1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:13,560
Speaker 2: Federal court rulings this weekend on immigration enforcement handed the

3
00:00:13,560 --> 00:00:17,880
Speaker 2: Trump administration a win and a loss, despite the fact

4
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:23,079
Speaker 2: that the federal judges in both cases excoriated the administration's

5
00:00:23,280 --> 00:00:27,319
Speaker 2: enforcement actions. A Texas federal judge ordered the release of

6
00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:30,120
Speaker 2: a five year old and his father who were detained

7
00:00:30,120 --> 00:00:33,320
Speaker 2: in Minnesota and sent to a detention center, but a

8
00:00:33,400 --> 00:00:38,559
Speaker 2: Minneapolis federal judge refused to halt the immigration enforcement surge

9
00:00:38,640 --> 00:00:42,720
Speaker 2: in Minnesota. My guest is immigration law expert lyon Fresco,

10
00:00:42,880 --> 00:00:46,239
Speaker 2: a partner at Holda Knight Leon. There seems to be

11
00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:50,800
Speaker 2: a change in tone from the Trump administration. President Trump

12
00:00:50,880 --> 00:00:55,080
Speaker 2: instructed to the Homeland Security Secretary not to intervene in

13
00:00:55,160 --> 00:01:00,600
Speaker 2: protests or unrested democratic led cities unless local officials formally

14
00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:06,600
Speaker 2: request assistance. DHS Secretary Christi nom said today that every

15
00:01:06,640 --> 00:01:10,320
Speaker 2: immigration officer on the ground will be issued body worn

16
00:01:10,440 --> 00:01:14,360
Speaker 2: cameras immediately. And of course last week we had borders

17
00:01:14,400 --> 00:01:17,720
Speaker 2: our Tom Homan saying that mistakes had been made.

18
00:01:18,080 --> 00:01:21,200
Speaker 3: I think there are two different philosophies, and I think

19
00:01:21,240 --> 00:01:23,920
Speaker 3: we're going to have for the remainder of this administration

20
00:01:24,560 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 3: a struggle back and forth between these two different philosophies,

21
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:35,000
Speaker 3: and one is rooted in practical law enforcement and legal doctrine,

22
00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:37,880
Speaker 3: which is what Tom Holman wants, which is to say,

23
00:01:38,360 --> 00:01:41,839
Speaker 3: we have whatever number, whether it's eleven million, twelve million,

24
00:01:41,920 --> 00:01:45,280
Speaker 3: twenty million, whatever number of people we have here without status,

25
00:01:45,640 --> 00:01:48,080
Speaker 3: if we're really going to focus our resources on a

26
00:01:48,120 --> 00:01:52,280
Speaker 3: specific subset of people, focus on people who are criminals

27
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:57,640
Speaker 3: and people with removal orders, and don't focus on the

28
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:01,360
Speaker 3: larger population, because this make the job of ICE much

29
00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:04,880
Speaker 3: more difficult in the sense that it creates these inflammatory

30
00:02:04,960 --> 00:02:08,320
Speaker 3: conditions that we're seeing across the country. Number one, but

31
00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:13,160
Speaker 3: number two, the agents are trained for detention and removal.

32
00:02:13,480 --> 00:02:18,280
Speaker 3: They're not trained for these local police tactics, regardless of

33
00:02:18,280 --> 00:02:21,679
Speaker 3: whether it's to border patrol or whether it's ICE. They're

34
00:02:21,720 --> 00:02:25,480
Speaker 3: not trained for that. They're trained for apprehension of a

35
00:02:25,480 --> 00:02:29,320
Speaker 3: particular person who's a foreign national, either in their home

36
00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:32,360
Speaker 3: or the workplace, or the court, bringing them to detention

37
00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:35,560
Speaker 3: and removing them from the country. And the border patrol

38
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:39,799
Speaker 3: is trained to guard the border. They're not trained to

39
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:42,120
Speaker 3: interact with us. It is entered and try to make

40
00:02:42,160 --> 00:02:45,360
Speaker 3: determinations as to who's here legally and who isn't in

41
00:02:45,440 --> 00:02:49,000
Speaker 3: a conflagration in a city. So that's one group. The

42
00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:53,359
Speaker 3: second group the philosophies are partly focused on this concept

43
00:02:53,400 --> 00:02:57,000
Speaker 3: of quotas and arrest numbers at all costs, but really

44
00:02:57,040 --> 00:03:02,000
Speaker 3: what they're trying to accomplish is to create deterrents such

45
00:03:02,080 --> 00:03:07,480
Speaker 3: that the conditions in the United States are so anxiety

46
00:03:07,600 --> 00:03:11,520
Speaker 3: producing that people make the determination that it's better for

47
00:03:11,600 --> 00:03:15,240
Speaker 3: them to self deport and to take the offer that

48
00:03:15,320 --> 00:03:18,720
Speaker 3: the US government is giving them to self deport rather

49
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:21,839
Speaker 3: than to remain in the United States and hope they

50
00:03:21,880 --> 00:03:25,720
Speaker 3: can figure out a way to outlast this current administration.

51
00:03:26,200 --> 00:03:28,960
Speaker 3: And those are the two theories, and those theories go

52
00:03:29,760 --> 00:03:33,440
Speaker 3: back and forth depending on who is in charge at

53
00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:37,080
Speaker 3: a particular moment and whose theory is being accepted at

54
00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:41,400
Speaker 3: a particular moment. And the point is one is going

55
00:03:41,440 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 3: to yield probably more numbers than the other, but at

56
00:03:46,240 --> 00:03:50,160
Speaker 3: different times. Meaning if there's a lot of court injunctions

57
00:03:50,320 --> 00:03:54,320
Speaker 3: and a lot of city conflagrations, maybe you might have

58
00:03:54,440 --> 00:04:00,520
Speaker 3: yielded more numbers just having this blanket immigration deportation frenzy,

59
00:04:00,960 --> 00:04:03,360
Speaker 3: But at the end you won't really, because you'll get

60
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 3: a lot of stops and starts there. Whereas it's like

61
00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:09,040
Speaker 3: the tortoise and the hair, if you do things the

62
00:04:09,160 --> 00:04:12,720
Speaker 3: right way, in a slow and steady fashion. Yes it

63
00:04:12,800 --> 00:04:16,680
Speaker 3: isn't this mass deportation of millions of people, but you

64
00:04:16,760 --> 00:04:20,360
Speaker 3: get less injunctions, you get less orders overturning your work,

65
00:04:20,720 --> 00:04:24,479
Speaker 3: and you actually get deportations. And so this is what

66
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:27,599
Speaker 3: Tom Holman has known. But to say that this is

67
00:04:27,640 --> 00:04:31,120
Speaker 3: going to be the state of affairs for any extended

68
00:04:31,160 --> 00:04:34,359
Speaker 3: period of time is foolish because this has changed many

69
00:04:34,400 --> 00:04:38,040
Speaker 3: times and will continue to change many times during this administration.

70
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:42,160
Speaker 2: A recent case that's gotten a lot of attention is

71
00:04:42,320 --> 00:04:45,359
Speaker 2: the five year old and his father who were detained

72
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:49,680
Speaker 2: in Minnesota and sent to a detention center in Texas.

73
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:52,240
Speaker 2: In ordering the release of the five year old and

74
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:57,520
Speaker 2: his father, Texas Judge Fred Bury accused the government of cruelty,

75
00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:01,080
Speaker 2: saying the case had its genesis quote in the ill

76
00:05:01,160 --> 00:05:07,680
Speaker 2: conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas

77
00:05:08,200 --> 00:05:11,840
Speaker 2: apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.

78
00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:14,440
Speaker 3: So here's what happened. So you have a father whose

79
00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:18,600
Speaker 3: name is Adrian Conejo Arias and his son Liam. And

80
00:05:19,080 --> 00:05:23,279
Speaker 3: basically what is conceded here is that there's a detention

81
00:05:23,480 --> 00:05:26,120
Speaker 3: of the father in a way where the father is

82
00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:29,320
Speaker 3: separated from the child, and the detention of that father

83
00:05:29,440 --> 00:05:33,240
Speaker 3: relied on an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, and

84
00:05:33,480 --> 00:05:38,039
Speaker 3: was part of a broader enforcement regime driven by the

85
00:05:38,080 --> 00:05:41,920
Speaker 3: deportation numbers that the administration felt that it needed to have,

86
00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:44,800
Speaker 3: and not because there was an actual reason to detain

87
00:05:44,880 --> 00:05:47,360
Speaker 3: this person. Why do we say that, because this person

88
00:05:47,680 --> 00:05:50,680
Speaker 3: was in the middle of the asylum process and did

89
00:05:50,680 --> 00:05:54,200
Speaker 3: not have any criminal issues. So the point is, usually

90
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:57,040
Speaker 3: when that happens, they let you play out the asylum

91
00:05:57,080 --> 00:05:59,720
Speaker 3: process and if you win, good, you win, and you're

92
00:05:59,760 --> 00:06:02,920
Speaker 3: on your way to lawful permanent residency. But if you lose,

93
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:06,240
Speaker 3: that's when they detain you and move you into the

94
00:06:06,279 --> 00:06:10,960
Speaker 3: deportation process. They very very rarely. Something usually has to happen,

95
00:06:11,000 --> 00:06:13,680
Speaker 3: like an arrest or some sort of very bad thing

96
00:06:14,240 --> 00:06:16,839
Speaker 3: to just pick someone up who's in the middle of

97
00:06:16,880 --> 00:06:20,360
Speaker 3: the asylum process and just put them in detention, especially

98
00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:24,680
Speaker 3: when there's children involved. But that's what happens here. They

99
00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:28,520
Speaker 3: separate the child from the father for a moment, they

100
00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:31,320
Speaker 3: try to give the child to the mother. The mother

101
00:06:31,440 --> 00:06:35,839
Speaker 3: is terrified of Ice and is basically not allowing Ice

102
00:06:35,880 --> 00:06:38,200
Speaker 3: to give the mother the child because she's worried if

103
00:06:38,200 --> 00:06:41,520
Speaker 3: Ice opens the door, she's going to be apprehended. So

104
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:44,040
Speaker 3: the child and the father are taken to the Dilly

105
00:06:44,480 --> 00:06:49,240
Speaker 3: Family Immigration Processing Center in Texas. And usually the way

106
00:06:49,279 --> 00:06:52,320
Speaker 3: that works is when families come in the United States,

107
00:06:52,360 --> 00:06:55,760
Speaker 3: that's where families are detained and then they're led out

108
00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:01,599
Speaker 3: because there's immigration decisions that don't let children be in

109
00:07:01,720 --> 00:07:05,400
Speaker 3: immigration detention for longer than two weeks, So usually it

110
00:07:05,440 --> 00:07:07,960
Speaker 3: works that way. But in this way, they were trying

111
00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,040
Speaker 3: to put the child and the father in detention, hoping

112
00:07:11,040 --> 00:07:13,800
Speaker 3: they could get them on their way out. The problem is,

113
00:07:13,840 --> 00:07:16,360
Speaker 3: of course, there's a pending asylum case, so you can't

114
00:07:16,680 --> 00:07:18,960
Speaker 3: do anything. All you can do is just detain them

115
00:07:19,200 --> 00:07:22,800
Speaker 3: for the purpose of having a new arrest number and

116
00:07:22,880 --> 00:07:26,560
Speaker 3: a new detention bed occupation number, but not to actually

117
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:30,080
Speaker 3: accomplish a removal. So what happened? So these individuals file

118
00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:33,480
Speaker 3: a habeas petition saying why have you detained them in

119
00:07:33,520 --> 00:07:36,760
Speaker 3: the middle of the asylum process. What's the point of this?

120
00:07:37,440 --> 00:07:40,760
Speaker 3: And even though that's technically something that needs to be

121
00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:45,160
Speaker 3: done as part of an immigration bond hearing, the immigration

122
00:07:45,320 --> 00:07:49,240
Speaker 3: courts are currently not considering those cases because there's an opinion,

123
00:07:49,280 --> 00:07:53,680
Speaker 3: that's an administrative opinion that granted courts have refused to

124
00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:57,680
Speaker 3: accept hundreds of times now because many people have filed habeas's,

125
00:07:58,080 --> 00:08:00,640
Speaker 3: hundreds and hundreds of them all around the country, and

126
00:08:00,680 --> 00:08:03,400
Speaker 3: almost all of those habeases are successful, saying that this

127
00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:07,640
Speaker 3: blanket detention that's not being even considered for bond hearing

128
00:08:07,720 --> 00:08:12,080
Speaker 3: is unconstitutional and violates the statute. And so that's basically

129
00:08:12,080 --> 00:08:14,760
Speaker 3: what this court says. It says, hey, there's not a

130
00:08:14,800 --> 00:08:17,040
Speaker 3: reason not to let these people out of the bond.

131
00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:22,960
Speaker 3: And the arrest itself lacked constitutionally sufficient process because again

132
00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:26,520
Speaker 3: it relied on administrative warrants instead of judicial warrants and

133
00:08:26,800 --> 00:08:30,640
Speaker 3: was part of this broader enforcement regime driven by daily

134
00:08:30,720 --> 00:08:36,680
Speaker 3: deportation quotas, not individualized probable cause determination. And then that's

135
00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:41,719
Speaker 3: when the judge started talking about eighteen oh seven cases

136
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:46,400
Speaker 3: and the Magna Carta and Blackstone and biblical references and

137
00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:50,320
Speaker 3: the Declaration of Independence, and basically, in a very very

138
00:08:50,320 --> 00:08:56,600
Speaker 3: scathing fashion, criticizing this administration, and so that's that's why

139
00:08:56,640 --> 00:08:59,920
Speaker 3: the release was ordered. There, This judge was very up

140
00:09:00,360 --> 00:09:03,880
Speaker 3: at the government and the release was ordered. Now, ultimately

141
00:09:04,679 --> 00:09:07,600
Speaker 3: there's going to be a grappling here, not in this

142
00:09:07,640 --> 00:09:12,080
Speaker 3: particular case, i'd imagine, but ultimately where the Supreme Court's

143
00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:14,480
Speaker 3: going to have to figure out can these habeas petitions

144
00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:17,280
Speaker 3: be listened to? Did the government do the wrong thing

145
00:09:17,320 --> 00:09:21,559
Speaker 3: with this blanket detention no bond order that it's issued,

146
00:09:21,920 --> 00:09:23,960
Speaker 3: And that's all going to have to shake itself out.

147
00:09:24,559 --> 00:09:28,839
Speaker 2: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has disputed the claim that

148
00:09:28,880 --> 00:09:34,000
Speaker 2: the father had properly followed the legal asylum process.

149
00:09:34,360 --> 00:09:37,280
Speaker 3: There's a very meaningful dispute about whether they had properly

150
00:09:37,320 --> 00:09:38,760
Speaker 3: applied for asylum.

151
00:09:38,520 --> 00:09:41,520
Speaker 2: And said the Justice Department is going to appeal the

152
00:09:41,640 --> 00:09:42,440
Speaker 2: judge's ruling.

153
00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:46,000
Speaker 3: Well, I think at the end of the day, if

154
00:09:46,040 --> 00:09:48,920
Speaker 3: they want to appeal this case, they're going to be

155
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:53,520
Speaker 3: appealing it within the context of the legal issues being

156
00:09:53,559 --> 00:09:56,839
Speaker 3: what they are. And again we've talked about this several times.

157
00:09:56,840 --> 00:10:00,760
Speaker 3: Its concept of sometimes the statutes are quite ri and

158
00:10:00,880 --> 00:10:04,199
Speaker 3: here they might prevail in the fact that the statutes

159
00:10:04,200 --> 00:10:07,920
Speaker 3: themselves may foreclose habeas in this context and say that

160
00:10:07,960 --> 00:10:12,319
Speaker 3: the bond situation has to happen within the removal preceding process.

161
00:10:12,880 --> 00:10:15,520
Speaker 3: So it is all possible, but it's just not a

162
00:10:15,600 --> 00:10:18,679
Speaker 3: very sympathetic fact pattern because you have this five year

163
00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:22,880
Speaker 3: old child in immigration detention, and I understand that there's

164
00:10:22,920 --> 00:10:26,840
Speaker 3: definitely factual disputes about what happened during the detention and

165
00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:31,280
Speaker 3: also what happened with regard to him perfecting his asylum claim.

166
00:10:31,760 --> 00:10:34,960
Speaker 3: But nevertheless, I just don't know that this is where

167
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:37,360
Speaker 3: they want to plant their flag as this being the

168
00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:40,199
Speaker 3: case that ends up in the Supreme Court and having

169
00:10:40,240 --> 00:10:43,320
Speaker 3: them decide whether a habeas is proper, because I think

170
00:10:43,559 --> 00:10:46,040
Speaker 3: most people would say maybe this was the exact case

171
00:10:46,040 --> 00:10:49,000
Speaker 3: you'd want a habeas in. They probably want the habeas

172
00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:52,160
Speaker 3: in a much less sympathetic context to the foreign national.

173
00:10:52,360 --> 00:10:54,439
Speaker 3: But we'll have to wait and see maybe they will

174
00:10:54,480 --> 00:10:55,640
Speaker 3: pick this, or.

175
00:10:55,559 --> 00:10:59,880
Speaker 2: Maybe they'll reconsider after some thought. Stay with me. Leon.

176
00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:03,599
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, a Minnesota

177
00:11:03,720 --> 00:11:09,840
Speaker 2: judge criticizes the Trump administration's immigration enforcement but refuses to

178
00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:13,120
Speaker 2: stop it. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

179
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:18,920
Speaker 2: A Minneapolis federal judge has ruled that she won't stop

180
00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:23,320
Speaker 2: the immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota and the Twin Cities

181
00:11:23,800 --> 00:11:27,920
Speaker 2: as a lawsuit over it proceeds. Judge Catherine Menendez on

182
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:32,720
Speaker 2: Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in the lawsuit file

183
00:11:32,840 --> 00:11:36,440
Speaker 2: this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the

184
00:11:36,480 --> 00:11:40,160
Speaker 2: mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul. I've been talking to

185
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:44,640
Speaker 2: immigration attorney Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. So there

186
00:11:44,720 --> 00:11:52,000
Speaker 2: was another scathing opinion by a judge in Minneapolis, Judge Menendez,

187
00:11:52,520 --> 00:11:56,439
Speaker 2: and she acknowledged that Minnesota and the cities have made

188
00:11:56,480 --> 00:12:00,800
Speaker 2: a strong showing that Operation Metro ser has had and

189
00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:05,320
Speaker 2: will continue to have profound and even heartbreaking consequences, and

190
00:12:05,480 --> 00:12:09,200
Speaker 2: also found evidence that ICE and Border Patrol agents have

191
00:12:09,320 --> 00:12:13,640
Speaker 2: engaged in racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other

192
00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:19,120
Speaker 2: harmful actions. But still she wouldn't stop the federal immigration operation.

193
00:12:19,720 --> 00:12:23,120
Speaker 3: Correct. What happened was you had the State of Minnesota,

194
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:26,520
Speaker 3: the City of Minneapolis, and the City of Saint Paul's

195
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:30,680
Speaker 3: suing to halt what was called Operation Metro Surge, which

196
00:12:30,679 --> 00:12:34,000
Speaker 3: is the large scale immigration enforcement operation that was going

197
00:12:34,000 --> 00:12:37,720
Speaker 3: on in Minnesota, and they were arguing that the Tenth

198
00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:41,600
Speaker 3: Amendment was violated due to anti commandeering, meaning that their

199
00:12:41,800 --> 00:12:46,840
Speaker 3: forces were being commandeered by the federal government without their consent,

200
00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:52,199
Speaker 3: also violating principles of equal state sovereignty, and also functioning

201
00:12:52,240 --> 00:12:57,119
Speaker 3: as political retaliation because they chose to be a sanctuary jurisdiction,

202
00:12:57,520 --> 00:12:59,360
Speaker 3: which in this case just meant that they didn't want

203
00:12:59,400 --> 00:13:03,000
Speaker 3: to cooperate with ICE to do arrest. They said, you know,

204
00:13:03,040 --> 00:13:05,479
Speaker 3: the ICE is on its own. We don't have to cooperate,

205
00:13:05,920 --> 00:13:08,960
Speaker 3: and so we will not. And so what the judge

206
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:11,040
Speaker 3: said is, as you said, there were a lot of

207
00:13:11,040 --> 00:13:14,560
Speaker 3: things that bothered the judge with regard to racial profiling

208
00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:17,960
Speaker 3: and the way immigration enforcement was being done, and she

209
00:13:18,040 --> 00:13:22,000
Speaker 3: didn't decide whether that operation was lawful overall, and she

210
00:13:22,280 --> 00:13:26,280
Speaker 3: certainly did not endorse the wisdom, fairness, or morality of

211
00:13:26,320 --> 00:13:28,760
Speaker 3: the operation. And she did, of course, like we said,

212
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:33,360
Speaker 3: cited the racial profiling, excessive force, and unlawful arrest. But

213
00:13:33,559 --> 00:13:38,320
Speaker 3: what she decided was whether an injunction would be tenable

214
00:13:38,480 --> 00:13:42,840
Speaker 3: under this tenth Amendment and equal sovereignty theory. And ultimately,

215
00:13:42,880 --> 00:13:46,600
Speaker 3: what the court said is that the plaintiffs failed to

216
00:13:46,640 --> 00:13:51,120
Speaker 3: show a likelihood of success under existing Supreme Court president

217
00:13:51,240 --> 00:13:55,280
Speaker 3: because the law is very narrow and undeveloped, and basically,

218
00:13:55,320 --> 00:13:59,040
Speaker 3: the Court didn't have a workable legal standard for determining

219
00:13:59,320 --> 00:14:03,760
Speaker 3: how many Fed agencies too many when aggressive enforcement crosses

220
00:14:03,800 --> 00:14:08,960
Speaker 3: the line from lawful pressure into unconstitutional coercion. And so

221
00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:12,079
Speaker 3: even though she said it wasn't legally frivolous, she didn't

222
00:14:12,080 --> 00:14:15,440
Speaker 3: see how she could have an extraordinary remedy where a

223
00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:19,720
Speaker 3: judge would halt a federal law enforcement operation. And I

224
00:14:19,760 --> 00:14:22,680
Speaker 3: think here there are two key points. I think it's

225
00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:25,960
Speaker 3: probably not lost on the judge that tom Holman did

226
00:14:25,960 --> 00:14:30,040
Speaker 3: say what he said. Perhaps the judge was concerned about

227
00:14:30,400 --> 00:14:34,760
Speaker 3: after tom Holman said what he said, getting involved and

228
00:14:35,320 --> 00:14:38,640
Speaker 3: not basically letting this process play out. Perhaps if the

229
00:14:38,680 --> 00:14:41,920
Speaker 3: process continued to play out in a way that was

230
00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:45,360
Speaker 3: more escalatory, you might have seen a different decision. But

231
00:14:45,640 --> 00:14:49,760
Speaker 3: I think that the tom Homan discussions about dialing it down,

232
00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:53,240
Speaker 3: I think were very helpful Number one, and I think

233
00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:56,360
Speaker 3: number two, at the end of the day, the judge

234
00:14:57,000 --> 00:15:03,040
Speaker 3: was also concerned about how there would be this basically

235
00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:07,960
Speaker 3: day to day governance of the federal government in one

236
00:15:08,000 --> 00:15:11,480
Speaker 3: of these contexts, and so I think the judge basically said,

237
00:15:12,000 --> 00:15:15,040
Speaker 3: let's see what Tom Holman is going to be doing

238
00:15:15,080 --> 00:15:18,280
Speaker 3: in Minneapolis, and then we can come back and revisit this,

239
00:15:18,440 --> 00:15:21,560
Speaker 3: but for now, this is not the time perhaps to

240
00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:23,320
Speaker 3: issue this injunction.

241
00:15:24,480 --> 00:15:29,600
Speaker 2: So now, in the category of another day, another immigration lawsuit,

242
00:15:30,280 --> 00:15:34,760
Speaker 2: the Trump administration is being sued over that ban on

243
00:15:35,120 --> 00:15:40,000
Speaker 2: immigration from seventy five countries, where the State Department suspended

244
00:15:40,040 --> 00:15:44,560
Speaker 2: the approval of visas from seventy five countries. More than

245
00:15:44,600 --> 00:15:48,280
Speaker 2: eighty five percent of the countries are non European with

246
00:15:48,480 --> 00:15:53,880
Speaker 2: significant non white populations. Tell us about this new lawsuit.

247
00:15:54,040 --> 00:15:58,160
Speaker 3: There's organizational plainefs and also there's individual plainifs, including US

248
00:15:58,160 --> 00:16:01,920
Speaker 3: citizens traina petition for their family members, and also highly

249
00:16:01,960 --> 00:16:06,320
Speaker 3: skilled employment based immigrant visa applications meaning people coming here

250
00:16:06,360 --> 00:16:09,680
Speaker 3: to do very important things that aren't banned because they're

251
00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:13,240
Speaker 3: from the seventy five countries. And there's a few documents.

252
00:16:13,280 --> 00:16:16,960
Speaker 3: There's a blanket visa band cable that was issued on

253
00:16:17,560 --> 00:16:20,800
Speaker 3: January fourteenth of twenty twenty six, and there was a

254
00:16:20,880 --> 00:16:25,760
Speaker 3: councular processing cable. And what they're saying is these cables

255
00:16:25,800 --> 00:16:28,600
Speaker 3: that basically say that the reason there's a seventy five

256
00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:32,720
Speaker 3: country ban is because they're worried that the people from

257
00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:34,600
Speaker 3: these seventy five countries are going to come in and

258
00:16:34,720 --> 00:16:39,520
Speaker 3: use welfare benefits. That this violates the entire statutory scheme

259
00:16:39,560 --> 00:16:42,680
Speaker 3: of the Immigration and Nationality Act for a couple of reasons.

260
00:16:42,800 --> 00:16:46,560
Speaker 3: Number One, there's literally this is the weirdest thing. And

261
00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:48,560
Speaker 3: I hate using this word literally, but here it is

262
00:16:48,600 --> 00:16:50,920
Speaker 3: the appropriate use of the word. There is literally a

263
00:16:50,960 --> 00:16:55,400
Speaker 3: provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that says that

264
00:16:55,480 --> 00:16:59,440
Speaker 3: you can't discriminate when you're giving out green cards based

265
00:16:59,440 --> 00:17:02,360
Speaker 3: on the country that someone's from. It actually says it

266
00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:08,960
Speaker 3: right there in writing. And that's interesting because that's usually

267
00:17:09,119 --> 00:17:12,520
Speaker 3: within the context of what the administration is not supposed

268
00:17:12,560 --> 00:17:14,800
Speaker 3: to do. Is it's not supposed to say, give the

269
00:17:14,800 --> 00:17:17,600
Speaker 3: green cards to this country as opposed to another. It's

270
00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:21,160
Speaker 3: supposed to be first come, first served, within the confined

271
00:17:21,200 --> 00:17:24,160
Speaker 3: of after you get more than seven percent from any

272
00:17:24,200 --> 00:17:27,560
Speaker 3: one country your cat. That's fine, that's a different part

273
00:17:27,600 --> 00:17:29,480
Speaker 3: of the statue. But other than that, it's supposed to

274
00:17:29,560 --> 00:17:32,200
Speaker 3: be first come, first serve. So they're saying, look, there's

275
00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:34,600
Speaker 3: a clear statue that says you can't do this. The

276
00:17:34,680 --> 00:17:38,640
Speaker 3: problem is there's another statue which says that the president

277
00:17:38,720 --> 00:17:42,280
Speaker 3: can ban whoever the president wants if the president thinks

278
00:17:42,320 --> 00:17:45,440
Speaker 3: that's in the national interests of the country. And that's

279
00:17:45,480 --> 00:17:48,240
Speaker 3: already been given some difference in the Trump versus Hawaii

280
00:17:48,359 --> 00:17:51,800
Speaker 3: case from the first administration. So again you have these

281
00:17:51,880 --> 00:17:56,040
Speaker 3: dueling statutes. Which statute will win. Will it be the

282
00:17:56,800 --> 00:18:02,080
Speaker 3: travel ban statute or will it be the statute that

283
00:18:02,119 --> 00:18:05,000
Speaker 3: says you can't discriminate based on who you give green

284
00:18:05,040 --> 00:18:07,879
Speaker 3: cards to. Now what was interesting is that same argument

285
00:18:08,040 --> 00:18:11,640
Speaker 3: was made in the travel ban case but was rejected.

286
00:18:11,760 --> 00:18:15,359
Speaker 3: But interestingly, the reason it was rejected was because the

287
00:18:15,400 --> 00:18:18,760
Speaker 3: travel ban case back then was not a ban on

288
00:18:18,800 --> 00:18:20,639
Speaker 3: green cards. It was a ban on all kinds of

289
00:18:20,640 --> 00:18:25,320
Speaker 3: other visas, visitor visa, student visas, other kinds of temporary visas.

290
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:28,760
Speaker 3: But it actually wasn't a ban on green cards. And

291
00:18:28,840 --> 00:18:31,840
Speaker 3: so this is going to be very interesting is does

292
00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:35,240
Speaker 3: this ban that's an actual ban on green cards violate

293
00:18:35,280 --> 00:18:38,639
Speaker 3: the statutory language which says you can't discriminate in the

294
00:18:38,680 --> 00:18:42,320
Speaker 3: allocation of green cards based on what country someone is from.

295
00:18:42,359 --> 00:18:45,439
Speaker 3: So that's number one, and then number two, the fact

296
00:18:45,440 --> 00:18:49,400
Speaker 3: that the underlying fear is that the people coming will

297
00:18:49,400 --> 00:18:52,720
Speaker 3: be public charges, so to speak, meaning that they will

298
00:18:52,760 --> 00:18:56,800
Speaker 3: rely on the federal government and the taxpayers for money.

299
00:18:57,440 --> 00:19:01,000
Speaker 3: The point there is, look Congress created a statutory scheme

300
00:19:01,040 --> 00:19:03,480
Speaker 3: for this. They said that when that's true, there has

301
00:19:03,520 --> 00:19:06,320
Speaker 3: to be a sponsor who is a US citizen or

302
00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:09,040
Speaker 3: a lawful permanent resident, and that person has to make

303
00:19:09,440 --> 00:19:12,879
Speaker 3: a certain amount of money. And in that situation, if

304
00:19:13,359 --> 00:19:16,760
Speaker 3: welfare benefits are obtained, then it's this sponsor who has

305
00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:19,320
Speaker 3: to pay them back. They've agreed to do this, But

306
00:19:19,400 --> 00:19:22,239
Speaker 3: that's the scheme, And the point is you can't come

307
00:19:22,320 --> 00:19:25,280
Speaker 3: up with another scheme now because you don't like the

308
00:19:25,359 --> 00:19:27,920
Speaker 3: existing scheme. So that's the point of the argument.

309
00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:31,480
Speaker 2: And how often do sponsors have to pay back welfare

310
00:19:31,520 --> 00:19:33,640
Speaker 2: benefits in practice?

311
00:19:34,080 --> 00:19:36,000
Speaker 3: I can't even think of a case. I don't know

312
00:19:36,040 --> 00:19:38,080
Speaker 3: of a case. I really don't know if a case

313
00:19:38,160 --> 00:19:41,280
Speaker 3: exists where a sponsor has ever been asked to pay

314
00:19:41,359 --> 00:19:44,760
Speaker 3: back the money that someone has obtained from public benefit.

315
00:19:44,840 --> 00:19:47,880
Speaker 3: So it's a very interesting question in terms of why

316
00:19:47,920 --> 00:19:51,320
Speaker 3: that's not happened. But that's the scheme. So we're going

317
00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:54,439
Speaker 3: to see who wins within this context. Will they be

318
00:19:54,560 --> 00:19:58,920
Speaker 3: correct that between the statutory language that says you can't

319
00:19:58,920 --> 00:20:03,800
Speaker 3: discriminate on a particular country and the statutory language that

320
00:20:03,840 --> 00:20:07,280
Speaker 3: says this is how you address this public charge concern

321
00:20:07,800 --> 00:20:10,720
Speaker 3: that that framework means you can't have the kind of

322
00:20:10,800 --> 00:20:15,000
Speaker 3: ban that the president issued, or will the President be

323
00:20:15,119 --> 00:20:20,000
Speaker 3: able to again succeed relying on his blanket banning authority

324
00:20:20,359 --> 00:20:23,680
Speaker 3: that allows him to basically ban any foreign national from

325
00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:26,520
Speaker 3: the United States for any reason, as long as he

326
00:20:26,600 --> 00:20:28,679
Speaker 3: thinks it's in the interests of the United States. So

327
00:20:29,080 --> 00:20:31,840
Speaker 3: that's the question, and this is going to be yet

328
00:20:31,880 --> 00:20:35,080
Speaker 3: another instance where these dueling statutes are going to have

329
00:20:35,119 --> 00:20:35,879
Speaker 3: to be analyzed.

330
00:20:36,280 --> 00:20:40,080
Speaker 2: So a senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center,

331
00:20:40,160 --> 00:20:45,000
Speaker 2: which brought this along with other legal organizations, said that

332
00:20:45,400 --> 00:20:49,600
Speaker 2: the regions and countries where immigration is banned under the

333
00:20:49,720 --> 00:20:54,040
Speaker 2: new policy boor an eerie resemblance to quota as enforced

334
00:20:54,040 --> 00:20:57,879
Speaker 2: by nineteen twenty statutes that were abolished during the Civil

335
00:20:58,040 --> 00:21:01,879
Speaker 2: Rights era, and that this was a freechext to limit

336
00:21:02,000 --> 00:21:06,480
Speaker 2: legal immigration and to reinstate those old racial quotas.

337
00:21:07,560 --> 00:21:11,320
Speaker 3: Correct the quotas that existed basically at that time only

338
00:21:11,320 --> 00:21:13,679
Speaker 3: allowed people from Europe to come to the United States

339
00:21:13,680 --> 00:21:16,960
Speaker 3: and not people from Asia or Africa, or South America

340
00:21:17,080 --> 00:21:20,560
Speaker 3: or the Caribbean or anywhere else. And that's the language

341
00:21:20,560 --> 00:21:22,439
Speaker 3: that I told you about, the language which said you

342
00:21:22,480 --> 00:21:27,000
Speaker 3: can't discriminate on the basis of national origin anymore. That

343
00:21:27,119 --> 00:21:29,480
Speaker 3: has to be a first come, first serve allocation of

344
00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:33,199
Speaker 3: green card. That's the language that ended the quotas. So

345
00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:36,639
Speaker 3: the quotas existed until the nineteen sixties, and then in

346
00:21:36,680 --> 00:21:40,320
Speaker 3: the nineteen sixties that language was put in which eliminated

347
00:21:40,320 --> 00:21:44,320
Speaker 3: the quotas. And so the question is what happens now.

348
00:21:44,400 --> 00:21:49,880
Speaker 3: Can the President, through his travel ban authority, which doesn't

349
00:21:49,960 --> 00:21:52,639
Speaker 3: just allow him to ban travel, but allows him to

350
00:21:52,640 --> 00:21:55,280
Speaker 3: ban any any entry of any kind by any non

351
00:21:55,440 --> 00:21:58,720
Speaker 3: US citizen, can he use this at such an expansive

352
00:21:58,760 --> 00:22:03,640
Speaker 3: way to basic redo the quotas of the pre nineteen

353
00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:07,000
Speaker 3: sixties era, or will the courts put some limitation on

354
00:22:07,080 --> 00:22:09,440
Speaker 3: the president? And that is going to be a very

355
00:22:09,480 --> 00:22:10,320
Speaker 3: interesting question.

356
00:22:10,840 --> 00:22:14,439
Speaker 2: Another interesting ruling was the Ninth Circuit saying that the

357
00:22:14,560 --> 00:22:19,440
Speaker 2: DHS Secretary didn't have the authority to vacate TPS status

358
00:22:19,480 --> 00:22:24,240
Speaker 2: for Venezuela and Haiti tell us why, Because TPS status

359
00:22:24,320 --> 00:22:28,040
Speaker 2: is something that's supposed to be temporary, so why can't

360
00:22:28,040 --> 00:22:29,680
Speaker 2: she Yeah, this has been.

361
00:22:29,600 --> 00:22:33,040
Speaker 3: A complicated case because this case has gone back and

362
00:22:33,080 --> 00:22:37,840
Speaker 3: forth several times where there's been preliminary injunctions where the

363
00:22:37,880 --> 00:22:41,240
Speaker 3: court lower courts have said, hey, we know there's temporary

364
00:22:41,320 --> 00:22:44,040
Speaker 3: protected status. What temporary protected status is, by the way,

365
00:22:44,560 --> 00:22:48,159
Speaker 3: is a statutory provision that says that the president if

366
00:22:48,200 --> 00:22:51,880
Speaker 3: they think there's some sort of natural disaster or some

367
00:22:51,920 --> 00:22:56,320
Speaker 3: sort of pandemic or something else in a particular country,

368
00:22:57,040 --> 00:23:01,440
Speaker 3: that in that situation, the president can say for eighteen months, hey,

369
00:23:01,600 --> 00:23:03,480
Speaker 3: people who are stuck here in the US are not

370
00:23:03,600 --> 00:23:08,159
Speaker 3: here illegally, they're temporarily protected. And then what's happened is

371
00:23:08,200 --> 00:23:11,320
Speaker 3: every eighteen months that gets renewed, renewed, renewed. And so

372
00:23:11,400 --> 00:23:14,760
Speaker 3: then this question was, Okay, what happened when those eighteen

373
00:23:14,800 --> 00:23:18,800
Speaker 3: months expired for Venezuela in eighty Is President Trump in

374
00:23:18,880 --> 00:23:22,320
Speaker 3: some way bound to do something other than let them expire?

375
00:23:22,800 --> 00:23:26,720
Speaker 3: And so there was a lawsuit saying that the Secretary

376
00:23:26,760 --> 00:23:31,480
Speaker 3: of Onland Security Christinome, exceeded her statutory authority in vacating

377
00:23:31,960 --> 00:23:37,560
Speaker 3: and terminating the temporary protected status. And there's been injunction

378
00:23:37,680 --> 00:23:39,680
Speaker 3: saying they had to come back, and then the Supreme

379
00:23:39,720 --> 00:23:43,080
Speaker 3: Court has said it doesn't have to come back. And

380
00:23:43,119 --> 00:23:46,600
Speaker 3: so one of the things that's complicated is Secretary No

381
00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:49,919
Speaker 3: didn't just let it expire, and she done that. She

382
00:23:50,000 --> 00:23:52,600
Speaker 3: might have actually had a better case, but she tried

383
00:23:52,640 --> 00:23:57,120
Speaker 3: to vacate the existing temporary protected status, and so by

384
00:23:57,160 --> 00:24:00,520
Speaker 3: doing that, the Court said that she exceeded her statutory

385
00:24:00,640 --> 00:24:05,560
Speaker 3: authority to vacate this, and then by doing that is

386
00:24:05,600 --> 00:24:10,320
Speaker 3: sort of basically using that as a mechanism to extend

387
00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:14,520
Speaker 3: temporary protected status as much as possible. I don't think

388
00:24:14,600 --> 00:24:17,359
Speaker 3: here the Supreme Court is ultimately going to have a

389
00:24:17,400 --> 00:24:21,920
Speaker 3: lot of sympathy, especially when the time actually expires and

390
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:25,720
Speaker 3: there really is no temporary protected status left because the

391
00:24:25,800 --> 00:24:29,439
Speaker 3: time has expired. And basically I don't think the Supreme

392
00:24:29,440 --> 00:24:33,600
Speaker 3: Court will say that there's any judge that can require

393
00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:37,840
Speaker 3: a president to renew temporary protected status. So I think

394
00:24:38,280 --> 00:24:40,560
Speaker 3: ultimately this is going to end up being much ado

395
00:24:40,640 --> 00:24:43,560
Speaker 3: about nothing. But the Ninth Circuit is trying its best

396
00:24:43,880 --> 00:24:49,199
Speaker 3: to keep the Venezuelan and Haitian population protected from deportation.

397
00:24:49,440 --> 00:24:51,439
Speaker 3: But I don't think in the long run this is

398
00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:52,439
Speaker 3: going to be successful.

399
00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:55,720
Speaker 2: Texas has its own H one divisa policy.

400
00:24:56,000 --> 00:24:58,000
Speaker 3: So here's what happens. So let's go through this because

401
00:24:58,040 --> 00:25:00,919
Speaker 3: this is very interesting. You sure, H one B visa

402
00:25:01,080 --> 00:25:05,040
Speaker 3: is a visa for highly skilled foreign nationals to come

403
00:25:05,080 --> 00:25:07,720
Speaker 3: to the United States to perform highly skilled work and

404
00:25:07,800 --> 00:25:10,800
Speaker 3: has a two prong tests. The test is, is there

405
00:25:10,800 --> 00:25:13,960
Speaker 3: a job that needs to be filled that that specific

406
00:25:14,119 --> 00:25:17,879
Speaker 3: job requires a very specific degree, And then does the

407
00:25:17,920 --> 00:25:21,520
Speaker 3: person who's coming to fill that job have that degree

408
00:25:21,640 --> 00:25:24,920
Speaker 3: not some may not some random degree, but that specific

409
00:25:24,960 --> 00:25:27,320
Speaker 3: degree to do that job. If you can, you can

410
00:25:27,359 --> 00:25:30,720
Speaker 3: get an H one B visa. The H one B visa, however,

411
00:25:30,840 --> 00:25:34,320
Speaker 3: has a cap at sixty five thousand visas per year,

412
00:25:34,560 --> 00:25:37,480
Speaker 3: plus another twenty thousand if you happen to have a

413
00:25:37,520 --> 00:25:41,320
Speaker 3: master's degree or above from a US university, so eighty

414
00:25:41,359 --> 00:25:45,480
Speaker 3: five thousand. Let's say. Now here's what's fascinating. There are

415
00:25:45,960 --> 00:25:49,520
Speaker 3: ways to get above that cap. And the main way

416
00:25:49,560 --> 00:25:53,280
Speaker 3: to get above that cap is if the person applying

417
00:25:53,440 --> 00:25:56,280
Speaker 3: for the H one B visa, the company, sorry, or whatever,

418
00:25:56,320 --> 00:26:02,159
Speaker 3: the petitioner is either a US university or it's a

419
00:26:02,280 --> 00:26:07,879
Speaker 3: governmental institution. Those are the main ways that those institutions

420
00:26:07,880 --> 00:26:10,760
Speaker 3: can exceed the cap, and so there are a lot

421
00:26:10,760 --> 00:26:14,600
Speaker 3: of universities who exceed the cap and bring in a

422
00:26:14,600 --> 00:26:16,639
Speaker 3: lot of people on H one B visas. What are

423
00:26:16,680 --> 00:26:20,840
Speaker 3: they bringing them in for. They're bringing them into be professors, researchers,

424
00:26:21,240 --> 00:26:23,840
Speaker 3: and the biggest one, and this is where this is

425
00:26:23,880 --> 00:26:27,040
Speaker 3: getting really complicated, is that you may have noticed that

426
00:26:27,119 --> 00:26:30,119
Speaker 3: a lot of state universities now provide a lot of

427
00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:33,480
Speaker 3: healthcare all around the country in their hospitals and their

428
00:26:33,480 --> 00:26:37,199
Speaker 3: hospital systems, et cetera. And so a lot of doctors

429
00:26:37,320 --> 00:26:41,399
Speaker 3: and other medical professionals come on these H one B

430
00:26:41,520 --> 00:26:44,480
Speaker 3: visas and they're doing a lot of important work where

431
00:26:44,600 --> 00:26:48,240
Speaker 3: if you didn't have them, then these hospitals would be

432
00:26:48,320 --> 00:26:52,960
Speaker 3: chronically understaffed. So what happens You now have states like

433
00:26:53,040 --> 00:26:56,760
Speaker 3: Florida and Texas saying, guess what, we are going to

434
00:26:56,920 --> 00:27:01,959
Speaker 3: ban our universities from hiring anyone on an H one

435
00:27:02,080 --> 00:27:06,640
Speaker 3: B visa application, whether it's a professor, a doctor, a researcher,

436
00:27:07,119 --> 00:27:10,800
Speaker 3: or anything else. And so this is what's interesting about this.

437
00:27:11,320 --> 00:27:13,920
Speaker 3: There are certainly some H one B visas that I've

438
00:27:13,960 --> 00:27:17,240
Speaker 3: seen in some of these state universities that are frivolous.

439
00:27:17,280 --> 00:27:22,000
Speaker 3: You know, they're hiring an athletic trainer for the lacrosse

440
00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:24,679
Speaker 3: team or something like that, and it's like, well, you

441
00:27:24,720 --> 00:27:28,200
Speaker 3: really can't find an athletic trainer in the United States

442
00:27:28,240 --> 00:27:30,400
Speaker 3: who can do this that kind of thing. So there's

443
00:27:30,440 --> 00:27:34,080
Speaker 3: some of that where you can say, Okay, look, that's

444
00:27:34,160 --> 00:27:36,720
Speaker 3: a little bit frivolous. But when we're talking about doctors

445
00:27:37,080 --> 00:27:41,080
Speaker 3: and researchers and others we're not it doesn't lend itself

446
00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:44,840
Speaker 3: to the political talking point that oh, these people would

447
00:27:44,840 --> 00:27:47,439
Speaker 3: be hired by you know, Americans would be hired to

448
00:27:47,480 --> 00:27:51,560
Speaker 3: fill every one of these positions if it wasn't for this.

449
00:27:51,720 --> 00:27:54,760
Speaker 3: And so yes, the states have it in their prerogative

450
00:27:54,800 --> 00:27:59,000
Speaker 3: to ban their universities from hiring anyone on H one B.

451
00:27:59,760 --> 00:28:02,280
Speaker 3: But at the end of the day, I do think

452
00:28:02,320 --> 00:28:07,040
Speaker 3: there's gonna be some negative drawback from especially the healthcare

453
00:28:07,080 --> 00:28:10,080
Speaker 3: fields and these universities where they say, look, we weren't

454
00:28:10,359 --> 00:28:12,760
Speaker 3: there was no one we could get other than these people.

455
00:28:13,040 --> 00:28:16,240
Speaker 3: What are we supposed to do now? And I think

456
00:28:16,280 --> 00:28:19,160
Speaker 3: that's going to be very fascinating to see how it plays.

457
00:28:18,800 --> 00:28:23,359
Speaker 2: Out the complexities of the immigration law. Thanks so much, Leon.

458
00:28:24,200 --> 00:28:27,719
Speaker 2: That's Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollanda Knight. Coming up

459
00:28:27,760 --> 00:28:30,720
Speaker 2: next on the Bloomberg Law Show, We'll tell you why

460
00:28:30,760 --> 00:28:34,600
Speaker 2: the Pulitzer Prize Committee is demanding a lot of confidential

461
00:28:34,680 --> 00:28:39,760
Speaker 2: reports from President Trump, including internal communications between the Trump

462
00:28:39,800 --> 00:28:43,280
Speaker 2: White House and the Russians. I'm June Grosso and you're

463
00:28:43,320 --> 00:28:49,680
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg. The Pulletzer Prize Committee is demanding confidential

464
00:28:49,840 --> 00:28:54,840
Speaker 2: records from President Trump, including an unredacted copy of Robert

465
00:28:54,880 --> 00:28:59,520
Speaker 2: Muller's report and internal communications between the Trump White House

466
00:28:59,560 --> 00:29:03,200
Speaker 2: and the Uessians. The committee is asking for the documents

467
00:29:03,440 --> 00:29:07,880
Speaker 2: to defend against Trump's defamation lawsuit against them. Joining me

468
00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:12,000
Speaker 2: is Bloomberg Last senior correspondent Alex Ebert. Alex tell us

469
00:29:12,000 --> 00:29:15,320
Speaker 2: about Trump's lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board.

470
00:29:15,800 --> 00:29:19,720
Speaker 1: Yeah, Trump's Pulitzer Prize Board defamation lawsuit is kind of

471
00:29:19,720 --> 00:29:23,800
Speaker 1: a bank shot. So we all know about the reporting

472
00:29:23,880 --> 00:29:28,120
Speaker 1: by Washington Post and New York Times into trump connections

473
00:29:28,320 --> 00:29:34,400
Speaker 1: with Russians during his twenty sixteen presidential campaign. That reporting

474
00:29:34,720 --> 00:29:40,440
Speaker 1: combined won Pulitzer Prize in twenty eighteen, and Trump was

475
00:29:40,640 --> 00:29:44,040
Speaker 1: mad about that and constantly complaining about it the Politzer

476
00:29:44,040 --> 00:29:47,000
Speaker 1: Prize Board in twenty eighteen issued a statement standing by

477
00:29:47,040 --> 00:29:49,360
Speaker 1: it and saying that the reporting was fine and their

478
00:29:49,400 --> 00:29:52,800
Speaker 1: investigations into the awards that they're not going to change

479
00:29:52,800 --> 00:29:57,280
Speaker 1: their position. Trump said that itself was defamation, and so

480
00:29:57,360 --> 00:30:02,200
Speaker 1: he brought a lawsuit in Florida State Court alleging that

481
00:30:02,440 --> 00:30:06,120
Speaker 1: this defamation is harming his reputation. This was in twenty

482
00:30:06,320 --> 00:30:08,840
Speaker 1: twenty two, when Trump was kind of in the wilderness

483
00:30:08,960 --> 00:30:13,400
Speaker 1: and trying to come back from the January sixth debacle

484
00:30:14,160 --> 00:30:18,200
Speaker 1: following the attack on the Capitol, and so he was

485
00:30:18,200 --> 00:30:21,720
Speaker 1: in Florida licking his wounds and coming back, and this

486
00:30:21,800 --> 00:30:23,440
Speaker 1: lawsuits persisted until today.

487
00:30:24,200 --> 00:30:28,040
Speaker 2: So what stall this case? Even before he became president?

488
00:30:28,560 --> 00:30:30,480
Speaker 1: There were lots of stalls in this case, and most

489
00:30:30,480 --> 00:30:33,200
Speaker 1: of them were around questions of do you even have

490
00:30:33,440 --> 00:30:39,480
Speaker 1: personal jurisdiction here? Is this case even bringable? And efforts

491
00:30:39,680 --> 00:30:43,800
Speaker 1: by the Politzer Board to stay the case. Once Trump

492
00:30:44,120 --> 00:30:47,760
Speaker 1: was a candidate for president and then became president, the

493
00:30:47,960 --> 00:30:51,640
Speaker 1: Florida state courts they handled all those things, said nope,

494
00:30:51,640 --> 00:30:54,200
Speaker 1: there's a personal jurisdiction here. You know, Trump's a resident,

495
00:30:54,320 --> 00:30:58,480
Speaker 1: he can sue the Politzer Board here. And they took

496
00:30:58,520 --> 00:31:01,240
Speaker 1: on the issues of stay as well. And said, no,

497
00:31:01,520 --> 00:31:04,360
Speaker 1: the president can decide whether or not he wants to

498
00:31:04,360 --> 00:31:07,920
Speaker 1: spend his time, you know, bringing personal lawsuits in state court,

499
00:31:07,960 --> 00:31:09,720
Speaker 1: and we're not going to interfere with that decision.

500
00:31:10,160 --> 00:31:12,640
Speaker 2: Tell us about the documents that the Pulitzer Board is

501
00:31:12,680 --> 00:31:13,480
Speaker 2: looking for.

502
00:31:14,240 --> 00:31:18,240
Speaker 1: Right, So, the first element of a defamation claim is

503
00:31:18,280 --> 00:31:21,000
Speaker 1: this statement has to be false here. That means that

504
00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:24,800
Speaker 1: the reporting into Trump's ties with Russians during the twenty

505
00:31:24,800 --> 00:31:27,280
Speaker 1: sixteen campaign has to be false. And so you're looking

506
00:31:27,320 --> 00:31:30,960
Speaker 1: at sort of a who's who of communications from the

507
00:31:30,960 --> 00:31:35,000
Speaker 1: Trump administration and Russian officials and all of the different

508
00:31:35,040 --> 00:31:40,160
Speaker 1: reports that folks like Robert Muller and future councils have

509
00:31:40,400 --> 00:31:45,160
Speaker 1: done looking into those ties. We're talking about confidential state

510
00:31:45,240 --> 00:31:49,800
Speaker 1: secrets here, you know that involve our spy organizations looking

511
00:31:49,840 --> 00:31:52,400
Speaker 1: into things that Russians may or may not have done

512
00:31:52,800 --> 00:31:57,720
Speaker 1: to interfere with our elections. Those things are not completely

513
00:31:58,040 --> 00:32:01,959
Speaker 1: unredacted and publicly available. And so the Politzer Board here

514
00:32:02,040 --> 00:32:05,280
Speaker 1: is saying, hey, if you want to say that it

515
00:32:05,400 --> 00:32:08,719
Speaker 1: is false that your campaign had connections with Russians, then

516
00:32:08,760 --> 00:32:10,560
Speaker 1: you've got to cough up these records.

517
00:32:11,120 --> 00:32:15,320
Speaker 2: And has the Trump administration refused to given the records.

518
00:32:16,120 --> 00:32:18,200
Speaker 1: We're at the beginning here, so we'll see what they do.

519
00:32:18,640 --> 00:32:21,080
Speaker 1: But attorneys that we're talking with say that this could

520
00:32:21,080 --> 00:32:25,320
Speaker 1: have serious implications for state secrets litigation going down the road.

521
00:32:25,440 --> 00:32:28,600
Speaker 1: If the President is just going to say, hey, I'm

522
00:32:28,640 --> 00:32:31,959
Speaker 1: bringing a personal lawsuit, therefore I'm going to disclose all

523
00:32:32,040 --> 00:32:34,320
Speaker 1: this stuff, that could cause some serious problems.

524
00:32:34,440 --> 00:32:34,600
Speaker 3: Right.

525
00:32:34,880 --> 00:32:37,800
Speaker 1: So, across the country, we have the Department of Justice

526
00:32:38,600 --> 00:32:42,920
Speaker 1: intervening in cases as a third party to protect state

527
00:32:43,040 --> 00:32:46,440
Speaker 1: secrets on behalf of the government. These are normally things

528
00:32:46,480 --> 00:32:50,160
Speaker 1: where like Raytheon or Northward Drummond are arguing in state

529
00:32:50,160 --> 00:32:53,960
Speaker 1: court about like who owns a piece of scientific material right,

530
00:32:54,520 --> 00:32:57,720
Speaker 1: or some IP and the Justice Department will intervene in

531
00:32:57,840 --> 00:33:00,640
Speaker 1: and say, hey, we can't disclose all this because some

532
00:33:00,680 --> 00:33:04,000
Speaker 1: of this might be state secrets protected things that we

533
00:33:04,120 --> 00:33:06,680
Speaker 1: don't want foreigners to be able to see or other

534
00:33:06,680 --> 00:33:09,840
Speaker 1: people in the United States. Those state secrets then are

535
00:33:10,160 --> 00:33:14,280
Speaker 1: seriously protected, some of the most protected information by our government,

536
00:33:14,360 --> 00:33:18,080
Speaker 1: and so the Department of Justice routinely intervenes to prevent

537
00:33:18,120 --> 00:33:22,000
Speaker 1: this disclosure. Here we have the head of the Executive,

538
00:33:22,240 --> 00:33:27,320
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, potentially needing to disclose some of these things

539
00:33:27,920 --> 00:33:30,600
Speaker 1: just so he can keep his defamation suit going in Florida,

540
00:33:31,320 --> 00:33:33,400
Speaker 1: or he could throw another big wrench in here and

541
00:33:33,440 --> 00:33:36,520
Speaker 1: say you're not entitled to this stuff, and then the

542
00:33:36,520 --> 00:33:38,800
Speaker 1: court is left to say, do I view this in

543
00:33:38,880 --> 00:33:42,360
Speaker 1: camera and let this go forward? And we have various

544
00:33:42,400 --> 00:33:45,480
Speaker 1: precedent on this that say that's not really workable.

545
00:33:45,960 --> 00:33:49,960
Speaker 2: And it's a state judge. So does the state judge

546
00:33:50,040 --> 00:33:54,760
Speaker 2: even have the security clearance necessary to look at these documents?

547
00:33:55,360 --> 00:33:59,840
Speaker 1: Yeah, different national security litigators that I've spoken with have

548
00:34:00,160 --> 00:34:03,280
Speaker 1: looked into this and said, this might be the second

549
00:34:03,280 --> 00:34:07,000
Speaker 1: time only that a state secrets privilege will be advocated

550
00:34:07,040 --> 00:34:11,440
Speaker 1: in state trial court. Right because in federal court, we

551
00:34:11,520 --> 00:34:15,040
Speaker 1: generally have you know, federal judges with security clearance and

552
00:34:15,080 --> 00:34:17,320
Speaker 1: the infrastructure to be able to view these things in camera.

553
00:34:17,960 --> 00:34:20,840
Speaker 1: That's not the same thing in state court. It's not

554
00:34:21,040 --> 00:34:24,120
Speaker 1: set up for that. And so there's a question of

555
00:34:24,160 --> 00:34:26,799
Speaker 1: whether or not the judge and his staff would even

556
00:34:26,840 --> 00:34:29,320
Speaker 1: have the sort of clearance needed to view these things

557
00:34:29,680 --> 00:34:32,799
Speaker 1: in camera, not in front of the parties, in order

558
00:34:32,920 --> 00:34:35,880
Speaker 1: to make sure that the secrets of the government are protected.

559
00:34:36,480 --> 00:34:39,160
Speaker 1: And here we're talking about things that are routinely protected, right,

560
00:34:39,440 --> 00:34:43,880
Speaker 1: sources and methods of spy agencies, you know, looking into

561
00:34:44,040 --> 00:34:47,920
Speaker 1: how foreign powers are trying to influence our government and

562
00:34:47,960 --> 00:34:50,480
Speaker 1: the things we do here. So these are things that

563
00:34:50,640 --> 00:34:53,640
Speaker 1: even the folks I've spoken with that are extremely skeptical

564
00:34:54,280 --> 00:34:57,880
Speaker 1: of the way the government might classify things as you know,

565
00:34:57,920 --> 00:35:02,080
Speaker 1: protected or confidential. They say, this might you know, strongly

566
00:35:02,160 --> 00:35:05,440
Speaker 1: qualify under any standard for that sort of protection.

567
00:35:05,960 --> 00:35:09,120
Speaker 2: What would happen if they can't get the documents? Would

568
00:35:09,160 --> 00:35:12,160
Speaker 2: the case be dismissed or put on hold?

569
00:35:12,600 --> 00:35:16,160
Speaker 1: In a normal world, June, this would be a catch

570
00:35:16,200 --> 00:35:20,520
Speaker 1: twenty two. Right, we find ourselves with a plaintiff that

571
00:35:20,920 --> 00:35:25,160
Speaker 1: is refusing to produce documents that are necessary for the

572
00:35:25,239 --> 00:35:28,600
Speaker 1: defense to you know, bring their defense to the judge

573
00:35:28,880 --> 00:35:31,560
Speaker 1: and to a jury, and the judge would say, listen,

574
00:35:31,880 --> 00:35:34,160
Speaker 1: no evidence here is being disclosed. Therefore we aren't to

575
00:35:34,200 --> 00:35:37,560
Speaker 1: dismiss the case. The experts I've spoken to say, in

576
00:35:37,640 --> 00:35:40,719
Speaker 1: different circuits around the country, judges have come to that

577
00:35:40,760 --> 00:35:43,680
Speaker 1: same conclusion. Right, if you're not going to come forward

578
00:35:44,000 --> 00:35:49,040
Speaker 1: with these documents, you can't maintain this case. We even

579
00:35:49,080 --> 00:35:52,040
Speaker 1: have a decision from the DC Circuit from Scalia that

580
00:35:52,239 --> 00:35:56,239
Speaker 1: basically said it would be false it would be, you know,

581
00:35:56,280 --> 00:36:00,880
Speaker 1: a travesty to basically trick the jury. You know, we

582
00:36:00,960 --> 00:36:03,839
Speaker 1: know that there are these documents out there and they

583
00:36:03,840 --> 00:36:06,200
Speaker 1: would give the defense some sort of you know, a

584
00:36:06,200 --> 00:36:09,480
Speaker 1: strong position, but we're going to ignore that and just

585
00:36:09,520 --> 00:36:12,760
Speaker 1: let the plaintiff move forward. But this is twenty twenty six,

586
00:36:13,239 --> 00:36:15,480
Speaker 1: and this is a unique situation because Trump is in

587
00:36:15,560 --> 00:36:19,279
Speaker 1: control of those records, and so the experts we spoke with,

588
00:36:19,520 --> 00:36:21,640
Speaker 1: you know, are wondering how the court is going to

589
00:36:21,640 --> 00:36:24,840
Speaker 1: deal with this. You know, can they force the president

590
00:36:24,880 --> 00:36:27,480
Speaker 1: to disclose this And if the president, who has the

591
00:36:27,520 --> 00:36:31,839
Speaker 1: sole authority to declassify this information, doesn't do it, does

592
00:36:31,880 --> 00:36:36,120
Speaker 1: the court have the right to dismiss the case. It's

593
00:36:36,160 --> 00:36:36,840
Speaker 1: an open question.

594
00:36:37,320 --> 00:36:42,279
Speaker 2: Trump has brought several lawsuits against media companies during this

595
00:36:42,480 --> 00:36:44,760
Speaker 2: second administration. Do we know how many.

596
00:36:45,320 --> 00:36:47,480
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of the tally. I've kind of run

597
00:36:47,520 --> 00:36:50,440
Speaker 1: out of fingers and toes on that. But one expert

598
00:36:50,520 --> 00:36:54,560
Speaker 1: I've spoken with has said that just in the cases

599
00:36:54,600 --> 00:36:59,560
Speaker 1: where Trump has alleged damages of some quantifiable amount, he's

600
00:36:59,640 --> 00:37:03,680
Speaker 1: already demanded sixty five billion dollars and a lot of

601
00:37:03,680 --> 00:37:08,359
Speaker 1: this is over cases where the issue is elections. That

602
00:37:08,440 --> 00:37:12,279
Speaker 1: he's won, and so there's a question of, you know,

603
00:37:12,680 --> 00:37:16,600
Speaker 1: how far a president can take this strategy, and whether

604
00:37:16,680 --> 00:37:19,600
Speaker 1: or not the normal defenses that you'd have in cases

605
00:37:19,640 --> 00:37:23,120
Speaker 1: like defamation work in this system.

606
00:37:23,640 --> 00:37:25,560
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the problem is a lot of the media

607
00:37:25,640 --> 00:37:29,919
Speaker 2: companies have settled with him. Let's turn to another case, though,

608
00:37:30,719 --> 00:37:35,320
Speaker 2: start by reminding us about that landmark more than thirty

609
00:37:35,360 --> 00:37:38,600
Speaker 2: eight million dollar verdict against Chiquida.

610
00:37:39,400 --> 00:37:43,080
Speaker 1: Sure, this landmark verdict is both large in its amount

611
00:37:43,200 --> 00:37:46,560
Speaker 1: but also was sort of a shock across a particular

612
00:37:46,640 --> 00:37:51,080
Speaker 1: legal community, and that's the human rights community. So it

613
00:37:51,160 --> 00:37:53,880
Speaker 1: was the first time that a US corporation was held

614
00:37:54,000 --> 00:37:57,759
Speaker 1: liable in US court for human rights abuses. And what

615
00:37:57,800 --> 00:38:01,040
Speaker 1: we have here, basically is the theory of neglige where

616
00:38:01,160 --> 00:38:07,680
Speaker 1: Chakda was found liable for funding paramilitary groups that assaulted

617
00:38:08,200 --> 00:38:12,040
Speaker 1: and killed people in the region where Chakda operated. The

618
00:38:12,480 --> 00:38:16,960
Speaker 1: organization was taking money from Jaquita, and Chaquita was saying,

619
00:38:17,160 --> 00:38:20,160
Speaker 1: this is basically a protection racket. We can't be responsible.

620
00:38:20,320 --> 00:38:23,400
Speaker 1: We were, you know, basically, but in rock and hard place,

621
00:38:23,719 --> 00:38:25,920
Speaker 1: we either have to pay this money or we can't operate.

622
00:38:26,360 --> 00:38:29,040
Speaker 1: And the plaintiffs were saying, no, you knew what was

623
00:38:29,120 --> 00:38:33,239
Speaker 1: happening here when in the nineties, you know, mostly we

624
00:38:33,320 --> 00:38:37,320
Speaker 1: had these paramilitary groups that were killing hundreds, potentially thousands

625
00:38:37,320 --> 00:38:39,759
Speaker 1: of people in the region where you get all of

626
00:38:39,760 --> 00:38:44,120
Speaker 1: this fruit for Chikeita. The verdicts came down and nine

627
00:38:44,280 --> 00:38:48,960
Speaker 1: different individuals were found to have damages. Right, these are

628
00:38:49,000 --> 00:38:52,279
Speaker 1: survivors of the victims of the people killed by the

629
00:38:52,320 --> 00:38:56,560
Speaker 1: paramilitary group. And this is just a drop in this

630
00:38:56,800 --> 00:38:59,759
Speaker 1: massive ocean of potential claims. Right, this is a bell

631
00:39:00,040 --> 00:39:04,680
Speaker 1: the trial, and they are about four five hundred plaintiffs

632
00:39:04,640 --> 00:39:08,080
Speaker 1: suing the company, So we're looking at potentially billions of

633
00:39:08,120 --> 00:39:11,720
Speaker 1: dollars of damages. But also this first of its kind

634
00:39:11,840 --> 00:39:16,240
Speaker 1: verdict where these plaintiffs could potentially point to other cases

635
00:39:16,280 --> 00:39:19,600
Speaker 1: and say, hey, this is a roadmap for you to

636
00:39:19,640 --> 00:39:23,160
Speaker 1: sue other US corporations if they're doing dirty things abroad.

637
00:39:23,440 --> 00:39:27,719
Speaker 2: Now, there's an appeal challenging the verdict based on the

638
00:39:27,800 --> 00:39:30,440
Speaker 2: jury receiving faulty instructions.

639
00:39:31,040 --> 00:39:31,239
Speaker 3: Right.

640
00:39:31,320 --> 00:39:34,600
Speaker 1: The issue right now is a really complex one involving

641
00:39:34,760 --> 00:39:39,240
Speaker 1: how you make that work. So the court decided to

642
00:39:39,360 --> 00:39:44,400
Speaker 1: take Colombian law and base the trial off of that.

643
00:39:45,280 --> 00:39:48,759
Speaker 1: But because Colombian law wouldn't fill all of the gaps

644
00:39:48,840 --> 00:39:52,600
Speaker 1: in the way that we can prosecute these negligence cases.

645
00:39:52,880 --> 00:39:55,200
Speaker 1: The court had to gap fill, right, This is the

646
00:39:55,200 --> 00:39:57,200
Speaker 1: way that we do this in the United States. When

647
00:39:57,200 --> 00:39:59,600
Speaker 1: we do this selection of law thing, we have to

648
00:39:59,680 --> 00:40:02,399
Speaker 1: fill that gaps when we need to. And so when

649
00:40:02,480 --> 00:40:06,160
Speaker 1: it came to liability here, the big question before the

650
00:40:06,200 --> 00:40:08,880
Speaker 1: trial court was how do we fill the gap in

651
00:40:08,920 --> 00:40:12,160
Speaker 1: Columbia law when it comes to the liability of Chakdah.

652
00:40:12,960 --> 00:40:17,960
Speaker 1: And the trial court they say that they, unfortunately for

653
00:40:18,000 --> 00:40:22,480
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs, decided to use federal common law when they

654
00:40:22,480 --> 00:40:25,960
Speaker 1: did that instead of Florida common law. And so the

655
00:40:26,080 --> 00:40:29,200
Speaker 1: question for the Court of Appeals was is that a

656
00:40:29,239 --> 00:40:32,680
Speaker 1: big enough of a problem that it undermines the jury

657
00:40:32,760 --> 00:40:33,239
Speaker 1: verdict here?

658
00:40:33,360 --> 00:40:35,960
Speaker 2: Tell us about some of the concerns of the appellate judges.

659
00:40:36,520 --> 00:40:38,920
Speaker 1: Yeah, some of their concerns where you know, if you

660
00:40:39,040 --> 00:40:41,880
Speaker 1: have the wrong standard in these jury instructions, then whatever

661
00:40:41,920 --> 00:40:44,959
Speaker 1: outcome the jurors come to that might not be the law.

662
00:40:45,080 --> 00:40:48,840
Speaker 1: And so the plaintiffs were arguing, Hey, the federal standard

663
00:40:48,840 --> 00:40:51,600
Speaker 1: here and the state standard they're not that different. And

664
00:40:51,640 --> 00:40:54,200
Speaker 1: if you look at the facts, you know, we're talking

665
00:40:54,239 --> 00:40:58,640
Speaker 1: about extreme facts that would apply to either standard. But jakdah,

666
00:40:59,080 --> 00:41:00,560
Speaker 1: and it seems like they got the ear of the

667
00:41:00,640 --> 00:41:04,359
Speaker 1: judges is saying, listen, there's a pretty big difference when

668
00:41:04,400 --> 00:41:07,720
Speaker 1: it comes to negligence standards. If you have a difference

669
00:41:07,719 --> 00:41:12,280
Speaker 1: between causing something as the standard or being a factor

670
00:41:12,360 --> 00:41:15,440
Speaker 1: in something, then that's a big gap. That's a golf

671
00:41:15,560 --> 00:41:18,280
Speaker 1: that the jury can jump through. And so they're arguing

672
00:41:18,360 --> 00:41:20,759
Speaker 1: that state law would say you have to really be

673
00:41:20,880 --> 00:41:23,400
Speaker 1: more of a but for cause of something to be

674
00:41:23,480 --> 00:41:26,799
Speaker 1: liable here, and the federal standard is more like, oh,

675
00:41:26,880 --> 00:41:30,040
Speaker 1: you have to be a factor in the deaths and

676
00:41:30,400 --> 00:41:32,720
Speaker 1: that the injury of these plaintiffs family members.

677
00:41:33,120 --> 00:41:36,840
Speaker 2: Thanks Alex. That's Bloomberg Law's Alex Ebert, and that's it

678
00:41:36,920 --> 00:41:39,480
Speaker 2: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

679
00:41:39,520 --> 00:41:42,000
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

680
00:41:42,080 --> 00:41:45,680
Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

681
00:41:45,880 --> 00:41:50,919
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

682
00:41:51,320 --> 00:41:53,920
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

683
00:41:53,960 --> 00:41:57,880
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

684
00:41:58,000 --> 00:41:59,600
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg