1
00:00:00,480 --> 00:00:05,680
Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,519 --> 00:00:15,440
Speaker 1: No No. On the streets, the US is embroiled in

3
00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:19,279
Speaker 1: its fiercest struggle over race since the nineteen sixties, but

4
00:00:19,360 --> 00:00:22,479
Speaker 1: in the courtrooms, conservatives are seeing their best shot in

5
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,919
Speaker 1: decades to get rid of race in college admissions. Some

6
00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:29,760
Speaker 1: of the nation's most prestigious universities are fighting a raft

7
00:00:29,800 --> 00:00:34,080
Speaker 1: of legal challenges accusing them of unfairly waiting the admissions

8
00:00:34,120 --> 00:00:38,760
Speaker 1: process through affirmative action. The multiple efforts to defeat race

9
00:00:38,800 --> 00:00:43,159
Speaker 1: conscious admissions on several levels, including by Trump's Justice Department,

10
00:00:43,440 --> 00:00:47,120
Speaker 1: are intended to get an increasingly conservative Supreme Court to

11
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:51,760
Speaker 1: rethink its decisions on affirmative action. My guest is Audrey Anderson,

12
00:00:51,800 --> 00:00:55,360
Speaker 1: who heads the education practice at Bass Barian Sims. She

13
00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:59,120
Speaker 1: was the former General counsel of Vanderbilt University. Audrey says,

14
00:00:59,160 --> 00:01:03,120
Speaker 1: it seems sort incongruous that this legal fight to reverse

15
00:01:03,160 --> 00:01:07,039
Speaker 1: affirmative action is picking up while the country is in

16
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:11,160
Speaker 1: this epic struggle over race. Well, this is a little

17
00:01:11,160 --> 00:01:17,479
Speaker 1: bit penundrums of where the legal principles are with affirmative accents.

18
00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:21,600
Speaker 1: The marketing in the streets and Our protests are about

19
00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: unjust treatment of people based on race. The legal constructs

20
00:01:27,640 --> 00:01:31,880
Speaker 1: for affirmative action at a college or university are not

21
00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:36,959
Speaker 1: justified on evening out the inequitable treatment based on race.

22
00:01:37,160 --> 00:01:41,640
Speaker 1: It's not to remedy past discrimination. So when we as

23
00:01:41,680 --> 00:01:45,080
Speaker 1: lawyers are thinking about this, the only reason that the

24
00:01:45,160 --> 00:01:52,160
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has approved consideration of race in university admissions

25
00:01:52,280 --> 00:01:55,840
Speaker 1: is in order to build a student body that has

26
00:01:55,920 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 1: a certain level of diversity to improve the educational period.

27
00:02:01,000 --> 00:02:05,200
Speaker 1: They are not allowed to use race and admissions in

28
00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:09,640
Speaker 1: order to make up for the hundreds of years of

29
00:02:09,720 --> 00:02:14,240
Speaker 1: discrimination against black and brown people in the United States.

30
00:02:14,680 --> 00:02:18,200
Speaker 1: So from a legal perspective, we're almost operating in two

31
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:21,760
Speaker 1: different universes, and that's a really hard thing for people

32
00:02:21,800 --> 00:02:25,359
Speaker 1: to wrap their heads around. Behind the three major suits

33
00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:29,440
Speaker 1: against Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and the University

34
00:02:29,480 --> 00:02:33,720
Speaker 1: of Texas is the activists Edward Blum who founded Students

35
00:02:33,760 --> 00:02:37,320
Speaker 1: for Fair Admissions. Are they saying that these universities are

36
00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:40,560
Speaker 1: not complying with established law or are they saying more

37
00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:44,000
Speaker 1: than that? Well, Jude, I think they're really saying two things.

38
00:02:44,120 --> 00:02:47,920
Speaker 1: They are saying that Harvard is not complying with the

39
00:02:47,960 --> 00:02:51,400
Speaker 1: Supreme Court law that says, if you are going to

40
00:02:51,520 --> 00:02:55,400
Speaker 1: use race in university admissions, you have to do it

41
00:02:55,440 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 1: in a way that is narrowly colored. And Edward Blum

42
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,680
Speaker 1: says that Harvard is not using race in a way

43
00:03:03,720 --> 00:03:07,200
Speaker 1: that is narrowly tailored. But make no mistake. In each

44
00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:11,320
Speaker 1: one of these cases, they are also arguing that actually

45
00:03:11,440 --> 00:03:15,400
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court precedents from the University of Michigan cases

46
00:03:15,760 --> 00:03:19,120
Speaker 1: are wrong, and that actually the proper way to read

47
00:03:19,160 --> 00:03:22,560
Speaker 1: the Constitution is to say that it does not allow

48
00:03:22,760 --> 00:03:26,800
Speaker 1: university to be conscious of a race to use race

49
00:03:27,040 --> 00:03:30,680
Speaker 1: as any kind of a factor in admission. In every

50
00:03:30,680 --> 00:03:33,680
Speaker 1: one of their briefs they drop a footnote that says,

51
00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:37,680
Speaker 1: lower Court, we know you can't consider this argument because

52
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:40,440
Speaker 1: it's only for the Supreme Court. But by the way,

53
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 1: we think the Supreme Court decisions in the University of

54
00:03:43,520 --> 00:03:48,120
Speaker 1: Michigan cases are wrong. So Blum's ultimate goal is to

55
00:03:48,160 --> 00:03:51,800
Speaker 1: get the University of Michigan case overruled by the Supreme Court.

56
00:03:51,960 --> 00:03:55,840
Speaker 1: That's his ultimate goal in the Harvard case, which is

57
00:03:56,040 --> 00:04:00,160
Speaker 1: now at the Federal Appeals Court. Asians account for sent

58
00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:03,760
Speaker 1: of the admitted class at Harvard the plaintiffs said, if

59
00:04:03,840 --> 00:04:08,200
Speaker 1: judged purely on academics, they would make up of the

60
00:04:08,240 --> 00:04:12,200
Speaker 1: admitted class. So do the plaintiffs want everyone to be

61
00:04:12,320 --> 00:04:15,800
Speaker 1: judged purely on academics, So then Harvard would have a

62
00:04:15,880 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: class with Asian Americans. Well, that's one of the problems.

63
00:04:21,680 --> 00:04:26,479
Speaker 1: We're looking at it this way. Harvard and Yale and

64
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:32,000
Speaker 1: Columbia and Stanford, they could completely fill their class a

65
00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:36,240
Speaker 1: number of times over with students with purple puff boys

66
00:04:36,480 --> 00:04:40,240
Speaker 1: and a purple cl So it's really just fillingness to

67
00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:43,680
Speaker 1: say that we're only going to judge students on the

68
00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:48,279
Speaker 1: basis of their quote unquote academic merit. What these schools

69
00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:51,040
Speaker 1: are trying to do, and what the Supreme Court has

70
00:04:51,040 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: said they have a First Amendment right to do, is

71
00:04:53,960 --> 00:04:59,320
Speaker 1: to choose students that they believe are best suited for

72
00:04:59,720 --> 00:05:02,839
Speaker 1: the institution, and that does not have to be death

73
00:05:02,920 --> 00:05:06,400
Speaker 1: based on academic merit. But f f f A and

74
00:05:06,520 --> 00:05:09,200
Speaker 1: other groups to like them keep trying to say, well,

75
00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:12,039
Speaker 1: all you should look at is academic merit, because that

76
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:15,960
Speaker 1: is quote unquote objective, and any time you put a

77
00:05:16,120 --> 00:05:21,480
Speaker 1: subjective component into your admissions criteria, you might be discriminating

78
00:05:21,480 --> 00:05:25,000
Speaker 1: against someone what is the Justice Department's role here? So,

79
00:05:25,279 --> 00:05:29,680
Speaker 1: in general, the Justice Department has the responsibility to enforce

80
00:05:29,839 --> 00:05:33,520
Speaker 1: a federal law that we call Title six. Title six

81
00:05:33,560 --> 00:05:37,919
Speaker 1: of the Civil Rights Act requires that institutions that receive

82
00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:41,640
Speaker 1: federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of rights. So

83
00:05:41,680 --> 00:05:45,600
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice is in charge of enforcing that law,

84
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:49,880
Speaker 1: and it always has been since Trump has been in power.

85
00:05:50,560 --> 00:05:53,359
Speaker 1: The way that the Department of Justice has decided it

86
00:05:53,400 --> 00:05:57,120
Speaker 1: needs to enforce Titles fox is to make sure that

87
00:05:57,279 --> 00:06:01,280
Speaker 1: affirmative action is not being used to discriminate against whites

88
00:06:01,320 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 1: and Asians. Now, the Justice Department sent Yale University a

89
00:06:05,680 --> 00:06:10,799
Speaker 1: letter threatening to sue unless Yale agrees to stop considering race.

90
00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:16,000
Speaker 1: The government said that quote unlawfully dividing Americans into racial

91
00:06:16,040 --> 00:06:21,040
Speaker 1: and ethnic blocks fosters stereotypes, bitterness and division. Was this

92
00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:24,600
Speaker 1: letter unusual in any way? So the government, when it's

93
00:06:24,600 --> 00:06:27,760
Speaker 1: in fourth Entitle six can bring an accent in federal

94
00:06:27,800 --> 00:06:32,000
Speaker 1: courts to sue an institution to force it to comply

95
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,120
Speaker 1: with the law. What they're supposed to do before bert

96
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:38,800
Speaker 1: suit is work in good space with the institution to

97
00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:42,720
Speaker 1: negotiate to get the institution to comply with federal law.

98
00:06:43,200 --> 00:06:46,240
Speaker 1: So the unusual thing about this letter to Yale was

99
00:06:46,320 --> 00:06:49,680
Speaker 1: that it didn't go into much detail about exactly how

100
00:06:49,800 --> 00:06:53,440
Speaker 1: Yale was in violation of the law, what Yale could

101
00:06:53,520 --> 00:06:57,160
Speaker 1: do to come into compliance short of this not having

102
00:06:57,160 --> 00:07:00,640
Speaker 1: affirmative action and have kind of a timetabe for Yale

103
00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:04,159
Speaker 1: to come into compliance. Rather than just saying, you know,

104
00:07:04,240 --> 00:07:07,400
Speaker 1: if you don't stop using your affirmative action program in

105
00:07:07,440 --> 00:07:10,640
Speaker 1: the matter of weeks, we will sue you. Usually they

106
00:07:10,640 --> 00:07:14,440
Speaker 1: would say you need to consider applications in this way

107
00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:16,800
Speaker 1: rather than that way, and we'd like to see you

108
00:07:17,480 --> 00:07:22,120
Speaker 1: institute that change over the next admission cycle, and then

109
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:24,480
Speaker 1: we'll take another look at your data, and then we'll

110
00:07:24,520 --> 00:07:26,920
Speaker 1: talk to you again, and then we'll determine whether we're

111
00:07:26,960 --> 00:07:29,120
Speaker 1: going to sue. So that's the way the Department of

112
00:07:29,200 --> 00:07:32,800
Speaker 1: Justice usually works with institutions. So that was one of

113
00:07:32,800 --> 00:07:35,400
Speaker 1: the things that was surprising about that letter to Yale.

114
00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:38,080
Speaker 1: So then, does this indicate a step up in the

115
00:07:38,120 --> 00:07:42,600
Speaker 1: Trump administration's overlooked of the use of affirmative action in

116
00:07:42,680 --> 00:07:46,880
Speaker 1: college admissions. Yes, it's a stump up and it's very aggressive.

117
00:07:47,120 --> 00:07:49,840
Speaker 1: As I was saying that the very short timing. They've

118
00:07:49,840 --> 00:07:52,640
Speaker 1: been Yale to say we're going to sue to me.

119
00:07:52,760 --> 00:07:55,720
Speaker 1: That sets off alarm belt because they're doing it. I

120
00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:59,200
Speaker 1: think the file suit before the election in case Trump

121
00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:01,960
Speaker 1: is not elected, and they'll already have that lawsuit going

122
00:08:02,040 --> 00:08:05,360
Speaker 1: and on the books, and a new bid administration will

123
00:08:05,360 --> 00:08:08,120
Speaker 1: have to deal with it with a lawsuit taking a

124
00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:11,040
Speaker 1: position that a BigMan decision probably won't want to take,

125
00:08:11,400 --> 00:08:15,400
Speaker 1: and they can change their position, but it's just administratively

126
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:19,000
Speaker 1: and politically awkward. So the goal seems to be to

127
00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:22,000
Speaker 1: get this to the Supreme Court. Are they any closer

128
00:08:22,040 --> 00:08:25,920
Speaker 1: that goal? Absolutely? I think that the students for Fare

129
00:08:25,920 --> 00:08:28,760
Speaker 1: Admission has been strategic in the way that they are

130
00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:33,480
Speaker 1: pursuing this litigation. So the best way to get an

131
00:08:33,520 --> 00:08:36,400
Speaker 1: issue before the Supreme Court of the United States is

132
00:08:36,400 --> 00:08:39,920
Speaker 1: to generate what we call a conflict among the circuits.

133
00:08:39,920 --> 00:08:42,600
Speaker 1: So right now, the Harvard cases before the first Circuit

134
00:08:42,760 --> 00:08:46,320
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, they will issue a decision right now,

135
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:48,880
Speaker 1: are s f A is going to have a trial

136
00:08:49,160 --> 00:08:52,640
Speaker 1: happened in the Middle District of North Carolina for the

137
00:08:52,720 --> 00:08:56,320
Speaker 1: University of North Carolina. Whatever happens with that suit, it

138
00:08:56,360 --> 00:08:59,679
Speaker 1: will be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

139
00:09:00,040 --> 00:09:02,560
Speaker 1: Ever loses in the First Circuit with the Harvard case,

140
00:09:02,640 --> 00:09:05,200
Speaker 1: they will ask the Supreme Court to review it. Supreme

141
00:09:05,240 --> 00:09:08,080
Speaker 1: Court may review it, they may not. But then we

142
00:09:08,160 --> 00:09:11,160
Speaker 1: go to the North Carolina case. Whatever happens at trial,

143
00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:13,720
Speaker 1: they'll appeal it to the Fourth Circuit. Whatever happens at

144
00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:16,880
Speaker 1: the Fourth Circuit, whoever loses will go to the Supreme Court,

145
00:09:17,280 --> 00:09:19,719
Speaker 1: and at that point there will be a decision from

146
00:09:19,720 --> 00:09:23,320
Speaker 1: the First Circuit. If the Fourth Circuit disagrees with the

147
00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:26,760
Speaker 1: First Circuit, that's when the Supreme Court should be stepping in.

148
00:09:27,200 --> 00:09:29,640
Speaker 1: And then the Texas case is in yet another circuit,

149
00:09:29,760 --> 00:09:34,360
Speaker 1: in the Fifth Circuit. So Blomb, by kicking these schools

150
00:09:34,400 --> 00:09:38,280
Speaker 1: in different parts of the country, is trying to set up,

151
00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:42,560
Speaker 1: I think, a conflict amongst the circuits, which makes it

152
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 1: more likely that the Supreme Court will step in. If

153
00:09:46,280 --> 00:09:49,960
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court steps in, it will be a court

154
00:09:50,040 --> 00:09:53,560
Speaker 1: with a new conservative majority on it. Is there a

155
00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:57,960
Speaker 1: concern that the Court might reverse the Michigan decision. Yes,

156
00:09:58,080 --> 00:10:01,280
Speaker 1: I think there is a concern at will be overruled,

157
00:10:01,640 --> 00:10:04,520
Speaker 1: or they may don't even have to overrule it. You

158
00:10:04,640 --> 00:10:08,720
Speaker 1: might remember that in Rudder. The controlling opinion by Justice

159
00:10:08,800 --> 00:10:12,160
Speaker 1: O'Connor had language in it that I would call Getta

160
00:10:12,559 --> 00:10:15,199
Speaker 1: not important to the holding, not part of the holding.

161
00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:18,719
Speaker 1: But there's language in it that says, we don't expect

162
00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:22,160
Speaker 1: the need for affirmative action to go on forever. In

163
00:10:22,240 --> 00:10:25,400
Speaker 1: twenty five years, we won't need it anymore. That was

164
00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:29,000
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three. So I think that the

165
00:10:29,160 --> 00:10:32,280
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice could even try to say, well, we're

166
00:10:32,320 --> 00:10:37,040
Speaker 1: not even overruling that precedent. We're just said, as Justice

167
00:10:37,040 --> 00:10:41,319
Speaker 1: O'Connor presisted, that the need for infirmative action is gone. Now,

168
00:10:41,320 --> 00:10:46,040
Speaker 1: when somebody says that, I think then the public will say,

169
00:10:46,240 --> 00:10:48,720
Speaker 1: we'll look at what's been happening in the streets the

170
00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:52,720
Speaker 1: summer and say, really, I'm not quite sure how you

171
00:10:52,760 --> 00:10:55,800
Speaker 1: can say the need for affirmative action is gone. Thanks

172
00:10:55,800 --> 00:10:58,920
Speaker 1: for being the Bloomberg Laws show. Audrey, that's Audrey Anderson

173
00:10:58,960 --> 00:11:04,480
Speaker 1: of Bass Variance MS. The clash over undocumented immigrants and

174
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:08,160
Speaker 1: the Census is back at the Supreme Court. President Trump

175
00:11:08,280 --> 00:11:10,800
Speaker 1: lost the fight to add a citizenship question to the

176
00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:14,239
Speaker 1: census at the Court. His Plan B is an executive

177
00:11:14,320 --> 00:11:17,600
Speaker 1: order for federal agencies to hand over existing data on

178
00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:21,520
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants to the Census Bureau so it can exclude

179
00:11:21,559 --> 00:11:24,200
Speaker 1: them from its count. Today, I'm here to say we

180
00:11:24,280 --> 00:11:27,000
Speaker 1: are not backing down on our reffort to determine the

181
00:11:27,040 --> 00:11:33,080
Speaker 1: citizenship status of the United States population. The problem is

182
00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:36,040
Speaker 1: that a three judge panel rule the President doesn't have

183
00:11:36,120 --> 00:11:39,280
Speaker 1: the authority to do that. So now Trump is back

184
00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:42,080
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court to appeal that decision, and the

185
00:11:42,160 --> 00:11:45,640
Speaker 1: justices have decided to expedite his appeal. My guest is

186
00:11:45,720 --> 00:11:49,520
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. Trump has asked

187
00:11:49,640 --> 00:11:54,320
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to let the President exclude undocumented immigrants

188
00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:57,559
Speaker 1: from the census count. Now, most people thinking about this

189
00:11:57,679 --> 00:12:01,320
Speaker 1: will say, well, wasn't this settled by the Supreme Court

190
00:12:01,559 --> 00:12:05,120
Speaker 1: when the court ruled that the administration couldn't ad a

191
00:12:05,120 --> 00:12:09,240
Speaker 1: citizenship question to the census. Well, that was a different case.

192
00:12:09,520 --> 00:12:14,880
Speaker 1: Impact The citizenship question was decided on a procedural issue

193
00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:18,600
Speaker 1: rather than the substantive decision of whether you could ask

194
00:12:18,640 --> 00:12:22,120
Speaker 1: about citizenship in the census. It was decided on the

195
00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:25,880
Speaker 1: fact that the Bourbon of Commerce the Census Bureau didn't

196
00:12:25,920 --> 00:12:29,320
Speaker 1: follow the correct procedures in order to add that question

197
00:12:29,640 --> 00:12:33,080
Speaker 1: so late in the process about citizenship, and that the

198
00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:36,680
Speaker 1: reasons that the government gave for adding that citizenship question

199
00:12:36,760 --> 00:12:40,400
Speaker 1: were pretextual because there had been some comments in the

200
00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:44,520
Speaker 1: record about wanting to add this for purposes of trying

201
00:12:44,600 --> 00:12:49,320
Speaker 1: to discount non citizen people from the census. And so

202
00:12:49,440 --> 00:12:51,840
Speaker 1: one could say, well, maybe that it covers it, but

203
00:12:51,920 --> 00:12:55,800
Speaker 1: it doesn't exactly cover it, because the issue wasn't decided

204
00:12:55,840 --> 00:12:58,959
Speaker 1: could you count non citizen people in the census. It

205
00:12:59,120 --> 00:13:02,200
Speaker 1: was just decide that that the reason that was given,

206
00:13:02,559 --> 00:13:06,920
Speaker 1: which was supposedly about voting right, was pretextual in light

207
00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:09,240
Speaker 1: of the comments that had been given about the non

208
00:13:09,280 --> 00:13:12,559
Speaker 1: citizens issue. So Leon tell us about this three judge

209
00:13:12,600 --> 00:13:16,640
Speaker 1: panel decision started as a case in the federal disrecord

210
00:13:16,679 --> 00:13:20,000
Speaker 1: in New York. But what happens is under the constitution,

211
00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:25,480
Speaker 1: apportionate cases under the census actually our three judge panel cases.

212
00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:29,199
Speaker 1: So two circuit judges from the Second Circuit were added

213
00:13:29,320 --> 00:13:32,720
Speaker 1: to the district judge in New York, and those three

214
00:13:32,800 --> 00:13:37,560
Speaker 1: judges entered an order that said that the calculation that

215
00:13:37,640 --> 00:13:42,160
Speaker 1: you would exclude people with undocumented statue from the census

216
00:13:42,200 --> 00:13:47,600
Speaker 1: was unconstitutional and violated the abortionment clause. My question is

217
00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:51,000
Speaker 1: more about the practical aspects of this. How would the

218
00:13:51,040 --> 00:13:57,400
Speaker 1: Trump administration conclusively determine who's an undocumented status and where

219
00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:02,040
Speaker 1: they're living to lower the census count. There are surveys

220
00:14:02,080 --> 00:14:05,840
Speaker 1: that are done both by the Department of Homeland Security

221
00:14:06,200 --> 00:14:10,079
Speaker 1: and by the Census Bureau in the American Community Survey

222
00:14:10,240 --> 00:14:13,120
Speaker 1: that's done on a more frequent basis and the ten

223
00:14:13,200 --> 00:14:16,520
Speaker 1: year Census basis that are supposed to find out that

224
00:14:16,600 --> 00:14:20,080
Speaker 1: information and take it into account and try to make

225
00:14:20,240 --> 00:14:25,000
Speaker 1: estimates as to what is the undocumented population in the country.

226
00:14:25,280 --> 00:14:29,720
Speaker 1: But those estimates are not very accurate, and so you

227
00:14:29,800 --> 00:14:34,280
Speaker 1: could be potentially costing a state, a member of Congress

228
00:14:34,760 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 1: if you are even the inaccurate on an order of

229
00:14:37,600 --> 00:14:40,320
Speaker 1: magnitude of a few thousand people one way or another.

230
00:14:40,920 --> 00:14:44,640
Speaker 1: And when we're talking about eleven million people or ten

231
00:14:44,680 --> 00:14:47,960
Speaker 1: million people or twelve million people, where we don't even

232
00:14:47,960 --> 00:14:52,880
Speaker 1: know and there's not really any estimates that's firm, there's

233
00:14:52,920 --> 00:14:55,800
Speaker 1: not a consensus on the estimate. Some people write these

234
00:14:55,800 --> 00:14:59,920
Speaker 1: reports that say that there's twenty million people that are undocumented,

235
00:15:00,040 --> 00:15:04,440
Speaker 1: and that lack of consensus that's out there really makes

236
00:15:04,480 --> 00:15:07,760
Speaker 1: it very hard to figure out how you deduce people

237
00:15:08,040 --> 00:15:10,520
Speaker 1: if you don't actually have an objective one for one

238
00:15:10,640 --> 00:15:14,080
Speaker 1: match in terms of census status. If they do that,

239
00:15:14,160 --> 00:15:17,240
Speaker 1: it sounds like it's ripe for challenge. Well correct, and

240
00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 1: that was the argument actually the administration was making, is well,

241
00:15:21,840 --> 00:15:24,680
Speaker 1: tell us after the fact, if we actually hurt a

242
00:15:24,800 --> 00:15:29,720
Speaker 1: states apportionment, then you should challenge our calculation. Don't challenge

243
00:15:29,720 --> 00:15:34,160
Speaker 1: it now, it's too early. And the second Circuit rejective

244
00:15:34,200 --> 00:15:37,240
Speaker 1: that argument, saying, look, it's still illegal. So even if

245
00:15:37,240 --> 00:15:41,280
Speaker 1: nobody was hurt, they're still hurt by having this illegal

246
00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:45,000
Speaker 1: policy place upon people. And so we're gonna invalidate it

247
00:15:45,040 --> 00:15:49,040
Speaker 1: without waiting to see if a particular states counts was hard.

248
00:15:49,360 --> 00:15:52,080
Speaker 1: As a matter of this, and when is the Census

249
00:15:52,080 --> 00:15:55,640
Speaker 1: Bureau going to stop its counting? The President is trying

250
00:15:55,760 --> 00:15:59,840
Speaker 1: to say that there's a sastatory deadline of December thirty

251
00:16:00,000 --> 00:16:04,360
Speaker 1: earth and because of that, the census should stop counting

252
00:16:04,400 --> 00:16:08,360
Speaker 1: as of today, and a disrecord in California has actually

253
00:16:08,480 --> 00:16:12,080
Speaker 1: enjoined that stopping of the count and has scheduled the

254
00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:15,320
Speaker 1: stopping of the counts to take till October thirty. Because

255
00:16:15,360 --> 00:16:19,360
Speaker 1: there's no justification for why they would stop counting earlier

256
00:16:19,360 --> 00:16:22,040
Speaker 1: than they had originally said. And so the court had

257
00:16:22,160 --> 00:16:26,680
Speaker 1: enjoined that, and now the federal government is saying, well,

258
00:16:26,760 --> 00:16:30,120
Speaker 1: we're gonna keep coming till October fifth. And so there

259
00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:33,000
Speaker 1: was hearing me about whether that contempt of the court

260
00:16:33,160 --> 00:16:36,400
Speaker 1: ruling and whether that October fifth decision is going to

261
00:16:36,440 --> 00:16:39,640
Speaker 1: be vacated and whether that will be moved to October thirty.

262
00:16:39,680 --> 00:16:43,880
Speaker 1: I against authority to do that. Leon Trump is seeking

263
00:16:43,880 --> 00:16:48,200
Speaker 1: an argument session in late November or early December. That

264
00:16:48,320 --> 00:16:54,160
Speaker 1: sets of a possibility that conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy

265
00:16:54,200 --> 00:16:57,840
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett could be on that panel. Would that make

266
00:16:57,880 --> 00:17:01,160
Speaker 1: a difference to have one more conservative? Is last time

267
00:17:01,240 --> 00:17:04,240
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote, so it

268
00:17:04,320 --> 00:17:08,240
Speaker 1: was basically conservatives versus liberals. I mean, at this point,

269
00:17:09,000 --> 00:17:13,359
Speaker 1: it's hard to predict. It's it's possible that we would

270
00:17:13,359 --> 00:17:16,960
Speaker 1: have an unprecedented ruling we've never had before, which is

271
00:17:17,000 --> 00:17:20,440
Speaker 1: that people without science in America, even though the census

272
00:17:20,440 --> 00:17:23,720
Speaker 1: has count all people, that those people are not people

273
00:17:24,000 --> 00:17:27,200
Speaker 1: and that they don't count as people. Uh. And usually

274
00:17:27,320 --> 00:17:31,119
Speaker 1: you don't see those rulings because the Constitution uses the

275
00:17:31,119 --> 00:17:34,800
Speaker 1: word citizen. And you know, so there's a difference that

276
00:17:34,880 --> 00:17:37,680
Speaker 1: when you use the word person or where you use

277
00:17:37,760 --> 00:17:40,400
Speaker 1: the word citizen and makes that you would use persons

278
00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:43,440
Speaker 1: when you meant persons, and it would use citizen when

279
00:17:43,440 --> 00:17:47,879
Speaker 1: it meant citizens. And so that was the idea, and

280
00:17:47,920 --> 00:17:51,000
Speaker 1: that's how that's been how the Constitution has been interpreted.

281
00:17:51,320 --> 00:17:54,199
Speaker 1: So this would be sort of a ground breaking decisions

282
00:17:54,200 --> 00:17:57,800
Speaker 1: that would deviate from president to say that suddenly people

283
00:17:57,840 --> 00:18:01,560
Speaker 1: doesn't don't need doesn't mean people being people with some

284
00:18:01,680 --> 00:18:04,879
Speaker 1: sort of status of the United States, that's comfortised. If

285
00:18:04,920 --> 00:18:08,200
Speaker 1: this isn't actually even to say don't count a documented

286
00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:11,639
Speaker 1: people think, don't count people with temporary visas or anything

287
00:18:11,680 --> 00:18:16,000
Speaker 1: else like this either. So it seems as if President Trump,

288
00:18:16,200 --> 00:18:21,639
Speaker 1: you know, during his last election campaign in s he

289
00:18:21,760 --> 00:18:25,120
Speaker 1: talked about immigration all the time, as he did during

290
00:18:25,160 --> 00:18:29,359
Speaker 1: most of his presidency immigration the wall. But does it

291
00:18:29,440 --> 00:18:33,640
Speaker 1: seem as if the topic of immigration is fading into

292
00:18:33,680 --> 00:18:37,520
Speaker 1: the background a little, It wasn't even mentioned its debates.

293
00:18:38,200 --> 00:18:41,879
Speaker 1: I think it depends who the audience is. If the

294
00:18:41,920 --> 00:18:46,280
Speaker 1: audience is the people being affected by the immigration plans,

295
00:18:46,720 --> 00:18:52,040
Speaker 1: new immigration plans that are very robot and effect hundreds

296
00:18:52,080 --> 00:18:55,879
Speaker 1: of thousands of people a day, are issued almost on

297
00:18:55,920 --> 00:19:00,600
Speaker 1: a weekly basis, So from the administration context, wouldn't say

298
00:19:00,600 --> 00:19:03,200
Speaker 1: it faded into the background. I would still say it's

299
00:19:03,280 --> 00:19:07,920
Speaker 1: the front and center regulatory priority of this whiteout. It's

300
00:19:08,040 --> 00:19:10,879
Speaker 1: the most important thing. It's just a question of the

301
00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:14,960
Speaker 1: the news sector. This is the most interesting story of

302
00:19:15,000 --> 00:19:19,080
Speaker 1: the day. Given that in general COVID is still the

303
00:19:19,080 --> 00:19:22,520
Speaker 1: biggest story that there is, plus the social unrest, plus

304
00:19:22,560 --> 00:19:26,880
Speaker 1: the election, people seem to want to talk less about COVID.

305
00:19:27,280 --> 00:19:31,040
Speaker 1: I'd be sorry less about immigration because COVID has sort

306
00:19:31,080 --> 00:19:34,359
Speaker 1: of put immigration into the background, both in terms of

307
00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:38,320
Speaker 1: there isn't necessarily at this moment a very high need

308
00:19:38,680 --> 00:19:40,880
Speaker 1: for new people to come in the country. There isn't

309
00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:44,719
Speaker 1: travel that allowing this. The embassies aren't open for the

310
00:19:44,720 --> 00:19:47,600
Speaker 1: most part. You know, they are open, but it's it's mattering,

311
00:19:48,320 --> 00:19:53,360
Speaker 1: and so it's not really something that that as at

312
00:19:53,400 --> 00:19:56,200
Speaker 1: the forefront because of the COVID issues. Then it will

313
00:19:56,280 --> 00:19:59,359
Speaker 1: be that it was, and then it will be post COVID.

314
00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:04,920
Speaker 1: Point taking leon and to your point, there are new

315
00:20:05,000 --> 00:20:09,120
Speaker 1: fees that are supposed to come into effect on October two,

316
00:20:09,680 --> 00:20:13,760
Speaker 1: which would jack up the fees that immigrants pay when

317
00:20:13,800 --> 00:20:16,080
Speaker 1: they come to the United States and tell us a

318
00:20:16,119 --> 00:20:20,240
Speaker 1: federal judges blocked that right the last night, a federal

319
00:20:20,400 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 1: judge blocks the new fee rules that would have increased

320
00:20:23,720 --> 00:20:29,040
Speaker 1: BE pubstantially for certain different categories including naturalization and UH

321
00:20:29,080 --> 00:20:33,640
Speaker 1: and filing for temporary visas. And that be was invalidated

322
00:20:33,680 --> 00:20:37,400
Speaker 1: because they actually ruled that the current Secretary of Homeland Security,

323
00:20:37,480 --> 00:20:42,440
Speaker 1: Chad Wolf, was improperly appointed as head of Homeland Security,

324
00:20:42,720 --> 00:20:47,119
Speaker 1: so he did not have authority to promulgate that rules

325
00:20:47,880 --> 00:20:51,120
Speaker 1: on the feet. And so if that's true, that's can

326
00:20:51,200 --> 00:20:54,960
Speaker 1: actually affect a lot of different rule that does to

327
00:20:55,119 --> 00:20:57,919
Speaker 1: be rules. So this is gonna be very interesting as

328
00:20:57,960 --> 00:21:00,720
Speaker 1: that gets litigated to higher it all the way after

329
00:21:00,760 --> 00:21:05,000
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court find that Chad

330
00:21:05,040 --> 00:21:09,280
Speaker 1: Wolf was improperly appointed? And I, you know, I think

331
00:21:09,280 --> 00:21:11,240
Speaker 1: it will be a close case. I don't know that

332
00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:14,480
Speaker 1: that's a hard is an issue. It seems hyper part

333
00:21:14,480 --> 00:21:16,879
Speaker 1: has been in the sense that you're asking whether President

334
00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:20,560
Speaker 1: Trump's appoint the was appointed properly, But it's really just

335
00:21:20,680 --> 00:21:24,439
Speaker 1: a technical legal question. And look, if you decide it

336
00:21:24,520 --> 00:21:27,080
Speaker 1: one way, then that means another administration that you're not

337
00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:31,359
Speaker 1: ideologically aligned with can do the same thing and find

338
00:21:31,440 --> 00:21:33,280
Speaker 1: that they can do the same thing. But if you

339
00:21:33,400 --> 00:21:37,639
Speaker 1: decided in a way that you're validating it, well, that

340
00:21:37,720 --> 00:21:40,119
Speaker 1: means that other administrations can't do the same thing. But

341
00:21:40,200 --> 00:21:43,240
Speaker 1: it also means that a lot of policies that were

342
00:21:43,320 --> 00:21:46,359
Speaker 1: promulgated while Chad Wolf has been as ahead of the

343
00:21:46,400 --> 00:21:49,880
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security would suddenly be in danger. How

344
00:21:49,960 --> 00:21:53,119
Speaker 1: much are being hyped? Does it really make a difference

345
00:21:53,280 --> 00:21:57,320
Speaker 1: to It depends because it's between six hundred dollars and

346
00:21:57,359 --> 00:22:01,199
Speaker 1: a thousand dollars per applications, and so if you're in

347
00:22:01,240 --> 00:22:04,080
Speaker 1: a situation where it's a business paying for a worker,

348
00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:07,200
Speaker 1: it might not make a huge difference. But if you're

349
00:22:07,200 --> 00:22:09,920
Speaker 1: in a situation where you're a family of four who

350
00:22:09,960 --> 00:22:13,400
Speaker 1: came here through either a work program or a refugee

351
00:22:13,400 --> 00:22:17,760
Speaker 1: program or some other programs, and now you're being asked

352
00:22:17,760 --> 00:22:21,760
Speaker 1: to pay an additional four thousand dollars per citizenship that

353
00:22:21,880 --> 00:22:26,119
Speaker 1: you didn't have before, maybe that cost prohibitive and you

354
00:22:26,160 --> 00:22:29,000
Speaker 1: don't want to become a citizen at that point. Another

355
00:22:29,119 --> 00:22:32,040
Speaker 1: proposed rule that I haven't heard very much about is

356
00:22:32,080 --> 00:22:37,639
Speaker 1: the biometrics immigration rule, So six million would be immigrants

357
00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:42,560
Speaker 1: would face expanded collection of Irish scans, palm and voice prints,

358
00:22:42,880 --> 00:22:47,000
Speaker 1: facial recognition, and d n A. What's the stated purpose

359
00:22:47,080 --> 00:22:51,119
Speaker 1: of this? Well, I think what had happened was that

360
00:22:51,240 --> 00:22:56,399
Speaker 1: the biometric collection in the administration had been done in

361
00:22:56,600 --> 00:23:00,640
Speaker 1: kind of a ad hoc manner and there wasn't sort

362
00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:03,199
Speaker 1: of an overarching rule that explains, this is what we

363
00:23:03,280 --> 00:23:06,760
Speaker 1: wanted to collect and this is why. But from that component,

364
00:23:07,320 --> 00:23:10,720
Speaker 1: that's perfectly valid, and also there needed to be a

365
00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:15,280
Speaker 1: couple of clarifications about when you could collect fingerprints from

366
00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:19,320
Speaker 1: miners who are going through the system, and also what

367
00:23:19,520 --> 00:23:22,280
Speaker 1: do you do with the shocking amount of people you'd

368
00:23:22,320 --> 00:23:25,520
Speaker 1: be surprised who you can't take fingerprints from. There's like,

369
00:23:25,640 --> 00:23:28,639
Speaker 1: you know, seedier citizens a lot of times for whatever reason,

370
00:23:28,960 --> 00:23:32,640
Speaker 1: have problems you're getting fingerprints from them, or people who

371
00:23:32,640 --> 00:23:36,640
Speaker 1: work in construction and who've had damage to their fingers,

372
00:23:36,720 --> 00:23:41,159
Speaker 1: and so you know, now there's a from that standpoint,

373
00:23:41,320 --> 00:23:45,040
Speaker 1: you conferensise the ability to get back up biometrics such

374
00:23:45,040 --> 00:23:48,640
Speaker 1: as Irish scans or facial scans and that kind of thing.

375
00:23:48,720 --> 00:23:52,520
Speaker 1: So from that component it's good, but it also lays

376
00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:56,200
Speaker 1: out very broad guidelines of being able to collect these things.

377
00:23:56,280 --> 00:24:01,440
Speaker 1: Conceivably in every single case, in for any single purpose

378
00:24:01,520 --> 00:24:04,679
Speaker 1: that is desired by the Department of Moland Security. And

379
00:24:04,760 --> 00:24:06,879
Speaker 1: that's where folks are taking But wait a second, is

380
00:24:06,920 --> 00:24:11,600
Speaker 1: this too broad because of how much how many biometrics

381
00:24:11,600 --> 00:24:14,520
Speaker 1: that allows people to collect for pretty much any reason

382
00:24:14,600 --> 00:24:19,160
Speaker 1: that they feel is a justified reason for homeland security purposes.

383
00:24:19,640 --> 00:24:21,919
Speaker 1: Almost every time I talked to you, Leon, I have

384
00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:25,120
Speaker 1: to ask a question about the wall, and I support

385
00:24:25,200 --> 00:24:27,040
Speaker 1: I think that that is going to play. You know,

386
00:24:27,119 --> 00:24:29,560
Speaker 1: President Trump is going to emphasize his building of the

387
00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:33,360
Speaker 1: wall in his campaign. So where does the wall stand

388
00:24:33,480 --> 00:24:36,600
Speaker 1: and what are the legal challenges to it? Well, the

389
00:24:36,640 --> 00:24:40,920
Speaker 1: wall continues to be built quite a pace at this point. Uh.

390
00:24:40,960 --> 00:24:44,720
Speaker 1: And there's you know, about four miles of wall that's

391
00:24:44,880 --> 00:24:49,320
Speaker 1: official wall, like kind of President Trump said he was

392
00:24:49,359 --> 00:24:55,120
Speaker 1: going to build, but only five miles of it are

393
00:24:55,240 --> 00:25:00,320
Speaker 1: in locations that didn't have some barrier previously. So it

394
00:25:00,440 --> 00:25:04,280
Speaker 1: just depends whether you want to call that wall or

395
00:25:04,400 --> 00:25:08,399
Speaker 1: not wall. And so that's in the eye of the beholder.

396
00:25:08,840 --> 00:25:13,119
Speaker 1: But there's not a lot of new locations that didn't

397
00:25:13,119 --> 00:25:16,399
Speaker 1: have a barrier that have this new wall that I

398
00:25:16,440 --> 00:25:19,000
Speaker 1: think the President would call the kind of wall that

399
00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:22,680
Speaker 1: he promised, so is it is it still being challenged

400
00:25:22,720 --> 00:25:25,919
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court the use of military money to

401
00:25:26,160 --> 00:25:29,280
Speaker 1: fund the wall. Well, the Supreme Court has allowed all

402
00:25:29,320 --> 00:25:32,199
Speaker 1: of these challenges to be saved in the sense that

403
00:25:32,280 --> 00:25:35,239
Speaker 1: the wall can continue to be built as they go up,

404
00:25:35,640 --> 00:25:39,760
Speaker 1: but no final determination has been reached about whether the

405
00:25:39,840 --> 00:25:43,159
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will stop construction of the wall at some

406
00:25:43,240 --> 00:25:47,800
Speaker 1: point saying that it's illegal. So yes, the circuits have

407
00:25:47,800 --> 00:25:52,600
Speaker 1: have continued to bring that litigation a pace to say yes,

408
00:25:52,640 --> 00:25:55,720
Speaker 1: this is still illegal. But one would suspect that with

409
00:25:55,800 --> 00:25:59,000
Speaker 1: the composition of the court now, which is by three,

410
00:25:59,280 --> 00:26:01,720
Speaker 1: and then if it had of Big six three, that

411
00:26:01,800 --> 00:26:05,320
Speaker 1: there's not gonna be a barrier to the President building

412
00:26:05,359 --> 00:26:07,719
Speaker 1: the wall, at least with the current litigation that has

413
00:26:07,760 --> 00:26:11,359
Speaker 1: been filed. There may be at some point pretty soon

414
00:26:11,480 --> 00:26:14,120
Speaker 1: as they try to put wall in places where there

415
00:26:14,240 --> 00:26:18,040
Speaker 1: wasn't wall. Some adverse possession evan in the main type

416
00:26:18,040 --> 00:26:21,640
Speaker 1: of litigation, But that's different than the litigation we've seen

417
00:26:21,640 --> 00:26:24,200
Speaker 1: in the pass, which is that the funding has been

418
00:26:24,240 --> 00:26:27,879
Speaker 1: improperly diverted from the wall. Well, that's the one that's

419
00:26:27,880 --> 00:26:31,359
Speaker 1: been said and hasn't been allowed to stop the construction

420
00:26:31,400 --> 00:26:34,840
Speaker 1: of the Wall. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. Leon,

421
00:26:35,240 --> 00:26:38,800
Speaker 1: that's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollanden Knight. And that's

422
00:26:38,840 --> 00:26:41,399
Speaker 1: it for the sedition to the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember

423
00:26:41,400 --> 00:26:43,280
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our

424
00:26:43,280 --> 00:26:47,920
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

425
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:52,840
Speaker 1: or a www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law.

426
00:26:53,240 --> 00:26:56,359
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso. Thanks so much for listening and remember

427
00:26:56,400 --> 00:26:58,920
Speaker 1: to change The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight. Attend and

428
00:26:59,000 --> 00:27:14,280
Speaker 1: Eastern I hear Humper Radio in mhd h