1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court has handed Arizona Republicans a partial victory

3
00:00:15,040 --> 00:00:17,720
Speaker 2: in a five to four decision. The Court is allowing

4
00:00:17,800 --> 00:00:22,360
Speaker 2: Arizona to require proof of citizenship to register to vote

5
00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:26,560
Speaker 2: using the form provided by the state for state elections. However,

6
00:00:26,600 --> 00:00:29,880
Speaker 2: the Court refused to allow Arizona to require voters to

7
00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:34,000
Speaker 2: provide proof of citizenship when they register using a standard

8
00:00:34,040 --> 00:00:38,440
Speaker 2: federal form to vote for president or by mail. Four justices,

9
00:00:38,720 --> 00:00:43,120
Speaker 2: Liberals Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Katanji Brown Jackson, and

10
00:00:43,280 --> 00:00:48,360
Speaker 2: conservative Amy Coney Barrett, would have rejected all the rnc's requests.

11
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:51,240
Speaker 2: Joining me is Rebecca Green, a professor at William and

12
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:55,240
Speaker 2: Mary Law School and co director of the Election Law Program.

13
00:00:55,520 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 2: Rebecca Arizona handles federal and state elections in an unusual

14
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:01,319
Speaker 2: way way tell us about it.

15
00:01:01,720 --> 00:01:05,399
Speaker 3: So the way that elections are run in the United

16
00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:08,080
Speaker 3: States is largely a matter of state law. So state

17
00:01:08,160 --> 00:01:10,920
Speaker 3: legislatures make most of the laws that govern elections in

18
00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:15,880
Speaker 3: the United States, but the federal government, through some provisions

19
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:21,160
Speaker 3: in the Constitution, is given the authority to make laws

20
00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:24,160
Speaker 3: that affect elections. So then they've done that many, many times.

21
00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:26,119
Speaker 3: So you can think of the Help America Vote Act

22
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:29,360
Speaker 3: after Bush versus Gore, you know, you can think about

23
00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:32,679
Speaker 3: the National Voter Registration Act, which is often called the

24
00:01:33,080 --> 00:01:35,800
Speaker 3: Voter Voter Act, which Congress passed in nineteen ninety three.

25
00:01:36,360 --> 00:01:40,320
Speaker 3: And the authority that Congress derives to pass federal legislation

26
00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:44,319
Speaker 3: that affects how states administer elections has long been rooted

27
00:01:44,360 --> 00:01:47,640
Speaker 3: in the Constitution, and those laws are examples of Congress

28
00:01:47,720 --> 00:01:51,840
Speaker 3: using those powers. So in twenty twenty two in Arizona,

29
00:01:52,160 --> 00:01:54,760
Speaker 3: there's been a lot of debate in Arizona, to put

30
00:01:54,760 --> 00:01:58,560
Speaker 3: it lightly, over proof of citizenship requirements. There was a

31
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:02,960
Speaker 3: twenty thirteen case where the challenge was essentially whether or

32
00:02:03,000 --> 00:02:06,840
Speaker 3: not Arizona had to use the federal form for registering voters.

33
00:02:06,920 --> 00:02:10,520
Speaker 3: The federal form did not have a proof of citizenship requirement.

34
00:02:10,560 --> 00:02:12,800
Speaker 3: In other words, you didn't have to show what proof

35
00:02:12,880 --> 00:02:14,840
Speaker 3: with the document that you were a US citizen, but

36
00:02:14,880 --> 00:02:18,359
Speaker 3: you did have to check a box, you know, certifying

37
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:21,440
Speaker 3: that you were a citizen under penalty of perjury and

38
00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:26,280
Speaker 3: criminal finction. And so the US Supreme Court held that

39
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:30,120
Speaker 3: that form that the national law, the federal law requiring

40
00:02:30,200 --> 00:02:33,000
Speaker 3: use of that federal form or acceptance of that federal

41
00:02:33,080 --> 00:02:36,720
Speaker 3: form preempted state law. In other words, that Congress had

42
00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:40,040
Speaker 3: sort of more authority than a state over that particular

43
00:02:40,120 --> 00:02:43,880
Speaker 3: question since Congress had spoken in federal law trump's state law.

44
00:02:44,040 --> 00:02:48,480
Speaker 3: So what's happening here in Arizona more recently is this

45
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:53,200
Speaker 3: claim that there's actually a difference between presidential elections and

46
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:58,160
Speaker 3: other federal elections like elections for Congress. And the theory

47
00:02:58,480 --> 00:03:05,200
Speaker 3: is that the US Constitution, through articles to authority, is

48
00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:09,600
Speaker 3: different than time placer manner authority that Congress might have

49
00:03:09,760 --> 00:03:13,200
Speaker 3: under Article one, Section four, so that there's different provisions

50
00:03:13,240 --> 00:03:17,280
Speaker 3: that authorize Congress to write laws that affect elections. So

51
00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:20,360
Speaker 3: the argument anyway is that when it comes to selecting

52
00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:26,200
Speaker 3: presidential electors, state legislators have exclusive authority and Congress through

53
00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:29,080
Speaker 3: the MVRA through the Motor Voter Law doesn't have authority.

54
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:33,560
Speaker 3: So basically, what Arizona's trying to do is to bifurcate

55
00:03:33,960 --> 00:03:36,280
Speaker 3: how elections are run, to make it sort of a

56
00:03:36,280 --> 00:03:39,720
Speaker 3: different set of rules for presidential elections versus other kinds

57
00:03:39,720 --> 00:03:42,880
Speaker 3: of federal elections and state elections. It's very confusing, but

58
00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:45,040
Speaker 3: I hope that that unpacked it at least a little.

59
00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:48,560
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, now, from what I understand, an Arizona federal

60
00:03:48,640 --> 00:03:52,400
Speaker 2: judge blocked the state's proof of citizenship law, and then

61
00:03:52,440 --> 00:03:56,360
Speaker 2: a ninth Circuit panel reinstated it, but a different appeals

62
00:03:56,520 --> 00:04:00,040
Speaker 2: panel blocked it in a two to one decision. What

63
00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:04,840
Speaker 2: has the response been to Arizona's argument by the federal government.

64
00:04:05,880 --> 00:04:09,440
Speaker 3: The briefs in the case, you know, go through all

65
00:04:09,520 --> 00:04:13,000
Speaker 3: of the kind of settled practice in terms of recognizing

66
00:04:13,080 --> 00:04:18,160
Speaker 3: the congressional authority to legislate in presidential elections, and they

67
00:04:18,200 --> 00:04:21,440
Speaker 3: talk about different parts of the Constitution that authorize Congress

68
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:23,159
Speaker 3: to do so. So there's just been sort of a

69
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:26,240
Speaker 3: pushback both with respect to how we all understand the

70
00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:30,240
Speaker 3: process to work, and also what authority Congress has in

71
00:04:30,279 --> 00:04:33,520
Speaker 3: this area in the different areas of the Constitution like

72
00:04:33,560 --> 00:04:36,960
Speaker 3: the causes I mentioned, and also authority under the fourteenth

73
00:04:36,960 --> 00:04:39,880
Speaker 3: and fifteenth Amendments, the Necessary and Proper Clause. There's all

74
00:04:39,960 --> 00:04:43,359
Speaker 3: kinds of pushback to this idea that state legislators have

75
00:04:43,440 --> 00:04:47,080
Speaker 3: exclusive authority to legislate when it comes to presidential elections.

76
00:04:47,360 --> 00:04:50,880
Speaker 2: Is this a novel argument in Arizona or have other

77
00:04:50,920 --> 00:04:51,719
Speaker 2: states tried this?

78
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:55,000
Speaker 3: I don't believe any other state has tried this, but

79
00:04:55,040 --> 00:04:56,880
Speaker 3: I know that many other states are sort of on

80
00:04:56,920 --> 00:05:00,560
Speaker 3: board with this argument, and you know, it's something that

81
00:05:00,600 --> 00:05:03,640
Speaker 3: Arizona has tried in the past, and other states like Kansas,

82
00:05:03,720 --> 00:05:06,880
Speaker 3: for example, have, especially with this proof of citizenship question,

83
00:05:07,440 --> 00:05:10,320
Speaker 3: you know, tried to kind of end run around the

84
00:05:10,320 --> 00:05:12,960
Speaker 3: federal law by having a different system for the state

85
00:05:13,200 --> 00:05:16,279
Speaker 3: elections and federal elections in terms of what's required to

86
00:05:16,320 --> 00:05:19,280
Speaker 3: register to vote. So there's been pushback from states. I

87
00:05:19,320 --> 00:05:21,400
Speaker 3: wouldn't say a lot, but there's been some states that

88
00:05:21,440 --> 00:05:25,080
Speaker 3: have pushed back against this idea that federal law controls

89
00:05:25,120 --> 00:05:27,520
Speaker 3: and set up different systems so that at least for

90
00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:29,960
Speaker 3: state elections that would be a different process. So this

91
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:32,479
Speaker 3: has been a live question for several years now.

92
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:35,839
Speaker 2: So with this decision, did the Supreme Court just sort

93
00:05:35,880 --> 00:05:36,919
Speaker 2: of split the baby?

94
00:05:37,480 --> 00:05:39,760
Speaker 3: So the court did sort of split the baby. I

95
00:05:39,800 --> 00:05:42,400
Speaker 3: guess that's some way of putting it. But most importantly,

96
00:05:42,480 --> 00:05:46,680
Speaker 3: the court preserved use of the federal form for presidential

97
00:05:46,680 --> 00:05:50,440
Speaker 3: elections for Arizona voters. So new voters can still use

98
00:05:50,680 --> 00:05:54,479
Speaker 3: the federal form to vote in federal elections and the

99
00:05:54,520 --> 00:05:58,000
Speaker 3: federal form. The distinction here again is that the federal

100
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:02,440
Speaker 3: form only requires that voters essentially check a box affirming

101
00:06:02,600 --> 00:06:06,080
Speaker 3: under penalty of perjury, which you know has criminal sanctions

102
00:06:06,120 --> 00:06:08,880
Speaker 3: attached to it, that they are in fact US citizens,

103
00:06:09,200 --> 00:06:12,599
Speaker 3: and then voters who use the state form the court held,

104
00:06:13,000 --> 00:06:16,080
Speaker 3: can be required to show proof of citizenship to vote

105
00:06:16,120 --> 00:06:19,280
Speaker 3: in state elections. There had been a bifurcated system of

106
00:06:19,600 --> 00:06:23,359
Speaker 3: registration already in Arizona, and this opinion doesn't just disrupt that.

107
00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:26,480
Speaker 2: What about the per sale principle that you don't change

108
00:06:26,520 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 2: anything so close to an election.

109
00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:32,240
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's why the ruling was surprising in that sense.

110
00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:34,520
Speaker 3: You know, you'd think that the court would want to

111
00:06:34,600 --> 00:06:37,280
Speaker 3: keep in place what the lower court did because we're

112
00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:40,280
Speaker 3: so close to an election. But it did disrupt it slightly,

113
00:06:40,320 --> 00:06:43,040
Speaker 3: although it kept part of this day alive. So it

114
00:06:43,080 --> 00:06:45,479
Speaker 3: will create confusion. In fact, if you read some of

115
00:06:45,520 --> 00:06:49,000
Speaker 3: the coverage of the decision, you know, there does seem

116
00:06:49,000 --> 00:06:51,000
Speaker 3: to be quite a bit of confusion about what exactly

117
00:06:51,000 --> 00:06:54,560
Speaker 3: it means. It's very hard to parse courses in unreasoned order,

118
00:06:54,640 --> 00:06:57,080
Speaker 3: so we don't know what they're thinking, and so you know,

119
00:06:57,200 --> 00:06:59,400
Speaker 3: if the Court is concerned about confusion, you know, in

120
00:06:59,400 --> 00:07:01,320
Speaker 3: the lead up to an election, that certainly doesn't seem

121
00:07:01,360 --> 00:07:01,640
Speaker 3: to help.

122
00:07:01,880 --> 00:07:04,880
Speaker 2: It wasn't Justice Kavanaugh the one who talked about the

123
00:07:04,880 --> 00:07:08,120
Speaker 2: per sale prints but about you know, not changing things,

124
00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:09,960
Speaker 2: yes for an election.

125
00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:12,040
Speaker 3: Yes he was, and he was not one of the

126
00:07:12,280 --> 00:07:15,160
Speaker 3: justices who's signed on to the order issue. So we

127
00:07:15,200 --> 00:07:16,680
Speaker 3: don't you know, and that this is what happens on

128
00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:19,160
Speaker 3: the shadow docket is we don't know even justices who

129
00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:21,800
Speaker 3: sort of stand behind, you know, the outcome that we

130
00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:24,440
Speaker 3: don't know why. So it's all of a mystery at

131
00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:24,800
Speaker 3: this point.

132
00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:27,600
Speaker 2: So as far as like on the ground in Arizona,

133
00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 2: does anything change.

134
00:07:29,240 --> 00:07:32,040
Speaker 3: Well it does mean something changes. So it means that

135
00:07:32,200 --> 00:07:36,280
Speaker 3: people who want a register to vote in state elections

136
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:40,280
Speaker 3: using the state form must provide proof of citizenship in

137
00:07:40,400 --> 00:07:42,880
Speaker 3: order to do so. And there had been a stay

138
00:07:43,040 --> 00:07:46,239
Speaker 3: on that previously, and now that stay is lifted, meaning

139
00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:48,800
Speaker 3: that anyone who uses a state form to register to

140
00:07:48,880 --> 00:07:51,600
Speaker 3: vote must show proof of citizenship in order to be

141
00:07:51,600 --> 00:07:53,520
Speaker 3: put on the rules. You know, I guess people in

142
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:56,360
Speaker 3: Arizona are somewhat used to a bifurcated system, but you

143
00:07:56,360 --> 00:07:59,600
Speaker 3: can imagine people being confused about what the court order

144
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:02,240
Speaker 3: means and whether or not they're still registered. And I

145
00:08:02,240 --> 00:08:04,160
Speaker 3: think there's going to be a lot of people in

146
00:08:04,240 --> 00:08:06,840
Speaker 3: Arizona sort of waking up and trying to figure out

147
00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:09,640
Speaker 3: to make sure that they are in fact registered and

148
00:08:10,120 --> 00:08:12,760
Speaker 3: that they're okay. People who registered using the federal form.

149
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:15,640
Speaker 3: You know, there's been no change, so they should be fine.

150
00:08:15,720 --> 00:08:17,720
Speaker 3: But again, they may be confused. And that's the risk,

151
00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:20,400
Speaker 3: you know, that you run into when you're making changes

152
00:08:20,520 --> 00:08:22,239
Speaker 3: or mouling this close to an election.

153
00:08:22,520 --> 00:08:25,960
Speaker 2: Do you think that this opens the floodgates to other

154
00:08:26,280 --> 00:08:30,920
Speaker 2: Republican states or groups who want to challenge election roles

155
00:08:30,920 --> 00:08:33,400
Speaker 2: so close to the election, You know.

156
00:08:33,400 --> 00:08:35,520
Speaker 3: I really don't think so. You know, I think that

157
00:08:35,800 --> 00:08:38,400
Speaker 3: we are kind of in the last phases of this

158
00:08:38,480 --> 00:08:42,760
Speaker 3: election season, and I don't expect that courts, particularly federal courts,

159
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:44,680
Speaker 3: are going to want to rock the vote. Now that

160
00:08:44,720 --> 00:08:47,440
Speaker 3: people have started registering, now that you know, ballots will

161
00:08:47,440 --> 00:08:50,160
Speaker 3: be printed soon, I think we're getting into the zone

162
00:08:50,240 --> 00:08:53,040
Speaker 3: where I think courts are going to be extremely worried

163
00:08:53,040 --> 00:08:56,120
Speaker 3: about causing confusion among voters and election officials.

164
00:08:56,559 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 2: Republicans are always pushing the proof of citizenship requirement. Why

165
00:09:01,679 --> 00:09:02,000
Speaker 2: is that?

166
00:09:02,480 --> 00:09:06,280
Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think it's in response to the kind

167
00:09:06,320 --> 00:09:09,720
Speaker 3: of concern that non citizens are voting in large numbers,

168
00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:13,320
Speaker 3: which of course has not been documented to be a

169
00:09:13,360 --> 00:09:16,640
Speaker 3: widespread problem. There's no evidence of that happening. And you know,

170
00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:19,640
Speaker 3: it's also I think people can understand that, you know,

171
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:22,320
Speaker 3: if you're an undocumented immigrant, there's a lot on the

172
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:25,960
Speaker 3: line if you go and, you know, fraudulently register to

173
00:09:26,040 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 3: vote in terms of your ability to ultimately gain citizenship.

174
00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:32,360
Speaker 3: So it would be a huge risk, and the idea

175
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:34,360
Speaker 3: that a huge number of people are doing that is

176
00:09:34,760 --> 00:09:37,800
Speaker 3: pretty hard to square with the reality that you're really

177
00:09:37,840 --> 00:09:40,400
Speaker 3: putting yourself in the crosshairs in terms of getting you know,

178
00:09:40,400 --> 00:09:43,640
Speaker 3: deported or in trouble criminally for registering to vote if

179
00:09:43,679 --> 00:09:46,199
Speaker 3: you're not a citizen. So it's not a problem that's

180
00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:49,400
Speaker 3: been documented, and you can understand why it wouldn't be

181
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:51,640
Speaker 3: happening on a large scale because people would really be

182
00:09:51,800 --> 00:09:54,560
Speaker 3: jeopardizing their status they did so, not to mention facing

183
00:09:54,600 --> 00:09:57,080
Speaker 3: criminal sanctions. So that said, you know, I think the

184
00:09:57,120 --> 00:10:01,320
Speaker 3: immigration issue is a really hot political issue, and you know,

185
00:10:01,360 --> 00:10:04,199
Speaker 3: I think that people who are circulating these theories are

186
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:06,680
Speaker 3: trying to gain some traction politically by doing so.

187
00:10:07,000 --> 00:10:10,000
Speaker 2: Usually before an election, there is a lot of litigation

188
00:10:10,280 --> 00:10:13,679
Speaker 2: over election rules, et cetera. Has that happened this.

189
00:10:13,720 --> 00:10:17,440
Speaker 3: Cycle, Yes, of course, it absolutely has. And just you know,

190
00:10:17,559 --> 00:10:20,040
Speaker 3: I think people might be concerned that there'd be a

191
00:10:20,080 --> 00:10:22,640
Speaker 3: lot of challenges to state rules, you know, both from

192
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:25,400
Speaker 3: Democrats and Republicans, but I think it's important to remember

193
00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:27,720
Speaker 3: that that's a feature of our system, not a bug.

194
00:10:27,760 --> 00:10:30,760
Speaker 3: In other words, anybody can challenge the way our elections

195
00:10:30,760 --> 00:10:32,640
Speaker 3: are run and the court will hear it, and that's

196
00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:34,880
Speaker 3: kind of how the system works. And the idea is

197
00:10:34,920 --> 00:10:37,880
Speaker 3: that that gets kind of worked out far in advance

198
00:10:37,880 --> 00:10:39,720
Speaker 3: of election, so that the rules are in place and

199
00:10:39,760 --> 00:10:42,720
Speaker 3: any concerns that somebody would have about the rules would,

200
00:10:42,760 --> 00:10:45,079
Speaker 3: you know, have open opportunity for people to challenge and

201
00:10:45,320 --> 00:10:47,880
Speaker 3: the court to hear those concerns well in advance of

202
00:10:47,920 --> 00:10:50,200
Speaker 3: an election, so that by the time you get to

203
00:10:50,200 --> 00:10:52,200
Speaker 3: the election, you know the rules are in place and

204
00:10:52,240 --> 00:10:57,240
Speaker 3: people feel confident that they're constitutional and otherwise administrable and correct.

205
00:10:57,440 --> 00:10:59,640
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for being on the show, Rebecca. That's

206
00:10:59,640 --> 00:11:03,280
Speaker 2: Professor Rebecca Green of William and Mary Law School coming

207
00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:06,360
Speaker 2: up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, Republican states are

208
00:11:06,400 --> 00:11:10,320
Speaker 2: suing the Biden administration over its new program giving a

209
00:11:10,400 --> 00:11:15,000
Speaker 2: path to citizenship to immigrants without legal status married to

210
00:11:15,160 --> 00:11:18,760
Speaker 2: US citizens. I'm June Grosso when you're listening to Bloomberg.

211
00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:24,240
Speaker 2: Texas and fifteen other Republican led states are suing to

212
00:11:24,400 --> 00:11:28,120
Speaker 2: end a federal program that could potentially give nearly half

213
00:11:28,160 --> 00:11:31,960
Speaker 2: a million immigrants without legal status who are married to

214
00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:36,560
Speaker 2: US citizens a pathway to citizenship. President Joe Biden had

215
00:11:36,559 --> 00:11:38,240
Speaker 2: announced the program in June.

216
00:11:38,679 --> 00:11:41,280
Speaker 4: For those wives, their husbands, and their children who have

217
00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:44,280
Speaker 4: lived in America for a decade or more but are undocumented,

218
00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:47,240
Speaker 4: This act will allow them to file a paperwork for

219
00:11:47,360 --> 00:11:50,280
Speaker 4: legal status in the United States. A lot of them

220
00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:53,079
Speaker 4: work while they remain with their families in the United States.

221
00:11:53,440 --> 00:11:56,120
Speaker 2: The states suing to stop the program say that the

222
00:11:56,200 --> 00:12:00,640
Speaker 2: administration bypassed Congress to create a pathway to sity lisenship

223
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:05,200
Speaker 2: for quote blatant political purposes. Joining me is immigration law

224
00:12:05,280 --> 00:12:08,480
Speaker 2: expertly On Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight Leo.

225
00:12:08,600 --> 00:12:12,120
Speaker 2: We've discussed this before, but remind us what this program

226
00:12:12,360 --> 00:12:12,800
Speaker 2: is about.

227
00:12:13,080 --> 00:12:18,480
Speaker 1: It's called the implementation of Keeping Families Together Program, or

228
00:12:18,520 --> 00:12:21,920
Speaker 1: it's also known as the PIP, the Parole and Place program.

229
00:12:22,320 --> 00:12:25,719
Speaker 1: It's a program that the Biden administration put in at

230
00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:28,040
Speaker 1: the same time that it put in its executive order

231
00:12:28,400 --> 00:12:32,720
Speaker 1: closing the border, to balance that out by saying that

232
00:12:32,960 --> 00:12:35,640
Speaker 1: in addition to that provision, there would be a provision

233
00:12:35,960 --> 00:12:39,559
Speaker 1: that would be more compassionate. I would say that people

234
00:12:39,640 --> 00:12:43,760
Speaker 1: who are married to United States citizens but who cannot

235
00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:48,080
Speaker 1: obtain legal status because they crossed the border of the

236
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:52,920
Speaker 1: United States unlawfully, those individuals will now be able to

237
00:12:52,920 --> 00:12:56,080
Speaker 1: get legal status because the thing that was banning them,

238
00:12:56,080 --> 00:12:59,880
Speaker 1: which was that their admission was not done legally, will

239
00:12:59,880 --> 00:13:03,079
Speaker 1: be cured by this parole in Place, which will basically

240
00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:05,800
Speaker 1: say we will now admit you, but we won't make

241
00:13:05,840 --> 00:13:09,440
Speaker 1: you actually come to the border and re enter legally.

242
00:13:09,559 --> 00:13:12,200
Speaker 1: We'll just give you a parole, which is a sort

243
00:13:12,240 --> 00:13:15,320
Speaker 1: of a permission slip that says, as of this moment,

244
00:13:15,440 --> 00:13:18,920
Speaker 1: you've entered the United States legally, so now you can

245
00:13:18,960 --> 00:13:22,480
Speaker 1: go ahead and petition for a green card or lawful

246
00:13:22,520 --> 00:13:25,559
Speaker 1: permanent residence as it is known because of your mayriage

247
00:13:25,559 --> 00:13:26,280
Speaker 1: to a US.

248
00:13:26,160 --> 00:13:31,800
Speaker 2: The visit so Texas and sixteen Republican led states are

249
00:13:31,920 --> 00:13:35,160
Speaker 2: suing to end the program. What's their main legal attack.

250
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:38,920
Speaker 1: Well, they have a lot of different theories about why

251
00:13:38,960 --> 00:13:43,280
Speaker 1: this is not a legal program, but basically it comes

252
00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:46,719
Speaker 1: down to a couple of main ones, which is that

253
00:13:46,880 --> 00:13:49,320
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, they say that the

254
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:52,840
Speaker 1: parole program that the Biden administration has put in is

255
00:13:52,880 --> 00:13:56,600
Speaker 1: suffering from two main legal defects. The first is that

256
00:13:57,120 --> 00:14:00,520
Speaker 1: the very concept of parole in place, So it's been

257
00:14:00,600 --> 00:14:03,400
Speaker 1: used in the past, and it was used mostly for

258
00:14:03,720 --> 00:14:07,280
Speaker 1: the undocumented spousands of people in the military, so nobody

259
00:14:07,280 --> 00:14:10,679
Speaker 1: cared because people didn't like the idea that a person

260
00:14:10,720 --> 00:14:14,120
Speaker 1: in the military could have their stouse supported. So people

261
00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:17,040
Speaker 1: generally thought I was fined and then sue at the time.

262
00:14:17,640 --> 00:14:20,680
Speaker 1: But now they're sort of saying, look, we should revisit

263
00:14:20,760 --> 00:14:24,320
Speaker 1: this concept of can you actually be given a parole

264
00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:27,720
Speaker 1: if you're already inside the United States? So that's their

265
00:14:27,760 --> 00:14:30,560
Speaker 1: first argument is that that concept in and of itself

266
00:14:30,640 --> 00:14:33,440
Speaker 1: is illegal. Now, what a parole is is it's a

267
00:14:33,560 --> 00:14:37,520
Speaker 1: permission for someone who's at the border, who's outside of

268
00:14:37,560 --> 00:14:40,280
Speaker 1: the country, who's trying to enter. It's a permission to

269
00:14:40,360 --> 00:14:44,800
Speaker 1: allow them to enter but it's not a document that

270
00:14:44,840 --> 00:14:48,119
Speaker 1: you can get once you're inside the United States. So

271
00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:51,680
Speaker 1: that's their first argument. Their second argument is that in

272
00:14:51,760 --> 00:14:56,920
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety six, Congress dramatically limited the parole authority to

273
00:14:57,120 --> 00:15:00,880
Speaker 1: a case by case basis and a on an urgent

274
00:15:00,960 --> 00:15:05,000
Speaker 1: humanitarian circumstance. And they're saying that neither of those two

275
00:15:05,040 --> 00:15:08,600
Speaker 1: things applies here because this isn't a case by case basis.

276
00:15:08,640 --> 00:15:12,840
Speaker 1: This is a programmatic change where even though the administration

277
00:15:13,040 --> 00:15:15,840
Speaker 1: is saying, look, there's discretion to deny this on a

278
00:15:15,880 --> 00:15:19,040
Speaker 1: case by case basis and all decisions shall be made

279
00:15:19,080 --> 00:15:21,880
Speaker 1: on a case by case basis, they're saying there's sort

280
00:15:21,880 --> 00:15:24,920
Speaker 1: of this wink wink understanding. If you meet the criteria

281
00:15:25,360 --> 00:15:28,720
Speaker 1: for the program, you are going to get it. And

282
00:15:28,760 --> 00:15:31,920
Speaker 1: so they say that violates the case by case requirement

283
00:15:32,000 --> 00:15:34,840
Speaker 1: because this is not case by case, it's programmatic. And secondly,

284
00:15:35,200 --> 00:15:38,160
Speaker 1: they're saying that, look, even if this was case by case,

285
00:15:38,520 --> 00:15:42,640
Speaker 1: you can only grant parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or

286
00:15:42,680 --> 00:15:45,520
Speaker 1: for a significant public benefit. That's what those two words

287
00:15:45,520 --> 00:15:48,720
Speaker 1: that are in the statue. One is urgent humanitarian reason,

288
00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:52,040
Speaker 1: second is significant public benefit. And they're saying that neither

289
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:55,400
Speaker 1: actually exists here, because all this is is an end

290
00:15:55,520 --> 00:15:58,960
Speaker 1: run around what Congress wanted, which was Congress didn't want

291
00:15:59,240 --> 00:16:03,000
Speaker 1: people who the border without authorization to be able to

292
00:16:03,040 --> 00:16:05,840
Speaker 1: gain legal status in any way. They wanted them to

293
00:16:05,880 --> 00:16:09,080
Speaker 1: have to leave and have to redo it from the outside.

294
00:16:09,400 --> 00:16:11,920
Speaker 1: And so they're saying it can never be an urgent

295
00:16:12,000 --> 00:16:15,240
Speaker 1: humanitarian reason or a significant public benefit to have a

296
00:16:15,280 --> 00:16:19,520
Speaker 1: parole program whose goal is to circumvent the Congress's statute.

297
00:16:20,160 --> 00:16:23,360
Speaker 2: The Republicans who are attacking it say it's essentially a

298
00:16:23,400 --> 00:16:26,920
Speaker 2: form of amnesty for people who broke the law. I mean,

299
00:16:27,080 --> 00:16:30,440
Speaker 2: Biden is giving special privileges to people because they happen

300
00:16:30,480 --> 00:16:33,640
Speaker 2: to be married to US citizens, whereas other people who

301
00:16:33,680 --> 00:16:36,760
Speaker 2: are here who crossed illegally as well, and who've been

302
00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:38,760
Speaker 2: here for the same amount of time and who haven't

303
00:16:38,800 --> 00:16:42,560
Speaker 2: violated the laws, et cetera, et cetera, aren't given this.

304
00:16:42,680 --> 00:16:44,560
Speaker 2: So it does seem a little bit unfair to me.

305
00:16:45,160 --> 00:16:48,000
Speaker 1: Well, it is correct to say that, you know, whatever

306
00:16:48,200 --> 00:16:50,560
Speaker 1: word you want to use, amnesty or some other word,

307
00:16:51,040 --> 00:16:53,720
Speaker 1: it is correct to say that people who are currently

308
00:16:53,880 --> 00:16:57,840
Speaker 1: in an unlawful status will if this program survive these

309
00:16:57,960 --> 00:17:01,000
Speaker 1: court cases be allowed to end, they're not only into

310
00:17:01,120 --> 00:17:05,200
Speaker 1: just a lawful status, but ultimately to lawful permanent residency,

311
00:17:05,359 --> 00:17:10,040
Speaker 1: and ultimately, even after that, potentially US citizenship if this

312
00:17:10,160 --> 00:17:12,560
Speaker 1: program is allowed to continue, so long as they were

313
00:17:12,600 --> 00:17:15,520
Speaker 1: married to US citizens. And it is true that all

314
00:17:15,560 --> 00:17:17,760
Speaker 1: of this is sort of being made up on the fly,

315
00:17:17,920 --> 00:17:20,280
Speaker 1: in the sense that this requirement that you had to

316
00:17:20,320 --> 00:17:22,919
Speaker 1: have been in the country for ten years, none of

317
00:17:22,960 --> 00:17:25,520
Speaker 1: this is based on anything. It's just based on the

318
00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:27,600
Speaker 1: way they wanted to define the program, which is that

319
00:17:27,640 --> 00:17:29,679
Speaker 1: you have to have been here for ten years and

320
00:17:29,720 --> 00:17:31,720
Speaker 1: you have to be married to a US citizen. And

321
00:17:31,760 --> 00:17:34,440
Speaker 1: you're correct, there's other things you could be that could

322
00:17:34,480 --> 00:17:38,280
Speaker 1: be more compelling or less compelling, but they didn't choose

323
00:17:38,359 --> 00:17:41,320
Speaker 1: either of those. This is the concept that they chose.

324
00:17:41,960 --> 00:17:45,080
Speaker 1: And one would say, well, why did they choose this? Well,

325
00:17:45,119 --> 00:17:48,400
Speaker 1: one is because there's an actual US citizen who sort

326
00:17:48,400 --> 00:17:50,800
Speaker 1: of has skin in the game here and that there

327
00:17:50,800 --> 00:17:53,120
Speaker 1: would be harm to that US citizen if they lose

328
00:17:53,200 --> 00:17:57,560
Speaker 1: their spouse due to deportation. But secondly, there is this

329
00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:01,199
Speaker 1: concept that was already in place its entirety, but the

330
00:18:01,240 --> 00:18:03,760
Speaker 1: only difference was the only people who could take advantage

331
00:18:03,760 --> 00:18:06,960
Speaker 1: of this were spouses of people in the military, So

332
00:18:07,080 --> 00:18:09,119
Speaker 1: now it will be spouses of all us. It is

333
00:18:09,240 --> 00:18:12,560
Speaker 1: ins as opposed to just spileses of people as a military.

334
00:18:12,960 --> 00:18:15,359
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the Republicans also say that, you know, this

335
00:18:15,600 --> 00:18:19,919
Speaker 2: is close to the election. It's blatant the Biden administration

336
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:23,400
Speaker 2: is playing politics here. I mean, has this idea ever

337
00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:24,240
Speaker 2: come up before?

338
00:18:24,760 --> 00:18:29,119
Speaker 1: Sure, when the military parole program was announced, this was

339
00:18:29,160 --> 00:18:31,800
Speaker 1: the fear of a lot of Republicans. They said, one day,

340
00:18:32,320 --> 00:18:34,800
Speaker 1: somebody's going to try to expand this to all us.

341
00:18:34,800 --> 00:18:37,800
Speaker 1: It is in spouses, and they will say because we

342
00:18:37,840 --> 00:18:39,760
Speaker 1: didn't object to it at the time when we did

343
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:43,240
Speaker 1: it for the military, that we lost our right to

344
00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:46,120
Speaker 1: object to this and law and behold, some of those

345
00:18:46,119 --> 00:18:48,840
Speaker 1: people who did criticize the program at the time have

346
00:18:48,960 --> 00:18:51,240
Speaker 1: been proven right that that ended up happening, that this

347
00:18:51,320 --> 00:18:54,880
Speaker 1: program did get expanded. But it is also true that

348
00:18:54,920 --> 00:18:58,440
Speaker 1: no one filed a lawsuit or objected to the military

349
00:18:58,560 --> 00:19:01,399
Speaker 1: parole program at the time. I'm other than some of

350
00:19:01,440 --> 00:19:04,600
Speaker 1: the people who do this professionally for a living, who

351
00:19:04,640 --> 00:19:07,400
Speaker 1: don't want any programs of this kind of any kind done,

352
00:19:07,440 --> 00:19:10,520
Speaker 1: They did say this would happen, And so now it

353
00:19:10,600 --> 00:19:13,520
Speaker 1: has happened. So from the extent of has this been

354
00:19:13,600 --> 00:19:16,840
Speaker 1: considered the idea was, yes, it was considered from the

355
00:19:16,960 --> 00:19:20,119
Speaker 1: day that the military program was announced over a decade ago,

356
00:19:20,600 --> 00:19:23,240
Speaker 1: that that would be the potential outcome of this, as

357
00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:25,680
Speaker 1: they would try to do all spouses at some point.

358
00:19:26,040 --> 00:19:29,240
Speaker 1: But was this done as an election item? Well, certainly

359
00:19:29,720 --> 00:19:31,560
Speaker 1: it was done very close to the election. It was

360
00:19:31,600 --> 00:19:33,800
Speaker 1: done at the same time that the border was closed

361
00:19:34,359 --> 00:19:38,000
Speaker 1: to appease people who are criticizing that the border was closed.

362
00:19:38,320 --> 00:19:42,159
Speaker 1: And so there's not an immunity to those criticisms because

363
00:19:42,280 --> 00:19:44,960
Speaker 1: one could point to those facts and say this was

364
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:48,879
Speaker 1: done for political reasons. In any case, the question is

365
00:19:48,960 --> 00:19:52,479
Speaker 1: what happens now. And I think the administration is taking

366
00:19:52,520 --> 00:19:56,919
Speaker 1: these applications, and I think both immigration lawyers and the

367
00:19:57,040 --> 00:19:59,280
Speaker 1: clients going through this needs to be very careful and

368
00:19:59,359 --> 00:20:02,719
Speaker 1: needs to decide is this something that I want to

369
00:20:02,760 --> 00:20:07,280
Speaker 1: do where if this gets enjoined or if the administration changes.

370
00:20:07,800 --> 00:20:10,600
Speaker 1: And now I've put my name forward and I've exposed

371
00:20:10,640 --> 00:20:14,480
Speaker 1: myself as someone who's here illegally, and I've given my address,

372
00:20:14,480 --> 00:20:17,520
Speaker 1: and I've given all my biographical information I could be

373
00:20:17,560 --> 00:20:21,159
Speaker 1: found immediately, is that something people think is wise to

374
00:20:21,200 --> 00:20:23,720
Speaker 1: do so. I don't know how many people you're going

375
00:20:23,800 --> 00:20:27,400
Speaker 1: to see applying for this before the election, as opposed

376
00:20:27,400 --> 00:20:31,000
Speaker 1: to perhaps the idea being that the US citizens who

377
00:20:31,040 --> 00:20:34,439
Speaker 1: would benefit from this would vote for this knowing that

378
00:20:34,480 --> 00:20:36,800
Speaker 1: the election is going to be the difference as to

379
00:20:36,840 --> 00:20:40,600
Speaker 1: whether this policy or this program actually becomes a program

380
00:20:40,640 --> 00:20:44,320
Speaker 1: that actually gets implemented in its entirety. And also perhaps

381
00:20:44,320 --> 00:20:47,920
Speaker 1: the relatives of these US citizens may have some sympathy

382
00:20:48,000 --> 00:20:51,080
Speaker 1: for the plight of the US citizen, so to that extent,

383
00:20:51,640 --> 00:20:55,440
Speaker 1: it is potentially a useful political move, but a political

384
00:20:55,480 --> 00:20:56,520
Speaker 1: move down the list.

385
00:20:56,720 --> 00:20:59,879
Speaker 2: To estimate that about half a million people could be eligible.

386
00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,520
Speaker 2: Factor that in So what do you think how strong

387
00:21:03,800 --> 00:21:07,240
Speaker 2: are the Republican States arguments against this program?

388
00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:10,080
Speaker 1: Well? I think there's a lot of very interesting arguments,

389
00:21:10,880 --> 00:21:16,080
Speaker 1: and the arguments about the way you read the statute

390
00:21:16,119 --> 00:21:18,280
Speaker 1: are now going to be viewed along the lines of

391
00:21:18,359 --> 00:21:22,080
Speaker 1: no deference to the administration any longer as we now know.

392
00:21:22,720 --> 00:21:26,000
Speaker 1: And so the question is does the statute, when you

393
00:21:26,000 --> 00:21:28,800
Speaker 1: have a plane reading of it, permit this type of

394
00:21:28,840 --> 00:21:32,760
Speaker 1: parole in place? And that's ultimately going to come down

395
00:21:32,800 --> 00:21:35,520
Speaker 1: to one judge in Texas well First, there will be

396
00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:38,200
Speaker 1: the standing question, and the standing question will be very

397
00:21:38,200 --> 00:21:41,880
Speaker 1: interesting because the most likely way that the states will

398
00:21:41,920 --> 00:21:45,080
Speaker 1: lose here is in the standing question, which they've lost

399
00:21:45,320 --> 00:21:49,439
Speaker 1: recently in other lawsuits, because the argument would be, why

400
00:21:49,480 --> 00:21:52,200
Speaker 1: would it be a problem to take people who are

401
00:21:52,200 --> 00:21:55,000
Speaker 1: here unlawfully and make them legal? What harm does the

402
00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:57,640
Speaker 1: suits of the states, and the state is saying, well,

403
00:21:57,720 --> 00:21:59,959
Speaker 1: five years from now, we may need to get benefit

404
00:22:00,240 --> 00:22:03,960
Speaker 1: to these people when they're eligible for benefits. But interestingly,

405
00:22:04,560 --> 00:22:07,520
Speaker 1: there's a thing in the law called an affidavit of

406
00:22:07,560 --> 00:22:10,760
Speaker 1: support which says that if you're sponsoring someone for a

407
00:22:10,800 --> 00:22:14,080
Speaker 1: marriage based screen cards, you actually have to prevent them

408
00:22:14,119 --> 00:22:17,399
Speaker 1: from getting benefits, meaning you have to pay for whatever

409
00:22:17,440 --> 00:22:20,280
Speaker 1: it is they need under the law. So it actually

410
00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:24,439
Speaker 1: will be very interesting to see on standing if the

411
00:22:24,480 --> 00:22:27,879
Speaker 1: state loses, that's the most likely way the state will lose.

412
00:22:28,440 --> 00:22:32,000
Speaker 1: But if they can survive the standing issue, then the

413
00:22:32,119 --> 00:22:36,320
Speaker 1: question is going to be will a judge first in

414
00:22:36,400 --> 00:22:39,480
Speaker 1: Texas and the Fifth Circuit, then the Supreme Court decides

415
00:22:39,920 --> 00:22:42,560
Speaker 1: by looking at this statue just the plane language without

416
00:22:42,600 --> 00:22:46,560
Speaker 1: any difference. Two things, is parole something you can actually

417
00:22:46,600 --> 00:22:49,520
Speaker 1: do is inside the United States, It'll be hard to

418
00:22:49,560 --> 00:22:53,640
Speaker 1: make that argument. I don't know a very clear statutory

419
00:22:54,400 --> 00:22:57,480
Speaker 1: reference that says you can grant parole already inside the

420
00:22:57,560 --> 00:23:00,399
Speaker 1: United States as opposed to that something that's happen at

421
00:23:00,440 --> 00:23:03,560
Speaker 1: the border. Now, that problem theoretically can be fixed by

422
00:23:03,560 --> 00:23:06,439
Speaker 1: making everyone in this program just check in at the

423
00:23:06,440 --> 00:23:09,000
Speaker 1: border and come back. So that would sort of be

424
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:12,600
Speaker 1: a pyrrhic victory for the States if they ended up

425
00:23:12,640 --> 00:23:15,920
Speaker 1: winning that, but fair enough. But then the second one

426
00:23:15,960 --> 00:23:18,320
Speaker 1: that I think they more want to win on is

427
00:23:18,359 --> 00:23:21,640
Speaker 1: that there isn't a significant public benefit or an urgent

428
00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:25,280
Speaker 1: humanitarian reason for doing this, And I think that's where

429
00:23:25,280 --> 00:23:27,080
Speaker 1: the rubber is going to meet the road, and that's

430
00:23:27,160 --> 00:23:30,480
Speaker 1: literally just going to be the opinion of the judges,

431
00:23:30,600 --> 00:23:33,359
Speaker 1: because if there's no difference, then the judges have to

432
00:23:33,400 --> 00:23:37,040
Speaker 1: decide is this an urgent humanitarian reason or a significant

433
00:23:37,040 --> 00:23:40,600
Speaker 1: public benefit or isn't it. And I think that's going

434
00:23:40,640 --> 00:23:43,679
Speaker 1: to be a very interesting question which will just be

435
00:23:43,760 --> 00:23:45,400
Speaker 1: in the eye of the beholder.

436
00:23:45,359 --> 00:23:47,840
Speaker 2: And the beholder will be a Texast judge and then

437
00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:52,280
Speaker 2: the very conservative Fifth Circuit. This goes to my next question.

438
00:23:52,680 --> 00:23:56,080
Speaker 2: They're asking for an injunction to stop the applications, etc.

439
00:23:56,480 --> 00:23:59,560
Speaker 2: While the lawsuit plays out, is it likely that a

440
00:23:59,720 --> 00:24:02,480
Speaker 2: check this judge will give them an injunction. I'm not

441
00:24:02,520 --> 00:24:04,720
Speaker 2: sure which judge is in charge of this case.

442
00:24:05,680 --> 00:24:08,959
Speaker 1: Well, I think the judge that got assigned in the

443
00:24:08,960 --> 00:24:13,000
Speaker 1: Eastern Districts of Texas may in fact grant the injunction.

444
00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:17,560
Speaker 1: But the point is going to be, you know, about

445
00:24:17,640 --> 00:24:21,080
Speaker 1: standing really at the end of the day, because I

446
00:24:21,080 --> 00:24:24,320
Speaker 1: think these judges are sympathetic in the Eastern Districts of

447
00:24:24,359 --> 00:24:27,199
Speaker 1: Texas to the arguments that are being made by the

448
00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:29,879
Speaker 1: State of Texas. But I think the issue is just

449
00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:33,000
Speaker 1: going to be can they survive this question of standing?

450
00:24:33,480 --> 00:24:35,240
Speaker 1: Where is the harm that they're going to be able

451
00:24:35,280 --> 00:24:38,320
Speaker 1: to show here? And if they lose on standing, then no,

452
00:24:38,359 --> 00:24:41,360
Speaker 1: they won't get the injunction. But I do think if

453
00:24:41,400 --> 00:24:44,000
Speaker 1: they can get fast to standing, then I think in

454
00:24:44,119 --> 00:24:47,159
Speaker 1: general that will mean the court is sympathetic toward wanting

455
00:24:47,200 --> 00:24:51,280
Speaker 1: to end this program and will then enjoying the program.

456
00:24:51,480 --> 00:24:53,320
Speaker 1: They'll have to go all the way to the Supreme Court,

457
00:24:53,400 --> 00:24:57,400
Speaker 1: probably because the Fifth Circuit will probably maintain that injunction

458
00:24:57,560 --> 00:24:58,960
Speaker 1: and they'll have to go to the Supreme Court to

459
00:24:59,000 --> 00:25:01,920
Speaker 1: try to get a stay. And the question is will

460
00:25:01,960 --> 00:25:04,000
Speaker 1: they be able to get such a say, I don't know.

461
00:25:04,119 --> 00:25:07,640
Speaker 1: Sometimes the Supreme Court in these recent cases hasn't allowed

462
00:25:07,680 --> 00:25:10,400
Speaker 1: to say they've kept the injunction in place. And then

463
00:25:10,520 --> 00:25:12,760
Speaker 1: only when the case finally works its way up to

464
00:25:12,800 --> 00:25:15,240
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court do they end up making a decision

465
00:25:15,280 --> 00:25:17,679
Speaker 1: that supports what divided the administration wanted.

466
00:25:17,960 --> 00:25:19,640
Speaker 2: To get in this program, they have to pay a

467
00:25:19,680 --> 00:25:22,800
Speaker 2: five hundred eighty dollars fee, fill out a long questionnaire,

468
00:25:23,240 --> 00:25:27,960
Speaker 2: an explanation of why they deserve humanitarian parole, and supporting

469
00:25:28,040 --> 00:25:30,320
Speaker 2: documents about how long they've been in the country. There

470
00:25:30,359 --> 00:25:33,720
Speaker 2: hasn't been anybody who's been assessed at this point. I mean,

471
00:25:33,760 --> 00:25:36,600
Speaker 2: does it sound like it's more than just a rubber stamp.

472
00:25:37,000 --> 00:25:40,600
Speaker 1: Well, I think the question is going to be whether

473
00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:42,600
Speaker 1: this really is going to be done on a case

474
00:25:42,600 --> 00:25:45,960
Speaker 1: by case discretionary basis. And I do think some people

475
00:25:45,960 --> 00:25:48,600
Speaker 1: will be denied, because people are always denied. People were

476
00:25:48,600 --> 00:25:50,720
Speaker 1: denied for DOCA to the program that was done for

477
00:25:50,800 --> 00:25:54,439
Speaker 1: undocumented children, the Deferred Action Program, there were children that

478
00:25:54,480 --> 00:25:58,560
Speaker 1: were denied for DOCA who met the criteria of the program,

479
00:25:58,600 --> 00:26:01,280
Speaker 1: but we're still denied as a matter of discretion, and

480
00:26:01,359 --> 00:26:04,119
Speaker 1: usually that might be because someone had an arrest, or

481
00:26:04,200 --> 00:26:08,399
Speaker 1: they have something problematic in their background or something of

482
00:26:08,400 --> 00:26:10,920
Speaker 1: that effect. So not everyone is going to get in.

483
00:26:11,320 --> 00:26:14,080
Speaker 1: But the question is, if it's ninety eight percent ninety

484
00:26:14,160 --> 00:26:18,520
Speaker 1: nine percent, is that still a programmatic program or is

485
00:26:18,520 --> 00:26:21,920
Speaker 1: it still a case by case determination. Now the court

486
00:26:21,960 --> 00:26:25,520
Speaker 1: won't have the benefit of that analysis here, but they

487
00:26:25,560 --> 00:26:28,560
Speaker 1: may have it from other programs that can be looked

488
00:26:28,600 --> 00:26:32,320
Speaker 1: at that were also deemed to be case by case applications,

489
00:26:32,520 --> 00:26:36,439
Speaker 1: such as the Cuban Hation Nicaragua Venezuelan program that was

490
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:38,840
Speaker 1: done and that was to parole people from outside the

491
00:26:38,920 --> 00:26:42,639
Speaker 1: United States, and also DACA. So that's the state of

492
00:26:42,720 --> 00:26:45,480
Speaker 1: tex state of the judges. Every time they say they're

493
00:26:45,480 --> 00:26:49,160
Speaker 1: doing these case by case determinations, they're still approving high

494
00:26:49,240 --> 00:26:53,680
Speaker 1: ninety percentile applications. So are these really case by case

495
00:26:53,720 --> 00:26:56,159
Speaker 1: determination that will again be in the eye of the

496
00:26:56,160 --> 00:26:59,600
Speaker 1: beholder of the judge to determine based on their individual

497
00:26:59,640 --> 00:27:01,399
Speaker 1: of stuff of that definition.

498
00:27:02,200 --> 00:27:07,919
Speaker 2: Texas has been bussing migrants to New York for some months.

499
00:27:08,040 --> 00:27:11,160
Speaker 2: Texas has apparently stopped bussing migrants to New York.

500
00:27:11,240 --> 00:27:15,439
Speaker 1: Ques. Yes, Why what happens is that at the moment,

501
00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:19,400
Speaker 1: there seems to be a hold in place that's been

502
00:27:19,440 --> 00:27:23,359
Speaker 1: happening as a result of this Biden administration closing the border.

503
00:27:23,400 --> 00:27:26,560
Speaker 1: It's been very interesting because you've had the ACLU not

504
00:27:26,720 --> 00:27:30,719
Speaker 1: actually asked for a preliminary injunction to get rid of

505
00:27:30,720 --> 00:27:34,080
Speaker 1: that policy. There actually appears to be a datante there

506
00:27:34,440 --> 00:27:38,199
Speaker 1: where they're taking the slow road and basically letting the

507
00:27:38,240 --> 00:27:42,200
Speaker 1: Biden administration get through the election. And so the combination

508
00:27:42,320 --> 00:27:47,480
Speaker 1: of that asylum ban, and the combination of Mexico enforcing

509
00:27:47,680 --> 00:27:52,639
Speaker 1: its border, and the combination of Panama also enforcing not

510
00:27:52,760 --> 00:27:56,600
Speaker 1: letting people get from South America into Panama, all of

511
00:27:56,640 --> 00:28:01,280
Speaker 1: that accumulation has really reduced an number of people appearing

512
00:28:01,320 --> 00:28:04,840
Speaker 1: at the southern border to ride across illegally. And so

513
00:28:04,960 --> 00:28:08,360
Speaker 1: because of that, there just aren't enough people for the

514
00:28:08,400 --> 00:28:12,200
Speaker 1: Abbot administration in Texas. I actually put on buses and

515
00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:13,560
Speaker 1: sent to other places.

516
00:28:14,160 --> 00:28:17,600
Speaker 2: Thanks so much. Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and

517
00:28:17,680 --> 00:28:21,280
Speaker 2: Knight coming up next. Some unusual aspects of the j

518
00:28:21,440 --> 00:28:24,320
Speaker 2: Lo ben Affleck divorce. This is Bloomberg.

519
00:28:26,320 --> 00:28:26,919
Speaker 1: You're saying that.

520
00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:36,560
Speaker 2: The salary it's just a song and no indication of

521
00:28:36,600 --> 00:28:40,720
Speaker 2: how Jennifer Lopez is feeling after filing for divorce from

522
00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:44,920
Speaker 2: Ben Affleck, exactly two years after they were married. The

523
00:28:45,040 --> 00:28:49,160
Speaker 2: couple famously split in two thousand and three, calling off

524
00:28:49,160 --> 00:28:53,280
Speaker 2: their first engagement. Both went their separate ways, got married,

525
00:28:53,520 --> 00:28:58,040
Speaker 2: had kids, got divorced, and almost twenty years later found

526
00:28:58,040 --> 00:29:01,080
Speaker 2: their way back to each other. And now Lopez has

527
00:29:01,120 --> 00:29:05,800
Speaker 2: filed for divorce. Joining me is celebrity divorce lawyer Christopher Melcher,

528
00:29:06,160 --> 00:29:09,240
Speaker 2: a partner at Wallser Melcher and Yoda Chris. This is

529
00:29:09,280 --> 00:29:13,520
Speaker 2: her fourth marriage, his second marriage. I haven't read anything

530
00:29:13,560 --> 00:29:17,200
Speaker 2: about a prenup. Would you be surprised if there wasn't

531
00:29:17,240 --> 00:29:17,840
Speaker 2: a prenup.

532
00:29:18,080 --> 00:29:21,800
Speaker 5: It's highly unlikely that this couple got married without a

533
00:29:21,880 --> 00:29:26,600
Speaker 5: premarital agreement. They've been married before, They've had other relationships.

534
00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:31,000
Speaker 5: They're both wealthy with kids of prior relationships that need

535
00:29:31,040 --> 00:29:35,120
Speaker 5: to be protected or inheritance rights, so it would be

536
00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:38,520
Speaker 5: improbable in my mind that they got married without a

537
00:29:38,520 --> 00:29:39,440
Speaker 5: premaral agreement.

538
00:29:39,600 --> 00:29:43,160
Speaker 2: According to things that I've read Tabloid and others, they

539
00:29:43,440 --> 00:29:46,440
Speaker 2: pre planned the terms of the split, and he had

540
00:29:46,480 --> 00:29:49,280
Speaker 2: moved out of the house in something like May, and

541
00:29:49,360 --> 00:29:52,480
Speaker 2: they put the mansion on the market in June. So

542
00:29:52,680 --> 00:29:56,560
Speaker 2: she filed pro per without a lawyer. That seems unusual.

543
00:29:56,680 --> 00:29:57,400
Speaker 2: Is it unusual?

544
00:29:57,760 --> 00:30:01,400
Speaker 5: It's really unusual. There's no way in my mind that

545
00:30:01,480 --> 00:30:04,200
Speaker 5: she did this without the assistance of a lawyer. She

546
00:30:04,320 --> 00:30:07,680
Speaker 5: just chose not to list the name of that lawyer

547
00:30:07,760 --> 00:30:12,520
Speaker 5: on the paperwork. I think this was probably for image purposes,

548
00:30:13,080 --> 00:30:16,240
Speaker 5: to make it look like this would not be a fight,

549
00:30:16,440 --> 00:30:19,479
Speaker 5: that it's going to be just processed as an agreed

550
00:30:19,560 --> 00:30:22,040
Speaker 5: upon divorce. So I think that's the message she's trying

551
00:30:22,080 --> 00:30:25,720
Speaker 5: to send with the no lawyer listed on the paperwork.

552
00:30:26,120 --> 00:30:30,640
Speaker 5: Most of these cases are resolved before they file in court,

553
00:30:31,200 --> 00:30:33,440
Speaker 5: and that's the smartest way to go because they can

554
00:30:33,520 --> 00:30:37,600
Speaker 5: maintain their privacy and they can do it quietly agree

555
00:30:37,640 --> 00:30:41,160
Speaker 5: on all the terms. The only reason why she needed

556
00:30:41,160 --> 00:30:43,800
Speaker 5: to file for divorce and that instance, is to get

557
00:30:44,080 --> 00:30:47,360
Speaker 5: their marriage terminated, because the judge has to be the

558
00:30:47,400 --> 00:30:50,680
Speaker 5: one who ends the marriage, and they can only do

559
00:30:50,760 --> 00:30:53,800
Speaker 5: that with an active case. So that's probably what we're

560
00:30:53,800 --> 00:30:57,760
Speaker 5: seeing is a fully documented and agreed upon settlement of

561
00:30:57,880 --> 00:31:02,520
Speaker 5: all financial issues. It's already signed by them, and now

562
00:31:02,680 --> 00:31:05,520
Speaker 5: she just needed to file this case to ask the

563
00:31:05,600 --> 00:31:07,800
Speaker 5: judge to terminate their marital status.

564
00:31:08,280 --> 00:31:12,320
Speaker 2: She listed the date of separation as April twenty sixth.

565
00:31:12,480 --> 00:31:14,240
Speaker 2: Why is that significant?

566
00:31:14,800 --> 00:31:19,240
Speaker 5: In California, we have a partnership model for marriage, So

567
00:31:19,760 --> 00:31:22,680
Speaker 5: any property that either spouse acquired from the date of

568
00:31:22,720 --> 00:31:27,200
Speaker 5: marriage to the date of separation is community property and

569
00:31:27,280 --> 00:31:33,040
Speaker 5: is shared fifteen fifty. So when the spouses stop living

570
00:31:33,080 --> 00:31:36,160
Speaker 5: together with the intention of ending the marriage, and one

571
00:31:36,200 --> 00:31:40,560
Speaker 5: spouse is communicated, hey, we're done, then they're legally separated.

572
00:31:40,600 --> 00:31:45,320
Speaker 5: That terminates or ends this marital partnership. So that's why

573
00:31:45,400 --> 00:31:47,200
Speaker 5: it's important to know the date of marriage and the

574
00:31:47,280 --> 00:31:51,840
Speaker 5: data separation to understand what assets or streams of income

575
00:31:51,920 --> 00:31:54,520
Speaker 5: were acquired or earned during that period.

576
00:31:55,280 --> 00:31:57,959
Speaker 2: And as far as we know, the mansion in Beverly

577
00:31:58,040 --> 00:32:01,440
Speaker 2: Hills worth something like sixty million, is the main asset

578
00:32:01,720 --> 00:32:03,560
Speaker 2: that was acquired after they were married.

579
00:32:04,000 --> 00:32:07,360
Speaker 5: They did acquire this really expensive property in Beverly Hills

580
00:32:07,440 --> 00:32:11,040
Speaker 5: during their marriage, so that would be community property unless

581
00:32:11,040 --> 00:32:14,920
Speaker 5: they had a premarital agreement or other side agreement that

582
00:32:15,080 --> 00:32:19,520
Speaker 5: made it different, like equally separate or owned in separate

583
00:32:19,560 --> 00:32:24,000
Speaker 5: proportions to each other. The down payment that was made

584
00:32:24,080 --> 00:32:26,920
Speaker 5: on the house if it came from like for example,

585
00:32:27,000 --> 00:32:30,800
Speaker 5: Jennifer's premarital property. Then by lass you would be credited

586
00:32:30,840 --> 00:32:33,440
Speaker 5: with that and get reimbursed off the top for the

587
00:32:33,480 --> 00:32:37,080
Speaker 5: down payment, and only the appreciation would be split with

588
00:32:37,240 --> 00:32:40,360
Speaker 5: then again unless they had some other kind of arrangement.

589
00:32:40,920 --> 00:32:43,880
Speaker 5: The problem though, is that this house was not owned

590
00:32:43,880 --> 00:32:47,000
Speaker 5: for very long, and it might have increased in value

591
00:32:47,120 --> 00:32:50,320
Speaker 5: a bit, but it's very expensive to sell a home.

592
00:32:50,840 --> 00:32:53,640
Speaker 5: There's not only the real estate commissions, but in Los

593
00:32:53,680 --> 00:32:56,720
Speaker 5: Angeles we have a mansion tax. So if the house

594
00:32:56,760 --> 00:33:00,800
Speaker 5: succeeds five million dollars, there's quite an expensive taxes that

595
00:33:00,840 --> 00:33:05,280
Speaker 5: are levied on that property. So this would likely result

596
00:33:05,320 --> 00:33:06,760
Speaker 5: in a loss to the couple.

597
00:33:07,960 --> 00:33:10,560
Speaker 2: So she asked for no spousal support, and she asked

598
00:33:10,560 --> 00:33:14,680
Speaker 2: that afflic not get any either. I mean with very

599
00:33:14,800 --> 00:33:20,040
Speaker 2: rich people who go into marriage later, who have children

600
00:33:20,240 --> 00:33:22,840
Speaker 2: from separate marriages, I mean, is there normally a lot

601
00:33:22,880 --> 00:33:26,520
Speaker 2: of fighting or controversy in the divorce or is it.

602
00:33:26,440 --> 00:33:31,680
Speaker 5: Easier, Well, it should be easier to solve these problems

603
00:33:31,760 --> 00:33:35,920
Speaker 5: between two wealthy couples, but it's all relative. It doesn't

604
00:33:35,960 --> 00:33:38,800
Speaker 5: matter how much money somebody has, they never want to

605
00:33:38,840 --> 00:33:43,240
Speaker 5: give it to their former spouse or partner and there's

606
00:33:43,320 --> 00:33:47,000
Speaker 5: a lot of resentment or resistance to sharing after a

607
00:33:47,080 --> 00:33:50,960
Speaker 5: marriage relationship is broken up. Now Here, either one of

608
00:33:51,000 --> 00:33:54,920
Speaker 5: these has no need for support. They're extraordinarily wealthy. There's

609
00:33:54,920 --> 00:33:57,560
Speaker 5: no need for support from one or the other. So

610
00:33:57,600 --> 00:34:00,600
Speaker 5: that wasn't going to be really an issue. In other

611
00:34:00,680 --> 00:34:04,240
Speaker 5: cases in California, when one spouse has all the money

612
00:34:04,280 --> 00:34:06,800
Speaker 5: and the other is left really without any assets, there's

613
00:34:06,840 --> 00:34:11,640
Speaker 5: going to be substantial spouse will support to maintain that

614
00:34:11,960 --> 00:34:13,840
Speaker 5: spouse at the marital standard of living.

615
00:34:14,719 --> 00:34:18,040
Speaker 2: She requested a new name on their filing. She got

616
00:34:18,120 --> 00:34:23,799
Speaker 2: some criticism for changing her name when she got married. Nowadays,

617
00:34:24,000 --> 00:34:27,239
Speaker 2: do most women keep their own name or change their name?

618
00:34:27,800 --> 00:34:31,680
Speaker 5: Well, certainly things have evolved over time with regard to

619
00:34:31,719 --> 00:34:36,319
Speaker 5: women taking their husband's surname. But here she has the

620
00:34:36,400 --> 00:34:40,479
Speaker 5: right to have her maiden name restored, so she has

621
00:34:40,920 --> 00:34:44,800
Speaker 5: checked that box on her divorce petition, which is common.

622
00:34:45,400 --> 00:34:50,400
Speaker 5: And so when the wife chooses to take her husband's surname,

623
00:34:51,160 --> 00:34:56,080
Speaker 5: sometimes they'll maintain that surname married name if they have

624
00:34:56,200 --> 00:35:01,000
Speaker 5: children together, because it's just whatever reason seems to be

625
00:35:01,120 --> 00:35:06,520
Speaker 5: more convenient or less confusing for the mom to maintain

626
00:35:07,160 --> 00:35:10,440
Speaker 5: her married name when they have kids together, but when

627
00:35:10,440 --> 00:35:14,160
Speaker 5: there's no children, many times we will see a request

628
00:35:14,280 --> 00:35:15,960
Speaker 5: to restore the maiden name.

629
00:35:16,600 --> 00:35:21,440
Speaker 2: She filed for the divorce. Is it just how it looks?

630
00:35:21,520 --> 00:35:24,759
Speaker 2: Is there any advantage for one party to file rather

631
00:35:24,800 --> 00:35:25,279
Speaker 2: than the other.

632
00:35:25,960 --> 00:35:28,560
Speaker 5: There's a slight legal advantage to being the first to

633
00:35:28,640 --> 00:35:33,200
Speaker 5: file because they can maintain the initiative over the case.

634
00:35:33,200 --> 00:35:35,520
Speaker 5: As the petitioner. They get to go first if there's

635
00:35:35,560 --> 00:35:38,880
Speaker 5: a trial, but most of these cases are not litigated.

636
00:35:39,400 --> 00:35:43,719
Speaker 5: They're mostly all settled, so the decision on who the

637
00:35:43,760 --> 00:35:47,760
Speaker 5: petitioner will be sometimes is left up to a coin flip.

638
00:35:47,800 --> 00:35:50,600
Speaker 5: If the couple's really getting along and because there can

639
00:35:50,680 --> 00:35:53,839
Speaker 5: only be one petitioner and then the other is automatically

640
00:35:53,880 --> 00:35:57,719
Speaker 5: they responded, So sometimes they'll just flip a coin to

641
00:35:57,760 --> 00:36:00,000
Speaker 5: figure out who's going to be the person to file first.

642
00:36:00,600 --> 00:36:03,520
Speaker 5: Other times there's a lot of messaging and thought around it,

643
00:36:03,560 --> 00:36:07,000
Speaker 5: which I would suspect is going on here. Where was

644
00:36:07,040 --> 00:36:11,000
Speaker 5: important for Jennifer to be the one who took the

645
00:36:11,080 --> 00:36:13,759
Speaker 5: lead and said I am filing for divorce. I want

646
00:36:13,800 --> 00:36:17,560
Speaker 5: this divorce. Maybe Ben had said, Hey, if you want

647
00:36:17,600 --> 00:36:19,440
Speaker 5: a divorce, fine, I'm not going to fight you, but

648
00:36:19,480 --> 00:36:21,680
Speaker 5: I'm not going to be the one asking for it.

649
00:36:22,280 --> 00:36:26,040
Speaker 5: So there's a lot of dynamics that are involved with

650
00:36:26,120 --> 00:36:30,040
Speaker 5: that relationship that will dictate who's going to be the

651
00:36:30,080 --> 00:36:31,120
Speaker 5: one to file first.

652
00:36:31,719 --> 00:36:37,120
Speaker 2: And speaking of appearances, she filed on the second anniversary

653
00:36:37,480 --> 00:36:42,680
Speaker 2: of their Georgia wedding and hours before the Obama spoke

654
00:36:42,719 --> 00:36:46,200
Speaker 2: at the convention. I take it hours before the Obama

655
00:36:46,200 --> 00:36:49,360
Speaker 2: spoke because she hoped somehow that this wouldn't be noticed.

656
00:36:49,680 --> 00:36:53,000
Speaker 2: How could that be? But is there any message or

657
00:36:53,040 --> 00:36:55,480
Speaker 2: anything about filing on the second anniversary.

658
00:36:56,360 --> 00:36:56,879
Speaker 1: I got to.

659
00:36:56,800 --> 00:37:01,120
Speaker 5: Think that there's some reason why she filed the day

660
00:37:01,239 --> 00:37:04,920
Speaker 5: she did, because there was no urgency to it. So

661
00:37:04,960 --> 00:37:08,560
Speaker 5: some some spouses need to file immediately to get protection,

662
00:37:09,040 --> 00:37:13,120
Speaker 5: financial protection or protection against abuse, and that'll drive the

663
00:37:13,160 --> 00:37:15,799
Speaker 5: filing date. Here, there was no reason for her to

664
00:37:15,840 --> 00:37:18,839
Speaker 5: file on that date other than to send some kind

665
00:37:18,840 --> 00:37:22,600
Speaker 5: of message that you know, this was two years, you know,

666
00:37:22,920 --> 00:37:27,520
Speaker 5: a second anniversary. Or what I think more cynically is

667
00:37:27,560 --> 00:37:31,520
Speaker 5: that she picked a date that would also involve a

668
00:37:31,520 --> 00:37:34,640
Speaker 5: lot of media attention to try to detract from it

669
00:37:35,040 --> 00:37:39,800
Speaker 5: now and that that did bear out true. Although the

670
00:37:39,880 --> 00:37:42,719
Speaker 5: story got quite a bit of attention on the day

671
00:37:42,760 --> 00:37:45,840
Speaker 5: that it was filed. There were a lot of reporters

672
00:37:45,880 --> 00:37:50,920
Speaker 5: who were engaged with the Democratic National Convention, and so

673
00:37:51,040 --> 00:37:54,600
Speaker 5: that did detract at least some of the initial attention

674
00:37:54,719 --> 00:37:55,560
Speaker 5: away from the case.

675
00:37:56,400 --> 00:38:01,759
Speaker 2: And pren ups. Are prenups still for the rich or

676
00:38:01,840 --> 00:38:05,759
Speaker 2: are they more for people who have blended families? Where

677
00:38:05,760 --> 00:38:07,680
Speaker 2: do you see the most prenups or is it just

678
00:38:07,719 --> 00:38:08,560
Speaker 2: across the board.

679
00:38:09,520 --> 00:38:11,560
Speaker 5: I mean, we see a lot of people asking for

680
00:38:11,680 --> 00:38:15,680
Speaker 5: prenups that maybe don't need them. Certainly, I think that

681
00:38:15,719 --> 00:38:20,400
Speaker 5: they're indicated when a spouse or perspective spouse has children

682
00:38:20,400 --> 00:38:25,319
Speaker 5: from a prior relationship, because there's rights of inheritance that

683
00:38:25,640 --> 00:38:29,160
Speaker 5: need to be preserved for those children of the prior marriage,

684
00:38:29,239 --> 00:38:33,239
Speaker 5: let's say, and it's just a really horrible thing to

685
00:38:33,320 --> 00:38:37,440
Speaker 5: put the child at verse now to this step parent

686
00:38:37,560 --> 00:38:41,919
Speaker 5: that's coming on seeing And so the way I look

687
00:38:41,960 --> 00:38:45,520
Speaker 5: at it is that perspective spouse with the kids has

688
00:38:45,560 --> 00:38:48,799
Speaker 5: prior obligations to those children and also now taking on

689
00:38:48,920 --> 00:38:52,719
Speaker 5: new obligations to the spouse. So a prenup is a

690
00:38:52,719 --> 00:38:55,319
Speaker 5: really nice way of balancing those things, and I think

691
00:38:55,760 --> 00:38:59,760
Speaker 5: is appropriate. The other time is when we have somebody

692
00:38:59,760 --> 00:39:04,560
Speaker 5: with the extraordinary wealth and complex finances, that need to

693
00:39:04,600 --> 00:39:08,600
Speaker 5: be protected and also just make it easy to sort

694
00:39:08,640 --> 00:39:12,240
Speaker 5: out in the event of a breakup. That is fine

695
00:39:12,280 --> 00:39:14,560
Speaker 5: in my mind to have a premieral agreement, but not

696
00:39:14,640 --> 00:39:17,680
Speaker 5: a one sided you get nothing and like it deal,

697
00:39:18,120 --> 00:39:22,600
Speaker 5: which is oftentimes what's proposed. And sure that's most protective,

698
00:39:22,640 --> 00:39:27,680
Speaker 5: but it's also detrimental, I think to the relationship because

699
00:39:27,680 --> 00:39:32,200
Speaker 5: it creates a power imbalance and resentment there where one

700
00:39:32,239 --> 00:39:35,600
Speaker 5: spouse has everything and the other spouse has nothing. And

701
00:39:36,080 --> 00:39:39,880
Speaker 5: to think that that party, that unmoneyed party, is going

702
00:39:39,960 --> 00:39:43,600
Speaker 5: to be happy in that situation is just really unrealistic.

703
00:39:43,960 --> 00:39:46,920
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me, Chris. That celebrity divorce

704
00:39:46,960 --> 00:39:49,759
Speaker 2: attorney Christopher Melcher, And that's it for this edition of

705
00:39:49,760 --> 00:39:52,800
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law podcast. Remember you can always get the

706
00:39:52,880 --> 00:39:55,800
Speaker 2: latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the show

707
00:39:55,960 --> 00:40:00,520
Speaker 2: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com podcast

708
00:40:00,560 --> 00:40:04,440
Speaker 2: slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg