Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosse from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: The new head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division
Speaker 2: is upending the mission of the division, which traditionally has
Speaker 2: been to protect Americans against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sets,
Speaker 2: and national origin. Harmeit Dillon has abandoned landmark civil rights
Speaker 2: settlements and has changed the division's focus to combating anti semitism,
Speaker 2: rooting out anti Christian bias, fighting diversity initiatives, and protecting
Speaker 2: gun rights. It's led to a mass exodus of attorneys
Speaker 2: from the division. In an interview with conservative commentator Glenn Beck,
Speaker 2: Dylan said that more than one hundred division attorneys out
Speaker 2: of three hundred and eighty have already said they'll leave.
Speaker 3: I think that's fine, because we don't want people in
Speaker 3: the federal government who feel like it's their pet project
Speaker 3: to go personute police departments based on statistical evidence, or
Speaker 3: persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence.
Speaker 3: That's not the job here. The job here is to
Speaker 3: enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.
Speaker 2: Joining Me is Bloomberg Law, reporter Suzanne Mognac start by
Speaker 2: telling us about the history of this division and its purpose.
Speaker 4: The Civil Rights Division is part of the Justice Department
Speaker 4: that was created in nineteen fifty seven as part of
Speaker 4: the Civil Rights Act that year, and it was really
Speaker 4: originally at its time intended to protect the right to vote.
Speaker 4: This is a big problem in SOLF at the time
Speaker 4: with protecting black residents from being blocked from the polls,
Speaker 4: and that was sort of the original mission of the unit. Obviously,
Speaker 4: now it's expanded and it enforces all of the civil
Speaker 4: rights laws that protect people from being discriminated against based
Speaker 4: on their sex, their gender, disability, religion, etc.
Speaker 2: Are they dropping any existing litigation or settlements by the
Speaker 2: prior administration?
Speaker 5: Are they dropping anything?
Speaker 4: Quite a lot, Yes, they're dropping a lot. We've seen
Speaker 4: withdrawals of consent decrees and just you know, removing themselves
Speaker 4: from pending litigation. In a lot of different areas that
Speaker 4: the Biden era Civil Rights Division had handled, One notable
Speaker 4: one that got quite a lot of traction was an
Speaker 4: environmental case actually that had been focused on sewage issues
Speaker 4: in Black Delta and Alabama, where residents have been found
Speaker 4: to have been discriminated against by their county because they
Speaker 4: didn't have proper sewage systems, and it had created a
Speaker 4: health risk for residents in those communities, and that was
Speaker 4: something that the Trump administrations decided to withdraw from that settlement.
Speaker 4: And so we've really just seen a lot of withdrawals
Speaker 4: of settlements but just don't align with what the Trump
Speaker 4: administration's missions are when it comes to the types of
Speaker 4: civil rights that they're interested in enforcing.
Speaker 2: In that Alabama case, the settlement had already been reached, right,
Speaker 2: that's correct, So now what is the general new mission statement?
Speaker 4: The Justice Department had actually sent out new mission statements
Speaker 4: for the civil rights divisions different sections. To take it broadly,
Speaker 4: a lot of the common threads that we saw throughout
Speaker 4: the new section mission statements were a focus on anti semitism,
Speaker 4: really specifically on college campuses, but focus on protecting women
Speaker 4: from quote unquote gender ideology, and really specifically what that
Speaker 4: is is preventing transgender women from participating in women's sports.
Speaker 4: And we're also seeing just a focus on opposing DEI
Speaker 4: and that's obviously an issue that we've seen kind of
Speaker 4: throughout the new Trump administration. Diversity equity and inclusion efforts
Speaker 4: that we might see in universities or elsewhere.
Speaker 2: Like the Housing and Civil Enforcement section, What did they
Speaker 2: do and what are they now going to do?
Speaker 4: So Housing and Civil Enforcement primarily would take on the
Speaker 4: Fair Housing Act, which is a civil rights statue that
Speaker 4: prevents discrimination and housing. So, for example, refusing to rent
Speaker 4: an apartment to somebody because of their race would be
Speaker 4: a classic example of housing discrimination that they would go after.
Speaker 4: What we saw in the new Mission statement was actually
Speaker 4: no made of the Fairhousing Act, and I think that
Speaker 4: was something that was significant for people following was that
Speaker 4: landmark civil rights law in housing is not even mentioned
Speaker 4: as a priority, and it's misinstatement. And said, I think
Speaker 4: what we're going to see a lot of from this
Speaker 4: section is religious land use issues, so churches who want
Speaker 4: to get a permit or something for a certain amount
Speaker 4: of land and that they're claiming that they're being discriminated against,
Speaker 4: which has always been a mission of that section, to
Speaker 4: be clear, But I think we're going to see more
Speaker 4: of a focus on religious institutions in helping discrimination really,
Speaker 4: particularly probably Christian institutions, since anti Christian bias is actually
Speaker 4: another tenant that we've seen kind of throughout the different
Speaker 4: sections as a core mission for this division.
Speaker 2: But the division has always handled cases involving anti Christian bias.
Speaker 4: Anti Christian bias with any religious bias has always been
Speaker 4: within the mandate of Civil Rights Division, and absolutely in
Speaker 4: instances of anti Christian bias in the past, we would
Speaker 4: have seen prior administrations take those on. What I heard
Speaker 4: from a lot of former Justice Department officials who came
Speaker 4: from this division was that the New Times administration was
Speaker 4: somewhat of an outcome oriented approach when it comes to
Speaker 4: these issues. So I spoke to one former division official
Speaker 4: who told me that when they wanted to take a
Speaker 4: look at religious discrimination issues, they didn't start with a religion.
Speaker 4: They went around the country and talk to different communities
Speaker 4: to try to learn which religions they felt had been
Speaker 4: most affected at the time. This was during the Obama administration.
Speaker 4: He said. The research said them that Islamophobia was actually
Speaker 4: one of the most significant religious discrimination issues at that time.
Speaker 4: And so I've been Anti Christian Bias task Force for example,
Speaker 4: it was something that had happened recently. It shows that
Speaker 4: they're really interested in probing anti Christian bias, but it
Speaker 4: doesn't necessarily say that that is the most prevalent iss
Speaker 4: you have religious discrimination. So of course you know, I
Speaker 4: haven't done this market research as a reporter, I could
Speaker 4: not tell you, you know, exactly why that anti Christian bias
Speaker 4: stacks up against other religions. People can maybe take a
Speaker 4: guest to face on their own communities that which they're
Speaker 4: seeing the most of. But I just think it sort
Speaker 4: of says something that they're starting with that I'm starting
Speaker 4: with anti Christians as opposed to, you know, maybe taking
Speaker 4: a broader look and seeing where were the problems are.
Speaker 4: And I think that's some criticism that former Justice Department
Speaker 4: officials have had as they take a look at this,
Speaker 4: that perhaps they're going in with an ideology that they're
Speaker 4: wanting to play out as opposed to going in with
Speaker 4: a problem and seeing where it is.
Speaker 2: There's also the Educational Opportunities Section, which used to ensure
Speaker 2: that educational facilities are not discriminating against minorities.
Speaker 5: What is its mission now?
Speaker 4: So a huge part of what I think the new
Speaker 4: mission will be on the Educational Opportunity section is going
Speaker 4: to be a lot of transgender athletes and sports, and
Speaker 4: anti semitism on college campuses. These are issues for the
Speaker 4: Trump administration. More broadly, we've seen the Department of Education
Speaker 4: initiating investigations or sending letters to universities regarding investigations into
Speaker 4: anti Semitism on college campuses. Justice Department has opened one
Speaker 4: into the University of California on this issue for example. Obviously,
Speaker 4: we've seen this crack down very broadly. I mean, the
Speaker 4: State's Department has revoked visas from students who were involved
Speaker 4: in protests against the Israel Homos war. And that's a
Speaker 4: broad priority for the administration, and I think it's really
Speaker 4: going to play out in this Educational Opportunities section of
Speaker 4: the Civil Rights Division when it comes to seeing it
Speaker 4: as a religious discrimination issue. And then of course the
Speaker 4: transgender issue I think will also be a big one
Speaker 4: for that division. With college sports, there's been a lot
Speaker 4: of pushback on the right on the idea of transgender
Speaker 4: women participating in women's sports is being unfair to non
Speaker 4: transgender women, and so I think that's an issue that
Speaker 4: we can expect this division and in the Education section
Speaker 4: to really be taking on.
Speaker 2: And then the Special Litigation Section, what did that do
Speaker 2: and what does it do now?
Speaker 4: So the Special Litigation Section does take on a lot.
Speaker 4: They have a fairly broad mandate. Some of the cases
Speaker 4: that we've seen them do in the past are police
Speaker 4: brutality cases, cases for people who are incarcerated. We've also
Speaker 4: seen them take on space SAX cases, which are free
Speaker 4: to have access to clinic entrances. And so this is
Speaker 4: for example, would be protesters blocking people from entering abortion
Speaker 4: clinics for example. We certainly are not going to expect
Speaker 4: to see a law of enforcement of Face Act on
Speaker 4: abortion protesters for life protesters outside of clinics. Specifically, in
Speaker 4: the new mission statements, they indicated that they do not
Speaker 4: want to see disparate treatment of pro life protesters, prayer
Speaker 4: visuals outside of abortion clinics, et cetera. That's something we've
Speaker 4: heard the political appointee Harmet Dillon has ever seen the division.
Speaker 4: That's something we've heard her say. So I think that's
Speaker 4: something we're going to see a lot less of. One
Speaker 4: investigation that we've seen from the special Litigation section that's
Speaker 4: very new, I'm told for this division is actually one
Speaker 4: into gun rights. We've seen that section take on the
Speaker 4: Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on processing delays with concealed carry
Speaker 4: permits and whether that's an issue of discrimination. And so,
Speaker 4: while you know this is still within the broad mission
Speaker 4: of the Special Litigation Section. We haven't really seen civil
Speaker 4: rights be used for gun rights. So that's just kind
Speaker 4: of a new, I guess interpretation of the dissection's mandate,
Speaker 4: but also part of the Trump administration's broader mission. Like
Speaker 4: they've made clear that Second Amendment right to bear arms
Speaker 4: is an important one for them.
Speaker 2: So, I mean, you have the Civil Rights Division litigating
Speaker 2: basically against transgender women, litigating about delays in processing gun permits.
Speaker 2: One employee you talked, you said, they're demolishing the Civil
Speaker 2: Rights Division and repurposing it for something it's not meant
Speaker 2: to do. Are they basically abandoning almost everything the Civil
Speaker 2: Rights Division was known for, like you know, police brutality
Speaker 2: cases or discrimination against minorities. It seems like it's just
Speaker 2: a totally different focus.
Speaker 4: It does appear though, that may be the direction that's going.
Speaker 4: I think racial discrimination cases in particular, it seem like
Speaker 4: they're going to be deprioritized as something I'm really hearing
Speaker 4: across the board, and we've seen it in action. We've
Speaker 4: seen them withdraw settlements in racial discrimination cases. One of
Speaker 4: the first things that we saw this division do a
Speaker 4: few months ago was to withdraw settlements in racial discrimination
Speaker 4: cases against police departments regarding incidents past, and so I
Speaker 4: think sure that racial discrimination is going to be a
Speaker 4: lower priority for this division, and we're going to see
Speaker 4: more focus on the issues that we talked about on
Speaker 4: anti Semitism, anti transgender and I DEI. And yes, that
Speaker 4: is a radical departure, I'm told from what that division
Speaker 4: has been doing in the past. And so what we're
Speaker 4: seeing out of that is just like widespread exodus of
Speaker 4: career officials who have devoted their lives and careers to
Speaker 4: civil rights enforcement, who just really don't see the current
Speaker 4: mission as in line with their values and how they
Speaker 4: see civil rights enforcement and how it should be.
Speaker 2: And how many division attorneys have said they're leaving.
Speaker 4: We're still waiting on those exact final numbers. Employees had
Speaker 4: until April twenty eighth to let the division leaders know
Speaker 4: if they wanted to take the differred resignation offers. This
Speaker 4: was the second offer, second opportunity they had to take
Speaker 4: somewhat of a buyout where they could go on leave
Speaker 4: for a few months and then formally separate in the fall.
Speaker 4: So we're still remains to be seen on exactly the
Speaker 4: damage that's going to be done. But Harmie Dillon went
Speaker 4: on a podcast over the weekend and said she expected
Speaker 4: over a hundred attorneys out of that three hundred something
Speaker 4: attorney section to leave, which is significant, And obviously you
Speaker 4: know there's still a couple of days for people to
Speaker 4: get those requests in. Maybe not all have been approved.
Speaker 4: I think it's very possible, maybe even likely from what
Speaker 4: I'm hearing that it may be well over one hundred employees.
Speaker 4: I think half is absolutely within the realm of possibility.
Speaker 2: Are these career attorneys resigning themselves or are they being
Speaker 2: pushed out?
Speaker 4: It's a mix. We saw a flu of reassignments, quite
Speaker 4: a few section chiefs, section deputy chiefs of the various
Speaker 4: section we've talked about who were reassigned to complaint education
Speaker 4: or FOYA offices, which we're seen as a lower tier
Speaker 4: of work. I think for a lot of those people,
Speaker 4: and that certainly with an effort to push them out
Speaker 4: by reassigning them to something different that they didn't sign
Speaker 4: up to do. I think a lot of these people
Speaker 4: are going to see the writing on the wall and
Speaker 4: take the deferred resignation offer. And some of those people
Speaker 4: who take the deferred resignation, weren't reassigned. They just maybe
Speaker 4: see what the division is doing and it's not what
Speaker 4: they want to be doing, so they've decided best to
Speaker 4: go take the out now. So it's sort of a mix,
Speaker 4: and we've seen that across the board of the Justice Department.
Speaker 4: That will see some leaders be given a reassignment that's
Speaker 4: maybe seen as less appealing. And when sometimes I think
Speaker 4: when somebody's boss or longtime manager is reassigned or decides
Speaker 4: to leave, they can create a morale issue below them,
Speaker 4: and a lot of the people who maybe work under
Speaker 4: them and have really respected their work might fee less
Speaker 4: inclined to stay.
Speaker 2: I found your story really eye opening, Suzanne, thanks so
Speaker 2: much for joining me tonight. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monnac.
Speaker 2: The American legal system is being tested during President Donald
Speaker 2: Trump's first one hundred days in office and unprecedented blits
Speaker 2: of lawsuits filed against the administration's policies more than two
Speaker 2: hundred lawsuits in courts across the country over just about
Speaker 2: every aspect of his agenda, from spending to immigration to
Speaker 2: firing of federal workers and government officials. Trump has complained
Speaker 2: about the judges who are keeping him from carrying out
Speaker 2: his agenda. Here in an interview with ABC News yesterday,
Speaker 2: we have to be treated fairly by judges, and we're
Speaker 2: not being treated fairly by all judges. Critics say the
Speaker 2: Trump administration has not been following all court orders, and
Speaker 2: a Supreme Court showdown over the president's powers appears inevitable.
Speaker 2: Joining me is Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney.
Speaker 5: Dave Trump is.
Speaker 2: Averaging about two lawsuits filed against his administration for every
Speaker 2: day he's been in office. That's unprecedented.
Speaker 6: This is because President Trump has decided to govern by
Speaker 6: executive order as opposed to do the normal thing of
Speaker 6: going to Congress and getting your agenda adopted. So for
Speaker 6: people who think he's acting like a king, perhaps, but
Speaker 6: I think it's a sign of weakness that he can't
Speaker 6: act like a president and get your agenda through the
Speaker 6: legislative branch. FDR did. And the reason why Trump is
Speaker 6: doing this is because he's got a razor thin majority
Speaker 6: of Republicans in the House, knowing that it would be
Speaker 6: really difficult to pass on this very controversial legislation through
Speaker 6: and the filibuster in the Senate would block his legislation
Speaker 6: as well, So he is trying to go over the
Speaker 6: heads of Congress, and he's being assisted by the fact
Speaker 6: that Congress has advocated its role as a separate, coequal
Speaker 6: branch of government. So it's up to the judiciary to
Speaker 6: stand firm and to provide the checks and balances that
Speaker 6: a democracy requires, and so far they have, they have
Speaker 6: provided the guardrails. So that's why you're seeing so many lawsuits.
Speaker 6: That's why you're seeing so many laws in court for Trump.
Speaker 6: That would change if he decided to govern through legislation
Speaker 6: rather than executive order, but there's no sign he's going
Speaker 6: to stop.
Speaker 2: There are cases in all different areas. There is you know,
Speaker 2: government spending and DEI policies and all kinds of things.
Speaker 2: The cases that have gotten the most attention are the
Speaker 2: immigration cases.
Speaker 5: Why do you think there is so many cases in
Speaker 5: that area?
Speaker 2: I mean, is it because they're testing how far they can.
Speaker 6: Go to his top priority? So immigration is the most
Speaker 6: important issue for him, and he knows that's the reason
Speaker 6: why he got elected. So he got elected for two reasons.
Speaker 6: Inflation in the southern border, immigration, and so far he
Speaker 6: has not been able to lower prices because the president
Speaker 6: has very little to do with inflation, although his positive
Speaker 6: caused increase in prices through tariffs. So he's relying instead
Speaker 6: on the southern border and immigration, and so he's been
Speaker 6: extra aggressive on that issue because that's his bread and butter.
Speaker 6: But in so doing he is running a foul of
Speaker 6: due process because the president is not a king. And
Speaker 6: even though this obscure Alien Enemies Act from the eighteenth
Speaker 6: century exists, it is rarely invoked, and when it is invoked,
Speaker 6: it doesn't give the present unilateral authority to deport anyone
Speaker 6: without due process. And the courts are reminding him of that. Now, Trump,
Speaker 6: instead of just abiding by court rulings, is trying to
Speaker 6: evade them. Importantly, he has not said that he has
Speaker 6: openly defined court rulings, and I think that's important. That's
Speaker 6: why I don't believe we're in a constitutional crisis. Yet
Speaker 6: the day that he says I'm going to defy the
Speaker 6: court's rulings, that's when it's coo, that's when we have
Speaker 6: a constitutional crisis. But that day hasn't come yet. He's
Speaker 6: paying lip service to it. He's saying he's abiding by
Speaker 6: court rulings even though he's playing games with him. But
Speaker 6: still the fact that he is saying he respects the
Speaker 6: Supreme Court and will abide by the rulings does mean something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Trump did say that he follows the laws
Speaker 2: again today in the Oval Office when he was asked
Speaker 2: about the case of the marilynd Man Kilmar Arbrego Garcia,
Speaker 2: who was mistakenly deported to l Salvador.
Speaker 5: I don't know.
Speaker 6: I haven't spoken to him.
Speaker 2: I really leave that to the lawyers, and I take
Speaker 2: my advice from Pam and everybody that has very much involved.
Speaker 2: They know the laws, and we followed the laws exactly.
Speaker 2: One of the first judges that Trump has all doubt
Speaker 2: is the chief judge in the DC Courts, Judge James Boseburg,
Speaker 2: and he's the one that oversaw that high profile challenge
Speaker 2: to the deportation flights of Venezuelans to El Salvador. Trump
Speaker 2: has called him highly conflicted, a troublemaker and agitator, a
Speaker 2: grand standard, and even a radical left lunatic. He's used
Speaker 2: some of those similar names against judges who were in
Speaker 2: charge of the cases. The criminal case is against him.
Speaker 2: What does it do to have though the President calling
Speaker 2: judges a radical left lunatic and calling for their impeachment.
Speaker 6: Well, it got the admonition from Chief Justice Roberts. Chief
Speaker 6: Office Roberts rarely speaks out on stuff like this, but
Speaker 6: he did saying that if you disagree with the judges ruling,
Speaker 6: the recourse is not to try to impeace the judge,
Speaker 6: and by implication, not to bass the judge, but to
Speaker 6: appeal the judge. And that meant something because because Trump
Speaker 6: knows that his bread is buttered by the Supreme Court,
Speaker 6: that's who gave him unprecedented immunity. That's a big reason
Speaker 6: why he was elected. He was able to avoid criminal
Speaker 6: trial during the campaign, So he owes the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: a lot, and that's why he didn't push back when
Speaker 6: Chief Justice Roberts scolded him. So, although it is a
Speaker 6: very maga thing to bash judges, you haven't seen it
Speaker 6: as vitriolic as it seemed to go. Right now, it
Speaker 6: seems like the rhetoric has died off a little bit,
Speaker 6: and I think that's because Chief Justice Roberts had to
Speaker 6: step in and remind Trump that he is out of line.
Speaker 6: And Trump, who's purely transactional, does not want to upset
Speaker 6: the Chief Justice of the most important court in the land.
Speaker 2: So Judge Bosberg, actually two judges are investigating whether the
Speaker 2: Trump administration defied their orders. As you say, Trump repeatedly
Speaker 2: says he always obeys court orders.
Speaker 5: But when the government.
Speaker 2: Flew those Venezuelans to El Salvador, Judge Boseburg paused the
Speaker 2: deportations and told the government to turn the planes around.
Speaker 2: He ruled on April sixteenth that the government demonstrated a
Speaker 2: willful disregard for his order for not turning the flights
Speaker 2: or ordering their return from l Salvador, and that none
Speaker 2: of their responses have been satisfactory. So Judge Bosburg could
Speaker 2: be on the way to finding someone in the Trump
Speaker 2: administration in contempt.
Speaker 6: Could be. So far, no one has been found in
Speaker 6: the content. But what has happened is that the US
Speaker 6: Supreme Court, in extraordinary ruling on a Saturday at one am,
Speaker 6: came in and put the kebash on Trump's deportations of
Speaker 6: Venezuelans to El Salvador. And that was even though the
Speaker 6: case really hadn't come to the Supreme Court, and the
Speaker 6: Supreme Court stepped in without really clear jurisdiction, even though
Speaker 6: the appellate court, the lower Court, the Circuit had not
Speaker 6: even ruled, So that to me showed that the Supreme
Speaker 6: Court isn't messing around, that they actually believed that Trump
Speaker 6: was going to violate Bozburg's order, that Trump was dumbing
Speaker 6: his nose at the judiciary, and so they had to
Speaker 6: step in. And so Trump is at risk of losing
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court he needs so badly because he's Tustas
Speaker 6: Roberts and amy Cony Barrett are the two most important justices,
Speaker 6: and in that Saturday one am ruling, it was not
Speaker 6: only they who ruled to halt the deportations, but also
Speaker 6: Kavanaugh and Corse. It so all three justices appointed by
Speaker 6: Trump ruled against the Trump administration. And so that's why
Speaker 6: it's more than just holding Trump in contempt in his
Speaker 6: administration and contempt. It's also actions like we saw at
Speaker 6: one am on Saturday by the Supreme Court that shows
Speaker 6: that the courts are pushing back.
Speaker 2: Let's just say Judge Bozburg finds a Trump administration official
Speaker 2: in contempt, I mean, what would really happen? Couldn't Trump
Speaker 2: pardon anyone charged with contempt?
Speaker 6: Yes, criminal contempt. Trump could step in, but he can
Speaker 6: also just disregard the court's order. I mean, the court's
Speaker 6: orders are enforced by the Martial Service, and the martial
Speaker 6: Service is under the executive branch, and so be up
Speaker 6: to the Department of Justice to go along, and you
Speaker 6: have to believe that they won't. Now, there are some
Speaker 6: rare cases where the court could appoint like a local
Speaker 6: sheriff to round someone up, but I think that's not
Speaker 6: going to happen. Could Trump step in and mess around
Speaker 6: with it, Yes, that's a federal crime. He could pardon someone.
Speaker 6: But really the big stick that the court holds is
Speaker 6: really in the court of public opinion. The public overwhelming
Speaker 6: opposes disobeying court rulings. They don't want to see the
Speaker 6: executive branch disobeying the court ruling. And now we'll hurt
Speaker 6: Trump in the court of public opinion. Plus, as I mentioned,
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court could come in and just say no,
Speaker 6: no more, We're going to stop all your deportations for now.
Speaker 6: Even if we don't have jurisdiction, we're going to step in.
Speaker 6: So that's a punishment itself. Now if we go down
Speaker 6: further and say, well, what if Trump just says that
Speaker 6: now we're going to defy the Supreme Court, Well, that's
Speaker 6: the conserttional crisis, that's the coup, and I don't think
Speaker 6: the public would tolerate that.
Speaker 2: Yes, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the Trump administration
Speaker 2: should follow court orders. According to a poll from Pew
Speaker 2: Research that came out last week. Most Americans seventy eight
Speaker 2: percent say the Trump administration has to follow lower court orders,
Speaker 2: and eighty eight percent say the administration has to follow
Speaker 2: Supreme Court rulings.
Speaker 5: And Dave, what do you.
Speaker 2: Think about the Attorney General Pam Bondi making frequent appearances
Speaker 2: on Fox criticizing court orders and judges. I've never seen
Speaker 2: an AG behave like that, you know, I have.
Speaker 6: Been surprised at the dialogue coming from DOJ. I've never
Speaker 6: seen an attorney general on the cable news shows like that.
Speaker 6: But there's nothing that says you can't. This is the
Speaker 6: Trump administration norms. So although we've never seen it before,
Speaker 6: there's nothing illegal about it. It's just something that we're
Speaker 6: not used to. And even though I know her very well,
Speaker 6: she and I have different political views, and I always
Speaker 6: knew I'd be disagreeing with a lot of the things
Speaker 6: that she was going to do. But as far as
Speaker 6: whether this is just wrong for her to go on
Speaker 6: to me. Now, no, I mean, she's taken a very
Speaker 6: transparent way to talk about things in front of millions
Speaker 6: of people, But the dialogue that comes out of it
Speaker 6: is very partisan. It's very pro Trump. But the voters
Speaker 6: chose a Trump loyalist who be attorney general when they
Speaker 6: voted for Trump. The other alternative was Kamala Harris, who
Speaker 6: ran on in part the independence of the attorney general
Speaker 6: and the independence of the judiciary, and she lost. And
Speaker 6: so elections have consequences, and that's the reason why we
Speaker 6: shouldn't be too surprised to see Trump's attorney general on
Speaker 6: Fox News and serving essentially as the president's lawyer. He
Speaker 6: campaigned on that. He said he wanted that I could
Speaker 6: have been a lot worse. You could have had Matt Gates,
Speaker 6: who I believe would have locked up Donald Trump's political
Speaker 6: enemies for political purposes.
Speaker 2: Talk about stress on the system. Coming up next, the
Speaker 2: deportation case that won't go away. This is bloomberg. One
Speaker 2: legal battle against the Trump administration seems to have eclipsed
Speaker 2: the others. The wrongful deportation of kilmore Arbrigo Garcia to
Speaker 2: l Salvador. The Trump administration has said in the past
Speaker 2: that they have no power or plans to bring Garcia back,
Speaker 2: but according to several reports, Secretary of State Marco Rubio
Speaker 2: has been in touch with l Salvador's president about Garcia. However,
Speaker 2: during a cabinet meeting today, Rubio refused to discuss whether
Speaker 2: there's been any such contact.
Speaker 1: Well, I will never tell you that, and you know
Speaker 1: who also, I'll never tell any judge because the conduct
Speaker 1: of our foreign policy belongs to the President of the
Speaker 1: United States and the executive branch, not some judge. So
Speaker 1: we will conduct foreign policy appropriately if we need to.
Speaker 5: But I'll never.
Speaker 1: Discussing, and no one will over her to make us discussing.
Speaker 1: That's how foreign policy works.
Speaker 2: I've been talking to Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County
Speaker 2: State Attorney. Dave.
Speaker 5: The judge had.
Speaker 2: A demand for the government to share evidence about Garcia.
Speaker 2: She put that off until April thirtieth because it seems
Speaker 2: like the government may be coming around on that.
Speaker 6: So that case is still muddled because you have the
Speaker 6: US President and the Secretary of State and the Attorney
Speaker 6: General saying that it's out of our hands. It's up
Speaker 6: to the president ofl Salvador. But it's clear that if
Speaker 6: Trump wanted a Bregio Garcia back, he would be on
Speaker 6: the next plane back in first class if that was
Speaker 6: their request. After all, the Trump administration in the United
Speaker 6: States government is paying for his incarceration. We're paying for
Speaker 6: El Salvador keeping these individuals behind bars. And Christy Nome,
Speaker 6: the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, said that El
Speaker 6: Salvador's prison is a in our toolbox. Well, if it's
Speaker 6: one of our tools, you can use those tools and
Speaker 6: you can use it to fix things. So I think
Speaker 6: ultimately the courts are going to have to get a
Speaker 6: little more specific about pushing the United States government to
Speaker 6: get Abrego Garcia back. The Supreme Court softened the language
Speaker 6: of the district court and said, instead of effectuating his return,
Speaker 6: they need to facilitate it. Facilitate is not as strong
Speaker 6: of a word as effectuating it. So the Supreme Court
Speaker 6: tried to get everyone together unanimously, which it did nine
Speaker 6: zero ruling saying kumbaya and say, okay, can we all
Speaker 6: at least live with the facilitating language. But that relies
Speaker 6: on the good faith of the Trump ministration. So when
Speaker 6: the Trump administration says, yeah, facilitate means we'll send a
Speaker 6: plane if the presidentl Salvador deports him, and he's not
Speaker 6: going to do so, so what are we going to do?
Speaker 6: That's not good enough for the Supreme Court. That is
Speaker 6: a reason I believe the Supreme Court stepped in in
Speaker 6: this extraordinary Saturday one am ruling. This was their way
Speaker 6: to say, we don't trust you anymore. So the ball
Speaker 6: is going to be in the trumpdministration's court, and Judge
Speaker 6: Zinnis is also getting impatient.
Speaker 2: Trump has already filed eleven emergency requests with the Supreme Court,
Speaker 2: which is more than that during the combined sixteen years
Speaker 2: of George W. Bush and Barack Obama's administrations. And we're
Speaker 2: still waiting for the court to rule or decide whether
Speaker 2: to take a lot of those cases.
Speaker 6: So there's a lot going on in the shadow docket.
Speaker 6: So we'll see. I mean, we've never been down this
Speaker 6: road before. We've never seen this kind of thing before,
Speaker 6: and so that's why I'm not surprised that the Supreme
Speaker 6: Court does things that we've never seen before.
Speaker 2: So now let's talk about the tariff situation and the
Speaker 2: Democratic Ags, A group of Democratic AGS are suing Trump
Speaker 2: over the tariff, saying they have upended the constitutional order
Speaker 2: and brought chaos to the American economy. There are several
Speaker 2: suits over the tariff. So why would the AGS bother
Speaker 2: to sue.
Speaker 6: Well, it's a coalition. You have Democratic ags and you
Speaker 6: have from the business community. They're suing because Trump, if
Speaker 6: he wants to impose tariffs, needs to go to Congress.
Speaker 6: But there is a law similar to the Alien Enemies Act.
Speaker 6: There's a law from the seventies that permits a president
Speaker 6: to put on emergency punishment emergency sanctions on governments that
Speaker 6: are rogue. But it does not say in that law
Speaker 6: that terriffs are a possibility. It's not a sanctioned listed
Speaker 6: in the list of sanctions in that law. So number one,
Speaker 6: the lawsuit says, even if you invoke this law in
Speaker 6: case of emergency, you can't use terrorists. That's not an
Speaker 6: arrow in your quiver according to the statue. And number two,
Speaker 6: is it really an emergency? Is it an emergency a
Speaker 6: crisis situation when you are trying to overturn decades of
Speaker 6: trade and balances. If you have a problem with the
Speaker 6: American policy or something has been going on for decades.
Speaker 6: That's not a crisis emergency. It's not like you have
Speaker 6: to have emergency powers. You have to go to Congress
Speaker 6: and change policy. So I think that these attorneys general
Speaker 6: have a very good argument. I think that their lawsuit
Speaker 6: will prevail, at least in part, to slow down these tariffs.
Speaker 6: Trump will have to go to Congress if he wants
Speaker 6: to get them through, but Congress doesn't want them. They
Speaker 6: see how damaging these things are. Maybe one day we'll
Speaker 6: have a Congress that actually works, that actually doesn't just
Speaker 6: emasculate itself. But for now, the Congress is just scared
Speaker 6: to do anything. But that day could change once prices
Speaker 6: go way up and Trump's poll numbers go way down.
Speaker 2: They're arguing that this is effectively massive taxes on Americans.
Speaker 6: It definitely is. I mean, these tariffs are not paid
Speaker 6: by foreign governments. They're paid by the importers, and the
Speaker 6: importers pass it along to the consumers. And you saw
Speaker 6: how Amazon wanted its consumers, its customers to know why
Speaker 6: all of a sudden prices are going up, and they
Speaker 6: were going to list it as here is the cost
Speaker 6: of tariffs. And then Trump called Jeff Bezos and say,
Speaker 6: how dare you? And then Jeff Bezos did what a
Speaker 6: lot of billionaires and big law firms have been doing lately,
Speaker 6: and and so they will not report the specific itemized
Speaker 6: tariff costs. But the public is not stupid when their
Speaker 6: goods go up. There's only so much blame you can
Speaker 6: give to Joe Biden and DEI and all these other things.
Speaker 6: At some point people are gonna put two and two
Speaker 6: together and know that it's because of terror policy. Why
Speaker 6: all of a sudden the stuff that they need that's
Speaker 6: being imported from other countries is now much more expensive.
Speaker 2: A White House spokesman said the Democrats are prioritizing a
Speaker 2: witch hunt against President Trump over protecting the safety and
Speaker 2: well being of their constituents. But any lawsuit could take
Speaker 2: months or even years, and it would come likely after
Speaker 2: the ninety day pause.
Speaker 6: Courts could act more quickly. Think it is a strategy,
Speaker 6: as you know, for Trump and Maggot, to delay, delay, delay,
Speaker 6: But I think the courts are onto them. They've been
Speaker 6: through this before.
Speaker 2: So you're in Florida, let's talk about your governor Ron DeSantis,
Speaker 2: who's term limited and he's promoted his wife to be
Speaker 2: the next governor, and that.
Speaker 6: Is setting up a showdown between the DeSantis wing of
Speaker 6: the party in Florida and the Trump wing of the
Speaker 6: party because Trump has endorsed Byron Donald's, a mega congressman,
Speaker 6: to be the next governor. And that's why the knives
Speaker 6: are out for Casey DeSantis. She has a charity, the
Speaker 6: Hope Foundation of Florida, that allegedly received a ten million
Speaker 6: dollar donation from Senteen, a medicaid provider, a vendor who
Speaker 6: overcharged the state and so as part of their penalty,
Speaker 6: they had to pay a certain amount to the state
Speaker 6: and ten million dollars of that went to Hope Foundation,
Speaker 6: and then a ten million dollar donation went from the
Speaker 6: Hope Foundation to tax controlled by DeSantis's people to run
Speaker 6: ads against the marijuana referendum that was on the ballot,
Speaker 6: and the marijuana referendum lost in a close election. And
Speaker 6: people are saying, well, it is not illegal to take
Speaker 6: money was meant for the state's medicaid program and put
Speaker 6: it into your own political coffers. The DeSantis folks are
Speaker 6: saying that was extra money, that was an extra contribution
Speaker 6: that was not part of the medicaid penalty. And the
Speaker 6: Republicans are doing a lot of the investigation here. He
Speaker 6: may be wondering, why are the Republicans investigating this? Because
Speaker 6: Ron DeSantis is a lame duck. His term ends in
Speaker 6: twenty twenty six, he can't run for governor again. There's
Speaker 6: not a lot of good feelings amongst Republicans towards the
Speaker 6: governor who has rules with an iron fist, and now
Speaker 6: that he's a lame duck, they're getting some revenge and press.
Speaker 6: Most importantly, Donald Trump runs the Republican Party nationally and
Speaker 6: in Florida, and they want to please the Boss, so
Speaker 6: they're going to side with him and Byron. Donald's over Ron.
Speaker 6: In case of Dystantus, this whole controversy was not generated
Speaker 6: by Democrats. There aren't enough democrats in Tallahassee in our
Speaker 6: government to make us think about things. And it was
Speaker 6: not caused by the press corps. The press corps has
Speaker 6: been decimated in Tallahassee. This was created by fellow Republicans
Speaker 6: and that's why DeSantis keeps looking over his shoulder to
Speaker 6: see who's gonna stab in the back next.
Speaker 5: Is he still popular among Floridians?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think he would get re elected to a
Speaker 6: third term if he ran. I do think so. I
Speaker 6: think he's not as popular as he was, but I think,
Speaker 6: you know, Florida's a red state, and I think he
Speaker 6: is still somewhat popular. But Donald Trump is more popular,
Speaker 6: and Donald Trump's choice would normally beat Rond De Santa's
Speaker 6: choice in a party primary. And when you add this
Speaker 6: growing scandal which has damaged Casey DeSantis and Ron De Santis,
Speaker 6: then I think the chances of Casey de Satan's becoming
Speaker 6: governor are getting smaller by the day. She has not
Speaker 6: announced that she's running for governor yet, but she's trying
Speaker 6: to get through this controversy, which really had caught them
Speaker 6: flat foot. I don't think they expected this. They had
Speaker 6: never dealt with anything like this in their entire time
Speaker 6: in office. They didn't care what the Democrats said, they
Speaker 6: didn't care what the press said. But this is different.
Speaker 6: This is coming from their side of the aisle. So
Speaker 6: he's calling out Republicans for being Rhinos, he's calling them
Speaker 6: out to being fake Republicans. He can't believe what's happening
Speaker 6: to him, but it's just reality of politics. If there's
Speaker 6: blood in the water, the people who who really resented
Speaker 6: you for years they're going to come out and exploit
Speaker 6: that situation. They see it, they see that blood in
Speaker 6: the water, and all of a sudden, they're coming out
Speaker 6: of the woodwork to go fishing. I think that's a
Speaker 6: consistent metaphor, but leave it up to the listeners.
Speaker 2: Always interesting to talk to you, Dave, Thanks so much.
Speaker 2: That's Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. And
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 2: week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June
Speaker 2: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg