WEBVTT - Biden Administration's New Border Rules

0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:04.480
<v Speaker 1>We've already removed thousands of people who have arrived at

0:00:04.480 --> 0:00:11.000
<v Speaker 1>our southern border. We are enforcing our traditional immigration enforcement

0:00:11.280 --> 0:00:14.960
<v Speaker 1>authorities under Title eight of the United States Code.

0:00:15.000 --> 0:00:17.919
<v Speaker 2>The chaos expected at the border after the end of

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:22.759
<v Speaker 2>Title forty two has not materialized so far, and Homeland

0:00:22.800 --> 0:00:28.360
<v Speaker 2>Security Secretary Alejandro Majorkis credits the Biden administration's new tougher

0:00:28.400 --> 0:00:32.720
<v Speaker 2>asylum policies and expanded legal pathways to enter the country.

0:00:33.200 --> 0:00:36.360
<v Speaker 2>But from New York to Chicago to Denver, cities are

0:00:36.440 --> 0:00:41.000
<v Speaker 2>scrambling to accommodate more migrants as Texas Governor Greg Abbott

0:00:41.080 --> 0:00:44.800
<v Speaker 2>continues to bus asylum seekers from the southern border to

0:00:44.920 --> 0:00:48.600
<v Speaker 2>sanctuary cities. New York City Mayor Eric Adams had some

0:00:48.800 --> 0:00:52.680
<v Speaker 2>harsh words for people criticizing the city's decision to house

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:55.040
<v Speaker 2>thousands of migrants in hotels.

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:59.760
<v Speaker 3>So, whomever said, don't go to a hotel on this

0:01:00.440 --> 0:01:02.800
<v Speaker 3>don't go to a hotel on that block. If you're

0:01:02.800 --> 0:01:04.880
<v Speaker 3>just telling me that, then I need for you to

0:01:04.920 --> 0:01:06.399
<v Speaker 3>tell me where to go.

0:01:06.880 --> 0:01:10.440
<v Speaker 2>My guest is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner

0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:14.360
<v Speaker 2>at hollanden Knight. So Leon, let's start with the end

0:01:14.440 --> 0:01:18.200
<v Speaker 2>of Title forty two. The number of migrants encountered at

0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:22.440
<v Speaker 2>the southern border fell fifty percent during the last three days.

0:01:22.880 --> 0:01:25.280
<v Speaker 2>You know, everyone was anticipating that there would be a

0:01:25.319 --> 0:01:26.520
<v Speaker 2>surge at the border.

0:01:26.880 --> 0:01:29.040
<v Speaker 4>I think for a lot of people, there's a way

0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:32.319
<v Speaker 4>to see approach that they're operating with, which is that

0:01:32.560 --> 0:01:35.360
<v Speaker 4>they want to see a are there going to be

0:01:35.440 --> 0:01:39.000
<v Speaker 4>a sufficient number of the CBP one appointment on the

0:01:39.080 --> 0:01:42.640
<v Speaker 4>border that people can use to access the process legally

0:01:42.959 --> 0:01:46.960
<v Speaker 4>without needing to access the process illegally. Be what's going

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:50.120
<v Speaker 4>to happen to people who sort of test the system

0:01:50.480 --> 0:01:52.920
<v Speaker 4>and put their finger in the plug, so to speak.

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 4>Are they going to get an electric shock or not?

0:01:55.600 --> 0:01:58.440
<v Speaker 4>And I think people are waiting to see how people

0:01:58.480 --> 0:02:01.520
<v Speaker 4>are being treated who cross the border. Are they being

0:02:01.600 --> 0:02:04.960
<v Speaker 4>thrown into detention? Are they being allowed to be released?

0:02:05.160 --> 0:02:08.120
<v Speaker 4>And I think as people start to see to the

0:02:08.240 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 4>extent possible that there's not enough detention space to put

0:02:11.440 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 4>everyone in the tension, I think you'll see an uptick

0:02:14.040 --> 0:02:17.560
<v Speaker 4>on the numbers there. And I think people are also

0:02:18.080 --> 0:02:20.560
<v Speaker 4>trying to see what this thing means that you're not

0:02:20.639 --> 0:02:24.799
<v Speaker 4>eligible for asylum, and I think they don't really understand

0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:27.440
<v Speaker 4>it quite yet. But what they figure out what that

0:02:27.520 --> 0:02:30.720
<v Speaker 4>means is that many years down the road, your court

0:02:30.760 --> 0:02:33.280
<v Speaker 4>case is going to be harder, but there's not really

0:02:33.280 --> 0:02:36.720
<v Speaker 4>a bar per se on bringing you into the country.

0:02:37.360 --> 0:02:39.880
<v Speaker 4>I think you'll see these numbers increase. But for what

0:02:39.919 --> 0:02:42.480
<v Speaker 4>you're seeing right now for the moment is sort of

0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:46.000
<v Speaker 4>a feeling out process because people don't really understand the

0:02:46.440 --> 0:02:49.600
<v Speaker 4>incentive structure and what is the best way to operate

0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:51.480
<v Speaker 4>within this current incentive structure.

0:02:52.480 --> 0:02:56.680
<v Speaker 2>So explain what the Biden plan is or what the

0:02:56.800 --> 0:02:59.399
<v Speaker 2>enforcement mechanisms in place are.

0:03:00.080 --> 0:03:03.320
<v Speaker 4>The Biden Plan is trying to provide what's called a

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:06.960
<v Speaker 4>carrot and six approach and what it's trying to say,

0:03:07.040 --> 0:03:09.239
<v Speaker 4>And of course all of this is subject to litigation,

0:03:09.400 --> 0:03:12.480
<v Speaker 4>but let's just say with what their ideal plan would be.

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:16.160
<v Speaker 4>If nothing was enjoyed by the court, their ideal plan

0:03:16.200 --> 0:03:19.600
<v Speaker 4>would be on the carrot end. There's two ways to

0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:23.279
<v Speaker 4>access carrots. Number one is to get an appointment online

0:03:23.360 --> 0:03:25.280
<v Speaker 4>to go to a port of entry and ask for

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:28.040
<v Speaker 4>asylum at the port of entry. And the reason for

0:03:28.120 --> 0:03:31.600
<v Speaker 4>that is because if you cross in between the ports illegally,

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:34.720
<v Speaker 4>you create much more strain on the system. You have

0:03:34.800 --> 0:03:37.200
<v Speaker 4>to have border patrol people come and get you and

0:03:37.280 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 4>put you in a detention facility, and they don't know

0:03:39.400 --> 0:03:41.920
<v Speaker 4>how many people are coming and they can't plan for it.

0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:45.800
<v Speaker 4>Whereas if you access the system legally, we know on

0:03:45.880 --> 0:03:48.000
<v Speaker 4>any given day there's going to be this many people

0:03:48.000 --> 0:03:50.360
<v Speaker 4>that come through per day. They're going to be coming

0:03:50.360 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 4>in through these ports, and then they can be planned for.

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:55.520
<v Speaker 4>So the idea is, do that and you'll be able

0:03:55.560 --> 0:03:58.440
<v Speaker 4>to access the asylum system if you actually have a

0:03:58.480 --> 0:04:02.440
<v Speaker 4>credible fear of person secution in your home country. Alternatively,

0:04:03.040 --> 0:04:05.920
<v Speaker 4>you can apply at least for so long as it exists,

0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:08.560
<v Speaker 4>which might be another month or so, or maybe the

0:04:08.600 --> 0:04:11.320
<v Speaker 4>court will rule that Bison can do this. But for

0:04:11.400 --> 0:04:15.200
<v Speaker 4>these thirty thousand parole slots per month from Venezuela, let

0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:18.279
<v Speaker 4>you buy Nicaragua and Haiti, and if you apply for

0:04:18.320 --> 0:04:23.320
<v Speaker 4>those parole slots, then you can actually access the system

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:26.640
<v Speaker 4>legally without even needing an asylum plane. You just get

0:04:26.680 --> 0:04:29.160
<v Speaker 4>into one of the slots and you can come into

0:04:29.160 --> 0:04:32.559
<v Speaker 4>the United States, or you can make an asilent claim

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.280
<v Speaker 4>at one of these two processing sensors that's opening up

0:04:35.320 --> 0:04:40.080
<v Speaker 4>either in Colombia or in Central America, and in those sensors,

0:04:40.080 --> 0:04:42.560
<v Speaker 4>you can make your claim, and if you have a

0:04:42.640 --> 0:04:45.400
<v Speaker 4>legitimate asylum plane, you can be brought into the United

0:04:45.440 --> 0:04:48.479
<v Speaker 4>States as a refugee. You automatically win your case. You

0:04:48.480 --> 0:04:51.640
<v Speaker 4>don't even need to go into court in that situation.

0:04:52.000 --> 0:04:55.280
<v Speaker 4>And so those are the ideas and as opposed to that,

0:04:55.360 --> 0:04:58.680
<v Speaker 4>if you cross illegally without any announcement or any permission,

0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:03.640
<v Speaker 4>then what the Biden administration will do is theoretically, the

0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:05.799
<v Speaker 4>threat of the terrence that they're putting is they're saying

0:05:06.240 --> 0:05:09.920
<v Speaker 4>you won't be able to access the asylum system, which

0:05:09.960 --> 0:05:11.919
<v Speaker 4>doesn't mean you can't say it just means you have

0:05:11.960 --> 0:05:15.600
<v Speaker 4>a harder evidentiary burden to get this thing called withholding

0:05:15.640 --> 0:05:18.880
<v Speaker 4>of removal, which doesn't give you a past to citizenship.

0:05:18.920 --> 0:05:22.200
<v Speaker 4>It just allows you to stay temporarily while the conditions

0:05:22.200 --> 0:05:26.080
<v Speaker 4>in your country remain dangerous to you. And that's all

0:05:26.120 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 4>you're going to be able to get, which means you

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:30.080
<v Speaker 4>can't position for any family members, you won't ever be

0:05:30.080 --> 0:05:32.320
<v Speaker 4>able to access a green card or be able to

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:34.120
<v Speaker 4>get any of the benefits that come with a green

0:05:34.200 --> 0:05:37.520
<v Speaker 4>card or citizenship. And the question is how much of

0:05:37.520 --> 0:05:41.440
<v Speaker 4>a long term deterrent is going to be versus if

0:05:41.480 --> 0:05:45.280
<v Speaker 4>people don't have access to these other carrots, either because

0:05:45.279 --> 0:05:48.440
<v Speaker 4>they get taken away from the courts or what happens

0:05:48.520 --> 0:05:51.600
<v Speaker 4>is that there's too few carrots and too many people.

0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:54.000
<v Speaker 4>They may just say, you know what, the fact that

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:56.760
<v Speaker 4>I could just come into America and wait six years

0:05:56.760 --> 0:05:59.520
<v Speaker 4>for a coordinate is good enough for me. If six

0:05:59.560 --> 0:06:02.480
<v Speaker 4>years later I can't get asylum, we'll deal with that then.

0:06:02.640 --> 0:06:05.800
<v Speaker 4>And so that's the question. I think everybody's waiting to

0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:08.479
<v Speaker 4>see how that shakes out on the border for the

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:09.239
<v Speaker 4>next few weeks.

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:16.960
<v Speaker 2>So the credible fear interview, does every migrant from let's say, Haiti, Venezuela,

0:06:17.040 --> 0:06:19.400
<v Speaker 2>do they all pass the credible fear interview?

0:06:19.839 --> 0:06:23.640
<v Speaker 4>Because you have to be able to articulate a fear

0:06:23.760 --> 0:06:27.000
<v Speaker 4>from one of those countries that's based on your race,

0:06:27.080 --> 0:06:30.880
<v Speaker 4>your religion, your nationality, your social group, or your political opinion.

0:06:31.040 --> 0:06:37.000
<v Speaker 4>So at least from Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, those currently

0:06:37.040 --> 0:06:41.160
<v Speaker 4>have repressive governments. So if you articulate anything like I'm

0:06:41.200 --> 0:06:45.279
<v Speaker 4>a political dissident, they know me and they're gonna arrest

0:06:45.320 --> 0:06:48.359
<v Speaker 4>me if I come back because I was participating in

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:51.200
<v Speaker 4>x y or z protest. That's going to be enough

0:06:51.200 --> 0:06:54.080
<v Speaker 4>to get you through the credible fear screening. For Haiti,

0:06:54.120 --> 0:06:57.160
<v Speaker 4>it's a little bit tougher because the idea is that

0:06:57.279 --> 0:07:01.440
<v Speaker 4>the political persecution is not necessarily the problem there. So

0:07:01.480 --> 0:07:03.960
<v Speaker 4>you'd have to say that there were some gang or

0:07:04.000 --> 0:07:07.839
<v Speaker 4>rebel paramilitary force or something like that that was trying

0:07:07.880 --> 0:07:11.200
<v Speaker 4>to persecute you for some reasons. And so those are

0:07:11.320 --> 0:07:13.840
<v Speaker 4>harder claims to make on the Haitian side. But the

0:07:13.880 --> 0:07:16.600
<v Speaker 4>problem is on the Haitian side, even if you can't

0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:19.440
<v Speaker 4>make that claim, there's only so few people that were

0:07:19.480 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 4>being allowed to remove the Haiti right now, and so

0:07:23.160 --> 0:07:26.560
<v Speaker 4>that's an issue of still people potentially being released just

0:07:26.560 --> 0:07:30.119
<v Speaker 4>because there's not enough life and plots to remove people

0:07:30.160 --> 0:07:30.640
<v Speaker 4>to Haiti.

0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:35.520
<v Speaker 2>Let's talk about the lawsuits in Florida. The US is

0:07:35.680 --> 0:07:39.200
<v Speaker 2>in litigation about whether it can release migrants without what's

0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:42.520
<v Speaker 2>called unnoticed to appear. So what they've been doing is

0:07:42.600 --> 0:07:46.920
<v Speaker 2>just releasing migrants from custody with instructions to report an

0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:50.280
<v Speaker 2>immigration office in sixty days. Do they come back?

0:07:50.760 --> 0:07:53.000
<v Speaker 4>Well, so we've gone through this, June. I don't know

0:07:53.000 --> 0:07:56.960
<v Speaker 4>if you recall there's been two Supreme Court cases in

0:07:57.000 --> 0:08:00.400
<v Speaker 4>the last two years shockingly enough, on the civil issue

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:03.200
<v Speaker 4>of whether when you get your notice for your hearing,

0:08:03.600 --> 0:08:05.720
<v Speaker 4>does it have to have the correct date and time

0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:06.320
<v Speaker 4>on it? I don't know.

0:08:06.320 --> 0:08:08.880
<v Speaker 2>If you're ready, yes, I definitely do recall it.

0:08:09.320 --> 0:08:11.720
<v Speaker 4>And so this issue has gone twice to the Supreme Court.

0:08:11.800 --> 0:08:14.480
<v Speaker 4>Has created a major problem for the people down at

0:08:14.480 --> 0:08:17.680
<v Speaker 4>the southern border, because how the heck are they supposed

0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:20.720
<v Speaker 4>to know what the correct date and time should be

0:08:20.800 --> 0:08:23.360
<v Speaker 4>for a hearing because they don't even know where what

0:08:23.520 --> 0:08:25.880
<v Speaker 4>cities people are going to end up in, and so

0:08:25.920 --> 0:08:29.360
<v Speaker 4>it becomes very complicated. So what the Border Patrol has

0:08:29.440 --> 0:08:32.040
<v Speaker 4>wanted to do is to say, look, don't make this

0:08:32.240 --> 0:08:35.439
<v Speaker 4>our problem, because we're not good at this. We can't

0:08:35.440 --> 0:08:38.560
<v Speaker 4>figure out all the court systems and what date and

0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:41.720
<v Speaker 4>what times and what cities because half of the folks

0:08:41.720 --> 0:08:43.600
<v Speaker 4>don't even know where they're going to end up. And

0:08:43.679 --> 0:08:46.720
<v Speaker 4>so from that perspective, what we want to do is

0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:50.240
<v Speaker 4>give them an opportunity to get their bearings and then

0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:54.680
<v Speaker 4>come back and report and get their date and time

0:08:54.760 --> 0:08:57.280
<v Speaker 4>for their hearing. Now, of course, the problem is how

0:08:57.280 --> 0:08:59.480
<v Speaker 4>many people are going to do that, get their bearing

0:08:59.800 --> 0:09:02.960
<v Speaker 4>and voluntarily go to an ice second sixty years later

0:09:03.520 --> 0:09:05.240
<v Speaker 4>at the city they end up in. I mean, it's

0:09:05.240 --> 0:09:09.240
<v Speaker 4>a credible point to say that only the best intention

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:12.000
<v Speaker 4>the people are going to actually do that. And so

0:09:12.360 --> 0:09:14.400
<v Speaker 4>it's really a damned if you do, damns if you

0:09:14.400 --> 0:09:18.760
<v Speaker 4>don't situation, because yes, you can release people with a

0:09:18.840 --> 0:09:21.839
<v Speaker 4>hearing notice, and that hearing notice ninety nine out of

0:09:21.880 --> 0:09:24.960
<v Speaker 4>one hundred times is going to be worthless because it's

0:09:25.000 --> 0:09:27.480
<v Speaker 4>going to be for a city that the people aren't

0:09:27.480 --> 0:09:31.000
<v Speaker 4>even living in, and one day they're going to be

0:09:31.000 --> 0:09:33.360
<v Speaker 4>in assentia in the court. They're not going to show

0:09:33.440 --> 0:09:36.680
<v Speaker 4>up for their hearing, and many years later they'll be

0:09:36.760 --> 0:09:39.160
<v Speaker 4>apprehended and strike to be deported and they'll say, I

0:09:39.200 --> 0:09:42.280
<v Speaker 4>never got notice of my hearing. I didn't live in Toledo.

0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:45.720
<v Speaker 4>I lived in Chicago, did Why did they assign me

0:09:45.800 --> 0:09:49.200
<v Speaker 4>for Toledo. So the point is it's really about what

0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:52.880
<v Speaker 4>is most effective to get people through the system, and

0:09:53.679 --> 0:09:56.600
<v Speaker 4>Florida has taken the position at least get people a

0:09:56.679 --> 0:10:00.520
<v Speaker 4>hearing date and a notice, and ICE is saying this

0:10:00.679 --> 0:10:03.440
<v Speaker 4>is taking us too long. People are in detention. Sells

0:10:03.600 --> 0:10:06.840
<v Speaker 4>huge overcrowd itself with fifty people in one toilet, while

0:10:06.840 --> 0:10:09.439
<v Speaker 4>we're trying to figure this out, and it's not really,

0:10:09.520 --> 0:10:13.320
<v Speaker 4>in the end, any more effective at creating the terrens

0:10:13.960 --> 0:10:17.600
<v Speaker 4>than having the people show up to the ICE situations,

0:10:17.640 --> 0:10:20.439
<v Speaker 4>because if these notices are useless, then they're just as

0:10:20.520 --> 0:10:23.040
<v Speaker 4>useless as people not showing up to the ICE checkert.

0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:25.880
<v Speaker 4>And so this is the tension on both sides of

0:10:25.920 --> 0:10:26.440
<v Speaker 4>the argument.

0:10:26.920 --> 0:10:29.720
<v Speaker 2>So leone tell us what the judge did that Florida case.

0:10:30.200 --> 0:10:33.360
<v Speaker 4>What the Florida judge did is said, look, I recognize

0:10:34.120 --> 0:10:38.079
<v Speaker 4>all of the practical and logistical concerns that you're saying,

0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:40.480
<v Speaker 4>but at the end of the day, I cannot let

0:10:40.559 --> 0:10:44.720
<v Speaker 4>you release people without giving them The law says what

0:10:44.760 --> 0:10:47.719
<v Speaker 4>the law says. When the Attorney General is what it

0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:50.240
<v Speaker 4>says in the statue, but now it's really the Secretary

0:10:50.240 --> 0:10:55.199
<v Speaker 4>of Homeland Security encounters a person without status. They must

0:10:55.200 --> 0:10:58.840
<v Speaker 4>detain the person, the statue says, must must detain the

0:10:58.880 --> 0:11:02.440
<v Speaker 4>person and play them in removal proceedings, and then after

0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:06.120
<v Speaker 4>that can make a decision about releasing them while the

0:11:06.160 --> 0:11:10.040
<v Speaker 4>proceedings are pending. But they can't just ignore the person

0:11:10.280 --> 0:11:14.040
<v Speaker 4>who's an undocumented status or parole the person in a

0:11:14.120 --> 0:11:16.680
<v Speaker 4>documented status. Here's the question that's going to be the

0:11:16.679 --> 0:11:19.280
<v Speaker 4>one that goes to the Supreme Court is can they

0:11:19.320 --> 0:11:23.520
<v Speaker 4>parole the person? The Supreme Court hasn't said. The federal

0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:26.720
<v Speaker 4>government thinks they can. This judge thinks that that's arbitrary

0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:30.400
<v Speaker 4>and capricious, that you can't use parole as a way

0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:35.439
<v Speaker 4>to enmas circumvent the requirement that's in the statute that

0:11:35.480 --> 0:11:39.640
<v Speaker 4>when the government encounters an undocumented person, they have to

0:11:39.720 --> 0:11:42.160
<v Speaker 4>detain them and place them in removal proceeding. You know,

0:11:42.200 --> 0:11:45.559
<v Speaker 4>you could do parole on an individual, case by case basis,

0:11:45.760 --> 0:11:48.920
<v Speaker 4>but when you do a whole system that's designed to

0:11:49.000 --> 0:11:53.080
<v Speaker 4>circumvent this requirement, that that's arbitrary and capricious under the

0:11:53.080 --> 0:11:56.079
<v Speaker 4>Administrative Procedure Act. So you can't do that. You can't

0:11:56.280 --> 0:12:00.840
<v Speaker 4>just have an entire workaround for administrative convenience. And so

0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:04.360
<v Speaker 4>that's what the judge in Florida said. The judge was

0:12:04.440 --> 0:12:07.280
<v Speaker 4>going to save his own decision, but didn't in the end,

0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:10.520
<v Speaker 4>now has kept it going. The Eleventh Circuit hasn't overturned

0:12:10.520 --> 0:12:14.360
<v Speaker 4>it yet. So for the moment, the Biden administration is

0:12:14.360 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 4>going to have to when it detains these individuals, keep

0:12:17.559 --> 0:12:20.319
<v Speaker 4>them in the CDP holding cells until it can figure

0:12:20.360 --> 0:12:23.480
<v Speaker 4>out what time and date to put on the hearing notice,

0:12:23.559 --> 0:12:26.200
<v Speaker 4>to give them the hearing notice to have them go

0:12:26.240 --> 0:12:28.760
<v Speaker 4>on to the next step of the process, which is

0:12:28.800 --> 0:12:30.719
<v Speaker 4>the removal preceding process.

0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:36.280
<v Speaker 2>The ACLU is trying to block Homeland Security from implementing

0:12:36.320 --> 0:12:41.200
<v Speaker 2>Biden's policy, saying it closely resembles a Trump administration's policy

0:12:41.240 --> 0:12:43.000
<v Speaker 2>that a court blocked. Tell me about that.

0:12:44.040 --> 0:12:47.319
<v Speaker 4>So this is a very fascinating issue between two statues

0:12:47.800 --> 0:12:51.560
<v Speaker 4>that are both legal and both conflict with one another.

0:12:51.760 --> 0:12:55.040
<v Speaker 4>So what statued win? Oh, here are the two arguments.

0:12:55.080 --> 0:12:57.839
<v Speaker 4>And this is the same argument in the Trump administration,

0:12:58.480 --> 0:13:00.760
<v Speaker 4>and we didn't get to the Supreme so we don't know.

0:13:01.040 --> 0:13:03.319
<v Speaker 4>So here are the two arguments. On one aspect of

0:13:03.360 --> 0:13:07.240
<v Speaker 4>the asylum statue, it very clearly says that anybody in

0:13:07.280 --> 0:13:09.520
<v Speaker 4>the US, no matter how they got here, can apply

0:13:09.640 --> 0:13:12.840
<v Speaker 4>for asylum. And so the idea is because the statue

0:13:12.880 --> 0:13:16.400
<v Speaker 4>specifically says that, the ACLU is saying you can't ban

0:13:16.559 --> 0:13:21.680
<v Speaker 4>someone from accessing the asylum system because they came here

0:13:21.720 --> 0:13:24.520
<v Speaker 4>in between the ports of entry illegally. The whole point

0:13:24.600 --> 0:13:27.640
<v Speaker 4>is the statue specifically said that they can do that,

0:13:28.120 --> 0:13:31.280
<v Speaker 4>and so why would you ban that? And then there's

0:13:31.360 --> 0:13:34.240
<v Speaker 4>another part of the statute that says, here are all

0:13:34.280 --> 0:13:37.600
<v Speaker 4>the reasons you can be banned from getting asylum, and

0:13:37.679 --> 0:13:40.800
<v Speaker 4>it lays out that you committed a significant crime, that

0:13:40.880 --> 0:13:43.480
<v Speaker 4>you persecuted other people. There's a whole list. But then

0:13:43.520 --> 0:13:47.120
<v Speaker 4>there's a catchall that says the Secretary of Homeland Security

0:13:47.160 --> 0:13:51.400
<v Speaker 4>can add by regulation additional factors. And so the question

0:13:51.559 --> 0:13:56.320
<v Speaker 4>is can this factor be added as an additional factor

0:13:56.920 --> 0:13:59.400
<v Speaker 4>or can it not be added as an additional factor

0:13:59.480 --> 0:14:02.720
<v Speaker 4>banning p perform asylum. And that's really the question.

0:14:02.840 --> 0:14:05.160
<v Speaker 5>At the end of the day, I want to talk about.

0:14:04.920 --> 0:14:09.560
<v Speaker 2>The situation in New York. Mayor Adams bashed the White

0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:13.440
<v Speaker 2>House and congressional Republicans early this month over the situation,

0:14:14.040 --> 0:14:16.440
<v Speaker 2>saying that it shouldn't be the cities that have to

0:14:16.480 --> 0:14:20.320
<v Speaker 2>deal with this, the federal government should be intervening to help.

0:14:20.600 --> 0:14:23.480
<v Speaker 4>I mean, the problem is the confluence of factors that

0:14:23.560 --> 0:14:25.800
<v Speaker 4>have very little here to do with the federal government.

0:14:25.880 --> 0:14:29.080
<v Speaker 4>You have state paying for people to take buses to

0:14:29.200 --> 0:14:32.120
<v Speaker 4>New York City and other cities, so then people arrive

0:14:32.200 --> 0:14:34.600
<v Speaker 4>at the bus stations, and then the question is if

0:14:34.600 --> 0:14:37.040
<v Speaker 4>people do not have a home in New York City,

0:14:37.400 --> 0:14:40.720
<v Speaker 4>what do you do with suddenly seventy five people who

0:14:40.880 --> 0:14:42.840
<v Speaker 4>just arrived at a bus station who have nowhere to

0:14:42.880 --> 0:14:46.280
<v Speaker 4>go and no money. And so that's the talent. And

0:14:46.360 --> 0:14:49.840
<v Speaker 4>so from the New York City perspective, they have two

0:14:50.120 --> 0:14:54.040
<v Speaker 4>places they can go. They can either house people until

0:14:54.080 --> 0:14:57.080
<v Speaker 4>they figure out Plan B, or they can create a

0:14:57.240 --> 0:15:01.920
<v Speaker 4>much more robust logistics network to figure out where the

0:15:01.920 --> 0:15:06.840
<v Speaker 4>final destinations of these individuals was. Because very few people

0:15:06.920 --> 0:15:10.200
<v Speaker 4>don't have someplace somebody who told them when you get

0:15:10.240 --> 0:15:13.800
<v Speaker 4>to America, contacts this person, and then they'd have to

0:15:13.800 --> 0:15:17.360
<v Speaker 4>pay for the transportation logistics to get the person to

0:15:17.520 --> 0:15:21.120
<v Speaker 4>that location. Now, people may say, well that's expensive getting

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:24.200
<v Speaker 4>a person get another flight or a bus or something else,

0:15:24.360 --> 0:15:26.920
<v Speaker 4>but it's far more expensive to house people for weeks

0:15:26.920 --> 0:15:30.280
<v Speaker 4>and weeks at hotels. So I think if the Adams

0:15:30.320 --> 0:15:34.080
<v Speaker 4>administration wants to get out from under housing people, then

0:15:34.120 --> 0:15:36.680
<v Speaker 4>the way to do this is to have a very

0:15:36.800 --> 0:15:42.040
<v Speaker 4>robust transportation logistics framework immediately where people the second they

0:15:42.040 --> 0:15:46.400
<v Speaker 4>get off the bus are basically asked where is the

0:15:46.520 --> 0:15:49.520
<v Speaker 4>address you're trying to get to and get people as

0:15:49.560 --> 0:15:51.840
<v Speaker 4>close to that address as possible. I mean, you don't

0:15:51.880 --> 0:15:54.960
<v Speaker 4>have to take people door to door, but get people

0:15:55.400 --> 0:15:58.280
<v Speaker 4>closer to those locations, whether it be by bus or

0:15:58.360 --> 0:16:02.000
<v Speaker 4>train or a plane, and at least that way you're

0:16:02.000 --> 0:16:05.280
<v Speaker 4>not paying for housing in that situation. If you built

0:16:05.840 --> 0:16:10.120
<v Speaker 4>with city employees, basically what the equivalent would be of

0:16:10.160 --> 0:16:14.760
<v Speaker 4>some sort of rapid response travel task force that would

0:16:14.840 --> 0:16:18.400
<v Speaker 4>get the logistics of where the people wanted to go,

0:16:18.800 --> 0:16:21.600
<v Speaker 4>and you would say, look, there's no way you came

0:16:21.760 --> 0:16:25.040
<v Speaker 4>into the United States with literally zero people that you know.

0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:28.400
<v Speaker 4>You have to know somebody, and in fact, everybody knows

0:16:28.640 --> 0:16:30.440
<v Speaker 4>who's coming to the United States. That one of the

0:16:30.480 --> 0:16:33.040
<v Speaker 4>factors in whether you will say in detention or not

0:16:33.840 --> 0:16:35.920
<v Speaker 4>is if you don't have an address of a place

0:16:35.920 --> 0:16:38.560
<v Speaker 4>where you say you're going to go. So almost everybody

0:16:38.560 --> 0:16:41.400
<v Speaker 4>knows they have to have an address of some contact person,

0:16:41.880 --> 0:16:44.800
<v Speaker 4>and so the question is what is that contact address

0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:48.240
<v Speaker 4>that's been given Get people to that contact address.

0:16:48.600 --> 0:16:51.320
<v Speaker 2>So in order to be let out attention, you have

0:16:51.400 --> 0:16:53.400
<v Speaker 2>to have an address. So the people who are being

0:16:53.440 --> 0:16:55.720
<v Speaker 2>bussed up actually have an address.

0:16:56.400 --> 0:16:58.680
<v Speaker 4>They have an address that they've given to the federal

0:16:58.720 --> 0:17:01.480
<v Speaker 4>government as the kind of tax address where they're going

0:17:01.560 --> 0:17:04.119
<v Speaker 4>to be able to have mail sense to them. At

0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:07.680
<v Speaker 4>least theoretically at the beginning of this until they theoretically

0:17:07.720 --> 0:17:10.440
<v Speaker 4>filing change of address. Now, how many people do that

0:17:10.920 --> 0:17:13.560
<v Speaker 4>is a question that's up for debate because the stats

0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:15.800
<v Speaker 4>are very difficult to keep on these things. You don't

0:17:15.840 --> 0:17:18.840
<v Speaker 4>know until you know someone doesn't show up the court.

0:17:18.920 --> 0:17:20.920
<v Speaker 4>That's when you find out they didn't file the change

0:17:20.920 --> 0:17:24.040
<v Speaker 4>of address. So it's hard to know exactly what the

0:17:24.040 --> 0:17:27.040
<v Speaker 4>statistic how many people are filing them or not filing them.

0:17:27.400 --> 0:17:30.199
<v Speaker 4>But there is an address that people are giving to

0:17:30.200 --> 0:17:33.199
<v Speaker 4>get out from under detention, and so the question is

0:17:33.200 --> 0:17:35.240
<v Speaker 4>if you're giving an address, then you should have to

0:17:35.240 --> 0:17:37.560
<v Speaker 4>be prepared to be transported to that address.

0:17:37.720 --> 0:17:41.680
<v Speaker 2>So why can't the federal government then transport the migrants

0:17:41.840 --> 0:17:43.960
<v Speaker 2>to the states where they have the address.

0:17:44.680 --> 0:17:47.200
<v Speaker 4>Well, I think what's happening is that they're being short

0:17:47.280 --> 0:17:51.119
<v Speaker 4>circuited by Texas and maybe now Florida, who's actually just

0:17:51.160 --> 0:17:53.560
<v Speaker 4>putting people on buses just to put them on buses,

0:17:54.040 --> 0:17:58.119
<v Speaker 4>and so it's creating a distortion from where people should

0:17:58.119 --> 0:18:00.600
<v Speaker 4>be going. But how do you deal with that? And

0:18:00.680 --> 0:18:02.520
<v Speaker 4>so either the federal government is going to have to

0:18:02.520 --> 0:18:06.119
<v Speaker 4>get much more involved in the logistics of this. So

0:18:06.200 --> 0:18:08.560
<v Speaker 4>I have to not let Texas and Florida and others

0:18:08.560 --> 0:18:12.040
<v Speaker 4>put people on buses, or the cities are going to

0:18:12.119 --> 0:18:15.520
<v Speaker 4>have to themselves get involved in the transportation logistics of this.

0:18:15.960 --> 0:18:18.400
<v Speaker 4>You know, there are some issues in the immigration sphere

0:18:18.720 --> 0:18:21.439
<v Speaker 4>where all of your solutions are bad. So I'll give

0:18:21.440 --> 0:18:24.480
<v Speaker 4>you an example of this. Everybody who talks about well,

0:18:24.520 --> 0:18:27.280
<v Speaker 4>the way you solve the immigration problem is, you know,

0:18:27.400 --> 0:18:30.840
<v Speaker 4>attack the root causes of immigration. People keep saying this.

0:18:31.160 --> 0:18:33.000
<v Speaker 4>Every time I tuck to you June, for the last

0:18:33.040 --> 0:18:35.119
<v Speaker 4>few years, I said the same thing to you, which is,

0:18:35.359 --> 0:18:37.719
<v Speaker 4>how do you do that? There's like twenty country sending

0:18:37.760 --> 0:18:40.040
<v Speaker 4>people right now, what does that even mean? You know,

0:18:40.400 --> 0:18:44.400
<v Speaker 4>attack the root causes. From that standpoint, that's nonsense. That's

0:18:44.440 --> 0:18:47.879
<v Speaker 4>an unsolvable problem that people are sending people here. But

0:18:48.040 --> 0:18:51.359
<v Speaker 4>it's definitely a solvable problem that people are showing up

0:18:51.400 --> 0:18:53.800
<v Speaker 4>to New York City and have nowhere to go. So

0:18:53.840 --> 0:18:56.720
<v Speaker 4>the question is do you solve that at the Texas

0:18:56.720 --> 0:18:59.800
<v Speaker 4>border or do you solve that somewhere else. That's going

0:18:59.840 --> 0:19:02.040
<v Speaker 4>to be up to the federal government working with these

0:19:02.080 --> 0:19:05.879
<v Speaker 4>cities to figure out who they want to be responsible

0:19:06.000 --> 0:19:09.439
<v Speaker 4>for getting people to the address that they said was

0:19:09.480 --> 0:19:12.800
<v Speaker 4>their address. I mean, what the federal government appears to

0:19:12.880 --> 0:19:18.200
<v Speaker 4>have done is to up the SIMA emergency shelter brands

0:19:18.200 --> 0:19:21.480
<v Speaker 4>to the cities by three hundred million dollars, which leads

0:19:21.480 --> 0:19:24.000
<v Speaker 4>me to belief that they want the cities solving it

0:19:24.040 --> 0:19:26.920
<v Speaker 4>on their end rather than having the federal government get

0:19:26.960 --> 0:19:27.520
<v Speaker 4>involved in this.

0:19:27.880 --> 0:19:29.800
<v Speaker 2>As always, it's a pleasure to have you on Leon.

0:19:29.880 --> 0:19:33.520
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much. That's Leon Fresco, a Partnert hollanden Knight.

0:19:36.400 --> 0:19:39.440
<v Speaker 2>In a case that could help determine which party controls

0:19:39.480 --> 0:19:42.520
<v Speaker 2>the House over the next decade, the Supreme Court will

0:19:42.560 --> 0:19:47.440
<v Speaker 2>consider reinstating a Republican drawn congressional map in South Carolina.

0:19:47.960 --> 0:19:50.959
<v Speaker 2>The Justice has said they'd review a lower court ruling

0:19:51.000 --> 0:19:54.399
<v Speaker 2>that found a coastal district running from Charleston to Hilton

0:19:54.480 --> 0:19:58.160
<v Speaker 2>Head was intentionally redrawn to reduce the number of black

0:19:58.240 --> 0:20:01.560
<v Speaker 2>voters and to make it more like that Republican candidates

0:20:01.560 --> 0:20:05.120
<v Speaker 2>would win. Joining me is elections law expert Richard Brofald,

0:20:05.280 --> 0:20:09.320
<v Speaker 2>a professor at Columbia Law School. A federal three judge

0:20:09.359 --> 0:20:13.840
<v Speaker 2>panel said the strategies in drawing this South Carolina district's

0:20:13.920 --> 0:20:19.919
<v Speaker 2>boundaries had unconstitutionally exiled thirty thousand black voters. Tell us

0:20:19.960 --> 0:20:21.880
<v Speaker 2>what the federal panel found.

0:20:22.359 --> 0:20:24.960
<v Speaker 5>Well, basically that this was part of the twenty twenty

0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:28.800
<v Speaker 5>two redistricting in South Carolina. The district involved is basically

0:20:28.840 --> 0:20:32.119
<v Speaker 5>the win around the Charleston area, and the court found

0:20:32.400 --> 0:20:35.240
<v Speaker 5>a panel in the legislature had redrawn the lines. So

0:20:35.280 --> 0:20:37.560
<v Speaker 5>it's to remove about thirty thousand black voters from the

0:20:37.600 --> 0:20:40.800
<v Speaker 5>district and put them in an adjacent district, which would

0:20:40.840 --> 0:20:43.720
<v Speaker 5>have the effect also but basically making it a more

0:20:44.040 --> 0:20:45.240
<v Speaker 5>republican district.

0:20:45.400 --> 0:20:48.800
<v Speaker 2>Tell us the history of this district. It's consistently elected

0:20:48.800 --> 0:20:51.800
<v Speaker 2>Republicans for almost four decades.

0:20:51.640 --> 0:20:54.919
<v Speaker 5>But a Democrat won in twenty eighteen, and then Republicans

0:20:54.920 --> 0:20:56.880
<v Speaker 5>took it back in twenty twenty, but by a very

0:20:56.960 --> 0:20:59.639
<v Speaker 5>narrow margin. So I think one of the ideas he

0:20:59.720 --> 0:21:01.440
<v Speaker 5>was to make it more safety Republican.

0:21:01.880 --> 0:21:05.119
<v Speaker 2>The NAACP said, a person can't drive from one end

0:21:05.160 --> 0:21:07.960
<v Speaker 2>of the coastal district to another without going through the

0:21:08.040 --> 0:21:09.720
<v Speaker 2>neighboring sixth the district.

0:21:10.359 --> 0:21:12.280
<v Speaker 5>Well, the way the lines are drawn is that, in fact,

0:21:12.440 --> 0:21:15.160
<v Speaker 5>there were like tentacles from that kind of project from

0:21:15.160 --> 0:21:17.840
<v Speaker 5>one of the jacent districts into this district, and so

0:21:18.280 --> 0:21:21.520
<v Speaker 5>it was a departure from the traditional boundaries of this district.

0:21:21.760 --> 0:21:26.160
<v Speaker 5>Although the district I think presumably satisfies the standard requirements

0:21:26.520 --> 0:21:29.280
<v Speaker 5>of it being contiguous to presuming you can go from

0:21:29.280 --> 0:21:31.000
<v Speaker 5>one part to any other part of the district, but

0:21:31.040 --> 0:21:33.680
<v Speaker 5>it could also be the easier way to go from

0:21:33.720 --> 0:21:35.800
<v Speaker 5>one part to the other is to go through the

0:21:35.840 --> 0:21:36.760
<v Speaker 5>neighboring district.

0:21:37.359 --> 0:21:42.560
<v Speaker 2>Oftentimes, when they draw districts, I mean, you don't see like, oh,

0:21:42.600 --> 0:21:46.720
<v Speaker 2>a square or a circle. You see some really crazy shapes.

0:21:47.960 --> 0:21:49.680
<v Speaker 5>I mean, given them the strainers of the shapes that

0:21:49.720 --> 0:21:52.280
<v Speaker 5>we see, I'm not sure this one would necessarily qualify

0:21:52.320 --> 0:21:55.000
<v Speaker 5>as one of the most bizarre or strange be shaped.

0:21:55.200 --> 0:21:57.560
<v Speaker 5>But the argument that the plaintiffs made, which the court

0:21:57.680 --> 0:22:00.919
<v Speaker 5>agreed with, was that it was purposefully on to remove

0:22:00.960 --> 0:22:03.840
<v Speaker 5>black voters. And that is what the court found, and

0:22:03.840 --> 0:22:07.760
<v Speaker 5>the plaintiffs basically said, if you ran alternative maps simulations,

0:22:07.760 --> 0:22:11.280
<v Speaker 5>as a standard technique today in dealing with districting claims

0:22:11.640 --> 0:22:15.560
<v Speaker 5>is to generate alternative maps that satisfy the other legal

0:22:15.600 --> 0:22:20.680
<v Speaker 5>requirements of contiguity of equal population of maintaining neighborhoods. Intact,

0:22:20.920 --> 0:22:23.760
<v Speaker 5>that running a string of like a thousand alternative maps,

0:22:24.080 --> 0:22:26.960
<v Speaker 5>this one removed more black voters than any other map.

0:22:27.920 --> 0:22:31.959
<v Speaker 2>So the South Carolina Republicans said the panel made a

0:22:32.000 --> 0:22:35.760
<v Speaker 2>series of legal errors, and it said Republicans were motivated

0:22:35.800 --> 0:22:39.080
<v Speaker 2>by politics, which is permissible, not race.

0:22:39.640 --> 0:22:42.640
<v Speaker 5>Yes, that is the irony. In the last decade's worth

0:22:42.640 --> 0:22:46.200
<v Speaker 5>of redistricting fights, particularly but not exclusively, in the Southern districts.

0:22:46.320 --> 0:22:49.920
<v Speaker 5>The Supreme Court has said that racial gerry mannering is unconstitutional,

0:22:50.280 --> 0:22:53.520
<v Speaker 5>but partisan jerry mannering is constitutional, or at least it

0:22:53.520 --> 0:22:56.320
<v Speaker 5>can't be challenged in court. Yet, race and party are

0:22:56.400 --> 0:22:59.760
<v Speaker 5>very closely intertwined, and so in many of the redistricting

0:22:59.800 --> 0:23:01.960
<v Speaker 5>case is particularly those coming out of the South, where

0:23:02.000 --> 0:23:06.480
<v Speaker 5>you've seen Republican legislatures moving black voters out of districts

0:23:06.520 --> 0:23:08.600
<v Speaker 5>in order to make them more Republican. But their art

0:23:08.720 --> 0:23:10.840
<v Speaker 5>argument has been, well, it wasn't because of their race,

0:23:10.960 --> 0:23:13.480
<v Speaker 5>was because of their party, So that this was partisan

0:23:13.520 --> 0:23:16.720
<v Speaker 5>jerry mannering, which is okay, but not racial jerry mentoring,

0:23:16.720 --> 0:23:19.480
<v Speaker 5>which is not okay. Even though it's very hard to

0:23:19.480 --> 0:23:20.240
<v Speaker 5>tell the to a part.

0:23:20.600 --> 0:23:23.720
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, the challengers in a brief set the predominant reliance

0:23:23.760 --> 0:23:28.080
<v Speaker 2>on race is impermissible, even if map makers used race

0:23:28.160 --> 0:23:31.439
<v Speaker 2>as a proxy for politics, and that has been.

0:23:31.280 --> 0:23:33.840
<v Speaker 5>The finding of several other lower courts, So that is

0:23:33.880 --> 0:23:36.920
<v Speaker 5>a legitimate argument. The South Carolina legislature is sort of

0:23:36.960 --> 0:23:39.720
<v Speaker 5>pushing back as saying, well, you didn't give us credit

0:23:39.800 --> 0:23:42.840
<v Speaker 5>for quod faith. You're supposed to basically accept what the

0:23:42.920 --> 0:23:46.240
<v Speaker 5>legislature does unless you can prove that it was done

0:23:46.280 --> 0:23:49.080
<v Speaker 5>with racial intent. And the plaintiffs were basically said, well,

0:23:49.119 --> 0:23:51.080
<v Speaker 5>look at the numbers, look at the effects, and look

0:23:51.080 --> 0:23:53.840
<v Speaker 5>at the existence of alternative maps. So this will be

0:23:53.960 --> 0:23:58.080
<v Speaker 5>yet another challenge for the court to try and disentangle

0:23:58.440 --> 0:24:02.040
<v Speaker 5>racial motivation from part of the motivation, which is really

0:24:02.119 --> 0:24:04.239
<v Speaker 5>the problem they've set up for themselves by saying that

0:24:04.480 --> 0:24:08.600
<v Speaker 5>racially motivated districting is unconstitutional, but part of in districting

0:24:09.160 --> 0:24:12.320
<v Speaker 5>is not challengeable, and yet the two are also identical.

0:24:12.880 --> 0:24:18.520
<v Speaker 2>How does one prove that districting was racially motivated.

0:24:19.240 --> 0:24:21.760
<v Speaker 5>Well, what the plaintiff did in this case is basically

0:24:22.080 --> 0:24:25.480
<v Speaker 5>run alternative maps. I mean that is another standard form

0:24:25.520 --> 0:24:28.879
<v Speaker 5>of litigation now because of the availability of high power

0:24:28.920 --> 0:24:32.160
<v Speaker 5>computers with massive amounts of data, is that you can

0:24:32.200 --> 0:24:37.200
<v Speaker 5>basically put in an algorithm which says equal population maintaining

0:24:37.200 --> 0:24:41.159
<v Speaker 5>communities of interest maintaining the contiguity of the district and

0:24:41.240 --> 0:24:44.360
<v Speaker 5>wrong like a thousand other maps, and they say they

0:24:44.400 --> 0:24:48.320
<v Speaker 5>did that, and this one actually what the legislature did

0:24:48.800 --> 0:24:51.960
<v Speaker 5>remove more black voters than any other or almost any

0:24:52.000 --> 0:24:54.960
<v Speaker 5>other map that you could show, and so therefore what

0:24:55.040 --> 0:24:57.159
<v Speaker 5>was going on he was the removable black voters.

0:24:57.560 --> 0:25:00.840
<v Speaker 2>The three judge panel did reject check challenges to two

0:25:00.880 --> 0:25:04.520
<v Speaker 2>other House voting districts, saying that the civil rights groups

0:25:04.520 --> 0:25:07.960
<v Speaker 2>had failed to demonstrate that the districts had been predominantly

0:25:08.040 --> 0:25:11.320
<v Speaker 2>drawn to dilute black voting power. Does that help the

0:25:11.520 --> 0:25:13.520
<v Speaker 2>challenger's case any It might?

0:25:13.640 --> 0:25:16.080
<v Speaker 5>I mean it basically shows that the three judge court

0:25:16.119 --> 0:25:18.159
<v Speaker 5>was not a rubber stamp for the plaintiffs and that

0:25:18.240 --> 0:25:20.639
<v Speaker 5>they kind of carefully went through the evidence and said, well,

0:25:20.920 --> 0:25:23.240
<v Speaker 5>what happened in the other districts was not extreme enough

0:25:23.280 --> 0:25:26.800
<v Speaker 5>to prove racial motivation, but in this district it was

0:25:26.840 --> 0:25:29.320
<v Speaker 5>so clear that we found it. I think it actually

0:25:29.359 --> 0:25:30.520
<v Speaker 5>is helpful to the plaintiffs.

0:25:30.680 --> 0:25:33.160
<v Speaker 2>It does it seem as if the Supreme Court took

0:25:33.200 --> 0:25:35.600
<v Speaker 2>this case to reverse the federal panel.

0:25:35.960 --> 0:25:38.760
<v Speaker 5>It's hard to say. I think under federal election law,

0:25:38.960 --> 0:25:42.879
<v Speaker 5>the court basically has mandatory jurisdiction over appeals of federal

0:25:42.960 --> 0:25:46.960
<v Speaker 5>courts knocking out district Now they could affirm summarily, and

0:25:47.040 --> 0:25:49.600
<v Speaker 5>they did not do that, So they may be interested

0:25:49.640 --> 0:25:52.159
<v Speaker 5>in this case. But cases like this often go to

0:25:52.240 --> 0:25:54.920
<v Speaker 5>the Supreme Court, and it will be a challenge, I think,

0:25:54.960 --> 0:25:58.800
<v Speaker 5>to figure out the distinction between race and party in

0:25:58.840 --> 0:26:01.040
<v Speaker 5>a world or in a politics where the two are

0:26:01.040 --> 0:26:01.800
<v Speaker 5>often merged.

0:26:03.960 --> 0:26:07.760
<v Speaker 2>If partisan gerrymandering is allowed, then the group that's in

0:26:07.880 --> 0:26:12.720
<v Speaker 2>power can consistently revise maps so that they keep their power.

0:26:13.400 --> 0:26:16.560
<v Speaker 5>That is a very legitimate and troubling concern, and that

0:26:16.720 --> 0:26:19.560
<v Speaker 5>was one of the main arguments in favor of supporting

0:26:19.760 --> 0:26:23.200
<v Speaker 5>the idea of judicial review of partisan jerrymandering, as otherwise

0:26:23.240 --> 0:26:26.120
<v Speaker 5>you get a lock up and once a group gets

0:26:26.119 --> 0:26:29.640
<v Speaker 5>elected to office, they're able to sustain themselves by manipulating

0:26:29.640 --> 0:26:32.800
<v Speaker 5>the boundaries. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by

0:26:32.840 --> 0:26:36.160
<v Speaker 5>that argument. In the Ruco decision in twenty nineteen, Spring

0:26:36.200 --> 0:26:39.680
<v Speaker 5>Court basically said, we don't have a standard for reviewing

0:26:39.760 --> 0:26:43.640
<v Speaker 5>districting that allows us to tell what's a permissible use

0:26:43.680 --> 0:26:46.440
<v Speaker 5>of party and what's a nonconstitutional one, and so we're

0:26:46.480 --> 0:26:49.240
<v Speaker 5>not going to do it. That was the court's reasoning

0:26:49.280 --> 0:26:49.879
<v Speaker 5>in that case.

0:26:50.280 --> 0:26:53.280
<v Speaker 2>But there's another case involving redistricting.

0:26:52.640 --> 0:26:56.280
<v Speaker 5>And race in Alabama. Yes, that's slightly different. Indeed, it's

0:26:56.320 --> 0:26:58.800
<v Speaker 5>almost I wouldn't say it's reverse, but it's slightly different.

0:26:59.320 --> 0:27:03.560
<v Speaker 5>They're thelegislature drew lines there. The perspective is on Alabama

0:27:03.560 --> 0:27:06.240
<v Speaker 5>as a whole. So this case about South Carolina focuses

0:27:06.280 --> 0:27:08.480
<v Speaker 5>on one district. This focus is on District one in

0:27:08.520 --> 0:27:11.960
<v Speaker 5>South Carolina. In Alabama, the focus was on the state

0:27:12.000 --> 0:27:14.920
<v Speaker 5>as a whole, and the state is something like, I

0:27:14.920 --> 0:27:17.320
<v Speaker 5>don't know, twenty seven to twenty eight percent African American.

0:27:17.760 --> 0:27:20.639
<v Speaker 5>There are seven congressional districts. Only one has had a

0:27:20.680 --> 0:27:23.440
<v Speaker 5>black majority. The plaintiffs said that you could easily have

0:27:23.520 --> 0:27:26.680
<v Speaker 5>drawn two, and they basically came up with a map

0:27:26.720 --> 0:27:29.600
<v Speaker 5>that showed that, and they were able to persuade the

0:27:29.640 --> 0:27:32.840
<v Speaker 5>lower court. That's being challenged by the legislature, which says

0:27:33.119 --> 0:27:36.480
<v Speaker 5>you didn't show that our failure to draw two districts

0:27:36.800 --> 0:27:39.480
<v Speaker 5>was racially motivated. The plaintiff's claim is based under the

0:27:39.560 --> 0:27:42.959
<v Speaker 5>Voting Rights Act, which relies on effects rather than intent,

0:27:43.480 --> 0:27:46.480
<v Speaker 5>and in the Alabama case, what the legislature is defending

0:27:46.520 --> 0:27:48.840
<v Speaker 5>by saying is that there was no evidence that what

0:27:48.880 --> 0:27:51.520
<v Speaker 5>we did was racially motivated. The plaintiffs is saying that's

0:27:51.560 --> 0:27:53.800
<v Speaker 5>not important. What we can do is show that there

0:27:53.840 --> 0:27:59.000
<v Speaker 5>was an equal population, contiguous district which doesn't too much

0:27:59.080 --> 0:28:02.400
<v Speaker 5>depart from county lines, although in Italy it's different from the

0:28:02.440 --> 0:28:04.720
<v Speaker 5>prior districts that have been drawn in this state, but

0:28:04.800 --> 0:28:07.560
<v Speaker 5>which we think would give better representation to black voters.

0:28:08.160 --> 0:28:12.600
<v Speaker 2>Explain how the Supreme Court has been rolling back protections

0:28:13.240 --> 0:28:14.880
<v Speaker 2>for minority voters.

0:28:15.720 --> 0:28:18.480
<v Speaker 5>Well, Supreme Court did one major thing, which is the

0:28:18.520 --> 0:28:22.399
<v Speaker 5>Supreme Court struck down the provision in the nineteen sixty

0:28:22.400 --> 0:28:25.120
<v Speaker 5>five Voting Right Back, which was renewed several times over,

0:28:25.359 --> 0:28:29.080
<v Speaker 5>including in two thousand and six, which requires that in

0:28:29.160 --> 0:28:32.199
<v Speaker 5>certain states and counties which have had a history of

0:28:32.280 --> 0:28:36.000
<v Speaker 5>voting discrimination, that any changes in their voting rules and

0:28:36.200 --> 0:28:39.400
<v Speaker 5>the voting practices and procedures have to be pre approved

0:28:39.480 --> 0:28:42.120
<v Speaker 5>by either Department of Justice or a federal district court,

0:28:42.280 --> 0:28:44.360
<v Speaker 5>and the state or a community that's making the change

0:28:44.480 --> 0:28:47.120
<v Speaker 5>has to prove it has no discriminatory intent to effect.

0:28:47.320 --> 0:28:50.120
<v Speaker 5>That was called preclearance, and that operated to prevent a

0:28:50.160 --> 0:28:53.320
<v Speaker 5>lot of discriminatory measures, particularly but not only in the South.

0:28:53.600 --> 0:28:56.520
<v Speaker 5>The Supreme Court struck that down in twenty fourteen, saying

0:28:56.600 --> 0:28:59.400
<v Speaker 5>that the problem was that Congress continued to adhere to

0:28:59.440 --> 0:29:02.280
<v Speaker 5>the formula for deciding what was a community that had

0:29:02.320 --> 0:29:05.360
<v Speaker 5>to go through preclearance, and that formula hadn't been reviewed

0:29:05.360 --> 0:29:07.920
<v Speaker 5>and reconsidered it with the nineteen seventies. So the Court said,

0:29:07.920 --> 0:29:10.240
<v Speaker 5>it just can't be right that it's still the same formula.

0:29:10.320 --> 0:29:13.240
<v Speaker 5>So that was a major blow that eliminated the ability

0:29:13.240 --> 0:29:16.880
<v Speaker 5>of plaintiffs to challenge changes before they took effect and

0:29:16.920 --> 0:29:19.320
<v Speaker 5>to put the burden of defending the changes on the

0:29:19.360 --> 0:29:21.800
<v Speaker 5>state or city making the change. So that was a

0:29:21.920 --> 0:29:24.360
<v Speaker 5>very important decision and one that I think it's been

0:29:24.360 --> 0:29:26.360
<v Speaker 5>a much harder for platiffs and voting rights cases to win.

0:29:26.600 --> 0:29:28.920
<v Speaker 5>The other case, a case in coming out of Arizona

0:29:28.960 --> 0:29:31.320
<v Speaker 5>about two years ago called Burnovitch, was less of a

0:29:31.400 --> 0:29:33.480
<v Speaker 5>roll back but more of a creation of the barriers

0:29:33.720 --> 0:29:37.600
<v Speaker 5>to challenging voting laws that make it harder for people

0:29:37.600 --> 0:29:40.479
<v Speaker 5>to actually cast a vote was going on in the

0:29:40.520 --> 0:29:44.080
<v Speaker 5>section five case. The preclearance case was essentially about districting,

0:29:44.320 --> 0:29:46.640
<v Speaker 5>which is also what this case is about. The cases

0:29:46.640 --> 0:29:49.880
<v Speaker 5>both in Alabama and South Carolina. But in recent years

0:29:49.920 --> 0:29:51.920
<v Speaker 5>we've seen a lot of states adopting rules that make

0:29:51.960 --> 0:29:54.800
<v Speaker 5>it harder to be able to vote, including things dealings

0:29:54.800 --> 0:29:57.960
<v Speaker 5>stay with the voter id or rules governing early voting

0:29:58.000 --> 0:30:01.240
<v Speaker 5>or absentee ballots. And the one question was, you know,

0:30:01.320 --> 0:30:03.840
<v Speaker 5>under the voting right sack a claim is often made

0:30:03.880 --> 0:30:07.320
<v Speaker 5>that these burden voters of color more heavily than white voters.

0:30:07.800 --> 0:30:10.000
<v Speaker 5>And then the Bernovich case in Arizona, the Serreme Court

0:30:10.040 --> 0:30:12.600
<v Speaker 5>essentially we're going to really increase the burden of proof

0:30:12.880 --> 0:30:16.040
<v Speaker 5>on plaintiffs challenging these rules to show that, in fact,

0:30:16.080 --> 0:30:18.200
<v Speaker 5>these rules have a discriminatory effect.

0:30:18.960 --> 0:30:23.720
<v Speaker 2>And what's the status of morv. Harper, the case that

0:30:24.000 --> 0:30:29.800
<v Speaker 2>was advancing the controversial independent state legislature theory. Do we

0:30:29.840 --> 0:30:31.000
<v Speaker 2>know yet what's happening with that?

0:30:31.800 --> 0:30:34.040
<v Speaker 5>No? The court expert, as you know. Morphy Harper was

0:30:34.080 --> 0:30:37.760
<v Speaker 5>the case that raised the so called independent state legislature theory,

0:30:38.200 --> 0:30:41.040
<v Speaker 5>which is the idea that some people have argued is

0:30:41.040 --> 0:30:45.920
<v Speaker 5>that when it comes to federalist congressional redistricting, only state

0:30:46.000 --> 0:30:48.120
<v Speaker 5>legislatures can do it because of some language in the

0:30:48.120 --> 0:30:53.280
<v Speaker 5>Constitution which implies that as opposed to state courts interpreting

0:30:53.360 --> 0:30:59.080
<v Speaker 5>state constitutions to prohibit partisan gerrymandering even in congressional elections,

0:30:59.440 --> 0:31:02.960
<v Speaker 5>and that case, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down

0:31:03.400 --> 0:31:06.440
<v Speaker 5>the Congressional distrestingc Plan for North Carolina, finding that it

0:31:06.520 --> 0:31:09.320
<v Speaker 5>was a partisan Republican jerry mander, and the North Carolina

0:31:09.400 --> 0:31:12.840
<v Speaker 5>Legislature challenged that, saying North Carolina Supreme Court didn't have

0:31:12.840 --> 0:31:16.000
<v Speaker 5>the authority under the North Carolina Constitution, that this is

0:31:16.040 --> 0:31:18.640
<v Speaker 5>a matter solely for the legislature as a matter of

0:31:18.680 --> 0:31:21.520
<v Speaker 5>the US Constitution. Supreme Court agreed to hear that case

0:31:21.560 --> 0:31:23.920
<v Speaker 5>and actually heard oral argument for like two and a

0:31:23.960 --> 0:31:27.560
<v Speaker 5>half hours back in the fall. Three Court hasn't decided

0:31:27.600 --> 0:31:30.200
<v Speaker 5>this case yet. In the meantime, as a result of

0:31:30.200 --> 0:31:33.320
<v Speaker 5>the twenty twenty two elections, the composition of the North

0:31:33.320 --> 0:31:36.920
<v Speaker 5>Carolina Supreme Court changed hands, and the court very recently

0:31:37.240 --> 0:31:41.200
<v Speaker 5>basically reversed its decision and said that the legislature's plan

0:31:41.320 --> 0:31:44.920
<v Speaker 5>is not a jerrymander on the North Carolina Constitution, that

0:31:44.920 --> 0:31:47.880
<v Speaker 5>the North Carolina Constitution does not prohibit jerrymanders. So the

0:31:48.080 --> 0:31:50.280
<v Speaker 5>US Supreme Court asked for briefing on the question whether

0:31:50.280 --> 0:31:52.520
<v Speaker 5>they still have jurisdiction whether they should go ahead and

0:31:52.560 --> 0:31:55.080
<v Speaker 5>decide this case or not. I think those priests are

0:31:55.120 --> 0:31:57.840
<v Speaker 5>submitted only recently. Well, imagine we'll get a decision one

0:31:57.840 --> 0:31:59.960
<v Speaker 5>way or the other. Either court was saying we don't

0:32:00.200 --> 0:32:03.560
<v Speaker 5>jurisdiction dismissing the case or report We'll hold onto the

0:32:03.560 --> 0:32:06.360
<v Speaker 5>case and decide it, but we may not know until

0:32:06.360 --> 0:32:07.520
<v Speaker 5>the end of June. Possibly.

0:32:07.920 --> 0:32:09.960
<v Speaker 2>Thanks so much for being on the show. Rich that's

0:32:10.040 --> 0:32:13.600
<v Speaker 2>Professor Richard Brafult of Columbia Law School, and that's it

0:32:13.680 --> 0:32:16.240
<v Speaker 2>for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

0:32:16.280 --> 0:32:18.760
<v Speaker 2>can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

0:32:18.840 --> 0:32:22.440
<v Speaker 2>Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:32:22.640 --> 0:32:27.680
<v Speaker 2>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

0:32:28.080 --> 0:32:30.640
<v Speaker 2>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:32:30.720 --> 0:32:34.600
<v Speaker 2>weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,

0:32:34.760 --> 0:32:36.360
<v Speaker 2>and you're listening to Bloomberg