Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: No No. On the streets, the US is embroiled in
Speaker 1: its fiercest struggle over race since the nineteen sixties, but
Speaker 1: in the courtrooms, conservatives are seeing their best shot in
Speaker 1: decades to get rid of race in college admissions. Some
Speaker 1: of the nation's most prestigious universities are fighting a raft
Speaker 1: of legal challenges accusing them of unfairly waiting the admissions
Speaker 1: process through affirmative action. The multiple efforts to defeat race
Speaker 1: conscious admissions on several levels, including by Trump's Justice Department,
Speaker 1: are intended to get an increasingly conservative Supreme Court to
Speaker 1: rethink its decisions on affirmative action. My guest is Audrey Anderson,
Speaker 1: who heads the education practice at Bass Barian Sims. She
Speaker 1: was the former General counsel of Vanderbilt University. Audrey says,
Speaker 1: it seems sort incongruous that this legal fight to reverse
Speaker 1: affirmative action is picking up while the country is in
Speaker 1: this epic struggle over race. Well, this is a little
Speaker 1: bit penundrums of where the legal principles are with affirmative accents.
Speaker 1: The marketing in the streets and Our protests are about
Speaker 1: unjust treatment of people based on race. The legal constructs
Speaker 1: for affirmative action at a college or university are not
Speaker 1: justified on evening out the inequitable treatment based on race.
Speaker 1: It's not to remedy past discrimination. So when we as
Speaker 1: lawyers are thinking about this, the only reason that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has approved consideration of race in university admissions
Speaker 1: is in order to build a student body that has
Speaker 1: a certain level of diversity to improve the educational period.
Speaker 1: They are not allowed to use race and admissions in
Speaker 1: order to make up for the hundreds of years of
Speaker 1: discrimination against black and brown people in the United States.
Speaker 1: So from a legal perspective, we're almost operating in two
Speaker 1: different universes, and that's a really hard thing for people
Speaker 1: to wrap their heads around. Behind the three major suits
Speaker 1: against Harvard, the University of North Carolina, and the University
Speaker 1: of Texas is the activists Edward Blum who founded Students
Speaker 1: for Fair Admissions. Are they saying that these universities are
Speaker 1: not complying with established law or are they saying more
Speaker 1: than that? Well, Jude, I think they're really saying two things.
Speaker 1: They are saying that Harvard is not complying with the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court law that says, if you are going to
Speaker 1: use race in university admissions, you have to do it
Speaker 1: in a way that is narrowly colored. And Edward Blum
Speaker 1: says that Harvard is not using race in a way
Speaker 1: that is narrowly tailored. But make no mistake. In each
Speaker 1: one of these cases, they are also arguing that actually
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court precedents from the University of Michigan cases
Speaker 1: are wrong, and that actually the proper way to read
Speaker 1: the Constitution is to say that it does not allow
Speaker 1: university to be conscious of a race to use race
Speaker 1: as any kind of a factor in admission. In every
Speaker 1: one of their briefs they drop a footnote that says,
Speaker 1: lower Court, we know you can't consider this argument because
Speaker 1: it's only for the Supreme Court. But by the way,
Speaker 1: we think the Supreme Court decisions in the University of
Speaker 1: Michigan cases are wrong. So Blum's ultimate goal is to
Speaker 1: get the University of Michigan case overruled by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: That's his ultimate goal in the Harvard case, which is
Speaker 1: now at the Federal Appeals Court. Asians account for sent
Speaker 1: of the admitted class at Harvard the plaintiffs said, if
Speaker 1: judged purely on academics, they would make up of the
Speaker 1: admitted class. So do the plaintiffs want everyone to be
Speaker 1: judged purely on academics, So then Harvard would have a
Speaker 1: class with Asian Americans. Well, that's one of the problems.
Speaker 1: We're looking at it this way. Harvard and Yale and
Speaker 1: Columbia and Stanford, they could completely fill their class a
Speaker 1: number of times over with students with purple puff boys
Speaker 1: and a purple cl So it's really just fillingness to
Speaker 1: say that we're only going to judge students on the
Speaker 1: basis of their quote unquote academic merit. What these schools
Speaker 1: are trying to do, and what the Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: said they have a First Amendment right to do, is
Speaker 1: to choose students that they believe are best suited for
Speaker 1: the institution, and that does not have to be death
Speaker 1: based on academic merit. But f f f A and
Speaker 1: other groups to like them keep trying to say, well,
Speaker 1: all you should look at is academic merit, because that
Speaker 1: is quote unquote objective, and any time you put a
Speaker 1: subjective component into your admissions criteria, you might be discriminating
Speaker 1: against someone what is the Justice Department's role here? So,
Speaker 1: in general, the Justice Department has the responsibility to enforce
Speaker 1: a federal law that we call Title six. Title six
Speaker 1: of the Civil Rights Act requires that institutions that receive
Speaker 1: federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of rights. So
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice is in charge of enforcing that law,
Speaker 1: and it always has been since Trump has been in power.
Speaker 1: The way that the Department of Justice has decided it
Speaker 1: needs to enforce Titles fox is to make sure that
Speaker 1: affirmative action is not being used to discriminate against whites
Speaker 1: and Asians. Now, the Justice Department sent Yale University a
Speaker 1: letter threatening to sue unless Yale agrees to stop considering race.
Speaker 1: The government said that quote unlawfully dividing Americans into racial
Speaker 1: and ethnic blocks fosters stereotypes, bitterness and division. Was this
Speaker 1: letter unusual in any way? So the government, when it's
Speaker 1: in fourth Entitle six can bring an accent in federal
Speaker 1: courts to sue an institution to force it to comply
Speaker 1: with the law. What they're supposed to do before bert
Speaker 1: suit is work in good space with the institution to
Speaker 1: negotiate to get the institution to comply with federal law.
Speaker 1: So the unusual thing about this letter to Yale was
Speaker 1: that it didn't go into much detail about exactly how
Speaker 1: Yale was in violation of the law, what Yale could
Speaker 1: do to come into compliance short of this not having
Speaker 1: affirmative action and have kind of a timetabe for Yale
Speaker 1: to come into compliance. Rather than just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: if you don't stop using your affirmative action program in
Speaker 1: the matter of weeks, we will sue you. Usually they
Speaker 1: would say you need to consider applications in this way
Speaker 1: rather than that way, and we'd like to see you
Speaker 1: institute that change over the next admission cycle, and then
Speaker 1: we'll take another look at your data, and then we'll
Speaker 1: talk to you again, and then we'll determine whether we're
Speaker 1: going to sue. So that's the way the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice usually works with institutions. So that was one of
Speaker 1: the things that was surprising about that letter to Yale.
Speaker 1: So then, does this indicate a step up in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's overlooked of the use of affirmative action in
Speaker 1: college admissions. Yes, it's a stump up and it's very aggressive.
Speaker 1: As I was saying that the very short timing. They've
Speaker 1: been Yale to say we're going to sue to me.
Speaker 1: That sets off alarm belt because they're doing it. I
Speaker 1: think the file suit before the election in case Trump
Speaker 1: is not elected, and they'll already have that lawsuit going
Speaker 1: and on the books, and a new bid administration will
Speaker 1: have to deal with it with a lawsuit taking a
Speaker 1: position that a BigMan decision probably won't want to take,
Speaker 1: and they can change their position, but it's just administratively
Speaker 1: and politically awkward. So the goal seems to be to
Speaker 1: get this to the Supreme Court. Are they any closer
Speaker 1: that goal? Absolutely? I think that the students for Fare
Speaker 1: Admission has been strategic in the way that they are
Speaker 1: pursuing this litigation. So the best way to get an
Speaker 1: issue before the Supreme Court of the United States is
Speaker 1: to generate what we call a conflict among the circuits.
Speaker 1: So right now, the Harvard cases before the first Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, they will issue a decision right now,
Speaker 1: are s f A is going to have a trial
Speaker 1: happened in the Middle District of North Carolina for the
Speaker 1: University of North Carolina. Whatever happens with that suit, it
Speaker 1: will be appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Speaker 1: Ever loses in the First Circuit with the Harvard case,
Speaker 1: they will ask the Supreme Court to review it. Supreme
Speaker 1: Court may review it, they may not. But then we
Speaker 1: go to the North Carolina case. Whatever happens at trial,
Speaker 1: they'll appeal it to the Fourth Circuit. Whatever happens at
Speaker 1: the Fourth Circuit, whoever loses will go to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and at that point there will be a decision from
Speaker 1: the First Circuit. If the Fourth Circuit disagrees with the
Speaker 1: First Circuit, that's when the Supreme Court should be stepping in.
Speaker 1: And then the Texas case is in yet another circuit,
Speaker 1: in the Fifth Circuit. So Blomb, by kicking these schools
Speaker 1: in different parts of the country, is trying to set up,
Speaker 1: I think, a conflict amongst the circuits, which makes it
Speaker 1: more likely that the Supreme Court will step in. If
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court steps in, it will be a court
Speaker 1: with a new conservative majority on it. Is there a
Speaker 1: concern that the Court might reverse the Michigan decision. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think there is a concern at will be overruled,
Speaker 1: or they may don't even have to overrule it. You
Speaker 1: might remember that in Rudder. The controlling opinion by Justice
Speaker 1: O'Connor had language in it that I would call Getta
Speaker 1: not important to the holding, not part of the holding.
Speaker 1: But there's language in it that says, we don't expect
Speaker 1: the need for affirmative action to go on forever. In
Speaker 1: twenty five years, we won't need it anymore. That was
Speaker 1: in two thousand and three. So I think that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice could even try to say, well, we're
Speaker 1: not even overruling that precedent. We're just said, as Justice
Speaker 1: O'Connor presisted, that the need for infirmative action is gone. Now,
Speaker 1: when somebody says that, I think then the public will say,
Speaker 1: we'll look at what's been happening in the streets the
Speaker 1: summer and say, really, I'm not quite sure how you
Speaker 1: can say the need for affirmative action is gone. Thanks
Speaker 1: for being the Bloomberg Laws show. Audrey, that's Audrey Anderson
Speaker 1: of Bass Variance MS. The clash over undocumented immigrants and
Speaker 1: the Census is back at the Supreme Court. President Trump
Speaker 1: lost the fight to add a citizenship question to the
Speaker 1: census at the Court. His Plan B is an executive
Speaker 1: order for federal agencies to hand over existing data on
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants to the Census Bureau so it can exclude
Speaker 1: them from its count. Today, I'm here to say we
Speaker 1: are not backing down on our reffort to determine the
Speaker 1: citizenship status of the United States population. The problem is
Speaker 1: that a three judge panel rule the President doesn't have
Speaker 1: the authority to do that. So now Trump is back
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court to appeal that decision, and the
Speaker 1: justices have decided to expedite his appeal. My guest is
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. Trump has asked
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to let the President exclude undocumented immigrants
Speaker 1: from the census count. Now, most people thinking about this
Speaker 1: will say, well, wasn't this settled by the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: when the court ruled that the administration couldn't ad a
Speaker 1: citizenship question to the census. Well, that was a different case.
Speaker 1: Impact The citizenship question was decided on a procedural issue
Speaker 1: rather than the substantive decision of whether you could ask
Speaker 1: about citizenship in the census. It was decided on the
Speaker 1: fact that the Bourbon of Commerce the Census Bureau didn't
Speaker 1: follow the correct procedures in order to add that question
Speaker 1: so late in the process about citizenship, and that the
Speaker 1: reasons that the government gave for adding that citizenship question
Speaker 1: were pretextual because there had been some comments in the
Speaker 1: record about wanting to add this for purposes of trying
Speaker 1: to discount non citizen people from the census. And so
Speaker 1: one could say, well, maybe that it covers it, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't exactly cover it, because the issue wasn't decided
Speaker 1: could you count non citizen people in the census. It
Speaker 1: was just decide that that the reason that was given,
Speaker 1: which was supposedly about voting right, was pretextual in light
Speaker 1: of the comments that had been given about the non
Speaker 1: citizens issue. So Leon tell us about this three judge
Speaker 1: panel decision started as a case in the federal disrecord
Speaker 1: in New York. But what happens is under the constitution,
Speaker 1: apportionate cases under the census actually our three judge panel cases.
Speaker 1: So two circuit judges from the Second Circuit were added
Speaker 1: to the district judge in New York, and those three
Speaker 1: judges entered an order that said that the calculation that
Speaker 1: you would exclude people with undocumented statue from the census
Speaker 1: was unconstitutional and violated the abortionment clause. My question is
Speaker 1: more about the practical aspects of this. How would the
Speaker 1: Trump administration conclusively determine who's an undocumented status and where
Speaker 1: they're living to lower the census count. There are surveys
Speaker 1: that are done both by the Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 1: and by the Census Bureau in the American Community Survey
Speaker 1: that's done on a more frequent basis and the ten
Speaker 1: year Census basis that are supposed to find out that
Speaker 1: information and take it into account and try to make
Speaker 1: estimates as to what is the undocumented population in the country.
Speaker 1: But those estimates are not very accurate, and so you
Speaker 1: could be potentially costing a state, a member of Congress
Speaker 1: if you are even the inaccurate on an order of
Speaker 1: magnitude of a few thousand people one way or another.
Speaker 1: And when we're talking about eleven million people or ten
Speaker 1: million people or twelve million people, where we don't even
Speaker 1: know and there's not really any estimates that's firm, there's
Speaker 1: not a consensus on the estimate. Some people write these
Speaker 1: reports that say that there's twenty million people that are undocumented,
Speaker 1: and that lack of consensus that's out there really makes
Speaker 1: it very hard to figure out how you deduce people
Speaker 1: if you don't actually have an objective one for one
Speaker 1: match in terms of census status. If they do that,
Speaker 1: it sounds like it's ripe for challenge. Well correct, and
Speaker 1: that was the argument actually the administration was making, is well,
Speaker 1: tell us after the fact, if we actually hurt a
Speaker 1: states apportionment, then you should challenge our calculation. Don't challenge
Speaker 1: it now, it's too early. And the second Circuit rejective
Speaker 1: that argument, saying, look, it's still illegal. So even if
Speaker 1: nobody was hurt, they're still hurt by having this illegal
Speaker 1: policy place upon people. And so we're gonna invalidate it
Speaker 1: without waiting to see if a particular states counts was hard.
Speaker 1: As a matter of this, and when is the Census
Speaker 1: Bureau going to stop its counting? The President is trying
Speaker 1: to say that there's a sastatory deadline of December thirty
Speaker 1: earth and because of that, the census should stop counting
Speaker 1: as of today, and a disrecord in California has actually
Speaker 1: enjoined that stopping of the count and has scheduled the
Speaker 1: stopping of the counts to take till October thirty. Because
Speaker 1: there's no justification for why they would stop counting earlier
Speaker 1: than they had originally said. And so the court had
Speaker 1: enjoined that, and now the federal government is saying, well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna keep coming till October fifth. And so there
Speaker 1: was hearing me about whether that contempt of the court
Speaker 1: ruling and whether that October fifth decision is going to
Speaker 1: be vacated and whether that will be moved to October thirty.
Speaker 1: I against authority to do that. Leon Trump is seeking
Speaker 1: an argument session in late November or early December. That
Speaker 1: sets of a possibility that conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett could be on that panel. Would that make
Speaker 1: a difference to have one more conservative? Is last time
Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts was the swing vote, so it
Speaker 1: was basically conservatives versus liberals. I mean, at this point,
Speaker 1: it's hard to predict. It's it's possible that we would
Speaker 1: have an unprecedented ruling we've never had before, which is
Speaker 1: that people without science in America, even though the census
Speaker 1: has count all people, that those people are not people
Speaker 1: and that they don't count as people. Uh. And usually
Speaker 1: you don't see those rulings because the Constitution uses the
Speaker 1: word citizen. And you know, so there's a difference that
Speaker 1: when you use the word person or where you use
Speaker 1: the word citizen and makes that you would use persons
Speaker 1: when you meant persons, and it would use citizen when
Speaker 1: it meant citizens. And so that was the idea, and
Speaker 1: that's how that's been how the Constitution has been interpreted.
Speaker 1: So this would be sort of a ground breaking decisions
Speaker 1: that would deviate from president to say that suddenly people
Speaker 1: doesn't don't need doesn't mean people being people with some
Speaker 1: sort of status of the United States, that's comfortised. If
Speaker 1: this isn't actually even to say don't count a documented
Speaker 1: people think, don't count people with temporary visas or anything
Speaker 1: else like this either. So it seems as if President Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, during his last election campaign in s he
Speaker 1: talked about immigration all the time, as he did during
Speaker 1: most of his presidency immigration the wall. But does it
Speaker 1: seem as if the topic of immigration is fading into
Speaker 1: the background a little, It wasn't even mentioned its debates.
Speaker 1: I think it depends who the audience is. If the
Speaker 1: audience is the people being affected by the immigration plans,
Speaker 1: new immigration plans that are very robot and effect hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of people a day, are issued almost on
Speaker 1: a weekly basis, So from the administration context, wouldn't say
Speaker 1: it faded into the background. I would still say it's
Speaker 1: the front and center regulatory priority of this whiteout. It's
Speaker 1: the most important thing. It's just a question of the
Speaker 1: the news sector. This is the most interesting story of
Speaker 1: the day. Given that in general COVID is still the
Speaker 1: biggest story that there is, plus the social unrest, plus
Speaker 1: the election, people seem to want to talk less about COVID.
Speaker 1: I'd be sorry less about immigration because COVID has sort
Speaker 1: of put immigration into the background, both in terms of
Speaker 1: there isn't necessarily at this moment a very high need
Speaker 1: for new people to come in the country. There isn't
Speaker 1: travel that allowing this. The embassies aren't open for the
Speaker 1: most part. You know, they are open, but it's it's mattering,
Speaker 1: and so it's not really something that that as at
Speaker 1: the forefront because of the COVID issues. Then it will
Speaker 1: be that it was, and then it will be post COVID.
Speaker 1: Point taking leon and to your point, there are new
Speaker 1: fees that are supposed to come into effect on October two,
Speaker 1: which would jack up the fees that immigrants pay when
Speaker 1: they come to the United States and tell us a
Speaker 1: federal judges blocked that right the last night, a federal
Speaker 1: judge blocks the new fee rules that would have increased
Speaker 1: BE pubstantially for certain different categories including naturalization and UH
Speaker 1: and filing for temporary visas. And that be was invalidated
Speaker 1: because they actually ruled that the current Secretary of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: Chad Wolf, was improperly appointed as head of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: so he did not have authority to promulgate that rules
Speaker 1: on the feet. And so if that's true, that's can
Speaker 1: actually affect a lot of different rule that does to
Speaker 1: be rules. So this is gonna be very interesting as
Speaker 1: that gets litigated to higher it all the way after
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Will the Supreme Court find that Chad
Speaker 1: Wolf was improperly appointed? And I, you know, I think
Speaker 1: it will be a close case. I don't know that
Speaker 1: that's a hard is an issue. It seems hyper part
Speaker 1: has been in the sense that you're asking whether President
Speaker 1: Trump's appoint the was appointed properly, But it's really just
Speaker 1: a technical legal question. And look, if you decide it
Speaker 1: one way, then that means another administration that you're not
Speaker 1: ideologically aligned with can do the same thing and find
Speaker 1: that they can do the same thing. But if you
Speaker 1: decided in a way that you're validating it, well, that
Speaker 1: means that other administrations can't do the same thing. But
Speaker 1: it also means that a lot of policies that were
Speaker 1: promulgated while Chad Wolf has been as ahead of the
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security would suddenly be in danger. How
Speaker 1: much are being hyped? Does it really make a difference
Speaker 1: to It depends because it's between six hundred dollars and
Speaker 1: a thousand dollars per applications, and so if you're in
Speaker 1: a situation where it's a business paying for a worker,
Speaker 1: it might not make a huge difference. But if you're
Speaker 1: in a situation where you're a family of four who
Speaker 1: came here through either a work program or a refugee
Speaker 1: program or some other programs, and now you're being asked
Speaker 1: to pay an additional four thousand dollars per citizenship that
Speaker 1: you didn't have before, maybe that cost prohibitive and you
Speaker 1: don't want to become a citizen at that point. Another
Speaker 1: proposed rule that I haven't heard very much about is
Speaker 1: the biometrics immigration rule, So six million would be immigrants
Speaker 1: would face expanded collection of Irish scans, palm and voice prints,
Speaker 1: facial recognition, and d n A. What's the stated purpose
Speaker 1: of this? Well, I think what had happened was that
Speaker 1: the biometric collection in the administration had been done in
Speaker 1: kind of a ad hoc manner and there wasn't sort
Speaker 1: of an overarching rule that explains, this is what we
Speaker 1: wanted to collect and this is why. But from that component,
Speaker 1: that's perfectly valid, and also there needed to be a
Speaker 1: couple of clarifications about when you could collect fingerprints from
Speaker 1: miners who are going through the system, and also what
Speaker 1: do you do with the shocking amount of people you'd
Speaker 1: be surprised who you can't take fingerprints from. There's like,
Speaker 1: you know, seedier citizens a lot of times for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: have problems you're getting fingerprints from them, or people who
Speaker 1: work in construction and who've had damage to their fingers,
Speaker 1: and so you know, now there's a from that standpoint,
Speaker 1: you conferensise the ability to get back up biometrics such
Speaker 1: as Irish scans or facial scans and that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: So from that component it's good, but it also lays
Speaker 1: out very broad guidelines of being able to collect these things.
Speaker 1: Conceivably in every single case, in for any single purpose
Speaker 1: that is desired by the Department of Moland Security. And
Speaker 1: that's where folks are taking But wait a second, is
Speaker 1: this too broad because of how much how many biometrics
Speaker 1: that allows people to collect for pretty much any reason
Speaker 1: that they feel is a justified reason for homeland security purposes.
Speaker 1: Almost every time I talked to you, Leon, I have
Speaker 1: to ask a question about the wall, and I support
Speaker 1: I think that that is going to play. You know,
Speaker 1: President Trump is going to emphasize his building of the
Speaker 1: wall in his campaign. So where does the wall stand
Speaker 1: and what are the legal challenges to it? Well, the
Speaker 1: wall continues to be built quite a pace at this point. Uh.
Speaker 1: And there's you know, about four miles of wall that's
Speaker 1: official wall, like kind of President Trump said he was
Speaker 1: going to build, but only five miles of it are
Speaker 1: in locations that didn't have some barrier previously. So it
Speaker 1: just depends whether you want to call that wall or
Speaker 1: not wall. And so that's in the eye of the beholder.
Speaker 1: But there's not a lot of new locations that didn't
Speaker 1: have a barrier that have this new wall that I
Speaker 1: think the President would call the kind of wall that
Speaker 1: he promised, so is it is it still being challenged
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court the use of military money to
Speaker 1: fund the wall. Well, the Supreme Court has allowed all
Speaker 1: of these challenges to be saved in the sense that
Speaker 1: the wall can continue to be built as they go up,
Speaker 1: but no final determination has been reached about whether the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will stop construction of the wall at some
Speaker 1: point saying that it's illegal. So yes, the circuits have
Speaker 1: have continued to bring that litigation a pace to say yes,
Speaker 1: this is still illegal. But one would suspect that with
Speaker 1: the composition of the court now, which is by three,
Speaker 1: and then if it had of Big six three, that
Speaker 1: there's not gonna be a barrier to the President building
Speaker 1: the wall, at least with the current litigation that has
Speaker 1: been filed. There may be at some point pretty soon
Speaker 1: as they try to put wall in places where there
Speaker 1: wasn't wall. Some adverse possession evan in the main type
Speaker 1: of litigation, But that's different than the litigation we've seen
Speaker 1: in the pass, which is that the funding has been
Speaker 1: improperly diverted from the wall. Well, that's the one that's
Speaker 1: been said and hasn't been allowed to stop the construction
Speaker 1: of the Wall. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show. Leon,
Speaker 1: that's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollanden Knight. And that's
Speaker 1: it for the sedition to the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or a www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso. Thanks so much for listening and remember
Speaker 1: to change The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight. Attend and
Speaker 1: Eastern I hear Humper Radio in mhd h