1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,480
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:10,479
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a pullback. It's a little bit

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:11,000
Speaker 2: of a change.

4
00:00:11,080 --> 00:00:13,040
Speaker 3: Everybody in this room that has a business, you know,

5
00:00:13,080 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 3: you make little changes. You know.

6
00:00:14,840 --> 00:00:17,640
Speaker 2: Bavino is very good, but he's a pretty.

7
00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:18,319
Speaker 3: Out there kind of a guy.

8
00:00:18,360 --> 00:00:19,640
Speaker 2: And in some cases that's good.

9
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:20,880
Speaker 3: Maybe it wasn't good here.

10
00:00:21,120 --> 00:00:25,120
Speaker 1: That was President Trump on Fox saying they're de escalating

11
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:29,840
Speaker 1: in Minnesota rather than enforcing a pullback. Trump is shuffling

12
00:00:29,880 --> 00:00:34,040
Speaker 1: the lieutenants in charge of his immigration crackdown in Minneapolis

13
00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:37,840
Speaker 1: after a second person was killed by a federal officer

14
00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:42,080
Speaker 1: in a matter of weeks. He's dispatched Borderzar Tom Homan

15
00:00:42,159 --> 00:00:46,480
Speaker 1: to the state to replace Border Patrol Chief Greg Bavino,

16
00:00:46,760 --> 00:00:50,880
Speaker 1: who'd been the face of the aggressive, almost militarized operation.

17
00:00:51,440 --> 00:00:55,160
Speaker 1: My guest is Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law.

18
00:00:55,640 --> 00:00:58,640
Speaker 1: She served as the Deputy chief in the Special Litigation

19
00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:02,000
Speaker 1: Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department

20
00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:06,520
Speaker 1: and led the pattern or practice investigations of police departments.

21
00:01:06,920 --> 00:01:09,759
Speaker 1: I want to get your general impression of what's been

22
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:13,479
Speaker 1: happening in Minnesota. The tactics that have been used by

23
00:01:13,480 --> 00:01:17,600
Speaker 1: immigration agents. You have the shooting deaths of two people

24
00:01:17,959 --> 00:01:22,119
Speaker 1: by ICE officers within weeks of each other. And we've

25
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:29,000
Speaker 1: seen all these videos showing aggressive tactics by officers ice agents,

26
00:01:29,120 --> 00:01:32,040
Speaker 1: throwing chemical agents at not even a crowd, at a

27
00:01:32,080 --> 00:01:35,679
Speaker 1: few people, shoving people who are trying to film them.

28
00:01:36,160 --> 00:01:39,280
Speaker 1: I saw one video where a man was already on

29
00:01:39,319 --> 00:01:44,360
Speaker 1: the ground, subdued and an ICE officer still sprayed a

30
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:46,480
Speaker 1: yellow chemical into his face.

31
00:01:47,440 --> 00:01:51,840
Speaker 3: This is a law enforcement agency that is completely out

32
00:01:51,840 --> 00:01:54,680
Speaker 3: of control. I don't say that lightly. I have just

33
00:01:54,720 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 3: seen this happen in other places. You know, when I

34
00:01:57,280 --> 00:01:59,440
Speaker 3: was at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, we

35
00:01:59,440 --> 00:02:02,920
Speaker 3: would invest gate law enforcement agencies. There were local agencies

36
00:02:02,960 --> 00:02:06,280
Speaker 3: that were sometimes out of control, and they acted just

37
00:02:06,400 --> 00:02:08,800
Speaker 3: like this one for all the same reasons. It's just

38
00:02:08,880 --> 00:02:11,440
Speaker 3: that what's so disturbing about this. I mean, part of

39
00:02:11,520 --> 00:02:13,520
Speaker 3: what is disturbing about this to many peoples, and it's

40
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:16,240
Speaker 3: the federal government. Part of what's disturbing about it is

41
00:02:16,240 --> 00:02:18,919
Speaker 3: that this is a nationwide you know, they have nationwide

42
00:02:19,160 --> 00:02:23,760
Speaker 3: enforcement of authority, and so it's been most pronounced in Minneapolis.

43
00:02:23,800 --> 00:02:26,000
Speaker 3: That's certainly not the only place where they had been

44
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:29,720
Speaker 3: shooting people and using excessive force, lying about what they're doing.

45
00:02:29,960 --> 00:02:32,799
Speaker 3: And so when you have a law enforcement agency that's

46
00:02:32,800 --> 00:02:36,160
Speaker 3: out of control, that's frightening on a couple of levels.

47
00:02:36,360 --> 00:02:38,800
Speaker 3: One is just people our right to be concerned about

48
00:02:38,800 --> 00:02:42,239
Speaker 3: their personal safety, but it's also a real threat to democracy.

49
00:02:42,480 --> 00:02:45,960
Speaker 3: So I think it's hard to overstate how problematic this is.

50
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:48,880
Speaker 3: Problematic is two weak a word, right, It's really hard

51
00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:53,079
Speaker 3: to overstate how dangerous what is happening is.

52
00:02:54,120 --> 00:02:57,960
Speaker 1: Along those lines, Alex Pretty was the fifth person to

53
00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:02,520
Speaker 1: be shot and killed by federal immigration officers since Trump

54
00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:07,720
Speaker 1: launched his immigration crackdown in Los Angeles last June, and

55
00:03:07,840 --> 00:03:12,760
Speaker 1: at least nineteen times federal immigration agents have opened fire

56
00:03:12,880 --> 00:03:17,519
Speaker 1: on civilians. Most of those incidents involve agents firing at

57
00:03:17,639 --> 00:03:22,600
Speaker 1: drivers during enforcement stops. None of the officers has faced

58
00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:28,040
Speaker 1: criminal charges, and the administration hasn't announced any internal disciplinary

59
00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:33,239
Speaker 1: measures against them. Is this very unusual? What would normally happen?

60
00:03:33,840 --> 00:03:36,880
Speaker 3: So I'm hesitating about usual and normal for two reasons.

61
00:03:36,960 --> 00:03:40,480
Speaker 3: One is, with eighteen thousand law enforcement agencies, it's hard

62
00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:42,760
Speaker 3: to say what's normal or usual in any given agency

63
00:03:42,800 --> 00:03:45,360
Speaker 3: because there's a wide spectrum of what happens. And even

64
00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:49,000
Speaker 3: when you talk about the federal law enforcement agencies, even

65
00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:53,760
Speaker 3: when you focus on immigration enforcement, CBPHSI, ICE, it's hard

66
00:03:53,760 --> 00:03:56,800
Speaker 3: to know how abnormal this is. I will say it

67
00:03:56,880 --> 00:04:01,000
Speaker 3: is completely unacceptable, and it is the reason that we

68
00:04:01,040 --> 00:04:03,480
Speaker 3: see this law enforcement agency being out of control is

69
00:04:03,520 --> 00:04:07,119
Speaker 3: because there is not any accountability either external right, There's

70
00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:08,960
Speaker 3: no investigation that's being done so that there can be

71
00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 3: criminal prosecutions. There's very little accountability through civil litigation because

72
00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:16,240
Speaker 3: of how difficult the Supreme Court has made the law

73
00:04:16,279 --> 00:04:20,160
Speaker 3: in this area and the internal accountability mechanisms, which are

74
00:04:20,200 --> 00:04:23,080
Speaker 3: the most effective, generally speaking, in the most real time,

75
00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:26,479
Speaker 3: you just say that people don't do this, You give

76
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:28,800
Speaker 3: them a day off if they start to do something wrong,

77
00:04:28,800 --> 00:04:30,719
Speaker 3: and you fire them if they keep doing it. That

78
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:34,000
Speaker 3: sort of accountability is not happening. Now. That's long been

79
00:04:34,040 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 3: a problem with immigration enforcement, in part because of the line,

80
00:04:38,680 --> 00:04:41,600
Speaker 3: and we've been drawing it and discussing these cases between

81
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:44,880
Speaker 3: what implicitly what people think is okay for law enforcement

82
00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:47,920
Speaker 3: to do to non citizens versus citizens, and a lot

83
00:04:47,920 --> 00:04:50,479
Speaker 3: of what immigration enforcement has been doing in this country

84
00:04:50,839 --> 00:04:53,840
Speaker 3: has been done to non citizens, oftentimes at the border

85
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:56,480
Speaker 3: and they've essentially been given a pass, and so it's

86
00:04:56,480 --> 00:04:58,919
Speaker 3: really important for a number of reasons to stop making

87
00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:02,360
Speaker 3: a distinction between how between non citizens and citizens. And

88
00:05:02,400 --> 00:05:05,080
Speaker 3: one of the reasons is that that distinction is why

89
00:05:05,080 --> 00:05:08,240
Speaker 3: they've been allowed to grow into an agency that uses

90
00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:11,440
Speaker 3: excessive force with impunity and lies about it with impunity.

91
00:05:11,680 --> 00:05:14,039
Speaker 3: So I think it's important for people to recognize that

92
00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:18,159
Speaker 3: the way that these federal immigration enforcement agencies are working

93
00:05:18,279 --> 00:05:20,960
Speaker 3: now did not come out of nowhere. It has a

94
00:05:20,960 --> 00:05:24,520
Speaker 3: long history and being allowed to behave this way in

95
00:05:24,839 --> 00:05:27,760
Speaker 3: places that were not as open to the public and

96
00:05:27,800 --> 00:05:30,920
Speaker 3: against people that did not have as much sympathy as

97
00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:32,200
Speaker 3: protesters do now.

98
00:05:32,560 --> 00:05:37,000
Speaker 1: As far as investigations, it seems as if the federal

99
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:41,400
Speaker 1: government is doing an investigation on the latest killing of

100
00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:44,880
Speaker 1: Alex Pretty. I'm not sure about the Renee Good shooting.

101
00:05:45,120 --> 00:05:49,400
Speaker 1: Whether they're actually doing an investigation on the federal level, it's.

102
00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:52,240
Speaker 3: A little unclear, and I think it's probably changing. It's

103
00:05:52,279 --> 00:05:55,400
Speaker 3: robe fairly fluid, given that they're getting much more pushback

104
00:05:55,400 --> 00:05:58,719
Speaker 3: than they expected. But from what I have read, it

105
00:05:58,720 --> 00:06:00,919
Speaker 3: appears that they're doing what is called the use of

106
00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:04,360
Speaker 3: force review, which is what you should do anytime there's

107
00:06:04,360 --> 00:06:08,200
Speaker 3: a serious use of force, and what historically DHS law

108
00:06:08,279 --> 00:06:11,120
Speaker 3: enforcement agencies have done, right any use of force, not

109
00:06:11,160 --> 00:06:14,520
Speaker 3: just shootings, but you know, strikes to the head for example,

110
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:16,599
Speaker 3: anything that's a serious use of force. You would do

111
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:20,000
Speaker 3: a review to determine whether there are any policy violations

112
00:06:20,240 --> 00:06:23,080
Speaker 3: or whether there were any maybe training problems or even

113
00:06:23,120 --> 00:06:26,520
Speaker 3: equipment problems that were revealed by the incident. And that's

114
00:06:26,560 --> 00:06:28,839
Speaker 3: something that should happen regardless of whether there's a complaint,

115
00:06:28,920 --> 00:06:31,960
Speaker 3: regardless of whether there's you know, any media about it.

116
00:06:31,960 --> 00:06:35,440
Speaker 3: It's an internal often called an administrative investigation. It sounds

117
00:06:35,480 --> 00:06:38,240
Speaker 3: like they're maybe doing that now. I think people would

118
00:06:38,279 --> 00:06:42,240
Speaker 3: be correct to be concerned about the robustness of that

119
00:06:42,279 --> 00:06:47,360
Speaker 3: investigation and the credibility of that investigation, given the demonstrably

120
00:06:47,400 --> 00:06:52,640
Speaker 3: false prejudicial statements that leaders of that organization have already made.

121
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:56,279
Speaker 3: And so what often happens when law enforcement agencies have

122
00:06:56,440 --> 00:06:59,920
Speaker 3: those problems with credibility or just competency, is you will

123
00:06:59,920 --> 00:07:03,880
Speaker 3: have an outside agency conduct that administrative investigation. So that's

124
00:07:03,920 --> 00:07:05,600
Speaker 3: what I think we should all be asking for as

125
00:07:05,640 --> 00:07:08,880
Speaker 3: an independent agency for the federal la enforcement agencies to

126
00:07:08,920 --> 00:07:12,920
Speaker 3: open up provide all the evidence to an independent entity

127
00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:16,600
Speaker 3: to be able to conduct that administrative investigation. In the past,

128
00:07:16,720 --> 00:07:20,080
Speaker 3: the Offices of Inspector General, Federal Offices of Inspector General

129
00:07:20,120 --> 00:07:22,960
Speaker 3: would have been a good candidate for that. They're rather

130
00:07:23,040 --> 00:07:27,000
Speaker 3: compromised because of the way that their independence has been

131
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:30,400
Speaker 3: threatened by President Trump, and so I'm not sure that's

132
00:07:30,400 --> 00:07:34,640
Speaker 3: an adequate stand in here. In addition to that administrative investigation,

133
00:07:34,720 --> 00:07:39,240
Speaker 3: there should be a federal criminal investigation, and specifically, there

134
00:07:39,240 --> 00:07:41,760
Speaker 3: should be an investigation to determine whether there were criminal

135
00:07:41,840 --> 00:07:45,320
Speaker 3: violations of these individuals' federal civil rights. We know from

136
00:07:45,320 --> 00:07:48,000
Speaker 3: the Good killing they decided not to do that, and

137
00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:51,440
Speaker 3: my understanding is that attorneys left the Civil Rights Division

138
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,240
Speaker 3: because of that decision. I don't know whether they're rethinking

139
00:07:54,280 --> 00:07:56,840
Speaker 3: that they could. People should be pushing them to rethink that.

140
00:07:57,160 --> 00:08:01,000
Speaker 3: And the same here with Predi's killing. They could be

141
00:08:01,080 --> 00:08:03,920
Speaker 3: doing a criminal investigation to see whether his civil rights

142
00:08:04,040 --> 00:08:06,480
Speaker 3: were violated, and there's been no indications that I know

143
00:08:06,520 --> 00:08:08,040
Speaker 3: of that they are, but that could change.

144
00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:10,040
Speaker 1: So let me ask you this, because there's been a

145
00:08:10,120 --> 00:08:12,960
Speaker 1: lot of talk about, you know, immunity with the Vice

146
00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:16,240
Speaker 1: President coming out last week about Renee goods shooting and

147
00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:19,520
Speaker 1: saying absolute immunity, then backing off a little bit, what

148
00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:23,400
Speaker 1: kind of criminal charges could be brought against a federal officer.

149
00:08:24,480 --> 00:08:28,360
Speaker 3: So there's not a large body of federal criminal law actually,

150
00:08:28,720 --> 00:08:32,319
Speaker 3: so oftentimes the charge, the only charges that are available

151
00:08:32,320 --> 00:08:37,720
Speaker 3: at the federal level are charges for violating individuals civil rights.

152
00:08:38,040 --> 00:08:40,920
Speaker 3: So that is definitely something that the federal government could do.

153
00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:46,400
Speaker 3: There are also oftentimes when law enforcement agents behave in

154
00:08:46,440 --> 00:08:49,720
Speaker 3: this way, they are violating state criminal law. So for example,

155
00:08:49,720 --> 00:08:53,240
Speaker 3: in the Derek Chauvin case where Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd,

156
00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:56,520
Speaker 3: he was found under state law to have murdered George Floyd,

157
00:08:56,679 --> 00:09:00,000
Speaker 3: the state crime of murder. That is much more complicated

158
00:09:00,360 --> 00:09:03,160
Speaker 3: when the state is trying to prosecute not a state

159
00:09:03,240 --> 00:09:07,040
Speaker 3: or local law enforcement officer, but a federal law enforcement officer.

160
00:09:07,080 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 3: There is a large body of law that makes it

161
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:15,320
Speaker 3: more complicated and more difficult to prosecute federal law enforcement

162
00:09:15,400 --> 00:09:19,920
Speaker 3: officers criminally. For state prosecutors to prosecute federal law enforcement

163
00:09:20,240 --> 00:09:25,400
Speaker 3: officers criminally, that said, it's not impossible, and it is

164
00:09:25,440 --> 00:09:28,680
Speaker 3: something that the state appears to be pursuing here, and

165
00:09:28,760 --> 00:09:30,040
Speaker 3: they have legal grounds to do so.

166
00:09:30,679 --> 00:09:34,120
Speaker 1: The state is sort of in an uphill battle here because,

167
00:09:34,559 --> 00:09:37,920
Speaker 1: you know, the federal government has the initial evidence from

168
00:09:37,960 --> 00:09:42,200
Speaker 1: the both scenes and apparently the local officials have said

169
00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:45,679
Speaker 1: that federal officials are refusing to honor a search warrant

170
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:48,840
Speaker 1: that they had to get signed by a judge. So

171
00:09:49,840 --> 00:09:53,040
Speaker 1: the federal government is withholding the information here.

172
00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:57,720
Speaker 3: Yes, the federal government is essentially obstructing a criminal investigation,

173
00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:02,319
Speaker 3: and that is highly unusual. Normally, federal and state governments

174
00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:06,160
Speaker 3: will work together and try to gather evidence, even in deciding,

175
00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:08,440
Speaker 3: like you know, quote unquot who will go first in

176
00:10:08,520 --> 00:10:12,160
Speaker 3: terms of prosecuting the individual. But that's not happening here.

177
00:10:12,360 --> 00:10:14,320
Speaker 3: And that's why people are right to be concerned that

178
00:10:14,360 --> 00:10:16,240
Speaker 3: what the federal government is doing here is trying to

179
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:19,320
Speaker 3: cover up what actually happened. This is not, you know,

180
00:10:19,400 --> 00:10:23,120
Speaker 3: sort of normal protocol. This is them behaving very differently

181
00:10:23,440 --> 00:10:25,080
Speaker 3: for reasons that appear to be they don't want anybody

182
00:10:25,080 --> 00:10:27,880
Speaker 3: else looking at what actually happened. The good news is

183
00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:29,720
Speaker 3: that there is a lot of evidence you can gather

184
00:10:30,640 --> 00:10:33,840
Speaker 3: outside of what the federal government is refusing to turn over.

185
00:10:34,280 --> 00:10:36,560
Speaker 3: We should be so grateful to the individuals who are

186
00:10:36,600 --> 00:10:39,640
Speaker 3: out there filming and providing that ragging the evidence. Who

187
00:10:39,679 --> 00:10:42,560
Speaker 3: are willing to testify and talk about what they saw

188
00:10:42,840 --> 00:10:47,440
Speaker 3: before and after the cameras were on. That is really

189
00:10:47,559 --> 00:10:51,520
Speaker 3: important information that can become evidence right once it's properly

190
00:10:51,679 --> 00:10:54,680
Speaker 3: you know, vetted and confirmed. And with these facts, it

191
00:10:54,679 --> 00:10:57,440
Speaker 3: seems like you could make a prosecution on that information alone.

192
00:10:57,800 --> 00:11:00,440
Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, you this

193
00:11:00,520 --> 00:11:05,400
Speaker 1: conversation with Georgetown law professor Christy Lopez. The Eighth Circuit

194
00:11:05,440 --> 00:11:09,160
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals was persuaded to freeze a judge's ruling

195
00:11:09,240 --> 00:11:14,040
Speaker 1: that barred retaliation against the public in Minnesota. I'm June Grosso,

196
00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:17,960
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been talking to Georgetown

197
00:11:18,040 --> 00:11:21,600
Speaker 1: law professor Christy Lopez. She was the Deputy Chief in

198
00:11:21,640 --> 00:11:25,040
Speaker 1: the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at

199
00:11:25,080 --> 00:11:28,280
Speaker 1: the US Department of Justice and led the pattern or

200
00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:33,120
Speaker 1: practice investigations of police departments. Christy, let's turn to the

201
00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:36,680
Speaker 1: courts for a moment, because not just in this case,

202
00:11:36,920 --> 00:11:39,600
Speaker 1: but in many cases across the country, there have been

203
00:11:39,760 --> 00:11:46,040
Speaker 1: complaints by federal judges that the Trump administration is ignoring orders,

204
00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:49,560
Speaker 1: or skirting orders, or you obeying them around the edges,

205
00:11:49,640 --> 00:11:52,800
Speaker 1: however you want to describe it. And so the Chief

206
00:11:52,840 --> 00:11:57,960
Speaker 1: Federal Judge has demanded the acting head of Ice personally

207
00:11:57,960 --> 00:12:02,680
Speaker 1: appear in court on Friday to explain repeated failures to

208
00:12:02,760 --> 00:12:07,280
Speaker 1: comply with court orders. This might be a situation where

209
00:12:07,720 --> 00:12:09,760
Speaker 1: the federal government might try to fight this.

210
00:12:10,559 --> 00:12:14,000
Speaker 3: They could. The federal government has been very disrespectful to

211
00:12:14,160 --> 00:12:18,600
Speaker 3: and defining of the federal courts. They're really relying on

212
00:12:18,640 --> 00:12:23,200
Speaker 3: the federal courts a sort of deference and a sense

213
00:12:23,240 --> 00:12:26,000
Speaker 3: of propriety and hoping that that will keep the federal

214
00:12:26,040 --> 00:12:29,199
Speaker 3: courts from really pushing All courts, but especially federal courts

215
00:12:29,200 --> 00:12:32,720
Speaker 3: have long given great difference to federal officials and you know,

216
00:12:32,760 --> 00:12:35,760
Speaker 3: given them chance after chance after chance before actually coming

217
00:12:35,800 --> 00:12:37,800
Speaker 3: down them holding it in contempt. They could hold people

218
00:12:37,800 --> 00:12:40,120
Speaker 3: in criminal contempt, but they generally don't do this, and

219
00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:43,360
Speaker 3: I think that's largely what the administration is relying on.

220
00:12:43,600 --> 00:12:44,960
Speaker 3: I think they also see it as part of their

221
00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:47,440
Speaker 3: brand to be sort of, you know, to be bullying

222
00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:49,160
Speaker 3: the courts and to be you know, to show the

223
00:12:49,200 --> 00:12:52,040
Speaker 3: powers is more effective than the rule of law. So

224
00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:55,120
Speaker 3: there's that as well. But I think that what will

225
00:12:55,120 --> 00:12:57,480
Speaker 3: make the difference here. I think we are all beginning

226
00:12:57,480 --> 00:12:59,760
Speaker 3: to understand this, and if we didn't already, but what

227
00:12:59,880 --> 00:13:01,800
Speaker 3: is going to make the difference here as public pressure.

228
00:13:02,240 --> 00:13:05,559
Speaker 3: That is what's going to determine whether tod Lions shows

229
00:13:05,600 --> 00:13:08,720
Speaker 3: up in court, whether the administration backs off in this

230
00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:13,120
Speaker 3: area of really egregious immigration enforcement as in many other areas.

231
00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:16,800
Speaker 1: In the midst of all this turmoil, the Eighth Circuit

232
00:13:16,880 --> 00:13:21,120
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals was persuaded by the government to freeze

233
00:13:21,200 --> 00:13:26,319
Speaker 1: a judge's ruling that barred immigration officers from retaliating against

234
00:13:26,360 --> 00:13:31,560
Speaker 1: the public in Minneapolis, including detaining people who follow agents

235
00:13:31,679 --> 00:13:34,840
Speaker 1: in cars. I thought it was surprising that the Eighth

236
00:13:34,960 --> 00:13:39,760
Speaker 1: Circuit froze that judge's order that was intended to maintain

237
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:40,280
Speaker 1: the peace.

238
00:13:40,400 --> 00:13:43,319
Speaker 3: Basically, I agree. I want to be clear, I haven't

239
00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:45,840
Speaker 3: read that opinion yet, so I'm happy to check back

240
00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:48,360
Speaker 3: in once I have. I agree there doesn't appear to

241
00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:51,080
Speaker 3: be a strong basis, or really any basis to not

242
00:13:51,559 --> 00:13:55,640
Speaker 3: allow the district Court's order to take effect. It was

243
00:13:55,679 --> 00:14:00,560
Speaker 3: a very mild order. It was not anywhere near what

244
00:14:00,640 --> 00:14:04,520
Speaker 3: the plaintiffs had asked for, and it does little more

245
00:14:04,720 --> 00:14:08,400
Speaker 3: than say, no, you really do have to abide by

246
00:14:08,480 --> 00:14:11,199
Speaker 3: the Constitution when you are policing these protests and when

247
00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:14,400
Speaker 3: you are enforcing the immigration law. It's really hard to

248
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:18,000
Speaker 3: see why the eight Circuit wouldn't have allowed that order

249
00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:18,520
Speaker 3: to stand.

250
00:14:19,040 --> 00:14:22,800
Speaker 1: Is there another event in our history that resembles what's

251
00:14:23,240 --> 00:14:25,120
Speaker 1: happening here in Minnesota?

252
00:14:25,360 --> 00:14:27,880
Speaker 3: Yes, I think we've gone through a number of eras

253
00:14:27,880 --> 00:14:30,800
Speaker 3: of our history that resemble what's happening here. I think

254
00:14:30,880 --> 00:14:33,360
Speaker 3: in some respects. The one that comes to mind for

255
00:14:33,400 --> 00:14:35,840
Speaker 3: a lot of people, and I think is an accurate comparison,

256
00:14:36,360 --> 00:14:39,040
Speaker 3: is the Civil rights movement. The difference there was that

257
00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:42,680
Speaker 3: in that context, in many ways, the federal government worthy

258
00:14:42,800 --> 00:14:47,680
Speaker 3: protectors rather than the primary instigance of violence. It's broadly

259
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:50,120
Speaker 3: understood that the federal government could have done more to

260
00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:54,440
Speaker 3: protect civil rights protesters and activists than it did, but

261
00:14:54,520 --> 00:14:58,359
Speaker 3: certainly they weren't seen generally speaking, as the primary antagonists

262
00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:02,960
Speaker 3: and violators of right, and here that's oddly flipped. You

263
00:15:03,040 --> 00:15:06,440
Speaker 3: see the Minnesota governor sending out the National Guard. You

264
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:10,560
Speaker 3: see the local police, you know, trying to protect individuals

265
00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:14,000
Speaker 3: and trying to investigate federal law enforcement who's violating people's rights.

266
00:15:14,320 --> 00:15:17,960
Speaker 3: That I think is fairly unprecedented. So you've seen this

267
00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:21,200
Speaker 3: dynamic before of just you know, people trying to speak

268
00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:24,640
Speaker 3: out against injustice, some of the labor strikes from the

269
00:15:24,720 --> 00:15:27,920
Speaker 3: late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. You've seen things like that,

270
00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:31,720
Speaker 3: but I don't think we've ever seen anything like this

271
00:15:31,840 --> 00:15:36,520
Speaker 3: where you have the federal government, historically the better protectors

272
00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:41,280
Speaker 3: of individuals constitutional rights, being the primary violator of those rights,

273
00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:44,760
Speaker 3: and state in local governments having to step in and

274
00:15:44,800 --> 00:15:47,040
Speaker 3: find a way to try to protect people's rights.

275
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:50,400
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm just wondering what the federal government is thinking

276
00:15:50,440 --> 00:15:55,120
Speaker 1: when apparently the officers involved in the latest shooting were

277
00:15:55,120 --> 00:15:58,680
Speaker 1: allowed to continue working, but now they've been placed on

278
00:15:59,080 --> 00:16:00,520
Speaker 1: administrative life.

279
00:16:01,240 --> 00:16:05,200
Speaker 3: It is common practice to put officers who are involved

280
00:16:05,240 --> 00:16:08,840
Speaker 3: in shootings, you know, formally on administratively out of any

281
00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:12,520
Speaker 3: public interaction during the course of the investigation, especially where

282
00:16:12,520 --> 00:16:15,840
Speaker 3: there's some indication that force might have been unlawful or

283
00:16:16,000 --> 00:16:20,080
Speaker 3: a violation of policy. I think the thing to understand here,

284
00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:23,000
Speaker 3: and this is really important for people to understand this

285
00:16:23,200 --> 00:16:28,320
Speaker 3: administration doesn't actually have a problem with how much their

286
00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:31,840
Speaker 3: immigration law enforcement officers are violating people's rights, how much

287
00:16:31,920 --> 00:16:34,960
Speaker 3: violence they're using the way that they are, you know,

288
00:16:35,880 --> 00:16:38,960
Speaker 3: violing people's rights, you know, taking splitting apart families and

289
00:16:39,000 --> 00:16:41,480
Speaker 3: sending them far away and leaving them to find their

290
00:16:41,480 --> 00:16:45,760
Speaker 3: own way home, knowingly taking people who are here lawfully,

291
00:16:46,120 --> 00:16:49,040
Speaker 3: sometimes who are even citizens, and just you know, we

292
00:16:49,120 --> 00:16:51,880
Speaker 3: don't care. Will sometimes say the cruelty is the point,

293
00:16:52,200 --> 00:16:54,800
Speaker 3: and I think that holds here as well. I think

294
00:16:54,840 --> 00:16:57,840
Speaker 3: the cruelty and the violence is the point of how

295
00:16:57,960 --> 00:17:01,080
Speaker 3: this enforcement is happening. A year ago, if I'd heard

296
00:17:01,080 --> 00:17:02,600
Speaker 3: someone say that, I might have thought that it was

297
00:17:02,720 --> 00:17:06,119
Speaker 3: hyperbolic and overly dramatic. But I think that's exactly what

298
00:17:06,160 --> 00:17:11,240
Speaker 3: we're seeing. And the only reason that they are starting

299
00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:15,560
Speaker 3: to hesitate a bit after this most recent killing is

300
00:17:15,600 --> 00:17:18,479
Speaker 3: not because they've had a change of heart. It's because

301
00:17:18,520 --> 00:17:22,600
Speaker 3: the country is demonstrating more broadly that they don't like

302
00:17:22,640 --> 00:17:25,160
Speaker 3: what's going on. That is the only thing that's going

303
00:17:25,200 --> 00:17:26,960
Speaker 3: to change the way they're acting, because they do not

304
00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:30,080
Speaker 3: think that there's anything wrong with how they're behaving. In fact,

305
00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:35,159
Speaker 3: they are intentionally allowing their agents to behave in this

306
00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:38,200
Speaker 3: way because they want to instill here in people, because

307
00:17:38,240 --> 00:17:40,840
Speaker 3: they want to demonstrate how powerful they are, because they

308
00:17:40,880 --> 00:17:42,680
Speaker 3: want to demonstrate how they can violate the law and

309
00:17:42,720 --> 00:17:43,440
Speaker 3: get away with it.

310
00:17:43,640 --> 00:17:48,520
Speaker 1: Another surprising thing to me was the statements by Christinome,

311
00:17:48,920 --> 00:17:54,639
Speaker 1: the DHS secretary, and Baveno that word contradicted by the

312
00:17:54,760 --> 00:17:59,960
Speaker 1: video that everyone was seeing. Why say something that's demonstrably false?

313
00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:02,800
Speaker 3: Yes, I think there's two schools of thought on that,

314
00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:04,640
Speaker 3: and I think they could both be true in different

315
00:18:04,680 --> 00:18:06,920
Speaker 3: ways and perhaps with different people. One school of thought

316
00:18:07,119 --> 00:18:10,680
Speaker 3: is that they're saying things that are false about things

317
00:18:10,680 --> 00:18:13,679
Speaker 3: that are on video in the hopes that the people

318
00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:17,200
Speaker 3: who support them or won't ever go watch those videos, right,

319
00:18:17,480 --> 00:18:19,960
Speaker 3: and so they'll never find out what actually happened. The

320
00:18:20,040 --> 00:18:23,520
Speaker 3: other school of thought is that they are saying things

321
00:18:23,520 --> 00:18:25,720
Speaker 3: that are false knowing that they will be shown to

322
00:18:25,800 --> 00:18:29,080
Speaker 3: be false, and then able to demonstrate that they're allowed

323
00:18:29,080 --> 00:18:32,119
Speaker 3: to say things that aren't true, that are demonstrably not

324
00:18:32,280 --> 00:18:35,760
Speaker 3: true and get away with it anyway. It's part of

325
00:18:35,800 --> 00:18:39,359
Speaker 3: their trying to make people lose hope. Right. Wow, they

326
00:18:39,440 --> 00:18:42,720
Speaker 3: can do something so awful and then lie about it completely,

327
00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:45,320
Speaker 3: even though we all can see that's not what happened,

328
00:18:45,600 --> 00:18:48,679
Speaker 3: and nothing happens to them, nothing happens to this officer,

329
00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:51,600
Speaker 3: They keep going forward and so if they're able to

330
00:18:51,640 --> 00:18:53,800
Speaker 3: get away with that, then they will in fact have

331
00:18:53,920 --> 00:18:57,040
Speaker 3: become more powerful. And so that's why it's so important

332
00:18:57,320 --> 00:19:00,240
Speaker 3: that people are now actually pushing back, and why the

333
00:19:00,280 --> 00:19:02,280
Speaker 3: only thing that's going to change this is more people

334
00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:02,880
Speaker 3: pushing back.

335
00:19:02,920 --> 00:19:06,320
Speaker 1: More they are demoting, or however you want to call it.

336
00:19:06,359 --> 00:19:09,680
Speaker 1: They're taking Bavino off the scene and sending him back

337
00:19:09,720 --> 00:19:13,800
Speaker 1: to the border, and Tom Holman is coming in. Homan

338
00:19:13,880 --> 00:19:18,960
Speaker 1: supposedly has a more targeted approach than Bavino, So might

339
00:19:19,000 --> 00:19:23,480
Speaker 1: we expect that we'll see less of these aggressive tactics.

340
00:19:23,960 --> 00:19:27,040
Speaker 3: I wouldn't rely on that. I think Homan has if

341
00:19:27,040 --> 00:19:28,720
Speaker 3: he just based on the things that he's said and

342
00:19:28,800 --> 00:19:31,840
Speaker 3: done in the past, he has the exact same violent

343
00:19:31,880 --> 00:19:35,600
Speaker 3: and authoritarian tendencies that Bobino did, and so they're just

344
00:19:35,680 --> 00:19:38,719
Speaker 3: switching people around. Bobino is a target right now. You know,

345
00:19:39,080 --> 00:19:41,040
Speaker 3: maybe that means something for the long term. It could

346
00:19:41,080 --> 00:19:43,400
Speaker 3: just be a short term, you know, until things quiet down.

347
00:19:43,920 --> 00:19:46,240
Speaker 3: I don't think people should feel good at all about

348
00:19:46,520 --> 00:19:48,720
Speaker 3: Homan coming in. I think they should feel good that

349
00:19:48,760 --> 00:19:50,440
Speaker 3: they've had some they've moved the need a little bit

350
00:19:50,520 --> 00:19:54,000
Speaker 3: on making the administration do something. But the administration is

351
00:19:54,040 --> 00:19:57,399
Speaker 3: going to be waiting to see whether sort of moving

352
00:19:57,520 --> 00:20:01,920
Speaker 3: people around will quiet people down. And what again, People

353
00:20:01,960 --> 00:20:05,320
Speaker 3: need to keep the pressure on until the actual behavior changes.

354
00:20:05,359 --> 00:20:08,400
Speaker 3: And there's nothing about home and the way he thinks

355
00:20:08,440 --> 00:20:10,480
Speaker 3: about these issues, the what he has done about these issues,

356
00:20:10,520 --> 00:20:12,359
Speaker 3: what he has said about these issues, that said that

357
00:20:12,400 --> 00:20:15,560
Speaker 3: he has a demonstrably different approach to immigration enforcement.

358
00:20:15,760 --> 00:20:18,440
Speaker 1: Well, thanks so much for joining me today, Christy. That's

359
00:20:18,440 --> 00:20:26,479
Speaker 1: Professor Christy Lopez of Georgetown Law. The Trump administration and

360
00:20:26,520 --> 00:20:30,679
Speaker 1: the California Republican Party are asking the Supreme Court to

361
00:20:30,800 --> 00:20:34,480
Speaker 1: block the state from using its new congressional map that

362
00:20:34,600 --> 00:20:39,680
Speaker 1: favors Democrats during this year's midterm elections. A lower court

363
00:20:39,760 --> 00:20:42,280
Speaker 1: said the new map is lawful and can be used

364
00:20:42,280 --> 00:20:45,960
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty six, rejecting a bid by the administration

365
00:20:46,119 --> 00:20:49,199
Speaker 1: and the California GOP to block the map on the

366
00:20:49,240 --> 00:20:53,119
Speaker 1: grounds that it was racially gerrymandered. The request seeks an

367
00:20:53,160 --> 00:20:56,800
Speaker 1: emergency order to block the map while the court considers

368
00:20:56,920 --> 00:20:59,959
Speaker 1: a full appeal of the decision. The state of californ

369
00:21:00,000 --> 00:21:04,879
Speaker 1: Ffornia has until January twenty ninth to respond. Joining me

370
00:21:04,920 --> 00:21:09,440
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg Legal reporter Madelen Mecklberg Madline tell us about

371
00:21:09,480 --> 00:21:12,920
Speaker 1: the California map and what happened in the lower court.

372
00:21:13,240 --> 00:21:18,280
Speaker 2: So California decided to redraw its congressional maps after Texas

373
00:21:18,680 --> 00:21:22,760
Speaker 2: undertook a similar effort at the request of President Trump.

374
00:21:22,800 --> 00:21:26,280
Speaker 2: And the idea behind California's maps is that they are

375
00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:30,600
Speaker 2: creating five new districts that will favor Democrats in an

376
00:21:30,640 --> 00:21:33,320
Speaker 2: attempt to counteract the five new districts that have been

377
00:21:33,359 --> 00:21:38,159
Speaker 2: added in Texas as a result of their redistricting effort. Now,

378
00:21:38,400 --> 00:21:41,240
Speaker 2: the maps in California were challenged by the state's Republican

379
00:21:41,320 --> 00:21:44,280
Speaker 2: Party and also by the Department of Justice. The Trump

380
00:21:44,320 --> 00:21:48,320
Speaker 2: administration and a lower court said that the maps were

381
00:21:48,359 --> 00:21:51,040
Speaker 2: allowed to stand for the election. They said that there's

382
00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:54,600
Speaker 2: no evidence that they were racially gerrymandered, and that the

383
00:21:54,680 --> 00:21:57,639
Speaker 2: effort was a purely political one and therefore the maps

384
00:21:57,640 --> 00:21:59,600
Speaker 2: are valid and should be used this year.

385
00:22:00,200 --> 00:22:02,320
Speaker 1: It sort of makes me laugh that the Department of

386
00:22:02,520 --> 00:22:05,720
Speaker 1: Justice is challenging this when it was President Trump and

387
00:22:05,760 --> 00:22:10,520
Speaker 1: the Trump administration that's been urging Republican states to redraw

388
00:22:10,600 --> 00:22:11,200
Speaker 1: their maps.

389
00:22:11,960 --> 00:22:14,439
Speaker 2: I think a lot of spectators who've been following this

390
00:22:14,640 --> 00:22:18,720
Speaker 2: feel Similarly, it's certainly we wouldn't be here in the

391
00:22:18,760 --> 00:22:22,919
Speaker 2: California case if Texas hadn't decided to redraw its maps

392
00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:25,920
Speaker 2: at Trump's request. And a lot of the same issues

393
00:22:25,960 --> 00:22:28,760
Speaker 2: have been presented in these cases. There's really not a

394
00:22:28,800 --> 00:22:31,639
Speaker 2: lot of daylight between them, and so the arguments are

395
00:22:31,640 --> 00:22:35,119
Speaker 2: really similar, and it's yes, definitely interesting to see the

396
00:22:35,119 --> 00:22:38,560
Speaker 2: administration on different sides of each of these cases.

397
00:22:38,880 --> 00:22:42,359
Speaker 1: What are the California Republicans saying, because I mean, I

398
00:22:42,400 --> 00:22:47,720
Speaker 1: can remember California Governor Gavin Newsom having press conferences where

399
00:22:47,720 --> 00:22:50,639
Speaker 1: he was urging them to, you know, we have to

400
00:22:50,680 --> 00:22:53,320
Speaker 1: do this in California because they did it in Texas.

401
00:22:53,800 --> 00:22:56,879
Speaker 1: What are they pointing to as evidence that it was

402
00:22:57,800 --> 00:22:59,560
Speaker 1: not done for political purposes?

403
00:23:00,720 --> 00:23:02,960
Speaker 2: Right? I think one of the main arguments that we've

404
00:23:02,960 --> 00:23:06,399
Speaker 2: seen from them in filings is that race has a

405
00:23:06,520 --> 00:23:10,959
Speaker 2: proxy here and that they're using this political argument in

406
00:23:11,160 --> 00:23:16,680
Speaker 2: order to actually do racial gerrymandering. They cited testimony from

407
00:23:17,200 --> 00:23:20,120
Speaker 2: one of the consultant map makers that the state used

408
00:23:20,119 --> 00:23:25,160
Speaker 2: when they were redrawing this redrawing these congressional districts, and

409
00:23:25,280 --> 00:23:28,720
Speaker 2: that individual said made reference to ensuring that there were

410
00:23:28,720 --> 00:23:31,880
Speaker 2: certain Latino districts that were bolstered in order to make

411
00:23:31,920 --> 00:23:35,639
Speaker 2: them more effective. And so what the GOP party in

412
00:23:35,680 --> 00:23:39,080
Speaker 2: California and the DOJ are arguing is that they are

413
00:23:39,280 --> 00:23:44,680
Speaker 2: using this guise of political retribution to redraw the maps

414
00:23:44,720 --> 00:23:47,080
Speaker 2: in order to actually racially gerrymander.

415
00:23:47,359 --> 00:23:49,960
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court cleared the way for Texas to use

416
00:23:50,119 --> 00:23:54,560
Speaker 1: those Republican drawn maps, and actually there was some mention

417
00:23:54,760 --> 00:23:57,200
Speaker 1: of California in that decision.

418
00:23:57,880 --> 00:24:01,320
Speaker 2: Right, So the way that redistricting came work is that

419
00:24:01,440 --> 00:24:04,000
Speaker 2: they're decided by a three judge panel at the lower

420
00:24:04,000 --> 00:24:07,760
Speaker 2: court level, and then there's no the appellate process just

421
00:24:07,840 --> 00:24:10,159
Speaker 2: skips over the circuit court and goes right to the

422
00:24:10,200 --> 00:24:14,000
Speaker 2: Supreme Court. And so unlike traditional cases that come before

423
00:24:14,040 --> 00:24:17,000
Speaker 2: the High Court, there's no cert petition here. The Supreme

424
00:24:17,000 --> 00:24:21,119
Speaker 2: Court really has to answer to request for emergency action.

425
00:24:21,800 --> 00:24:24,080
Speaker 2: And so that's what we saw in the Texas case.

426
00:24:24,119 --> 00:24:27,119
Speaker 2: They said in their ruling, as you mentioned, they said

427
00:24:27,200 --> 00:24:30,320
Speaker 2: that it's clear that the Texas maps were drawn, they

428
00:24:30,320 --> 00:24:33,200
Speaker 2: were politically motivated, there was no evidence that there was

429
00:24:33,320 --> 00:24:37,359
Speaker 2: racial gerrymandering, and they made mention to California as a

430
00:24:37,400 --> 00:24:40,480
Speaker 2: comparable effort. They said, just like in California, where the

431
00:24:40,520 --> 00:24:44,720
Speaker 2: districts have been redrawn with politics in mind, and so

432
00:24:45,160 --> 00:24:47,479
Speaker 2: we've heard the Supreme Court weigh in on this before.

433
00:24:47,920 --> 00:24:51,280
Speaker 2: I think I don't think that we're expecting a lot

434
00:24:51,320 --> 00:24:53,560
Speaker 2: of surprise when we get a ruling from them. Of course,

435
00:24:53,640 --> 00:24:55,159
Speaker 2: you never know. I don't want to be in the

436
00:24:55,160 --> 00:24:57,720
Speaker 2: business of predicting what the Supreme Court is going to do,

437
00:24:58,280 --> 00:25:01,240
Speaker 2: but basically the case is are very similar. They have

438
00:25:01,400 --> 00:25:05,800
Speaker 2: acknowledged in this separate ruling that California is like Texas

439
00:25:05,840 --> 00:25:09,199
Speaker 2: in that they were drawn with politics as the motivating factor.

440
00:25:09,560 --> 00:25:13,760
Speaker 1: Redistricting efforts were being done with the mid term election

441
00:25:14,359 --> 00:25:18,119
Speaker 1: in mind. Let's start with Texas. I've been reading that

442
00:25:18,160 --> 00:25:21,560
Speaker 1: it's not a guarantee that Republican candidates would win all

443
00:25:21,720 --> 00:25:24,600
Speaker 1: five of the new Texas districts, right.

444
00:25:24,680 --> 00:25:28,480
Speaker 2: I think it's very early to try to say how

445
00:25:28,600 --> 00:25:30,480
Speaker 2: any of these races are going to shake out in

446
00:25:30,520 --> 00:25:34,000
Speaker 2: the midterms. But you're correct that the Texas maps, the

447
00:25:34,080 --> 00:25:38,320
Speaker 2: idea is that they've created five congressional districts in Texas

448
00:25:38,320 --> 00:25:42,400
Speaker 2: that are likely to go for Republicans. But I think

449
00:25:42,480 --> 00:25:45,840
Speaker 2: kind of given the current state of play, it's very

450
00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:48,840
Speaker 2: difficult to make any kind of predictions, and Texas is

451
00:25:48,840 --> 00:25:51,000
Speaker 2: a very unique place. I know it's easy to put

452
00:25:51,000 --> 00:25:53,400
Speaker 2: it in this red state bucket, but there's a ton

453
00:25:53,440 --> 00:25:56,800
Speaker 2: of diversity, and especially when we're talking about counties that

454
00:25:56,840 --> 00:26:00,720
Speaker 2: are around the border, it's not a garantee how they're

455
00:26:00,720 --> 00:26:03,480
Speaker 2: going to go in the race. And so I think

456
00:26:03,240 --> 00:26:06,560
Speaker 2: the bid there was that we're going to create five

457
00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:10,240
Speaker 2: additional safe Republican seats in the House, which is incredibly

458
00:26:10,240 --> 00:26:13,879
Speaker 2: important because at this point, Democrats need to gain just

459
00:26:14,000 --> 00:26:17,240
Speaker 2: three seats in order to have control of the House,

460
00:26:17,800 --> 00:26:21,040
Speaker 2: and so by having these five new Republican districts, they

461
00:26:21,040 --> 00:26:25,440
Speaker 2: would really be a roadblock to Democrats' efforts to take

462
00:26:25,480 --> 00:26:29,280
Speaker 2: control of the House. And that's where California comes into play,

463
00:26:29,359 --> 00:26:33,080
Speaker 2: where they drafted their maps as an attempt to neutralize

464
00:26:33,119 --> 00:26:37,080
Speaker 2: this effort in Texas, and they've created five Democratic seats

465
00:26:37,720 --> 00:26:39,920
Speaker 2: that they expect to go safely to their party. I

466
00:26:39,960 --> 00:26:42,880
Speaker 2: think it's a little more clear in California that those

467
00:26:42,920 --> 00:26:45,520
Speaker 2: seats will be safely Democratic. So this could have been

468
00:26:45,560 --> 00:26:50,880
Speaker 2: a miscalculation on the Republican's parts because California is set

469
00:26:50,920 --> 00:26:53,680
Speaker 2: to give five more Democrats seats in Congress if the

470
00:26:53,800 --> 00:26:56,720
Speaker 2: Supreme Court upholds these districts, but the same is not

471
00:26:56,920 --> 00:26:59,760
Speaker 2: necessarily a guarantee in Texas for the five seats that

472
00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:01,000
Speaker 2: they're seeking to create.

473
00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:05,480
Speaker 1: But there are other Republican states in play now or

474
00:27:05,600 --> 00:27:07,800
Speaker 1: trying to be in play. Tell us what other states

475
00:27:07,840 --> 00:27:08,680
Speaker 1: are doing.

476
00:27:08,960 --> 00:27:12,240
Speaker 2: That's right. There was just news earlier this month in

477
00:27:12,359 --> 00:27:15,520
Speaker 2: New York, a state court judge said that the state's

478
00:27:15,640 --> 00:27:19,480
Speaker 2: only Republican held congressional district needed to be redrawn because

479
00:27:19,480 --> 00:27:23,160
Speaker 2: it diluted black and Latino voters, and so Democrats are

480
00:27:23,200 --> 00:27:26,000
Speaker 2: now expected to pick up an additional House seat in

481
00:27:26,119 --> 00:27:30,560
Speaker 2: New York. And there's also the potential for Republicans to

482
00:27:30,600 --> 00:27:34,440
Speaker 2: pick up seats in Missouri and North Carolina and potentially

483
00:27:34,480 --> 00:27:38,760
Speaker 2: in Ohio in Florida as well as a result of redistricting,

484
00:27:39,080 --> 00:27:40,840
Speaker 2: but some of those are still up in the air.

485
00:27:40,840 --> 00:27:42,359
Speaker 2: That's an issue that we're going to get to a

486
00:27:42,359 --> 00:27:45,600
Speaker 2: little later this year. And then the Supreme Court is

487
00:27:45,640 --> 00:27:50,440
Speaker 2: also weighing this Voting Rights Act case relating to Louisiana's

488
00:27:50,480 --> 00:27:54,119
Speaker 2: congressional map, and a ruling that we get there could

489
00:27:54,119 --> 00:27:58,119
Speaker 2: potentially eliminate one of the state's majority black, heavily Democratic

490
00:27:58,119 --> 00:28:02,520
Speaker 2: congressional districts and could also prompt other states to take action. So,

491
00:28:03,040 --> 00:28:05,919
Speaker 2: although we're in the year of the midterm election and

492
00:28:05,960 --> 00:28:09,520
Speaker 2: it feels close but also very far, a lot is

493
00:28:09,600 --> 00:28:12,560
Speaker 2: still on the table and in play as we're talking

494
00:28:12,560 --> 00:28:14,520
Speaker 2: about how these races are going to shake out.

495
00:28:14,880 --> 00:28:18,000
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm wondering if suppose the Supreme Court doesn't come

496
00:28:18,040 --> 00:28:22,000
Speaker 1: down with a decision in that case until June, if

497
00:28:22,000 --> 00:28:25,720
Speaker 1: there would be enough time for the legislatures to ramp

498
00:28:25,800 --> 00:28:29,399
Speaker 1: up and do more redistricting. The time seems really tight,

499
00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:31,320
Speaker 1: but it is.

500
00:28:31,480 --> 00:28:33,880
Speaker 2: It's tight, and it's hard to say with any certainty

501
00:28:33,960 --> 00:28:40,000
Speaker 2: because this is a redistricting is the responsibility of state legislatures,

502
00:28:40,080 --> 00:28:45,680
Speaker 2: and while they tend to follow similar procedures for doing that,

503
00:28:46,160 --> 00:28:48,880
Speaker 2: every state is different and has slightly different rules and

504
00:28:48,960 --> 00:28:52,040
Speaker 2: slightly different approaches to how they do this, and so

505
00:28:52,200 --> 00:28:55,920
Speaker 2: those local rules and regulations could also factor into whether

506
00:28:55,960 --> 00:28:58,959
Speaker 2: there's enough time to make anything happen by the election.

507
00:29:00,040 --> 00:29:02,800
Speaker 1: Let's turn to another topic, and that's the social media

508
00:29:02,840 --> 00:29:08,360
Speaker 1: addiction trial that's starting in Los Angeles, and TikTok on

509
00:29:08,480 --> 00:29:11,440
Speaker 1: the eve of trial is settling.

510
00:29:12,400 --> 00:29:15,600
Speaker 2: The last number we got is that there's roughly twenty

511
00:29:15,600 --> 00:29:19,720
Speaker 2: five hundred people individuals, family members that are part of

512
00:29:19,760 --> 00:29:23,840
Speaker 2: this bucket of personal injury cases. And so that's either

513
00:29:24,120 --> 00:29:29,240
Speaker 2: individuals suing or family members of individuals suing saying they

514
00:29:29,440 --> 00:29:33,840
Speaker 2: personally suffered harms because of the design of these social

515
00:29:33,880 --> 00:29:37,920
Speaker 2: media platforms. And so this is a settlement with one

516
00:29:38,040 --> 00:29:41,800
Speaker 2: individual plaintiff. But this plaintiff is the very first to

517
00:29:41,880 --> 00:29:45,120
Speaker 2: go to trial of these thousands of cases, and she's

518
00:29:45,160 --> 00:29:48,520
Speaker 2: part of this bell Weather category of cases where the

519
00:29:48,600 --> 00:29:52,400
Speaker 2: outcome of these trials, whether it's through settlements or verdicts

520
00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:54,920
Speaker 2: from the jury, is going to inform how the rest

521
00:29:54,920 --> 00:29:57,280
Speaker 2: of these thousands of cases get resolved.

522
00:29:58,320 --> 00:30:02,440
Speaker 1: But to be clear, the social media case is starting

523
00:30:02,480 --> 00:30:03,440
Speaker 1: this week.

524
00:30:03,440 --> 00:30:08,240
Speaker 2: That's correct. Today was jury selection in that very first trial.

525
00:30:08,680 --> 00:30:12,360
Speaker 2: The plaintiff there has reached settlement agreements with snap snap

526
00:30:12,360 --> 00:30:16,960
Speaker 2: first Snapchat, and with TikTok, but her claims against Meta's

527
00:30:17,080 --> 00:30:21,080
Speaker 2: Facebook and Instagram and Google's YouTube are still alive and

528
00:30:21,120 --> 00:30:24,040
Speaker 2: still will go before the jury unless there's some kind

529
00:30:24,040 --> 00:30:27,040
Speaker 2: of a chord reached with those individual defendants as well.

530
00:30:27,640 --> 00:30:29,880
Speaker 1: And of course we don't know how much was paid

531
00:30:29,920 --> 00:30:30,600
Speaker 1: in the settlement.

532
00:30:30,680 --> 00:30:33,800
Speaker 2: I take it no, don't the terms of the specific

533
00:30:33,840 --> 00:30:36,640
Speaker 2: agreements that have not been made public at this point,

534
00:30:36,680 --> 00:30:40,240
Speaker 2: but there's been a lot of analysis done. This personal

535
00:30:40,280 --> 00:30:43,239
Speaker 2: injury bucket of cases is just one. There's also been

536
00:30:43,360 --> 00:30:46,920
Speaker 2: lawsuits filed by school districts and by state attorneys general.

537
00:30:47,400 --> 00:30:50,200
Speaker 2: And I know that a Bloomberg intelligence analyst who's been

538
00:30:50,200 --> 00:30:54,880
Speaker 2: following these cases, he's estimated that there's a multi billion

539
00:30:55,000 --> 00:30:58,680
Speaker 2: dollar liability here for the social media companies in terms

540
00:30:58,680 --> 00:31:02,719
Speaker 2: of the potential for or settlements or payouts in trials

541
00:31:02,880 --> 00:31:06,000
Speaker 2: as all of these cases move forward. But you know,

542
00:31:06,040 --> 00:31:08,320
Speaker 2: that's very far down the road. We're at the very

543
00:31:08,320 --> 00:31:11,120
Speaker 2: beginning of a long process here that could see that out.

544
00:31:11,680 --> 00:31:14,480
Speaker 1: And this is the first time these kinds of claims

545
00:31:14,520 --> 00:31:17,600
Speaker 1: are going to go before a jury. I mean, we've

546
00:31:17,640 --> 00:31:20,880
Speaker 1: heard them in congressional investigations. But tell us why that

547
00:31:20,920 --> 00:31:22,320
Speaker 1: makes a difference.

548
00:31:22,280 --> 00:31:25,280
Speaker 2: Because so far they've been able to use Section two

549
00:31:25,440 --> 00:31:28,280
Speaker 2: thirty to argue that they shouldn't be held liable for

550
00:31:28,400 --> 00:31:32,000
Speaker 2: content on their platforms. But that's what's unique about these

551
00:31:32,080 --> 00:31:36,040
Speaker 2: cases is the argument is about the fact that these

552
00:31:36,080 --> 00:31:40,200
Speaker 2: plaintiffs believe that the social media platforms intentionally designed their

553
00:31:40,240 --> 00:31:43,600
Speaker 2: products to be addictive. So it's about design features and

554
00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:47,360
Speaker 2: not about content that's being produced on the website. So

555
00:31:47,520 --> 00:31:49,640
Speaker 2: it's kind of a unique pathway to get them to court.

556
00:31:49,720 --> 00:31:53,160
Speaker 2: And we are expecting Mark Zuckerberg to testify at some

557
00:31:53,200 --> 00:31:54,120
Speaker 2: point during the trial.

558
00:31:54,720 --> 00:31:57,600
Speaker 1: After all the times he's testified, he might qualify as

559
00:31:57,600 --> 00:32:01,600
Speaker 1: an expert witness soon. Thanks so much, Mad. That's Bloomberg

560
00:32:01,680 --> 00:32:04,960
Speaker 1: Legal reporter Madelein Mecklberg, and that's it for this edition

561
00:32:05,000 --> 00:32:07,640
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

562
00:32:07,680 --> 00:32:10,800
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You

563
00:32:10,840 --> 00:32:14,960
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

564
00:32:15,080 --> 00:32:19,360
Speaker 1: dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

565
00:32:19,400 --> 00:32:22,360
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

566
00:32:22,360 --> 00:32:25,840
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

567
00:32:25,920 --> 00:32:27,160
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg