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 --> 00:00:13,319
Speaker 2: President Trump has been complaining about the legal protections given

3
00:00:13,360 --> 00:00:18,120
Speaker 2: to alleged Venezuelan gang members to prevent their quick deportations.

4
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 3: We're getting them out, and a judge can't say no,

5
00:00:22,600 --> 00:00:25,119
Speaker 3: you have to have a trial. That's the trial is

6
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,040
Speaker 3: going to take two years, and we're going to have

7
00:00:28,040 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 3: a very We're going to have a very dangerous country

8
00:00:30,920 --> 00:00:32,959
Speaker 3: if we're not allowed to do what we're entitled to do.

9
00:00:33,360 --> 00:00:33,560
Speaker 1: Well.

10
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:37,040
Speaker 2: On Friday, the administration lost its bid at the Supreme

11
00:00:37,120 --> 00:00:40,320
Speaker 2: Court to quickly deport about one hundred and seventy six

12
00:00:40,400 --> 00:00:44,800
Speaker 2: alleged Venezuelan gang members to a salvador In prison using

13
00:00:44,840 --> 00:00:48,400
Speaker 2: the seventeen ninety eight Alien Enemies Act. But it got

14
00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:51,320
Speaker 2: to win at the Supreme Court today, when the Justice

15
00:00:51,320 --> 00:00:55,279
Speaker 2: has allowed the administration to end legal protections for three

16
00:00:55,400 --> 00:00:58,960
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty thousand Venezuelans, stripping them of the right

17
00:00:59,040 --> 00:01:02,600
Speaker 2: to temporarily live and work in the US and opening

18
00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:07,039
Speaker 2: many of them to immediate deportations. The Justices lifted a

19
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:10,920
Speaker 2: federal court order that had said the Venezuelans could keep

20
00:01:10,959 --> 00:01:15,880
Speaker 2: their temporary protected status while a legal fight continues. Joining

21
00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:19,360
Speaker 2: me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partnered Holland

22
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:23,040
Speaker 2: and Knight. Leon first explained, and I know you've explained

23
00:01:23,040 --> 00:01:26,360
Speaker 2: this many times before, but first explain what temporary protected

24
00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:27,160
Speaker 2: status is.

25
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:32,880
Speaker 1: Well. Temporary protected status in general is permitted by a

26
00:01:33,040 --> 00:01:36,800
Speaker 1: statute that is enacted by Congress. And what that statue

27
00:01:36,840 --> 00:01:39,600
Speaker 1: does is it allows the president, whoever the president is

28
00:01:39,640 --> 00:01:44,160
Speaker 1: at any given time, to create a class of people that,

29
00:01:44,560 --> 00:01:49,680
Speaker 1: because of either a natural disaster or some political turmoil

30
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:54,880
Speaker 1: or some environmental problem something that it would be considered

31
00:01:55,600 --> 00:01:59,480
Speaker 1: very dangerous to them to deport them back to their country.

32
00:02:00,080 --> 00:02:03,120
Speaker 1: And so actually, at the end of the Trump presidency

33
00:02:03,840 --> 00:02:07,400
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, Trump had declared something similar called deferred

34
00:02:07,480 --> 00:02:12,280
Speaker 1: enforced departure for Venezuelans. But what Biden did was he

35
00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:16,320
Speaker 1: changed that to temporary protective status, and he said that

36
00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:20,359
Speaker 1: about three hundred and fifty thousand Venezuelans could stay in

37
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:24,480
Speaker 1: the country using this temporary protected status under the theory

38
00:02:24,560 --> 00:02:27,720
Speaker 1: that deporting them back to Venezuela would be deporting them

39
00:02:27,760 --> 00:02:31,440
Speaker 1: back to a place where the government was very oppressive,

40
00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:35,200
Speaker 1: and most of these people would probably qualify for asylum anyway,

41
00:02:35,240 --> 00:02:38,600
Speaker 1: and so rather than clog the courts with those asylum cases,

42
00:02:38,880 --> 00:02:42,760
Speaker 1: it's just simpler to have temporary protective status allow them

43
00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:45,880
Speaker 1: to stay legally and work legally while they're in the

44
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:49,799
Speaker 1: United States. Well, what the Trump administration did when it

45
00:02:49,880 --> 00:02:53,440
Speaker 1: came back in twenty twenty five now is it said

46
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:56,720
Speaker 1: we're going to cancel those three hundred and fifty thousand

47
00:02:56,840 --> 00:03:01,120
Speaker 1: Venezuelans temporary protective status. But what's interesting about that is

48
00:03:01,160 --> 00:03:04,799
Speaker 1: it didn't just say it's not going to renew it.

49
00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:07,959
Speaker 1: It actually said, if you have it right this minute,

50
00:03:08,000 --> 00:03:10,960
Speaker 1: we're canceling it, which people were shocked because they had

51
00:03:10,960 --> 00:03:13,680
Speaker 1: at least thought they had a reliance interest until the

52
00:03:13,800 --> 00:03:17,960
Speaker 1: time that the temporary protected status would expire, which for

53
00:03:18,080 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: some people would have been in June and some people

54
00:03:20,800 --> 00:03:22,440
Speaker 1: would have been in October.

55
00:03:22,919 --> 00:03:26,639
Speaker 2: I mean, it sounds like temporary protected status is something

56
00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:30,639
Speaker 2: within the administration's bailliwick.

57
00:03:31,480 --> 00:03:35,000
Speaker 1: Correct, So the administration the president has the authority to

58
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:39,520
Speaker 1: extend TPS in eighteen months increments under Congress, or not

59
00:03:39,560 --> 00:03:42,800
Speaker 1: to extend it. But what's interesting is in the prior

60
00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:47,400
Speaker 1: Trump administration, there had been temporary protected status given to

61
00:03:47,480 --> 00:03:52,520
Speaker 1: people from Central America, and when the Trump administration tried

62
00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:58,320
Speaker 1: to end it, the lower courts actually gave injunctions, and

63
00:03:58,360 --> 00:04:02,720
Speaker 1: those individuals succeeded for four years during the Trump presidency

64
00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:07,560
Speaker 1: to not have their temporary protective status rescinded because they

65
00:04:07,560 --> 00:04:11,560
Speaker 1: had gotten rulings that there were equal protection violations in

66
00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:14,960
Speaker 1: the way that the temporary protective status had been rescinded,

67
00:04:15,400 --> 00:04:18,080
Speaker 1: because the idea was that Trump was doing this for

68
00:04:18,360 --> 00:04:22,680
Speaker 1: some sort of animus or discriminatory reason and not for

69
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:26,840
Speaker 1: real judgments on whether those countries had actually changed or not.

70
00:04:27,400 --> 00:04:31,120
Speaker 1: And so interestingly enough, because that strategy worked in the

71
00:04:31,160 --> 00:04:34,159
Speaker 1: first Trump administration to sort of run out the clock,

72
00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:39,159
Speaker 1: then this new attempt in this second administration to do

73
00:04:39,279 --> 00:04:43,640
Speaker 1: the same thing to stop temporary protective status. The individuals

74
00:04:43,720 --> 00:04:47,880
Speaker 1: sued again, saying the same arguments, and they succeeded again

75
00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:50,800
Speaker 1: in getting an injunction in the lower court. But this

76
00:04:51,000 --> 00:04:55,600
Speaker 1: time the Supreme Court today stayed the injunction. So what

77
00:04:55,680 --> 00:04:59,640
Speaker 1: they said was the injunction does not apply to just

78
00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:03,680
Speaker 1: the one issue, so the issue of renewal, meaning that

79
00:05:04,360 --> 00:05:06,920
Speaker 1: now there's not going to be an injunction like there

80
00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:11,839
Speaker 1: was in the first Trumpet administration. That keeps people on

81
00:05:12,000 --> 00:05:16,960
Speaker 1: temporary protected status after it expires. Now, they do say

82
00:05:17,120 --> 00:05:21,320
Speaker 1: that this order doesn't apply to the issues of whether

83
00:05:21,640 --> 00:05:24,920
Speaker 1: you could be ejected from the status earlier, whether your

84
00:05:24,920 --> 00:05:28,359
Speaker 1: work authorization could be taken away early. But what the

85
00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:32,960
Speaker 1: ruling today says is when your status expires, the Supreme

86
00:05:33,000 --> 00:05:37,159
Speaker 1: Court has no order in place giving you your status back,

87
00:05:37,720 --> 00:05:40,720
Speaker 1: and so those are going to have to be litigated

88
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:43,440
Speaker 1: in the lower court. But in the meantime, there is

89
00:05:43,520 --> 00:05:49,000
Speaker 1: no injunction in place preventing people's temporary protected status from

90
00:05:49,040 --> 00:05:52,039
Speaker 1: expiring on the day it was supposed to expire in

91
00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:52,760
Speaker 1: the first place.

92
00:05:53,279 --> 00:05:57,000
Speaker 2: So, just to be clear, the order today only applies

93
00:05:57,240 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 2: to renewal of temporary prient checked IT status. In other words,

94
00:06:02,000 --> 00:06:05,919
Speaker 2: it allows the administration not to renew TPS status.

95
00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:11,159
Speaker 1: So the order from today only pertains to once the

96
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:15,240
Speaker 1: normal day it was going to expire comes, then it

97
00:06:15,320 --> 00:06:18,280
Speaker 1: is allowed to expire. There is now no injunction as

98
00:06:18,320 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 1: of today requiring it to be renewed, and so that's

99
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:26,640
Speaker 1: what's been changed is there was an injunction saying you

100
00:06:26,760 --> 00:06:29,920
Speaker 1: just can't end this period until the court gets back

101
00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:33,400
Speaker 1: to you, and now that's not true. It can be ended,

102
00:06:33,440 --> 00:06:35,680
Speaker 1: but it has to be ended as of the date

103
00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:39,080
Speaker 1: that it was supposed to end originally, rather than an

104
00:06:39,080 --> 00:06:42,080
Speaker 1: earlier expedited date given by President Trump.

105
00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:45,720
Speaker 2: So how big a victory is this for the Trump administration?

106
00:06:46,360 --> 00:06:49,320
Speaker 1: Obviously, what they're trying to do is flood the zone

107
00:06:49,320 --> 00:06:52,320
Speaker 1: and get as many people to be subject to removal

108
00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:56,480
Speaker 1: early as possible. So from that standpoint, if your concern is,

109
00:06:56,880 --> 00:06:59,040
Speaker 1: I want as many people subject to removal as soon

110
00:06:59,080 --> 00:07:01,520
Speaker 1: as possible, And it is a very big victory for

111
00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:04,680
Speaker 1: the Trump administration to say that they don't have to

112
00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:10,280
Speaker 1: renew the temporary protected status because that is a significant

113
00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:14,280
Speaker 1: change from the first Trump administration. In the first Trump administration,

114
00:07:14,760 --> 00:07:19,400
Speaker 1: the clock ran out from their attempt to end temporary

115
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:23,280
Speaker 1: protected status for people, and so people were able to

116
00:07:23,400 --> 00:07:27,520
Speaker 1: maintain their temporary protected status during the four entire years

117
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:31,560
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, plus obviously the Biden administration. And

118
00:07:31,640 --> 00:07:35,440
Speaker 1: so now the Trump administration in year one gets a

119
00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:38,480
Speaker 1: favorable ruling from the Supreme Court that says that that's

120
00:07:38,520 --> 00:07:39,960
Speaker 1: not going to happen this time around.

121
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:44,720
Speaker 2: What happens now because the Venezuelans that have temporary protected

122
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:49,080
Speaker 2: status when it ends, can they be deported or will

123
00:07:49,120 --> 00:07:50,760
Speaker 2: they apply for asylum.

124
00:07:51,560 --> 00:07:55,640
Speaker 1: So what will happen is anybody who is subject to

125
00:07:55,760 --> 00:07:59,280
Speaker 1: deportation is most likely going to apply for asylum. They

126
00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:02,960
Speaker 1: don't have to apply for asylum, but most likely they

127
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,240
Speaker 1: are going to apply for asylum. And from Venezuela, you

128
00:08:06,520 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 1: already have a prime of facia eligibility for asylum in

129
00:08:11,320 --> 00:08:14,120
Speaker 1: the sense that you have an oppressive government that commits

130
00:08:14,400 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: acts of oppression against political enemies. So all of those

131
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:19,760
Speaker 1: cases are going to have to be heard on an

132
00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:25,400
Speaker 1: individual basis, unless the Trump administration can succeed in this

133
00:08:25,480 --> 00:08:28,800
Speaker 1: other case that it's working on saying that Venezuelans or

134
00:08:28,840 --> 00:08:31,920
Speaker 1: some class of them, can be deported en mass because

135
00:08:31,920 --> 00:08:35,000
Speaker 1: they're alien enemies of the United States. But other than that,

136
00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:38,199
Speaker 1: every Venezuelan is probably going to have to go through

137
00:08:38,200 --> 00:08:41,240
Speaker 1: asylum proceedings, which, again, even if it's just these three

138
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:44,520
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand, will be two three years of

139
00:08:45,200 --> 00:08:48,000
Speaker 1: court time just for this one group of people.

140
00:08:48,559 --> 00:08:53,480
Speaker 2: How has temporary projected status worked in the past, Do

141
00:08:53,600 --> 00:08:55,960
Speaker 2: people actually go back to their home countries?

142
00:08:56,679 --> 00:09:00,800
Speaker 1: Well, this is problematic because this is where the Trump

143
00:09:00,840 --> 00:09:06,960
Speaker 1: administration has its highest level of currency. Is there's actually

144
00:09:07,400 --> 00:09:12,040
Speaker 1: almost never been an instance other than very small, very

145
00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:15,080
Speaker 1: targeted instances of less than one hundred people, where a

146
00:09:15,080 --> 00:09:18,480
Speaker 1: group of people has been given temporary protective status and

147
00:09:18,559 --> 00:09:22,640
Speaker 1: it's actually been revoked. We have people in America who've

148
00:09:22,640 --> 00:09:27,360
Speaker 1: had temporary protective status since nineteen ninety six and their

149
00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:31,120
Speaker 1: status just keeps getting renewed every eighteen months. And so

150
00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:34,439
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration has said is at some point

151
00:09:34,480 --> 00:09:38,000
Speaker 1: this has to end because it makes a mockery of

152
00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:42,079
Speaker 1: the statute temporary protected status. But what happens is once

153
00:09:42,120 --> 00:09:45,040
Speaker 1: you make someone legal and you give them a work permit,

154
00:09:45,120 --> 00:09:48,560
Speaker 1: and you give them legal status and they have kids

155
00:09:48,559 --> 00:09:52,000
Speaker 1: in the United States, every moment that they're here is

156
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:56,040
Speaker 1: an extended moment of currency building. And you start getting

157
00:09:56,080 --> 00:09:58,720
Speaker 1: people like these people who've been here since nineteen ninety

158
00:09:58,760 --> 00:10:01,120
Speaker 1: six who are now going to to lose their temporary

159
00:10:01,160 --> 00:10:04,520
Speaker 1: protective status, who will say, hey, I've been here for

160
00:10:04,559 --> 00:10:07,160
Speaker 1: over thirty years and now you're trying to deport me

161
00:10:07,360 --> 00:10:12,120
Speaker 1: just now. And this becomes a big problem for both sides.

162
00:10:12,200 --> 00:10:16,160
Speaker 1: And so that's why it's understandable that people who've been

163
00:10:16,160 --> 00:10:19,160
Speaker 1: here less time, but for some of the temporary protective

164
00:10:19,200 --> 00:10:22,480
Speaker 1: status people who've been here thirty years. Yes, they probably

165
00:10:22,520 --> 00:10:26,000
Speaker 1: shouldn't have had temporary protective status for thirty years, but

166
00:10:26,120 --> 00:10:28,440
Speaker 1: the truth is they've had it now, and so the

167
00:10:28,520 --> 00:10:30,280
Speaker 1: question is what are you going to do with those people.

168
00:10:30,520 --> 00:10:35,679
Speaker 2: They're also moving to revoke temporary protected status for Haitians, Cubans,

169
00:10:35,800 --> 00:10:36,479
Speaker 2: and Nicaragua.

170
00:10:36,679 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 1: Everybody, yes, other than South Sudan, which they gave a

171
00:10:41,679 --> 00:10:46,120
Speaker 1: sort of neutral six month extension. Everyone else. They're moving

172
00:10:46,160 --> 00:10:49,600
Speaker 1: so far to say that the conditions have improved in

173
00:10:49,640 --> 00:10:52,360
Speaker 1: all of these countries, no matter how bad others might

174
00:10:52,480 --> 00:10:55,880
Speaker 1: argue theoretically that they are. The Trump administration has said, no,

175
00:10:56,080 --> 00:11:00,439
Speaker 1: the conditions are good enough to warrant deportations to these places,

176
00:11:00,640 --> 00:11:04,360
Speaker 1: and so yes, the temporary protective statuses are being revoked

177
00:11:04,400 --> 00:11:07,439
Speaker 1: from everybody else who has them, and so the idea

178
00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:11,520
Speaker 1: is those individuals will be in undocumented status. And then

179
00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:14,240
Speaker 1: the question becomes, well, what happens to the next? What

180
00:11:14,360 --> 00:11:16,959
Speaker 1: happens to the next is either they leave on their

181
00:11:17,000 --> 00:11:20,920
Speaker 1: own or somebody comes and places them in deportation proceedings.

182
00:11:21,160 --> 00:11:23,679
Speaker 1: And if that happens, then what happens. Does these people

183
00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:27,480
Speaker 1: apply for asylum or do they do something else?

184
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:30,959
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, the Trump

185
00:11:30,960 --> 00:11:35,480
Speaker 2: Administration's Friday defeat at the Supreme Court, and are they

186
00:11:35,559 --> 00:11:40,160
Speaker 2: really talking about a reality show for undocumented immigrants you're

187
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:45,600
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg. The Trump administration had a victory today

188
00:11:45,640 --> 00:11:49,079
Speaker 2: from the Supreme Court, but a defeat on Friday by

189
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:51,920
Speaker 2: a vote of seven to two. The court blocked the

190
00:11:51,960 --> 00:11:56,040
Speaker 2: administration from deporting about one hundred and seventy six Venezuelans

191
00:11:56,040 --> 00:11:59,320
Speaker 2: to a Salvadorian prison. Fault in the government for giving

192
00:11:59,360 --> 00:12:03,160
Speaker 2: the men in adequate notice and failing to explain how

193
00:12:03,160 --> 00:12:07,080
Speaker 2: they could contest deportation. I've been talking to immigration law

194
00:12:07,120 --> 00:12:10,439
Speaker 2: expert le On Fresco, a partner at Hollanden Knight. Leon

195
00:12:10,520 --> 00:12:13,959
Speaker 2: tell us why the Supreme Court said the Trump administration

196
00:12:14,200 --> 00:12:18,000
Speaker 2: couldn't deport this group of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

197
00:12:18,640 --> 00:12:20,920
Speaker 1: Well, let's start with the legal issue at play. There's

198
00:12:20,960 --> 00:12:24,360
Speaker 1: a law, the Alien Enemies Act from the seventeen hundreds,

199
00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:27,000
Speaker 1: which says that if you are put into this group

200
00:12:27,040 --> 00:12:30,440
Speaker 1: of people who are alien enemies by the president, you

201
00:12:30,600 --> 00:12:33,960
Speaker 1: can be removed without any due process. That's what the

202
00:12:34,160 --> 00:12:38,520
Speaker 1: statute says. And the question is what does that really mean,

203
00:12:38,640 --> 00:12:42,400
Speaker 1: because it gives a step of determining whether you are

204
00:12:42,520 --> 00:12:46,199
Speaker 1: subject to the statue. You know, So the Trump administration says,

205
00:12:46,400 --> 00:12:48,640
Speaker 1: we want to be able to deport these Venezuelan gang

206
00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:51,960
Speaker 1: members from Trend, de Aragua. We want to be able

207
00:12:52,000 --> 00:12:54,560
Speaker 1: to do that without having to have individual trials for

208
00:12:54,600 --> 00:12:57,200
Speaker 1: every one of them. But that skips the step of saying, well,

209
00:12:57,200 --> 00:13:00,200
Speaker 1: what if I'm not one of these people, either because

210
00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:03,199
Speaker 1: I'm Venezuelan but I'm not in the gang, or I'm

211
00:13:03,240 --> 00:13:05,960
Speaker 1: not even Venezuelan in the first place and you just

212
00:13:06,000 --> 00:13:09,199
Speaker 1: got the wrong person, or I'm a US citizen, Where

213
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:12,720
Speaker 1: do I get to actually make this claim? And so

214
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:15,480
Speaker 1: first the Supreme Court said, well, you will make this

215
00:13:15,600 --> 00:13:18,440
Speaker 1: claim in a habeas case. That was the first Supreme

216
00:13:18,440 --> 00:13:21,160
Speaker 1: Court decision that came out a month ago that said

217
00:13:21,480 --> 00:13:23,760
Speaker 1: you have to file a habeas corpus and the government

218
00:13:23,800 --> 00:13:27,439
Speaker 1: has to give you notice and an opportunity to do that.

219
00:13:27,960 --> 00:13:31,040
Speaker 1: And then there's a second question, which the courts have

220
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:35,520
Speaker 1: gone in two different directions on, which is can you

221
00:13:35,600 --> 00:13:39,520
Speaker 1: even use the Alien Enemies Act for this type of situation?

222
00:13:40,040 --> 00:13:45,079
Speaker 1: Because does this Venezuelan gang count as an invading force

223
00:13:45,360 --> 00:13:48,360
Speaker 1: such that you can actually use the Alien Enemies Act

224
00:13:48,559 --> 00:13:51,480
Speaker 1: to deport people, or is this just immigration, it's not

225
00:13:51,520 --> 00:13:56,520
Speaker 1: an invading force coming from Venezuela with the approval of

226
00:13:56,559 --> 00:14:00,320
Speaker 1: the Venezuelan government to invade the United States. Because that's

227
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:04,160
Speaker 1: the threshold that you have to meet. And so the

228
00:14:04,200 --> 00:14:06,360
Speaker 1: Supreme Court said, look, you got to give people notice

229
00:14:06,400 --> 00:14:09,640
Speaker 1: to make these arguments. The government came back into lower

230
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:12,840
Speaker 1: courts and there were arguments about, well, how long does

231
00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:15,559
Speaker 1: the government have to let you file your habeas? Is

232
00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:18,640
Speaker 1: it twenty four hours, is it four hours? Is it

233
00:14:18,720 --> 00:14:23,280
Speaker 1: forty eight hours? And what the Supreme Court basically said, finally,

234
00:14:23,680 --> 00:14:29,200
Speaker 1: because it was I think concerned about a situation where

235
00:14:29,280 --> 00:14:31,440
Speaker 1: people were not going to be given enough notice to

236
00:14:31,520 --> 00:14:35,680
Speaker 1: file habeas corpus actions in these cases. It said, look,

237
00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:40,560
Speaker 1: we're saying all of these Venezuelan Alien Enemies Act cases

238
00:14:40,640 --> 00:14:42,920
Speaker 1: until they can get up to this court and we

239
00:14:43,000 --> 00:14:46,080
Speaker 1: can decide these two issues. The Alien enemies is it

240
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:50,960
Speaker 1: even applicable here? And in specific cases are people subject

241
00:14:51,040 --> 00:14:54,040
Speaker 1: to it even if it is applicable, And the issue

242
00:14:54,040 --> 00:14:56,480
Speaker 1: of what is a proper amount of notice to give

243
00:14:56,840 --> 00:15:00,840
Speaker 1: in a particular case. So the Court said In the meantime,

244
00:15:00,920 --> 00:15:03,600
Speaker 1: we're just putting this injunction in and nobody's going to

245
00:15:03,640 --> 00:15:06,640
Speaker 1: be able to be deported under this Alien Enemies Act

246
00:15:06,760 --> 00:15:09,240
Speaker 1: until we can find so. It tould the lower courts

247
00:15:09,280 --> 00:15:12,760
Speaker 1: get to it, move, move, move quickly, get us these cases,

248
00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:16,640
Speaker 1: and then we will finally decide these larger issues.

249
00:15:17,000 --> 00:15:20,360
Speaker 2: And they mentioned a couple of times that the stakes

250
00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:25,480
Speaker 2: were high, basically because of the case of Kilmar Abrigo Garcia,

251
00:15:26,040 --> 00:15:28,840
Speaker 2: who the government says it can't return. I don't know

252
00:15:28,840 --> 00:15:30,240
Speaker 2: where that case is at this point.

253
00:15:30,440 --> 00:15:35,600
Speaker 1: Well, correct, the problem is there. The irreparable harm argument

254
00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:40,280
Speaker 1: really sort of became nuclear, because if the government is

255
00:15:40,320 --> 00:15:43,840
Speaker 1: going to say that once it deports somebody, it's not

256
00:15:43,880 --> 00:15:47,600
Speaker 1: going to bring them back, then you raise the stakes

257
00:15:47,640 --> 00:15:50,560
Speaker 1: to a level that makes it impossible to say there's

258
00:15:50,600 --> 00:15:53,000
Speaker 1: not going to be a reparable arm. And so this

259
00:15:53,080 --> 00:15:56,800
Speaker 1: might be a situation where again the litigating posture in

260
00:15:56,880 --> 00:16:01,800
Speaker 1: one case came back to the government's credit here, whereas

261
00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:05,320
Speaker 1: that had just done the one time return, then it

262
00:16:05,400 --> 00:16:08,640
Speaker 1: might have won this case. And so these things are

263
00:16:08,680 --> 00:16:12,840
Speaker 1: always operating in a back and forth discussion. Nothing ever

264
00:16:12,880 --> 00:16:16,160
Speaker 1: happens in a vacuum. And so now the government has

265
00:16:16,200 --> 00:16:19,040
Speaker 1: to understand that if it's going to make the arguments

266
00:16:19,080 --> 00:16:20,960
Speaker 1: I want to deport someone it's never going to bring

267
00:16:21,000 --> 00:16:24,960
Speaker 1: them back, then that is irreparable arm by its nature.

268
00:16:25,040 --> 00:16:27,800
Speaker 1: Because you can bring someone back, then maybe you can

269
00:16:27,880 --> 00:16:30,560
Speaker 1: argue there's no irreparable arm. But if you're saying you're

270
00:16:30,560 --> 00:16:33,280
Speaker 1: never going to bring someone back, then that is by

271
00:16:33,440 --> 00:16:37,520
Speaker 1: the definition irreparable arm. We are in that situation now

272
00:16:37,560 --> 00:16:39,360
Speaker 1: where all of these cases have been stated, and with

273
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:42,560
Speaker 1: regards to Brego Garcia, what you have is a situation

274
00:16:42,600 --> 00:16:45,400
Speaker 1: where the district judge in Maryland is sort of getting

275
00:16:45,440 --> 00:16:48,800
Speaker 1: back into this case now, and even though they're trying

276
00:16:48,800 --> 00:16:52,960
Speaker 1: to theoretically work something out, you have administration officials still

277
00:16:52,960 --> 00:16:56,680
Speaker 1: saying to the Congress that Abrego Garcia is never coming back.

278
00:16:57,240 --> 00:17:00,800
Speaker 1: And so now the district judge in Maryland is really

279
00:17:01,240 --> 00:17:04,399
Speaker 1: starting to lose her patients, and she's trying to figure

280
00:17:04,440 --> 00:17:09,359
Speaker 1: out again back into this adjudicating posture, who ordered what, when, where,

281
00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:12,920
Speaker 1: and why, to try to decide that there's more that

282
00:17:13,000 --> 00:17:16,159
Speaker 1: this judge can order, either with regard to content or

283
00:17:16,200 --> 00:17:20,760
Speaker 1: with regard to relief, that can get Abrego Garcia back

284
00:17:20,800 --> 00:17:21,960
Speaker 1: into the United States.

285
00:17:22,400 --> 00:17:26,680
Speaker 2: So let's move now to Thursday of last week, where

286
00:17:26,720 --> 00:17:31,320
Speaker 2: the birthright citizenship question was before the Supreme Court. I mean,

287
00:17:31,440 --> 00:17:35,760
Speaker 2: was most of it about birthright citizenship or about nationwide injunctions?

288
00:17:36,119 --> 00:17:38,280
Speaker 1: Right? Very little of the case had to do with

289
00:17:38,320 --> 00:17:42,679
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship. There were some remarks by certain of the

290
00:17:42,920 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 1: justices where the justices said, you know, let's assume that

291
00:17:46,400 --> 00:17:50,359
Speaker 1: your birthright citizenship argument is wrong, what do we do

292
00:17:50,520 --> 00:17:53,960
Speaker 1: in terms of the injunction here? And so there was

293
00:17:54,000 --> 00:17:55,959
Speaker 1: a lot of that. There was not a lot of

294
00:17:56,040 --> 00:18:00,680
Speaker 1: discussion in regard to anybody trying to argue too much

295
00:18:00,800 --> 00:18:05,600
Speaker 1: that the birthright Citizenship Executive Order was legal, And I

296
00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:08,480
Speaker 1: don't think the Court is ever going to be inclined

297
00:18:08,520 --> 00:18:11,959
Speaker 1: to rule in that direction. But the question is what

298
00:18:12,080 --> 00:18:16,600
Speaker 1: is the remedy for this and here? Really is there

299
00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:20,200
Speaker 1: a way that there's maybe four or five justices that

300
00:18:20,359 --> 00:18:24,159
Speaker 1: would carve out some new standard that has to be

301
00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:28,960
Speaker 1: applied before a nationwide injunction could be issued, or are

302
00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:32,199
Speaker 1: they just going to do away with them period and

303
00:18:32,280 --> 00:18:36,119
Speaker 1: make people have to certify a class and get class

304
00:18:36,200 --> 00:18:39,439
Speaker 1: action relief, which may be available in some types of

305
00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:42,679
Speaker 1: cases and may not be available in other types of cases. So,

306
00:18:42,760 --> 00:18:46,080
Speaker 1: for instance, in the alien enemies that case where those

307
00:18:46,119 --> 00:18:49,240
Speaker 1: are not have to be filed in habeass you actually

308
00:18:49,400 --> 00:18:53,800
Speaker 1: have in this case that just got decided now about pausing,

309
00:18:54,280 --> 00:18:58,080
Speaker 1: you had a LEDO and Thomas saying you can't get

310
00:18:58,160 --> 00:19:01,760
Speaker 1: class action relief in a hate case. And so that's

311
00:19:01,800 --> 00:19:04,440
Speaker 1: the kind of example of perhaps it wouldn't be available,

312
00:19:04,840 --> 00:19:07,320
Speaker 1: and so you would need a nationwide injunction if you're

313
00:19:07,320 --> 00:19:09,359
Speaker 1: going to do this, And so there's a lot of

314
00:19:09,359 --> 00:19:12,520
Speaker 1: those scenarios the Court was trying to grapple with, where

315
00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:16,959
Speaker 1: is there an adequate substitute for a nationwide injunction in

316
00:19:17,040 --> 00:19:21,640
Speaker 1: cases where it's actually needed, or would you be creating

317
00:19:21,680 --> 00:19:24,680
Speaker 1: some pretty crazy outcomes where for instance, as an example,

318
00:19:25,160 --> 00:19:29,880
Speaker 1: just in the birthright citizenship context, if you had two

319
00:19:29,920 --> 00:19:34,880
Speaker 1: different circuits that ruled two different ways on birthright citizenship

320
00:19:35,440 --> 00:19:38,760
Speaker 1: and if the Supreme Court denied third, just to take

321
00:19:38,800 --> 00:19:42,320
Speaker 1: that example, then what would happen is if you apply

322
00:19:42,520 --> 00:19:46,439
Speaker 1: for a passport in California, you might get it, and

323
00:19:46,520 --> 00:19:48,760
Speaker 1: if you applied for a passport in Texas you might

324
00:19:48,800 --> 00:19:52,600
Speaker 1: not get it. And that's absurd that there is literally

325
00:19:52,680 --> 00:19:57,760
Speaker 1: two different rules for American citizenship depending on which passport

326
00:19:57,800 --> 00:20:00,639
Speaker 1: office you apply in, and so you would think that

327
00:20:00,720 --> 00:20:03,640
Speaker 1: this would not be the exact kind of case where

328
00:20:03,640 --> 00:20:05,840
Speaker 1: you'd want to see this issue up. But I don't

329
00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 1: know what they're going to end up with in this context.

330
00:20:09,359 --> 00:20:12,240
Speaker 2: Jess as Elena Kagan, who was a FORMERUS Listener General

331
00:20:12,280 --> 00:20:15,080
Speaker 2: I believe, said something like I wouldn't have brought this

332
00:20:15,200 --> 00:20:16,400
Speaker 2: case if I were you.

333
00:20:16,960 --> 00:20:22,320
Speaker 1: Yeah, it definitely seems as the weirdest case ever to

334
00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:26,160
Speaker 1: bring a nationwide injunction case. You would think you would

335
00:20:26,200 --> 00:20:29,560
Speaker 1: want to bring it with regard to something like can

336
00:20:29,640 --> 00:20:33,600
Speaker 1: you fire people in the parking meter service or something?

337
00:20:34,320 --> 00:20:36,840
Speaker 1: You know some case of states like that way or Okay,

338
00:20:36,880 --> 00:20:39,800
Speaker 1: so maybe the parking meter people in one place would

339
00:20:39,880 --> 00:20:43,040
Speaker 1: be fired in another place. They couldn't be that kind

340
00:20:43,040 --> 00:20:46,440
Speaker 1: of thing. But to do it here in a case

341
00:20:46,440 --> 00:20:50,200
Speaker 1: that clearly there should be one federal standard of who

342
00:20:50,280 --> 00:20:53,080
Speaker 1: is a US citizen and who isn't and where. If

343
00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:55,600
Speaker 1: you don't have one standard, all that will happen is

344
00:20:55,640 --> 00:20:58,960
Speaker 1: that people will move to the location where they can

345
00:20:59,040 --> 00:21:03,200
Speaker 1: get citizenship just seems very strange to use that as

346
00:21:03,280 --> 00:21:05,840
Speaker 1: the case that people want to have this issue of

347
00:21:05,960 --> 00:21:09,879
Speaker 1: nationwide injunction. But at least, it clarifies the issues for

348
00:21:09,920 --> 00:21:12,520
Speaker 1: the court to really think of the stakes here of

349
00:21:12,680 --> 00:21:15,360
Speaker 1: having an interesting background of saying okay in this exact

350
00:21:15,480 --> 00:21:22,280
Speaker 1: nationwide injunction case involving birthright citizenship, if we banned nationwide injunctions,

351
00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:26,600
Speaker 1: how would we move forward in this world? And so

352
00:21:26,640 --> 00:21:29,160
Speaker 1: at least it gives an interesting thought process. It really

353
00:21:29,200 --> 00:21:31,560
Speaker 1: is the opposite of a straw man. This is sort

354
00:21:31,600 --> 00:21:34,520
Speaker 1: of the Steelman thing where if you can write an

355
00:21:34,640 --> 00:21:39,480
Speaker 1: argument in this case for ending nationwide injunctions, then you

356
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:42,720
Speaker 1: definitely have a strong standard that would apply in pretty

357
00:21:42,760 --> 00:21:43,960
Speaker 1: much any other context.

358
00:21:44,600 --> 00:21:49,680
Speaker 2: Now, let's turn to a reality show where immigrants would

359
00:21:49,720 --> 00:21:53,199
Speaker 2: compete for US citizenship. I say that with a question

360
00:21:53,280 --> 00:21:57,640
Speaker 2: mark because it sounds over the top, But the Department

361
00:21:57,640 --> 00:22:01,280
Speaker 2: of Homeland Security is reportedly con considering being part of

362
00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:06,359
Speaker 2: a show where immigrants would compete in various contests and

363
00:22:06,480 --> 00:22:10,320
Speaker 2: the winner would be awarded citizenship. The show is being

364
00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:15,800
Speaker 2: pitched by Rob Warsoff, who produced the Duck Dynasty reality show.

365
00:22:16,200 --> 00:22:17,000
Speaker 2: Is this doable?

366
00:22:17,080 --> 00:22:21,240
Speaker 1: Leon Well? What has been admitted to so far is

367
00:22:21,280 --> 00:22:24,080
Speaker 1: that there have been meetings with officials at the Department

368
00:22:24,080 --> 00:22:27,919
Speaker 1: of Justice about this, and what has also been I

369
00:22:27,960 --> 00:22:30,719
Speaker 1: think seems to be not refuted by anyone, is that

370
00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:34,000
Speaker 1: Secretary Nome has not met with the individuals trying to

371
00:22:34,040 --> 00:22:36,760
Speaker 1: do this show. But what we know is that there

372
00:22:36,840 --> 00:22:40,199
Speaker 1: is a desire to have a show where it's a

373
00:22:40,560 --> 00:22:45,280
Speaker 1: reality show type competition where there's multiple people trying to

374
00:22:45,320 --> 00:22:50,159
Speaker 1: get US citizenship and only one of them gets it

375
00:22:50,200 --> 00:22:52,760
Speaker 1: at the end of the show. So there's a whittling

376
00:22:52,840 --> 00:22:56,280
Speaker 1: down each episode as to a person who gets eliminated,

377
00:22:56,320 --> 00:23:00,639
Speaker 1: and then only one person or perhaps one family gets

378
00:23:00,680 --> 00:23:05,280
Speaker 1: the citizenship. And so interestingly, I've been asked by various

379
00:23:05,320 --> 00:23:07,240
Speaker 1: reporters if I can think of a way where this

380
00:23:07,280 --> 00:23:10,720
Speaker 1: could actually work under the law, and I haven't actually responded,

381
00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:13,440
Speaker 1: but I'll do it here June, since we have since

382
00:23:13,480 --> 00:23:16,359
Speaker 1: we have our podcast. And so as much as I

383
00:23:16,400 --> 00:23:18,880
Speaker 1: wouldn't want this to be a show, you know, there's

384
00:23:18,880 --> 00:23:23,400
Speaker 1: another immigration show that has huge rating called Ninety Day Fiance.

385
00:23:23,560 --> 00:23:25,600
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've seen that one. I hadn't.

386
00:23:25,680 --> 00:23:28,119
Speaker 2: I didn't know it was an immigration show though, okay, it's.

387
00:23:27,960 --> 00:23:30,200
Speaker 1: An immigration show. Yeah, Because what happens is there's a

388
00:23:30,320 --> 00:23:33,600
Speaker 1: visa called a cave visa. Here's how this works. If

389
00:23:33,600 --> 00:23:36,440
Speaker 1: a US citizen is abroad. Let's say you go abroad

390
00:23:36,560 --> 00:23:40,080
Speaker 1: because you're at your university and you take a semester

391
00:23:40,160 --> 00:23:43,719
Speaker 1: abroad in France or something. Or let's say you're working

392
00:23:43,800 --> 00:23:47,439
Speaker 1: at a project in Germany or Australia or wherever. You

393
00:23:47,480 --> 00:23:50,120
Speaker 1: meet someone that you love. You're now in a very

394
00:23:50,119 --> 00:23:55,720
Speaker 1: difficult situation because if you bring the person into America

395
00:23:55,800 --> 00:23:58,240
Speaker 1: on a visitor visa and you get married to them,

396
00:23:58,680 --> 00:24:02,080
Speaker 1: theoretically that person is committing immigration fraud because you're not

397
00:24:02,119 --> 00:24:04,919
Speaker 1: supposed to be coming in on a visitor visa with

398
00:24:05,560 --> 00:24:09,280
Speaker 1: an intent to get married. And if you do the

399
00:24:09,560 --> 00:24:13,600
Speaker 1: long marriage process, how broad, then you might be separated

400
00:24:13,640 --> 00:24:15,600
Speaker 1: from your spouse for a year or two, which is

401
00:24:15,600 --> 00:24:18,239
Speaker 1: its own hardship. Nobody wants to be separated from their

402
00:24:18,280 --> 00:24:21,280
Speaker 1: spouse for a year or two. So there's a visa

403
00:24:21,320 --> 00:24:24,800
Speaker 1: that was created by Congress called the CA visa, the

404
00:24:24,840 --> 00:24:28,040
Speaker 1: fiance visa, which says, we're going to help you circumvent

405
00:24:28,160 --> 00:24:31,760
Speaker 1: this intent problem by giving you a visa that allows

406
00:24:31,760 --> 00:24:34,760
Speaker 1: you to come in kind of like a visitor, but

407
00:24:34,840 --> 00:24:37,160
Speaker 1: you have to get married in ninety days in order

408
00:24:37,200 --> 00:24:39,800
Speaker 1: to say and then you can do the process like

409
00:24:39,840 --> 00:24:42,679
Speaker 1: if you had met someone here and got married, and

410
00:24:42,760 --> 00:24:45,359
Speaker 1: so that's the fiance visa. But what this TV show

411
00:24:45,400 --> 00:24:48,119
Speaker 1: did is it decided to flip that on its head

412
00:24:48,640 --> 00:24:51,440
Speaker 1: and say, we're going to bring people in and give

413
00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:54,880
Speaker 1: them ninety days to decide whether they fall in love

414
00:24:54,920 --> 00:24:57,960
Speaker 1: with each other or not. If they don't fall in

415
00:24:58,000 --> 00:25:00,639
Speaker 1: love with each other, then they have to go. So

416
00:25:00,720 --> 00:25:03,119
Speaker 1: it's kind of flipped the idea on its head. And

417
00:25:03,160 --> 00:25:06,480
Speaker 1: so because that show has been wildly successful, even though

418
00:25:06,480 --> 00:25:09,320
Speaker 1: it's not really what the fiancee visus for. It's not

419
00:25:09,440 --> 00:25:11,919
Speaker 1: meant for the spouse to say, here, you have ninety

420
00:25:12,000 --> 00:25:14,440
Speaker 1: days to impress me, or you're out of the country.

421
00:25:15,200 --> 00:25:17,640
Speaker 1: It's not meant for that. But that's what this show

422
00:25:17,680 --> 00:25:20,320
Speaker 1: has turned into very riveting television.

423
00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:23,640
Speaker 2: Nevertheless, I'll admit my daughter has watched it.

424
00:25:23,920 --> 00:25:25,800
Speaker 1: No, no, fair enough, I've seen it. I've seen it

425
00:25:25,840 --> 00:25:29,040
Speaker 1: because people have brought it to my attention, and I'm

426
00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:32,720
Speaker 1: both shocked and admiring at the same time that someone

427
00:25:32,760 --> 00:25:36,160
Speaker 1: had such a perverse idea to take the immigration code

428
00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:38,000
Speaker 1: and turn it on its head like this.

429
00:25:38,359 --> 00:25:41,720
Speaker 2: It seems like competing for US citizenship would involve the

430
00:25:41,760 --> 00:25:44,480
Speaker 2: government more. In the show, people.

431
00:25:44,200 --> 00:25:46,240
Speaker 1: Say, well, no, the government doesn't have the authority to

432
00:25:46,280 --> 00:25:48,480
Speaker 1: do well. So I've tried to think how could you

433
00:25:48,520 --> 00:25:50,880
Speaker 1: do this? And the point is you could do it,

434
00:25:51,160 --> 00:25:53,280
Speaker 1: but what you would need to do is you would

435
00:25:53,320 --> 00:25:56,960
Speaker 1: need to have the Department of Justice in cahoots with this.

436
00:25:57,040 --> 00:25:59,560
Speaker 1: And here's how it would work. So there is a

437
00:25:59,680 --> 00:26:04,679
Speaker 1: stud called the cancelation of removal statues. And what the

438
00:26:04,760 --> 00:26:09,960
Speaker 1: cancelation of removal statues says is, if you have been

439
00:26:10,040 --> 00:26:15,000
Speaker 1: here illegally for ten years or more, and you have

440
00:26:15,320 --> 00:26:20,680
Speaker 1: either a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident child

441
00:26:20,960 --> 00:26:26,560
Speaker 1: or spouse who you being deported would cause extreme and

442
00:26:26,760 --> 00:26:31,679
Speaker 1: unusual hardship to them, then you can ask an immigration

443
00:26:31,840 --> 00:26:36,760
Speaker 1: judge to let you cancel your removal and stay in

444
00:26:36,760 --> 00:26:39,119
Speaker 1: the United States. And what actually happens is if the

445
00:26:39,119 --> 00:26:43,520
Speaker 1: immigration judge cancels the removal, you get a green card.

446
00:26:43,600 --> 00:26:46,600
Speaker 1: This is a defense to a deportation proceeding. But again,

447
00:26:46,640 --> 00:26:48,879
Speaker 1: you have to have been here ten years, and you

448
00:26:48,960 --> 00:26:54,040
Speaker 1: have to have a qualifying US citizen child or US

449
00:26:54,080 --> 00:26:56,520
Speaker 1: citizen spouse. And usually the point is these people have

450
00:26:56,560 --> 00:26:59,159
Speaker 1: to be very sick or there has to be some major,

451
00:26:59,240 --> 00:27:02,520
Speaker 1: major problem for why you would get this approved Okay,

452
00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:07,240
Speaker 1: So the rule is only four thousand people can get

453
00:27:07,240 --> 00:27:10,600
Speaker 1: this status a year, and so at the moment there's

454
00:27:10,680 --> 00:27:13,240
Speaker 1: many more people who have been approved for this status,

455
00:27:13,640 --> 00:27:16,720
Speaker 1: then there are slots, and so there's a bunch of

456
00:27:16,720 --> 00:27:19,520
Speaker 1: people whose cases are in abeyan. So what you could

457
00:27:19,520 --> 00:27:23,760
Speaker 1: do if you had the approval from the Department of

458
00:27:23,960 --> 00:27:27,040
Speaker 1: Justice is you could pick twelve of these people whose

459
00:27:27,080 --> 00:27:31,040
Speaker 1: cases are in abeyan and basically have them fight it

460
00:27:31,080 --> 00:27:34,720
Speaker 1: out on TV as perversus, that is, for which one

461
00:27:34,760 --> 00:27:37,080
Speaker 1: of them will get one of these four thousand plucks.

462
00:27:37,240 --> 00:27:39,840
Speaker 1: Now they wouldn't get citizenships, they would get a green card.

463
00:27:40,160 --> 00:27:44,280
Speaker 1: But then there actually is another statue which, if you

464
00:27:44,359 --> 00:27:49,280
Speaker 1: wanted to interpret it again very very very very broadly

465
00:27:49,320 --> 00:27:54,440
Speaker 1: and loosely compared to its text, allows five people, literally

466
00:27:54,560 --> 00:27:59,600
Speaker 1: just five, to be given citizenship immediately if either the

467
00:27:59,640 --> 00:28:03,040
Speaker 1: direct sure of the CIA or the Attorney General or

468
00:28:03,080 --> 00:28:08,280
Speaker 1: the DHS Secretary says they've made an extraordinary contribution to

469
00:28:08,760 --> 00:28:12,639
Speaker 1: the national security of the United States, which obviously winning

470
00:28:12,680 --> 00:28:15,520
Speaker 1: a TV show wouldn't do. But maybe you'd make some

471
00:28:15,760 --> 00:28:19,280
Speaker 1: argument that they provided such a good role model that

472
00:28:19,920 --> 00:28:22,840
Speaker 1: now everyone will last that way, and that will make

473
00:28:22,920 --> 00:28:25,320
Speaker 1: the security of the US better in some way. I

474
00:28:25,359 --> 00:28:25,679
Speaker 1: don't know.

475
00:28:25,840 --> 00:28:28,639
Speaker 2: Maybe you should expect to call from the producer. Leon.

476
00:28:29,280 --> 00:28:32,320
Speaker 2: It sounds like a crazy idea, but there are a

477
00:28:32,359 --> 00:28:36,640
Speaker 2: lot of reality shows that I would never have imagined

478
00:28:36,680 --> 00:28:40,440
Speaker 2: would work. This could be the next one. Thanks so much, Leon.

479
00:28:40,960 --> 00:28:45,760
Speaker 2: That's Leon Fresco of Honden Knight Up. Next, does Trump's

480
00:28:45,840 --> 00:28:50,680
Speaker 2: interim pick for DCUs attorney test the appointment's power? This

481
00:28:50,800 --> 00:28:56,080
Speaker 2: is Bloomberg. President Trump has appointed a second interim US

482
00:28:56,200 --> 00:29:00,400
Speaker 2: attorney for the District of Columbia. Former Fox Knew host

483
00:29:00,480 --> 00:29:04,800
Speaker 2: Janine Pierro was sworn in Wednesday as the next interim

484
00:29:04,920 --> 00:29:08,840
Speaker 2: US Attorney for DC after Trump pulled the nomination of

485
00:29:09,040 --> 00:29:12,560
Speaker 2: Ed Martin, who had served as the interim DC US

486
00:29:12,680 --> 00:29:17,600
Speaker 2: attorney since January. The back to back interim US attorneys

487
00:29:18,160 --> 00:29:22,360
Speaker 2: test the bounds of the federal statute governing temporary officials.

488
00:29:22,960 --> 00:29:26,520
Speaker 2: Joining me, as constitutional law expert Harold Krant, a professor

489
00:29:26,520 --> 00:29:29,840
Speaker 2: at the Chicago Kent College of Law, he'll tell us

490
00:29:29,880 --> 00:29:33,480
Speaker 2: about what happened with Ed Martin that led to Janine

491
00:29:33,560 --> 00:29:35,120
Speaker 2: Piero getting appointed.

492
00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:35,520
Speaker 1: Well.

493
00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:37,560
Speaker 4: The Attorney General, through the President, has the power to

494
00:29:37,600 --> 00:29:40,800
Speaker 4: appoint an interim United States Attorney, which is the chief

495
00:29:40,840 --> 00:29:45,760
Speaker 4: prosecutor for a variety of federal districts. Ed Martin was

496
00:29:45,800 --> 00:29:50,040
Speaker 4: selected as the chief prosecutor for the US Attorney for

497
00:29:50,200 --> 00:29:54,680
Speaker 4: the District of Columbia, and under the statute, a interim

498
00:29:54,800 --> 00:29:58,920
Speaker 4: can serve for one hundred and twenty days. If at

499
00:29:58,960 --> 00:30:01,800
Speaker 4: one hundred and twenty day is there's no permanent US

500
00:30:01,840 --> 00:30:07,520
Speaker 4: Attorney appointed, then according to the statute, it's the DC Circuit,

501
00:30:07,520 --> 00:30:10,120
Speaker 4: which is somewhat unusual then would have the power to

502
00:30:10,160 --> 00:30:13,840
Speaker 4: appoint an interim. After the fact Ed Martin was removed

503
00:30:13,840 --> 00:30:17,120
Speaker 4: from office because of political pressure prior to the one

504
00:30:17,200 --> 00:30:20,400
Speaker 4: hundred and twenty days, which leaves open the question of

505
00:30:20,960 --> 00:30:24,560
Speaker 4: who can fill the gap. Can the Attorney General appoint

506
00:30:24,600 --> 00:30:28,720
Speaker 4: another interim or with that displaced the power of the

507
00:30:28,840 --> 00:30:33,000
Speaker 4: Court to appoint an interim, And in the background is

508
00:30:33,040 --> 00:30:36,080
Speaker 4: the Senate's power to confirm an important position might be

509
00:30:36,200 --> 00:30:40,480
Speaker 4: US Attorney because with these successive interims, who either appointed

510
00:30:40,520 --> 00:30:45,160
Speaker 4: by the Court or by the Attorney General, there is

511
00:30:45,240 --> 00:30:49,360
Speaker 4: no rule for the Senate in terms of confirming a

512
00:30:49,480 --> 00:30:51,240
Speaker 4: permanent person in that position.

513
00:30:51,880 --> 00:30:55,440
Speaker 2: Does the US Attorney have to be from the area

514
00:30:55,640 --> 00:30:56,720
Speaker 2: that he or she's.

515
00:30:56,520 --> 00:31:01,240
Speaker 4: Appointed to there's no residency requirements to knowledge, so she

516
00:31:01,680 --> 00:31:05,440
Speaker 4: is qualified and indeed in the background is lurking. I

517
00:31:05,480 --> 00:31:09,840
Speaker 4: think the Senate would probably confirm her selection as the

518
00:31:09,920 --> 00:31:13,120
Speaker 4: US Attorney even though obviously she's controversial because of her

519
00:31:13,160 --> 00:31:15,240
Speaker 4: background with Fox News.

520
00:31:15,560 --> 00:31:18,760
Speaker 2: So she has one hundred and twenty days in office.

521
00:31:18,880 --> 00:31:19,640
Speaker 2: Is that right?

522
00:31:20,080 --> 00:31:24,160
Speaker 4: That's the question because some people think, and Senator Durbin

523
00:31:24,240 --> 00:31:27,120
Speaker 4: raised the question of whether her appointment was illegal, that

524
00:31:27,600 --> 00:31:30,920
Speaker 4: perhaps the Attorney General can only have one answer appointment

525
00:31:31,120 --> 00:31:34,080
Speaker 4: and after that time, either the Court would have to

526
00:31:34,120 --> 00:31:39,120
Speaker 4: make an interemployment or the President would have to submit

527
00:31:39,200 --> 00:31:44,480
Speaker 4: a permanent name for Senate consideration. So the difficulty with

528
00:31:44,480 --> 00:31:47,840
Speaker 4: her appointment is that it might be illegal. And if

529
00:31:47,840 --> 00:31:52,880
Speaker 4: it's illegal, then anybody who's convicted while she serves as

530
00:31:53,600 --> 00:31:58,000
Speaker 4: the interim use attorney might have grounds to challenge their

531
00:31:58,040 --> 00:32:01,440
Speaker 4: conviction on the ground that she was improperly appointed.

532
00:32:01,680 --> 00:32:03,360
Speaker 2: I mean, it has been done before, right where there's

533
00:32:03,360 --> 00:32:05,360
Speaker 2: the interim after interim after interim.

534
00:32:05,720 --> 00:32:09,120
Speaker 4: There have been several of circumstances of a sort of

535
00:32:09,120 --> 00:32:13,480
Speaker 4: a chain of interim appointments which then cut into either Again,

536
00:32:13,600 --> 00:32:18,240
Speaker 4: the power of the Senate to approve a permanent appointment

537
00:32:18,320 --> 00:32:23,200
Speaker 4: or the power of the court to appoint an interim attorney.

538
00:32:23,240 --> 00:32:26,760
Speaker 4: So it's happened in Massachusetts and a lower court appeldate.

539
00:32:27,360 --> 00:32:30,440
Speaker 4: There was an issue in New Mexico, and I believe

540
00:32:30,600 --> 00:32:34,360
Speaker 4: in Illinois, so that's not unprecedented. But there is very

541
00:32:34,400 --> 00:32:37,640
Speaker 4: few judicial tests, and it's really kind of a question

542
00:32:37,680 --> 00:32:40,000
Speaker 4: of a letter versus the spirit of the law. There's

543
00:32:40,040 --> 00:32:43,640
Speaker 4: nothing in a law that clearly states you can't have two, three,

544
00:32:43,760 --> 00:32:46,880
Speaker 4: four seven interim appointments all less than one hundred and

545
00:32:46,920 --> 00:32:50,160
Speaker 4: twenty days. But it's certainly the spirit of the statute

546
00:32:50,520 --> 00:32:54,040
Speaker 4: that suggests that you only can have one intern appointment

547
00:32:54,360 --> 00:32:57,960
Speaker 4: and then it would go either to a permanent appointment

548
00:32:58,400 --> 00:33:03,080
Speaker 4: or to judicial appointment of a interim use security, which

549
00:33:03,120 --> 00:33:04,360
Speaker 4: has also happened in our history.

550
00:33:04,680 --> 00:33:06,880
Speaker 2: I mean, he could just nominate her to be the

551
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:08,400
Speaker 2: US Attorney for DC.

552
00:33:08,360 --> 00:33:12,120
Speaker 4: Right absolutely, and I think the Senate would confirm he

553
00:33:12,400 --> 00:33:14,960
Speaker 4: hasn't done that yet, maybe because he wants to see

554
00:33:15,000 --> 00:33:17,480
Speaker 4: how she'll behave I have no idea what the thinking is,

555
00:33:17,600 --> 00:33:19,680
Speaker 4: or maybe he wants to test the statute. But this

556
00:33:19,720 --> 00:33:22,840
Speaker 4: seems to be a very minor tesk in comparison to

557
00:33:22,920 --> 00:33:26,959
Speaker 4: all of the other article two challenges that he has instigated,

558
00:33:27,120 --> 00:33:29,400
Speaker 4: so it's unclear why he hasn't point her and then

559
00:33:29,440 --> 00:33:30,680
Speaker 4: this whole issue would go away.

560
00:33:31,000 --> 00:33:33,760
Speaker 2: In his first term, he said he likes the temporary

561
00:33:34,040 --> 00:33:36,400
Speaker 2: There was more turnover in his first term. At this

562
00:33:36,440 --> 00:33:39,040
Speaker 2: point in his first term, well, I do think.

563
00:33:38,840 --> 00:33:42,400
Speaker 4: That it does give him some kind of immediate power.

564
00:33:42,640 --> 00:33:46,200
Speaker 4: And the message to Janine is, do a great job

565
00:33:46,520 --> 00:33:49,480
Speaker 4: what I want you to do, and then maybe I'll

566
00:33:49,520 --> 00:33:51,480
Speaker 4: give you the permanent employment and I don't want to

567
00:33:51,520 --> 00:33:53,400
Speaker 4: worry about any kind of removal or not. I'll just

568
00:33:53,440 --> 00:33:56,560
Speaker 4: give a permanent employment. And that way he has more

569
00:33:56,560 --> 00:33:59,640
Speaker 4: of a control sort of testing out whether or not

570
00:33:59,720 --> 00:34:02,520
Speaker 4: she would serve his will, if you will effectively in

571
00:34:02,560 --> 00:34:02,960
Speaker 4: that role.

572
00:34:03,400 --> 00:34:07,520
Speaker 2: He's not the only president to use interim appointments. Is

573
00:34:07,520 --> 00:34:11,080
Speaker 2: it a trend sort of? And is that because Senate

574
00:34:11,080 --> 00:34:13,040
Speaker 2: confirmation is difficult.

575
00:34:13,080 --> 00:34:15,839
Speaker 4: Lots of times, particularly at the beginning of an administration,

576
00:34:16,640 --> 00:34:19,840
Speaker 4: before you know all your stucture in order, there's a

577
00:34:20,000 --> 00:34:23,680
Speaker 4: need to have a great many interim appointments, and Congresses

578
00:34:23,760 --> 00:34:27,480
Speaker 4: tried to regulate that, specifically with US attorneys as we're discussing,

579
00:34:27,640 --> 00:34:30,680
Speaker 4: but also with all generally officers nined States, and they've

580
00:34:30,719 --> 00:34:34,200
Speaker 4: done a very complex statue calls of the Federal Vacancy's

581
00:34:34,239 --> 00:34:38,480
Speaker 4: Reform Act, which tries to limit who the president can

582
00:34:38,520 --> 00:34:42,080
Speaker 4: appoint for these acting roles. But this particular statute is

583
00:34:42,239 --> 00:34:45,759
Speaker 4: carve out from the Federal Vacancy Reform Acts, and so

584
00:34:45,920 --> 00:34:50,520
Speaker 4: it is more open ended as to whether these successive

585
00:34:50,560 --> 00:34:55,920
Speaker 4: appointments can be made or not. Not Ironically, President Trump

586
00:34:56,040 --> 00:34:59,959
Speaker 4: benefited from this because in his Moral Lago Documents case,

587
00:35:00,280 --> 00:35:03,239
Speaker 4: Judge Ilean Cannon dismissed the indictment against him because she

588
00:35:03,400 --> 00:35:08,279
Speaker 4: ruled that the Special Council have been illegally appointed. And

589
00:35:08,400 --> 00:35:11,440
Speaker 4: most people disagree with that ruling as a remedy. But

590
00:35:11,560 --> 00:35:15,040
Speaker 4: the problem with the appointment is that that is a

591
00:35:15,080 --> 00:35:19,720
Speaker 4: president or any criminals who's been convicted under the watch

592
00:35:19,840 --> 00:35:23,360
Speaker 4: of an interim US attorney to argue that the whole

593
00:35:23,400 --> 00:35:26,520
Speaker 4: indictment should be thrown out. So again, I think many

594
00:35:26,520 --> 00:35:30,360
Speaker 4: people disagree with Judge Cannon's reasoning in President Trump's case,

595
00:35:30,560 --> 00:35:33,200
Speaker 4: but it does show that there is a risk with

596
00:35:33,320 --> 00:35:34,480
Speaker 4: this particular appointment.

597
00:35:34,600 --> 00:35:38,640
Speaker 2: I mean, if this was a Senate that was less partisan,

598
00:35:39,280 --> 00:35:41,920
Speaker 2: would they be concerned that this is taking away the

599
00:35:41,960 --> 00:35:43,160
Speaker 2: Senate's power.

600
00:35:43,760 --> 00:35:47,440
Speaker 4: Well, that's exactly what Senator Durbin articulated and said that,

601
00:35:47,520 --> 00:35:50,200
Speaker 4: you know, by having the successive or he called it

602
00:35:50,239 --> 00:35:54,160
Speaker 4: a daisy chain of appointment of interims, the president can

603
00:35:54,600 --> 00:35:57,719
Speaker 4: sap the Senate of its power to either confer or

604
00:35:57,760 --> 00:36:01,120
Speaker 4: withhold consent. And you know, in a matter of theory,

605
00:36:01,280 --> 00:36:04,640
Speaker 4: Center Durbin's absolutely correct. But there's nothing in the statute

606
00:36:04,680 --> 00:36:09,120
Speaker 4: specifically that prevents a series of inter appointments.

607
00:36:09,680 --> 00:36:14,960
Speaker 2: And tell us how Trump is pushing his power to

608
00:36:15,040 --> 00:36:20,319
Speaker 2: fire anyone, even those heading independent agencies.

609
00:36:21,360 --> 00:36:28,200
Speaker 4: Indeed, he has discharged members of many agencies that Congress's

610
00:36:28,280 --> 00:36:31,760
Speaker 4: deemed should be somewhat independent of the president's control, namely

611
00:36:31,800 --> 00:36:35,239
Speaker 4: those sitting on top the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the

612
00:36:35,320 --> 00:36:40,320
Speaker 4: National Labor Relations for the Federal Trade Commission, among others

613
00:36:40,480 --> 00:36:44,319
Speaker 4: in his executive order. And well, his conduct suggests that

614
00:36:44,360 --> 00:36:47,200
Speaker 4: there is not such thing as an independent agency. In

615
00:36:47,239 --> 00:36:49,960
Speaker 4: other words, that Congress lacks authority under Article one of

616
00:36:50,000 --> 00:36:53,920
Speaker 4: the Constitution in creating an office to determine that the

617
00:36:53,960 --> 00:36:57,759
Speaker 4: office is more effectively run if it can boast some

618
00:36:57,880 --> 00:37:01,960
Speaker 4: kind of independence from day to day presidential meddling. So

619
00:37:02,040 --> 00:37:04,480
Speaker 4: that's the big issue, And indeed, just a couple of

620
00:37:04,560 --> 00:37:10,240
Speaker 4: days ago, the administration announced that it would not defend

621
00:37:10,680 --> 00:37:14,239
Speaker 4: a challenge to even the independence of an administrative law

622
00:37:14,320 --> 00:37:18,320
Speaker 4: judge in an agency proceeding was a case involving in

623
00:37:18,360 --> 00:37:21,279
Speaker 4: the National Labor Relations Board, and there it's not even

624
00:37:21,320 --> 00:37:24,680
Speaker 4: ahead of an agency. Here, there is somebody who's totally

625
00:37:25,080 --> 00:37:29,839
Speaker 4: subordinate to an agency, and Administration at least has expanded

626
00:37:29,840 --> 00:37:33,239
Speaker 4: this view that even such inferior officers of the United

627
00:37:33,239 --> 00:37:37,279
Speaker 4: States cannot be shielded from a plenary move authority in

628
00:37:37,320 --> 00:37:42,240
Speaker 4: that case of the agency, which again is then subject

629
00:37:42,280 --> 00:37:45,160
Speaker 4: to the plenary move authority of the president. So it's

630
00:37:45,200 --> 00:37:48,200
Speaker 4: even expanding this notion of the fact that there can

631
00:37:48,239 --> 00:37:53,279
Speaker 4: be no independence extended even to independent fact finders who

632
00:37:53,280 --> 00:37:56,640
Speaker 4: are the administrative law judges in those cases, suggests an

633
00:37:56,680 --> 00:38:00,680
Speaker 4: incredible extent and breadth of this theory that there is

634
00:38:00,800 --> 00:38:03,680
Speaker 4: no role for Congress to stay. We want to have

635
00:38:03,760 --> 00:38:09,360
Speaker 4: some independence of scientific judgment, of judicial judgments of inspector

636
00:38:09,440 --> 00:38:12,120
Speaker 4: general judgment, and that seems to be well within both

637
00:38:12,239 --> 00:38:16,799
Speaker 4: historically well within the constitutional purview of Congress to make

638
00:38:16,880 --> 00:38:17,719
Speaker 4: such decisions.

639
00:38:18,760 --> 00:38:21,839
Speaker 2: Is Trump different in this respect, or have other presidents

640
00:38:22,239 --> 00:38:25,160
Speaker 2: wanted the power to fire people in these positions.

641
00:38:25,640 --> 00:38:31,680
Speaker 4: He has expanded this power greatly. President Biden also remove

642
00:38:31,760 --> 00:38:34,120
Speaker 4: some agency officials and say that they should not be

643
00:38:34,160 --> 00:38:38,360
Speaker 4: protected from at will removal, but nothing in comparison to

644
00:38:38,960 --> 00:38:42,920
Speaker 4: President Trump's executive order explaining that he's against all the

645
00:38:43,080 --> 00:38:47,600
Speaker 4: sort of exercises of the independent judgment removed from presidential control.

646
00:38:48,120 --> 00:38:50,920
Speaker 4: And we're seeing this played out in the discharges of

647
00:38:51,000 --> 00:38:55,440
Speaker 4: these agency officials and most recently in his refusal to

648
00:38:55,480 --> 00:39:02,759
Speaker 4: defend the constitutionality unconstitutionality of protections of the suborted administry

649
00:39:02,760 --> 00:39:06,440
Speaker 4: of law judges from at will removal as well. So

650
00:39:06,680 --> 00:39:09,520
Speaker 4: we've seen evidence of this from President Reagan on in

651
00:39:09,640 --> 00:39:12,160
Speaker 4: terms of the last generation and a half, but it's

652
00:39:12,239 --> 00:39:17,600
Speaker 4: really taken a new sort of level of activism by

653
00:39:18,040 --> 00:39:18,720
Speaker 4: President Trumck.

654
00:39:19,320 --> 00:39:20,719
Speaker 2: And I don't know if I've ever heard of a

655
00:39:20,800 --> 00:39:23,640
Speaker 2: court appointing a US attorney.

656
00:39:25,080 --> 00:39:28,799
Speaker 4: I do think that the statute allowing inter appointment of

657
00:39:28,920 --> 00:39:32,960
Speaker 4: US attorneys by the courts is odd. And even though

658
00:39:33,080 --> 00:39:37,000
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court upheld court appointment of the Special Council

659
00:39:37,120 --> 00:39:40,600
Speaker 4: under the Independent Council Act in the Morrison versus Olsen case,

660
00:39:40,880 --> 00:39:44,719
Speaker 4: it's always struck me that these cross branch appointments are

661
00:39:44,840 --> 00:39:49,160
Speaker 4: quite sketchy, and they seem to undercut the notion of

662
00:39:49,480 --> 00:39:52,839
Speaker 4: autonomy of one branch as opposed to the other. So,

663
00:39:53,440 --> 00:39:59,120
Speaker 4: in terms of one potential issue that underlies this recent

664
00:39:59,160 --> 00:40:02,879
Speaker 4: appointment Judine Perrot to be US Attorney of the DC

665
00:40:03,040 --> 00:40:08,319
Speaker 4: Circuit is whether if a court would actually try to

666
00:40:08,400 --> 00:40:13,200
Speaker 4: appoint an interim US attorney, whether the Trump administration would

667
00:40:13,640 --> 00:40:16,840
Speaker 4: attack that as on constitutional under employments plause of the

668
00:40:16,920 --> 00:40:20,319
Speaker 4: Article two. Because I think it's a plausible argument that

669
00:40:20,400 --> 00:40:24,879
Speaker 4: says that the head prosecutors and executive function and why

670
00:40:24,880 --> 00:40:28,040
Speaker 4: should the court be appointing someone with such kind of

671
00:40:28,120 --> 00:40:29,040
Speaker 4: executive authority.

672
00:40:29,360 --> 00:40:32,279
Speaker 2: Well, we'll have to see if anyone even challenges the

673
00:40:32,640 --> 00:40:37,800
Speaker 2: interim following interim appointments. Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor

674
00:40:37,800 --> 00:40:41,640
Speaker 2: Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law. And

675
00:40:41,680 --> 00:40:43,840
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

676
00:40:44,160 --> 00:40:46,560
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

677
00:40:46,560 --> 00:40:50,839
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

678
00:40:51,040 --> 00:40:56,080
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law,

679
00:40:56,480 --> 00:40:59,680
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight.

680
00:40:59,719 --> 00:41:03,239
Speaker 2: At hen pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

681
00:41:03,280 --> 00:41:09,480
Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg m