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

2
00:00:08,960 --> 00:00:13,560
Speaker 2: The Chief Justice has stepped into the Trump administration's escalating

3
00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:18,320
Speaker 2: battle against the judiciary. This morning, President Donald Trump called

4
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:21,200
Speaker 2: for the impeachment of the judge who ruled against his

5
00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:26,640
Speaker 2: deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to l Salvador, calling

6
00:00:26,720 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 2: him on truth social a radical left lunatic of a judge,

7
00:00:30,920 --> 00:00:35,160
Speaker 2: a troublemaker, and an agitator. And before noon, Chief Justice

8
00:00:35,280 --> 00:00:41,600
Speaker 2: John Roberts made a rare public statement against Trump's impeachment call, saying, quote,

9
00:00:41,720 --> 00:00:44,760
Speaker 2: for more than two centuries, it has been established that

10
00:00:44,880 --> 00:00:49,400
Speaker 2: impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a

11
00:00:49,479 --> 00:00:54,200
Speaker 2: judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

12
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:58,440
Speaker 2: Joining me is an expert in the federal judiciary, Carl Tobias,

13
00:00:58,480 --> 00:01:02,200
Speaker 2: a professor at the University of Richmond Law School. It's

14
00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:05,399
Speaker 2: rare for Roberts to make a comment like this. How

15
00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:06,320
Speaker 2: surprising is it?

16
00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:10,160
Speaker 3: Well, we had an inkling of that before. Remember in

17
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:13,920
Speaker 3: his year end report he sounded a bit of an

18
00:01:13,959 --> 00:01:18,040
Speaker 3: alarm just saying he was worried about threats to judges

19
00:01:18,680 --> 00:01:22,120
Speaker 3: and a number of judges have spoken out, and so

20
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:26,560
Speaker 3: this is just a follow on to that. When he

21
00:01:26,680 --> 00:01:30,679
Speaker 3: saw the severe criticism of Judge Boseburg in the DC

22
00:01:30,840 --> 00:01:35,319
Speaker 3: District Court by President Trump today on social media, and

23
00:01:35,360 --> 00:01:40,000
Speaker 3: I think he was concerned, and so I just think

24
00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:42,880
Speaker 3: he is trying to calm the waters a little bit

25
00:01:43,319 --> 00:01:47,160
Speaker 3: and say it's not appropriate to attack the judge. Just

26
00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:51,400
Speaker 3: appeal the judge's rulings to the DC Circuit Court, which

27
00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:56,000
Speaker 3: of course the Justice Department did immediately after Judge Boseburg

28
00:01:56,280 --> 00:01:57,280
Speaker 3: entered the orders.

29
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:02,040
Speaker 2: Trump has bad mouth judges going back to his first

30
00:02:02,040 --> 00:02:05,680
Speaker 2: administration and probably before that. Do you think it was

31
00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:09,360
Speaker 2: the fact that Trump actually talked about impeaching the judge

32
00:02:09,400 --> 00:02:11,600
Speaker 2: that led Roberts to make the statement.

33
00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:16,960
Speaker 3: Yes, I think so in this specific instance, because there

34
00:02:17,040 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 3: have been a number of members of Congress who either

35
00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:25,720
Speaker 3: have introduced impeachment resolutions or are threatening to do so,

36
00:02:26,160 --> 00:02:29,640
Speaker 3: and especially in this case, and I think he wants

37
00:02:29,720 --> 00:02:34,840
Speaker 3: to tamp down that if he can, because they are

38
00:02:34,960 --> 00:02:38,920
Speaker 3: largely performative. They don't have sixty seven votes to convict

39
00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:43,120
Speaker 3: in the Senate, and so they just stir people up

40
00:02:43,280 --> 00:02:46,800
Speaker 3: to no good end, really from his perspective, and I

41
00:02:46,840 --> 00:02:49,720
Speaker 3: think most people who believe in separation of powers and

42
00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:54,359
Speaker 3: the branches of government and checks and balances are concerned,

43
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:58,720
Speaker 3: and so I think Chief Justice wanted to get out

44
00:02:58,760 --> 00:03:02,040
Speaker 3: in front of that and think he's made his point

45
00:03:02,200 --> 00:03:07,160
Speaker 3: and hopefully that will calm down some all right, While

46
00:03:07,440 --> 00:03:10,160
Speaker 3: the case is on appeal to the DC Circuit, which

47
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:11,840
Speaker 3: you know is what should happen.

48
00:03:12,080 --> 00:03:16,080
Speaker 2: It hasn't calmed down. One GOP congressman has filed articles

49
00:03:16,080 --> 00:03:20,200
Speaker 2: of impeachment against the judge, and as you say, it's

50
00:03:20,240 --> 00:03:23,600
Speaker 2: performative because none of the other articles have gone anywhere

51
00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:26,200
Speaker 2: that they've filed against these judges. But I mean what

52
00:03:26,280 --> 00:03:30,480
Speaker 2: the Chief Justice said is just plain legal practice. If

53
00:03:30,480 --> 00:03:33,359
Speaker 2: you have a ruling you don't like, you appeal it,

54
00:03:33,639 --> 00:03:37,560
Speaker 2: you don't try to impeach a judge exactly.

55
00:03:38,040 --> 00:03:42,440
Speaker 3: And historically, as Chief Justice Roberts points out, have been

56
00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:46,600
Speaker 3: a tiny number of judges. Fifteen have been the subject

57
00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:50,440
Speaker 3: of articles of impeachment, and eight have been convicted, but

58
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:54,400
Speaker 3: usually four. As the Constitution says, high crimes and misdemeanors,

59
00:03:54,800 --> 00:03:57,960
Speaker 3: you know, some kind of serious bodily injured to somebody

60
00:03:58,240 --> 00:04:04,880
Speaker 3: or a bride, which happened sometimes, but serious criminal behavior,

61
00:04:05,680 --> 00:04:09,840
Speaker 3: not decisions with which the president or anybody else disagrees.

62
00:04:10,120 --> 00:04:12,960
Speaker 3: That is not a basis for impeachment in our history.

63
00:04:14,040 --> 00:04:18,520
Speaker 2: And aren't they already appealing Judge Bosberg's order?

64
00:04:19,560 --> 00:04:21,320
Speaker 3: In fact, I think there are a couple of appeals

65
00:04:21,320 --> 00:04:25,360
Speaker 3: that they've taken to the DC Circuit, But one was

66
00:04:25,520 --> 00:04:29,240
Speaker 3: his order that the planes turn around, which is I

67
00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:31,919
Speaker 3: think on Saturday, which he reduced to writing in the

68
00:04:32,000 --> 00:04:36,560
Speaker 3: evening on Saturday, but had said clearly in oral arguments

69
00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:39,920
Speaker 3: in court before that, I think in the afternoon that

70
00:04:39,920 --> 00:04:42,720
Speaker 3: that's what he expected to happen, and it didn't, and

71
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:46,880
Speaker 3: so that was a problem. But immediately after he ruled,

72
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:49,920
Speaker 3: they went to the DC Circuit I think on Saturday

73
00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:56,120
Speaker 3: night with their appeal and said, basically, national security and

74
00:04:56,680 --> 00:05:02,520
Speaker 3: executive brand's power is almost absolutely here, and especially immigration

75
00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:07,840
Speaker 3: in the national defense. Those kinds of arguments, which you know,

76
00:05:08,040 --> 00:05:13,640
Speaker 3: are courts have deferred to over our history, but not completely.

77
00:05:13,960 --> 00:05:17,200
Speaker 3: And the judges have some role to play here because

78
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 3: of course, the plaintiffs have argued that some of them

79
00:05:21,279 --> 00:05:24,880
Speaker 3: that they're not members of this gang, so they're innocent

80
00:05:24,920 --> 00:05:28,320
Speaker 3: people perhaps in among that group who were now in

81
00:05:28,360 --> 00:05:29,640
Speaker 3: Al Salvador.

82
00:05:29,480 --> 00:05:31,880
Speaker 2: And tell us a little about Judge Boseburg.

83
00:05:32,480 --> 00:05:36,120
Speaker 3: I think he's a highly respected judge on the one

84
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:38,680
Speaker 3: of the best courts in the country, certainly at the

85
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:43,080
Speaker 3: district court level, and he had an incredibly strong reputation

86
00:05:43,279 --> 00:05:46,640
Speaker 3: as a consummate prosecutor before he came on the bench.

87
00:05:46,800 --> 00:05:48,880
Speaker 3: And he's been there a while, I think a dozen

88
00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:51,520
Speaker 3: or more years in that court, and I think he's

89
00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:54,760
Speaker 3: intimately familiar with the kinds of disputes, you know, separation

90
00:05:54,839 --> 00:05:58,040
Speaker 3: of powers, brands as government, those kinds of issues that

91
00:05:58,240 --> 00:06:01,320
Speaker 3: come to the d C District And I think he's

92
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:05,159
Speaker 3: very rigorous and he's in those nonsense judge, but I

93
00:06:05,200 --> 00:06:08,880
Speaker 3: think he's very fair and enjoys enormous respect from his

94
00:06:08,920 --> 00:06:11,039
Speaker 3: colleagues and from people who appear in his court.

95
00:06:11,720 --> 00:06:15,119
Speaker 2: Tell us about the questions sort of in the background here.

96
00:06:16,040 --> 00:06:19,200
Speaker 3: What led us to this point, I think is and

97
00:06:19,240 --> 00:06:22,080
Speaker 3: looming in the background, is whether Trump is going to

98
00:06:22,200 --> 00:06:26,040
Speaker 3: continue to appeal the cases or are they going to

99
00:06:26,080 --> 00:06:31,080
Speaker 3: defy court orders. They've come dangerously close to the brink

100
00:06:31,360 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 3: in this case and some other cases, and the system

101
00:06:35,240 --> 00:06:38,000
Speaker 3: can't work if that's what they're going to do. They

102
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:40,880
Speaker 3: need to appeal to the next highest court and to

103
00:06:40,960 --> 00:06:43,799
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court if they're dissatisfied with a lower court

104
00:06:43,920 --> 00:06:47,919
Speaker 3: ruling at a district level and not withhold evidence or

105
00:06:48,160 --> 00:06:50,640
Speaker 3: say we're just not going to give the judge the

106
00:06:50,720 --> 00:06:55,680
Speaker 3: factual matters that are important to resolving the dispute. The

107
00:06:55,720 --> 00:06:58,599
Speaker 3: system won't work that way. But also there's the checks

108
00:06:58,600 --> 00:07:02,640
Speaker 3: and balances, and we expect independent judiciary not to be

109
00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:06,760
Speaker 3: threatened with impeachment and other things. So all of that,

110
00:07:06,880 --> 00:07:09,040
Speaker 3: I think went into what Roberts had to say.

111
00:07:09,520 --> 00:07:14,880
Speaker 2: The Vice President referred to Andrew Jackson saying Chief Justice

112
00:07:14,880 --> 00:07:17,360
Speaker 2: has issued the order, now let him enforce it. Something

113
00:07:17,640 --> 00:07:21,240
Speaker 2: along those lines which may or may not be true,

114
00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:24,240
Speaker 2: but has been attributed to Jackson. So what can the

115
00:07:24,240 --> 00:07:27,880
Speaker 2: courts do if Trump says, no, I won't comply with

116
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:28,400
Speaker 2: that order.

117
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:31,520
Speaker 3: I think you're right with Jackson that it was apocryphal,

118
00:07:31,560 --> 00:07:36,360
Speaker 3: but it makes for a good story. What they can

119
00:07:36,440 --> 00:07:39,520
Speaker 3: do is there are tools and measures that they have.

120
00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:44,800
Speaker 3: They can sanction. They can hold lawyers and litigants in

121
00:07:45,080 --> 00:07:48,640
Speaker 3: civil and criminal contempt of court, and that could be

122
00:07:49,040 --> 00:07:53,600
Speaker 3: imposed large fines and even jail time. Judges are reluctant

123
00:07:53,600 --> 00:07:56,760
Speaker 3: to use those, and they're kind of the last resort,

124
00:07:56,880 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 3: but they can do that if there's not cooperate. Those

125
00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:05,280
Speaker 3: are the major kinds of things that courts do. It's rare,

126
00:08:05,600 --> 00:08:10,000
Speaker 3: it's unusual, but courts do that if they're being frustrated

127
00:08:10,120 --> 00:08:11,920
Speaker 3: in their role in trying to find the facts that

128
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:13,200
Speaker 3: apply to a lot of the facts.

129
00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:18,360
Speaker 2: If so, they try to a contempt citation. Isn't the

130
00:08:18,480 --> 00:08:24,000
Speaker 2: US Marshal Service that executes those? And suppose the Justice

131
00:08:24,000 --> 00:08:26,320
Speaker 2: Department says we're not letting the marshals.

132
00:08:25,880 --> 00:08:29,760
Speaker 3: Do that, well, then I think Judge Boseburg, for example,

133
00:08:29,920 --> 00:08:33,640
Speaker 3: could call the Attorney General in and have a discussion

134
00:08:33,800 --> 00:08:36,720
Speaker 3: in court, because I think those people report to her

135
00:08:37,200 --> 00:08:39,559
Speaker 3: and just say, you know, the rule of law has

136
00:08:39,600 --> 00:08:42,280
Speaker 3: to be upheld, and I've ruled this way and I

137
00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:45,800
Speaker 3: expect the orders to be enforced. And I think he's

138
00:08:46,120 --> 00:08:48,280
Speaker 3: determined to do that if he needs to do that

139
00:08:48,840 --> 00:08:53,199
Speaker 3: because of the relationship between the branch as judicial independence

140
00:08:53,200 --> 00:08:54,560
Speaker 3: and the need to have the information.

141
00:08:55,320 --> 00:08:59,160
Speaker 2: I don't think we've ever had a president issuing so

142
00:08:59,360 --> 00:09:03,679
Speaker 2: many exist executive orders in such a short span of

143
00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:08,960
Speaker 2: time and trying to have them executed very quickly. So

144
00:09:09,000 --> 00:09:12,600
Speaker 2: you have Elon Musk going in and firing people while

145
00:09:12,760 --> 00:09:15,040
Speaker 2: you know they can't even make it to the courthouse

146
00:09:15,080 --> 00:09:17,680
Speaker 2: doors before they're fired and out the government's door.

147
00:09:18,320 --> 00:09:20,839
Speaker 3: It's hard to keep up, Yes, I mean, I think

148
00:09:20,880 --> 00:09:25,640
Speaker 3: there's a theory there which Bannon has bandied about, that

149
00:09:25,720 --> 00:09:29,600
Speaker 3: they're flooding the zone. So you can't really keep up

150
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:32,000
Speaker 3: with all of the executive orders and challenge all of

151
00:09:32,040 --> 00:09:36,280
Speaker 3: them immediately. And that's part of the strategy, is just

152
00:09:36,440 --> 00:09:39,880
Speaker 3: to again flood the zone. So people are overwhelmed and

153
00:09:40,120 --> 00:09:42,559
Speaker 3: the thousands of people have lost their jobs, and it's

154
00:09:42,600 --> 00:09:46,520
Speaker 3: important to keep your eye on exactly what is happening.

155
00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:50,720
Speaker 3: And also there are real branches of government issues about Congress,

156
00:09:50,920 --> 00:09:54,440
Speaker 3: the power of the purse violating in these executive orders,

157
00:09:54,559 --> 00:09:59,480
Speaker 3: clear mandates that Congress has passed. Those are serious breaches

158
00:09:59,600 --> 00:10:03,520
Speaker 3: of our e understanding of what is appropriate by way

159
00:10:03,559 --> 00:10:05,880
Speaker 3: of executive orders.

160
00:10:04,880 --> 00:10:09,680
Speaker 2: Yea. So Trump has been calling judges names, as I mentioned,

161
00:10:09,840 --> 00:10:13,319
Speaker 2: for years. You think about the judges in his cases,

162
00:10:13,440 --> 00:10:16,400
Speaker 2: like Judge one Mshawn in New York. He called him

163
00:10:16,559 --> 00:10:21,840
Speaker 2: every name in the book, you know, horrible judges, unfair judges,

164
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:27,120
Speaker 2: Democrat judges. You know, do you think that hurts the judiciary? Finally,

165
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:29,400
Speaker 2: in the public's eye when they hear this over and

166
00:10:29,440 --> 00:10:30,040
Speaker 2: over again.

167
00:10:31,240 --> 00:10:33,680
Speaker 3: Well, I think that is a concern that judges have,

168
00:10:33,800 --> 00:10:37,160
Speaker 3: and I think to some extent Roberts is speaking to that.

169
00:10:37,640 --> 00:10:41,920
Speaker 3: We want respect for the judiciary, we want the branches

170
00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:44,480
Speaker 3: to cooperate and get along, we want them to follow

171
00:10:44,520 --> 00:10:47,199
Speaker 3: the rule of law. All of those things are critical

172
00:10:47,679 --> 00:10:53,760
Speaker 3: to democracy, and so they're extremely important, and right now

173
00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:57,559
Speaker 3: it appears that to some extent they're being attacked or eroded.

174
00:10:58,200 --> 00:11:02,600
Speaker 3: And the last thing you want is the judiciary to

175
00:11:02,760 --> 00:11:07,760
Speaker 3: be considered the enemy of the citizens whom masurs. And

176
00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:11,760
Speaker 3: so I think he's appropriately concerned and still is trying

177
00:11:11,800 --> 00:11:13,839
Speaker 3: to be cautious and careful about that.

178
00:11:14,760 --> 00:11:18,600
Speaker 2: Despite what the Chief Justice said, this may be just

179
00:11:18,679 --> 00:11:24,280
Speaker 2: the beginning of this battle against the judiciary. Thanks so much, Carl.

180
00:11:24,559 --> 00:11:28,480
Speaker 2: That's Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School.

181
00:11:28,840 --> 00:11:31,440
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, We're going

182
00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:34,800
Speaker 2: to talk about the case behind Trump's call for impeachment.

183
00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:39,800
Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg. It's a case

184
00:11:39,800 --> 00:11:43,960
Speaker 2: that has turned into an extraordinary conflict between the executive

185
00:11:44,040 --> 00:11:48,840
Speaker 2: and judicial branches. President Trump has invoked an eighteenth century

186
00:11:48,960 --> 00:11:52,960
Speaker 2: law to deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to

187
00:11:53,080 --> 00:11:57,400
Speaker 2: prison in El Salvador without offering any proof, let alone

188
00:11:57,440 --> 00:12:01,360
Speaker 2: a hearing. Deputy White House Chief of sis Staff Stephen Miller,

189
00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:05,520
Speaker 2: has defended the president's authority to order the deportation.

190
00:12:05,720 --> 00:12:10,840
Speaker 4: Flights the President had the broadest range of authority to

191
00:12:10,920 --> 00:12:14,480
Speaker 4: remove from the nation non citizens who are part of

192
00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:17,200
Speaker 4: an alien enemy force, and that's the authority the president has.

193
00:12:17,720 --> 00:12:21,760
Speaker 2: But legal learnt of the ACLU contends that Trump did

194
00:12:21,800 --> 00:12:24,680
Speaker 2: not have the authority to use the law against a

195
00:12:24,760 --> 00:12:29,600
Speaker 2: criminal gang rather than a recognized state. Federal judge James

196
00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:35,079
Speaker 2: Boseburg barred the Trump administration from carrying out deportations on Saturday,

197
00:12:35,440 --> 00:12:38,800
Speaker 2: and during a court hearing on Monday, Gallern said that

198
00:12:38,840 --> 00:12:42,240
Speaker 2: the administration may have violated the judge's order.

199
00:12:42,679 --> 00:12:46,679
Speaker 1: If anything, it reinforced that our view that the government

200
00:12:46,760 --> 00:12:51,319
Speaker 1: may very well have violated disorder, perhaps even knowingly violated.

201
00:12:52,080 --> 00:12:56,400
Speaker 2: The government contends that the weekend deportation did not violate

202
00:12:56,520 --> 00:13:00,640
Speaker 2: the judge's written order barring use of the law. Joining

203
00:13:00,640 --> 00:13:04,000
Speaker 2: me is constitutional law expert David super, a professor at

204
00:13:04,040 --> 00:13:08,320
Speaker 2: Georgetown Law David. Before we get to the actual case,

205
00:13:09,000 --> 00:13:13,240
Speaker 2: let's talk about Trump calling for the impeachment of Judge

206
00:13:13,280 --> 00:13:17,600
Speaker 2: Boseburg and the Chief Justice in a rare statement saying

207
00:13:17,640 --> 00:13:21,440
Speaker 2: that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreeing with

208
00:13:21,480 --> 00:13:24,640
Speaker 2: the Court's order. How startling is it for the Chief

209
00:13:24,840 --> 00:13:27,400
Speaker 2: Justice to come out with a statement like this.

210
00:13:27,720 --> 00:13:31,280
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't think it's startling at all. The administration

211
00:13:32,160 --> 00:13:38,679
Speaker 1: has been attacking judges left and right over decisions that

212
00:13:38,720 --> 00:13:43,000
Speaker 1: the judges have made, and has been doing everything it

213
00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:47,600
Speaker 1: can to politicize the judiciary. This Chief Justice has long

214
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:52,000
Speaker 1: felt that the judiciary's role depends on it not being

215
00:13:52,080 --> 00:13:56,079
Speaker 1: regarded as a partisan judiciary. So this is entirely consistent

216
00:13:56,160 --> 00:13:57,600
Speaker 1: with his past approach.

217
00:13:58,400 --> 00:14:00,320
Speaker 2: Do you think it had anything to do with Donald

218
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:05,160
Speaker 2: Trump's truth social post calling for the impeachment of Judge Bosburg.

219
00:14:05,760 --> 00:14:08,440
Speaker 2: It may be the first time in his administration that

220
00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:11,160
Speaker 2: Trump has called for the impeachment of a judge.

221
00:14:11,720 --> 00:14:14,080
Speaker 1: It's the first time that I'm aware of, But he

222
00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:17,080
Speaker 1: says so much that I don't follow it all. But

223
00:14:17,240 --> 00:14:21,960
Speaker 1: certainly other administration officials I believe, including the Vice President

224
00:14:22,400 --> 00:14:24,920
Speaker 1: and mister Musk, have said similar things.

225
00:14:25,280 --> 00:14:28,200
Speaker 2: Let's talk about this case. First of all, what do

226
00:14:28,240 --> 00:14:32,360
Speaker 2: you think about Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act here,

227
00:14:32,800 --> 00:14:35,840
Speaker 2: which has only been used three times, and those three

228
00:14:35,920 --> 00:14:37,400
Speaker 2: times were during wars.

229
00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:42,720
Speaker 1: That's profoundly dishonest. The Enemy Aliens Act generally applies only

230
00:14:42,760 --> 00:14:46,920
Speaker 1: in cases of declared war. It makes an exception where

231
00:14:46,920 --> 00:14:50,440
Speaker 1: it can be applied without a declared war. If a

232
00:14:50,600 --> 00:14:55,640
Speaker 1: foreign government invades the United States. You may not like

233
00:14:56,160 --> 00:15:00,320
Speaker 1: the Venezuelan immigrants that have come here because the enemy

234
00:15:00,360 --> 00:15:04,840
Speaker 1: collapsed down there, but that's not a government sponsored invasion.

235
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:07,400
Speaker 1: There are no tanks, there are no canons, there are

236
00:15:07,440 --> 00:15:12,280
Speaker 1: no soldiers marching in formation. This is not an invasion. Moreover,

237
00:15:12,880 --> 00:15:17,600
Speaker 1: the Alien Enemies Act provides for giving people a reasonable

238
00:15:17,600 --> 00:15:20,360
Speaker 1: amount of time to wrap up their affairs before they

239
00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:23,760
Speaker 1: have to leave again, consistent with starting a war with

240
00:15:23,840 --> 00:15:27,880
Speaker 1: a country. This administration didn't do that at all. This

241
00:15:28,000 --> 00:15:32,160
Speaker 1: kind of stretching the law is inevitably unprovoke a strong

242
00:15:32,200 --> 00:15:33,360
Speaker 1: reaction from the courts.

243
00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:37,160
Speaker 2: So there was a hearing, an emergency hearing on Saturday,

244
00:15:37,720 --> 00:15:43,040
Speaker 2: where Judge Bosburg ordered that the Venezuelans be returned to

245
00:15:43,080 --> 00:15:46,880
Speaker 2: the United States. Any plane containing those folks that is

246
00:15:46,920 --> 00:15:49,360
Speaker 2: going to take off or is in the air needs

247
00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:54,080
Speaker 2: to be returned to the United States. Obviously that didn't happen,

248
00:15:54,680 --> 00:15:57,760
Speaker 2: So the judge held a hearing on Monday, and the

249
00:15:57,800 --> 00:16:02,680
Speaker 2: government made several arguments. One they claimed that they didn't

250
00:16:02,720 --> 00:16:06,160
Speaker 2: have to halt any flights under the written order, and

251
00:16:06,240 --> 00:16:10,640
Speaker 2: the oral order to turn the planes around was superseded

252
00:16:10,960 --> 00:16:14,520
Speaker 2: by the written order, So basically the oral order didn't count.

253
00:16:14,760 --> 00:16:17,800
Speaker 1: If I took that approach while I was a trial lawyer,

254
00:16:17,800 --> 00:16:20,120
Speaker 1: I would have found myself in jail faster than you

255
00:16:20,120 --> 00:16:24,880
Speaker 1: can wake your right. No judge is going to tolerate

256
00:16:25,400 --> 00:16:28,800
Speaker 1: the notion that their oral orders don't count. Every lawyer

257
00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:33,880
Speaker 1: knows that judges oral orders count. And when the judge

258
00:16:34,120 --> 00:16:38,000
Speaker 1: did nothing set nothing to suggest that he wasn't serious

259
00:16:38,080 --> 00:16:42,440
Speaker 1: about requiring them to turn around the planes, or that

260
00:16:42,440 --> 00:16:46,800
Speaker 1: that was inconsistent with his order. At most, the government

261
00:16:46,840 --> 00:16:50,080
Speaker 1: had grounds to ask him whether he was rescinding. That's

262
00:16:50,160 --> 00:16:55,440
Speaker 1: complete bad faith and will be I'm sure regarded similarly

263
00:16:55,480 --> 00:16:58,000
Speaker 1: by the courts, unless there be any doubt that that's

264
00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:03,760
Speaker 1: bad faith. Tom Holman, President's immigrations are announced yesterday that

265
00:17:03,800 --> 00:17:06,680
Speaker 1: they don't care what judges say, so it's very clearly.

266
00:17:06,720 --> 00:17:10,159
Speaker 1: They weren't misunderstanding the order, they were defying it.

267
00:17:10,720 --> 00:17:14,720
Speaker 2: The government attorney at yesterday's hearing wouldn't disclose how many

268
00:17:14,760 --> 00:17:18,480
Speaker 2: planes flew or any details about them, saying he could

269
00:17:18,600 --> 00:17:23,760
Speaker 2: reveal key logistical details about the flights, which involved classified information.

270
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:28,560
Speaker 2: So the judge gave them until noon today to provide

271
00:17:28,560 --> 00:17:32,560
Speaker 2: the information that he requested. They did provide some information,

272
00:17:33,119 --> 00:17:36,600
Speaker 2: but as far as the information about the planes, they

273
00:17:36,680 --> 00:17:40,320
Speaker 2: just say that they departed before seven twenty five pm.

274
00:17:40,800 --> 00:17:44,359
Speaker 2: His order was issued at seven twenty six pm, But

275
00:17:44,440 --> 00:17:46,919
Speaker 2: they don't give the details he asked for about the

276
00:17:46,960 --> 00:17:50,040
Speaker 2: specific times the flights departed and.

277
00:17:50,080 --> 00:17:54,000
Speaker 1: Arrived, which is a pretty clear mark of a cover up.

278
00:17:54,040 --> 00:17:57,240
Speaker 1: If they have nothing to hide, then they should disclose that.

279
00:17:57,480 --> 00:18:01,280
Speaker 1: They say it's national security that how could it possibly be.

280
00:18:01,480 --> 00:18:04,880
Speaker 1: These are flights that have long since completed. There's no

281
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:07,560
Speaker 1: danger of them being intercepted in the air. They've been

282
00:18:07,560 --> 00:18:10,560
Speaker 1: on the ground for several days. This is a cover up,

283
00:18:10,600 --> 00:18:12,480
Speaker 1: and I don't think it's going to work very well.

284
00:18:12,760 --> 00:18:16,440
Speaker 2: The judge asked them several things. Are they in contempt

285
00:18:16,520 --> 00:18:18,960
Speaker 2: if they didn't answer the questions that the judge.

286
00:18:18,640 --> 00:18:21,879
Speaker 1: Asked, If you or I behaved that way, Yes, we

287
00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:24,679
Speaker 1: would be in contempt and we would be reaching for

288
00:18:24,760 --> 00:18:28,600
Speaker 1: our checkbooks. I think the judge is likely to bend

289
00:18:28,640 --> 00:18:34,960
Speaker 1: over backwards to avoid a confrontation with the government if

290
00:18:34,960 --> 00:18:38,040
Speaker 1: he possibly can, but they're giving him less and less

291
00:18:38,080 --> 00:18:39,200
Speaker 1: opportunity to do that.

292
00:18:39,600 --> 00:18:41,600
Speaker 2: And the cover page was signed by all the top

293
00:18:41,680 --> 00:18:45,960
Speaker 2: officials of the Justice Department. Is that supposed to be symbolic?

294
00:18:46,280 --> 00:18:47,320
Speaker 2: What does that signal?

295
00:18:47,640 --> 00:18:52,280
Speaker 1: That's unusual. Ordinarily a large organization like the Justice Department

296
00:18:52,520 --> 00:18:55,119
Speaker 1: has the lawyers who are actually doing the work on

297
00:18:55,200 --> 00:18:57,960
Speaker 1: the case sign the papers. I think this is the

298
00:18:58,040 --> 00:19:01,639
Speaker 1: administration signaling that it regards this case is very important.

299
00:19:02,160 --> 00:19:04,840
Speaker 1: And it may also be that the line attorneys feel

300
00:19:04,920 --> 00:19:08,040
Speaker 1: that they're so close to the line on contempt that

301
00:19:08,080 --> 00:19:12,560
Speaker 1: they want their top bosses as implicated as they are now.

302
00:19:12,680 --> 00:19:15,400
Speaker 2: Another argument the government made is that the judge had

303
00:19:15,440 --> 00:19:18,960
Speaker 2: no power to turn the planes around once they were

304
00:19:19,240 --> 00:19:23,199
Speaker 2: outside US air space, that the court lost jurisdiction, And

305
00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:27,240
Speaker 2: the judge did say that once they landed, he lost jurisdiction.

306
00:19:27,320 --> 00:19:30,480
Speaker 2: But does the court lose jurisdiction when they're in the air.

307
00:19:30,760 --> 00:19:33,480
Speaker 1: The court is jurisdiction over the defendants in the case,

308
00:19:33,480 --> 00:19:37,040
Speaker 1: who are high officials responsible for the flights. The court

309
00:19:37,040 --> 00:19:41,240
Speaker 1: as well within its power to order those officials to

310
00:19:41,320 --> 00:19:44,959
Speaker 1: turn the planes around. If they can show that the

311
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:49,119
Speaker 1: pilots of the plane disregarded an order from the defendants

312
00:19:49,119 --> 00:19:51,520
Speaker 1: in the case, they might have an argument, But there's

313
00:19:51,560 --> 00:19:54,639
Speaker 1: no indication of that these pilots would have followed orders

314
00:19:54,640 --> 00:19:57,240
Speaker 1: if they'd been told to the government chose not to

315
00:19:57,280 --> 00:19:58,480
Speaker 1: follow the court's order.

316
00:19:58,760 --> 00:20:02,720
Speaker 2: Yet another argument is that federal courts don't have jurisdiction

317
00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:08,359
Speaker 2: of Trump's authority. Under the eighteenth century law, the judge

318
00:20:08,359 --> 00:20:11,480
Speaker 2: has no authority, they say, to question the president's proclamation

319
00:20:11,600 --> 00:20:14,679
Speaker 2: that an enemy invasion has occurred, saying that it's an

320
00:20:14,760 --> 00:20:16,480
Speaker 2: inherently political question.

321
00:20:17,080 --> 00:20:21,040
Speaker 1: No, it's a factual question. It's a factual question that

322
00:20:21,119 --> 00:20:24,960
Speaker 1: can easily be answered. If the president were declared that

323
00:20:25,000 --> 00:20:29,280
Speaker 1: you or I is an enemy alien. That's a factual question,

324
00:20:29,440 --> 00:20:32,720
Speaker 1: and courts could absolutely determine that it's not. If you

325
00:20:32,880 --> 00:20:36,520
Speaker 1: say otherwise, than the president's effectively become a dictator.

326
00:20:36,840 --> 00:20:41,840
Speaker 2: So if the judge determines that those planes either took

327
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:44,240
Speaker 2: off or were in the air, it seems pretty clear

328
00:20:44,280 --> 00:20:46,800
Speaker 2: they were in the air. At least when he gave

329
00:20:46,840 --> 00:20:49,480
Speaker 2: that oral order, what can he do is it a

330
00:20:49,560 --> 00:20:50,560
Speaker 2: contempt citation.

331
00:20:51,119 --> 00:20:55,480
Speaker 1: The courts have broad authority to vindicate their powers, so

332
00:20:55,680 --> 00:20:59,280
Speaker 1: he can certainly hold any individuals who are involved in

333
00:20:59,359 --> 00:21:02,480
Speaker 1: defying his order in contempt of court. He can also

334
00:21:03,040 --> 00:21:08,600
Speaker 1: entertain remedial orders that ordinarily a court would issue. For example,

335
00:21:09,040 --> 00:21:12,240
Speaker 1: he could issue an order that any further deportation flights

336
00:21:12,359 --> 00:21:15,359
Speaker 1: have to be precleared by the court or by a

337
00:21:15,400 --> 00:21:18,480
Speaker 1: special master appointed by the court to make sure the

338
00:21:18,520 --> 00:21:22,359
Speaker 1: government doesn't try to evade the law by hurrying people

339
00:21:22,359 --> 00:21:24,720
Speaker 1: out of the country the way they did on this occasion.

340
00:21:24,760 --> 00:21:27,720
Speaker 1: I don't think any court would do that initially, but

341
00:21:27,760 --> 00:21:32,320
Speaker 1: when the government has shown itself so capable of defying

342
00:21:32,359 --> 00:21:34,840
Speaker 1: these orders and trying to defeat I've.

343
00:21:34,760 --> 00:21:38,560
Speaker 2: Been talking to constitutional law expert David super, a professor

344
00:21:38,600 --> 00:21:43,200
Speaker 2: at Georgetown Law. There is another case where the government

345
00:21:43,400 --> 00:21:48,000
Speaker 2: removed Lebanese national and someone who is going to be

346
00:21:48,040 --> 00:21:51,920
Speaker 2: a professor at Brown University's medical school, in violation of

347
00:21:51,960 --> 00:21:55,720
Speaker 2: a court order that required the government to give forty

348
00:21:55,720 --> 00:22:00,760
Speaker 2: eight hours notice before she was removed. The Justice Department

349
00:22:00,800 --> 00:22:05,440
Speaker 2: claims that federal authorities found sympathetic photos and videos regarding

350
00:22:06,000 --> 00:22:09,560
Speaker 2: HESBA law on her phone. So that's twice in the

351
00:22:09,560 --> 00:22:12,960
Speaker 2: space of a few days that the Trump administration appears

352
00:22:12,960 --> 00:22:17,240
Speaker 2: to have violated judges orders involving deportation.

353
00:22:18,119 --> 00:22:21,840
Speaker 1: Yes, and I think it's not surprising that these most

354
00:22:21,880 --> 00:22:26,800
Speaker 1: blatant violations involve deportation, because the very act of violating

355
00:22:26,840 --> 00:22:30,199
Speaker 1: the order makes it almost impossible for the court to

356
00:22:30,280 --> 00:22:35,280
Speaker 1: correct anything. But the administration repeatedly deporting people contrary to

357
00:22:35,320 --> 00:22:39,200
Speaker 1: court orders is likely to lead to more intrusive court orders.

358
00:22:39,280 --> 00:22:42,040
Speaker 1: Courts try to defer to the executive branch on the

359
00:22:42,080 --> 00:22:44,720
Speaker 1: assumption that it is always trying to follow the law,

360
00:22:44,920 --> 00:22:48,240
Speaker 1: But when the administration shows that even court orders don't

361
00:22:48,280 --> 00:22:52,119
Speaker 1: phase it, it can expect more intrusive court orders and

362
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:53,680
Speaker 1: will have no one to blame but itself.

363
00:22:53,960 --> 00:22:58,240
Speaker 2: Even at this hearing, the ACLU lawyer said that we're

364
00:22:58,440 --> 00:23:02,920
Speaker 2: close to christ as a constitutional crisis in a battle

365
00:23:03,040 --> 00:23:06,080
Speaker 2: between the power of the executive branch and the power

366
00:23:06,080 --> 00:23:09,879
Speaker 2: of the judicial branch. So if Trump just chooses to

367
00:23:09,920 --> 00:23:14,000
Speaker 2: start ignoring court orders, what can the judicial branch do?

368
00:23:15,000 --> 00:23:18,720
Speaker 1: They can do a great deal. They have sweeping powers

369
00:23:19,119 --> 00:23:23,640
Speaker 1: to hold officials in civil contempt, which means that they

370
00:23:23,720 --> 00:23:27,560
Speaker 1: can apply coercive measures against those individuals until they come

371
00:23:27,600 --> 00:23:28,879
Speaker 1: into compliance.

372
00:23:28,359 --> 00:23:29,200
Speaker 3: With the court order.

373
00:23:29,760 --> 00:23:34,480
Speaker 1: So, if for example, they find the administration is running

374
00:23:34,560 --> 00:23:39,199
Speaker 1: deportation flight contrary to court orders, it can enter an

375
00:23:39,400 --> 00:23:44,080
Speaker 1: order against the officials in charge of those flights that

376
00:23:44,119 --> 00:23:48,119
Speaker 1: they will lose one thousand dollars ten thousand dollars a

377
00:23:48,200 --> 00:23:51,960
Speaker 1: day out of their personal funds until they come into

378
00:23:51,960 --> 00:23:55,119
Speaker 1: compliance with the court order. And the court can simply

379
00:23:55,160 --> 00:23:58,800
Speaker 1: send their banks an order compelling the money to be

380
00:23:58,840 --> 00:24:02,280
Speaker 1: passed overministration may violate court orders, but I don't think

381
00:24:02,359 --> 00:24:02,880
Speaker 1: banks will.

382
00:24:03,000 --> 00:24:06,439
Speaker 2: We're just about two months into the administration and Trump

383
00:24:06,480 --> 00:24:10,720
Speaker 2: has said I always obey court orders. But does it

384
00:24:10,720 --> 00:24:13,280
Speaker 2: seem as if we're coming close to the point where

385
00:24:13,760 --> 00:24:15,360
Speaker 2: that's not going to be true anymore.

386
00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:19,600
Speaker 1: Well, it's not true now. They were ordered to lift

387
00:24:19,760 --> 00:24:23,959
Speaker 1: their freeze on federal funding early in the administration, and

388
00:24:24,000 --> 00:24:28,240
Speaker 1: they've continued and even expanded those freezes. They were ordered

389
00:24:28,280 --> 00:24:31,960
Speaker 1: to restore the projects that they illegally terminated at the

390
00:24:32,119 --> 00:24:37,840
Speaker 1: US Agency for International Development, and at last report, those

391
00:24:37,880 --> 00:24:42,240
Speaker 1: programs continue to be frozen. The President and his administration

392
00:24:42,280 --> 00:24:45,320
Speaker 1: are not complying with court orders and whatever he's saying

393
00:24:45,440 --> 00:24:47,200
Speaker 1: is either misinformed or untrue.

394
00:24:47,560 --> 00:24:50,000
Speaker 2: He seems to think that the Supreme Court is his answer.

395
00:24:50,400 --> 00:24:52,480
Speaker 2: You know, they're at the Supreme Court for the third

396
00:24:52,520 --> 00:24:56,919
Speaker 2: time in as I said about two months. Do you

397
00:24:56,920 --> 00:25:00,520
Speaker 2: think this court? I mean, judging from what Robert said today,

398
00:25:01,240 --> 00:25:05,080
Speaker 2: perhaps some of them are fed up enough to ignore

399
00:25:05,520 --> 00:25:06,480
Speaker 2: Trump's requests.

400
00:25:07,080 --> 00:25:13,280
Speaker 1: I think the Supreme Court is philosophically sympathetic with a

401
00:25:13,359 --> 00:25:16,600
Speaker 1: number of things that the administration wants to do, and

402
00:25:16,680 --> 00:25:19,879
Speaker 1: they do believe that the president leads the country. But

403
00:25:19,960 --> 00:25:23,679
Speaker 1: they don't believe that judges themselves are others are irrelevant,

404
00:25:24,200 --> 00:25:27,520
Speaker 1: and they believe the way to resolve legal questions is

405
00:25:27,560 --> 00:25:32,160
Speaker 1: to litigate cases in court and appeal if necessary. So

406
00:25:32,359 --> 00:25:37,679
Speaker 1: I don't think they will support the administration disregarding court orders.

407
00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:41,920
Speaker 1: The Warrant Court was very sympathetic to civil rights protesters,

408
00:25:42,359 --> 00:25:47,440
Speaker 1: but when they defied a blatantly unconstitutional order against protesting,

409
00:25:47,920 --> 00:25:51,360
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court in Walker versus. City of Birmingham upheld

410
00:25:51,359 --> 00:25:54,760
Speaker 1: the contempt citations and said that no matter how bad

411
00:25:54,800 --> 00:25:57,440
Speaker 1: a court order is, you have to follow it until

412
00:25:57,480 --> 00:25:59,640
Speaker 1: you can persuade a higher court to vacate it.

413
00:26:00,600 --> 00:26:03,280
Speaker 2: Just to be clear, do you think that this judge

414
00:26:03,320 --> 00:26:06,240
Speaker 2: will say you're in contempt of court at some point

415
00:26:06,280 --> 00:26:09,360
Speaker 2: if he sees it. The times of the flight don't match.

416
00:26:09,600 --> 00:26:13,160
Speaker 1: You know, what he was told, and he has two tasks,

417
00:26:13,359 --> 00:26:17,920
Speaker 1: first to determine if contempt of court occurred, and second,

418
00:26:18,040 --> 00:26:22,440
Speaker 1: if it did, determine who is responsible. I believe from

419
00:26:22,480 --> 00:26:25,280
Speaker 1: the orders that we've seen and what he said in

420
00:26:25,320 --> 00:26:27,560
Speaker 1: court that at the moment he's working on the first

421
00:26:27,560 --> 00:26:31,440
Speaker 1: of those. If he determines that the administration did violate

422
00:26:31,520 --> 00:26:35,399
Speaker 1: his orders, then he's going to ask who conveyed what

423
00:26:35,560 --> 00:26:38,640
Speaker 1: information to whom at which time so that he can

424
00:26:38,760 --> 00:26:43,040
Speaker 1: determine who might have violated it. I would expect that

425
00:26:43,160 --> 00:26:46,200
Speaker 1: before he finds any women in contempt, he would ask

426
00:26:46,240 --> 00:26:48,680
Speaker 1: them to come to court and answer questions about what

427
00:26:48,680 --> 00:26:53,040
Speaker 1: they've done and give them an opportunity to explain themselves.

428
00:26:53,600 --> 00:26:56,359
Speaker 2: I mean, so many people are being swept up in

429
00:26:56,400 --> 00:26:59,440
Speaker 2: these quick deportations. You can even be sure that the

430
00:26:59,520 --> 00:27:03,040
Speaker 2: Venezuelas that were shipped there were members of the gang.

431
00:27:03,080 --> 00:27:05,880
Speaker 2: I mean they might have some innocent Venezuelans in there too.

432
00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:10,880
Speaker 1: For Colombians or Panamanians. In the sweeps after the nine

433
00:27:10,920 --> 00:27:13,880
Speaker 1: to eleven attacks, They rounded up a lot of people

434
00:27:13,920 --> 00:27:16,080
Speaker 1: who are brown. Some of them turned out to be

435
00:27:16,400 --> 00:27:19,879
Speaker 1: not Muslims or Arabs, but Mexicans and Salvadorans.

436
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:23,000
Speaker 2: And is it legal for him to pay another country

437
00:27:23,520 --> 00:27:27,000
Speaker 2: to have immigrants housed in prisons.

438
00:27:26,600 --> 00:27:31,159
Speaker 1: There if he has an appropriation that could fairly cover that.

439
00:27:31,880 --> 00:27:35,919
Speaker 1: Some of the administrative appropriations for federal agencies have a

440
00:27:35,920 --> 00:27:39,800
Speaker 1: certain amount of flexibility in them, So I'm guessing he

441
00:27:39,920 --> 00:27:43,400
Speaker 1: probably could find six million dollars somewhere. One other thought

442
00:27:43,440 --> 00:27:48,399
Speaker 1: that's worth considering here. The Biden administration's actions were overturned

443
00:27:48,400 --> 00:27:52,199
Speaker 1: repeatedly by the Supreme Court because the Court said that

444
00:27:52,280 --> 00:27:56,159
Speaker 1: while the law might technically support what the administration was doing,

445
00:27:56,440 --> 00:28:01,360
Speaker 1: their so called major questions doctrine made it lausible that

446
00:28:01,520 --> 00:28:04,919
Speaker 1: Congress intended to allow something as sweeping as what Biden

447
00:28:05,000 --> 00:28:09,879
Speaker 1: did on the eviction moratorium, on environmental policy, and on

448
00:28:09,920 --> 00:28:15,119
Speaker 1: student loan forgiveness. The administration's actions under the Enemy Aliens

449
00:28:15,160 --> 00:28:18,840
Speaker 1: Act is a classic example of that a narrow statute

450
00:28:19,200 --> 00:28:23,640
Speaker 1: enacted for wartime is now being treated as general immigration law.

451
00:28:24,000 --> 00:28:28,800
Speaker 1: The major questions doctrine that this administration has celebrated is

452
00:28:28,960 --> 00:28:30,480
Speaker 1: likely to come back and bite them.

453
00:28:30,560 --> 00:28:32,679
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me tonight, David. I always

454
00:28:32,720 --> 00:28:37,199
Speaker 2: appreciate getting your insights. That's constitutional law expert David Super,

455
00:28:37,280 --> 00:28:41,440
Speaker 2: a professor at Georgetown Law. Judge Boseburg has ordered the

456
00:28:41,480 --> 00:28:45,720
Speaker 2: government lawyers to submit a sealed submission by Wednesday at noon,

457
00:28:46,240 --> 00:28:49,240
Speaker 2: and his questions relate to the two flights that left

458
00:28:49,280 --> 00:28:53,400
Speaker 2: before seven to twenty five pm on March fifteenth. He asked,

459
00:28:53,520 --> 00:28:56,200
Speaker 2: what time did the plane take off from US soil

460
00:28:56,320 --> 00:28:59,800
Speaker 2: and from where? What time did it leave US airspace,

461
00:29:00,240 --> 00:29:03,880
Speaker 2: What time did it land in which foreign country, including

462
00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:06,880
Speaker 2: if it made more than one stop? What time were

463
00:29:06,960 --> 00:29:12,200
Speaker 2: individual subjects solely to the proclamation transferred out of US custody?

464
00:29:12,680 --> 00:29:15,600
Speaker 2: How many people were aboard solely on the basis of

465
00:29:15,640 --> 00:29:20,800
Speaker 2: the proclamation? So this court battle continues tomorrow. And that's

466
00:29:20,840 --> 00:29:23,440
Speaker 2: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

467
00:29:23,480 --> 00:29:25,600
Speaker 2: you can always get the latest legal news on our

468
00:29:25,600 --> 00:29:29,760
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

469
00:29:29,960 --> 00:29:35,000
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

470
00:29:35,400 --> 00:29:38,000
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

471
00:29:38,040 --> 00:29:41,920
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

472
00:29:42,080 --> 00:29:43,680
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg