1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,720
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,280 --> 00:00:14,600
Speaker 1: As the nationwide protests in the wake of George Floyd's

3
00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:18,239
Speaker 1: death bring attention to police misconduct, a legal doctrine that

4
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,239
Speaker 1: was rarely discussed before has come under attack from all directions.

5
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,960
Speaker 1: Qualified immunity as a doctrine developed by the Supreme Court

6
00:00:26,079 --> 00:00:30,920
Speaker 1: that protects police from civil lawsuits alleging violations of constitutional rights.

7
00:00:31,360 --> 00:00:35,199
Speaker 1: At Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, civil rights lawyer and

8
00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:40,200
Speaker 1: Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump testified that qualified immunity leads

9
00:00:40,280 --> 00:00:45,000
Speaker 1: to no accountability for police. The courts have interpreted this

10
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:51,600
Speaker 1: qualified immunity to almost give complete impunity to the police officers.

11
00:00:51,880 --> 00:00:55,560
Speaker 1: That's why nobody's ever held accountable. Opposition to the doctrine

12
00:00:55,600 --> 00:00:59,680
Speaker 1: is so widespread that more than four hundred professional athletes

13
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:03,760
Speaker 1: CO which is an executive, including Tom Brady, Odell Beckham Jr.

14
00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:07,119
Speaker 1: And Gregg Popovich, signed a letter asking Congress to pass

15
00:01:07,200 --> 00:01:11,120
Speaker 1: legislation to eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement and other

16
00:01:11,160 --> 00:01:14,960
Speaker 1: public officials. Joining me as former federal prosecutor George Newhouse

17
00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:19,640
Speaker 1: of Richard's Carrington George explained what qualified immunity is. Qualified

18
00:01:19,680 --> 00:01:22,679
Speaker 1: immunity is a legal doctrine created by the Court that

19
00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 1: basically holds that law enforcement and data officials have immunity,

20
00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:30,600
Speaker 1: which means they can't be sued for their discretionary actions

21
00:01:30,640 --> 00:01:34,000
Speaker 1: frequently actions taken by police officers in effecting and arrest,

22
00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:40,200
Speaker 1: unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional law or other rights,

23
00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:44,000
Speaker 1: and in effect that the officers acted outrageously. And it's

24
00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:47,920
Speaker 1: been used to basically defeat civil cases. It's not a

25
00:01:48,000 --> 00:01:51,720
Speaker 1: defense in the criminal aspects of officers are charged, as

26
00:01:51,800 --> 00:01:55,560
Speaker 1: the officers in Minneapolis are with criminal violations of law.

27
00:01:55,720 --> 00:01:59,720
Speaker 1: Qualified immunity has no application, but it has been used

28
00:02:00,040 --> 00:02:03,120
Speaker 1: frequently to make it very difficult pursue local officials for

29
00:02:03,240 --> 00:02:08,520
Speaker 1: violating constitutional rights. So underqualified immunity, plants have to show

30
00:02:08,560 --> 00:02:13,120
Speaker 1: that officers violated clearly established rights. But has that hurdle

31
00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:18,079
Speaker 1: become so high that courts are requiring prior court rulings

32
00:02:18,080 --> 00:02:22,120
Speaker 1: with almost identical facts exactly, And this doctrine is, by

33
00:02:22,120 --> 00:02:24,880
Speaker 1: the way, clearly on its way out. There's a bill

34
00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:28,040
Speaker 1: pending in Congress, and as well the Supreme Court has

35
00:02:28,160 --> 00:02:32,800
Speaker 1: nine count them nine separate cases pending certain review at

36
00:02:32,840 --> 00:02:35,240
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. The doctrine seems to be on its

37
00:02:35,280 --> 00:02:37,880
Speaker 1: way out, but it's been criticized because basically the way

38
00:02:38,080 --> 00:02:42,480
Speaker 1: the law has now evolved, this clearly established law means

39
00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:45,120
Speaker 1: there needs to be a court decision pretty much on

40
00:02:45,320 --> 00:02:49,239
Speaker 1: we lawyers call on point, meaning completely applicable under the facts,

41
00:02:49,360 --> 00:02:52,120
Speaker 1: so that if someone is accused of violating a constitutional

42
00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:56,160
Speaker 1: rights but no court has ever said that specific behavior

43
00:02:56,440 --> 00:02:59,320
Speaker 1: violates the Constitution, but then the officer would have a

44
00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:03,200
Speaker 1: qualified community and the court on emotional sumery judgment can

45
00:03:03,240 --> 00:03:07,160
Speaker 1: dismissed the lawsuits that's been criticized as being ridiculous. Probably

46
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:09,680
Speaker 1: the best example of that is there's a Alabama case

47
00:03:09,800 --> 00:03:13,160
Speaker 1: involving a practice in the prison to punish your discipline

48
00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:16,160
Speaker 1: the prisoners, they would block them up literally to a

49
00:03:16,240 --> 00:03:18,760
Speaker 1: hitching post out in the yard. Seems to be cruel,

50
00:03:18,800 --> 00:03:22,000
Speaker 1: unusual for most people. They sued saying that this form

51
00:03:22,080 --> 00:03:24,760
Speaker 1: of punishment looking them up in the yard and during

52
00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:27,400
Speaker 1: the heat of the summer day was cruel and usual

53
00:03:27,440 --> 00:03:31,080
Speaker 1: and violated their constitutional rights. And the court said no, well,

54
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:35,000
Speaker 1: actually there's no court case saying that exactly. So the

55
00:03:35,040 --> 00:03:38,400
Speaker 1: case was dismissed. So it's been taken to an absurd reach.

56
00:03:39,000 --> 00:03:42,640
Speaker 1: The doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in the sixties.

57
00:03:42,840 --> 00:03:45,720
Speaker 1: Tell Us about that case. The case involved out of

58
00:03:45,760 --> 00:03:48,840
Speaker 1: the civil rights cases. In nineteen seven, in a case

59
00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:52,760
Speaker 1: called Pierson versus Ray, court allowed a police officer who

60
00:03:52,840 --> 00:03:55,920
Speaker 1: arrested a group of ministers who wanted to go into

61
00:03:55,960 --> 00:03:58,760
Speaker 1: the segregated waiting room and a bust station, and the

62
00:03:58,760 --> 00:04:02,680
Speaker 1: Court said their look, the law in this case was unconstitutional.

63
00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:05,080
Speaker 1: We later held that, but at the time the police

64
00:04:05,080 --> 00:04:08,040
Speaker 1: officers could not possibly have known this, so we are

65
00:04:08,080 --> 00:04:11,760
Speaker 1: giving them this qualified immunity. It's been applied a number

66
00:04:11,800 --> 00:04:14,920
Speaker 1: of times. There was a case called harloversus Fitzgerald where

67
00:04:14,920 --> 00:04:17,839
Speaker 1: the Court basically changed the standard. That's when it created

68
00:04:17,880 --> 00:04:20,719
Speaker 1: this new standard, which is that in order to lose

69
00:04:20,839 --> 00:04:23,960
Speaker 1: the qualified immunity, the law had to have been clearly

70
00:04:24,080 --> 00:04:26,680
Speaker 1: established by prevailing law, which basically means some of the

71
00:04:26,720 --> 00:04:31,880
Speaker 1: Court decisions. Two justices on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum,

72
00:04:32,400 --> 00:04:36,359
Speaker 1: Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonya so To mayor have written

73
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:40,320
Speaker 1: about concerns with the doctrine for different reasons, which is

74
00:04:40,360 --> 00:04:43,400
Speaker 1: why that it's clear that the doctor no longer enjoys

75
00:04:43,440 --> 00:04:46,680
Speaker 1: really probably anyone on the Supreme Court who would want

76
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:50,200
Speaker 1: to uphold it, because on the right, the strict constructionists,

77
00:04:50,320 --> 00:04:54,080
Speaker 1: led by Justice not only Roberts and Thomas, and I

78
00:04:54,120 --> 00:04:58,800
Speaker 1: assume Corsien Kavanaugh, believe that any tinkering of a law,

79
00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:03,920
Speaker 1: modification by court of a federal statute is impermissible and improper.

80
00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:08,240
Speaker 1: And of course Justice Soda, Mayora and probably Kagan don't

81
00:05:08,279 --> 00:05:11,080
Speaker 1: believe that it's right to insulate the local officials from

82
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:14,800
Speaker 1: civil rights cases. So clearly the votes are against the doctrine.

83
00:05:15,200 --> 00:05:19,360
Speaker 1: Congressman Justin Amage has introduced a bill to end qualified immunity.

84
00:05:19,640 --> 00:05:22,880
Speaker 1: Does Congress have the authority to override what the Supreme

85
00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:25,800
Speaker 1: Court has ruled his law? A great question. It depends

86
00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:29,120
Speaker 1: upon the Supreme courts the basis for their decision in

87
00:05:29,160 --> 00:05:34,359
Speaker 1: this case qualified immunity. Absolutely, Congress can override it, and

88
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:37,240
Speaker 1: the reason for that is the Court decision going back

89
00:05:37,279 --> 00:05:40,760
Speaker 1: to Pearson versus Ray and other decisions have been based

90
00:05:40,800 --> 00:05:44,000
Speaker 1: upon an interpretation of a Congressional statute. So when the

91
00:05:44,040 --> 00:05:47,440
Speaker 1: Supreme Court says we interpret federal laws to say A

92
00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:51,240
Speaker 1: B and C, Congress is absolutely entitled to disagree with

93
00:05:51,320 --> 00:05:54,479
Speaker 1: them and overrule the Supreme Court bypass the law that

94
00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:58,080
Speaker 1: repudiates that particular distinction. In this case, Congress is well

95
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:01,480
Speaker 1: and then its rights to eliminate qualified immunity from federal law.

96
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:04,320
Speaker 1: They can say that wasn't our intent. Remember the law

97
00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:07,400
Speaker 1: that was being amended as basically civil rights statutes, which

98
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:11,520
Speaker 1: is called secree, which basically reads that every person under

99
00:06:11,520 --> 00:06:15,039
Speaker 1: color of law who violates the rights, privileges, or immunity

100
00:06:15,160 --> 00:06:18,200
Speaker 1: secured by the Constitution shall be liable to the person

101
00:06:18,240 --> 00:06:21,120
Speaker 1: who is injured. The statute does not apply for any

102
00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:24,919
Speaker 1: express or implicit defenses. So when the court read into

103
00:06:24,960 --> 00:06:28,760
Speaker 1: this decision, this limitation is defense. Congress absolutely has the

104
00:06:28,800 --> 00:06:32,760
Speaker 1: power to disagree by amending the statute. Those who support

105
00:06:33,120 --> 00:06:35,760
Speaker 1: qualified immunities say that if you get rid of it,

106
00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:39,840
Speaker 1: it will lead to nuisance lawsuits against police and others.

107
00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:43,279
Speaker 1: Do you think that's true. There are several arguments against it,

108
00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:46,960
Speaker 1: and there's no question that we need police officers, and

109
00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:50,080
Speaker 1: we need police officers to have the courage and the

110
00:06:50,200 --> 00:06:53,279
Speaker 1: fortitude to go out and do a dangerous job, which

111
00:06:53,360 --> 00:06:56,039
Speaker 1: is arrest people who are breaking the law. And the

112
00:06:56,120 --> 00:06:59,200
Speaker 1: notion of qualified immunities. We want those officers to know,

113
00:06:59,440 --> 00:07:01,280
Speaker 1: if you will, the we have their backs when they're

114
00:07:01,320 --> 00:07:04,400
Speaker 1: acting responsibly, and that people aren't going to second guess

115
00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:06,800
Speaker 1: them because something called the Ferguson effect is what we

116
00:07:06,839 --> 00:07:10,520
Speaker 1: saw with one of these last outrageous abuses of police discretion,

117
00:07:10,840 --> 00:07:14,440
Speaker 1: and that is that police officers don't feel that they're protected.

118
00:07:14,680 --> 00:07:17,040
Speaker 1: There's a concern that they will not go into the

119
00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:20,280
Speaker 1: communities where there's lawbreaking occurring, and that they will sit

120
00:07:20,320 --> 00:07:23,240
Speaker 1: in their patrol cars and the public will not be protected.

121
00:07:23,360 --> 00:07:25,760
Speaker 1: So the notion that we want to deter people from

122
00:07:25,760 --> 00:07:28,840
Speaker 1: bringing frivolous lawsuits, I think that doesn't have a lot

123
00:07:28,840 --> 00:07:31,040
Speaker 1: of salency, to be honest with you. But the more

124
00:07:31,160 --> 00:07:35,000
Speaker 1: important argument is we do want to assure the police

125
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:38,120
Speaker 1: officers who are doing the right thing and acting responsibly

126
00:07:38,160 --> 00:07:39,920
Speaker 1: in good faith, that they are not going to be

127
00:07:39,960 --> 00:07:42,120
Speaker 1: pulled out of their cars and hauled them the civil

128
00:07:42,160 --> 00:07:46,120
Speaker 1: courts and safing damages. Thanks George, that's George. Newhouse coming

129
00:07:46,200 --> 00:07:50,080
Speaker 1: up next. Ice can no longer rest undocumented immigrants in

130
00:07:50,120 --> 00:07:53,760
Speaker 1: New York court houses. I'm Jren Grosso and this is limber.

131
00:07:57,040 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 1: An undocumented immigrant may walk into a New York Coard

132
00:08:00,280 --> 00:08:02,880
Speaker 1: House to pay a traffic ticket and walk out in

133
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,560
Speaker 1: handcuffs with an ICE agent. Since the Trump executive order

134
00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:10,840
Speaker 1: in tween, federal immigration officers have been making more visits

135
00:08:10,840 --> 00:08:15,200
Speaker 1: to New York courtrooms to arrest undocumented immigrants appearing there

136
00:08:15,240 --> 00:08:19,160
Speaker 1: as victims, defendants, or witnesses. It's a practice so well

137
00:08:19,240 --> 00:08:21,600
Speaker 1: known that it was the subject of the television show

138
00:08:21,800 --> 00:08:24,600
Speaker 1: All Rise, where the judge objects to an ICE agent

139
00:08:24,680 --> 00:08:28,280
Speaker 1: being in her courtroom to arrest an illegal immigrant. This

140
00:08:29,280 --> 00:08:31,440
Speaker 1: is a safe place for us to do our job,

141
00:08:31,760 --> 00:08:34,480
Speaker 1: our duty. It's my duty to make sure that you

142
00:08:34,520 --> 00:08:38,960
Speaker 1: don't use these courts as a stock pond, because people

143
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:41,400
Speaker 1: need to believe that this is a just place. If

144
00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:45,280
Speaker 1: citizens people, then if people think they'll be deported, they

145
00:08:45,280 --> 00:08:48,960
Speaker 1: won't show up. Witnesses will refuse to testify, defendants will

146
00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:52,360
Speaker 1: skip bail, crimes will go on rect But a federal

147
00:08:52,440 --> 00:08:54,520
Speaker 1: judge has put a stop to that. In New York.

148
00:08:54,880 --> 00:08:58,840
Speaker 1: On Wednesday, Judge jed Rakoff said the ICE practice was illegal,

149
00:08:59,120 --> 00:09:01,520
Speaker 1: and he ordered ICE to stop arresting people on the

150
00:09:01,520 --> 00:09:04,360
Speaker 1: grounds of any New York state courthouse or as they

151
00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:07,560
Speaker 1: travel to a courthouse. Joining me is Leon Fresco, the

152
00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:11,040
Speaker 1: former head of the Jostice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation

153
00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:13,680
Speaker 1: and now a partner at Hollandon Knight. Leon tell us

154
00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:17,600
Speaker 1: about Judge Raycoff's ruling in this lawsuit brought by the

155
00:09:17,600 --> 00:09:21,120
Speaker 1: New York Attorney General and the Brooklyn District Attorney. Well,

156
00:09:21,240 --> 00:09:24,280
Speaker 1: the Draycoff's ruling, first of all, is a final ruling

157
00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:27,040
Speaker 1: in the case. It's not a preliminary injunction. It stayed

158
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:32,640
Speaker 1: actually a summary judgment decision. It restricts ices ability to

159
00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:36,079
Speaker 1: be able to go into courthouses to create what are

160
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:40,559
Speaker 1: called civil arrest of people who are trying to access

161
00:09:40,640 --> 00:09:44,280
Speaker 1: the courthouses. And what had happened was was there was

162
00:09:44,320 --> 00:09:47,200
Speaker 1: a change from the time of the Obama administrators where

163
00:09:47,240 --> 00:09:49,360
Speaker 1: the only people who were allowed to be picked up

164
00:09:49,360 --> 00:09:54,080
Speaker 1: at court houses or public safety, national security risk, and

165
00:09:54,240 --> 00:09:56,920
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration was doing in a two thousand

166
00:09:56,960 --> 00:10:00,360
Speaker 1: and eighteen memo that said basically anybody could he picked

167
00:10:00,440 --> 00:10:03,680
Speaker 1: up in a courthouse. And so the judge ruled that

168
00:10:03,679 --> 00:10:09,040
Speaker 1: that new memo both violated the statutes of how Ice

169
00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:12,920
Speaker 1: is supposed to pick people up and also is arbitrary

170
00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:16,560
Speaker 1: and capricius because it creates the problem for the state

171
00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:20,160
Speaker 1: that otherwise wouldn't be created by simply allowing people to

172
00:10:20,240 --> 00:10:23,840
Speaker 1: access the courts and picking them up in some other locations.

173
00:10:23,880 --> 00:10:26,880
Speaker 1: And what was the separation of powers issue? That was

174
00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:31,280
Speaker 1: part of why he said that the memo violated the

175
00:10:31,480 --> 00:10:34,720
Speaker 1: statute itself, because what he said was there is an

176
00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:39,320
Speaker 1: implicit recognition in all federal statutes that they have to

177
00:10:39,400 --> 00:10:44,720
Speaker 1: maintain a respect for federalist principles. And so unless Congress

178
00:10:44,720 --> 00:10:50,520
Speaker 1: had written a statute that specifically said we authorize I

179
00:10:50,840 --> 00:10:54,920
Speaker 1: to go into state courthouses to arrest people, the federal

180
00:10:54,960 --> 00:10:59,199
Speaker 1: government has to accept federalist principles and state. Right, this

181
00:10:59,400 --> 00:11:03,080
Speaker 1: is state. So the undocumented immigrants are coming there for

182
00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:08,440
Speaker 1: everything but immigration matters. Right. They're either there for traffic

183
00:11:08,520 --> 00:11:14,680
Speaker 1: offenses or domestic violence issues, or civil lawsuits or criminal issues,

184
00:11:14,920 --> 00:11:17,960
Speaker 1: but not immigration. And the point is, in all of

185
00:11:17,960 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 1: those issues, the interests of the state is you'd rather

186
00:11:21,320 --> 00:11:23,960
Speaker 1: have the person comes to court and address whatever the

187
00:11:24,080 --> 00:11:27,040
Speaker 1: legal controversy is that that person is involved in that

188
00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:29,240
Speaker 1: have them that comes to courts because they're afraid of

189
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:31,520
Speaker 1: being picked up by ice. Ice can always get this

190
00:11:31,600 --> 00:11:34,440
Speaker 1: person in some other ways, but the only way this

191
00:11:34,480 --> 00:11:37,360
Speaker 1: person can address their legal obligations is to go to court.

192
00:11:37,640 --> 00:11:41,080
Speaker 1: The subtext of all of this, why this is all happening,

193
00:11:41,800 --> 00:11:45,360
Speaker 1: is ICE is upset in general that in New York

194
00:11:45,440 --> 00:11:49,920
Speaker 1: State they don't have sort of the easy ways of

195
00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:54,440
Speaker 1: accessing people for removal, the main one being that you

196
00:11:54,480 --> 00:11:58,720
Speaker 1: can go to the jail and literally transfer someone from

197
00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:02,600
Speaker 1: a jail to ICE custody. And so for them, the

198
00:12:02,640 --> 00:12:06,120
Speaker 1: court house a very good one because at that point,

199
00:12:06,160 --> 00:12:08,520
Speaker 1: you know they don't have any weapons on them, you

200
00:12:08,559 --> 00:12:11,600
Speaker 1: know that they are there, what times they're gonna be there,

201
00:12:12,160 --> 00:12:14,880
Speaker 1: you know that they're there in a poster where they're

202
00:12:14,880 --> 00:12:17,840
Speaker 1: not thinking about violence for the most part, and so

203
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:22,040
Speaker 1: that's what they want to try to accomplish. Is the

204
00:12:22,080 --> 00:12:25,040
Speaker 1: second federal judge to make this kind of a decision

205
00:12:25,280 --> 00:12:28,560
Speaker 1: against Ice. Last year, a judge in Massachusetts made a

206
00:12:28,600 --> 00:12:31,760
Speaker 1: similar decision and the government appealed it. Do you think

207
00:12:31,840 --> 00:12:35,040
Speaker 1: Judge Rakoff's order will be appealed as well? Yes, I

208
00:12:35,080 --> 00:12:37,120
Speaker 1: think this will be appealed, and I think this is

209
00:12:37,200 --> 00:12:40,199
Speaker 1: given another one of the cases that will eventually make

210
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:43,480
Speaker 1: its way up to the Supreme Court. But here I

211
00:12:43,520 --> 00:12:47,880
Speaker 1: think the Supreme Court will actually have some condumdrum as

212
00:12:47,920 --> 00:12:50,200
Speaker 1: to what they want to do, because they generally want

213
00:12:50,200 --> 00:12:53,319
Speaker 1: to be respectful of faith rights, but they also want

214
00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:56,720
Speaker 1: to be respectful of the president's ability to implement the

215
00:12:56,720 --> 00:12:59,640
Speaker 1: immigration laws, and so here is they have a kind

216
00:12:59,679 --> 00:13:03,120
Speaker 1: of nundrums as to who they would side with. But

217
00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:06,280
Speaker 1: I would hope that they would realize that there are

218
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:10,920
Speaker 1: literally an infinite number of ways I can pick people

219
00:13:11,000 --> 00:13:15,800
Speaker 1: up for removal. Just eliminating this courthouse way wouldn't be

220
00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:19,719
Speaker 1: such a huge imposition when it is balanced against the

221
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:23,480
Speaker 1: fact that people being deterred from going to court is

222
00:13:23,520 --> 00:13:26,360
Speaker 1: just such a harm for the interests of the state

223
00:13:26,440 --> 00:13:30,160
Speaker 1: in administering a justice system that that harm really does

224
00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 1: have to be considered. Why New York and Massachusetts to

225
00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:38,880
Speaker 1: other states allow ice to just transfer immigrants from a

226
00:13:39,280 --> 00:13:43,640
Speaker 1: state or city prison to federal custody. Right What happens

227
00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:48,520
Speaker 1: is this courthouse procedure is only put in place in

228
00:13:48,720 --> 00:13:53,000
Speaker 1: cities and states where I doesn't have the jail route

229
00:13:53,040 --> 00:13:55,720
Speaker 1: as a way to pick people up, And so you're

230
00:13:55,720 --> 00:13:57,800
Speaker 1: not going to see a lot of places that file

231
00:13:57,880 --> 00:14:00,120
Speaker 1: these kinds of lawsuits. You know, you might end up

232
00:14:00,160 --> 00:14:03,680
Speaker 1: seeing it in California one day, but The point is

233
00:14:03,800 --> 00:14:06,400
Speaker 1: you're not gonna see too many places because a lot

234
00:14:06,440 --> 00:14:11,160
Speaker 1: of places don't fit the criteria of I actually saying

235
00:14:11,240 --> 00:14:14,560
Speaker 1: the only way that we can easily find people is

236
00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:17,200
Speaker 1: in the courthouses. One of the bigger problems with New York,

237
00:14:17,640 --> 00:14:20,800
Speaker 1: not so much Massachusetts, but with New York is because

238
00:14:20,880 --> 00:14:24,480
Speaker 1: it's so densely populated, a lot of these removal actions

239
00:14:24,520 --> 00:14:27,040
Speaker 1: you have to go into big apartment buildings, you know,

240
00:14:27,160 --> 00:14:29,680
Speaker 1: and you have to create a massive level of disruption,

241
00:14:30,080 --> 00:14:32,080
Speaker 1: and that's what I doesn't want to do. Whereas kind

242
00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:35,600
Speaker 1: of places that are more scattered out and easier to

243
00:14:35,680 --> 00:14:38,880
Speaker 1: have these enforcement operations, then you don't need to go

244
00:14:38,960 --> 00:14:43,080
Speaker 1: as much into courthouses. We haven't heard much about immigration

245
00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:46,920
Speaker 1: matters during the pandemic. What's been happening, you know, have

246
00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:50,840
Speaker 1: has I slowed down? Has the Trump administration slowed down

247
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:54,160
Speaker 1: in what they're doing? Well, it all depends what you

248
00:14:54,200 --> 00:14:56,360
Speaker 1: wanna look at. So if you want to look at

249
00:14:56,600 --> 00:15:00,360
Speaker 1: the numbers of detentions and the number of removals, those

250
00:15:00,440 --> 00:15:05,120
Speaker 1: have decreased during the COVID pandemic because the facilities have

251
00:15:05,240 --> 00:15:07,320
Speaker 1: basically have to be cut in half in terms of

252
00:15:07,360 --> 00:15:11,480
Speaker 1: capacity to meet social distancing requirements with regard to COVID

253
00:15:11,960 --> 00:15:14,240
Speaker 1: and removals have been down because a lot of countries

254
00:15:14,280 --> 00:15:18,560
Speaker 1: aren't accepting flights right now into their countries to permit removal.

255
00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:23,360
Speaker 1: So you have removals basically only occurring to Mexico and

256
00:15:23,440 --> 00:15:27,360
Speaker 1: to just beginning again into Central America. And that's about

257
00:15:27,400 --> 00:15:30,520
Speaker 1: it on the removals for US. But at the same time,

258
00:15:30,560 --> 00:15:33,840
Speaker 1: there are many proclamations and regulations that have been issued.

259
00:15:34,360 --> 00:15:37,400
Speaker 1: So where as as of right now, you have a

260
00:15:37,440 --> 00:15:41,040
Speaker 1: situation where first of all, nobody anywhere in the world,

261
00:15:41,120 --> 00:15:44,080
Speaker 1: and if I'm talking about literally any country can go

262
00:15:44,200 --> 00:15:46,400
Speaker 1: into a U. S consulate right now and get a

263
00:15:46,480 --> 00:15:49,160
Speaker 1: visa to visit the United States. All of our consulates

264
00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:52,760
Speaker 1: are clothes that have been closed for the last four months,

265
00:15:52,880 --> 00:15:56,360
Speaker 1: and it's not clear when even one consulate and even

266
00:15:56,560 --> 00:15:59,960
Speaker 1: you know, like for instance, New Zealand doesn't have coronavirus

267
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:02,920
Speaker 1: in New Zealand anymore, and yet the consulate is closed.

268
00:16:02,920 --> 00:16:05,800
Speaker 1: And so the question is why is that and when

269
00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:08,440
Speaker 1: are some of these consulates going to reopen again. So

270
00:16:08,600 --> 00:16:11,240
Speaker 1: that's the first thing that happened. Second of all, we

271
00:16:11,280 --> 00:16:14,360
Speaker 1: have travel bands that almost half the world now when

272
00:16:14,400 --> 00:16:18,000
Speaker 1: you consider Europe, China, and now some parts of you know,

273
00:16:18,160 --> 00:16:22,160
Speaker 1: South America, including Brazil. You start to see that you

274
00:16:22,280 --> 00:16:25,920
Speaker 1: can't even travel from most places to the United States,

275
00:16:26,200 --> 00:16:29,000
Speaker 1: and the Canadian border is closed, and the Mexican border

276
00:16:29,080 --> 00:16:32,400
Speaker 1: is closed, and so you have that. And then in

277
00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:35,040
Speaker 1: addition to that, now you have new rules that have

278
00:16:35,160 --> 00:16:39,800
Speaker 1: prevented employment based Green cards from being granted in most

279
00:16:39,960 --> 00:16:44,280
Speaker 1: categories to people who are outside the United States. And

280
00:16:44,760 --> 00:16:47,400
Speaker 1: there's about to be new retrictions put in place for

281
00:16:47,680 --> 00:16:51,040
Speaker 1: even non immigrant work visa programs. These are the short

282
00:16:51,160 --> 00:16:54,240
Speaker 1: term work programs that allow people to fill needs that

283
00:16:54,320 --> 00:16:58,800
Speaker 1: they can't find in the United States. Plus, just yesterday,

284
00:16:58,840 --> 00:17:01,840
Speaker 1: there was a one see one page rule that was

285
00:17:01,920 --> 00:17:05,919
Speaker 1: issued on asylum that makes it almost impossible to obtain

286
00:17:05,960 --> 00:17:09,960
Speaker 1: asylum in the United States because if you cross through

287
00:17:10,080 --> 00:17:14,400
Speaker 1: any other country before arriving in the United States, that's

288
00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:17,120
Speaker 1: going to be held against you in order to get asylum.

289
00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:20,040
Speaker 1: And so that would basically mean you'd have to take

290
00:17:20,080 --> 00:17:23,280
Speaker 1: a direct light into the United States in order to

291
00:17:23,400 --> 00:17:26,600
Speaker 1: obtain asylum. That is about going in for notice and

292
00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:29,359
Speaker 1: common and it sets to go into effect after the

293
00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:33,320
Speaker 1: notice and common period is over, so then it seems

294
00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:37,560
Speaker 1: that President Trump did keep his promise in the area

295
00:17:37,560 --> 00:17:41,879
Speaker 1: of immigration of cutting down on immigration. Right at the moment,

296
00:17:42,440 --> 00:17:46,560
Speaker 1: it is very virtually impossible for any human being from

297
00:17:46,560 --> 00:17:49,720
Speaker 1: a foreign country to enter the United States. When you

298
00:17:49,760 --> 00:17:53,320
Speaker 1: add up the amalgamation of all of the different bands

299
00:17:53,359 --> 00:17:56,560
Speaker 1: and closures that have occurred in the system, it is

300
00:17:56,600 --> 00:18:01,680
Speaker 1: basically impossible to enter the United States. And the question is, yes,

301
00:18:01,840 --> 00:18:04,439
Speaker 1: there's a COVID pandemic going on right now, so that

302
00:18:04,520 --> 00:18:07,320
Speaker 1: has to be taken into account. But at some point,

303
00:18:08,040 --> 00:18:11,359
Speaker 1: these these bands actually end up becoming counterproductive to the

304
00:18:11,359 --> 00:18:14,720
Speaker 1: extent that people want to come to actually open businesses

305
00:18:14,800 --> 00:18:17,800
Speaker 1: here and invest in the United States, and even those

306
00:18:17,840 --> 00:18:21,200
Speaker 1: individuals are being kept out, then the question becomes, what

307
00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:23,800
Speaker 1: what is the purpose of that band? If you can

308
00:18:23,880 --> 00:18:27,600
Speaker 1: actually show that the person doesn't have coronavirus, why are

309
00:18:27,600 --> 00:18:30,240
Speaker 1: you keeping them out? At this point, the Docta case

310
00:18:30,440 --> 00:18:34,240
Speaker 1: is still pending at the Supreme Court. There's been no decision,

311
00:18:34,240 --> 00:18:36,720
Speaker 1: despite the fact that it is one of the earliest

312
00:18:36,760 --> 00:18:41,200
Speaker 1: cases that would argued this term. Should we read anything

313
00:18:41,200 --> 00:18:46,560
Speaker 1: into the fact that the Docta decision has not been announced, Yes,

314
00:18:46,760 --> 00:18:51,119
Speaker 1: I certainly have a a fear that The reason that

315
00:18:51,200 --> 00:18:54,119
Speaker 1: the decision is taking so long is because the justices

316
00:18:54,440 --> 00:18:56,879
Speaker 1: who are on the side of maintaining DOCCA want to

317
00:18:56,960 --> 00:19:00,280
Speaker 1: keep the decision out for as long as possible because

318
00:19:00,320 --> 00:19:04,000
Speaker 1: they know that this the program is going to be resended.

319
00:19:04,640 --> 00:19:08,120
Speaker 1: That would be my guest, but obviously that is still

320
00:19:08,160 --> 00:19:10,920
Speaker 1: a guess. I don't know this for sure, but I

321
00:19:10,960 --> 00:19:14,320
Speaker 1: feel as if if the program we're going to be maintained,

322
00:19:14,720 --> 00:19:17,040
Speaker 1: then the decision would have just been ensued over the

323
00:19:17,080 --> 00:19:21,520
Speaker 1: course of the ordinary. But now you have individuals saying,

324
00:19:21,560 --> 00:19:24,600
Speaker 1: don't even issue the decision this term, move it into

325
00:19:24,600 --> 00:19:27,680
Speaker 1: the next term. You're seeing some of the advocacy happening

326
00:19:27,760 --> 00:19:30,960
Speaker 1: now because people are saying, the last thing that the

327
00:19:31,040 --> 00:19:34,439
Speaker 1: United States can can tolerate right now is get another

328
00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:39,520
Speaker 1: sort of highly charged political issue working its way into

329
00:19:39,840 --> 00:19:42,359
Speaker 1: into the framework of all of these other highly started

330
00:19:42,400 --> 00:19:45,560
Speaker 1: political issues we're seeing right now. Thanks le On. That's

331
00:19:45,640 --> 00:19:49,040
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. I'm Johns and this

332
00:19:49,200 --> 00:19:49,720
Speaker 1: is stoner