1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,520 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:12,960 Speaker 2: The acting head of ICE, Todd Lyons, defended his agency's 3 00:00:13,080 --> 00:00:17,360 Speaker 2: training standards and denounced threats against officers at a hearing 4 00:00:17,400 --> 00:00:20,759 Speaker 2: before the House Homeland Security Committee today, let me. 5 00:00:20,760 --> 00:00:23,160 Speaker 3: Send a message to anyone who thinks they can intimidate us, 6 00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:24,360 Speaker 3: you will fail well. 7 00:00:24,400 --> 00:00:27,320 Speaker 2: The shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretty have drawn 8 00:00:27,360 --> 00:00:32,440 Speaker 2: by partisan scrutiny and calls for transparency. The hearing largely 9 00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:36,600 Speaker 2: played out along partisan lines. There were some heated moments, 10 00:00:36,680 --> 00:00:40,479 Speaker 2: like this when New York Democrat Dan Goldman asked Lyons 11 00:00:40,560 --> 00:00:44,599 Speaker 2: about US citizens being asked for proof of citizenship? 12 00:00:44,800 --> 00:00:48,040 Speaker 3: Do you know what other regimes in the twentieth century 13 00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:51,000 Speaker 3: century required similar proof of citizenship? 14 00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:59,040 Speaker 1: Yes, sir? What so those various nefarious regimes that did that? 15 00:00:59,360 --> 00:01:00,520 Speaker 3: Is Nazi one? 16 00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:01,160 Speaker 1: Yes? 17 00:01:01,240 --> 00:01:05,000 Speaker 3: But I is the Soviet Union life I'm asking the questions. 18 00:01:05,080 --> 00:01:06,280 Speaker 3: Is the Soviet Union one? 19 00:01:06,480 --> 00:01:07,760 Speaker 1: Yes, sir? But I told you. 20 00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:11,319 Speaker 2: A topic that was not addressed at the hearings is 21 00:01:11,400 --> 00:01:15,440 Speaker 2: one that affects every non citizen detained by ICE, the 22 00:01:15,480 --> 00:01:21,039 Speaker 2: Trump Administration's mandatory detention policy. It's a reversal of every 23 00:01:21,080 --> 00:01:25,559 Speaker 2: other administration's policy for the last thirty years. The Trump 24 00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:31,319 Speaker 2: administration is detaining all non citizens without hearings indefinitely, even 25 00:01:31,360 --> 00:01:34,080 Speaker 2: if they've lived in this country for decades and have 26 00:01:34,200 --> 00:01:37,920 Speaker 2: no criminal records. And in a huge win for the administration, 27 00:01:38,560 --> 00:01:42,959 Speaker 2: the ultra conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals just greenlit 28 00:01:43,160 --> 00:01:47,760 Speaker 2: that mandatory detention policy. My guest is Leon Fresco, a 29 00:01:47,840 --> 00:01:50,760 Speaker 2: partner at hollanden Knight and the former head of the 30 00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:55,360 Speaker 2: Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration. Lee and 31 00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:57,400 Speaker 2: I want to start with what's been happening in the 32 00:01:57,440 --> 00:02:02,000 Speaker 2: lower federal courts the Trump administration. The immigration courts have 33 00:02:02,720 --> 00:02:08,040 Speaker 2: largely stopped conducting bond hearings, even though three federal judges 34 00:02:08,600 --> 00:02:13,680 Speaker 2: explicitly declare that non citizen detainees have a right to 35 00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:17,320 Speaker 2: argue for their release, so the right to a bond hearing. 36 00:02:17,639 --> 00:02:22,079 Speaker 2: But there was contrary guidance by the head immigration judge 37 00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:26,160 Speaker 2: who said the immigration judges weren't bound by the federal 38 00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:27,440 Speaker 2: judges orders. 39 00:02:28,240 --> 00:02:32,880 Speaker 1: What happens is that there is Supreme Court precedent from 40 00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:36,160 Speaker 1: a couple of years ago during the Biden administration that 41 00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:40,120 Speaker 1: clarify that the only court in America that can issue 42 00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:45,960 Speaker 1: injunctive relief of immigration, deportation or detention statue is the 43 00:02:46,000 --> 00:02:49,040 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And so what that has meant is that 44 00:02:49,120 --> 00:02:52,920 Speaker 1: the lower courts, when they're trying to issue relief in 45 00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:56,400 Speaker 1: certain cases, the only thing they can issue is what's 46 00:02:56,440 --> 00:03:01,840 Speaker 1: called declaratory judgment relief. They can say, we declare that 47 00:03:02,400 --> 00:03:06,919 Speaker 1: the immigration authorities are acting in an unlawful manner, and 48 00:03:07,080 --> 00:03:10,760 Speaker 1: based on that declaration, we are ordering that there be 49 00:03:10,919 --> 00:03:14,440 Speaker 1: a release of a particular person who we are claiming 50 00:03:14,520 --> 00:03:18,320 Speaker 1: is wrongfully detained. And usually that's done in a habeas 51 00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:21,720 Speaker 1: corpus matter, which is what happened is someone says, my 52 00:03:21,880 --> 00:03:27,040 Speaker 1: body is wrongfully detained by the federal government, please release me. Now, 53 00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:30,520 Speaker 1: what has been happening is, and we'll talk more about 54 00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:33,160 Speaker 1: this when we get to the Fifth Circuit case, is 55 00:03:33,160 --> 00:03:35,720 Speaker 1: that ISA has taken the position that nobody can be 56 00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:39,440 Speaker 1: released from detention if they snuck across the border or 57 00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:41,880 Speaker 1: the United States. It doesn't matter if it was thirty 58 00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:45,360 Speaker 1: years ago, twenty years ago, or anything. If we catch you, 59 00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:49,440 Speaker 1: that means you're in detention until your deportation case is over. 60 00:03:50,120 --> 00:03:54,280 Speaker 1: And so from that perspective, people have been filing habeas 61 00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:59,840 Speaker 1: corpus petitions trying to say that that's an improper decision 62 00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:04,520 Speaker 1: and let me unt. And what has happened is that 63 00:04:05,240 --> 00:04:08,960 Speaker 1: when they win, they get declaratory relief, they don't get 64 00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:13,680 Speaker 1: injunctive relief. And so now the immigration courts under the 65 00:04:13,760 --> 00:04:18,680 Speaker 1: Department of Justice, so Pambombi, being the Attorney General and 66 00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:22,520 Speaker 1: then bringing those orders down to her designees in the 67 00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:27,200 Speaker 1: Department of Justice and the Immigration courts, has said a 68 00:04:27,360 --> 00:04:32,120 Speaker 1: declaratory judgment is not an injunction. It doesn't force us 69 00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:35,760 Speaker 1: to do anything. It just declares that we've acted illegally, 70 00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:39,839 Speaker 1: which is you know, quite a stretch. You know, usually 71 00:04:39,880 --> 00:04:43,560 Speaker 1: people defer to these declarations, but here the Department of 72 00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:47,320 Speaker 1: Justice is saying, we are not going to defer to 73 00:04:47,440 --> 00:04:51,839 Speaker 1: these declarations that we're acting illegally. We will wait till 74 00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:55,760 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court enjoins us to do anything. And so 75 00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:59,400 Speaker 1: now they're ignoring the court orders, which is setting up 76 00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:03,120 Speaker 1: these CROs where the district court judges are going to 77 00:05:03,279 --> 00:05:07,719 Speaker 1: decide whether to have to hold the Justice Department officials 78 00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:11,440 Speaker 1: and the ICE officials in contempt. And if they do, 79 00:05:11,520 --> 00:05:14,760 Speaker 1: what does that mean and would people get ordered to 80 00:05:14,760 --> 00:05:17,480 Speaker 1: be thrown in jail if they would, who would enforce 81 00:05:17,560 --> 00:05:20,920 Speaker 1: these orders? We use these words, but these words are 82 00:05:21,000 --> 00:05:24,760 Speaker 1: the definition of a constitutional crisis, which is when you 83 00:05:24,839 --> 00:05:29,000 Speaker 1: have a court ordering something, and you even have a 84 00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:33,760 Speaker 1: content proceeding and the administration will ignore that. Then that's 85 00:05:33,800 --> 00:05:37,760 Speaker 1: when you have a constitutional crisis, because then no longer 86 00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:40,880 Speaker 1: does the administration say that it will submit itself to 87 00:05:41,040 --> 00:05:44,200 Speaker 1: the rule of the courts in terms of their decisions. 88 00:05:44,279 --> 00:05:49,279 Speaker 1: And that's when you have potentially problematic situations. 89 00:05:49,640 --> 00:05:52,600 Speaker 2: But if the Supreme Court ruled that, then is the 90 00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:54,559 Speaker 2: Department of Justice in the right here? 91 00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:59,640 Speaker 1: Well, the Supreme Court has it ruled about these bond issues. 92 00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:02,960 Speaker 1: But if they've ruled that, which they have, that they 93 00:06:02,960 --> 00:06:05,719 Speaker 1: are the only ones who can issue an injunction, then 94 00:06:06,080 --> 00:06:12,040 Speaker 1: the injunction would be for policy wide challenges. For instance, 95 00:06:12,120 --> 00:06:16,160 Speaker 1: you challenge a certain memo or you challenge a certain 96 00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:20,040 Speaker 1: program that got put into place in the immigration world. 97 00:06:20,400 --> 00:06:23,080 Speaker 1: But in these habeas cases, it's a little bit more 98 00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:27,000 Speaker 1: complicated because the whole point of a habeas case is 99 00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:29,960 Speaker 1: you're not getting an injunction. In a habeas you're getting 100 00:06:29,960 --> 00:06:32,800 Speaker 1: an order. You're getting a rid of habeas corpus, which 101 00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:37,320 Speaker 1: is done in a declaratory nature, and so to say 102 00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:41,000 Speaker 1: we're not subject to habeas petitions anymore. We don't have 103 00:06:41,080 --> 00:06:45,160 Speaker 1: to respect those decisions unless somebody gets all the way 104 00:06:45,200 --> 00:06:48,200 Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court says release 105 00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:52,160 Speaker 1: them on a habeas that's unprecedented territory. 106 00:06:53,279 --> 00:06:56,440 Speaker 2: Both the Fifth and the Seventh Circuit had arguments on 107 00:06:56,480 --> 00:07:00,559 Speaker 2: the same day. The Fifth Circuit made its decision within 108 00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:04,360 Speaker 2: days of the arguments. I mean, how big a victory 109 00:07:04,560 --> 00:07:07,240 Speaker 2: is that Fifth Circuit decision for the administration. 110 00:07:08,000 --> 00:07:10,840 Speaker 1: The reason it's a big victory is because most of 111 00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:14,280 Speaker 1: the detention facilities in the United States are in the 112 00:07:14,280 --> 00:07:18,960 Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. It's a big part 113 00:07:19,080 --> 00:07:22,880 Speaker 1: of the detention infrastructure of the United States is actually 114 00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:26,480 Speaker 1: in those locations. And so what the Fifth Circuit held 115 00:07:27,000 --> 00:07:32,640 Speaker 1: is that if a person crossed the border illegally and 116 00:07:32,960 --> 00:07:36,840 Speaker 1: entered the United States illegally, if and when the United 117 00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:40,560 Speaker 1: States government finally apprehends them, whether it's two days later, 118 00:07:41,000 --> 00:07:44,360 Speaker 1: ten days later, one year later, twenty years later, forty 119 00:07:44,440 --> 00:07:48,040 Speaker 1: years later, none of that matters. What matters is that 120 00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:52,440 Speaker 1: they were apprehended when they had crossed the border. Illegally, 121 00:07:53,400 --> 00:07:56,520 Speaker 1: and so under the version of the statute that the 122 00:07:56,560 --> 00:08:00,000 Speaker 1: Trump administration and the Fifth Circuit feel is the correct 123 00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:03,680 Speaker 1: interpretation of the statute, they say that no matter when 124 00:08:03,720 --> 00:08:09,320 Speaker 1: you're apprehended, if you've crossed illegally, what your intent is. 125 00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:13,560 Speaker 1: Your intent is you're trying still every day of your life, 126 00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:17,160 Speaker 1: to be admitted into the United States legally, that this 127 00:08:17,240 --> 00:08:21,280 Speaker 1: is your goal. Because the statue uses these words seeking admission, 128 00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:24,320 Speaker 1: and what it says is if you're seeking admission into 129 00:08:24,360 --> 00:08:28,000 Speaker 1: the United States, then if you get apprehended, you will 130 00:08:28,040 --> 00:08:32,320 Speaker 1: be detained indefinitely without bond until we decide whether you 131 00:08:32,400 --> 00:08:37,240 Speaker 1: win or lose your deportation case. And so that's the definition. 132 00:08:37,960 --> 00:08:42,320 Speaker 1: Previously for the last thirty years, all the administrations prior 133 00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:46,360 Speaker 1: to this said that at a certain point after you 134 00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:49,000 Speaker 1: cross the border, you're no longer seeking admission, you're just 135 00:08:49,120 --> 00:08:52,760 Speaker 1: here in the country, and that seeking admission is only 136 00:08:52,760 --> 00:08:56,160 Speaker 1: for people apprehended at or near the border right when 137 00:08:56,160 --> 00:08:58,880 Speaker 1: they're trying to cross. It's not for people who've been 138 00:08:58,920 --> 00:09:02,360 Speaker 1: here an extended period of time. Those people are entitled 139 00:09:02,400 --> 00:09:06,920 Speaker 1: to bond. And so this is a new interpretation that's 140 00:09:06,960 --> 00:09:09,920 Speaker 1: different than what has occurred in the last thirty years. 141 00:09:10,440 --> 00:09:13,040 Speaker 1: And so what the Fifth Circuit has said is absolutely 142 00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:16,040 Speaker 1: if someone is in detention in the Fifth Circuit and 143 00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:19,280 Speaker 1: they cross the border illegally, it does not matter how 144 00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:21,880 Speaker 1: long they've been in the country. They can be detained 145 00:09:22,240 --> 00:09:25,760 Speaker 1: during the entire removal hearing without bond until they can 146 00:09:25,800 --> 00:09:26,880 Speaker 1: finally be deported. 147 00:09:27,440 --> 00:09:31,839 Speaker 2: And if the Seventh Circuit comes out with a contrary decision, 148 00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:35,720 Speaker 2: it won't make that much difference because not that many 149 00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:39,640 Speaker 2: people are held in detention in the territory of the 150 00:09:39,679 --> 00:09:40,520 Speaker 2: Seventh Circuit. 151 00:09:41,240 --> 00:09:44,360 Speaker 1: Correct. What's very interesting about this is usually the government 152 00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:47,839 Speaker 1: is motivated to go to the Supreme Court whenever it's 153 00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:51,200 Speaker 1: got bad law. But it would be very interesting if 154 00:09:51,280 --> 00:09:54,840 Speaker 1: what will have to happen is that the Fifth Circuit 155 00:09:55,360 --> 00:09:58,800 Speaker 1: petitioners that the foreign nationals will have to go to 156 00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:02,200 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court takes the case, 157 00:10:02,280 --> 00:10:05,720 Speaker 1: because usually the Supreme Court only takes these cases for 158 00:10:05,720 --> 00:10:08,720 Speaker 1: the most part, because the Department of Justice is asking 159 00:10:08,760 --> 00:10:11,360 Speaker 1: them to take the case. Almost always, when the Department 160 00:10:11,440 --> 00:10:13,640 Speaker 1: of Justice wants the Supreme Court to take a case, 161 00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:16,720 Speaker 1: they take it. But the Department of Justice may say, 162 00:10:16,720 --> 00:10:18,600 Speaker 1: you know what, if we lose in the Seventh Circuit 163 00:10:18,960 --> 00:10:21,840 Speaker 1: or the Ninth Circuit, No big deal. We'll just put 164 00:10:21,840 --> 00:10:25,800 Speaker 1: the visa overstate people in detention in those facilities and 165 00:10:26,000 --> 00:10:27,800 Speaker 1: they can get a bond and it's not a big 166 00:10:27,840 --> 00:10:30,760 Speaker 1: deal and whatever. But for the people we want to 167 00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:35,080 Speaker 1: keep in detention as the border crossers, we will put 168 00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:38,280 Speaker 1: them in detention in the Fifth Circuit, and that way 169 00:10:38,360 --> 00:10:41,199 Speaker 1: they won't be able to have a habeas petition. And 170 00:10:41,400 --> 00:10:43,600 Speaker 1: if the Supreme Court never takes this case, then that 171 00:10:43,679 --> 00:10:47,520 Speaker 1: can't be fixed. And so from their perspective, there's a 172 00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:52,240 Speaker 1: possibility they may not ask perserciary review in the Supreme Court, 173 00:10:52,480 --> 00:10:55,040 Speaker 1: and that the only way it would get there would 174 00:10:55,040 --> 00:10:59,959 Speaker 1: be if the foreign nationals involved actually try to appeal 175 00:11:00,080 --> 00:11:02,800 Speaker 1: a fitth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court. 176 00:11:03,360 --> 00:11:07,720 Speaker 2: When immigrants are released as their case is being processed, 177 00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:11,959 Speaker 2: do they have better odds of fighting their removal from 178 00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:12,800 Speaker 2: the country. 179 00:11:13,240 --> 00:11:17,079 Speaker 1: Yeah, here's what happens. There's two sort of big dramatic 180 00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:22,079 Speaker 1: complications when immigration detension is involved. One to the extent 181 00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:25,480 Speaker 1: that you have family and friends and everybody else, you're 182 00:11:25,520 --> 00:11:29,000 Speaker 1: separated from them, and you're separated from your source of income, 183 00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:31,360 Speaker 1: which makes it harder for you to even hire a 184 00:11:31,440 --> 00:11:33,080 Speaker 1: lawyer in the first place, so you may not have 185 00:11:33,120 --> 00:11:36,360 Speaker 1: a lawyer because you can't afford a lawyer. But second, 186 00:11:36,360 --> 00:11:38,400 Speaker 1: and even more importantly than that, so you don't have 187 00:11:38,440 --> 00:11:40,640 Speaker 1: your family, you don't have any money, you can't hire 188 00:11:40,640 --> 00:11:43,800 Speaker 1: a lawyer. That's bad enough theoretically, but then it gets 189 00:11:43,840 --> 00:11:45,959 Speaker 1: even worse, which is, even if you have a lawyer, 190 00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:50,680 Speaker 1: the lawyer now has to communicate with you, basically through 191 00:11:50,880 --> 00:11:54,320 Speaker 1: ICE whatever ICE decides to allow you to be able 192 00:11:54,400 --> 00:11:57,680 Speaker 1: to communicate with your lawyer. So you know, most of 193 00:11:57,720 --> 00:12:00,320 Speaker 1: these detention facilities are in the middle of nowhere, they're 194 00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:03,320 Speaker 1: not near any lawyers, and so very few lawyers are 195 00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:06,959 Speaker 1: driving out or flying hours and hours. Usually what you're 196 00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:11,240 Speaker 1: having to do is set up conferences visa the you're 197 00:12:11,280 --> 00:12:15,120 Speaker 1: passing documents to the client through ICE. ICE is getting 198 00:12:15,200 --> 00:12:17,800 Speaker 1: this and they're getting the documents back. So any sort 199 00:12:17,840 --> 00:12:21,560 Speaker 1: of attorney client privilege is not that it's not respected, 200 00:12:21,640 --> 00:12:25,360 Speaker 1: it just doesn't exist because you're passing documents through ICE. 201 00:12:25,440 --> 00:12:28,200 Speaker 1: So the only way to have attorney client privilege would 202 00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:31,520 Speaker 1: be for lawyers to drive many, many hours or fly 203 00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:35,880 Speaker 1: and drive to these remote facilities. So all of that 204 00:12:35,920 --> 00:12:37,960 Speaker 1: makes it very very hard if you're trying to prepare, 205 00:12:38,040 --> 00:12:41,680 Speaker 1: let's say, an asylum application, which requires if you were 206 00:12:41,760 --> 00:12:45,520 Speaker 1: if you were doing a gold standard asylum case, you'd 207 00:12:45,520 --> 00:12:49,640 Speaker 1: be with your client maybe eight to sixteen hours getting 208 00:12:49,640 --> 00:12:53,880 Speaker 1: their whole story, documenting it, saying where can I get 209 00:12:53,920 --> 00:12:57,559 Speaker 1: this proof from? Where can I get this document from? 210 00:12:57,600 --> 00:13:01,160 Speaker 1: Trying to really set forward a case, and you just 211 00:13:01,200 --> 00:13:03,160 Speaker 1: don't have the ability to do any of that if 212 00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:07,960 Speaker 1: your client is a detention. So it basically is like saying, fine, 213 00:13:08,000 --> 00:13:10,640 Speaker 1: we're gonna let you play basketball, but you can't use 214 00:13:10,840 --> 00:13:13,440 Speaker 1: your left arm or your right leg. Good luck to youse, 215 00:13:13,520 --> 00:13:17,440 Speaker 1: see if you can win this match against Shaquille O'Neal 216 00:13:17,800 --> 00:13:21,160 Speaker 1: or something like that. That's basically what happens if you're 217 00:13:21,160 --> 00:13:22,280 Speaker 1: an immigration detention. 218 00:13:22,760 --> 00:13:26,160 Speaker 2: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Leon Fresco. 219 00:13:26,840 --> 00:13:30,640 Speaker 2: Lawyers are struggling to find their detained clients in a 220 00:13:30,679 --> 00:13:33,880 Speaker 2: game of whackam o by ice. This is Bloomberg. 221 00:13:37,920 --> 00:13:42,120 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio. 222 00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:47,400 Speaker 2: The federal courts have been flooded with habeas petitions from 223 00:13:47,440 --> 00:13:52,120 Speaker 2: immigrants claiming their detention is illegal. According to pro Publica. 224 00:13:52,440 --> 00:13:57,480 Speaker 2: The Trump administration's push for mass deportations has resulted in 225 00:13:57,559 --> 00:14:02,160 Speaker 2: more than eighteen thousand habeas potis filed in federal court 226 00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:06,280 Speaker 2: in the first thirteen months of Trump's second term. That's 227 00:14:06,360 --> 00:14:10,600 Speaker 2: more than we're filed under the last three administrations combined. 228 00:14:11,240 --> 00:14:14,720 Speaker 2: I've been talking to Immigration attorney Leon Fresco of Honda 229 00:14:14,880 --> 00:14:18,439 Speaker 2: Night So, Leon, with this Fifth Circuit decision, will that 230 00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:20,520 Speaker 2: flood subside tug? 231 00:14:20,600 --> 00:14:24,320 Speaker 1: You're in the Fifth Circuit absolutely, because that becomes binding President, 232 00:14:24,400 --> 00:14:27,160 Speaker 1: So none of those habeas petitions will work in the 233 00:14:27,240 --> 00:14:31,040 Speaker 1: district courts in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. If you are 234 00:14:31,080 --> 00:14:34,560 Speaker 1: in other district courts around the country, the problem you 235 00:14:34,640 --> 00:14:37,120 Speaker 1: have is that that Fifth Circuit decision could be cited 236 00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:41,440 Speaker 1: as persuasive, and maybe the particular district judge who's listening 237 00:14:41,480 --> 00:14:44,800 Speaker 1: to the case will find it persuasive, and then you'll 238 00:14:44,840 --> 00:14:46,920 Speaker 1: need to go to the Circuit court and we'll have 239 00:14:46,960 --> 00:14:49,760 Speaker 1: to see what happens. But the other problem that could 240 00:14:49,760 --> 00:14:53,200 Speaker 1: happen is the government can try to move you and 241 00:14:53,280 --> 00:14:55,600 Speaker 1: get your habeas dismissed, and then the court would have 242 00:14:55,640 --> 00:14:58,200 Speaker 1: to decide whether it wants to keep the habeasts or not. 243 00:14:58,640 --> 00:15:03,400 Speaker 1: So there's just too much uncertainty and procedural machinations that 244 00:15:03,400 --> 00:15:06,400 Speaker 1: can occur in all of these cases, where at the 245 00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:09,360 Speaker 1: end of the day, many many of these foreign nationals involved, 246 00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:12,920 Speaker 1: unless they get some very committed pro bono project, are 247 00:15:12,960 --> 00:15:15,040 Speaker 1: not going to have the resources to make all of 248 00:15:15,080 --> 00:15:15,880 Speaker 1: these challenges. 249 00:15:16,360 --> 00:15:18,000 Speaker 2: It almost sounds like game over. 250 00:15:18,600 --> 00:15:22,720 Speaker 1: I mean, the only way that this detention issue will 251 00:15:22,800 --> 00:15:26,160 Speaker 1: change is if the Supreme Court gets involved and says 252 00:15:26,160 --> 00:15:28,240 Speaker 1: that the Fifth Circuit got it wrong. But if the 253 00:15:28,280 --> 00:15:31,800 Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit decision stands, then what you will see as 254 00:15:31,840 --> 00:15:36,320 Speaker 1: the entire detention infrastructure of America moved to the Fifth Circuit, 255 00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:38,280 Speaker 1: and then that will be how it operates. 256 00:15:38,920 --> 00:15:42,240 Speaker 2: So then is it as important that the Justice Department 257 00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:47,040 Speaker 2: is overhauling the Board of Immigration Appeals and cutting off 258 00:15:47,080 --> 00:15:50,280 Speaker 2: an avenue for challenging immigration court orders. 259 00:15:50,640 --> 00:15:53,760 Speaker 1: Well, that absolutely is critical for all of these cases, 260 00:15:53,800 --> 00:15:58,680 Speaker 1: because a removal in the United States cannot occur currently 261 00:15:59,280 --> 00:16:02,640 Speaker 1: unless there's two levels of review, one before one immigration 262 00:16:02,840 --> 00:16:06,760 Speaker 1: judge and two before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Then 263 00:16:06,800 --> 00:16:09,800 Speaker 1: there's theoretically a third one where you can go to 264 00:16:09,840 --> 00:16:13,440 Speaker 1: the Federal Court of Appeals and they can decide whether 265 00:16:13,480 --> 00:16:15,960 Speaker 1: they want to review your case and issue US stay. 266 00:16:16,440 --> 00:16:18,560 Speaker 1: But if they don't issue US stay while the case 267 00:16:18,640 --> 00:16:21,640 Speaker 1: is under review, you can actually be deported while the 268 00:16:21,640 --> 00:16:24,880 Speaker 1: case is under review, and you'd have to win and 269 00:16:24,960 --> 00:16:28,960 Speaker 1: hope that you can get re reparolled back into the 270 00:16:29,040 --> 00:16:32,440 Speaker 1: United States if you win your case, but in the 271 00:16:32,480 --> 00:16:36,760 Speaker 1: meantime you've been deported. So it's not so easy there. 272 00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:40,040 Speaker 1: The only guarantee of non non deportation is to be 273 00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:43,840 Speaker 1: either before the immigration judge or before the Board of 274 00:16:43,840 --> 00:16:49,000 Speaker 1: Immigration Appeals. Now here's what the Trump administration is saying, 275 00:16:49,520 --> 00:16:53,880 Speaker 1: and to this extent they're mostly correct. Is they've said, 276 00:16:54,440 --> 00:16:56,680 Speaker 1: if you really look at what the Board of Immigration 277 00:16:56,800 --> 00:17:02,000 Speaker 1: Appeals does, in ninety percent of cases, they just issue 278 00:17:02,000 --> 00:17:04,879 Speaker 1: a rubber stamp decision that says, you know, what, the 279 00:17:04,920 --> 00:17:08,360 Speaker 1: immigration judge was correct, So we don't really have anything 280 00:17:08,440 --> 00:17:12,480 Speaker 1: more substantive to add to this. And then people either 281 00:17:12,560 --> 00:17:16,000 Speaker 1: get deported or they review it to the federal Court 282 00:17:16,040 --> 00:17:18,520 Speaker 1: of Appeals that applies to them. And so what they're 283 00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:21,960 Speaker 1: saying is if this process takes one year or two 284 00:17:22,040 --> 00:17:24,600 Speaker 1: years or three years, as it does for many cases, 285 00:17:25,000 --> 00:17:27,680 Speaker 1: in order to ultimately get a decision, that's not very 286 00:17:27,720 --> 00:17:31,720 Speaker 1: substantively helpful. Why not just get rid of this altogether, 287 00:17:32,320 --> 00:17:34,920 Speaker 1: and just if you lose in front of the Immigration court, 288 00:17:35,560 --> 00:17:38,439 Speaker 1: go directly to the Federal Court of Appeals and not 289 00:17:38,520 --> 00:17:41,720 Speaker 1: even have this if it's not adding anything to it. Now, 290 00:17:41,960 --> 00:17:45,800 Speaker 1: on the other side, the advocates would say, yeah, well 291 00:17:45,920 --> 00:17:49,320 Speaker 1: that's that's because you're not taking this process seriously. This 292 00:17:49,400 --> 00:17:52,640 Speaker 1: is not meaningful appellate review. That doesn't mean get rid 293 00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:56,120 Speaker 1: of it, that means make it meaningful appellet review. And 294 00:17:56,160 --> 00:18:00,720 Speaker 1: so you really have two completely different view points here. 295 00:18:00,880 --> 00:18:04,920 Speaker 1: But it has not been to be fair meaningful appellate 296 00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:09,480 Speaker 1: review under either the Trump administration or the Biden administration 297 00:18:10,080 --> 00:18:13,760 Speaker 1: or the other Trump administration, or the Obama administration or 298 00:18:13,800 --> 00:18:18,840 Speaker 1: the Bush administration. It was never meaningful appellate review. And 299 00:18:18,920 --> 00:18:22,760 Speaker 1: so you start really grappling with this issue of if 300 00:18:22,800 --> 00:18:24,840 Speaker 1: you don't really have it, and all it's doing is 301 00:18:25,160 --> 00:18:28,840 Speaker 1: delaying people's deportation by a year or two, then what 302 00:18:29,000 --> 00:18:32,720 Speaker 1: is really going on here? And so that's going to 303 00:18:32,720 --> 00:18:35,439 Speaker 1: be a debate because so now what's interesting is that 304 00:18:35,480 --> 00:18:38,919 Speaker 1: the federal statutes never say that there needs to be 305 00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:42,120 Speaker 1: something called the Board of Immigration Appeals. They don't say 306 00:18:42,119 --> 00:18:45,000 Speaker 1: anything like that. They just say the Attorney General has 307 00:18:45,040 --> 00:18:48,600 Speaker 1: to establish something, and whatever that is, that's the system. 308 00:18:49,200 --> 00:18:52,760 Speaker 1: So the system that the Attorney General established had an 309 00:18:52,760 --> 00:18:55,920 Speaker 1: immigration court and a Board of Immigration Appeals. So now 310 00:18:55,960 --> 00:18:59,040 Speaker 1: by regulation they're trying to say, you don't need this 311 00:18:59,119 --> 00:19:04,000 Speaker 1: Board of Immigration Appeals anymore unless the entire board decides 312 00:19:04,000 --> 00:19:06,760 Speaker 1: on bank. We're going to listen to a case only 313 00:19:06,840 --> 00:19:10,200 Speaker 1: then in those situations. So they're saying, in that situation, 314 00:19:10,359 --> 00:19:13,520 Speaker 1: we'll have that, but otherwise we won't have it, and 315 00:19:13,600 --> 00:19:15,640 Speaker 1: so they'll be a lawsuit. But I don't know how 316 00:19:15,760 --> 00:19:17,960 Speaker 1: likely it is to be successful. Now they may not 317 00:19:18,000 --> 00:19:21,320 Speaker 1: have followed the correct formalities because they're not doing notice 318 00:19:21,320 --> 00:19:23,760 Speaker 1: and comment, and I don't know why. If you're doing it, 319 00:19:23,800 --> 00:19:26,760 Speaker 1: I think if you're doing something this substantive, I think 320 00:19:26,800 --> 00:19:29,520 Speaker 1: you'd want to dot all the i's and cross all 321 00:19:29,600 --> 00:19:32,680 Speaker 1: the t's, even if it takes six months longer, because 322 00:19:32,720 --> 00:19:37,960 Speaker 1: it's a very large substantive change here. But nevertheless, it 323 00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:40,959 Speaker 1: might get dinged for the lack of formalities. But if 324 00:19:40,960 --> 00:19:43,760 Speaker 1: it doesn't get dinged on the lack of formalities, I'm 325 00:19:43,800 --> 00:19:47,639 Speaker 1: not so optimistic for the challengers that they would actually 326 00:19:47,640 --> 00:19:50,680 Speaker 1: win here because there's nothing in the statute that actually 327 00:19:50,720 --> 00:19:53,520 Speaker 1: requires this Board of Immigration Appeals to exist. 328 00:19:53,760 --> 00:19:57,760 Speaker 2: So the chief judge of the Minnesota Courts US District, 329 00:19:57,840 --> 00:20:02,119 Speaker 2: Judge Patrick Schiltz, found that ICE had violated court orders 330 00:20:02,160 --> 00:20:05,840 Speaker 2: almost one hundred times in seventy four cases brought by 331 00:20:05,920 --> 00:20:09,400 Speaker 2: immigrants so far this year, and many other federal judges 332 00:20:09,440 --> 00:20:12,680 Speaker 2: have found that ICE is not complying with their orders, 333 00:20:13,200 --> 00:20:17,439 Speaker 2: or they're being threatened by judges with contempt, and so 334 00:20:17,600 --> 00:20:20,920 Speaker 2: then they comply with court orders, but they're slow walking. 335 00:20:21,000 --> 00:20:25,360 Speaker 2: I mean, many federal judges are finding that ICE is 336 00:20:25,440 --> 00:20:30,280 Speaker 2: not complying with court orders, or they're being threatened by 337 00:20:30,440 --> 00:20:34,480 Speaker 2: judges with contempt, and so then they comply with court orders, 338 00:20:34,480 --> 00:20:37,720 Speaker 2: but they're slow walking. I mean, what's going on in 339 00:20:37,840 --> 00:20:39,000 Speaker 2: the courts? 340 00:20:39,520 --> 00:20:42,840 Speaker 1: I think there are many different issues, and so it's 341 00:20:42,880 --> 00:20:47,120 Speaker 1: not one clear issue. It's many different issues. Number One, 342 00:20:47,720 --> 00:20:52,040 Speaker 1: there is the issue of the amount of litigation that's 343 00:20:52,080 --> 00:20:55,879 Speaker 1: happening now because of this new policy that says that 344 00:20:55,920 --> 00:20:59,920 Speaker 1: if you've crossed the border illegally, there is no bond 345 00:21:00,119 --> 00:21:02,920 Speaker 1: hearing for you. So that's a change from the past. 346 00:21:03,520 --> 00:21:07,879 Speaker 1: The system didn't align itself, So it's this expression of 347 00:21:08,200 --> 00:21:11,520 Speaker 1: building the airplane while you're trying to fly it. There 348 00:21:11,680 --> 00:21:14,800 Speaker 1: was a system in place where when you got detained 349 00:21:14,800 --> 00:21:18,119 Speaker 1: by ICE, you filed for a bond hearing, and that 350 00:21:18,240 --> 00:21:21,399 Speaker 1: bond hearing was done in an immigration court by an 351 00:21:21,400 --> 00:21:25,760 Speaker 1: immigration judge, and the government was represented by an ICE attorney, 352 00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:31,439 Speaker 1: and the foreign national either represented themselves or had an attorney. Now, 353 00:21:32,320 --> 00:21:36,600 Speaker 1: if your client is detained and they're not allowed to 354 00:21:36,680 --> 00:21:41,280 Speaker 1: have bond because of this new policy, then what people 355 00:21:41,280 --> 00:21:44,960 Speaker 1: are doing is they're filing habeas petitions. And the habeas 356 00:21:44,960 --> 00:21:48,359 Speaker 1: petition doesn't have ICE as the attorney, it has a 357 00:21:48,600 --> 00:21:53,760 Speaker 1: USDJ attorney, and those attorneys are understaffed, and in fact, 358 00:21:53,800 --> 00:21:57,280 Speaker 1: the USDOJ attorneys many of them are resigning, and so 359 00:21:57,440 --> 00:22:01,240 Speaker 1: all of these offices are understaffed, and now they're having 360 00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:04,480 Speaker 1: this surge of cases. So they have this surge of 361 00:22:04,560 --> 00:22:10,000 Speaker 1: cases and they're having to deal with not the immigration courts, 362 00:22:10,040 --> 00:22:13,240 Speaker 1: but the federal courts, and ICE is having to respond 363 00:22:13,800 --> 00:22:17,960 Speaker 1: to all of these various court orders at the same time, 364 00:22:18,400 --> 00:22:22,080 Speaker 1: it's trying to have a record number of people in detention. 365 00:22:22,280 --> 00:22:26,800 Speaker 1: There's currently something like seventy three thousand foreign nationals in detention. 366 00:22:27,280 --> 00:22:32,120 Speaker 1: That number normally is something like forty thousand, thirty five thousand, 367 00:22:32,600 --> 00:22:35,160 Speaker 1: but now we're up to about seventy three thousand per day. 368 00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:39,679 Speaker 1: And so you have the government lawyers, we have something 369 00:22:39,800 --> 00:22:42,840 Speaker 1: like eighty or ninety of these cases that they're trying 370 00:22:42,840 --> 00:22:46,200 Speaker 1: to handle, all at the exact same time, and the 371 00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:49,399 Speaker 1: ICE agents who are dealing with the fact that these 372 00:22:49,800 --> 00:22:53,720 Speaker 1: foreign nationals may have been in that location when the 373 00:22:53,760 --> 00:22:57,159 Speaker 1: habeas was filed, but they might have gotten moved because 374 00:22:57,200 --> 00:22:59,760 Speaker 1: they needed to move the person to a different facility, 375 00:23:00,280 --> 00:23:05,360 Speaker 1: either because of real reasons or procedural imaginations. I mean, 376 00:23:05,400 --> 00:23:08,200 Speaker 1: there could have been beaesels on a facility and they 377 00:23:08,200 --> 00:23:11,520 Speaker 1: needed to move them, or there could have been a 378 00:23:11,600 --> 00:23:15,760 Speaker 1: glut of people that were in one facility, an overpopulation, 379 00:23:15,880 --> 00:23:17,879 Speaker 1: so you need it to move. And so the point 380 00:23:18,000 --> 00:23:21,040 Speaker 1: is a lot of things conspire together when you don't 381 00:23:21,040 --> 00:23:25,639 Speaker 1: build out this infrastructure proportionally, all at the same time, 382 00:23:26,160 --> 00:23:30,360 Speaker 1: such that there's a lot of ignoring of these orders 383 00:23:30,640 --> 00:23:34,440 Speaker 1: by necessity and also by choice. I'm not going to 384 00:23:34,520 --> 00:23:37,359 Speaker 1: discount that there's by choice as well, but it's not 385 00:23:37,480 --> 00:23:40,280 Speaker 1: all by choice. Some of it is by necessity in 386 00:23:40,400 --> 00:23:44,119 Speaker 1: terms of the way they're doing it, and so it's tough, 387 00:23:44,160 --> 00:23:46,639 Speaker 1: and it's tough for the courts to unwind all of that, 388 00:23:47,480 --> 00:23:51,280 Speaker 1: and the judges are getting frustrated, and especially if they 389 00:23:51,280 --> 00:23:54,320 Speaker 1: feel like their orders are being completely ignored. Unless the 390 00:23:54,320 --> 00:23:58,760 Speaker 1: Supreme Court steps in very quickly and does something, it's 391 00:23:58,800 --> 00:24:02,240 Speaker 1: going to end one of three ways. Either it will 392 00:24:02,359 --> 00:24:05,760 Speaker 1: end with all of this being enjoined and restoring back 393 00:24:05,800 --> 00:24:09,359 Speaker 1: to the original system where the bond situation exists again, 394 00:24:09,400 --> 00:24:11,960 Speaker 1: and it goes back to the immigration court and everybody 395 00:24:12,000 --> 00:24:15,440 Speaker 1: remembers the old system. That's one way. It could end 396 00:24:15,920 --> 00:24:20,560 Speaker 1: with nobody getting bond of any kind if they've crossed illegally, 397 00:24:20,640 --> 00:24:23,280 Speaker 1: and then that's just the law of the land. And 398 00:24:23,320 --> 00:24:25,960 Speaker 1: then the problem subsides because there won't be content of 399 00:24:26,040 --> 00:24:28,800 Speaker 1: court because the federal Court won't be involved in this anymore. 400 00:24:28,960 --> 00:24:33,080 Speaker 1: That's the second solution, or the third solution will be 401 00:24:33,640 --> 00:24:37,280 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court doesn't do anything, and we just end 402 00:24:37,359 --> 00:24:40,679 Speaker 1: up with a constitutional crisis, and that would be the 403 00:24:40,720 --> 00:24:44,560 Speaker 1: worst of all worlds. And so hopefully the Supreme Court 404 00:24:44,640 --> 00:24:47,120 Speaker 1: will step in and bring some order into this process 405 00:24:47,160 --> 00:24:49,719 Speaker 1: as soon as possible so that we don't end up 406 00:24:49,760 --> 00:24:52,080 Speaker 1: with this constitutional crisis. 407 00:24:51,800 --> 00:24:55,880 Speaker 2: And attorneys across the country are struggling to find their 408 00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:59,840 Speaker 2: detained clients, who are often being moved to out of 409 00:25:00,040 --> 00:25:04,760 Speaker 2: state facilities and bounced around by ice. An ACLU lawyer 410 00:25:04,840 --> 00:25:07,800 Speaker 2: called it a game of whack a mole from the beginning. 411 00:25:07,840 --> 00:25:10,879 Speaker 2: You can't find your clients. If you find them, you 412 00:25:10,920 --> 00:25:14,760 Speaker 2: can't access them because there are no phones or visitation rooms. 413 00:25:15,080 --> 00:25:17,520 Speaker 2: And if you do find them, it takes weeks to 414 00:25:17,640 --> 00:25:21,879 Speaker 2: contact them, and sometimes they're just moved and deported. 415 00:25:23,000 --> 00:25:26,919 Speaker 1: Absolutely, if you are a representative of a person, a 416 00:25:26,960 --> 00:25:31,160 Speaker 1: foreign national who's in immigration detention, it's the most challenging 417 00:25:31,240 --> 00:25:34,520 Speaker 1: time it's ever been to do that. And as I said, 418 00:25:34,560 --> 00:25:38,160 Speaker 1: it's really for the foreign national to say that they 419 00:25:38,200 --> 00:25:42,920 Speaker 1: have a process that is meaningful in the sense that 420 00:25:43,720 --> 00:25:46,280 Speaker 1: when you're a criminal. Let's say, when you're a criminal 421 00:25:46,280 --> 00:25:49,360 Speaker 1: and you're in detention, you're usually in detention within some 422 00:25:49,440 --> 00:25:54,040 Speaker 1: reasonable space from your attorney, and a criminal defense can 423 00:25:54,080 --> 00:25:57,760 Speaker 1: be planned and a criminal defense can be implemented in 424 00:25:57,840 --> 00:26:01,399 Speaker 1: a court of law. Here is, if you lived in 425 00:26:02,000 --> 00:26:05,600 Speaker 1: I don't know, Houston, or you lived in Atlanta, or 426 00:26:05,600 --> 00:26:08,240 Speaker 1: you lived in New York, you could be detained in 427 00:26:08,520 --> 00:26:13,760 Speaker 1: Kansas or in Louisiana or something and then whatever lawyer 428 00:26:13,800 --> 00:26:16,040 Speaker 1: you would have procured wouldn't have done you any good 429 00:26:16,119 --> 00:26:19,000 Speaker 1: because that lawyer is not going to travel to Louisiana 430 00:26:19,119 --> 00:26:22,040 Speaker 1: or Mississippi or somewhere else in order to be able 431 00:26:22,200 --> 00:26:24,840 Speaker 1: to reach you. And then even if they did, you 432 00:26:24,920 --> 00:26:27,960 Speaker 1: might be moved the next day. And so the question 433 00:26:28,040 --> 00:26:31,400 Speaker 1: of how you actually conduct the defense when you can't 434 00:26:31,440 --> 00:26:34,919 Speaker 1: speak to a lawyer is very, very complicated. And this 435 00:26:34,960 --> 00:26:37,960 Speaker 1: is yet another issue that is going to have to 436 00:26:38,040 --> 00:26:41,760 Speaker 1: come to some resolution because people are going to start 437 00:26:41,760 --> 00:26:45,840 Speaker 1: saying that they've had due process violations within these contexts, 438 00:26:46,160 --> 00:26:47,840 Speaker 1: and the courts are going to have to decide what 439 00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:51,400 Speaker 1: is the process that you're due in these situations. 440 00:26:51,880 --> 00:26:56,920 Speaker 2: Even when ICE does release detainees, judges are finding that 441 00:26:57,440 --> 00:27:00,840 Speaker 2: they're releasing them in other states without their papers or 442 00:27:00,960 --> 00:27:03,479 Speaker 2: phones and with just the clothes on their back. So 443 00:27:03,720 --> 00:27:08,440 Speaker 2: some judges have been issuing very detailed orders. For example, 444 00:27:08,640 --> 00:27:12,960 Speaker 2: one Minnesota judge said ICE had to release a detainee 445 00:27:13,280 --> 00:27:17,680 Speaker 2: one in Minnesota, two with all personal documents and belongings 446 00:27:17,680 --> 00:27:21,840 Speaker 2: such as driver's license, cell phone, three without conditions such 447 00:27:21,880 --> 00:27:25,680 Speaker 2: as ankle monitors or tracking devices, and four with all 448 00:27:25,760 --> 00:27:28,760 Speaker 2: clothing and outer wear he was wearing at the time 449 00:27:28,800 --> 00:27:31,520 Speaker 2: of detention or other proper winter attire. 450 00:27:32,280 --> 00:27:35,399 Speaker 1: It is very complicated, no doubt. And this is something 451 00:27:35,640 --> 00:27:37,880 Speaker 1: I remember from the very first case that I won 452 00:27:37,960 --> 00:27:40,800 Speaker 1: with a client in detention, a long long time ago. 453 00:27:40,840 --> 00:27:43,960 Speaker 1: I won't date myself. I remember speaking to a senior 454 00:27:44,080 --> 00:27:45,919 Speaker 1: lawyer and I said, what do I do now? And 455 00:27:45,960 --> 00:27:48,320 Speaker 1: they said, no, when you win a case and your 456 00:27:48,320 --> 00:27:51,119 Speaker 1: client is in detention, what ICE does is they just 457 00:27:51,200 --> 00:27:53,840 Speaker 1: opened the door of the facility, and so you better 458 00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:55,960 Speaker 1: go get them. Because my client was in the middle 459 00:27:55,960 --> 00:27:58,320 Speaker 1: of the Everglades, and so it was just a matter 460 00:27:58,400 --> 00:28:00,280 Speaker 1: of that they either are going to walk from the 461 00:28:00,280 --> 00:28:03,720 Speaker 1: middle of the Everglades into civilization or somebody has to 462 00:28:03,760 --> 00:28:06,160 Speaker 1: go get them. This is not new. This has always 463 00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:09,439 Speaker 1: been that way. That all ICE does is open the 464 00:28:09,520 --> 00:28:13,560 Speaker 1: door of the detention facility and say, okay, walk out 465 00:28:13,560 --> 00:28:16,960 Speaker 1: of here. And so as more and more people are detained, 466 00:28:17,560 --> 00:28:21,880 Speaker 1: and they're detained at more remote locations, people are saying, well, 467 00:28:21,920 --> 00:28:25,680 Speaker 1: I can't just drive to go get this person. That's 468 00:28:25,760 --> 00:28:29,919 Speaker 1: not a thing anymore. Because I'm an attorney in Minneapolis 469 00:28:29,960 --> 00:28:33,040 Speaker 1: and my client is in Louisiana. So what do I 470 00:28:33,119 --> 00:28:35,840 Speaker 1: do now? And so this is why you're seeing some 471 00:28:35,880 --> 00:28:36,639 Speaker 1: of these orders. 472 00:28:36,680 --> 00:28:39,160 Speaker 2: Now you've got a trip to the Everglades out of 473 00:28:39,200 --> 00:28:42,960 Speaker 2: that case, Leon, thanks so much as always. That's Leon 474 00:28:43,040 --> 00:28:46,840 Speaker 2: Fresco of Holland and Night coming up next, And appeals 475 00:28:46,880 --> 00:28:51,120 Speaker 2: court is weighing undoing a block on federal grant freezes. 476 00:28:51,600 --> 00:28:57,360 Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. The DC 477 00:28:57,600 --> 00:29:01,680 Speaker 2: Federal Appeals Court seems skeptical that a court order blocking 478 00:29:01,720 --> 00:29:06,360 Speaker 2: the Trump administration from freezing trillions of dollars in grant 479 00:29:06,440 --> 00:29:10,240 Speaker 2: funds was still needed. That was after a Justice Department 480 00:29:10,320 --> 00:29:14,640 Speaker 2: lawyers said the government would have quote no conceivable reason 481 00:29:14,880 --> 00:29:18,720 Speaker 2: to do it again. The three judge panel heard arguments 482 00:29:18,720 --> 00:29:23,600 Speaker 2: in a challenge by nonprofit organizations to the administration's pause 483 00:29:23,760 --> 00:29:28,480 Speaker 2: last year on financial assistance programs, the move that prompted 484 00:29:28,560 --> 00:29:33,640 Speaker 2: widespread confusion across agencies. Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter 485 00:29:33,760 --> 00:29:38,320 Speaker 2: Suzanne Monnac. Suzanne tell us about the underlying dispute. 486 00:29:38,920 --> 00:29:41,880 Speaker 4: Explain what was it handy, what was. 487 00:29:41,840 --> 00:29:45,520 Speaker 2: It issue here? I mean the original court order. 488 00:29:46,080 --> 00:29:49,000 Speaker 5: So the DC Circuit, the Federal Appeals Court here in Washington, 489 00:29:49,200 --> 00:29:51,440 Speaker 5: is considering what to do with a lower court ruling 490 00:29:51,560 --> 00:29:54,120 Speaker 5: from really about a year ago that had barred the 491 00:29:54,120 --> 00:29:58,840 Speaker 5: Trump administration from freezing federal assistant funds nationwide. And these 492 00:29:58,880 --> 00:30:01,800 Speaker 5: Federal assistants funds were grants that would go to nonprofits 493 00:30:01,880 --> 00:30:04,840 Speaker 5: or small businesses. And shortly after we saw President Donald 494 00:30:04,880 --> 00:30:07,600 Speaker 5: Trump returned to office, they issued a memo that ended 495 00:30:07,640 --> 00:30:09,720 Speaker 5: up sparking quite a bit of chaos and confusion to 496 00:30:09,760 --> 00:30:13,680 Speaker 5: federal agencies that these funds vendoral assistance programs needed to 497 00:30:13,680 --> 00:30:17,320 Speaker 5: be reviewed for alignment with other executive orders. It resulted 498 00:30:17,360 --> 00:30:20,160 Speaker 5: in a pause to trillions of dollars worth of funding, 499 00:30:20,880 --> 00:30:23,760 Speaker 5: really at the expense of quite a few companies or 500 00:30:23,800 --> 00:30:25,520 Speaker 5: nonprofits that rely on those funds. 501 00:30:26,000 --> 00:30:29,320 Speaker 2: So a lower court judge had issued a temporary injunction 502 00:30:29,640 --> 00:30:33,120 Speaker 2: to stop the government from freezing the funds. 503 00:30:33,760 --> 00:30:34,320 Speaker 4: That's correct. 504 00:30:34,360 --> 00:30:36,320 Speaker 5: So we saw a lower court judge, which was Judge 505 00:30:36,360 --> 00:30:40,680 Speaker 5: Lauren Alikhon and the DC District Court had specifically prohibited 506 00:30:40,720 --> 00:30:45,120 Speaker 5: the government from implementing any quote unilateral, non individualized directives 507 00:30:45,600 --> 00:30:46,200 Speaker 5: end quote with. 508 00:30:46,160 --> 00:30:47,240 Speaker 4: The respective federal funds. 509 00:30:47,240 --> 00:30:51,320 Speaker 5: So that really applied to a broad based freeze on 510 00:30:51,440 --> 00:30:55,240 Speaker 5: federal funding as opposed to individual friezes of certain funds. 511 00:30:55,640 --> 00:30:58,280 Speaker 5: And so that was really what was that issue or 512 00:30:58,360 --> 00:31:01,000 Speaker 5: largely part of what was that issue during this appeals 513 00:31:01,040 --> 00:31:02,960 Speaker 5: court hearing that we had last week, and what the 514 00:31:03,040 --> 00:31:05,640 Speaker 5: d C Circuit is now considering is whether such a 515 00:31:05,680 --> 00:31:07,400 Speaker 5: broad order has a place today. 516 00:31:08,240 --> 00:31:11,440 Speaker 2: There were hearings around the country about these friezes of 517 00:31:11,520 --> 00:31:15,680 Speaker 2: federal funds. How is this freeze different from some of 518 00:31:15,720 --> 00:31:16,920 Speaker 2: the other ones we heard about. 519 00:31:17,560 --> 00:31:19,640 Speaker 5: Of course, we saw a lot of litigation that was 520 00:31:19,640 --> 00:31:22,440 Speaker 5: prompted when this funding freeze happened, largely just because there 521 00:31:22,480 --> 00:31:26,080 Speaker 5: was so much confusion. I mean, the judge herself described 522 00:31:26,800 --> 00:31:30,440 Speaker 5: chaos in this funding freeze. The Trump administration did seek 523 00:31:30,520 --> 00:31:33,360 Speaker 5: to walk it back shortly after they issued the initial 524 00:31:33,360 --> 00:31:36,240 Speaker 5: memo that caused so much confusion by issuing a Q 525 00:31:36,360 --> 00:31:38,520 Speaker 5: and A that stopped to clarify that this was not 526 00:31:38,560 --> 00:31:42,520 Speaker 5: intended to be a full funding freeze, but rather something 527 00:31:42,640 --> 00:31:47,000 Speaker 5: for individual agencies to only freeze funds that were potentially 528 00:31:47,320 --> 00:31:50,520 Speaker 5: in conflict with executive orders. So there was just confusion 529 00:31:50,520 --> 00:31:53,160 Speaker 5: really about the scope initially. But yes, of course we 530 00:31:53,200 --> 00:31:55,680 Speaker 5: saw a lot of litigation across spurts. This is specifically 531 00:31:55,720 --> 00:31:58,160 Speaker 5: the DC case, and that one was about the funding 532 00:31:58,200 --> 00:31:59,040 Speaker 5: freeze overall. 533 00:31:59,080 --> 00:32:01,720 Speaker 4: As opposed to grant freeze. 534 00:32:01,960 --> 00:32:05,200 Speaker 2: What was the main issue that the DC appellate judges 535 00:32:05,240 --> 00:32:06,360 Speaker 2: were concerned with. 536 00:32:07,360 --> 00:32:10,160 Speaker 5: The Trump administration is now on appeal seeking to have. 537 00:32:10,120 --> 00:32:11,600 Speaker 4: This lower court order lifted. 538 00:32:11,840 --> 00:32:15,200 Speaker 5: They're arguing that essentially it's not needed anymore, that it's relevant, 539 00:32:15,240 --> 00:32:18,760 Speaker 5: and that it's causing problems at their agency. Specifically, they've said, 540 00:32:18,800 --> 00:32:20,920 Speaker 5: you know, this funding freeze that we did was really 541 00:32:20,920 --> 00:32:23,400 Speaker 5: specific to the fact that the new administration had just 542 00:32:23,440 --> 00:32:25,959 Speaker 5: come into office. We wanted to do a full review 543 00:32:26,040 --> 00:32:28,680 Speaker 5: of the money that was going out. This wouldn't apply again, 544 00:32:28,760 --> 00:32:31,360 Speaker 5: like this just would never happen again. And they claimed 545 00:32:31,400 --> 00:32:33,200 Speaker 5: that we saw the government lawyer or tell the court 546 00:32:33,320 --> 00:32:35,840 Speaker 5: that it's led to some confusion about what the White 547 00:32:35,840 --> 00:32:37,680 Speaker 5: House's Budget Office is allowed to do. 548 00:32:37,760 --> 00:32:39,800 Speaker 4: Are they allowed to freeze what funds? What other funds? 549 00:32:40,040 --> 00:32:41,520 Speaker 5: And so they said to the court, even if you 550 00:32:41,560 --> 00:32:44,200 Speaker 5: don't choose to fully, you know, order this lower court 551 00:32:44,320 --> 00:32:46,800 Speaker 5: ruling to be lifted, that perhaps you would order it 552 00:32:46,800 --> 00:32:49,480 Speaker 5: to be clarified so that we could have clarity that 553 00:32:49,520 --> 00:32:52,160 Speaker 5: it really only applies to a full one hundred percent 554 00:32:52,200 --> 00:32:55,719 Speaker 5: funding freeze as opposed to more tailored funding pauses. That 555 00:32:55,720 --> 00:32:58,480 Speaker 5: way they may be interested in doing, and the court 556 00:32:58,520 --> 00:33:01,360 Speaker 5: seemed somewhat i would say, receptive to that argument that 557 00:33:01,440 --> 00:33:05,160 Speaker 5: perhaps this preliminary injunction from a year ago just really 558 00:33:05,840 --> 00:33:08,680 Speaker 5: doesn't apply anymore. It was, you know, in its time, 559 00:33:08,880 --> 00:33:10,880 Speaker 5: and we saw the appeals court judges even say, you know, 560 00:33:10,920 --> 00:33:13,360 Speaker 5: we understand why the lower court did this given the 561 00:33:13,360 --> 00:33:16,200 Speaker 5: information it had before it, but now, you know, given 562 00:33:16,200 --> 00:33:18,320 Speaker 5: what we're hearing from the government, it's been a year, 563 00:33:18,680 --> 00:33:20,320 Speaker 5: We're not sure that it makes sense that this would 564 00:33:20,320 --> 00:33:22,680 Speaker 5: still be in place. It was a temporary order after all. 565 00:33:23,200 --> 00:33:26,560 Speaker 2: So if the government says we're not going to do 566 00:33:26,600 --> 00:33:29,000 Speaker 2: a funding freeze like that anymore, then why do they 567 00:33:29,040 --> 00:33:32,920 Speaker 2: need the lower court order to be specific about what 568 00:33:33,000 --> 00:33:34,720 Speaker 2: they can and cannot freeze. 569 00:33:35,840 --> 00:33:37,719 Speaker 5: That's a great question, and that was something that we 570 00:33:37,760 --> 00:33:41,680 Speaker 5: really saw the attorney for the nonprofits who's with Democracy 571 00:33:41,680 --> 00:33:45,200 Speaker 5: Forward Foundation press at the hearing. Well, if she's you know, 572 00:33:45,240 --> 00:33:47,240 Speaker 5: she said, if the government is saying that we don't 573 00:33:47,280 --> 00:33:49,360 Speaker 5: plan to freeze anything fully, then why did they care 574 00:33:49,360 --> 00:33:52,480 Speaker 5: about this injunction being lifted. I think where I kind 575 00:33:52,480 --> 00:33:55,040 Speaker 5: of saw the government lawyer try to make that explanation 576 00:33:55,640 --> 00:33:58,520 Speaker 5: was that they were arguing it was causing confusion at 577 00:33:58,560 --> 00:34:01,280 Speaker 5: the Office Management and Budget, and so just the way 578 00:34:01,320 --> 00:34:03,760 Speaker 5: that the lower court order was phrased, it was seeming 579 00:34:03,800 --> 00:34:06,240 Speaker 5: to be interpreted as a full funding freeze, but I 580 00:34:06,240 --> 00:34:08,279 Speaker 5: guess there was some you know, confusion about whether or 581 00:34:08,320 --> 00:34:10,640 Speaker 5: not it would always be interpreted that way, and so 582 00:34:10,760 --> 00:34:13,000 Speaker 5: they were asking for at a minimum, more clarity from 583 00:34:13,080 --> 00:34:15,359 Speaker 5: the appeals court. But that's correct, And that was really 584 00:34:15,360 --> 00:34:17,520 Speaker 5: also one thing that Judge Bradley Garcia, who's one of 585 00:34:17,560 --> 00:34:19,920 Speaker 5: the judges on the panel, you know, specifically raised that 586 00:34:19,960 --> 00:34:22,279 Speaker 5: if we were to see the Trump administration try to 587 00:34:22,320 --> 00:34:25,239 Speaker 5: freeze a specific you know, grant fund something that say 588 00:34:25,680 --> 00:34:29,680 Speaker 5: didn't align with executive orders on DEI initiatives or environmental issues, 589 00:34:29,719 --> 00:34:32,560 Speaker 5: that kind of thing, that it wouldn't even be covered 590 00:34:32,640 --> 00:34:35,320 Speaker 5: under the current injunction because the current injunction only applies 591 00:34:35,360 --> 00:34:38,120 Speaker 5: to a full federal freeze, as he interpreted it, and 592 00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:41,040 Speaker 5: wouldn't apply to a more narrow function. And he said, 593 00:34:41,080 --> 00:34:42,840 Speaker 5: you know, it's hard to see what maintaining this injunction 594 00:34:42,880 --> 00:34:46,680 Speaker 5: would do to protect your clients, the nonprofits. So that was, 595 00:34:46,719 --> 00:34:49,480 Speaker 5: you know, something that we saw discussed as well. So 596 00:34:49,680 --> 00:34:51,960 Speaker 5: it was just this idea that this injunction as it 597 00:34:52,000 --> 00:34:54,120 Speaker 5: was issued might have made sense at the time, it 598 00:34:54,160 --> 00:34:56,879 Speaker 5: perhaps doesn't anymore. But then, of course we did see 599 00:34:56,880 --> 00:35:00,279 Speaker 5: the attorney with Democracy Forward say, you know, feel that 600 00:35:00,320 --> 00:35:03,080 Speaker 5: the government had not given enough assurances that this wasn't 601 00:35:03,120 --> 00:35:06,560 Speaker 5: going to be repeated the government said, government's lawyer said 602 00:35:06,560 --> 00:35:08,520 Speaker 5: things like, you know, there's no reason why we would 603 00:35:08,560 --> 00:35:11,719 Speaker 5: do this again, but did stop somewhat short of saying specifically, 604 00:35:11,760 --> 00:35:13,919 Speaker 5: I promise we will not do this again. And that's 605 00:35:13,960 --> 00:35:15,839 Speaker 5: really what the nonprofits attorney wanted to hear. 606 00:35:16,280 --> 00:35:18,440 Speaker 2: In order for the judges to declare this mood, do 607 00:35:18,520 --> 00:35:22,640 Speaker 2: they have to believe that the Trump administration is true 608 00:35:22,640 --> 00:35:25,319 Speaker 2: to its word and it's not going to initiate any 609 00:35:25,320 --> 00:35:25,880 Speaker 2: of these. 610 00:35:26,080 --> 00:35:28,120 Speaker 4: Freezes, not necessarily. 611 00:35:28,160 --> 00:35:29,880 Speaker 5: And that's one thing that it sounds like the judges 612 00:35:29,880 --> 00:35:32,239 Speaker 5: did consider was they said, you know, if we take 613 00:35:32,320 --> 00:35:35,200 Speaker 5: them at their word and we you know, go ahead 614 00:35:35,239 --> 00:35:37,800 Speaker 5: and order that this injunction be lifted, and then the 615 00:35:37,840 --> 00:35:40,279 Speaker 5: government were to go turn around and do the exact thing, 616 00:35:40,640 --> 00:35:42,960 Speaker 5: there would be a legal remedy for that. And so 617 00:35:43,200 --> 00:35:44,799 Speaker 5: I think in a way they were that was part 618 00:35:44,840 --> 00:35:48,560 Speaker 5: of their thinking was, you know, even if we did 619 00:35:48,719 --> 00:35:51,040 Speaker 5: lift this injunction, there's still recourse for you to come 620 00:35:51,080 --> 00:35:53,600 Speaker 5: back to court if the government turns around and says, 621 00:35:53,600 --> 00:35:55,839 Speaker 5: never mind, we're doing exactly the thing that we did 622 00:35:55,840 --> 00:35:56,359 Speaker 5: a year ago. 623 00:35:56,760 --> 00:35:58,400 Speaker 4: So there would still be legal recourse there. 624 00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:00,279 Speaker 5: So it almost seems that it doesn't matter, or at 625 00:36:00,360 --> 00:36:02,560 Speaker 5: least in the view of the appeals court judges, you know, 626 00:36:02,600 --> 00:36:05,239 Speaker 5: because there might be legal resource either way, whether the 627 00:36:05,239 --> 00:36:06,680 Speaker 5: injunction were still in effect or not. 628 00:36:07,480 --> 00:36:09,560 Speaker 2: So did it seem like they were leaning toward the 629 00:36:09,640 --> 00:36:11,320 Speaker 2: government in the hearing. 630 00:36:11,960 --> 00:36:15,240 Speaker 5: It seemed to me that my read of that panel 631 00:36:16,000 --> 00:36:18,200 Speaker 5: was that they were leaning to the government at least, 632 00:36:18,440 --> 00:36:21,680 Speaker 5: you know, really seemed to be receptive to the argument 633 00:36:21,840 --> 00:36:24,880 Speaker 5: that this injunction. You know, this many months later, and 634 00:36:24,920 --> 00:36:27,560 Speaker 5: given how much the situation has changed on the ground 635 00:36:28,000 --> 00:36:30,080 Speaker 5: that perhaps this isn't the one that makes sense to 636 00:36:30,120 --> 00:36:32,759 Speaker 5: have anymore. But certainly we'll see there's always a risk 637 00:36:32,840 --> 00:36:34,480 Speaker 5: to trying to read the tea leaves in court. 638 00:36:34,760 --> 00:36:40,120 Speaker 2: Let's turn now to the Federal Judiciary's Research Office removing 639 00:36:40,280 --> 00:36:45,360 Speaker 2: part of a climate section from an updated manual on 640 00:36:45,680 --> 00:36:53,000 Speaker 2: Scientific Evidence after backlash from Republican appointed attorneys general. So 641 00:36:53,040 --> 00:36:55,799 Speaker 2: they've had this manual and they're just updating it. 642 00:36:56,440 --> 00:36:56,839 Speaker 4: That's right. 643 00:36:56,880 --> 00:36:58,880 Speaker 5: This is a manual they've issued before. This is the 644 00:36:58,880 --> 00:37:01,560 Speaker 5: fourth edition. The ord though, was back in twenty eleven, 645 00:37:01,840 --> 00:37:03,479 Speaker 5: so it's been a while since we've seen an update. 646 00:37:03,520 --> 00:37:05,480 Speaker 5: And of course, when it comes to scientific evidence, these 647 00:37:05,480 --> 00:37:07,919 Speaker 5: things move quickly, so we see topics in this fourth 648 00:37:08,040 --> 00:37:11,279 Speaker 5: edition manual that include, for example, artificial intelligence. And the 649 00:37:11,320 --> 00:37:13,160 Speaker 5: idea is to provide judges with a little bit more 650 00:37:13,200 --> 00:37:16,520 Speaker 5: information when they're considering what evidence might be allowed to 651 00:37:16,560 --> 00:37:18,920 Speaker 5: be you know, included in you know, in litigation, like 652 00:37:19,320 --> 00:37:21,239 Speaker 5: just to kind of help them handle that evidence, to 653 00:37:21,320 --> 00:37:23,520 Speaker 5: know what would be an expert, what are a good 654 00:37:23,520 --> 00:37:26,040 Speaker 5: expert qualifications, just to give them an overview of some 655 00:37:26,080 --> 00:37:27,879 Speaker 5: of the issues that might be coming before them. 656 00:37:28,400 --> 00:37:33,960 Speaker 2: More than two dozen Republican appointed Attorneys General objected. 657 00:37:33,280 --> 00:37:34,720 Speaker 4: To this, that's correct. 658 00:37:34,760 --> 00:37:38,280 Speaker 5: They specifically objected to a section within the scientific manual 659 00:37:38,480 --> 00:37:42,200 Speaker 5: that was focused on climate science, written by two professors 660 00:37:42,200 --> 00:37:45,879 Speaker 5: affiliated with Columbia University who wrote, you know, eighty plus 661 00:37:46,000 --> 00:37:49,840 Speaker 5: ninety plus pages about climate science, s, greenhouse gases, you know, 662 00:37:49,960 --> 00:37:53,480 Speaker 5: just various concepts overview of climate science and also and 663 00:37:53,520 --> 00:37:55,920 Speaker 5: really what I think the Attorney General took issue with 664 00:37:56,160 --> 00:37:58,680 Speaker 5: a bit on the role of humans in climate change. 665 00:37:58,840 --> 00:38:02,239 Speaker 2: So by doing this, by taking this out, then the 666 00:38:02,239 --> 00:38:07,520 Speaker 2: federal judiciary is bowing to the climate deniers who think 667 00:38:07,560 --> 00:38:10,640 Speaker 2: that humans don't have anything to do with climate change. 668 00:38:11,000 --> 00:38:12,040 Speaker 4: It would appear that way. 669 00:38:12,200 --> 00:38:15,440 Speaker 5: The Attorney's General argued that this was a disputed, you know, 670 00:38:15,480 --> 00:38:18,239 Speaker 5: area of science, and that they didn't feel that the 671 00:38:18,719 --> 00:38:21,799 Speaker 5: researchers had you know, done a good enough job to 672 00:38:21,920 --> 00:38:25,560 Speaker 5: include you know, maybe more climate skeptics, you know, had 673 00:38:25,600 --> 00:38:28,040 Speaker 5: you know, acted like a human role in climate change 674 00:38:28,160 --> 00:38:30,680 Speaker 5: was you know, a given, and that they were concerned 675 00:38:30,719 --> 00:38:34,200 Speaker 5: that this would sway or favor, say environmental advocates in 676 00:38:34,200 --> 00:38:36,560 Speaker 5: climate related litigation where they may be seeking to hold 677 00:38:36,600 --> 00:38:40,279 Speaker 5: a government, local government, or a company accountable for their 678 00:38:40,360 --> 00:38:42,440 Speaker 5: environmental impact. And I think that's where they felt like 679 00:38:42,480 --> 00:38:44,680 Speaker 5: this would maybe put a thumb on the scale. I think, 680 00:38:44,719 --> 00:38:47,760 Speaker 5: as they said, in those types of cases. I spoke 681 00:38:47,800 --> 00:38:50,480 Speaker 5: to one of the researchers, and you know, she said 682 00:38:50,520 --> 00:38:52,359 Speaker 5: that her section had gone through all of the same 683 00:38:52,719 --> 00:38:55,239 Speaker 5: rigorous peer review as the other chapters that were left in. 684 00:38:56,200 --> 00:38:59,000 Speaker 2: And who is it that makes the final decision on. 685 00:38:58,880 --> 00:39:01,920 Speaker 5: This decision came from, at least as it was publicized, 686 00:39:01,960 --> 00:39:04,319 Speaker 5: the Federal Judicial Center, which is the research arm of 687 00:39:04,320 --> 00:39:07,040 Speaker 5: the Federal Judiciary. So we saw really a one sentence 688 00:39:07,120 --> 00:39:09,920 Speaker 5: letter from Judge Robin Rosenberg, who's the chair of the FJAC, 689 00:39:10,520 --> 00:39:13,840 Speaker 5: notifying the leader of the Attorney's General Group that the 690 00:39:13,920 --> 00:39:16,440 Speaker 5: section had been omitted. As she phrased it, there was 691 00:39:16,480 --> 00:39:19,319 Speaker 5: not any detail about what you discussion had gone on, 692 00:39:19,560 --> 00:39:22,200 Speaker 5: or you know, what considerations were taken into account. We 693 00:39:22,239 --> 00:39:25,000 Speaker 5: really just have that one page letter and the FJAC 694 00:39:25,120 --> 00:39:26,160 Speaker 5: decline to comment further. 695 00:39:26,560 --> 00:39:30,600 Speaker 2: It seems like they folded pretty quickly. Thanks so much, Suzanne, 696 00:39:30,640 --> 00:39:34,160 Speaker 2: always interesting to talk to you. That's Bloomberg Law reporter 697 00:39:34,280 --> 00:39:37,239 Speaker 2: Suzanne Monyac, and that's it for this edition of the 698 00:39:37,280 --> 00:39:40,240 Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest 699 00:39:40,280 --> 00:39:43,399 Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find 700 00:39:43,440 --> 00:39:48,000 Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg 701 00:39:48,040 --> 00:39:51,839 Speaker 2: dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune 702 00:39:51,840 --> 00:39:55,120 Speaker 2: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm 703 00:39:55,160 --> 00:39:58,719 Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to 704 00:39:58,760 --> 00:39:59,320 Speaker 2: Bloomberg