Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A shooting last Sunday at New Jersey Federal judge Estra
Speaker 1: Salis's home that killed her son and wounded her husband
Speaker 1: highlights the threats to judges outside the courthouse. While attacks
Speaker 1: on federal judges and their families are rare, the U. S.
Speaker 1: Marshals Service, task with protecting about hundred federal judges and
Speaker 1: thirty thousand, three hundred other court officials, reported increases in
Speaker 1: threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary in recent years.
Speaker 1: Joining me as Bloomberg Law reporter Madison Alder tell us
Speaker 1: about the suspect and his legal background. So, the suspect here,
Speaker 1: Roy Dun Hollander, is you know, a lawyer. He had
Speaker 1: some big law tighs um, but he hadn't worked for
Speaker 1: a big law firm in quite some time. And what
Speaker 1: we found at our research, she has now deceased by
Speaker 1: the way um. According to the Youth Attorney's Office in
Speaker 1: the districts of New Jersey, he was not apprehended. Some
Speaker 1: reports are saying that he was found of the potentially
Speaker 1: a self inflicted gunshot wound. And you know Hollander had
Speaker 1: a case before Sallas, this judge whose family was attacked.
Speaker 1: He appeared before her in case about the male only
Speaker 1: military draft. From what we can tell as the docket,
Speaker 1: he was physically before her in court. Um looks like
Speaker 1: once in and you know, maybe appeared by phone before that.
Speaker 1: Do we know if the judge was the target. We
Speaker 1: do not know yet. The Attorney General bar announced that
Speaker 1: there's going to be an investigation of this by the
Speaker 1: Marshall Service. You know, they're probably looking into that, but
Speaker 1: there haven't been further details on on if she was
Speaker 1: the target of attack. It we rarely hear about attacks
Speaker 1: on judges. How rare are they They're they're pretty rare. Um,
Speaker 1: They overall are are pretty rare over the years, though
Speaker 1: there there have been several They come to mind when
Speaker 1: another one happens again. Um, so you know there have
Speaker 1: been um at least four judges that have been killed
Speaker 1: in attacks. And then there's another case in two thousand's
Speaker 1: five where a judge's husband and mother were attacked in
Speaker 1: her home and that case actually prompted an appropriation by Congress.
Speaker 1: It's homarly dollars to fund security systems for judges and
Speaker 1: security systems for their homes. So you know, some of
Speaker 1: these attacks have prompted action by Congress before. You know,
Speaker 1: there hasn't been discussions of that this time. It is
Speaker 1: still early, but it isn't unprecedented that you know, security
Speaker 1: is heightened after an attack like this. Has there been
Speaker 1: a slight increase in violence against judges according to the
Speaker 1: Marshall's Office, So there haven't been an increase in violence
Speaker 1: against judges, but there has been an increase in incidents
Speaker 1: inappropriate communications and threats. They say that that has risen
Speaker 1: by more than In their budget submission, the Marshal Service
Speaker 1: budget submission for UM, they addressed this and you know
Speaker 1: said that they expected to rise steadily over the next
Speaker 1: few years. UM and they're saying that could come from
Speaker 1: complex thrusts is what they call them. Uh. So you
Speaker 1: know this is coming as you know, judges maybe are
Speaker 1: facing a little bit more turbulence when it comes to
Speaker 1: their their positions and the types of threast that they're getting.
Speaker 1: Aren't judges protected by the U. S. Marshal Service, they
Speaker 1: are UM the U S. Marshal Service. You know, I
Speaker 1: I spoke to one man who who used to be
Speaker 1: UH the U s Marshal John S. Mufflers, the former
Speaker 1: administrator chief Inspector of the National Center for Judicial Security,
Speaker 1: and he told me that these courts are fortresses. Um,
Speaker 1: they are very protected, but the more likely uh place
Speaker 1: for an attack, it's outside of the courtroom. So for judges, um,
Speaker 1: like any public figure, they're more likely subject to an
Speaker 1: attack when it is at their home at a place
Speaker 1: that they frequent um, grocery store. Um. And those are
Speaker 1: areas where they're they're always you have going to be
Speaker 1: on alerts. This is something that you know, judges are
Speaker 1: concerned about. Their concerned about this for their families. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, and it's supposed to people who said this
Speaker 1: particular situation seems like it was probably pretty unavoidable. You know.
Speaker 1: You can only do so much to to protect yourself
Speaker 1: outside of the court and protect your homes. Are they
Speaker 1: given protection at their homes? Yes, so there isn't necessarily
Speaker 1: martial service protection at their home. But um, this after
Speaker 1: that two thousand five attack on the judges on a
Speaker 1: federal judges family, Congress appropriated new new money to fund
Speaker 1: home security systems. So that is what judges um are
Speaker 1: able to have for their home security. Systems. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: they they can be protected that way, but um, it
Speaker 1: isn't necessarily you know, it's not like the Secret Service.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not like they have a bodyguard stationed
Speaker 1: outside of their house. And what about Supreme Court justices.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court sustices are a different story. They do have
Speaker 1: heightened protection where they go and you know, where they're speaking,
Speaker 1: but unfortunately, for a lot of lower court judges it's
Speaker 1: not the same. So there are quite a few of them,
Speaker 1: so I think it it becomes a matter of its
Speaker 1: essentially being a big lift to have that kind of
Speaker 1: security for every every lower court judge. Maddie, you spoke
Speaker 1: to retired federal judge David herned In, a former chair
Speaker 1: of the Judicial Conferences Committee on Judicial Security, and he
Speaker 1: said that the attack on the judge is home would
Speaker 1: have been difficult to prevent. And it's that kind the
Speaker 1: thing that judges have to worry about all the time. Right, Um, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this is something that is a reality for
Speaker 1: judges that you know, it is rare that there are attacks,
Speaker 1: but um, you know, judges are in a position where
Speaker 1: they are dealing with really sensitive issues sometimes and um,
Speaker 1: you know that can that can put them in a
Speaker 1: position to be the subject of anger for people. Like
Speaker 1: we said, in this attack on on judge solves the family,
Speaker 1: we don't know if she was the subject, but in
Speaker 1: many of these other attacks, judges were the subject of
Speaker 1: the attack, and they were the subjective of some kind
Speaker 1: of Harvard anger. Um. So it's it's the reality of
Speaker 1: the job. Unfortunately, let's turn to the court houses themselves now.
Speaker 1: Federal and state courts have been struggling to figure out
Speaker 1: how to resume more normal operations while protecting public health
Speaker 1: after the pandemic forced them this spring to postpone jury
Speaker 1: trials and whole more proceedings remotely via video and audio.
Speaker 1: Courts have begun to reopen, but some courts are pumping
Speaker 1: the brakes on reopening efforts as COVID nineteen cases rise
Speaker 1: throughout much of the US. How many courts are pumping
Speaker 1: the brakes on reopening, Well, we've actually seen a few courts,
Speaker 1: um many federal courts sighting increases in their areas when
Speaker 1: they decided to extend their previous orders and say, you know,
Speaker 1: we're not going to be reopening. We're not going to
Speaker 1: restart in person operations. We've actually seen some pushback states
Speaker 1: for restarting things like dury trials UM fighting those increases
Speaker 1: in in cases UM. But in other areas, we are
Speaker 1: seeing a little bit of tension between courts UH, staff
Speaker 1: and lawyers in terms of reopening UM. You know, there
Speaker 1: have been a couple of lawsuits, there's been at least
Speaker 1: one OSHA complaint UM you know, and there's there's questions
Speaker 1: urgent about help and safety and standards to keep these
Speaker 1: courthouses safe for for workers and attorneys. Have any lawyers
Speaker 1: or lawyers groups said we don't want you to open
Speaker 1: the courts. We don't want to come back to the
Speaker 1: courthouse right now, or perhaps even victims or witnesses who
Speaker 1: have to testify don't want to come into that situation.
Speaker 1: So we have seen a little bit of pushback, and
Speaker 1: in New York that came to ahead when several public
Speaker 1: defender groups sued the federal or the state courts UM
Speaker 1: on July fourteenth, you know, saying that UM, this is
Speaker 1: a violation of the ad A to have in person
Speaker 1: hearings and require them, and the court push back on that,
Speaker 1: saying that in person hearings you know, aren't aren't they
Speaker 1: could be UM, they could be moved to a virtual
Speaker 1: proceeding if if that is something that the judge degrees upon. UM.
Speaker 1: But you know, public defender groups are are worried about
Speaker 1: us for themselves and their clients, and you know, they
Speaker 1: don't want their clients to be put in a position
Speaker 1: where they have to be called into court and potentially
Speaker 1: be put in contact with the of the virus in
Speaker 1: in the courtroom. And that actually followed another lawsuit from
Speaker 1: the Court Officers Union uh IN in New York, filed
Speaker 1: the beginning of July. And that lawsuit also alleges that
Speaker 1: the state courts didn't provide enough personal protective equipment and
Speaker 1: didn't provide enough sanitation to prevent people from getting sick. UM.
Speaker 1: So there are some there's some legal action on this
Speaker 1: in New York already. UM. I haven't seen legal action
Speaker 1: elsewhere in the country, but UM, New York is is now.
Speaker 1: You know, we'll see how these cases UH go forward.
Speaker 1: So what is this? What is the status of the
Speaker 1: courts in New York or any of them open yet?
Speaker 1: So the New York court system has been doing a
Speaker 1: garage suits reopening UM, and recently they started grand juries
Speaker 1: again and they are starting some in person operations, which
Speaker 1: was kind of the flashpoint for this lawsuit. That was
Speaker 1: when the public defenders wrote a letter to the New
Speaker 1: York State courts saying, you know, we don't feel comfortable
Speaker 1: with this, and then later filed the lawsuit. But you know,
Speaker 1: New York courts have they were they were pretty pretty
Speaker 1: much completely virtual for a period of time and then
Speaker 1: gradually started moving back to these uh in person operations.
Speaker 1: How did they work it out? Do they decide before
Speaker 1: trial or before hearings what's going to happen? Or do
Speaker 1: they just call them into the courthouse if you know? Um,
Speaker 1: you know what? I I don't know that, um. And yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a great question. Um. I think that a lot
Speaker 1: of these courts that it depends on the judge, it
Speaker 1: depends on the courtroom. UM. So it could be different
Speaker 1: case by taste. But you know, these are these are
Speaker 1: general orders and general guidance from the courts and the
Speaker 1: court system. UM. And I think that's what's being taken
Speaker 1: issue with right now. I imagine that the court officers,
Speaker 1: a lot of the court officers aren't so happy to
Speaker 1: be back in person, and and that is the that
Speaker 1: is the other lawsuit here is the court officers, and
Speaker 1: you know, they're saying that, uh, they weren't provided with
Speaker 1: the right amount of personal protective equipment. Of course, the
Speaker 1: court disputed that they said, you know, uh, they have
Speaker 1: provided tens of thousands of masks like loves and face shields. Um.
Speaker 1: But the court officers are saying that there have been
Speaker 1: union members who have actually died from this virus in
Speaker 1: New York and UM, you know that's the something that
Speaker 1: they're trying to prevent going forward, and something they're saying
Speaker 1: that the courts had a hand in. What are the
Speaker 1: new safety measures that the courts have inced to you
Speaker 1: did so, there are plenty of new safety measures across
Speaker 1: the country to respond to the reopening and in person operations.
Speaker 1: One of the most common ones that we're seeing is
Speaker 1: requiring masks for people requiring social distancing. Uh So, North
Speaker 1: Carolina's Supreme Court required maps in all courthouses throughout the state.
Speaker 1: It's also something that we're seeing very popular in federal courts. UM,
Speaker 1: for masks to be required in in public areas for
Speaker 1: for both courtgoers and for staff. Um. You know, there
Speaker 1: are also checks at the doors for courthouses, so they're
Speaker 1: they're testing people's temptsures, they're asking them some some health questions,
Speaker 1: UM to try to make sure that people aren't coming
Speaker 1: into the courthouse that they have you know, fever. UM.
Speaker 1: And then there are also some courthouses that are shutting
Speaker 1: down when they have a case of the virus in
Speaker 1: the courthouse. This was something we saw early on. Several
Speaker 1: courthouses had court workers UM and and court officers who
Speaker 1: were testing positive for the virus. So the courthouse tests down,
Speaker 1: they have the General Services Administration come in and and
Speaker 1: clean it out. That's the organization that helps the sanitation
Speaker 1: and administration of these buildings and UH it used to
Speaker 1: have them come in and help get the buildings ready
Speaker 1: for people to be there again. And we're seeing that
Speaker 1: again in in at least one area in the Northern
Speaker 1: District of Georgia closed its Gainsville courthouse on July fifteenth
Speaker 1: after a court officer tested positive for the virus. UH.
Speaker 1: They said that that courthouse will will be closed until
Speaker 1: they can clean it properly so they can get people
Speaker 1: back in. UM. So what we're seeing a few different
Speaker 1: measures happening across the country. New safety measures. UH. You know,
Speaker 1: I think a lot of courts and people entering them
Speaker 1: are are concerned about these environments where people are pushed
Speaker 1: together into the same room. And sometimes it's because they
Speaker 1: most of the time it's because they have to be there.
Speaker 1: It's not a choice. It's not like so many of
Speaker 1: these are the businesses we see where you can be
Speaker 1: there of your own accord. If you're in court, there
Speaker 1: is a matter that you have to resolve UM, and
Speaker 1: that's one of the major concerns for for courses that
Speaker 1: you know they are, they're dealing with a population that
Speaker 1: is forced into this environment. In your story, I read
Speaker 1: that they're encountering some resistance from independent minded judges. Tell
Speaker 1: us about that. So in Georgia, UM, the Chief Justice
Speaker 1: Harold Mountain, received a few complaints that judges UH in
Speaker 1: the state had violated health or safety guidelines, and I
Speaker 1: spoke to him. He said some of those some of
Speaker 1: those cases were true, some of them to him, didn't
Speaker 1: line up with what reality was UM, but he said
Speaker 1: he recognized the continuing issue that judges potentially weren't following
Speaker 1: guidelines UM or the percept and that they weren't following
Speaker 1: guidelines and so UM in an order on July tenth,
Speaker 1: he said, you know, we're going to make sure that
Speaker 1: people are following these safety guidelines for in person proceedings,
Speaker 1: and he encouraged these of video conference as well. Um,
Speaker 1: and he extended previous orders uh to make sure that
Speaker 1: measures that were already put in place by the court were, um,
Speaker 1: we're still in place. So you know, that's the other
Speaker 1: issue with a lot of of course, is that judges
Speaker 1: are pretty independent in their own courtrooms and the decisions
Speaker 1: that they can make. Uh. So making sure that all
Speaker 1: of those individual judges are are following these guidelines or
Speaker 1: every courtroom is addressing them the same is a challenge
Speaker 1: for courts. Thanks so much for being on the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Laws Show, Maddie. That's Madison Alder, Bloomberg Law Reporter. It
Speaker 1: is essential that we have a clear breakdown of the
Speaker 1: number of citizens and non citizens that make up the
Speaker 1: US populations. And President Trump is not letting a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision stop him from his goal of ensuring that
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants are not counted in. After the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: blocked the administration's effort to add a citizenship question to
Speaker 1: the census form last year, Trump ordered the census Bureau
Speaker 1: to gather citizenship data from the administrative records of federal
Speaker 1: and state agencies. Not only didn't I back down, I
Speaker 1: backed up because anybody else would have given this up
Speaker 1: a long time ago. The problem is we had three
Speaker 1: very unfriendly court That order is still being challenged in
Speaker 1: the courts. But Trump has already taken another step. On Tuesday,
Speaker 1: he signed a presidential memorandum to bar undocumented immigrants from
Speaker 1: being counted in the census, another move that's sure to
Speaker 1: be challenged in the courts on constitutional grounds. Joining EASi
Speaker 1: le On Fresco A partnered Holland and Knight, formerly the
Speaker 1: head of the Jostice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation. Leon
Speaker 1: is this memorandum away for President Trump to get around
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decision blocking the citizenship question. Well, the
Speaker 1: idea originally of adding the citizenship questions to the census
Speaker 1: was to try to in some way get at this
Speaker 1: question of who wasn't a citizen so that they could
Speaker 1: be excluded from the census. And so now even though
Speaker 1: the citizenship question wasn't added to the census, what the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is trying to say as well, we have
Speaker 1: other ways of trying to determine who's here without status,
Speaker 1: and by using those other ways, I will then make
Speaker 1: an order that says I'm not going to council people
Speaker 1: towards the census. So does this presidential memorandum have the
Speaker 1: force of an executive order? This does not have the
Speaker 1: exact power of an executive order because the difference between
Speaker 1: a presidential memorandum and an executive order is as an
Speaker 1: executive order has to be published in the federal register,
Speaker 1: and there's ways you can procedurally challenge it for not
Speaker 1: be done properly. The President is saying, is I'm not
Speaker 1: making anything formal. I'm just issuing a policy memo that
Speaker 1: defines what a person is for the census as a
Speaker 1: person who is here with legal immigration status or a U. S. Citizen.
Speaker 1: It cannot be a person with undocumented status. And so
Speaker 1: he's just saying, that's just a policy memo that can't
Speaker 1: be then talaced in court, because I, the President, get
Speaker 1: power and authority to determine who a person is from
Speaker 1: the purposes of the centsive. Let's take the legal questions
Speaker 1: first and then the practical questions. The Constitution says that
Speaker 1: House districts shall be based on the whole number of
Speaker 1: persons in each state. What have courts interpreted that to mean? Well,
Speaker 1: what the course of interpret that to mean is that
Speaker 1: there's a difference between person and citizen in the United
Speaker 1: States Constitution. And sometimes the United States Constitution uses citizen
Speaker 1: and sometimes they uses person. And so to use this
Speaker 1: person it means person. It means any human being without
Speaker 1: regard to any sort of immigration statate. And so that's
Speaker 1: what the courts have met there. Now, you don't have
Speaker 1: to count people who are not subject to the jurisdiction
Speaker 1: of the US government. So who are those people? Diplomat
Speaker 1: people at the United NATed, people at the World Bank,
Speaker 1: the I M F, etcetera. So those individuals wouldn't be
Speaker 1: counted in the sensis, but other persons who are subjects
Speaker 1: to the jurisdiction of the United States government are counted
Speaker 1: in the census. We've had Attorneys General California and New
Speaker 1: York say that this is unconstitutional. The a c LU
Speaker 1: has said, we'll see him in court. We won last time,
Speaker 1: We're going to win again. What would be the basis
Speaker 1: of a lawsuit against this memorandum? So there's two basics
Speaker 1: for the lawsuit. One is procedural and one is substantive.
Speaker 1: The procedural basis for the lawsuit is to say that
Speaker 1: you can't do this via presidential memorandum, because this is
Speaker 1: actually a substantive change of the law. When you're defining
Speaker 1: who is a human being for the purposes of the census,
Speaker 1: you can't just do that in a policy memo that
Speaker 1: you just kind of whipped up in the middle of
Speaker 1: the day. It has to go through all of the
Speaker 1: formal rulemaking processes and have noticed the common and regulations,
Speaker 1: the things of this nature. It can't just be a
Speaker 1: memo like that. That's number one, but then substantively that
Speaker 1: the legal claim made in the memo, which is that
Speaker 1: undocumented individuals are not subject to being counted even though
Speaker 1: they may have been here ten years, twenty years, thirty
Speaker 1: years in the United States and thus are domiciled here
Speaker 1: for the purposes of the census, that there's no legal
Speaker 1: basis available for that contingments. Do you think this is
Speaker 1: a slam dunk case for the A C l U
Speaker 1: or the A G S. Yeah. I would be incredibly
Speaker 1: shocked if at the end of the day the plaists
Speaker 1: in this case did not prevail for the simple reason
Speaker 1: that when we want to talk about the context of originalism,
Speaker 1: back at the time of the Constitution, we didn't have
Speaker 1: all of these billions of different immigration statuses and who
Speaker 1: was a citizen, and who was a Green Guard older,
Speaker 1: and who was undocumented and who was in a transitionary status.
Speaker 1: I mean, right now, when you look at all of this,
Speaker 1: there's hundreds of different immigration statusies and some are influx
Speaker 1: and some aren't. And so that's why the census uses
Speaker 1: the word person, and the person means person. And so
Speaker 1: if you're gonna take person to mean something else now
Speaker 1: after you've been doing it one way for hundreds of years,
Speaker 1: that that new interpretation excluding persons will not be allowed
Speaker 1: to prevail. So let's look at this practically. Now, how
Speaker 1: would the administration actually determine the number of illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: in this country and in specific counties within the states.
Speaker 1: So this is actually a very interesting issue. There was
Speaker 1: all the way up till a document of the Department
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security would publish every year called Estimate of
Speaker 1: Undocumented Individuals in the United States, and the most recent
Speaker 1: one of those is about two years old. So that
Speaker 1: wouldn't be an accurate town. The Sense of Bureau itself,
Speaker 1: through the ACS surveys, has also tried to estimate the
Speaker 1: undocumented towns. But what's also fascinating about this, it's almost
Speaker 1: impossible to do because people continually on a daily basis,
Speaker 1: and I'm not talking about one person or two people.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about tens of thousands of people every day
Speaker 1: go in and out of undocumented status because they might
Speaker 1: have overstayed there visa by a day or two. They
Speaker 1: put in an application to fix this, this gets sick,
Speaker 1: or they put in an application to fix it before
Speaker 1: they were say but U S C I s A
Speaker 1: taken too long to renew it. So they're in undocumented
Speaker 1: status during the middle of the time while the application
Speaker 1: is pending, and so it's uncalculable. All of this would
Speaker 1: have to be an estimate, and when you're doing this estimate,
Speaker 1: it is subject to wild deviations, which is why you
Speaker 1: have some of the restrictionist immigration groups saying no, these
Speaker 1: numbers are in the twenty million range, and you have
Speaker 1: the Department of Homeland Security of the Sense of Bureau
Speaker 1: say no, it's between eleven and fourty million, and others
Speaker 1: say no, no, no no, no, no, in fact, a lot
Speaker 1: of people have returned to Mexico. And it's even less
Speaker 1: than that. The president's mental actually says, well, the president
Speaker 1: can just pick how many people are undocuments, And because
Speaker 1: of these wild deviations, that seems like the kind of
Speaker 1: thing that almost as too arbitrary for its own good.
Speaker 1: Even if the Census Bureau or the Department of Homeland
Speaker 1: Security could calculate the number of illegal miigrants in the country,
Speaker 1: how would they administer this? The President would just say, Okay,
Speaker 1: this is the number for this state, this is the
Speaker 1: number for that stay right. The way the executive Order
Speaker 1: reads the way this would work is if California had
Speaker 1: a population of sixty million people, as an example, and
Speaker 1: then the Department of Homeland Security, along with the Census Bureau,
Speaker 1: were to determine that there was a population of three
Speaker 1: million undocumented people in California, they would just abtract sixty
Speaker 1: by three and say, now California has fifty seven. But
Speaker 1: they'd also have to do it vias of each county.
Speaker 1: And I don't see how you can get to that
Speaker 1: granular level of data, because you know, the county formulas
Speaker 1: also matter in the senses as well, and not only
Speaker 1: are sad as this trans it, but people are trans
Speaker 1: the A two and so to get to that level
Speaker 1: of granularity, it's almost certainly throwing a dart up against
Speaker 1: the wall and just picking a number that the dark heads.
Speaker 1: And so that's the kind of thing you don't want
Speaker 1: to do, Whereas it's much easier to just count how
Speaker 1: many human beings are in the United States of a
Speaker 1: specific side. I want to look at the political implications here,
Speaker 1: and a study last year by the Center for Immigration Studies,
Speaker 1: which is a conservative group, said that excluding immigrants would
Speaker 1: take three seats away from the Blue states and redistribute
Speaker 1: them to the red states. So there are real implications
Speaker 1: of this count Oh absolutely. I mean the executive memorandum
Speaker 1: itself actually lays that out and says, excluding the words
Speaker 1: that uses is it says affording congressional representation and therefore
Speaker 1: formal political influence the state on account of their presence
Speaker 1: within their borders of aliens who have not followed the
Speaker 1: steps to secure lawful immigration stidus undermine those principles. But
Speaker 1: what they're saying they go on to say that they
Speaker 1: don't want to reward state for basically doing things to
Speaker 1: encourage undocumented individuals to come into the United States and
Speaker 1: to be in their specific states. And so they are
Speaker 1: trying to say, we want to punish the states that
Speaker 1: are welcoming toward immigrants and reward the fates that are
Speaker 1: not welcoming towards immigrants. After the Supreme Court ruled on
Speaker 1: the citizenship question, President Trump ordered the Census fuiour to
Speaker 1: gather citizenship data from the records of federal and state agencies,
Speaker 1: and a majority of states refused to share information about
Speaker 1: driver's licenses or I D Cards. That's being challenged in court.
Speaker 1: Where does that stand right? That challenge is pending, And
Speaker 1: there was actually of news about that today where the
Speaker 1: court in the case that said, hey, this new executive
Speaker 1: order actually becomes quite important in these cases now because
Speaker 1: now we see that this wasn't just some requie for data.
Speaker 1: This actually is being applied in this particular method. And
Speaker 1: so the court seems to think in that case that
Speaker 1: the new executive order seems to undermine the arguments being
Speaker 1: made by the government about needing this data, because if
Speaker 1: the point of this data was the acting service of
Speaker 1: this executive order or this presidential memorandum, the court did
Speaker 1: not even claimed to want to go in that rut,
Speaker 1: They're going to be lawsuits filed, guaranteed lawsuits filed. Will
Speaker 1: this be put on hold? Will they be able to
Speaker 1: get temporary restraining orders to put this on hold as
Speaker 1: the case is proceed My understanding is lawsuits will be
Speaker 1: filed next week in New York and in California, and
Speaker 1: in one of those two courts, if not, both will
Speaker 1: likely put a temporary restraining order on this, and then
Speaker 1: it will work its way up the court. And then
Speaker 1: the question is will the Supreme Court rule in order
Speaker 1: to make sure that the count is decided with or
Speaker 1: without this issue, or whether Supreme Court just denied third
Speaker 1: and say look where we're done with the census issue
Speaker 1: and move on. And so that's that's what we wait
Speaker 1: to see. But but we should have some clarification one
Speaker 1: way or another from the Supreme Court regarding its interest
Speaker 1: in this matter. I would say, before the beginning of
Speaker 1: the fall, how long does the Census Bureau have to
Speaker 1: actually complete the census? So the completion of the census
Speaker 1: now because of COVID has been delayed till the end
Speaker 1: of September, and then after the end of September, then
Speaker 1: it's planning on going through a process between October and April,
Speaker 1: the process of portunment counts and redistricting data, and then
Speaker 1: they planned to deliver that nfortunateate count to the President
Speaker 1: on April thirty, which basically needs If the president is
Speaker 1: not Donald Trump, then none of this will matter anyway.
Speaker 1: But if the President is Donald Trump, then Free Court
Speaker 1: has to basically decide by April should that apportionment counts
Speaker 1: include undocumented individuals or not include a documented individuals. Thanks
Speaker 1: le on exile on Presco A partnered Hondon Knight. I'm
Speaker 1: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg