1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,960
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court permitted President Trump's executive order banning entry

2
00:00:04,000 --> 00:00:07,600
Speaker 1: of visa applicants from six mostly Muslim nations and of

3
00:00:07,680 --> 00:00:11,639
Speaker 1: refugees worldwide to go into effect, but the Court said

4
00:00:11,680 --> 00:00:14,120
Speaker 1: the order could not be enforced against people with bona

5
00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:16,959
Speaker 1: fide ties to people and entities in the United States.

6
00:00:17,480 --> 00:00:20,360
Speaker 1: And now a federal judges said that the Trump administration's

7
00:00:20,440 --> 00:00:24,440
Speaker 1: view of who has bonafide ties, which would have excluded grandparents,

8
00:00:24,600 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 1: for instance, of US residents, is inconsistent with the Supreme

9
00:00:28,240 --> 00:00:31,680
Speaker 1: Court's ruling, and he's ordering the administration to expand the

10
00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:34,760
Speaker 1: definition of people to whom the order does not apply.

11
00:00:35,640 --> 00:00:38,640
Speaker 1: With us to talk about President Trump's travel ban and

12
00:00:38,720 --> 00:00:42,120
Speaker 1: this court order from the federal judge in Hawaii is

13
00:00:42,200 --> 00:00:45,600
Speaker 1: David Beer, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

14
00:00:46,360 --> 00:00:50,520
Speaker 1: David I kind of wanted to talk about where how

15
00:00:50,560 --> 00:00:54,720
Speaker 1: we got here? What did the Trump administration do that

16
00:00:54,880 --> 00:00:59,280
Speaker 1: led to yet more litigation over this travel ban. Well,

17
00:00:59,320 --> 00:01:05,120
Speaker 1: initially and they first rolled out the travel ban, they really,

18
00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,560
Speaker 1: we're trying to ban everyone who wanted to come to

19
00:01:08,600 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 1: the United States. Um. Since then they dialed it back

20
00:01:12,160 --> 00:01:15,640
Speaker 1: and said, you know, we're gonna have exceptions, and you know,

21
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:18,880
Speaker 1: that was still blocked by the courts, and so finally

22
00:01:19,120 --> 00:01:21,759
Speaker 1: it ended up at the Supreme Court, and the Supreme

23
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:25,360
Speaker 1: Court said, we're gonna hold, um, we're gonna hold oral

24
00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:29,160
Speaker 1: arguments on this in October, but in the meantime, you

25
00:01:29,240 --> 00:01:35,759
Speaker 1: cannot enforce this band against people with a bona fide relationship.

26
00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:38,880
Speaker 1: That was the phrase that they used with a person

27
00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:42,600
Speaker 1: or entity in the United States. And they said that

28
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:47,240
Speaker 1: this definition of a bona fide relationship would include close

29
00:01:47,319 --> 00:01:50,720
Speaker 1: family members, and it specifically cited a mother in law

30
00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:54,560
Speaker 1: as an example of someone who clearly is a close

31
00:01:54,600 --> 00:01:58,720
Speaker 1: family member. And so then when uh, you know, the

32
00:01:59,240 --> 00:02:03,720
Speaker 1: government had the ability to now enforce the order, but

33
00:02:03,800 --> 00:02:09,240
Speaker 1: it had to define more clearly, more definitely who counted

34
00:02:09,639 --> 00:02:13,520
Speaker 1: as close family And really they adopted the most narrow

35
00:02:14,120 --> 00:02:18,600
Speaker 1: interpretation of the Supreme Court's border that they possibly could.

36
00:02:18,919 --> 00:02:22,320
Speaker 1: They included parents in law, but everyone else had to

37
00:02:22,320 --> 00:02:29,000
Speaker 1: be in the immediate family, so brothers, sisters, parents, and children. Um,

38
00:02:29,120 --> 00:02:34,640
Speaker 1: so really anybody outside of that circle would have been excluded.

39
00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:40,800
Speaker 1: So now Federal Judge Derrek Watson on Thursday ordered the

40
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:45,760
Speaker 1: government not to enforce the ban on grandparents grandchildren, brother

41
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:48,640
Speaker 1: in law, sister in law's, aunts, uncle's, nieces, nephews, and

42
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:51,320
Speaker 1: cousins of people in the US. And he said, indeed,

43
00:02:51,320 --> 00:02:56,000
Speaker 1: grandparents are the epitome of close family members. But David,

44
00:02:56,200 --> 00:03:00,720
Speaker 1: what about cousins and nieces and nephews. Does seem like

45
00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:03,360
Speaker 1: it's really broad Now it went from being too narrowed

46
00:03:03,400 --> 00:03:06,639
Speaker 1: to now too broad. I mean, look, I'm close with

47
00:03:06,680 --> 00:03:10,600
Speaker 1: my wife's mother, but I spend way more time talking

48
00:03:10,639 --> 00:03:14,360
Speaker 1: to my nephew Caleb than either of my parents in

49
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:18,040
Speaker 1: law by a long shot. So the idea that you know,

50
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:21,480
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is trying to parse all these relationships

51
00:03:21,800 --> 00:03:25,880
Speaker 1: and say, you know, well, maybe grandparents count, but your

52
00:03:26,000 --> 00:03:30,120
Speaker 1: nieces and nephews don't. I mean, it's just ridiculous. You know,

53
00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:33,400
Speaker 1: at this point, it's pretty clear, you know, with the

54
00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:36,440
Speaker 1: Supreme Court language, I mean, if you look at it,

55
00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:41,120
Speaker 1: they said, you know, the person has no connection at all. Uh,

56
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:46,800
Speaker 1: they could be excluded, and really, you know, emphasizing that

57
00:03:46,840 --> 00:03:51,280
Speaker 1: they you know that this mother in law clearly would qualify. Well,

58
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:55,600
Speaker 1: if the mother in law clearly qualifies, then an aunt, uncle, niece,

59
00:03:55,680 --> 00:04:00,760
Speaker 1: nephew relationship would certainly qualify as well. So is the

60
00:04:00,840 --> 00:04:04,680
Speaker 1: judge saying you just can't make blanket statements in this

61
00:04:04,840 --> 00:04:07,960
Speaker 1: you have to look at each situation or saying that,

62
00:04:08,000 --> 00:04:13,160
Speaker 1: you know, everybody who's related can come in right now

63
00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:16,040
Speaker 1: for right now. Uh, you know, as this is still

64
00:04:16,080 --> 00:04:21,280
Speaker 1: working through the process, and anyone with the with these

65
00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:26,200
Speaker 1: relationships would be eligible to apply and receive a visa

66
00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:30,800
Speaker 1: to come to the United States. Yes, So, um, David,

67
00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:32,880
Speaker 1: what what can we expect now? I mean, we had

68
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:34,880
Speaker 1: a litigation all the way up to the Supreme Court

69
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:39,080
Speaker 1: the first time around. Now you have the Trump administration

70
00:04:39,080 --> 00:04:41,480
Speaker 1: apparently trying to make this a very very narrow order,

71
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:44,280
Speaker 1: you know, a very very narrow possibility for people to

72
00:04:44,320 --> 00:04:45,960
Speaker 1: get into the country as narrow as they can. You

73
00:04:45,960 --> 00:04:47,800
Speaker 1: have a court saying you can't do that. It's going

74
00:04:47,839 --> 00:04:53,080
Speaker 1: to be more expansive. Can we expect more litigation over this? Well,

75
00:04:53,160 --> 00:04:58,279
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is already appealing this um determination that

76
00:04:58,880 --> 00:05:02,719
Speaker 1: grandparents and grand children and so forth, nieces and nephews

77
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:08,360
Speaker 1: can be included or non included under the order. So

78
00:05:08,480 --> 00:05:11,599
Speaker 1: there there's definitely going to be more litigation before the

79
00:05:11,600 --> 00:05:16,880
Speaker 1: Supreme Court ultimately decides. We could have the Supreme Court

80
00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:21,960
Speaker 1: intervene immediately and and clarify what they meant. Um, they

81
00:05:22,040 --> 00:05:26,800
Speaker 1: could just allow being lower courts order to be sustained

82
00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:30,760
Speaker 1: until they have time to hear the full arguments in

83
00:05:30,800 --> 00:05:34,520
Speaker 1: the case in October. Um. You know, it's really in

84
00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:39,520
Speaker 1: the appeals court right now. Um. But the Supreme Court

85
00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:44,400
Speaker 1: could also rule immediately. So UM, you know it's up

86
00:05:44,400 --> 00:05:48,160
Speaker 1: in the air. But right now we know that there

87
00:05:48,200 --> 00:05:51,840
Speaker 1: will be some kind of determination really by the end

88
00:05:51,839 --> 00:05:54,120
Speaker 1: of the year on this. David as part of his

89
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:59,320
Speaker 1: executive order, Trump set a fifty person cap on refugee admissions,

90
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:02,880
Speaker 1: which the u US already surpassed on Wednesday. Is that

91
00:06:03,000 --> 00:06:07,159
Speaker 1: cap still allowed? So with the again with the Supreme

92
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:10,880
Speaker 1: Court said was the cap could only be applied to

93
00:06:11,000 --> 00:06:14,719
Speaker 1: people who didn't fit into this, uh, this bona fide

94
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:17,680
Speaker 1: relationship with a person or entity in the United States.

95
00:06:17,680 --> 00:06:22,720
Speaker 1: And the the court, the judge who's order we're discussing

96
00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:27,240
Speaker 1: right now, also affected that portion of the order by

97
00:06:27,279 --> 00:06:31,040
Speaker 1: saying that anybody who had a relationship with a refugee

98
00:06:31,040 --> 00:06:35,200
Speaker 1: resettlement organization in the United States, um could enter the

99
00:06:35,240 --> 00:06:38,360
Speaker 1: United States or uh, you know, receive refugee status to

100
00:06:38,440 --> 00:06:42,080
Speaker 1: come to the United States. UM. So that portion of

101
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:46,880
Speaker 1: the order was affected by this judge's decision as well. So, David,

102
00:06:47,080 --> 00:06:49,760
Speaker 1: do do you think the at the end of the day,

103
00:06:50,440 --> 00:06:52,200
Speaker 1: this really just hell has to get sorted out by

104
00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:55,039
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and you know it, is it going

105
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:59,120
Speaker 1: to be about executive Is this really gonna revolutionized immigration law?

106
00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:02,120
Speaker 1: Are we going to have the court really rebuked the

107
00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:08,239
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Well, you're absolutely right to use the word revolutionize. Uh.

108
00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:14,360
Speaker 1: It would revolutionize immigration law if they started applying um,

109
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:20,480
Speaker 1: the Bill of Rights to immigration law, because for many years, uh,

110
00:07:20,520 --> 00:07:24,960
Speaker 1: it was totally exempt and they're slowly creeping in more

111
00:07:25,040 --> 00:07:28,960
Speaker 1: protections for immigrants who have come to the United States

112
00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:32,560
Speaker 1: or who live in the United States. Courts have slowly

113
00:07:32,600 --> 00:07:38,119
Speaker 1: expanded those protections. But this would really be revolution if

114
00:07:38,200 --> 00:07:43,040
Speaker 1: the Court decided to say, you know, the First Amendment, um,

115
00:07:43,120 --> 00:07:46,880
Speaker 1: you know, really constrains the power of the government uh

116
00:07:46,920 --> 00:07:51,960
Speaker 1: to uh impact the lives of of people who have

117
00:07:52,040 --> 00:07:55,720
Speaker 1: never been to the United States before. Thanks, thank you

118
00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:58,080
Speaker 1: very much, David. That's David Beer of the Cato Institute

119
00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:00,200
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Law. Thanks for being this of this.

120
00:08:00,680 --> 00:08:02,800
Speaker 1: That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. We'll be

121
00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:05,760
Speaker 1: back tomorrow. Thanks to our technical director Chris trap Comy

122
00:08:05,800 --> 00:08:08,520
Speaker 1: and our producer David Senterman. You can mind find more

123
00:08:08,560 --> 00:08:11,160
Speaker 1: legal news at Bloomberg Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA

124
00:08:11,240 --> 00:08:14,120
Speaker 1: dot com, plus an invaluable website for the legal community

125
00:08:14,120 --> 00:08:16,920
Speaker 1: at Big Law Business dot com. Coming up on Bloomberg

126
00:08:17,000 --> 00:08:20,880
Speaker 1: Radio Bloomberg Markets, they'll be talking about renewable energy and

127
00:08:20,960 --> 00:08:24,720
Speaker 1: interpreters betting on hemp. That's coming up on Bloomberg Markets.

128
00:08:25,120 --> 00:08:27,840
Speaker 1: Stay tuned for all of that and more here on

129
00:08:27,880 --> 00:08:31,080
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. This is Bloomberg