WEBVTT - SCOTUS 2024, Immigration Crisis and Student Athletes 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.760 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:12.880 Next year at the Supreme Court promises to be a 0:00:12.920 --> 0:00:16.920 tumultuous one with cases on abortion, the Second Amendment, and 0:00:16.960 --> 0:00:21.480 the many legal issues involving former President Donald Trump. Joining 0:00:21.520 --> 0:00:23.279 me for the second half of our look at what's 0:00:23.280 --> 0:00:26.439 happening at the Court next year is Bloomberg Supreme Court 0:00:26.480 --> 0:00:29.840 reporter Greg Store. Greg. There's going to be a sort 0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:33.400 of showdown at the Court over agency power with two 0:00:33.520 --> 0:00:37.880 cases involving the Chevron Doctrine, which is a thirty nine 0:00:37.960 --> 0:00:41.760 year old precedent, and this will have major implications for 0:00:41.840 --> 0:00:43.760 all kinds of government regulations. 0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:46.960 Yeah, it is one of those cases that is cited 0:00:47.360 --> 0:00:51.559 all the time in federal administrative law cases, meaning like 0:00:51.680 --> 0:00:56.520 challenges to agency regulations. And basically what the Chevron Doctrine 0:00:56.560 --> 0:01:00.360 says is, if there's a statute that is ambiguous, if 0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:03.800 the agency interprets it that ambiguous statute in a certain way, 0:01:03.840 --> 0:01:07.000 and if that's a reasonable interpretation, we the courts are 0:01:07.000 --> 0:01:09.360 going to defer to the agency. And so it gives 0:01:09.600 --> 0:01:13.640 agencies regulators a certain amount of power to define the 0:01:13.680 --> 0:01:17.600 scope of their mission and their authority and the Supreme Court. 0:01:17.760 --> 0:01:21.520 This very conservative Supreme Court has been expressly a good 0:01:21.520 --> 0:01:24.080 deal skepticism about the Chevron doctrine and in fact has 0:01:24.120 --> 0:01:27.560 been kind of narrowing it over the years, and now 0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:30.480 they have a case where they might just overturn it. 0:01:30.480 --> 0:01:34.399 It's a case that involves a fee that is charged 0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:37.959 to herring fishermen or could be charged to herring fishermen 0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:42.120 to pay for federal monitors aboard their vessels, and the 0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:45.280 argument is that federal regulators didn't have the authority to 0:01:46.160 --> 0:01:49.800 impose that fee. In they don't necessarily have to overturn 0:01:49.840 --> 0:01:52.600 the Chevron doctrine in the case, but if they do, 0:01:53.200 --> 0:01:57.320 it could really represent a major shift in terms of 0:01:57.400 --> 0:02:00.960 what agencies are able to do, how authority they have 0:02:01.160 --> 0:02:05.840 to enact new regulations, and it would really be kind 0:02:05.840 --> 0:02:08.760 of a revolution in this arcane the very very important 0:02:08.760 --> 0:02:10.360 world of federal administrative law. 0:02:10.840 --> 0:02:16.880 And several conservative justices have written about their opposition to Chevron, 0:02:17.040 --> 0:02:20.360 though the Court has never actually revisited it. 0:02:20.960 --> 0:02:24.959 Right, so justices like Clarence Thomas Neil Gorsich, you expect 0:02:25.000 --> 0:02:28.280 them to be very very skeptical when the Court considers it. 0:02:28.440 --> 0:02:31.640 There's another aspect of this issue. In the case a 0:02:31.680 --> 0:02:36.079 couple terms ago involving the EPA and regulation of climate change, 0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:38.520 the Supreme Court said that not only are we not 0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:41.600 going to give Chevron deference to the EPA when it 0:02:41.680 --> 0:02:45.440 decides it has brought authority to impose regulations on power plants, 0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:48.360 but we're actually going to start with the assumption that 0:02:49.080 --> 0:02:53.680 Congress wouldn't have delegated this authority to the EPA unless 0:02:53.760 --> 0:02:56.520 it was explicitly clear. Because this is a so called 0:02:56.639 --> 0:02:59.680 major question. It is so important that we just aren't 0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:01.720 going to be lead that Congress meant to give the 0:03:01.720 --> 0:03:04.880 EPA authority over it unless it's crystal clear in the statute. 0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:09.000 So this notion of deferring to agencies is already under 0:03:09.000 --> 0:03:11.079 pressure from a lot of different angles. 0:03:11.400 --> 0:03:13.920 And you've written about how it's sort of like the 0:03:14.040 --> 0:03:18.800 dream of conservatives and critics of big government. How critics 0:03:18.840 --> 0:03:21.919 of big government have organized to fight the Chevron doctrine 0:03:22.320 --> 0:03:26.400 in ways similar to how anti abortion groups organized to 0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:28.360 fight against Roe v. Wade. 0:03:28.600 --> 0:03:31.040 Yeah, there was a massive pile of briefs on the 0:03:31.120 --> 0:03:34.320 side of the fishermen in this case, all manner of 0:03:34.720 --> 0:03:38.040 conservative groups weighing and in business groups to some degree 0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:41.640 weighing in support. Kind of the interesting difference between Roe v. 0:03:41.760 --> 0:03:45.720 Wade and Chevron is that early on when Chevron, when 0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:48.040 the ruling came down in nineteen eighty four, it was 0:03:48.080 --> 0:03:50.720 something that conservatives tended to like. That was a time 0:03:50.720 --> 0:03:54.600 when Ronald Reagan was president Republican and conservatives tended to 0:03:54.800 --> 0:03:58.640 like what agencies were doing, and so they were happy 0:03:58.680 --> 0:04:04.000 to have courts deferring two agencies. Over time, particularly as 0:04:04.080 --> 0:04:07.400 Democrats came into the White House, conservatives came to think 0:04:07.400 --> 0:04:09.960 it was a bad idea. They wanted judges to have 0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:13.080 more authority to decide how broad federal statutes are. 0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:17.880 Although presidents of both parties have leaned on the Chevron doctrine. 0:04:18.080 --> 0:04:21.480 So there are two cases. One that the Court decided 0:04:21.520 --> 0:04:24.680 to take in May, the Loper Bright case, and then 0:04:24.720 --> 0:04:29.200 a second case the Court decided to take in October, Relentless, 0:04:29.360 --> 0:04:34.880 Perhaps since appropriately entitled Relentless versus Department of Commerce. Explain 0:04:34.960 --> 0:04:37.640 why the justices may have taken that second case. 0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:40.159 Yeah, So, first of one, I should say that they're 0:04:40.200 --> 0:04:43.640 otherwise exactly the same, the exact same issue. It's both 0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:47.080 about this see for monitors on Herring votes. The difference 0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:49.479 is that in the first case, the lober Bright case, 0:04:49.680 --> 0:04:53.000 Justice Katachi bron Jackson is recused from it. She had 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:55.200 been involved with it when she was a Federal Appeals 0:04:55.240 --> 0:04:57.720 Court judge on the DC Circuit, And so by adding 0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:00.679 the second case, the Court guarantees they will have nine 0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:04.600 justices to decide it. Now, I'm given the conservative leanings 0:05:04.600 --> 0:05:07.400 of this court, they may not need nine justices. They 0:05:07.400 --> 0:05:09.640 may already have the five they need to overturn the 0:05:09.720 --> 0:05:12.560 Chevran decision. But at least Justice Jackson will have a 0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:13.960 chance to weigh in in the case. 0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:17.960 And the Supreme Court is going to delve into several 0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:22.599 cases involving social media. They agreed to review Florida and 0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:25.919 Texas laws that would sharply restrict the ability of the 0:05:26.000 --> 0:05:31.279 largest social media platforms to police political misinformation. The laws 0:05:31.279 --> 0:05:33.320 are a little bit different, but similar. 0:05:34.200 --> 0:05:39.520 Yeah, So both of them basically restrict the editorial discretion 0:05:39.720 --> 0:05:42.840 of social media companies. Restrict the ability of social media 0:05:42.880 --> 0:05:46.760 companies to decide on their own whether certain posts should 0:05:46.760 --> 0:05:50.800 be taken down or certain users kicked off the platform. 0:05:51.240 --> 0:05:54.479 The argument that the states are making is that, oh, 0:05:54.600 --> 0:05:58.680 these social media companies discriminate against conservative viewpoints and so 0:05:58.800 --> 0:06:02.920 we need to pose some regulations. And the two laws 0:06:03.040 --> 0:06:07.320 are different in terms of their exact provisions. The Texas law, 0:06:07.360 --> 0:06:11.160 for example, includes a broader provision that essentially says that 0:06:11.240 --> 0:06:13.919 social media companies have to be viewpoint neutral. They have 0:06:13.960 --> 0:06:17.800 to treat conservative viewpoints and liberal viewpoints alike. The Florida 0:06:17.920 --> 0:06:22.200 law has a provision in it that requires social media companies, 0:06:22.240 --> 0:06:25.480 whenever they do something take down a post, to give 0:06:25.520 --> 0:06:29.240 a detailed explanation of why they did that. So social 0:06:29.279 --> 0:06:32.279 media companies their trade group are lodging a first Amendment 0:06:32.360 --> 0:06:35.760 challenge to both laws, and the devil may be in 0:06:35.839 --> 0:06:38.520 the detailed to some degree. For example, the Florida law, 0:06:38.560 --> 0:06:41.760 a federal appeals court upheld part of it and blocked 0:06:41.839 --> 0:06:44.039 part of it, So there may be some parsing that 0:06:44.080 --> 0:06:46.679 the Supreme Court decides to do in terms of whether 0:06:46.720 --> 0:06:48.920 these laws are constitutional, and that. 0:06:48.960 --> 0:06:52.599 Appeals court, the Eleventh Circuit, is one of the most 0:06:52.800 --> 0:06:56.440 conservative circuits in the country, but not as conservative as 0:06:56.440 --> 0:07:00.919 the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the Texas law. Former President 0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.760 Donald Trump filed a brief in support of the Florida law. 0:07:04.960 --> 0:07:11.200 How much could this decision shape the rules online in 0:07:11.240 --> 0:07:13.440 the run up to the twenty twenty four election. 0:07:14.040 --> 0:07:16.200 That's a good question, and I think my answer is 0:07:16.640 --> 0:07:18.520 perhaps not as much as I would have thought a 0:07:18.600 --> 0:07:22.440 year ago, in that we've seen social media companies X 0:07:22.480 --> 0:07:25.960 for example, the platform formally known as Twitter doing less 0:07:26.000 --> 0:07:30.840 to combat misinformation disinformation on their platform, same thing with 0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:35.120 other social media platforms. So to the extent that these 0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:39.240 laws were trying to crack down on social media companies 0:07:39.280 --> 0:07:44.520 when they were actively trying to remove inaccuracies, you know, 0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:46.800 there's less of that going on anyway, and so the 0:07:46.840 --> 0:07:49.200 practical effect of it might be a little less than 0:07:49.240 --> 0:07:50.800 we thought it was going to be previously. 0:07:51.200 --> 0:07:55.080 Greg looking at what's coming up, do you think that 0:07:55.600 --> 0:08:01.840 this term could be as controversial as two terms ago. 0:08:02.280 --> 0:08:04.720 Well, that's a pretty high bar to set the term 0:08:04.760 --> 0:08:06.920 two years ago. That, of course, is the term where, 0:08:07.160 --> 0:08:10.160 among other things, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, sot 0:08:10.200 --> 0:08:13.440 up a tough new test for gun regulations. This term 0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:16.200 right now, we have a lot of very important cases, 0:08:16.680 --> 0:08:19.640 but not historic cases in quite the same way as 0:08:19.800 --> 0:08:23.200 we had that term. Now, the big caveat to all 0:08:23.200 --> 0:08:26.240 that is Donald Trump is out there, and there are 0:08:26.680 --> 0:08:30.680 all manner of Donald Trump related cases that are percolating, 0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:34.800 including the question of whether he is immune from criminal 0:08:34.880 --> 0:08:37.520 charges over things he did as president to try to 0:08:37.520 --> 0:08:40.640 overturn the election results leading up to the January sixth 0:08:40.720 --> 0:08:43.319 riot at the Capitol. There's also the question of whether 0:08:43.360 --> 0:08:46.800 the Constitution's fourteenth amend and the insurrection clause in there 0:08:47.040 --> 0:08:51.520 precludes him from becoming president again. Those are enormously big 0:08:51.679 --> 0:08:57.360 issues with both legal and political significance, and so those 0:08:57.440 --> 0:09:01.280 cases may end up being the things that power above 0:09:01.320 --> 0:09:03.800 everything else that the Supreme Court has this term. 0:09:04.240 --> 0:09:06.319 So I think you'll be quite busy next year. Greg, 0:09:06.720 --> 0:09:08.680 Thanks so much for running it all down for us. 0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:13.000 That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Coming up next 0:09:13.000 --> 0:09:16.439 on the Bloomberg Law Show, Top US officials are going 0:09:16.440 --> 0:09:19.400 to be traveling to Mexico in an attempt to deal 0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:22.720 with the record numbers of people crossing the southern border. 0:09:23.360 --> 0:09:26.240 I'm June Gross. When you're listening to Bloomberg, the US 0:09:26.360 --> 0:09:31.480 is facing an unprecedented surge of migrants at the southern border. Yesterday, 0:09:31.600 --> 0:09:35.480 US Customs and Border Protection encountered more than twelve thousand 0:09:35.679 --> 0:09:39.840 undocumented migrants crossing the border for the third straight day, 0:09:40.240 --> 0:09:45.000 a new record. National Security Council official John Kirby said 0:09:45.040 --> 0:09:48.840 President Joe Biden and the President of Mexico agreed during 0:09:48.920 --> 0:09:52.400 a call today that more enforcement at the border between 0:09:52.440 --> 0:09:55.960 the two countries is needed, as record numbers of people 0:09:56.080 --> 0:09:58.559 trying to cross have disrupted trade. 0:09:59.040 --> 0:10:01.880 One of the things that the President Lopez Overdoor and 0:10:01.920 --> 0:10:04.120 the President talked about today was trying to work on 0:10:04.160 --> 0:10:07.160 getting at the root causes of migration. We're seeing record 0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:09.000 levels of people, more people are on the move in 0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:11.560 this hemisphere than that has been the case since World 0:10:11.559 --> 0:10:12.000 War Two. 0:10:12.480 --> 0:10:17.120 Top US officials, including Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln and 0:10:17.240 --> 0:10:21.960 Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Majorcis, will travel to Mexico in 0:10:22.000 --> 0:10:25.440 the coming days to meet with President Lopez Oberdoor on 0:10:25.520 --> 0:10:29.160 the issue. My guest is immigration law expertly On Fresco, 0:10:29.280 --> 0:10:31.640 a partner at Holland and Knight Leon. There was a 0:10:31.679 --> 0:10:36.360 record number of so called migrant encounters on the southern 0:10:36.400 --> 0:10:40.880 border this year, with two point four million migrants crossing 0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:44.400 the border. Is a Biden administration doing everything it has 0:10:44.600 --> 0:10:45.920 the legal power to do. 0:10:46.559 --> 0:10:50.000 So here's the main point to take from this, which 0:10:50.040 --> 0:10:54.520 is there is undoubtedly one thing that the Biden administration 0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:57.800 is not doing that. The Trump administration was doing that. 0:10:57.880 --> 0:11:00.600 It theoretically has the legal ability to do, which is 0:11:00.600 --> 0:11:05.120 to remain in Mexico. Program. Now, that would require cooperation 0:11:05.280 --> 0:11:10.240 from Mexico, which Mexico currently states that it wouldn't provide. Now, 0:11:10.280 --> 0:11:14.079 if you remember President Trump obtaining that cooperation by saying 0:11:14.080 --> 0:11:18.640 he would create massive paris on cars entering from Mexico, 0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:23.560 which scared the Mexican government into cooperating. It's unclear if 0:11:23.600 --> 0:11:26.880 President Biden would use similar toxics, but the point is 0:11:26.960 --> 0:11:33.160 there is that one arsenal lest where theoretically President Biden 0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:37.640 could create some sort of threats such as sarasun cars, 0:11:38.040 --> 0:11:42.000 which would create an incentive for Mexico to allow remain 0:11:42.080 --> 0:11:46.959 in Mexico and then have all of those individuals placed 0:11:47.000 --> 0:11:51.600 into Mexico waiting for their asylum case to be heard. 0:11:52.200 --> 0:11:55.680 And so you'd have to obviously spend lots of money 0:11:55.679 --> 0:11:59.160 on resources and creating facilities in Mexico for people to 0:11:59.240 --> 0:12:03.600 wait in, and perhaps in creating locations where people could 0:12:03.600 --> 0:12:07.240 obtain legal assistance to do their asylum claim and things 0:12:07.240 --> 0:12:11.240 of this nature. But nevertheless, it's possible, but they're choosing 0:12:11.280 --> 0:12:13.400 not to go down that route. What if it appears 0:12:13.440 --> 0:12:15.960 they're trying to invest in at the moment, are these 0:12:16.000 --> 0:12:20.040 bipartisan negotiations in the Senate to try to come up 0:12:20.120 --> 0:12:24.479 with some statutory authority to do different things by statutes 0:12:24.840 --> 0:12:27.640 than what is currently permitted as opposed to using remaining 0:12:27.640 --> 0:12:28.240 in Mexico. 0:12:28.640 --> 0:12:31.440 What are the sticking points in the Senate between the 0:12:31.440 --> 0:12:32.880 Democrats and the Republicans. 0:12:34.280 --> 0:12:40.000 The problem is this is a basically conceptual disagreement about 0:12:40.040 --> 0:12:44.079 what the problem is visa visa border. The Democrats are 0:12:44.120 --> 0:12:49.320 focused on solving the narrow issue of what is the 0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:52.240 standard that people have to articulate in order to be 0:12:52.320 --> 0:12:56.160 permitted entry into the United States, and they want to 0:12:56.280 --> 0:12:59.760 raise that standard. And what they want to do, which 0:12:59.800 --> 0:13:02.520 is sort of a big concession, is to say if 0:13:02.559 --> 0:13:04.800 a certain amount of people are still coming after we 0:13:05.000 --> 0:13:09.199 raise that standard, then we will actually trigger some sort 0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:13.840 of Title forty two, like automatic expulsion until the numbers 0:13:13.880 --> 0:13:16.760 start coming down. And so even if you had a 0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:19.840 legitimate claim, you'd still have to make it in Mexico. 0:13:20.400 --> 0:13:22.920 That's pretty much where the Democrats want to go, and 0:13:22.960 --> 0:13:25.960 they don't want to do anything more. The Republicans view 0:13:26.000 --> 0:13:29.000 this as sort of a larger problem, which is not 0:13:29.200 --> 0:13:32.440 just that, but also all of the parole groups that 0:13:32.760 --> 0:13:39.160 President Biden is allowing to enter the country currently from Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti. 0:13:39.360 --> 0:13:42.160 They want to eliminate all of that and say and 0:13:42.400 --> 0:13:46.640 Ukraine also and say that pretty much that whole flow 0:13:46.720 --> 0:13:49.400 has to be shut down. And the problem is the 0:13:49.400 --> 0:13:53.320 Biden administration thinks that those legal parole programs are actually 0:13:53.440 --> 0:13:58.200 lowering the demand for illegal immigration, whereas the Republicans think, no, 0:13:58.400 --> 0:14:02.200 the illegal crossers are coming and it's only the people 0:14:02.200 --> 0:14:06.320 who would have come legally who are applying for the 0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:10.280 legal parole program but that this isn't really reducing any 0:14:10.280 --> 0:14:15.000 flow of illegal immigration. And so for the Republicans, unless 0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:18.320 you end these parole programs, they are claiming they won't 0:14:18.360 --> 0:14:21.320 reach any deal. And for the Democrats this is sort 0:14:21.320 --> 0:14:25.280 of viewed as a non starter because the Democrats are saying, 0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:31.040 we're already making enough concessions on the asylum claims themselves 0:14:31.360 --> 0:14:35.160 without achieving anything to help any immigrants, that we're not 0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:37.960 going to go this final route and limit the president's 0:14:37.960 --> 0:14:40.680 ability to parole people into the country. 0:14:41.520 --> 0:14:45.960 I mean the buying administration by itself could raise the 0:14:46.600 --> 0:14:49.200 what's required in the credible fear interview. 0:14:48.840 --> 0:14:53.160 Right, Well, they've already done that visa the asylum. That's 0:14:53.160 --> 0:14:56.080 certainly true. And like I said, what that's done is 0:14:56.120 --> 0:15:00.560 it's sprinkled into withholding of removal, meaning now so everybody 0:15:00.600 --> 0:15:03.720 has to use because of this asylum ban, the withholding 0:15:03.760 --> 0:15:06.600 of removal. Though, remember the asylum ban is also being 0:15:06.640 --> 0:15:09.720 litigated and the Ninth Circuit has shut that down for 0:15:09.720 --> 0:15:12.080 a little while. The asylum ban, so it comes on 0:15:12.160 --> 0:15:15.160 and it comes off. But even if the withholding of 0:15:15.240 --> 0:15:19.360 removal standard is implemented, we're still talking about a standard 0:15:19.400 --> 0:15:23.320 that permits something on average of fifty to sixty percent 0:15:23.360 --> 0:15:26.840 of people to enter, as opposed to eighty percent, which 0:15:26.880 --> 0:15:31.400 is the lower credible fear standard. And I think the 0:15:31.520 --> 0:15:34.920 kinds of changes people are talking about implementing would bring 0:15:34.960 --> 0:15:38.680 that number far lower and require far more evidence on 0:15:38.800 --> 0:15:42.120 the upfront initial threshold, such that maybe you'd have a 0:15:42.200 --> 0:15:45.240 twenty five to thirty percent chance of being able to 0:15:45.400 --> 0:15:48.400 enter into the United States because you'd have to articulate 0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:53.400 not just something that could eventually be a logical case 0:15:53.560 --> 0:15:57.640 for asylum flash withholding of removal, but you'd actually have 0:15:57.760 --> 0:16:00.560 to have some evidence on your person at the moment 0:16:00.920 --> 0:16:04.160 when you arrive, or some other riight theory of a 0:16:04.280 --> 0:16:08.920 well explained theory of your case such that that would 0:16:09.000 --> 0:16:10.760 be the only way that would permit you to enter 0:16:10.800 --> 0:16:11.840 the United States. 0:16:12.040 --> 0:16:17.080 Because I was reading that three million people are awaiting 0:16:17.400 --> 0:16:21.080 their immigration court hearings, so they're free to stay and 0:16:21.480 --> 0:16:25.240 after six months legally work until they come before it judge. 0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:28.600 And that's one of the reasons drawing so many people 0:16:28.960 --> 0:16:30.960 to cross, because they know. 0:16:30.920 --> 0:16:34.920 That that's absolutely right. The idea is a backlog. Begets 0:16:34.920 --> 0:16:38.600 the backlog because the longer the backlog is, the more 0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:40.680 you're going to have people wanting to come in to 0:16:40.760 --> 0:16:43.160 exploit the backlog. Because if there's only a two month 0:16:43.240 --> 0:16:46.800 backlog and you will have to spend twenty thousand dollars 0:16:46.840 --> 0:16:49.120 to come into the US I legally and you'll get 0:16:49.200 --> 0:16:53.120 deported in two months, that's not really encouraging people to come. 0:16:53.160 --> 0:16:55.880 But if there's a five to six year backlog, which 0:16:55.920 --> 0:16:58.640 is what we have now, people then can say, well, 0:16:58.680 --> 0:17:00.960 even if I get ordered to poor five six years 0:17:01.000 --> 0:17:03.520 from now, who cares, I was still able to come 0:17:03.520 --> 0:17:06.239 and work for five or six years. I'll take that 0:17:06.400 --> 0:17:09.400 risk and hopefully I won't even get supported in those 0:17:09.440 --> 0:17:11.800 sext fights to six years. So that's one of the 0:17:11.840 --> 0:17:15.160 problems is if the backlog begets the backlog, and at 0:17:15.160 --> 0:17:17.439 some point people are gonna have to decide what to do, 0:17:17.520 --> 0:17:22.040 because yes, it does seem very strange that you would 0:17:22.040 --> 0:17:24.840 forgive those three to four million people and what could 0:17:24.880 --> 0:17:27.200 end up being six million by the end of this year, 0:17:27.440 --> 0:17:29.880 but it also seems very unlikely you're going to get 0:17:29.880 --> 0:17:33.240 through those cases. And so at the end of the day, 0:17:33.320 --> 0:17:36.359 you'd have to decide where are you gonna sort of 0:17:36.440 --> 0:17:39.600 start from scratch so that we can make these cases 0:17:39.640 --> 0:17:42.640 cases that can get done in a month or two 0:17:42.760 --> 0:17:46.000 and not cases that take three, four or five six 0:17:46.119 --> 0:17:49.120 years to do. And so that's the problem is there's 0:17:49.119 --> 0:17:52.119 gonna have to be a realistic come to grips moment 0:17:52.560 --> 0:17:55.600 with this system where people say, look, we can't have 0:17:55.720 --> 0:17:58.920 backlogs that beget more backlog. We're gonna have to cut 0:17:58.960 --> 0:18:02.240 some people off and say those people are not our priority, 0:18:02.280 --> 0:18:04.800 and we're going to have to prioritize the people coming 0:18:04.840 --> 0:18:07.840 in right this second and really focus on getting them 0:18:07.840 --> 0:18:09.080 out as soon as possible. 0:18:09.720 --> 0:18:13.879 And lawmakers went home over the holidays without the Senate 0:18:13.920 --> 0:18:16.640 negotiations over immigration resolved. 0:18:16.960 --> 0:18:20.040 Everybody's very pessimistic that there will be a deal made 0:18:20.240 --> 0:18:23.879 because there's different factors. There's the factor of that the 0:18:23.920 --> 0:18:27.560 Democrats aren't getting anything pro immigration in exchange for these 0:18:27.560 --> 0:18:31.720 immigration enforcement provisions. So there's some segment of the Democratic 0:18:31.720 --> 0:18:34.119 Party that says, well, what do I care about Ukraine funding? 0:18:34.240 --> 0:18:36.520 That doesn't do anything for me? Why am I trading 0:18:36.960 --> 0:18:40.280 Ukraine funding for immigration? It needs to be immigration for immigration. 0:18:40.880 --> 0:18:44.840 So that's number one. Number two is the Republican fear 0:18:45.280 --> 0:18:48.680 that whatever the agreement they will come to will immediately 0:18:48.760 --> 0:18:52.399 be rejected by President Biden, such that then there's no 0:18:52.520 --> 0:18:55.080 point because if he says this is a terrible agreement 0:18:55.440 --> 0:18:58.920 and it doesn't do anything, then everybody will fall off 0:18:58.960 --> 0:19:01.520 and all that work will be well. And so that 0:19:01.640 --> 0:19:05.480 seems to be the double problem. Everybody's thought of company. 0:19:05.840 --> 0:19:09.920 Well, we'll see if anything changes after the holiday. Thanks 0:19:09.960 --> 0:19:13.240 so much, Leon, as always, that's Leon Fresco of Holland 0:19:13.320 --> 0:19:16.840 and Knight. Coming up next the NC Double A on trial. 0:19:17.160 --> 0:19:20.760 You're listening to Bloomberg Opening statements kicked off Monday in 0:19:20.800 --> 0:19:23.680 a case that may shape the future of college sports. 0:19:24.119 --> 0:19:28.320 A National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge is considering 0:19:28.400 --> 0:19:32.879 whether the NCAA, the PAC twelve Conference, and the University 0:19:32.880 --> 0:19:38.600 of Southern California violated federal law by misclassifying student football 0:19:38.640 --> 0:19:43.520 and basketball players as non employees. N LRB attorneys say 0:19:43.560 --> 0:19:48.480 that student athletes should legally be considered employees. The defendants 0:19:48.520 --> 0:19:52.560 have denied all wrongdoing, and an attorney for the university 0:19:52.720 --> 0:19:56.760 said that student athletes are not in service to the university. 0:19:57.119 --> 0:20:02.000 To the contrary, the students are beneficial of USC services. 0:20:02.680 --> 0:20:05.720 The case is one part of a patchwork of litigation 0:20:05.880 --> 0:20:09.720 against the NCAA, which has come under heavy fire for 0:20:09.800 --> 0:20:13.720 preventing players from sharing in the billions that universities make 0:20:13.800 --> 0:20:18.480 on college athletics every year. Joining me is Martiney Dell, 0:20:18.680 --> 0:20:23.280 co chair of Gulsen and Stores Sports law practice in 0:20:23.320 --> 0:20:27.720 this trial. Is the NCAA's business model at stake? 0:20:29.320 --> 0:20:32.639 You bet so. The whole purpose of the trial is 0:20:32.720 --> 0:20:37.840 to challenge whether or not student athletes a term that 0:20:38.040 --> 0:20:43.280 the National Liberations Board does not like our employees and 0:20:43.680 --> 0:20:48.040 therefore not students for classification purposes under the National Labor 0:20:48.080 --> 0:20:52.240 Relations Act. It ultimately held to be employees. This changes 0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:56.280 the whole model of amateurism in very significant ways. 0:20:57.160 --> 0:21:00.719 So why is it the NLRB that's bringing the lawsuit 0:21:01.320 --> 0:21:04.000 instead of, you know, the individual players. 0:21:04.680 --> 0:21:07.800 So there's a group of players. So it's actually both 0:21:08.040 --> 0:21:12.639 a group of players complained under the title of a 0:21:12.920 --> 0:21:19.040 concerned students and the National Labor Relations Board Region number 0:21:19.080 --> 0:21:23.080 thirty one, which is Southern California, looked into it and 0:21:23.359 --> 0:21:27.359 issued what they call an unfair labor practice. So this 0:21:27.480 --> 0:21:31.880 trial is over the unfair labor practice issued by the 0:21:31.920 --> 0:21:36.480 local district of the National Labor Relations Board against USC, 0:21:37.320 --> 0:21:40.040 the PAC twelve Conference, and the NCAA. 0:21:40.480 --> 0:21:43.320 It's very hard to keep track of what's going on 0:21:43.520 --> 0:21:48.280 with college athletes as they're called at this point. I mean, 0:21:48.320 --> 0:21:52.200 it seems like there's litigation going on here and there. 0:21:52.680 --> 0:21:54.520 Is that true or is it just seen that way? 0:21:55.040 --> 0:21:58.439 What it seems like is the reality. So let me 0:21:58.440 --> 0:22:00.399 see if I can unpack that just the little bit. 0:22:00.440 --> 0:22:05.359 There are antitrust suits flying around principally now in the 0:22:05.400 --> 0:22:10.399 Northern District of California as to whether student athletes ought 0:22:10.440 --> 0:22:13.520 to be paid to play. This is an outgrowth of 0:22:13.600 --> 0:22:17.959 what we've previously talked about. The Olston case. Also in 0:22:18.119 --> 0:22:21.040 the Northern District of California, there has been a class 0:22:21.080 --> 0:22:29.080 certification of students for monetizing their image and likeness rights 0:22:30.040 --> 0:22:33.280 during the period they were excluded from monetizing their name, 0:22:33.320 --> 0:22:38.560 image and likeness rights. So those are two separate movements 0:22:38.600 --> 0:22:42.919 going on. Third, we have the National Labor Relations Board 0:22:43.280 --> 0:22:47.560 proceeding here, and fourth we have in the Third Circuit 0:22:47.600 --> 0:22:52.080 Court of Appeals an appeal from the denial of a 0:22:52.200 --> 0:22:57.000 motion to dismiss by the District Court judge in which 0:22:57.080 --> 0:23:00.720 the District Court judge essentially held that the Fairly Standards 0:23:00.760 --> 0:23:03.400 Act ought to apply to student athletes. 0:23:04.560 --> 0:23:09.640 The NCAA recently changed the rules governing whether students can 0:23:09.680 --> 0:23:13.439 profit from their names, images, and likenesses. Is that at 0:23:13.480 --> 0:23:14.800 all an issue in this case? 0:23:15.280 --> 0:23:19.320 So only marginally, And what I mean by that is 0:23:19.840 --> 0:23:24.760 that the National Labor Relations Board uses the concept that 0:23:24.960 --> 0:23:28.480 students can now monetize their name, image and likeness rights 0:23:29.040 --> 0:23:32.879 as further evidence of the fact that they are more 0:23:33.080 --> 0:23:37.440 like employees who are seeking to get part of that 0:23:37.600 --> 0:23:41.399 revenue pot that the universities hold than they are as students. 0:23:41.760 --> 0:23:43.720 But it's not directly impacted. 0:23:44.359 --> 0:23:48.520 Let's talk about opening statements which took place on Monday, 0:23:49.160 --> 0:23:51.879 tell us what the NLRB's position is. 0:23:52.760 --> 0:23:55.760 So I think there needs to be a little bit 0:23:55.840 --> 0:23:59.760 of background here as to what's going on. And it's 0:23:59.800 --> 0:24:02.639 not a long history, but it goes back about nine 0:24:02.720 --> 0:24:06.760 years here. So nine years ago, in twenty fourteen, the 0:24:06.840 --> 0:24:10.919 National Labor Relations Board brought a case against Northwestern seeking 0:24:10.920 --> 0:24:13.960 to declare student athletes as employees within the meaning of 0:24:14.000 --> 0:24:18.600 the National Labor Relations Act. At the level we're talking 0:24:18.600 --> 0:24:21.879 about now, which is the administrative ward judge level, the 0:24:22.000 --> 0:24:26.560 NLRB was successful. According to the administrative law judge, the 0:24:27.359 --> 0:24:32.600 NLRB successfully had shown that student athletes were working for 0:24:32.680 --> 0:24:37.040