. So Judge Sullivan has the right to appeal

142
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:15,400
Speaker 1: this to the full Circuit. So either Judge Sullivan could

143
00:08:15,440 --> 00:08:17,760
Speaker 1: seek review by the full Circuit, or one of the

144
00:08:17,840 --> 00:08:20,920
Speaker 1: judges on the circuit him or herself could do it

145
00:08:21,040 --> 00:08:25,160
Speaker 1: on their own. They have that authority to seek a

146
00:08:25,280 --> 00:08:28,440
Speaker 1: vote by the full DC Circuit on whether or not

147
00:08:29,040 --> 00:08:31,960
Speaker 1: to rehear the case before the entire circuit. That would

148
00:08:32,000 --> 00:08:33,800
Speaker 1: have to be at least six judges who would ultimately

149
00:08:33,920 --> 00:08:38,000
Speaker 1: vote in favor of rehearing it for that to occurred.

150
00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:41,920
Speaker 1: There's certainly some time still before any appeal or any

151
00:08:41,920 --> 00:08:44,560
Speaker 1: position would have to be filed. It's way too early

152
00:08:44,600 --> 00:08:46,360
Speaker 1: to know what will happen here. I don't know if

153
00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:49,240
Speaker 1: Judge Sullivan will want to even bother with it or

154
00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 1: to leave it to one of the other judges on

155
00:08:50,920 --> 00:08:53,280
Speaker 1: the circuits decide if they want to rehear it. But

156
00:08:53,440 --> 00:08:56,760
Speaker 1: certainly for the Flint team, they've got to be happy today.

157
00:08:56,920 --> 00:09:00,480
Speaker 1: And the last time one of Judge rowse a Indians

158
00:09:00,760 --> 00:09:04,560
Speaker 1: went to the full circuit, she was overruled. Yes, and

159
00:09:04,600 --> 00:09:08,840
Speaker 1: I mean Judge row has a very strict originalist and

160
00:09:09,440 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 1: conservative viewpoint on the law. That's why she got the

161
00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:16,040
Speaker 1: appointment she did. That's what the the party was trying

162
00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:18,800
Speaker 1: to push in terms of how case law was applied

163
00:09:18,840 --> 00:09:22,320
Speaker 1: and how both the Constitution and the existing statutes were applied.

164
00:09:22,840 --> 00:09:26,640
Speaker 1: Whether or not this analysis she has here in this opinion,

165
00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:30,200
Speaker 1: which I view is not the most strong legal argument,

166
00:09:30,240 --> 00:09:32,600
Speaker 1: but certainly something that could survive. Whether or not that

167
00:09:32,600 --> 00:09:35,679
Speaker 1: would survive or rehearing before the full circuit, I'm not

168
00:09:35,720 --> 00:09:38,040
Speaker 1: going to claim that I have and that clairvoyance and

169
00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:40,199
Speaker 1: that ability to see in the future to determine it.

170
00:09:40,679 --> 00:09:44,400
Speaker 1: I would certainly put my money against her on a rehearing,

171
00:09:45,040 --> 00:09:48,400
Speaker 1: but anything is possible. So what this means is that

172
00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:52,120
Speaker 1: if a defendant lies to a court, or if a

173
00:09:52,160 --> 00:09:56,440
Speaker 1: defendant commits perjury and the Justice Department doesn't care about

174
00:09:56,520 --> 00:09:59,200
Speaker 1: it and decides to drop the charges, there's nothing that

175
00:09:59,320 --> 00:10:03,080
Speaker 1: the judge can do to protect the integrity of his

176
00:10:03,240 --> 00:10:07,520
Speaker 1: or her court. Correct According to this precedent, and according

177
00:10:07,559 --> 00:10:11,360
Speaker 1: to this granted man damos that the judge has no

178
00:10:11,440 --> 00:10:15,960
Speaker 1: authority to inquire further under these particular kinds of circumstances.

179
00:10:15,960 --> 00:10:19,080
Speaker 1: The judge, despite the fact that Rule forty eight, which

180
00:10:19,160 --> 00:10:22,640
Speaker 1: was the basis for seeking dismissal of the charges, despite

181
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:25,280
Speaker 1: the fact that Rule forty eight requires leave of the court,

182
00:10:25,280 --> 00:10:27,840
Speaker 1: requires the court to sign off on it, and despite

183
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:30,439
Speaker 1: the fact that that rule was crafted for the very

184
00:10:30,480 --> 00:10:33,920
Speaker 1: purpose of avoiding, you know, political crony ism in how

185
00:10:34,080 --> 00:10:37,600
Speaker 1: prosecutions were brought. It is the view of Judge Row

186
00:10:37,679 --> 00:10:41,000
Speaker 1: and her assessment that the judges should not be getting

187
00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:44,680
Speaker 1: into that in this kind of situation absent some evidence

188
00:10:44,679 --> 00:10:50,839
Speaker 1: of prosecutorial harassment. It's unusual timing because today the House

189
00:10:50,960 --> 00:10:55,560
Speaker 1: is holding hearing on the very question that Judge Sullivan

190
00:10:55,760 --> 00:11:01,000
Speaker 1: was going to inquire into the politicization of the Justice Department.

191
00:11:01,960 --> 00:11:05,040
Speaker 1: Correct O, It's irony abounds today. Yeah, because there's the

192
00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:08,280
Speaker 1: hearing rights to say before the House on the Stone case.

193
00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:12,080
Speaker 1: The prosecutors Olinsky is going to testify about politicization of

194
00:11:12,080 --> 00:11:15,640
Speaker 1: the process and how the sentencing recommendations were messed with,

195
00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:18,880
Speaker 1: and whether or not there were efforts to corrupt it

196
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:22,240
Speaker 1: on behalf of the president's allies in that case, Roger Stone.

197
00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:26,720
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is coming under a lot of criticism in

198
00:11:26,760 --> 00:11:30,480
Speaker 1: the past month for several things that he's done. The

199
00:11:30,600 --> 00:11:33,719
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee wants him to testify. He has yet to

200
00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:37,839
Speaker 1: testify before the Judiciary Committee. Can they do anything if

201
00:11:37,840 --> 00:11:42,040
Speaker 1: he says no, I'm not going to testify under the

202
00:11:42,120 --> 00:11:45,360
Speaker 1: existing standard that was litigated with respect of Don McGann,

203
00:11:45,640 --> 00:11:48,920
Speaker 1: the answer is now Don McGan refused to testify and

204
00:11:48,960 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 1: the impeachment inquiries. There was a lawsuit brought to compelace testimony.

205
00:11:53,120 --> 00:11:55,440
Speaker 1: There was a favorable ruling I think was how Uniciary

206
00:11:55,440 --> 00:11:58,319
Speaker 1: Commity brought the lawsuit to compel us testimony, but they

207
00:11:58,360 --> 00:12:01,640
Speaker 1: lost the DC Circuit in one rule that ruling is

208
00:12:01,679 --> 00:12:04,319
Speaker 1: on appear right now before the full Circuit. The t

209
00:12:04,480 --> 00:12:08,160
Speaker 1: one ruling was vacated, but technically that standards still survives

210
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:11,320
Speaker 1: at the moment. So if the House brought a lawsuit

211
00:12:11,400 --> 00:12:15,560
Speaker 1: to compel Bill bars testimony at the moment, it's anyone's

212
00:12:15,600 --> 00:12:18,560
Speaker 1: guess what the actual legal standard would be on if

213
00:12:18,600 --> 00:12:22,719
Speaker 1: they even have the standing to compel that testimony. Has

214
00:12:22,800 --> 00:12:27,599
Speaker 1: there been other U S attorneys who dominated the department

215
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:31,000
Speaker 1: to such an extent? You know, there certainly have been

216
00:12:31,040 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 1: you know, powerful with US Attorney General JANUARYO was certainly one.

217
00:12:36,360 --> 00:12:39,360
Speaker 1: Eric Holder was no shrinking Violet. You know, you think

218
00:12:39,400 --> 00:12:41,920
Speaker 1: back to next anything of John Mitchell. But Bill bar

219
00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:46,720
Speaker 1: and part of this is the current era seven social media,

220
00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:52,120
Speaker 1: which overtook cable television to even get more infecting the

221
00:12:52,200 --> 00:12:55,240
Speaker 1: people every waking moment. That's kind of given Bill Barbit

222
00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:57,800
Speaker 1: of a greater area here than we would have ordinarily

223
00:12:57,840 --> 00:13:01,439
Speaker 1: given him. But there is something to be said about

224
00:13:01,440 --> 00:13:06,280
Speaker 1: concerned of how he has intervened to undo past actions

225
00:13:06,960 --> 00:13:09,080
Speaker 1: by the Justice Department in a way that seems to

226
00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:12,680
Speaker 1: be overly favoring the President and the President's friends and

227
00:13:12,720 --> 00:13:16,600
Speaker 1: allies more than necessarily the administration of Justice. That's why

228
00:13:16,640 --> 00:13:20,280
Speaker 1: there's been resignations, That's why there's people testifying today before

229
00:13:20,320 --> 00:13:23,240
Speaker 1: the House on politization at the d o J. That's

230
00:13:23,280 --> 00:13:26,960
Speaker 1: why people at George Washington, the Untity Generals, ALBA Mater

231
00:13:27,400 --> 00:13:30,360
Speaker 1: have denounced him. That's why the New York Bar Association

232
00:13:30,520 --> 00:13:34,680
Speaker 1: has written scathing public remarks on his action. Do I

233
00:13:34,760 --> 00:13:37,920
Speaker 1: think Bill bar cares no? Because Bill bar has his

234
00:13:38,000 --> 00:13:39,760
Speaker 1: view of the world, because his view of how the

235
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:42,480
Speaker 1: laws applied. If he's going to continue to pursue it

236
00:13:42,559 --> 00:13:45,559
Speaker 1: so long as he has that authority, that's Bradley Mass

237
00:13:45,600 --> 00:13:49,960
Speaker 1: of Mark say. The d C. Circuit Court of Appeals

238
00:13:50,000 --> 00:13:53,720
Speaker 1: gave a win to President Trump on immigration, just days

239
00:13:53,800 --> 00:13:57,319
Speaker 1: after the Supreme Court derailed his effort to lift Obama

240
00:13:57,440 --> 00:14:02,079
Speaker 1: error protections for nearly seven has an undocumented immigrants known

241
00:14:02,120 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 1: as dreamers. The court ruled that the administration can use

242
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:10,600
Speaker 1: fast track deportation proceedings for undocumented immigrants found anywhere in

243
00:14:10,600 --> 00:14:12,840
Speaker 1: the United States who have been in the country for

244
00:14:13,040 --> 00:14:16,680
Speaker 1: less than two years. It's a major setback for states

245
00:14:16,720 --> 00:14:20,400
Speaker 1: that back the lawsuit trying to block the plan. Joining

246
00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:23,400
Speaker 1: me as a Laura mccourgee, director of Columbia Law Schools

247
00:14:23,440 --> 00:14:28,280
Speaker 1: Immigrants Rights Clinic. First of all, explain what this ruling does.

248
00:14:29,040 --> 00:14:34,000
Speaker 1: The ruling from yesterday expands and authorizes the use of

249
00:14:34,040 --> 00:14:39,640
Speaker 1: a provisionist law called expedited removal across the country. Congress

250
00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:44,080
Speaker 1: first authorizing of expedited removal with the passage of the

251
00:14:44,160 --> 00:14:49,200
Speaker 1: law in ninet but expedited removal has not been to

252
00:14:49,360 --> 00:14:53,760
Speaker 1: its fullest extent until last am I, when then Acting

253
00:14:53,880 --> 00:14:58,520
Speaker 1: Secretary of HS Kevin McAleenan said, we are going to

254
00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:03,040
Speaker 1: authorize the use of expedited removal nationwide. And what this

255
00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:06,920
Speaker 1: means in practice now that the Court has authorized it

256
00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:10,000
Speaker 1: is that in a few months, it may be possible

257
00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:17,320
Speaker 1: for immigration authorities nationwide two apprehend those who are undocumented

258
00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:19,400
Speaker 1: or those who are perceived to be in the United

259
00:15:19,440 --> 00:15:23,000
Speaker 1: States for less than two years and quickly remove them

260
00:15:23,080 --> 00:15:27,360
Speaker 1: from the country. Expedited Removal lives up to its name,

261
00:15:27,960 --> 00:15:31,760
Speaker 1: and those who are apprehended and put into expedited removal

262
00:15:31,840 --> 00:15:36,080
Speaker 1: proceedings are removed from the United States in about eleven

263
00:15:36,120 --> 00:15:38,880
Speaker 1: and a half days from the time of apprehension the

264
00:15:39,000 --> 00:15:41,640
Speaker 1: time that they're put into the program. For the people

265
00:15:41,640 --> 00:15:43,960
Speaker 1: who are caught up in the program, they have no

266
00:15:44,480 --> 00:15:48,440
Speaker 1: access to an immigration judge. They have no access to

267
00:15:48,680 --> 00:15:52,000
Speaker 1: any federal court or state court jedge to whom they

268
00:15:52,040 --> 00:15:56,640
Speaker 1: may put their case. Their case is entirely decided. Their

269
00:15:56,680 --> 00:16:02,400
Speaker 1: deportation is entirely decided by a line immigration officer whose

270
00:16:02,440 --> 00:16:06,480
Speaker 1: work is only reviewed on paper by a supervisor. So

271
00:16:06,640 --> 00:16:11,640
Speaker 1: there is an extremely high risk of erroneous implication for

272
00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:14,960
Speaker 1: people who may get caught up in the system, and

273
00:16:15,080 --> 00:16:18,320
Speaker 1: it's really really hard to come back into the United

274
00:16:18,360 --> 00:16:22,440
Speaker 1: States if a person has been aroneously supported. Why did

275
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:24,080
Speaker 1: the court say it was all right for the Trump

276
00:16:24,120 --> 00:16:29,480
Speaker 1: administration to expand this? So the lower court, the District Court,

277
00:16:29,560 --> 00:16:34,240
Speaker 1: held that the expansion of expedited removal was not properly

278
00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:38,320
Speaker 1: done by the administration. The lower court held that the

279
00:16:38,360 --> 00:16:43,240
Speaker 1: administration had failed to follow federal administrative procedure law, which

280
00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:46,680
Speaker 1: requires a notice and common period prior to the inaction

281
00:16:47,160 --> 00:16:51,000
Speaker 1: prior to enacting this type of wide sweeping policy and review.

282
00:16:51,600 --> 00:16:55,360
Speaker 1: But what two judges on the DC Circuit Court held

283
00:16:55,960 --> 00:17:00,200
Speaker 1: is that federal law commits quote, sole and unreviewed, full

284
00:17:00,280 --> 00:17:05,840
Speaker 1: discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security about whether to

285
00:17:05,920 --> 00:17:11,120
Speaker 1: subject individuals to this expedited removal procedure. So what the

286
00:17:11,600 --> 00:17:16,040
Speaker 1: DC Circuit Court judges held is there was no need

287
00:17:16,280 --> 00:17:21,320
Speaker 1: for the administration to follow federal administrative law in enacting

288
00:17:21,359 --> 00:17:25,280
Speaker 1: this policy since Congress had already authorized it back in

289
00:17:25,400 --> 00:17:30,760
Speaker 1: nine And what is also important to know, though, is

290
00:17:30,800 --> 00:17:34,439
Speaker 1: that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals only ruled on

291
00:17:34,600 --> 00:17:39,720
Speaker 1: two issues, whether the courts have jurisdiction to consider the case,

292
00:17:39,840 --> 00:17:42,760
Speaker 1: meaning do they have authority to hear the case, and

293
00:17:43,119 --> 00:17:49,400
Speaker 1: seconds whether the administration's new policy and expedited removal comports

294
00:17:49,440 --> 00:17:53,960
Speaker 1: with federal administrative law. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals

295
00:17:53,960 --> 00:17:58,760
Speaker 1: did not rule on the plaintiffs statutory claims, meaning whether

296
00:17:58,800 --> 00:18:02,600
Speaker 1: it violates in the Gracian statutes, and it also did

297
00:18:02,640 --> 00:18:06,600
Speaker 1: not rule on the plaintiffs constitutional claims, meaning whether it

298
00:18:06,760 --> 00:18:10,440
Speaker 1: violated the US Constitution, and the DC Circuit Court of

299
00:18:10,560 --> 00:18:13,960
Speaker 1: Appeals sent the case back to the federal District Court

300
00:18:14,320 --> 00:18:18,359
Speaker 1: for consideration of those claims. So then how big a

301
00:18:18,400 --> 00:18:22,320
Speaker 1: setback is this? Then? I think we will see. Right

302
00:18:22,320 --> 00:18:25,359
Speaker 1: now it is unclear. So the decision does not go

303
00:18:25,440 --> 00:18:29,320
Speaker 1: into effect immediately. It will be stayed, meaning it will

304
00:18:29,359 --> 00:18:33,840
Speaker 1: be on pause until at the earliest August fourteens, at

305
00:18:33,880 --> 00:18:37,920
Speaker 1: which point the District Court and the parties will need

306
00:18:37,960 --> 00:18:41,479
Speaker 1: to decide how to proceed with the case in terms

307
00:18:41,640 --> 00:18:45,280
Speaker 1: of an immigrants right to advocate, which I am. I

308
00:18:45,320 --> 00:18:48,800
Speaker 1: am really worried about the decision because it is possible

309
00:18:48,800 --> 00:18:52,680
Speaker 1: that it will take effect after August fourteens and will

310
00:18:53,000 --> 00:18:57,760
Speaker 1: allow immigration officers around the country to target those who

311
00:18:57,800 --> 00:19:01,280
Speaker 1: they perceived to be in the United States lesson two years,

312
00:19:01,520 --> 00:19:05,560
Speaker 1: apprehend them, put them in immigration detention centers, and then

313
00:19:05,600 --> 00:19:10,640
Speaker 1: subjects them to removal on an extremely fast basis. Now

314
00:19:10,680 --> 00:19:14,080
Speaker 1: that said, there is still hope. It is still possible

315
00:19:14,320 --> 00:19:18,520
Speaker 1: that um the statutory claims, so the immigration law claims

316
00:19:18,600 --> 00:19:22,199
Speaker 1: and the constitutional claims will succeed in court had there

317
00:19:22,240 --> 00:19:27,560
Speaker 1: been proven cases where immigrants were deported who were actually

318
00:19:27,800 --> 00:19:34,760
Speaker 1: here legally. Yes, dozens and dozens of documented cases of immigrants,

319
00:19:34,840 --> 00:19:40,480
Speaker 1: including naturalized US citizens and natural born US citizens meaning

320
00:19:40,480 --> 00:19:44,360
Speaker 1: those born in the United States, who have been deported wrongly.

321
00:19:45,080 --> 00:19:49,800
Speaker 1: Now this decision opens up an enormous leeway for immigration

322
00:19:49,840 --> 00:19:52,800
Speaker 1: authorities to target those who they perceive to be in

323
00:19:52,840 --> 00:19:56,320
Speaker 1: the United States for less than two years. This opens

324
00:19:56,440 --> 00:20:00,720
Speaker 1: up enormous concerns about racial profiling and who will be

325
00:20:00,840 --> 00:20:05,480
Speaker 1: targeted by the decision. It also compounds existing problems in

326
00:20:05,560 --> 00:20:12,360
Speaker 1: immigration detention centers where coronavirus is spreading increasingly rapidly, and

327
00:20:12,680 --> 00:20:17,040
Speaker 1: immigration detention centers are hotbeds for the virus and for

328
00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:19,480
Speaker 1: people who are caught up in the system and two

329
00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:23,360
Speaker 1: are either rightly or wrongly supported, they're going to contribute

330
00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:27,879
Speaker 1: to the exporting of coronavirus from the United States to

331
00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:31,400
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. There's still the underlying claims

332
00:20:31,440 --> 00:20:35,600
Speaker 1: that can proceed at the district court level, but it

333
00:20:35,680 --> 00:20:38,520
Speaker 1: seems like a long shot to get those claims heard

334
00:20:38,640 --> 00:20:45,800
Speaker 1: and decided before the Trump administration can put this into effect. Yes, yes,

335
00:20:45,880 --> 00:20:48,520
Speaker 1: I think that's right. It will be a long shot

336
00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:52,879
Speaker 1: to have the statutory claims and the constitutional claims adjudicated

337
00:20:52,960 --> 00:20:58,520
Speaker 1: before August fourteens. The legal teams for the plaintiffs is

338
00:20:58,560 --> 00:21:02,120
Speaker 1: currently assessing their options and trying to figure out how

339
00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:06,520
Speaker 1: to proceed next. It's worth noting that nearly two dozen

340
00:21:06,600 --> 00:21:10,199
Speaker 1: states and the District of Columbia weighed in in the

341
00:21:10,280 --> 00:21:15,720
Speaker 1: case in favor of the plaintiff organizations, and so that

342
00:21:15,840 --> 00:21:20,520
Speaker 1: this places their workers, including essential workers, at high risk

343
00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:26,600
Speaker 1: of erroneous supportation, and it would have potentially devastating consequences

344
00:21:26,680 --> 00:21:30,240
Speaker 1: on their economies and their communities. I want to turn

345
00:21:30,320 --> 00:21:34,960
Speaker 1: to the issue of the H one B program. First

346
00:21:35,000 --> 00:21:39,000
Speaker 1: of all, explain what President Trump did with executive order.

347
00:21:39,800 --> 00:21:44,119
Speaker 1: The executive order that was issued earlier this week effectively

348
00:21:44,240 --> 00:21:48,399
Speaker 1: halts the processing of H one B visas for people

349
00:21:48,440 --> 00:21:51,879
Speaker 1: who are outside the United States. It does not have

350
00:21:52,040 --> 00:21:55,280
Speaker 1: effects for those who are already in the United States

351
00:21:55,320 --> 00:21:59,640
Speaker 1: on this visa. But the executive order, in an effort

352
00:21:59,640 --> 00:22:03,520
Speaker 1: prop ordering to protect American workers, says that the program

353
00:22:03,640 --> 00:22:08,240
Speaker 1: is on halts until the end of December, at which

354
00:22:08,280 --> 00:22:12,160
Speaker 1: point the President will reconsider the decision. Now this has

355
00:22:12,359 --> 00:22:18,200
Speaker 1: caused enormous outrage and concern among the tech sector and

356
00:22:18,400 --> 00:22:22,680
Speaker 1: other highly specialized industries. H What, he says go to

357
00:22:22,800 --> 00:22:27,399
Speaker 1: highly specialized technical workers and allow the United States to

358
00:22:27,520 --> 00:22:31,000
Speaker 1: recruit to the top talent around the world in science

359
00:22:31,040 --> 00:22:36,520
Speaker 1: and technology and engineering, and this will unfortunately undermine the

360
00:22:36,600 --> 00:22:40,920
Speaker 1: competitiveness of the United States and the global economy. Can

361
00:22:40,960 --> 00:22:45,719
Speaker 1: this be challenged in court? Many of President Trump's executive

362
00:22:45,880 --> 00:22:50,480
Speaker 1: orders related to immigration have been challenged in the federal courts.

363
00:22:51,400 --> 00:22:54,879
Speaker 1: Your listeners may remember most vividly the challenge of the

364
00:22:54,960 --> 00:22:58,760
Speaker 1: executive orders related to the Muslim ban that we're challenged

365
00:22:58,800 --> 00:23:01,760
Speaker 1: in court starting in January of two thousand and seventeen

366
00:23:01,800 --> 00:23:06,440
Speaker 1: after the President issued them. It is possible that this

367
00:23:06,560 --> 00:23:09,560
Speaker 1: new executive order related to H one b B says

368
00:23:09,680 --> 00:23:12,439
Speaker 1: will be challenged in court, but that litigation has not

369
00:23:12,560 --> 00:23:16,520
Speaker 1: been filed yet. I'm wondering who would have standing to

370
00:23:16,720 --> 00:23:20,040
Speaker 1: challenge it, since it relates to people who haven't come

371
00:23:20,440 --> 00:23:26,879
Speaker 1: here yet. It may be that the business organizations in

372
00:23:26,920 --> 00:23:31,479
Speaker 1: the United States that rely on H one B talent

373
00:23:32,200 --> 00:23:35,359
Speaker 1: to thrive and succeed and be competitive in the global

374
00:23:35,400 --> 00:23:41,000
Speaker 1: economy would have standing to challenge the executive order. So

375
00:23:41,040 --> 00:23:44,520
Speaker 1: now let's turn to a decision that came as a

376
00:23:44,560 --> 00:23:49,280
Speaker 1: surprise to many people in the country, especially the Dreamers.

377
00:23:49,560 --> 00:23:51,200
Speaker 1: I don't know if you have any clients who are

378
00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:56,000
Speaker 1: are Dreamers. Yes, we have represented Dreamers over the years

379
00:23:56,080 --> 00:23:59,080
Speaker 1: in terms of helping them fill out their application to

380
00:23:59,119 --> 00:24:02,480
Speaker 1: receive DOCTA, and then also we've helped other Dreamer and

381
00:24:02,560 --> 00:24:06,399
Speaker 1: process their doctor renewals. And it is such a thrill

382
00:24:06,560 --> 00:24:10,080
Speaker 1: and a relief that the Supreme Court upheld the program

383
00:24:10,160 --> 00:24:12,480
Speaker 1: for now. Do you say, for now? Do you think

384
00:24:12,480 --> 00:24:15,840
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration will be able to do anything,

385
00:24:16,359 --> 00:24:20,240
Speaker 1: you know, to issue another executive order within the time

386
00:24:21,000 --> 00:24:26,720
Speaker 1: before the election. The Trump administration certainly could do so.

387
00:24:27,160 --> 00:24:31,480
Speaker 1: There court to the Supreme Court left open the possibility

388
00:24:31,920 --> 00:24:37,439
Speaker 1: for the administration to provide additional reasons supported by the

389
00:24:37,560 --> 00:24:42,000
Speaker 1: evidentiary record, as to why the recision of DOCCA could

390
00:24:42,040 --> 00:24:47,359
Speaker 1: be properly authorized, but I don't think we're going to

391
00:24:47,359 --> 00:24:50,560
Speaker 1: see the administration do that. I think what we'll see

392
00:24:50,600 --> 00:24:54,320
Speaker 1: from this administration looking to November, if they will use

393
00:24:54,359 --> 00:24:59,639
Speaker 1: the DOCTA decision and other promises and say, give us

394
00:24:59,680 --> 00:25:02,639
Speaker 1: for more years, see what else we can do to

395
00:25:03,840 --> 00:25:09,200
Speaker 1: rate our country US immigrants, and continue to pursue a

396
00:25:09,280 --> 00:25:13,639
Speaker 1: white nationalistic agenda. This has been a question, the question

397
00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:17,240
Speaker 1: of the dreamers, for so many years, and there's never

398
00:25:17,320 --> 00:25:23,280
Speaker 1: been an ability of Congress a Congress to actually pass

399
00:25:23,400 --> 00:25:27,840
Speaker 1: legislation that would solve the question of the dreamers permanently.

400
00:25:28,640 --> 00:25:30,600
Speaker 1: What kind of hope do you hold out that that

401
00:25:30,800 --> 00:25:35,200
Speaker 1: day will ever come. I'm hopeful that in the near

402
00:25:35,320 --> 00:25:40,959
Speaker 1: future we will have comprehensive immigration reform. Our country needs

403
00:25:41,040 --> 00:25:46,560
Speaker 1: comprehensive immigration reform that is humane, that recognizes the enormous

404
00:25:46,600 --> 00:25:51,640
Speaker 1: contributions that immigrants make to our economy and to our communities.

405
00:25:52,160 --> 00:25:57,200
Speaker 1: And we need to recognize that many, many talented immigrants

406
00:25:57,320 --> 00:26:01,480
Speaker 1: make America possible, and that they need protections and safety

407
00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:05,879
Speaker 1: in the United States. So I am hopeful that at

408
00:26:06,000 --> 00:26:08,720
Speaker 1: some point in the near future we will seek comprehensive

409
00:26:08,720 --> 00:26:13,320
Speaker 1: immigration reform. It may not be every aspect of immigration,

410
00:26:13,520 --> 00:26:17,000
Speaker 1: but at least as to the dreamers, it's also time

411
00:26:17,040 --> 00:26:20,720
Speaker 1: for a legislative solution right now. Do you think that

412
00:26:21,080 --> 00:26:26,600
Speaker 1: the immigration movement has lost some steam, you know, compared

413
00:26:26,640 --> 00:26:31,320
Speaker 1: to the days when President Trump was stopping the caravans

414
00:26:31,600 --> 00:26:34,520
Speaker 1: and you know, we saw the horrible pictures of children

415
00:26:35,320 --> 00:26:39,880
Speaker 1: in cages. Does it seem as if because of perhaps

416
00:26:40,000 --> 00:26:44,439
Speaker 1: COVID or the fact that he's turned to other things,

417
00:26:45,000 --> 00:26:47,520
Speaker 1: that the steam has kind of gone out of the movement.

418
00:26:48,560 --> 00:26:52,120
Speaker 1: Not at all from my perspective. The immigrant rights movement

419
00:26:52,320 --> 00:26:57,760
Speaker 1: is robust, and it's partnering with ally causes, including the

420
00:26:57,840 --> 00:27:05,520
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter movement, and there is robust organizing, public

421
00:27:05,680 --> 00:27:10,960
Speaker 1: education litigation going on in the courts every day. You know,

422
00:27:11,080 --> 00:27:14,960
Speaker 1: it may not be in the public spotlight as much

423
00:27:15,000 --> 00:27:18,879
Speaker 1: as it was last summer and the summer before, for example,

424
00:27:19,400 --> 00:27:23,480
Speaker 1: when both the cruelty of the administration with regard to

425
00:27:23,560 --> 00:27:26,159
Speaker 1: keeping children in cages within the spotlight, and in the

426
00:27:26,160 --> 00:27:30,919
Speaker 1: summer of two eighteen when family separations hit the spotlight.

427
00:27:31,320 --> 00:27:36,040
Speaker 1: But the movement is robust and doing our best to

428
00:27:36,119 --> 00:27:41,040
Speaker 1: fight every day. Finally, yesterday, President Trump made an appearance

429
00:27:41,080 --> 00:27:44,200
Speaker 1: at his wall part of his wall, and he said

430
00:27:44,240 --> 00:27:49,440
Speaker 1: that illegal immigration is down from this time last year.

431
00:27:50,320 --> 00:27:54,439
Speaker 1: That statistic hold with you, I am not sure. I

432
00:27:54,520 --> 00:27:58,639
Speaker 1: have not seen the data underlying that claim. This administration

433
00:27:59,520 --> 00:28:04,680
Speaker 1: has been and reluctant to share data publicly, and in fact,

434
00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:07,800
Speaker 1: more than a million immigration records have been deleted by

435
00:28:07,800 --> 00:28:12,040
Speaker 1: a federal agency known as the Executive Office of Immigration Review.

436
00:28:12,880 --> 00:28:16,359
Speaker 1: All that said, it is true that immigration patterns have

437
00:28:16,480 --> 00:28:22,160
Speaker 1: dramatically changed since last summer. Most recently, the administration has

438
00:28:22,320 --> 00:28:28,680
Speaker 1: illegally closed the southern border and is in play grant

439
00:28:28,760 --> 00:28:33,080
Speaker 1: violation of its obligations under both federal and international law

440
00:28:33,600 --> 00:28:37,800
Speaker 1: with regard to the processing of asylum seekers. The United

441
00:28:37,840 --> 00:28:42,840
Speaker 1: States is turning asylum seekers, including children unaccompanied by their parents,

442
00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:46,120
Speaker 1: away from the southern border on a daily basis and

443
00:28:46,200 --> 00:28:50,440
Speaker 1: subjecting them to illegal expulsions and deportations. Thank you for

444
00:28:50,480 --> 00:28:52,880
Speaker 1: being on bloom Burg Law. And Laura, that's a Laura

445
00:28:52,960 --> 00:28:56,320
Speaker 1: mccourge a professor at Columbia Law School and director of

446
00:28:56,360 --> 00:28:59,520
Speaker 1: the law schools Immigrants Rights Clinic. And that's it for

447
00:28:59,560 --> 00:29:02,680
Speaker 1: the sedition of Bloomberg Law. Remember you can always get

448
00:29:02,680 --> 00:29:05,680
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You

449
00:29:05,720 --> 00:29:09,280
Speaker 1: can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, or Bloomberg dot com.

450
00:29:09,320 --> 00:29:13,480
Speaker 1: Slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso. Thanks so much

451
00:29:13,520 --> 00:29:15,920
Speaker 1: for listening, and remember to tune in to The Bloomberg

452
00:29:16,040 --> 00:29:19,000
Speaker 1: Law Show every weeknight at Anthia and Eastern right here

453
00:29:19,000 --> 00:29:19,960
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio