1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,400
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has just dropped the travel band case

2
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,760
Speaker 1: from its arguments schedule and told the administration Band's challengers

3
00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:11,039
Speaker 1: to file briefs discussing the effect of a revised policy

4
00:00:11,240 --> 00:00:16,400
Speaker 1: issued yesterday. Joining us is Greg store Bloomberg, Supreme Court

5
00:00:16,440 --> 00:00:19,560
Speaker 1: reporter and our co host, Greg tell us what the

6
00:00:19,600 --> 00:00:22,760
Speaker 1: Court decided to do here, Hey, June. Yeah, this is

7
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:26,079
Speaker 1: just a one paragraph order, and it asked the parties

8
00:00:26,079 --> 00:00:30,400
Speaker 1: to file brief saying whether the current case before the

9
00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:35,080
Speaker 1: justices have any ongoing importance, whether it's legally moot um.

10
00:00:35,240 --> 00:00:38,080
Speaker 1: And they dropped the argument that was scheduled to go

11
00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:41,879
Speaker 1: forward on October tenth. They left open the possibility they

12
00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:44,120
Speaker 1: might add it back in there later, but they certainly

13
00:00:44,440 --> 00:00:47,800
Speaker 1: foreshadowed to strong possibility they will instead say, we're just

14
00:00:47,800 --> 00:00:51,239
Speaker 1: gonna dismiss the entire case. So what is it that

15
00:00:51,240 --> 00:00:54,040
Speaker 1: the what what do we kinnect? What can we expect

16
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:58,920
Speaker 1: the government to urge them to do on this? It's

17
00:00:58,920 --> 00:01:02,920
Speaker 1: a really good question, Michael Um. The government so far

18
00:01:03,240 --> 00:01:06,720
Speaker 1: hasn't addressed this um. This moment that we all sort

19
00:01:06,760 --> 00:01:10,240
Speaker 1: of knew was coming, that the temporary policy expired yesterday

20
00:01:10,319 --> 00:01:13,000
Speaker 1: on Sunday, and it was always kind of clear that

21
00:01:13,000 --> 00:01:15,319
Speaker 1: there would be a question what would happen when the

22
00:01:15,400 --> 00:01:19,319
Speaker 1: President issues something to replace the temporary policy, and the

23
00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:22,960
Speaker 1: Justice Department always sort of ducked that question. It is

24
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: not entirely clear from the surface whether they would like

25
00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:27,760
Speaker 1: this argument to go forward, kind of roll the dice

26
00:01:27,800 --> 00:01:30,679
Speaker 1: that they'll look at a big win, or instead to

27
00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:34,679
Speaker 1: take the partial victory they've gotten so far in this case, Um,

28
00:01:34,840 --> 00:01:38,240
Speaker 1: and and let this litigation instead go forward at the

29
00:01:38,240 --> 00:01:43,160
Speaker 1: district court level. So Greg, just technically they've dropped the

30
00:01:43,319 --> 00:01:47,319
Speaker 1: argument from the schedule, but the case is still alive there.

31
00:01:47,760 --> 00:01:49,840
Speaker 1: That's right, the case is still here. So they removed

32
00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:52,600
Speaker 1: it from their argument schedule. And and the last line

33
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:54,880
Speaker 1: said the cases are removed from the oral argument calendar

34
00:01:55,120 --> 00:01:58,600
Speaker 1: pending further order of the court. So they left themselves

35
00:01:58,680 --> 00:02:01,240
Speaker 1: open the possibility if they'd aside, this really is a

36
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:03,960
Speaker 1: case we should decide now. They left to open the

37
00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:07,600
Speaker 1: possibility that after they've had more time to digest this

38
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:09,880
Speaker 1: new policy and what it might mean, that they add

39
00:02:09,880 --> 00:02:15,880
Speaker 1: it back onto the argument schedule at a later point. So, Greg,

40
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:18,120
Speaker 1: do you I mean is it likely to go back

41
00:02:18,120 --> 00:02:21,520
Speaker 1: to the district court? Now? It seems like, there's a

42
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:24,040
Speaker 1: good chance either that the Supreme Court will just kick

43
00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:26,480
Speaker 1: it back to the lower courts and say, you guys,

44
00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:29,519
Speaker 1: take the first crack at this revised policy. Usually the

45
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:31,360
Speaker 1: Supreme Court doesn't want to be the first one to

46
00:02:31,440 --> 00:02:34,960
Speaker 1: decide something, especially not something this important. Uh. The other

47
00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:38,560
Speaker 1: possibility is they could basically just dismiss the entire case

48
00:02:38,760 --> 00:02:42,480
Speaker 1: case saying it no longer has any ongoing importance UH,

49
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:45,200
Speaker 1: and leave it to the groups that are challenging this

50
00:02:45,280 --> 00:02:48,280
Speaker 1: policy to file new lawsuits. Either way, the practical effect

51
00:02:48,280 --> 00:02:51,640
Speaker 1: would be, UH, that we're back fighting in places like

52
00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:54,200
Speaker 1: the district court in in Hawaii and the District Court

53
00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:59,480
Speaker 1: in Maryland. So, Greg, is this what the what the

54
00:02:59,560 --> 00:03:03,560
Speaker 1: jumping illustration? The Justice Department had asked for in their

55
00:03:04,000 --> 00:03:07,120
Speaker 1: in their brief seat the other day or last they

56
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:09,880
Speaker 1: sent a letter to the court, right right, This is

57
00:03:09,919 --> 00:03:11,520
Speaker 1: more than they asked for in the sense that they

58
00:03:11,840 --> 00:03:14,320
Speaker 1: asked the court to set out a briefing schedule and

59
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:17,840
Speaker 1: and tell everybody to to file brief with us UH

60
00:03:17,919 --> 00:03:21,360
Speaker 1: during the first week of October. Uh. This bit about

61
00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:24,239
Speaker 1: removing it from the argument calendar. That wasn't something that

62
00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:27,840
Speaker 1: the administration specifically requested the Court decided to do that

63
00:03:28,000 --> 00:03:31,960
Speaker 1: on its own, well, procedurally speaking, Greg, you know, it's

64
00:03:32,000 --> 00:03:35,160
Speaker 1: a little odd when the Supreme Court has a case

65
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:38,360
Speaker 1: that's about you know, that is about one order, the

66
00:03:38,560 --> 00:03:41,040
Speaker 1: order is no longer in effect and a new order

67
00:03:41,080 --> 00:03:44,760
Speaker 1: takes place, and it's sort of an unusual posture for

68
00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:47,320
Speaker 1: them to be in that position. But is there any

69
00:03:47,320 --> 00:03:49,320
Speaker 1: way that they could decide, you know what, we have

70
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:52,680
Speaker 1: this new order, we're going to keep it anyway, Sure

71
00:03:52,720 --> 00:03:56,200
Speaker 1: they could and um it Actually it is a very

72
00:03:56,280 --> 00:04:00,720
Speaker 1: unusual case. Certainly I agree with that. But by as

73
00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:02,880
Speaker 1: I've been talking to people around town, uh, you know,

74
00:04:02,880 --> 00:04:05,600
Speaker 1: folks have been worked in this Listener General's office. They

75
00:04:05,800 --> 00:04:07,880
Speaker 1: have sort of made the point that there are actually

76
00:04:07,920 --> 00:04:10,800
Speaker 1: a lot of cases where the Supreme Court agrees to

77
00:04:11,280 --> 00:04:13,760
Speaker 1: take a case involving the government and then the government

78
00:04:13,760 --> 00:04:16,360
Speaker 1: policy changes a little bit over the course of it,

79
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:19,200
Speaker 1: and so the court hangs onto it and they just

80
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 1: sort of deal with the small changes in the policy

81
00:04:21,440 --> 00:04:25,120
Speaker 1: that happened along the way. Here. However, this is a

82
00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:28,640
Speaker 1: really big change. Not only does it have new countries

83
00:04:28,680 --> 00:04:30,560
Speaker 1: as a part of this travel band, it's kind a

84
00:04:30,560 --> 00:04:33,200
Speaker 1: new justification that may actually end up being stronger for

85
00:04:33,240 --> 00:04:36,599
Speaker 1: the administration. They you know they the President acted after

86
00:04:36,600 --> 00:04:39,760
Speaker 1: getting a recommendation from the Department of Homeland Security saying

87
00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:43,320
Speaker 1: these countries aren't providing enough assurance, uh, that that the

88
00:04:43,320 --> 00:04:46,279
Speaker 1: people who are trying to come into the US are

89
00:04:46,360 --> 00:04:50,039
Speaker 1: who they say they are. Uh. And so for the

90
00:04:50,080 --> 00:04:54,279
Speaker 1: court to take up that question evaluate that without any

91
00:04:54,320 --> 00:04:56,159
Speaker 1: lower court looking at it, that would be a pretty

92
00:04:56,200 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 1: remarkable thing. Well, thanks so much, Greg, I think you're

93
00:04:59,240 --> 00:05:02,839
Speaker 1: gonna be busy this term. That's Greg Store, Bloomberg, Supreme

94
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:05,960
Speaker 1: Court reporter and co host of Bloomberg Law