1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,360
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,440 --> 00:00:10,239
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,280 --> 00:00:13,240
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,280 --> 00:00:17,840
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:22,360
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The Supreme Court

6
00:00:22,400 --> 00:00:25,480
Speaker 1: has agreed to rule on President Trump's third travel Band.

7
00:00:25,800 --> 00:00:28,639
Speaker 1: The administration is appealing a decision of the Ninth Circuit

8
00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:32,280
Speaker 1: that said Trump overstepped his authority by restricting entry into

9
00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:36,360
Speaker 1: the country by people from six mostly Muslim countries. Joining

10
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:40,200
Speaker 1: me is David Beer, immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

11
00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:44,320
Speaker 1: David the Supreme Court has considered earlier versions of the

12
00:00:44,360 --> 00:00:49,480
Speaker 1: travel band, tell us what it did well. It really

13
00:00:49,520 --> 00:00:53,720
Speaker 1: decided not to hear those cases because of the fact

14
00:00:53,840 --> 00:01:00,640
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration changed the executive order on multiple occasions,

15
00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:04,760
Speaker 1: and so on each occasion in which it amended that

16
00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:08,800
Speaker 1: original executive order that came out in January that caused

17
00:01:08,840 --> 00:01:12,720
Speaker 1: so much disruption at airports, uh, it replaced that with

18
00:01:12,760 --> 00:01:15,000
Speaker 1: a new one in March, and then it replaced that

19
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:19,679
Speaker 1: one again in September. So when it replaced that final

20
00:01:19,720 --> 00:01:22,560
Speaker 1: one in in September decided not to rule in those

21
00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:26,160
Speaker 1: earlier cases that were decided in lower courts based on

22
00:01:26,200 --> 00:01:30,319
Speaker 1: the original proposal. It did agree to let the travel

23
00:01:30,440 --> 00:01:33,840
Speaker 1: ban in its current state take full effect as the

24
00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:38,760
Speaker 1: case moves forward. That's correct. So the with respect of

25
00:01:38,800 --> 00:01:43,360
Speaker 1: this initial this final version, UH, it did allow this

26
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:48,680
Speaker 1: version to go into effect in December, and it's currently

27
00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:53,440
Speaker 1: being implemented by the administration while it here's arguments on

28
00:01:53,480 --> 00:01:56,320
Speaker 1: the case. So what are the claims of the administration

29
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:01,600
Speaker 1: the blow The administration claims that this is a perfectly

30
00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:06,280
Speaker 1: legal exercise of authority granted to it by Congress through

31
00:02:06,320 --> 00:02:09,760
Speaker 1: the Immigration and Nationality Act that has been around since

32
00:02:10,120 --> 00:02:13,480
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty two, and that many UH presidents in the

33
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:20,079
Speaker 1: past have done similar actions to bar um certain immigrants

34
00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:23,040
Speaker 1: from coming to the United States. Are certain foreign travelers

35
00:02:23,120 --> 00:02:26,200
Speaker 1: from entering the country, And what are the claims of

36
00:02:26,240 --> 00:02:30,800
Speaker 1: the challengers? Well, the challengers argue that this is motivated

37
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:36,239
Speaker 1: by UH in part by the president's animus against Muslims,

38
00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 1: and UH you know, he had repeat on repeated occasions

39
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:44,600
Speaker 1: during his campaign, stated a desire to ban Muslims from

40
00:02:44,600 --> 00:02:47,440
Speaker 1: coming to the United States, and he specifically tied this

41
00:02:47,639 --> 00:02:52,840
Speaker 1: proposal of barring certain travelers from certain regions of the

42
00:02:52,880 --> 00:02:58,480
Speaker 1: country to that original Muslim band proposal. And so their

43
00:02:58,560 --> 00:03:01,000
Speaker 1: argument is that this violet. It's the first amendment of

44
00:03:01,000 --> 00:03:07,000
Speaker 1: the Constitution that protects Americans, uh and really even foreigners

45
00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:10,160
Speaker 1: from the exercise of government power in a way to

46
00:03:10,680 --> 00:03:14,560
Speaker 1: promote a certain religion or disadvantage a certain religion. Along

47
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:18,799
Speaker 1: with that, the challengers assert that he's violating the immigration

48
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:23,359
Speaker 1: laws in multiple ways. In one way, the laws banned

49
00:03:23,440 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 1: him discriminating against immigrants based on where they were born

50
00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:31,960
Speaker 1: or where they live, or based on their nationality, which

51
00:03:32,040 --> 00:03:37,400
Speaker 1: this band clearly does. And the last assertion that the

52
00:03:37,480 --> 00:03:42,720
Speaker 1: challengers make is that it exceeds the authority even granted

53
00:03:42,720 --> 00:03:47,080
Speaker 1: by Congress to the President to ban certain uh, certain

54
00:03:47,080 --> 00:03:51,560
Speaker 1: categories of people because he did not make a sufficient

55
00:03:51,640 --> 00:03:54,920
Speaker 1: finding that they would be detrimental to the country. Uh.

56
00:03:55,040 --> 00:03:57,960
Speaker 1: He just kind of uh put out this order without

57
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:02,680
Speaker 1: enough justification that I believe that only two justices dissented

58
00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:05,280
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court decided in December to let the

59
00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:08,720
Speaker 1: travel ban take full effect. As the case moves forward,

60
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:12,920
Speaker 1: is that a sign that the Court will be likely

61
00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 1: to uphold the travel ban. I would argue that it

62
00:04:16,640 --> 00:04:19,599
Speaker 1: absolutely is a sign of the direction that the court

63
00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:23,000
Speaker 1: is leaning. Um. They actually issued that order before the

64
00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:27,520
Speaker 1: lower court, the appeals courts had made their rulings on

65
00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:32,799
Speaker 1: the issue. And so to intervene to allow this order

66
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:36,080
Speaker 1: to go into effect even before they have heard arguments

67
00:04:36,120 --> 00:04:39,400
Speaker 1: on it, or even before the appeals courts have heard

68
00:04:39,520 --> 00:04:43,000
Speaker 1: arguments on it, certainly implies that they are quite receptive

69
00:04:43,040 --> 00:04:45,480
Speaker 1: to the arguments that the government is making in this case.

70
00:04:45,920 --> 00:04:50,400
Speaker 1: And although the appeals court did not reach the issue

71
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:55,160
Speaker 1: of whether this travel ban discriminates against Muslims and violates

72
00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:57,719
Speaker 1: the Constitution in that way, but the Supreme Court is

73
00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 1: going to consider it. Is that unusual? So outside the

74
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:05,800
Speaker 1: appeals court decision, Uh No, not not really. UM. In

75
00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:09,880
Speaker 1: the case of the other immigration, big immigration case that

76
00:05:09,960 --> 00:05:15,000
Speaker 1: came before the court under the Obama administration, they urged

77
00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:22,600
Speaker 1: the parties to um consider the constitutional ramifications of the

78
00:05:22,600 --> 00:05:26,640
Speaker 1: Obama administration's moves on immigration, even though the lower courts

79
00:05:26,680 --> 00:05:31,159
Speaker 1: did not consider uh that argument. And so, uh, it's

80
00:05:31,200 --> 00:05:36,600
Speaker 1: not unusual for the courts to, you know, tell that

81
00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:39,000
Speaker 1: the parties that they want to hear arguments on a

82
00:05:39,040 --> 00:05:42,880
Speaker 1: certain issue that has not so far been determined. And

83
00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:46,920
Speaker 1: I would note that the Fourth the Fourth Circuit Court

84
00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:49,960
Speaker 1: of Appeals is still hearing a case related to this

85
00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:53,599
Speaker 1: travel ban, and in prior versions it has found that

86
00:05:53,680 --> 00:05:57,840
Speaker 1: the order does violate the First Amendment of the Constitution

87
00:05:57,920 --> 00:06:01,800
Speaker 1: and the establishment clause of a constitution. So in about

88
00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:04,719
Speaker 1: forty five seconds here, what happens then, is that going

89
00:06:04,760 --> 00:06:08,159
Speaker 1: to be folded into this case in some way or

90
00:06:08,360 --> 00:06:13,880
Speaker 1: just this decision will determine what that decision is. Well,

91
00:06:13,880 --> 00:06:16,080
Speaker 1: it depends on when we hear from the Fourth Circuit,

92
00:06:16,200 --> 00:06:19,880
Speaker 1: but it could be folded into this case. It depends

93
00:06:19,880 --> 00:06:22,240
Speaker 1: on what the Supreme Court does, how quickly they act,

94
00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:25,840
Speaker 1: and how quickly to the Appeals Court acts and um.

95
00:06:25,920 --> 00:06:28,839
Speaker 1: So we expect that there will be a decision in

96
00:06:28,880 --> 00:06:33,240
Speaker 1: this case when the court leaves in June. Then that's right.

97
00:06:33,279 --> 00:06:35,359
Speaker 1: So they're gonna hear arguments in April, and then in

98
00:06:35,440 --> 00:06:38,480
Speaker 1: June they will issue a final decision and we'll finally

99
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:41,200
Speaker 1: get some clarity on on the powers of the president

100
00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:44,279
Speaker 1: when it comes to immigration. Well, David, you have been

101
00:06:44,320 --> 00:06:47,920
Speaker 1: here through all the travel bands and we appreciate it.

102
00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:51,200
Speaker 1: That's David Beer. He has an immigration policy analyst at

103
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:55,280
Speaker 1: the Cato Institute. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

104
00:06:55,640 --> 00:06:59,680
Speaker 1: You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

105
00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:03,680
Speaker 1: and on bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Grosso.

106
00:07:04,160 --> 00:07:13,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. MHM.