WEBVTT - The Law that Shields Police is Under Fire

0:00:00.480 --> 0:00:05.720
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:06.280 --> 0:00:14.600
<v Speaker 1>As the nationwide protests in the wake of George Floyd's

0:00:14.640 --> 0:00:18.239
<v Speaker 1>death bring attention to police misconduct, a legal doctrine that

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.239
<v Speaker 1>was rarely discussed before has come under attack from all directions.

0:00:22.600 --> 0:00:25.960
<v Speaker 1>Qualified immunity as a doctrine developed by the Supreme Court

0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:30.920
<v Speaker 1>that protects police from civil lawsuits alleging violations of constitutional rights.

0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:35.199
<v Speaker 1>At Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing, civil rights lawyer and

0:00:35.280 --> 0:00:40.200
<v Speaker 1>Floyd family attorney Benjamin Crump testified that qualified immunity leads

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:45.000
<v Speaker 1>to no accountability for police. The courts have interpreted this

0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:51.600
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunity to almost give complete impunity to the police officers.

0:00:51.880 --> 0:00:55.560
<v Speaker 1>That's why nobody's ever held accountable. Opposition to the doctrine

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:59.680
<v Speaker 1>is so widespread that more than four hundred professional athletes

0:00:59.760 --> 0:01:03.760
<v Speaker 1>CO which is an executive, including Tom Brady, Odell Beckham Jr.

0:01:03.800 --> 0:01:07.119
<v Speaker 1>And Gregg Popovich, signed a letter asking Congress to pass

0:01:07.200 --> 0:01:11.120
<v Speaker 1>legislation to eliminate qualified immunity for law enforcement and other

0:01:11.160 --> 0:01:14.960
<v Speaker 1>public officials. Joining me as former federal prosecutor George Newhouse

0:01:15.000 --> 0:01:19.640
<v Speaker 1>of Richard's Carrington George explained what qualified immunity is. Qualified

0:01:19.680 --> 0:01:22.679
<v Speaker 1>immunity is a legal doctrine created by the Court that

0:01:22.760 --> 0:01:26.880
<v Speaker 1>basically holds that law enforcement and data officials have immunity,

0:01:26.920 --> 0:01:30.600
<v Speaker 1>which means they can't be sued for their discretionary actions

0:01:30.640 --> 0:01:34.000
<v Speaker 1>frequently actions taken by police officers in effecting and arrest,

0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:40.200
<v Speaker 1>unless their actions violated clearly established constitutional law or other rights,

0:01:40.360 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 1>and in effect that the officers acted outrageously. And it's

0:01:44.040 --> 0:01:47.920
<v Speaker 1>been used to basically defeat civil cases. It's not a

0:01:48.000 --> 0:01:51.720
<v Speaker 1>defense in the criminal aspects of officers are charged, as

0:01:51.800 --> 0:01:55.560
<v Speaker 1>the officers in Minneapolis are with criminal violations of law.

0:01:55.720 --> 0:01:59.720
<v Speaker 1>Qualified immunity has no application, but it has been used

0:02:00.040 --> 0:02:03.120
<v Speaker 1>frequently to make it very difficult pursue local officials for

0:02:03.240 --> 0:02:08.520
<v Speaker 1>violating constitutional rights. So underqualified immunity, plants have to show

0:02:08.560 --> 0:02:13.120
<v Speaker 1>that officers violated clearly established rights. But has that hurdle

0:02:13.280 --> 0:02:18.079
<v Speaker 1>become so high that courts are requiring prior court rulings

0:02:18.080 --> 0:02:22.120
<v Speaker 1>with almost identical facts exactly, And this doctrine is, by

0:02:22.120 --> 0:02:24.880
<v Speaker 1>the way, clearly on its way out. There's a bill

0:02:24.960 --> 0:02:28.040
<v Speaker 1>pending in Congress, and as well the Supreme Court has

0:02:28.160 --> 0:02:32.800
<v Speaker 1>nine count them nine separate cases pending certain review at

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:35.240
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court. The doctrine seems to be on its

0:02:35.280 --> 0:02:37.880
<v Speaker 1>way out, but it's been criticized because basically the way

0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:42.480
<v Speaker 1>the law has now evolved, this clearly established law means

0:02:42.639 --> 0:02:45.120
<v Speaker 1>there needs to be a court decision pretty much on

0:02:45.320 --> 0:02:49.239
<v Speaker 1>we lawyers call on point, meaning completely applicable under the facts,

0:02:49.360 --> 0:02:52.120
<v Speaker 1>so that if someone is accused of violating a constitutional

0:02:52.240 --> 0:02:56.160
<v Speaker 1>rights but no court has ever said that specific behavior

0:02:56.440 --> 0:02:59.320
<v Speaker 1>violates the Constitution, but then the officer would have a

0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:03.200
<v Speaker 1>qualified community and the court on emotional sumery judgment can

0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:07.160
<v Speaker 1>dismissed the lawsuits that's been criticized as being ridiculous. Probably

0:03:07.200 --> 0:03:09.680
<v Speaker 1>the best example of that is there's a Alabama case

0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:13.160
<v Speaker 1>involving a practice in the prison to punish your discipline

0:03:13.240 --> 0:03:16.160
<v Speaker 1>the prisoners, they would block them up literally to a

0:03:16.240 --> 0:03:18.760
<v Speaker 1>hitching post out in the yard. Seems to be cruel,

0:03:18.800 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>unusual for most people. They sued saying that this form

0:03:22.080 --> 0:03:24.760
<v Speaker 1>of punishment looking them up in the yard and during

0:03:24.760 --> 0:03:27.400
<v Speaker 1>the heat of the summer day was cruel and usual

0:03:27.440 --> 0:03:31.080
<v Speaker 1>and violated their constitutional rights. And the court said no, well,

0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:35.000
<v Speaker 1>actually there's no court case saying that exactly. So the

0:03:35.040 --> 0:03:38.400
<v Speaker 1>case was dismissed. So it's been taken to an absurd reach.

0:03:39.000 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 1>The doctrine was created by the Supreme Court in the sixties.

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:45.720
<v Speaker 1>Tell Us about that case. The case involved out of

0:03:45.760 --> 0:03:48.840
<v Speaker 1>the civil rights cases. In nineteen seven, in a case

0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:52.760
<v Speaker 1>called Pierson versus Ray, court allowed a police officer who

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:55.920
<v Speaker 1>arrested a group of ministers who wanted to go into

0:03:55.960 --> 0:03:58.760
<v Speaker 1>the segregated waiting room and a bust station, and the

0:03:58.760 --> 0:04:02.680
<v Speaker 1>Court said their look, the law in this case was unconstitutional.

0:04:02.720 --> 0:04:05.080
<v Speaker 1>We later held that, but at the time the police

0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:08.040
<v Speaker 1>officers could not possibly have known this, so we are

0:04:08.080 --> 0:04:11.760
<v Speaker 1>giving them this qualified immunity. It's been applied a number

0:04:11.800 --> 0:04:14.920
<v Speaker 1>of times. There was a case called harloversus Fitzgerald where

0:04:14.920 --> 0:04:17.839
<v Speaker 1>the Court basically changed the standard. That's when it created

0:04:17.880 --> 0:04:20.719
<v Speaker 1>this new standard, which is that in order to lose

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:23.960
<v Speaker 1>the qualified immunity, the law had to have been clearly

0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:26.680
<v Speaker 1>established by prevailing law, which basically means some of the

0:04:26.720 --> 0:04:31.880
<v Speaker 1>Court decisions. Two justices on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum,

0:04:32.400 --> 0:04:36.359
<v Speaker 1>Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonya so To mayor have written

0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:40.320
<v Speaker 1>about concerns with the doctrine for different reasons, which is

0:04:40.360 --> 0:04:43.400
<v Speaker 1>why that it's clear that the doctor no longer enjoys

0:04:43.440 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>really probably anyone on the Supreme Court who would want

0:04:46.720 --> 0:04:50.200
<v Speaker 1>to uphold it, because on the right, the strict constructionists,

0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:54.080
<v Speaker 1>led by Justice not only Roberts and Thomas, and I

0:04:54.120 --> 0:04:58.800
<v Speaker 1>assume Corsien Kavanaugh, believe that any tinkering of a law,

0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:03.920
<v Speaker 1>modification by court of a federal statute is impermissible and improper.

0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 1>And of course Justice Soda, Mayora and probably Kagan don't

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.080
<v Speaker 1>believe that it's right to insulate the local officials from

0:05:11.120 --> 0:05:14.800
<v Speaker 1>civil rights cases. So clearly the votes are against the doctrine.

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:19.360
<v Speaker 1>Congressman Justin Amage has introduced a bill to end qualified immunity.

0:05:19.640 --> 0:05:22.880
<v Speaker 1>Does Congress have the authority to override what the Supreme

0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:25.800
<v Speaker 1>Court has ruled his law? A great question. It depends

0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:29.120
<v Speaker 1>upon the Supreme courts the basis for their decision in

0:05:29.160 --> 0:05:34.359
<v Speaker 1>this case qualified immunity. Absolutely, Congress can override it, and

0:05:34.360 --> 0:05:37.240
<v Speaker 1>the reason for that is the Court decision going back

0:05:37.279 --> 0:05:40.760
<v Speaker 1>to Pearson versus Ray and other decisions have been based

0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:44.000
<v Speaker 1>upon an interpretation of a Congressional statute. So when the

0:05:44.040 --> 0:05:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court says we interpret federal laws to say A

0:05:47.600 --> 0:05:51.240
<v Speaker 1>B and C, Congress is absolutely entitled to disagree with

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.479
<v Speaker 1>them and overrule the Supreme Court bypass the law that

0:05:54.560 --> 0:05:58.080
<v Speaker 1>repudiates that particular distinction. In this case, Congress is well

0:05:58.080 --> 0:06:01.480
<v Speaker 1>and then its rights to eliminate qualified immunity from federal law.

0:06:01.680 --> 0:06:04.320
<v Speaker 1>They can say that wasn't our intent. Remember the law

0:06:04.360 --> 0:06:07.400
<v Speaker 1>that was being amended as basically civil rights statutes, which

0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:11.520
<v Speaker 1>is called secree, which basically reads that every person under

0:06:11.520 --> 0:06:15.039
<v Speaker 1>color of law who violates the rights, privileges, or immunity

0:06:15.160 --> 0:06:18.200
<v Speaker 1>secured by the Constitution shall be liable to the person

0:06:18.240 --> 0:06:21.120
<v Speaker 1>who is injured. The statute does not apply for any

0:06:21.120 --> 0:06:24.919
<v Speaker 1>express or implicit defenses. So when the court read into

0:06:24.960 --> 0:06:28.760
<v Speaker 1>this decision, this limitation is defense. Congress absolutely has the

0:06:28.800 --> 0:06:32.760
<v Speaker 1>power to disagree by amending the statute. Those who support

0:06:33.120 --> 0:06:35.760
<v Speaker 1>qualified immunities say that if you get rid of it,

0:06:35.760 --> 0:06:39.840
<v Speaker 1>it will lead to nuisance lawsuits against police and others.

0:06:40.200 --> 0:06:43.279
<v Speaker 1>Do you think that's true. There are several arguments against it,

0:06:43.560 --> 0:06:46.960
<v Speaker 1>and there's no question that we need police officers, and

0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:50.080
<v Speaker 1>we need police officers to have the courage and the

0:06:50.200 --> 0:06:53.279
<v Speaker 1>fortitude to go out and do a dangerous job, which

0:06:53.360 --> 0:06:56.039
<v Speaker 1>is arrest people who are breaking the law. And the

0:06:56.120 --> 0:06:59.200
<v Speaker 1>notion of qualified immunities. We want those officers to know,

0:06:59.440 --> 0:07:01.280
<v Speaker 1>if you will, the we have their backs when they're

0:07:01.320 --> 0:07:04.400
<v Speaker 1>acting responsibly, and that people aren't going to second guess

0:07:04.400 --> 0:07:06.800
<v Speaker 1>them because something called the Ferguson effect is what we

0:07:06.839 --> 0:07:10.520
<v Speaker 1>saw with one of these last outrageous abuses of police discretion,

0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:14.440
<v Speaker 1>and that is that police officers don't feel that they're protected.

0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:17.040
<v Speaker 1>There's a concern that they will not go into the

0:07:17.080 --> 0:07:20.280
<v Speaker 1>communities where there's lawbreaking occurring, and that they will sit

0:07:20.320 --> 0:07:23.240
<v Speaker 1>in their patrol cars and the public will not be protected.

0:07:23.360 --> 0:07:25.760
<v Speaker 1>So the notion that we want to deter people from

0:07:25.760 --> 0:07:28.840
<v Speaker 1>bringing frivolous lawsuits, I think that doesn't have a lot

0:07:28.840 --> 0:07:31.040
<v Speaker 1>of salency, to be honest with you. But the more

0:07:31.160 --> 0:07:35.000
<v Speaker 1>important argument is we do want to assure the police

0:07:35.000 --> 0:07:38.120
<v Speaker 1>officers who are doing the right thing and acting responsibly

0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:39.920
<v Speaker 1>in good faith, that they are not going to be

0:07:39.960 --> 0:07:42.120
<v Speaker 1>pulled out of their cars and hauled them the civil

0:07:42.160 --> 0:07:46.120
<v Speaker 1>courts and safing damages. Thanks George, that's George. Newhouse coming

0:07:46.200 --> 0:07:50.080
<v Speaker 1>up next. Ice can no longer rest undocumented immigrants in

0:07:50.120 --> 0:07:53.760
<v Speaker 1>New York court houses. I'm Jren Grosso and this is limber.

0:07:57.040 --> 0:08:00.200
<v Speaker 1>An undocumented immigrant may walk into a New York Coard

0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:02.880
<v Speaker 1>House to pay a traffic ticket and walk out in

0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:06.560
<v Speaker 1>handcuffs with an ICE agent. Since the Trump executive order

0:08:06.600 --> 0:08:10.840
<v Speaker 1>in tween, federal immigration officers have been making more visits

0:08:10.840 --> 0:08:15.200
<v Speaker 1>to New York courtrooms to arrest undocumented immigrants appearing there

0:08:15.240 --> 0:08:19.160
<v Speaker 1>as victims, defendants, or witnesses. It's a practice so well

0:08:19.240 --> 0:08:21.600
<v Speaker 1>known that it was the subject of the television show

0:08:21.800 --> 0:08:24.600
<v Speaker 1>All Rise, where the judge objects to an ICE agent

0:08:24.680 --> 0:08:28.280
<v Speaker 1>being in her courtroom to arrest an illegal immigrant. This

0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:31.440
<v Speaker 1>is a safe place for us to do our job,

0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:34.480
<v Speaker 1>our duty. It's my duty to make sure that you

0:08:34.520 --> 0:08:38.960
<v Speaker 1>don't use these courts as a stock pond, because people

0:08:39.000 --> 0:08:41.400
<v Speaker 1>need to believe that this is a just place. If

0:08:41.440 --> 0:08:45.280
<v Speaker 1>citizens people, then if people think they'll be deported, they

0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.960
<v Speaker 1>won't show up. Witnesses will refuse to testify, defendants will

0:08:48.960 --> 0:08:52.360
<v Speaker 1>skip bail, crimes will go on rect But a federal

0:08:52.440 --> 0:08:54.520
<v Speaker 1>judge has put a stop to that. In New York.

0:08:54.880 --> 0:08:58.840
<v Speaker 1>On Wednesday, Judge jed Rakoff said the ICE practice was illegal,

0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:01.520
<v Speaker 1>and he ordered ICE to stop arresting people on the

0:09:01.520 --> 0:09:04.360
<v Speaker 1>grounds of any New York state courthouse or as they

0:09:04.400 --> 0:09:07.560
<v Speaker 1>travel to a courthouse. Joining me is Leon Fresco, the

0:09:07.600 --> 0:09:11.040
<v Speaker 1>former head of the Jostice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation

0:09:11.240 --> 0:09:13.680
<v Speaker 1>and now a partner at Hollandon Knight. Leon tell us

0:09:13.720 --> 0:09:17.600
<v Speaker 1>about Judge Raycoff's ruling in this lawsuit brought by the

0:09:17.600 --> 0:09:21.120
<v Speaker 1>New York Attorney General and the Brooklyn District Attorney. Well,

0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:24.280
<v Speaker 1>the Draycoff's ruling, first of all, is a final ruling

0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:27.040
<v Speaker 1>in the case. It's not a preliminary injunction. It stayed

0:09:27.080 --> 0:09:32.640
<v Speaker 1>actually a summary judgment decision. It restricts ices ability to

0:09:32.720 --> 0:09:36.079
<v Speaker 1>be able to go into courthouses to create what are

0:09:36.120 --> 0:09:40.559
<v Speaker 1>called civil arrest of people who are trying to access

0:09:40.640 --> 0:09:44.280
<v Speaker 1>the courthouses. And what had happened was was there was

0:09:44.320 --> 0:09:47.200
<v Speaker 1>a change from the time of the Obama administrators where

0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:49.360
<v Speaker 1>the only people who were allowed to be picked up

0:09:49.360 --> 0:09:54.080
<v Speaker 1>at court houses or public safety, national security risk, and

0:09:54.240 --> 0:09:56.920
<v Speaker 1>what the Trump administration was doing in a two thousand

0:09:56.960 --> 0:10:00.360
<v Speaker 1>and eighteen memo that said basically anybody could he picked

0:10:00.440 --> 0:10:03.680
<v Speaker 1>up in a courthouse. And so the judge ruled that

0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:09.040
<v Speaker 1>that new memo both violated the statutes of how Ice

0:10:09.120 --> 0:10:12.920
<v Speaker 1>is supposed to pick people up and also is arbitrary

0:10:13.000 --> 0:10:16.560
<v Speaker 1>and capricius because it creates the problem for the state

0:10:16.920 --> 0:10:20.160
<v Speaker 1>that otherwise wouldn't be created by simply allowing people to

0:10:20.240 --> 0:10:23.840
<v Speaker 1>access the courts and picking them up in some other locations.

0:10:23.880 --> 0:10:26.880
<v Speaker 1>And what was the separation of powers issue? That was

0:10:26.960 --> 0:10:31.280
<v Speaker 1>part of why he said that the memo violated the

0:10:31.480 --> 0:10:34.720
<v Speaker 1>statute itself, because what he said was there is an

0:10:34.760 --> 0:10:39.320
<v Speaker 1>implicit recognition in all federal statutes that they have to

0:10:39.400 --> 0:10:44.720
<v Speaker 1>maintain a respect for federalist principles. And so unless Congress

0:10:44.720 --> 0:10:50.520
<v Speaker 1>had written a statute that specifically said we authorize I

0:10:50.840 --> 0:10:54.920
<v Speaker 1>to go into state courthouses to arrest people, the federal

0:10:54.960 --> 0:10:59.199
<v Speaker 1>government has to accept federalist principles and state. Right, this

0:10:59.400 --> 0:11:03.080
<v Speaker 1>is state. So the undocumented immigrants are coming there for

0:11:03.200 --> 0:11:08.440
<v Speaker 1>everything but immigration matters. Right. They're either there for traffic

0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:14.680
<v Speaker 1>offenses or domestic violence issues, or civil lawsuits or criminal issues,

0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:17.960
<v Speaker 1>but not immigration. And the point is, in all of

0:11:17.960 --> 0:11:21.240
<v Speaker 1>those issues, the interests of the state is you'd rather

0:11:21.320 --> 0:11:23.960
<v Speaker 1>have the person comes to court and address whatever the

0:11:24.080 --> 0:11:27.040
<v Speaker 1>legal controversy is that that person is involved in that

0:11:27.200 --> 0:11:29.240
<v Speaker 1>have them that comes to courts because they're afraid of

0:11:29.240 --> 0:11:31.520
<v Speaker 1>being picked up by ice. Ice can always get this

0:11:31.600 --> 0:11:34.440
<v Speaker 1>person in some other ways, but the only way this

0:11:34.480 --> 0:11:37.360
<v Speaker 1>person can address their legal obligations is to go to court.

0:11:37.640 --> 0:11:41.080
<v Speaker 1>The subtext of all of this, why this is all happening,

0:11:41.800 --> 0:11:45.360
<v Speaker 1>is ICE is upset in general that in New York

0:11:45.440 --> 0:11:49.920
<v Speaker 1>State they don't have sort of the easy ways of

0:11:50.040 --> 0:11:54.440
<v Speaker 1>accessing people for removal, the main one being that you

0:11:54.480 --> 0:11:58.720
<v Speaker 1>can go to the jail and literally transfer someone from

0:11:58.720 --> 0:12:02.600
<v Speaker 1>a jail to ICE custody. And so for them, the

0:12:02.640 --> 0:12:06.120
<v Speaker 1>court house a very good one because at that point,

0:12:06.160 --> 0:12:08.520
<v Speaker 1>you know they don't have any weapons on them, you

0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:11.600
<v Speaker 1>know that they are there, what times they're gonna be there,

0:12:12.160 --> 0:12:14.880
<v Speaker 1>you know that they're there in a poster where they're

0:12:14.880 --> 0:12:17.840
<v Speaker 1>not thinking about violence for the most part, and so

0:12:18.200 --> 0:12:22.040
<v Speaker 1>that's what they want to try to accomplish. Is the

0:12:22.080 --> 0:12:25.040
<v Speaker 1>second federal judge to make this kind of a decision

0:12:25.280 --> 0:12:28.560
<v Speaker 1>against Ice. Last year, a judge in Massachusetts made a

0:12:28.600 --> 0:12:31.760
<v Speaker 1>similar decision and the government appealed it. Do you think

0:12:31.840 --> 0:12:35.040
<v Speaker 1>Judge Rakoff's order will be appealed as well? Yes, I

0:12:35.080 --> 0:12:37.120
<v Speaker 1>think this will be appealed, and I think this is

0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:40.199
<v Speaker 1>given another one of the cases that will eventually make

0:12:40.240 --> 0:12:43.480
<v Speaker 1>its way up to the Supreme Court. But here I

0:12:43.520 --> 0:12:47.880
<v Speaker 1>think the Supreme Court will actually have some condumdrum as

0:12:47.920 --> 0:12:50.200
<v Speaker 1>to what they want to do, because they generally want

0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:53.319
<v Speaker 1>to be respectful of faith rights, but they also want

0:12:53.320 --> 0:12:56.720
<v Speaker 1>to be respectful of the president's ability to implement the

0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:59.640
<v Speaker 1>immigration laws, and so here is they have a kind

0:12:59.679 --> 0:13:03.120
<v Speaker 1>of nundrums as to who they would side with. But

0:13:03.280 --> 0:13:06.280
<v Speaker 1>I would hope that they would realize that there are

0:13:07.000 --> 0:13:10.920
<v Speaker 1>literally an infinite number of ways I can pick people

0:13:11.000 --> 0:13:15.800
<v Speaker 1>up for removal. Just eliminating this courthouse way wouldn't be

0:13:15.880 --> 0:13:19.719
<v Speaker 1>such a huge imposition when it is balanced against the

0:13:19.760 --> 0:13:23.480
<v Speaker 1>fact that people being deterred from going to court is

0:13:23.520 --> 0:13:26.360
<v Speaker 1>just such a harm for the interests of the state

0:13:26.440 --> 0:13:30.160
<v Speaker 1>in administering a justice system that that harm really does

0:13:30.240 --> 0:13:33.240
<v Speaker 1>have to be considered. Why New York and Massachusetts to

0:13:33.400 --> 0:13:38.880
<v Speaker 1>other states allow ice to just transfer immigrants from a

0:13:39.280 --> 0:13:43.640
<v Speaker 1>state or city prison to federal custody. Right What happens

0:13:43.760 --> 0:13:48.520
<v Speaker 1>is this courthouse procedure is only put in place in

0:13:48.720 --> 0:13:53.000
<v Speaker 1>cities and states where I doesn't have the jail route

0:13:53.040 --> 0:13:55.720
<v Speaker 1>as a way to pick people up, And so you're

0:13:55.720 --> 0:13:57.800
<v Speaker 1>not going to see a lot of places that file

0:13:57.880 --> 0:14:00.120
<v Speaker 1>these kinds of lawsuits. You know, you might end up

0:14:00.160 --> 0:14:03.680
<v Speaker 1>seeing it in California one day, but The point is

0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:06.400
<v Speaker 1>you're not gonna see too many places because a lot

0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:11.160
<v Speaker 1>of places don't fit the criteria of I actually saying

0:14:11.240 --> 0:14:14.560
<v Speaker 1>the only way that we can easily find people is

0:14:14.600 --> 0:14:17.200
<v Speaker 1>in the courthouses. One of the bigger problems with New York,

0:14:17.640 --> 0:14:20.800
<v Speaker 1>not so much Massachusetts, but with New York is because

0:14:20.880 --> 0:14:24.480
<v Speaker 1>it's so densely populated, a lot of these removal actions

0:14:24.520 --> 0:14:27.040
<v Speaker 1>you have to go into big apartment buildings, you know,

0:14:27.160 --> 0:14:29.680
<v Speaker 1>and you have to create a massive level of disruption,

0:14:30.080 --> 0:14:32.080
<v Speaker 1>and that's what I doesn't want to do. Whereas kind

0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:35.600
<v Speaker 1>of places that are more scattered out and easier to

0:14:35.680 --> 0:14:38.880
<v Speaker 1>have these enforcement operations, then you don't need to go

0:14:38.960 --> 0:14:43.080
<v Speaker 1>as much into courthouses. We haven't heard much about immigration

0:14:43.200 --> 0:14:46.920
<v Speaker 1>matters during the pandemic. What's been happening, you know, have

0:14:47.120 --> 0:14:50.840
<v Speaker 1>has I slowed down? Has the Trump administration slowed down

0:14:50.840 --> 0:14:54.160
<v Speaker 1>in what they're doing? Well, it all depends what you

0:14:54.200 --> 0:14:56.360
<v Speaker 1>wanna look at. So if you want to look at

0:14:56.600 --> 0:15:00.360
<v Speaker 1>the numbers of detentions and the number of removals, those

0:15:00.440 --> 0:15:05.120
<v Speaker 1>have decreased during the COVID pandemic because the facilities have

0:15:05.240 --> 0:15:07.320
<v Speaker 1>basically have to be cut in half in terms of

0:15:07.360 --> 0:15:11.480
<v Speaker 1>capacity to meet social distancing requirements with regard to COVID

0:15:11.960 --> 0:15:14.240
<v Speaker 1>and removals have been down because a lot of countries

0:15:14.280 --> 0:15:18.560
<v Speaker 1>aren't accepting flights right now into their countries to permit removal.

0:15:18.880 --> 0:15:23.360
<v Speaker 1>So you have removals basically only occurring to Mexico and

0:15:23.440 --> 0:15:27.360
<v Speaker 1>to just beginning again into Central America. And that's about

0:15:27.400 --> 0:15:30.520
<v Speaker 1>it on the removals for US. But at the same time,

0:15:30.560 --> 0:15:33.840
<v Speaker 1>there are many proclamations and regulations that have been issued.

0:15:34.360 --> 0:15:37.400
<v Speaker 1>So where as as of right now, you have a

0:15:37.440 --> 0:15:41.040
<v Speaker 1>situation where first of all, nobody anywhere in the world,

0:15:41.120 --> 0:15:44.080
<v Speaker 1>and if I'm talking about literally any country can go

0:15:44.200 --> 0:15:46.400
<v Speaker 1>into a U. S consulate right now and get a

0:15:46.480 --> 0:15:49.160
<v Speaker 1>visa to visit the United States. All of our consulates

0:15:49.400 --> 0:15:52.760
<v Speaker 1>are clothes that have been closed for the last four months,

0:15:52.880 --> 0:15:56.360
<v Speaker 1>and it's not clear when even one consulate and even

0:15:56.560 --> 0:15:59.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, like for instance, New Zealand doesn't have coronavirus

0:16:00.000 --> 0:16:02.920
<v Speaker 1>in New Zealand anymore, and yet the consulate is closed.

0:16:02.920 --> 0:16:05.800
<v Speaker 1>And so the question is why is that and when

0:16:05.800 --> 0:16:08.440
<v Speaker 1>are some of these consulates going to reopen again. So

0:16:08.600 --> 0:16:11.240
<v Speaker 1>that's the first thing that happened. Second of all, we

0:16:11.280 --> 0:16:14.360
<v Speaker 1>have travel bands that almost half the world now when

0:16:14.400 --> 0:16:18.000
<v Speaker 1>you consider Europe, China, and now some parts of you know,

0:16:18.160 --> 0:16:22.160
<v Speaker 1>South America, including Brazil. You start to see that you

0:16:22.280 --> 0:16:25.920
<v Speaker 1>can't even travel from most places to the United States,

0:16:26.200 --> 0:16:29.000
<v Speaker 1>and the Canadian border is closed, and the Mexican border

0:16:29.080 --> 0:16:32.400
<v Speaker 1>is closed, and so you have that. And then in

0:16:32.440 --> 0:16:35.040
<v Speaker 1>addition to that, now you have new rules that have

0:16:35.160 --> 0:16:39.800
<v Speaker 1>prevented employment based Green cards from being granted in most

0:16:39.960 --> 0:16:44.280
<v Speaker 1>categories to people who are outside the United States. And

0:16:44.760 --> 0:16:47.400
<v Speaker 1>there's about to be new retrictions put in place for

0:16:47.680 --> 0:16:51.040
<v Speaker 1>even non immigrant work visa programs. These are the short

0:16:51.160 --> 0:16:54.240
<v Speaker 1>term work programs that allow people to fill needs that

0:16:54.320 --> 0:16:58.800
<v Speaker 1>they can't find in the United States. Plus, just yesterday,

0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:01.840
<v Speaker 1>there was a one see one page rule that was

0:17:01.920 --> 0:17:05.919
<v Speaker 1>issued on asylum that makes it almost impossible to obtain

0:17:05.960 --> 0:17:09.960
<v Speaker 1>asylum in the United States because if you cross through

0:17:10.080 --> 0:17:14.400
<v Speaker 1>any other country before arriving in the United States, that's

0:17:14.400 --> 0:17:17.120
<v Speaker 1>going to be held against you in order to get asylum.

0:17:17.600 --> 0:17:20.040
<v Speaker 1>And so that would basically mean you'd have to take

0:17:20.080 --> 0:17:23.280
<v Speaker 1>a direct light into the United States in order to

0:17:23.400 --> 0:17:26.600
<v Speaker 1>obtain asylum. That is about going in for notice and

0:17:26.640 --> 0:17:29.359
<v Speaker 1>common and it sets to go into effect after the

0:17:29.440 --> 0:17:33.320
<v Speaker 1>notice and common period is over, so then it seems

0:17:33.359 --> 0:17:37.560
<v Speaker 1>that President Trump did keep his promise in the area

0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:41.879
<v Speaker 1>of immigration of cutting down on immigration. Right at the moment,

0:17:42.440 --> 0:17:46.560
<v Speaker 1>it is very virtually impossible for any human being from

0:17:46.560 --> 0:17:49.720
<v Speaker 1>a foreign country to enter the United States. When you

0:17:49.760 --> 0:17:53.320
<v Speaker 1>add up the amalgamation of all of the different bands

0:17:53.359 --> 0:17:56.560
<v Speaker 1>and closures that have occurred in the system, it is

0:17:56.600 --> 0:18:01.680
<v Speaker 1>basically impossible to enter the United States. And the question is, yes,

0:18:01.840 --> 0:18:04.439
<v Speaker 1>there's a COVID pandemic going on right now, so that

0:18:04.520 --> 0:18:07.320
<v Speaker 1>has to be taken into account. But at some point,

0:18:08.040 --> 0:18:11.359
<v Speaker 1>these these bands actually end up becoming counterproductive to the

0:18:11.359 --> 0:18:14.720
<v Speaker 1>extent that people want to come to actually open businesses

0:18:14.800 --> 0:18:17.800
<v Speaker 1>here and invest in the United States, and even those

0:18:17.840 --> 0:18:21.200
<v Speaker 1>individuals are being kept out, then the question becomes, what

0:18:21.200 --> 0:18:23.800
<v Speaker 1>what is the purpose of that band? If you can

0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:27.600
<v Speaker 1>actually show that the person doesn't have coronavirus, why are

0:18:27.600 --> 0:18:30.240
<v Speaker 1>you keeping them out? At this point, the Docta case

0:18:30.440 --> 0:18:34.240
<v Speaker 1>is still pending at the Supreme Court. There's been no decision,

0:18:34.240 --> 0:18:36.720
<v Speaker 1>despite the fact that it is one of the earliest

0:18:36.760 --> 0:18:41.200
<v Speaker 1>cases that would argued this term. Should we read anything

0:18:41.200 --> 0:18:46.560
<v Speaker 1>into the fact that the Docta decision has not been announced, Yes,

0:18:46.760 --> 0:18:51.119
<v Speaker 1>I certainly have a a fear that The reason that

0:18:51.200 --> 0:18:54.119
<v Speaker 1>the decision is taking so long is because the justices

0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:56.879
<v Speaker 1>who are on the side of maintaining DOCCA want to

0:18:56.960 --> 0:19:00.280
<v Speaker 1>keep the decision out for as long as possible because

0:19:00.320 --> 0:19:04.000
<v Speaker 1>they know that this the program is going to be resended.

0:19:04.640 --> 0:19:08.120
<v Speaker 1>That would be my guest, but obviously that is still

0:19:08.160 --> 0:19:10.920
<v Speaker 1>a guess. I don't know this for sure, but I

0:19:10.960 --> 0:19:14.320
<v Speaker 1>feel as if if the program we're going to be maintained,

0:19:14.720 --> 0:19:17.040
<v Speaker 1>then the decision would have just been ensued over the

0:19:17.080 --> 0:19:21.520
<v Speaker 1>course of the ordinary. But now you have individuals saying,

0:19:21.560 --> 0:19:24.600
<v Speaker 1>don't even issue the decision this term, move it into

0:19:24.600 --> 0:19:27.680
<v Speaker 1>the next term. You're seeing some of the advocacy happening

0:19:27.760 --> 0:19:30.960
<v Speaker 1>now because people are saying, the last thing that the

0:19:31.040 --> 0:19:34.439
<v Speaker 1>United States can can tolerate right now is get another

0:19:34.880 --> 0:19:39.520
<v Speaker 1>sort of highly charged political issue working its way into

0:19:39.840 --> 0:19:42.359
<v Speaker 1>into the framework of all of these other highly started

0:19:42.400 --> 0:19:45.560
<v Speaker 1>political issues we're seeing right now. Thanks le On. That's

0:19:45.640 --> 0:19:49.040
<v Speaker 1>Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. I'm Johns and this

0:19:49.200 --> 0:19:49.720
<v Speaker 1>is stoner