1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,080 Speaker 1: The Trump administration has finally gotten a winning court for 2 00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:06,960 Speaker 1: its travel ban, although it's only temporary. The Supreme Court 3 00:00:07,000 --> 00:00:09,680 Speaker 1: has put a lower court ruling on hold until the 4 00:00:09,800 --> 00:00:14,240 Speaker 1: justices rule on Trump's overall travel ban after oral arguments 5 00:00:14,280 --> 00:00:17,560 Speaker 1: on October tenth. The order will allow the administration to 6 00:00:17,680 --> 00:00:21,440 Speaker 1: temporarily stop as many as twenty four thousand refugees from 7 00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:25,160 Speaker 1: entering the country. Joining me are Leon Fresco, a partner 8 00:00:25,160 --> 00:00:28,360 Speaker 1: at Holland and Knight, and Josh Blackman, professor at South 9 00:00:28,440 --> 00:00:32,480 Speaker 1: Texas College of Law. Josh. This relates to one part 10 00:00:32,680 --> 00:00:36,159 Speaker 1: of an appeals court ruling, so give us the background 11 00:00:36,240 --> 00:00:40,000 Speaker 1: on that ruling. This is the case that goes on 12 00:00:40,080 --> 00:00:44,159 Speaker 1: and on and on. The most recent iteration at the 13 00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:47,280 Speaker 1: Supreme Court concerned whether the government can deny entry to 14 00:00:47,360 --> 00:00:51,319 Speaker 1: certain refugees who have what are called assurances from these 15 00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:55,400 Speaker 1: resettling agencies but don't have any sort of independent relationship 16 00:00:55,440 --> 00:00:58,080 Speaker 1: with the US person. The Court of Appeals for the 17 00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:00,640 Speaker 1: Ninth Circuits said the government was required or to admit 18 00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:04,960 Speaker 1: these people, numbering maybe twenty or so um. The Supreme Court, 19 00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:08,199 Speaker 1: in an unsigned order yesterday said, at least for now, 20 00:01:08,520 --> 00:01:12,640 Speaker 1: the government can continue denying entry to these refugees. Leon 21 00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:16,959 Speaker 1: what was the argument of the Trump administration asking the 22 00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:21,360 Speaker 1: justices to put this part of the ruling on hold. Well, 23 00:01:21,360 --> 00:01:25,000 Speaker 1: that's something administration basically made two points. The simplest point 24 00:01:25,160 --> 00:01:29,080 Speaker 1: was to say that there would have been no travel 25 00:01:29,160 --> 00:01:34,319 Speaker 1: ban on the refugee program if this arrangement about the 26 00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:38,679 Speaker 1: assurances from resettlement agency would have been considered them from 27 00:01:38,720 --> 00:01:41,959 Speaker 1: the travel ban, because every single refugee would meet that 28 00:01:42,080 --> 00:01:47,600 Speaker 1: criteria of having that that assurance from the Redugee Resettlement Agency, 29 00:01:47,680 --> 00:01:50,520 Speaker 1: that that that agreement. And so they said, there's no 30 00:01:50,560 --> 00:01:52,840 Speaker 1: way that the Freme Court would have issued a a 31 00:01:53,240 --> 00:01:56,520 Speaker 1: order restoring the travel ban for refugee but extending this 32 00:01:56,680 --> 00:01:59,880 Speaker 1: group because there there wouldn't be any group left to extend. 33 00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:03,320 Speaker 1: And then the larger issue is again that the sort 34 00:02:03,360 --> 00:02:07,000 Speaker 1: of global issue of what do process right? Somebody who 35 00:02:07,040 --> 00:02:11,520 Speaker 1: has absolutely no relationship or connection with the United States 36 00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:15,320 Speaker 1: has and UH the Chords stepped in and agreed that 37 00:02:15,400 --> 00:02:20,040 Speaker 1: in this refugee situation, where someone has no contact whatsoever 38 00:02:20,120 --> 00:02:23,280 Speaker 1: with any individual in the United States, it's not appropriate 39 00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:27,959 Speaker 1: to allow UH entry in at least until the travel 40 00:02:27,960 --> 00:02:31,800 Speaker 1: bandage you get for results on the merits and Josh, 41 00:02:31,919 --> 00:02:34,240 Speaker 1: the State of a Y has been fighting back hard 42 00:02:34,320 --> 00:02:38,120 Speaker 1: on all of these, uh, these issues before the Ninth Circuit. 43 00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:42,200 Speaker 1: What was the argument there, Well, the argument has to 44 00:02:42,240 --> 00:02:45,519 Speaker 1: do with the Supreme Court's order. Um, the Supreme Court 45 00:02:46,120 --> 00:02:49,600 Speaker 1: used somewhat nebulous language about how much of a relationship 46 00:02:50,240 --> 00:02:53,280 Speaker 1: a refugee has to have with the United States. Likewise, 47 00:02:53,280 --> 00:02:55,960 Speaker 1: the Court used somewhat nebulous language that amounts to a 48 00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:59,240 Speaker 1: close family member. So since June and July, the Ninth 49 00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:02,200 Speaker 1: Circuit and the US Government have been fighting over how 50 00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:06,040 Speaker 1: to read the Supreme Court's earlier decision. Um, my sense 51 00:03:06,120 --> 00:03:08,680 Speaker 1: is at this point, the Supreme Court is basically saying, Okay, 52 00:03:08,720 --> 00:03:11,359 Speaker 1: you guys, you've had your fun. We're going to hear 53 00:03:11,520 --> 00:03:14,640 Speaker 1: oral arguments in about a month. We'll take care of 54 00:03:14,639 --> 00:03:17,440 Speaker 1: it from here. Thanks for playing, and look look what 55 00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:19,959 Speaker 1: happens later. I think that's the message. The Court is 56 00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:22,720 Speaker 1: saying that, after months and months of bickering and fighting, 57 00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:25,799 Speaker 1: the Court will handle this, you know, perhaps once and 58 00:03:25,880 --> 00:03:29,840 Speaker 1: maybe for all. Josh, it's a one sentence order. And 59 00:03:29,919 --> 00:03:32,799 Speaker 1: since there were no dissents, can we assume that all 60 00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:36,960 Speaker 1: the justices agreed or might they not? Would be easy. 61 00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:40,000 Speaker 1: Wouldn't that be easy? It would be The Supreme Court 62 00:03:40,040 --> 00:03:44,000 Speaker 1: is an odd place, um, with these sorts of unsigned orders. 63 00:03:44,440 --> 00:03:47,360 Speaker 1: Even though there's no dissent, that doesn't mean that all 64 00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:50,440 Speaker 1: of the justices went along with it. And if you 65 00:03:50,520 --> 00:03:54,600 Speaker 1: read the one sentence closely, it basically says, here's our 66 00:03:54,640 --> 00:03:57,880 Speaker 1: ruling for now, which means that the justices reserved the 67 00:03:57,960 --> 00:04:00,640 Speaker 1: right to re visit it later next week, next month, 68 00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:04,480 Speaker 1: who knows, um. So it's really difficult to read too 69 00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:07,120 Speaker 1: far into it. But one thing that I think is 70 00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:11,360 Speaker 1: worth stressing the fact that the Court didn't I'm sorry, 71 00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:14,440 Speaker 1: the fact the Court blocked the Ninth Circuit pride at 72 00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:18,320 Speaker 1: least some evidence that a majority of the justices disagreed 73 00:04:18,320 --> 00:04:21,600 Speaker 1: with the Ninth Circuit, at least in part and in particular. 74 00:04:21,640 --> 00:04:24,680 Speaker 1: Justice Kennedy has his habit that when he votes to 75 00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:28,159 Speaker 1: put a lower court on hold, in almost every case, 76 00:04:28,320 --> 00:04:30,479 Speaker 1: he reverses the lower court. I've done the numbers in this, 77 00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:32,960 Speaker 1: so this this is somewhat of a good news for 78 00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:35,919 Speaker 1: the government. On several occasions, the lower court ruled against 79 00:04:35,960 --> 00:04:38,799 Speaker 1: the government, and in each case the Supreme Court pushed 80 00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:41,560 Speaker 1: back against the lower courts. We've been talking about the 81 00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:46,640 Speaker 1: Trump administration getting a temporary ruling from the Supreme Court 82 00:04:46,680 --> 00:04:50,680 Speaker 1: putting on hold until the Justice rule on Trump's overall 83 00:04:50,880 --> 00:04:55,000 Speaker 1: travel ban. What the Ninth Circuit had done, which is 84 00:04:55,520 --> 00:05:00,640 Speaker 1: allow thousand refugees who are connected with Refugee Association into 85 00:05:00,640 --> 00:05:03,400 Speaker 1: the company, that has now been put on stop. I've 86 00:05:03,400 --> 00:05:06,080 Speaker 1: been talking with Leon Fresco, a partnered Holland and Knight, 87 00:05:06,160 --> 00:05:10,479 Speaker 1: and Josh Blackman, professor at South Texas College of Law. Leon. 88 00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:15,960 Speaker 1: I'm curious the Trump administration said it disagreed with the 89 00:05:16,040 --> 00:05:21,000 Speaker 1: Ninth Circuits ruling on what constitutes a relative for purposes 90 00:05:21,040 --> 00:05:24,680 Speaker 1: of the travel band, but it decided not to appeal 91 00:05:24,800 --> 00:05:27,760 Speaker 1: that part of the order. Why not appeal the whole order? 92 00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:32,600 Speaker 1: I think that because of the time frame here that's 93 00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:35,719 Speaker 1: coming up with regard to vetting and with regard to 94 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:40,760 Speaker 1: the oral arguments, most I think they decided that they 95 00:05:41,160 --> 00:05:44,480 Speaker 1: really wanted to focus on this refugee issue where there 96 00:05:44,520 --> 00:05:47,400 Speaker 1: were sort of the lass connection and accountability for who 97 00:05:47,520 --> 00:05:51,679 Speaker 1: was coming in and and and just for now hunt 98 00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:54,200 Speaker 1: on the issue of the of the relative, because they 99 00:05:54,240 --> 00:05:57,320 Speaker 1: just thought that was that maybe the most ermous plate 100 00:05:57,440 --> 00:05:59,520 Speaker 1: to have an argument right now with the Supreme Court, 101 00:06:00,440 --> 00:06:03,400 Speaker 1: and Josh, let's talk about what's going to happen on 102 00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:08,960 Speaker 1: October tenth. There are two cases I believe that are linked. 103 00:06:09,200 --> 00:06:12,800 Speaker 1: Who's going to be making the arguments? Well, I will 104 00:06:12,839 --> 00:06:15,800 Speaker 1: be there on October tenth, as far as I can tell. 105 00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:20,520 Speaker 1: Neil Katial, who represents said Hawaii, will be representing the 106 00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:25,200 Speaker 1: both parties. Kati is a former Deputy Solicitor General for 107 00:06:25,240 --> 00:06:28,960 Speaker 1: the Obama administration and is now a private practice in Washington, 108 00:06:29,080 --> 00:06:32,720 Speaker 1: d c. UM. This case will consider the whole Enchilada, 109 00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:36,280 Speaker 1: not just grandparents, not just refugees, but the order by 110 00:06:36,279 --> 00:06:39,800 Speaker 1: itself and the big question, the first big question they 111 00:06:39,800 --> 00:06:42,120 Speaker 1: will be asked at the gate, do we still need 112 00:06:42,160 --> 00:06:45,839 Speaker 1: to decide this? Um? President Trump issued the first travel 113 00:06:45,880 --> 00:06:48,320 Speaker 1: band back in January. It feels like a lifetime ago, 114 00:06:48,760 --> 00:06:52,080 Speaker 1: and it was designed to work for nine days. Never 115 00:06:52,080 --> 00:06:55,359 Speaker 1: made it ninety days, didn't even make it a week. Um. 116 00:06:55,400 --> 00:06:57,880 Speaker 1: In March he shoot a second executive order, which again 117 00:06:57,960 --> 00:07:00,800 Speaker 1: was meant to last for ninety days. UM That ninety 118 00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:03,760 Speaker 1: days didn't start taking right away because the courts blocked it. 119 00:07:04,400 --> 00:07:06,960 Speaker 1: But after the Supreme Court allowed part of the order 120 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:10,720 Speaker 1: to go into effect. Some argue the clock started taking. Um. 121 00:07:10,760 --> 00:07:13,880 Speaker 1: I'm not entirely sure. The government may argue that because 122 00:07:14,080 --> 00:07:16,440 Speaker 1: they've never had a full ninety days to implement the 123 00:07:16,560 --> 00:07:19,680 Speaker 1: entire ban, the case is still alive. Um. Or the 124 00:07:19,720 --> 00:07:22,200 Speaker 1: government could argue, well, our ninety days laps, so let's 125 00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:24,600 Speaker 1: just get rid of this case. But I don't think 126 00:07:24,600 --> 00:07:26,880 Speaker 1: the justices will be so keen to dump the case. 127 00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:29,320 Speaker 1: I think they want to resolve this because it presents 128 00:07:29,360 --> 00:07:33,080 Speaker 1: a significant separation of powers question, and in each instance 129 00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:36,040 Speaker 1: with lower courts have fallen out of line, the justice 130 00:07:36,080 --> 00:07:40,280 Speaker 1: without recorded dissent pushed back and leon on the other side, 131 00:07:40,320 --> 00:07:42,800 Speaker 1: I assume it would be the acting US Lisitor General, 132 00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:48,240 Speaker 1: Jeffrey Walwart, who will be Jeffrey wall will argue the 133 00:07:48,320 --> 00:07:53,440 Speaker 1: case unless fights America, the person who ran up for 134 00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:58,800 Speaker 1: a journey general is confirmed listener general is confirmed before then, 135 00:07:58,800 --> 00:08:02,640 Speaker 1: then I supposedly I socialicitor general who's the Senate confirmed 136 00:08:02,640 --> 00:08:06,080 Speaker 1: one would be confirmed before then, uh would would argue it. 137 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:09,880 Speaker 1: And you know, the the the government is I'm a 138 00:08:09,920 --> 00:08:14,240 Speaker 1: little I'm a little bit maybe uh more bullish on 139 00:08:14,240 --> 00:08:18,320 Speaker 1: on this tape being mooted out just because this principle, 140 00:08:18,440 --> 00:08:22,960 Speaker 1: this satiatory authority is extremely necessary and the and the 141 00:08:23,040 --> 00:08:26,520 Speaker 1: question is does the court wanna in some way deal 142 00:08:26,560 --> 00:08:29,200 Speaker 1: with this authority in this context, which is such an 143 00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:33,760 Speaker 1: inflammatory context, when this authority prevents people, whether it be 144 00:08:33,880 --> 00:08:39,720 Speaker 1: for illness or form or other you know, global catastrophes. Uh, 145 00:08:40,000 --> 00:08:42,040 Speaker 1: they really want to start putting a question mark on 146 00:08:42,160 --> 00:08:46,400 Speaker 1: that satiatory authority now based on sort of the the 147 00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:48,520 Speaker 1: genesis of this when they could move it out. I 148 00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:53,200 Speaker 1: sort of, Actually maybe I see his desire maybe more 149 00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:55,839 Speaker 1: to moot this out than than than my colleague does. 150 00:08:55,920 --> 00:08:59,360 Speaker 1: But we'll see, we will see, Josh. What will be 151 00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:04,720 Speaker 1: then ain argument? Um? I think the government's first argument 152 00:09:05,000 --> 00:09:08,400 Speaker 1: is that Congress gave the president the authority to do this. 153 00:09:08,960 --> 00:09:11,600 Speaker 1: So the statute enacted some fifty years ago which said 154 00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:14,440 Speaker 1: the President can deny entry two aliens or classes of 155 00:09:14,480 --> 00:09:18,439 Speaker 1: aliens he deems detrimental to the United States interests. Um. 156 00:09:18,480 --> 00:09:21,640 Speaker 1: And this has been authority exercised by many presidents. President 157 00:09:21,679 --> 00:09:23,920 Speaker 1: Reagan denied entry to all Cubans during one of our 158 00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:27,079 Speaker 1: fits with Castro in the eighties, and no one alleged 159 00:09:27,120 --> 00:09:30,640 Speaker 1: that was unconstitutional. Um. The biggest counter argument, I think 160 00:09:30,720 --> 00:09:34,439 Speaker 1: is whether Trump's statements both before the inauguration and after 161 00:09:34,480 --> 00:09:38,520 Speaker 1: the inauguration about Islam and Muslims, paints his action such 162 00:09:38,640 --> 00:09:41,680 Speaker 1: that courts will find he's acting without a rationality, that 163 00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:44,800 Speaker 1: he's inspired by animus um. This is the novel claim 164 00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:47,880 Speaker 1: the courts have jumped on in the lower courts. I'm 165 00:09:47,920 --> 00:09:50,120 Speaker 1: not so sure the Supremeport jumps on it with the 166 00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:55,240 Speaker 1: same zeal And Leon, what is the strongest argument on 167 00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:58,720 Speaker 1: the other side while the other five and going to 168 00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:03,280 Speaker 1: depend on this argument that the manner in which the 169 00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:09,160 Speaker 1: travel ban was enacted was so uh, was so discriminatory 170 00:10:09,640 --> 00:10:15,040 Speaker 1: that that normally applied totally for US citizens on equal 171 00:10:15,080 --> 00:10:19,839 Speaker 1: protection on issues that appreciate the religious discrimination under the 172 00:10:19,920 --> 00:10:24,400 Speaker 1: First Intendment. So issues translate into this immigration context, which 173 00:10:24,400 --> 00:10:27,240 Speaker 1: would be the first time that Supreme Court has ever 174 00:10:27,320 --> 00:10:31,080 Speaker 1: held that that that's it, that people who are fully 175 00:10:31,120 --> 00:10:35,120 Speaker 1: have no connection to the United States do have some mobility, 176 00:10:35,679 --> 00:10:38,640 Speaker 1: assuming they have a qualifying relatives here, which may be 177 00:10:38,880 --> 00:10:42,640 Speaker 1: a limiting caveat to be able to be treated in 178 00:10:42,679 --> 00:10:48,400 Speaker 1: a non religious Discriminat story way, I will want to 179 00:10:48,440 --> 00:10:52,120 Speaker 1: do you know, Larry, we're Leon, We're losing you so, 180 00:10:52,720 --> 00:10:57,560 Speaker 1: but we're coming towards the end of this particular segment. 181 00:10:57,679 --> 00:11:00,200 Speaker 1: So we will pick up with this again with both 182 00:11:00,200 --> 00:11:02,040 Speaker 1: of you. I am sure because there is a lot 183 00:11:02,120 --> 00:11:05,000 Speaker 1: more to come on these issues. That's Leon Fresco, he's 184 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:07,760 Speaker 1: a partner at Holland and Knight. And Josh Blackmann, a 185 00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:11,440 Speaker 1: professor at South Texas College of Law. Coming up on 186 00:11:11,520 --> 00:11:15,160 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. We're going to be talking about this breaking news. 187 00:11:15,320 --> 00:11:18,880 Speaker 1: Russia's effort to influence US voters through Facebook and other 188 00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:22,880 Speaker 1: social media is a red hot focus of Special Counsel 189 00:11:23,000 --> 00:11:28,080 Speaker 1: Robert Muller's investigation into the sixteen election and possible links 190 00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:31,920 Speaker 1: to President Donald Trump. And there's also a Facebook issue 191 00:11:31,960 --> 00:11:35,120 Speaker 1: involved here. This is Bloomberg. I'm June Glasso