WEBVTT - Backlash Over ICE Tactics in Minnesota

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.480
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:10.479
<v Speaker 2>I don't think it's a pullback. It's a little bit

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:11.000
<v Speaker 2>of a change.

0:00:11.080 --> 0:00:13.040
<v Speaker 3>Everybody in this room that has a business, you know,

0:00:13.080 --> 0:00:14.800
<v Speaker 3>you make little changes. You know.

0:00:14.840 --> 0:00:17.640
<v Speaker 2>Bavino is very good, but he's a pretty.

0:00:17.320 --> 0:00:18.319
<v Speaker 3>Out there kind of a guy.

0:00:18.360 --> 0:00:19.640
<v Speaker 2>And in some cases that's good.

0:00:19.680 --> 0:00:20.880
<v Speaker 3>Maybe it wasn't good here.

0:00:21.120 --> 0:00:25.120
<v Speaker 1>That was President Trump on Fox saying they're de escalating

0:00:25.120 --> 0:00:29.840
<v Speaker 1>in Minnesota rather than enforcing a pullback. Trump is shuffling

0:00:29.880 --> 0:00:34.040
<v Speaker 1>the lieutenants in charge of his immigration crackdown in Minneapolis

0:00:34.520 --> 0:00:37.840
<v Speaker 1>after a second person was killed by a federal officer

0:00:38.159 --> 0:00:42.080
<v Speaker 1>in a matter of weeks. He's dispatched Borderzar Tom Homan

0:00:42.159 --> 0:00:46.480
<v Speaker 1>to the state to replace Border Patrol Chief Greg Bavino,

0:00:46.760 --> 0:00:50.880
<v Speaker 1>who'd been the face of the aggressive, almost militarized operation.

0:00:51.440 --> 0:00:55.160
<v Speaker 1>My guest is Christy Lopez, a professor at Georgetown Law.

0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:58.640
<v Speaker 1>She served as the Deputy chief in the Special Litigation

0:00:58.840 --> 0:01:02.000
<v Speaker 1>Section of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department

0:01:02.520 --> 0:01:06.520
<v Speaker 1>and led the pattern or practice investigations of police departments.

0:01:06.920 --> 0:01:09.759
<v Speaker 1>I want to get your general impression of what's been

0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:13.479
<v Speaker 1>happening in Minnesota. The tactics that have been used by

0:01:13.480 --> 0:01:17.600
<v Speaker 1>immigration agents. You have the shooting deaths of two people

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:22.119
<v Speaker 1>by ICE officers within weeks of each other. And we've

0:01:22.120 --> 0:01:29.000
<v Speaker 1>seen all these videos showing aggressive tactics by officers ice agents,

0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:32.040
<v Speaker 1>throwing chemical agents at not even a crowd, at a

0:01:32.080 --> 0:01:35.679
<v Speaker 1>few people, shoving people who are trying to film them.

0:01:36.160 --> 0:01:39.280
<v Speaker 1>I saw one video where a man was already on

0:01:39.319 --> 0:01:44.360
<v Speaker 1>the ground, subdued and an ICE officer still sprayed a

0:01:44.480 --> 0:01:46.480
<v Speaker 1>yellow chemical into his face.

0:01:47.440 --> 0:01:51.840
<v Speaker 3>This is a law enforcement agency that is completely out

0:01:51.840 --> 0:01:54.680
<v Speaker 3>of control. I don't say that lightly. I have just

0:01:54.720 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 3>seen this happen in other places. You know, when I

0:01:57.280 --> 0:01:59.440
<v Speaker 3>was at the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, we

0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:02.920
<v Speaker 3>would invest gate law enforcement agencies. There were local agencies

0:02:02.960 --> 0:02:06.280
<v Speaker 3>that were sometimes out of control, and they acted just

0:02:06.400 --> 0:02:08.800
<v Speaker 3>like this one for all the same reasons. It's just

0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 3>that what's so disturbing about this. I mean, part of

0:02:11.520 --> 0:02:13.520
<v Speaker 3>what is disturbing about this to many peoples, and it's

0:02:13.520 --> 0:02:16.240
<v Speaker 3>the federal government. Part of what's disturbing about it is

0:02:16.240 --> 0:02:18.919
<v Speaker 3>that this is a nationwide you know, they have nationwide

0:02:19.160 --> 0:02:23.760
<v Speaker 3>enforcement of authority, and so it's been most pronounced in Minneapolis.

0:02:23.800 --> 0:02:26.000
<v Speaker 3>That's certainly not the only place where they had been

0:02:26.040 --> 0:02:29.720
<v Speaker 3>shooting people and using excessive force, lying about what they're doing.

0:02:29.960 --> 0:02:32.799
<v Speaker 3>And so when you have a law enforcement agency that's

0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:36.160
<v Speaker 3>out of control, that's frightening on a couple of levels.

0:02:36.360 --> 0:02:38.800
<v Speaker 3>One is just people our right to be concerned about

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:42.239
<v Speaker 3>their personal safety, but it's also a real threat to democracy.

0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:45.960
<v Speaker 3>So I think it's hard to overstate how problematic this is.

0:02:46.040 --> 0:02:48.880
<v Speaker 3>Problematic is two weak a word, right, It's really hard

0:02:49.000 --> 0:02:53.079
<v Speaker 3>to overstate how dangerous what is happening is.

0:02:54.120 --> 0:02:57.960
<v Speaker 1>Along those lines, Alex Pretty was the fifth person to

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:02.520
<v Speaker 1>be shot and killed by federal immigration officers since Trump

0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:07.720
<v Speaker 1>launched his immigration crackdown in Los Angeles last June, and

0:03:07.840 --> 0:03:12.760
<v Speaker 1>at least nineteen times federal immigration agents have opened fire

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:17.519
<v Speaker 1>on civilians. Most of those incidents involve agents firing at

0:03:17.639 --> 0:03:22.600
<v Speaker 1>drivers during enforcement stops. None of the officers has faced

0:03:22.960 --> 0:03:28.040
<v Speaker 1>criminal charges, and the administration hasn't announced any internal disciplinary

0:03:28.360 --> 0:03:33.239
<v Speaker 1>measures against them. Is this very unusual? What would normally happen?

0:03:33.840 --> 0:03:36.880
<v Speaker 3>So I'm hesitating about usual and normal for two reasons.

0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:40.480
<v Speaker 3>One is, with eighteen thousand law enforcement agencies, it's hard

0:03:40.480 --> 0:03:42.760
<v Speaker 3>to say what's normal or usual in any given agency

0:03:42.800 --> 0:03:45.360
<v Speaker 3>because there's a wide spectrum of what happens. And even

0:03:45.400 --> 0:03:49.000
<v Speaker 3>when you talk about the federal law enforcement agencies, even

0:03:49.040 --> 0:03:53.760
<v Speaker 3>when you focus on immigration enforcement, CBPHSI, ICE, it's hard

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:56.800
<v Speaker 3>to know how abnormal this is. I will say it

0:03:56.880 --> 0:04:01.000
<v Speaker 3>is completely unacceptable, and it is the reason that we

0:04:01.040 --> 0:04:03.480
<v Speaker 3>see this law enforcement agency being out of control is

0:04:03.520 --> 0:04:07.119
<v Speaker 3>because there is not any accountability either external right, There's

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:08.960
<v Speaker 3>no investigation that's being done so that there can be

0:04:09.000 --> 0:04:13.960
<v Speaker 3>criminal prosecutions. There's very little accountability through civil litigation because

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:16.240
<v Speaker 3>of how difficult the Supreme Court has made the law

0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:20.160
<v Speaker 3>in this area and the internal accountability mechanisms, which are

0:04:20.200 --> 0:04:23.080
<v Speaker 3>the most effective, generally speaking, in the most real time,

0:04:23.400 --> 0:04:26.479
<v Speaker 3>you just say that people don't do this, You give

0:04:26.520 --> 0:04:28.800
<v Speaker 3>them a day off if they start to do something wrong,

0:04:28.800 --> 0:04:30.719
<v Speaker 3>and you fire them if they keep doing it. That

0:04:30.800 --> 0:04:34.000
<v Speaker 3>sort of accountability is not happening. Now. That's long been

0:04:34.040 --> 0:04:38.520
<v Speaker 3>a problem with immigration enforcement, in part because of the line,

0:04:38.680 --> 0:04:41.600
<v Speaker 3>and we've been drawing it and discussing these cases between

0:04:41.800 --> 0:04:44.880
<v Speaker 3>what implicitly what people think is okay for law enforcement

0:04:44.880 --> 0:04:47.920
<v Speaker 3>to do to non citizens versus citizens, and a lot

0:04:47.920 --> 0:04:50.479
<v Speaker 3>of what immigration enforcement has been doing in this country

0:04:50.839 --> 0:04:53.840
<v Speaker 3>has been done to non citizens, oftentimes at the border

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:56.480
<v Speaker 3>and they've essentially been given a pass, and so it's

0:04:56.480 --> 0:04:58.919
<v Speaker 3>really important for a number of reasons to stop making

0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:02.360
<v Speaker 3>a distinction between how between non citizens and citizens. And

0:05:02.400 --> 0:05:05.080
<v Speaker 3>one of the reasons is that that distinction is why

0:05:05.080 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 3>they've been allowed to grow into an agency that uses

0:05:08.520 --> 0:05:11.440
<v Speaker 3>excessive force with impunity and lies about it with impunity.

0:05:11.680 --> 0:05:14.039
<v Speaker 3>So I think it's important for people to recognize that

0:05:14.120 --> 0:05:18.159
<v Speaker 3>the way that these federal immigration enforcement agencies are working

0:05:18.279 --> 0:05:20.960
<v Speaker 3>now did not come out of nowhere. It has a

0:05:20.960 --> 0:05:24.520
<v Speaker 3>long history and being allowed to behave this way in

0:05:24.839 --> 0:05:27.760
<v Speaker 3>places that were not as open to the public and

0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:30.920
<v Speaker 3>against people that did not have as much sympathy as

0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:32.200
<v Speaker 3>protesters do now.

0:05:32.560 --> 0:05:37.000
<v Speaker 1>As far as investigations, it seems as if the federal

0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:41.400
<v Speaker 1>government is doing an investigation on the latest killing of

0:05:41.560 --> 0:05:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Alex Pretty. I'm not sure about the Renee Good shooting.

0:05:45.120 --> 0:05:49.400
<v Speaker 1>Whether they're actually doing an investigation on the federal level, it's.

0:05:49.240 --> 0:05:52.240
<v Speaker 3>A little unclear, and I think it's probably changing. It's

0:05:52.279 --> 0:05:55.400
<v Speaker 3>robe fairly fluid, given that they're getting much more pushback

0:05:55.400 --> 0:05:58.719
<v Speaker 3>than they expected. But from what I have read, it

0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:00.919
<v Speaker 3>appears that they're doing what is called the use of

0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:04.360
<v Speaker 3>force review, which is what you should do anytime there's

0:06:04.360 --> 0:06:08.200
<v Speaker 3>a serious use of force, and what historically DHS law

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:11.120
<v Speaker 3>enforcement agencies have done, right any use of force, not

0:06:11.160 --> 0:06:14.520
<v Speaker 3>just shootings, but you know, strikes to the head for example,

0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:16.599
<v Speaker 3>anything that's a serious use of force. You would do

0:06:16.640 --> 0:06:20.000
<v Speaker 3>a review to determine whether there are any policy violations

0:06:20.240 --> 0:06:23.080
<v Speaker 3>or whether there were any maybe training problems or even

0:06:23.120 --> 0:06:26.520
<v Speaker 3>equipment problems that were revealed by the incident. And that's

0:06:26.560 --> 0:06:28.839
<v Speaker 3>something that should happen regardless of whether there's a complaint,

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:31.960
<v Speaker 3>regardless of whether there's you know, any media about it.

0:06:31.960 --> 0:06:35.440
<v Speaker 3>It's an internal often called an administrative investigation. It sounds

0:06:35.480 --> 0:06:38.240
<v Speaker 3>like they're maybe doing that now. I think people would

0:06:38.279 --> 0:06:42.240
<v Speaker 3>be correct to be concerned about the robustness of that

0:06:42.279 --> 0:06:47.360
<v Speaker 3>investigation and the credibility of that investigation, given the demonstrably

0:06:47.400 --> 0:06:52.640
<v Speaker 3>false prejudicial statements that leaders of that organization have already made.

0:06:53.120 --> 0:06:56.279
<v Speaker 3>And so what often happens when law enforcement agencies have

0:06:56.440 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 3>those problems with credibility or just competency, is you will

0:06:59.920 --> 0:07:03.880
<v Speaker 3>have an outside agency conduct that administrative investigation. So that's

0:07:03.920 --> 0:07:05.600
<v Speaker 3>what I think we should all be asking for as

0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:08.880
<v Speaker 3>an independent agency for the federal la enforcement agencies to

0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:12.920
<v Speaker 3>open up provide all the evidence to an independent entity

0:07:13.000 --> 0:07:16.600
<v Speaker 3>to be able to conduct that administrative investigation. In the past,

0:07:16.720 --> 0:07:20.080
<v Speaker 3>the Offices of Inspector General, Federal Offices of Inspector General

0:07:20.120 --> 0:07:22.960
<v Speaker 3>would have been a good candidate for that. They're rather

0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:27.000
<v Speaker 3>compromised because of the way that their independence has been

0:07:27.080 --> 0:07:30.400
<v Speaker 3>threatened by President Trump, and so I'm not sure that's

0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:34.640
<v Speaker 3>an adequate stand in here. In addition to that administrative investigation,

0:07:34.720 --> 0:07:39.240
<v Speaker 3>there should be a federal criminal investigation, and specifically, there

0:07:39.240 --> 0:07:41.760
<v Speaker 3>should be an investigation to determine whether there were criminal

0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:45.320
<v Speaker 3>violations of these individuals' federal civil rights. We know from

0:07:45.320 --> 0:07:48.000
<v Speaker 3>the Good killing they decided not to do that, and

0:07:48.160 --> 0:07:51.440
<v Speaker 3>my understanding is that attorneys left the Civil Rights Division

0:07:51.440 --> 0:07:54.240
<v Speaker 3>because of that decision. I don't know whether they're rethinking

0:07:54.280 --> 0:07:56.840
<v Speaker 3>that they could. People should be pushing them to rethink that.

0:07:57.160 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 3>And the same here with Predi's killing. They could be

0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:03.920
<v Speaker 3>doing a criminal investigation to see whether his civil rights

0:08:04.040 --> 0:08:06.480
<v Speaker 3>were violated, and there's been no indications that I know

0:08:06.520 --> 0:08:08.040
<v Speaker 3>of that they are, but that could change.

0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:10.040
<v Speaker 1>So let me ask you this, because there's been a

0:08:10.120 --> 0:08:12.960
<v Speaker 1>lot of talk about, you know, immunity with the Vice

0:08:13.000 --> 0:08:16.240
<v Speaker 1>President coming out last week about Renee goods shooting and

0:08:16.280 --> 0:08:19.520
<v Speaker 1>saying absolute immunity, then backing off a little bit, what

0:08:19.640 --> 0:08:23.400
<v Speaker 1>kind of criminal charges could be brought against a federal officer.

0:08:24.480 --> 0:08:28.360
<v Speaker 3>So there's not a large body of federal criminal law actually,

0:08:28.720 --> 0:08:32.319
<v Speaker 3>so oftentimes the charge, the only charges that are available

0:08:32.320 --> 0:08:37.720
<v Speaker 3>at the federal level are charges for violating individuals civil rights.

0:08:38.040 --> 0:08:40.920
<v Speaker 3>So that is definitely something that the federal government could do.

0:08:41.200 --> 0:08:46.400
<v Speaker 3>There are also oftentimes when law enforcement agents behave in

0:08:46.440 --> 0:08:49.720
<v Speaker 3>this way, they are violating state criminal law. So for example,

0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:53.240
<v Speaker 3>in the Derek Chauvin case where Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd,

0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:56.520
<v Speaker 3>he was found under state law to have murdered George Floyd,

0:08:56.679 --> 0:09:00.000
<v Speaker 3>the state crime of murder. That is much more complicated

0:09:00.360 --> 0:09:03.160
<v Speaker 3>when the state is trying to prosecute not a state

0:09:03.240 --> 0:09:07.040
<v Speaker 3>or local law enforcement officer, but a federal law enforcement officer.

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:09.920
<v Speaker 3>There is a large body of law that makes it

0:09:10.000 --> 0:09:15.320
<v Speaker 3>more complicated and more difficult to prosecute federal law enforcement

0:09:15.400 --> 0:09:19.920
<v Speaker 3>officers criminally. For state prosecutors to prosecute federal law enforcement

0:09:20.240 --> 0:09:25.400
<v Speaker 3>officers criminally, that said, it's not impossible, and it is

0:09:25.440 --> 0:09:28.680
<v Speaker 3>something that the state appears to be pursuing here, and

0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:30.040
<v Speaker 3>they have legal grounds to do so.

0:09:30.679 --> 0:09:34.120
<v Speaker 1>The state is sort of in an uphill battle here because,

0:09:34.559 --> 0:09:37.920
<v Speaker 1>you know, the federal government has the initial evidence from

0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:42.200
<v Speaker 1>the both scenes and apparently the local officials have said

0:09:42.200 --> 0:09:45.679
<v Speaker 1>that federal officials are refusing to honor a search warrant

0:09:45.760 --> 0:09:48.840
<v Speaker 1>that they had to get signed by a judge. So

0:09:49.840 --> 0:09:53.040
<v Speaker 1>the federal government is withholding the information here.

0:09:53.600 --> 0:09:57.720
<v Speaker 3>Yes, the federal government is essentially obstructing a criminal investigation,

0:09:58.160 --> 0:10:02.319
<v Speaker 3>and that is highly unusual. Normally, federal and state governments

0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 3>will work together and try to gather evidence, even in deciding,

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:08.440
<v Speaker 3>like you know, quote unquot who will go first in

0:10:08.520 --> 0:10:12.160
<v Speaker 3>terms of prosecuting the individual. But that's not happening here.

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:14.320
<v Speaker 3>And that's why people are right to be concerned that

0:10:14.360 --> 0:10:16.240
<v Speaker 3>what the federal government is doing here is trying to

0:10:16.280 --> 0:10:19.320
<v Speaker 3>cover up what actually happened. This is not, you know,

0:10:19.400 --> 0:10:23.120
<v Speaker 3>sort of normal protocol. This is them behaving very differently

0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:25.080
<v Speaker 3>for reasons that appear to be they don't want anybody

0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:27.880
<v Speaker 3>else looking at what actually happened. The good news is

0:10:27.880 --> 0:10:29.720
<v Speaker 3>that there is a lot of evidence you can gather

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:33.840
<v Speaker 3>outside of what the federal government is refusing to turn over.

0:10:34.280 --> 0:10:36.560
<v Speaker 3>We should be so grateful to the individuals who are

0:10:36.600 --> 0:10:39.640
<v Speaker 3>out there filming and providing that ragging the evidence. Who

0:10:39.679 --> 0:10:42.560
<v Speaker 3>are willing to testify and talk about what they saw

0:10:42.840 --> 0:10:47.440
<v Speaker 3>before and after the cameras were on. That is really

0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:51.520
<v Speaker 3>important information that can become evidence right once it's properly

0:10:51.679 --> 0:10:54.680
<v Speaker 3>you know, vetted and confirmed. And with these facts, it

0:10:54.679 --> 0:10:57.440
<v Speaker 3>seems like you could make a prosecution on that information alone.

0:10:57.800 --> 0:11:00.440
<v Speaker 1>Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, you this

0:11:00.520 --> 0:11:05.400
<v Speaker 1>conversation with Georgetown law professor Christy Lopez. The Eighth Circuit

0:11:05.440 --> 0:11:09.160
<v Speaker 1>Court of Appeals was persuaded to freeze a judge's ruling

0:11:09.240 --> 0:11:14.040
<v Speaker 1>that barred retaliation against the public in Minnesota. I'm June Grosso,

0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:17.960
<v Speaker 1>and you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been talking to Georgetown

0:11:18.040 --> 0:11:21.600
<v Speaker 1>law professor Christy Lopez. She was the Deputy Chief in

0:11:21.640 --> 0:11:25.040
<v Speaker 1>the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division at

0:11:25.080 --> 0:11:28.280
<v Speaker 1>the US Department of Justice and led the pattern or

0:11:28.320 --> 0:11:33.120
<v Speaker 1>practice investigations of police departments. Christy, let's turn to the

0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:36.680
<v Speaker 1>courts for a moment, because not just in this case,

0:11:36.920 --> 0:11:39.600
<v Speaker 1>but in many cases across the country, there have been

0:11:39.760 --> 0:11:46.040
<v Speaker 1>complaints by federal judges that the Trump administration is ignoring orders,

0:11:46.160 --> 0:11:49.560
<v Speaker 1>or skirting orders, or you obeying them around the edges,

0:11:49.640 --> 0:11:52.800
<v Speaker 1>however you want to describe it. And so the Chief

0:11:52.840 --> 0:11:57.960
<v Speaker 1>Federal Judge has demanded the acting head of Ice personally

0:11:57.960 --> 0:12:02.680
<v Speaker 1>appear in court on Friday to explain repeated failures to

0:12:02.760 --> 0:12:07.280
<v Speaker 1>comply with court orders. This might be a situation where

0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:09.760
<v Speaker 1>the federal government might try to fight this.

0:12:10.559 --> 0:12:14.000
<v Speaker 3>They could. The federal government has been very disrespectful to

0:12:14.160 --> 0:12:18.600
<v Speaker 3>and defining of the federal courts. They're really relying on

0:12:18.640 --> 0:12:23.200
<v Speaker 3>the federal courts a sort of deference and a sense

0:12:23.240 --> 0:12:26.000
<v Speaker 3>of propriety and hoping that that will keep the federal

0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:29.199
<v Speaker 3>courts from really pushing All courts, but especially federal courts

0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:32.720
<v Speaker 3>have long given great difference to federal officials and you know,

0:12:32.760 --> 0:12:35.760
<v Speaker 3>given them chance after chance after chance before actually coming

0:12:35.800 --> 0:12:37.800
<v Speaker 3>down them holding it in contempt. They could hold people

0:12:37.800 --> 0:12:40.120
<v Speaker 3>in criminal contempt, but they generally don't do this, and

0:12:40.480 --> 0:12:43.360
<v Speaker 3>I think that's largely what the administration is relying on.

0:12:43.600 --> 0:12:44.960
<v Speaker 3>I think they also see it as part of their

0:12:45.000 --> 0:12:47.440
<v Speaker 3>brand to be sort of, you know, to be bullying

0:12:47.520 --> 0:12:49.160
<v Speaker 3>the courts and to be you know, to show the

0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 3>powers is more effective than the rule of law. So

0:12:52.160 --> 0:12:55.120
<v Speaker 3>there's that as well. But I think that what will

0:12:55.120 --> 0:12:57.480
<v Speaker 3>make the difference here. I think we are all beginning

0:12:57.480 --> 0:12:59.760
<v Speaker 3>to understand this, and if we didn't already, but what

0:12:59.880 --> 0:13:01.800
<v Speaker 3>is going to make the difference here as public pressure.

0:13:02.240 --> 0:13:05.559
<v Speaker 3>That is what's going to determine whether tod Lions shows

0:13:05.600 --> 0:13:08.720
<v Speaker 3>up in court, whether the administration backs off in this

0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:13.120
<v Speaker 3>area of really egregious immigration enforcement as in many other areas.

0:13:13.920 --> 0:13:16.800
<v Speaker 1>In the midst of all this turmoil, the Eighth Circuit

0:13:16.880 --> 0:13:21.120
<v Speaker 1>Court of Appeals was persuaded by the government to freeze

0:13:21.200 --> 0:13:26.319
<v Speaker 1>a judge's ruling that barred immigration officers from retaliating against

0:13:26.360 --> 0:13:31.560
<v Speaker 1>the public in Minneapolis, including detaining people who follow agents

0:13:31.679 --> 0:13:34.840
<v Speaker 1>in cars. I thought it was surprising that the Eighth

0:13:34.960 --> 0:13:39.760
<v Speaker 1>Circuit froze that judge's order that was intended to maintain

0:13:39.840 --> 0:13:40.280
<v Speaker 1>the peace.

0:13:40.400 --> 0:13:43.319
<v Speaker 3>Basically, I agree. I want to be clear, I haven't

0:13:43.360 --> 0:13:45.840
<v Speaker 3>read that opinion yet, so I'm happy to check back

0:13:45.880 --> 0:13:48.360
<v Speaker 3>in once I have. I agree there doesn't appear to

0:13:48.360 --> 0:13:51.080
<v Speaker 3>be a strong basis, or really any basis to not

0:13:51.559 --> 0:13:55.640
<v Speaker 3>allow the district Court's order to take effect. It was

0:13:55.679 --> 0:14:00.560
<v Speaker 3>a very mild order. It was not anywhere near what

0:14:00.640 --> 0:14:04.520
<v Speaker 3>the plaintiffs had asked for, and it does little more

0:14:04.720 --> 0:14:08.400
<v Speaker 3>than say, no, you really do have to abide by

0:14:08.480 --> 0:14:11.199
<v Speaker 3>the Constitution when you are policing these protests and when

0:14:11.200 --> 0:14:14.400
<v Speaker 3>you are enforcing the immigration law. It's really hard to

0:14:14.440 --> 0:14:18.000
<v Speaker 3>see why the eight Circuit wouldn't have allowed that order

0:14:18.120 --> 0:14:18.520
<v Speaker 3>to stand.

0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:22.800
<v Speaker 1>Is there another event in our history that resembles what's

0:14:23.240 --> 0:14:25.120
<v Speaker 1>happening here in Minnesota?

0:14:25.360 --> 0:14:27.880
<v Speaker 3>Yes, I think we've gone through a number of eras

0:14:27.880 --> 0:14:30.800
<v Speaker 3>of our history that resemble what's happening here. I think

0:14:30.880 --> 0:14:33.360
<v Speaker 3>in some respects. The one that comes to mind for

0:14:33.400 --> 0:14:35.840
<v Speaker 3>a lot of people, and I think is an accurate comparison,

0:14:36.360 --> 0:14:39.040
<v Speaker 3>is the Civil rights movement. The difference there was that

0:14:39.160 --> 0:14:42.680
<v Speaker 3>in that context, in many ways, the federal government worthy

0:14:42.800 --> 0:14:47.680
<v Speaker 3>protectors rather than the primary instigance of violence. It's broadly

0:14:47.760 --> 0:14:50.120
<v Speaker 3>understood that the federal government could have done more to

0:14:50.240 --> 0:14:54.440
<v Speaker 3>protect civil rights protesters and activists than it did, but

0:14:54.520 --> 0:14:58.359
<v Speaker 3>certainly they weren't seen generally speaking, as the primary antagonists

0:14:58.360 --> 0:15:02.960
<v Speaker 3>and violators of right, and here that's oddly flipped. You

0:15:03.040 --> 0:15:06.440
<v Speaker 3>see the Minnesota governor sending out the National Guard. You

0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:10.560
<v Speaker 3>see the local police, you know, trying to protect individuals

0:15:10.600 --> 0:15:14.000
<v Speaker 3>and trying to investigate federal law enforcement who's violating people's rights.

0:15:14.320 --> 0:15:17.960
<v Speaker 3>That I think is fairly unprecedented. So you've seen this

0:15:18.080 --> 0:15:21.200
<v Speaker 3>dynamic before of just you know, people trying to speak

0:15:21.240 --> 0:15:24.640
<v Speaker 3>out against injustice, some of the labor strikes from the

0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:27.920
<v Speaker 3>late nineteenth century, early twentieth century. You've seen things like that,

0:15:28.200 --> 0:15:31.720
<v Speaker 3>but I don't think we've ever seen anything like this

0:15:31.840 --> 0:15:36.520
<v Speaker 3>where you have the federal government, historically the better protectors

0:15:36.520 --> 0:15:41.280
<v Speaker 3>of individuals constitutional rights, being the primary violator of those rights,

0:15:41.520 --> 0:15:44.760
<v Speaker 3>and state in local governments having to step in and

0:15:44.800 --> 0:15:47.040
<v Speaker 3>find a way to try to protect people's rights.

0:15:47.440 --> 0:15:50.400
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I'm just wondering what the federal government is thinking

0:15:50.440 --> 0:15:55.120
<v Speaker 1>when apparently the officers involved in the latest shooting were

0:15:55.120 --> 0:15:58.680
<v Speaker 1>allowed to continue working, but now they've been placed on

0:15:59.080 --> 0:16:00.520
<v Speaker 1>administrative life.

0:16:01.240 --> 0:16:05.200
<v Speaker 3>It is common practice to put officers who are involved

0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:08.840
<v Speaker 3>in shootings, you know, formally on administratively out of any

0:16:08.880 --> 0:16:12.520
<v Speaker 3>public interaction during the course of the investigation, especially where

0:16:12.520 --> 0:16:15.840
<v Speaker 3>there's some indication that force might have been unlawful or

0:16:16.000 --> 0:16:20.080
<v Speaker 3>a violation of policy. I think the thing to understand here,

0:16:20.240 --> 0:16:23.000
<v Speaker 3>and this is really important for people to understand this

0:16:23.200 --> 0:16:28.320
<v Speaker 3>administration doesn't actually have a problem with how much their

0:16:28.320 --> 0:16:31.840
<v Speaker 3>immigration law enforcement officers are violating people's rights, how much

0:16:31.920 --> 0:16:34.960
<v Speaker 3>violence they're using the way that they are, you know,

0:16:35.880 --> 0:16:38.960
<v Speaker 3>violing people's rights, you know, taking splitting apart families and

0:16:39.000 --> 0:16:41.480
<v Speaker 3>sending them far away and leaving them to find their

0:16:41.480 --> 0:16:45.760
<v Speaker 3>own way home, knowingly taking people who are here lawfully,

0:16:46.120 --> 0:16:49.040
<v Speaker 3>sometimes who are even citizens, and just you know, we

0:16:49.120 --> 0:16:51.880
<v Speaker 3>don't care. Will sometimes say the cruelty is the point,

0:16:52.200 --> 0:16:54.800
<v Speaker 3>and I think that holds here as well. I think

0:16:54.840 --> 0:16:57.840
<v Speaker 3>the cruelty and the violence is the point of how

0:16:57.960 --> 0:17:01.080
<v Speaker 3>this enforcement is happening. A year ago, if I'd heard

0:17:01.080 --> 0:17:02.600
<v Speaker 3>someone say that, I might have thought that it was

0:17:02.720 --> 0:17:06.119
<v Speaker 3>hyperbolic and overly dramatic. But I think that's exactly what

0:17:06.160 --> 0:17:11.240
<v Speaker 3>we're seeing. And the only reason that they are starting

0:17:11.280 --> 0:17:15.560
<v Speaker 3>to hesitate a bit after this most recent killing is

0:17:15.600 --> 0:17:18.479
<v Speaker 3>not because they've had a change of heart. It's because

0:17:18.520 --> 0:17:22.600
<v Speaker 3>the country is demonstrating more broadly that they don't like

0:17:22.640 --> 0:17:25.160
<v Speaker 3>what's going on. That is the only thing that's going

0:17:25.200 --> 0:17:26.960
<v Speaker 3>to change the way they're acting, because they do not

0:17:27.119 --> 0:17:30.080
<v Speaker 3>think that there's anything wrong with how they're behaving. In fact,

0:17:30.160 --> 0:17:35.159
<v Speaker 3>they are intentionally allowing their agents to behave in this

0:17:35.200 --> 0:17:38.200
<v Speaker 3>way because they want to instill here in people, because

0:17:38.240 --> 0:17:40.840
<v Speaker 3>they want to demonstrate how powerful they are, because they

0:17:40.880 --> 0:17:42.680
<v Speaker 3>want to demonstrate how they can violate the law and

0:17:42.720 --> 0:17:43.440
<v Speaker 3>get away with it.

0:17:43.640 --> 0:17:48.520
<v Speaker 1>Another surprising thing to me was the statements by Christinome,

0:17:48.920 --> 0:17:54.639
<v Speaker 1>the DHS secretary, and Baveno that word contradicted by the

0:17:54.760 --> 0:17:59.960
<v Speaker 1>video that everyone was seeing. Why say something that's demonstrably false?

0:18:00.040 --> 0:18:02.800
<v Speaker 3>Yes, I think there's two schools of thought on that,

0:18:02.840 --> 0:18:04.640
<v Speaker 3>and I think they could both be true in different

0:18:04.680 --> 0:18:06.920
<v Speaker 3>ways and perhaps with different people. One school of thought

0:18:07.119 --> 0:18:10.680
<v Speaker 3>is that they're saying things that are false about things

0:18:10.680 --> 0:18:13.679
<v Speaker 3>that are on video in the hopes that the people

0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:17.200
<v Speaker 3>who support them or won't ever go watch those videos, right,

0:18:17.480 --> 0:18:19.960
<v Speaker 3>and so they'll never find out what actually happened. The

0:18:20.040 --> 0:18:23.520
<v Speaker 3>other school of thought is that they are saying things

0:18:23.520 --> 0:18:25.720
<v Speaker 3>that are false knowing that they will be shown to

0:18:25.800 --> 0:18:29.080
<v Speaker 3>be false, and then able to demonstrate that they're allowed

0:18:29.080 --> 0:18:32.119
<v Speaker 3>to say things that aren't true, that are demonstrably not

0:18:32.280 --> 0:18:35.760
<v Speaker 3>true and get away with it anyway. It's part of

0:18:35.800 --> 0:18:39.359
<v Speaker 3>their trying to make people lose hope. Right. Wow, they

0:18:39.440 --> 0:18:42.720
<v Speaker 3>can do something so awful and then lie about it completely,

0:18:42.800 --> 0:18:45.320
<v Speaker 3>even though we all can see that's not what happened,

0:18:45.600 --> 0:18:48.679
<v Speaker 3>and nothing happens to them, nothing happens to this officer,

0:18:48.840 --> 0:18:51.600
<v Speaker 3>They keep going forward and so if they're able to

0:18:51.640 --> 0:18:53.800
<v Speaker 3>get away with that, then they will in fact have

0:18:53.920 --> 0:18:57.040
<v Speaker 3>become more powerful. And so that's why it's so important

0:18:57.320 --> 0:19:00.240
<v Speaker 3>that people are now actually pushing back, and why the

0:19:00.280 --> 0:19:02.280
<v Speaker 3>only thing that's going to change this is more people

0:19:02.280 --> 0:19:02.880
<v Speaker 3>pushing back.

0:19:02.920 --> 0:19:06.320
<v Speaker 1>More they are demoting, or however you want to call it.

0:19:06.359 --> 0:19:09.680
<v Speaker 1>They're taking Bavino off the scene and sending him back

0:19:09.720 --> 0:19:13.800
<v Speaker 1>to the border, and Tom Holman is coming in. Homan

0:19:13.880 --> 0:19:18.960
<v Speaker 1>supposedly has a more targeted approach than Bavino, So might

0:19:19.000 --> 0:19:23.480
<v Speaker 1>we expect that we'll see less of these aggressive tactics.

0:19:23.960 --> 0:19:27.040
<v Speaker 3>I wouldn't rely on that. I think Homan has if

0:19:27.040 --> 0:19:28.720
<v Speaker 3>he just based on the things that he's said and

0:19:28.800 --> 0:19:31.840
<v Speaker 3>done in the past, he has the exact same violent

0:19:31.880 --> 0:19:35.600
<v Speaker 3>and authoritarian tendencies that Bobino did, and so they're just

0:19:35.680 --> 0:19:38.719
<v Speaker 3>switching people around. Bobino is a target right now. You know,

0:19:39.080 --> 0:19:41.040
<v Speaker 3>maybe that means something for the long term. It could

0:19:41.080 --> 0:19:43.400
<v Speaker 3>just be a short term, you know, until things quiet down.

0:19:43.920 --> 0:19:46.240
<v Speaker 3>I don't think people should feel good at all about

0:19:46.520 --> 0:19:48.720
<v Speaker 3>Homan coming in. I think they should feel good that

0:19:48.760 --> 0:19:50.440
<v Speaker 3>they've had some they've moved the need a little bit

0:19:50.520 --> 0:19:54.000
<v Speaker 3>on making the administration do something. But the administration is

0:19:54.040 --> 0:19:57.399
<v Speaker 3>going to be waiting to see whether sort of moving

0:19:57.520 --> 0:20:01.920
<v Speaker 3>people around will quiet people down. And what again, People

0:20:01.960 --> 0:20:05.320
<v Speaker 3>need to keep the pressure on until the actual behavior changes.

0:20:05.359 --> 0:20:08.400
<v Speaker 3>And there's nothing about home and the way he thinks

0:20:08.440 --> 0:20:10.480
<v Speaker 3>about these issues, the what he has done about these issues,

0:20:10.520 --> 0:20:12.359
<v Speaker 3>what he has said about these issues, that said that

0:20:12.400 --> 0:20:15.560
<v Speaker 3>he has a demonstrably different approach to immigration enforcement.

0:20:15.760 --> 0:20:18.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, thanks so much for joining me today, Christy. That's

0:20:18.440 --> 0:20:26.479
<v Speaker 1>Professor Christy Lopez of Georgetown Law. The Trump administration and

0:20:26.520 --> 0:20:30.679
<v Speaker 1>the California Republican Party are asking the Supreme Court to

0:20:30.800 --> 0:20:34.480
<v Speaker 1>block the state from using its new congressional map that

0:20:34.600 --> 0:20:39.680
<v Speaker 1>favors Democrats during this year's midterm elections. A lower court

0:20:39.760 --> 0:20:42.280
<v Speaker 1>said the new map is lawful and can be used

0:20:42.280 --> 0:20:45.960
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty six, rejecting a bid by the administration

0:20:46.119 --> 0:20:49.199
<v Speaker 1>and the California GOP to block the map on the

0:20:49.240 --> 0:20:53.119
<v Speaker 1>grounds that it was racially gerrymandered. The request seeks an

0:20:53.160 --> 0:20:56.800
<v Speaker 1>emergency order to block the map while the court considers

0:20:56.920 --> 0:20:59.959
<v Speaker 1>a full appeal of the decision. The state of californ

0:21:00.000 --> 0:21:04.879
<v Speaker 1>Ffornia has until January twenty ninth to respond. Joining me

0:21:04.920 --> 0:21:09.440
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg Legal reporter Madelen Mecklberg Madline tell us about

0:21:09.480 --> 0:21:12.920
<v Speaker 1>the California map and what happened in the lower court.

0:21:13.240 --> 0:21:18.280
<v Speaker 2>So California decided to redraw its congressional maps after Texas

0:21:18.680 --> 0:21:22.760
<v Speaker 2>undertook a similar effort at the request of President Trump.

0:21:22.800 --> 0:21:26.280
<v Speaker 2>And the idea behind California's maps is that they are

0:21:26.320 --> 0:21:30.600
<v Speaker 2>creating five new districts that will favor Democrats in an

0:21:30.640 --> 0:21:33.320
<v Speaker 2>attempt to counteract the five new districts that have been

0:21:33.359 --> 0:21:38.159
<v Speaker 2>added in Texas as a result of their redistricting effort. Now,

0:21:38.400 --> 0:21:41.240
<v Speaker 2>the maps in California were challenged by the state's Republican

0:21:41.320 --> 0:21:44.280
<v Speaker 2>Party and also by the Department of Justice. The Trump

0:21:44.320 --> 0:21:48.320
<v Speaker 2>administration and a lower court said that the maps were

0:21:48.359 --> 0:21:51.040
<v Speaker 2>allowed to stand for the election. They said that there's

0:21:51.080 --> 0:21:54.600
<v Speaker 2>no evidence that they were racially gerrymandered, and that the

0:21:54.680 --> 0:21:57.639
<v Speaker 2>effort was a purely political one and therefore the maps

0:21:57.640 --> 0:21:59.600
<v Speaker 2>are valid and should be used this year.

0:22:00.200 --> 0:22:02.320
<v Speaker 1>It sort of makes me laugh that the Department of

0:22:02.520 --> 0:22:05.720
<v Speaker 1>Justice is challenging this when it was President Trump and

0:22:05.760 --> 0:22:10.520
<v Speaker 1>the Trump administration that's been urging Republican states to redraw

0:22:10.600 --> 0:22:11.200
<v Speaker 1>their maps.

0:22:11.960 --> 0:22:14.439
<v Speaker 2>I think a lot of spectators who've been following this

0:22:14.640 --> 0:22:18.720
<v Speaker 2>feel Similarly, it's certainly we wouldn't be here in the

0:22:18.760 --> 0:22:22.919
<v Speaker 2>California case if Texas hadn't decided to redraw its maps

0:22:22.960 --> 0:22:25.920
<v Speaker 2>at Trump's request. And a lot of the same issues

0:22:25.960 --> 0:22:28.760
<v Speaker 2>have been presented in these cases. There's really not a

0:22:28.800 --> 0:22:31.639
<v Speaker 2>lot of daylight between them, and so the arguments are

0:22:31.640 --> 0:22:35.119
<v Speaker 2>really similar, and it's yes, definitely interesting to see the

0:22:35.119 --> 0:22:38.560
<v Speaker 2>administration on different sides of each of these cases.

0:22:38.880 --> 0:22:42.359
<v Speaker 1>What are the California Republicans saying, because I mean, I

0:22:42.400 --> 0:22:47.720
<v Speaker 1>can remember California Governor Gavin Newsom having press conferences where

0:22:47.720 --> 0:22:50.639
<v Speaker 1>he was urging them to, you know, we have to

0:22:50.680 --> 0:22:53.320
<v Speaker 1>do this in California because they did it in Texas.

0:22:53.800 --> 0:22:56.879
<v Speaker 1>What are they pointing to as evidence that it was

0:22:57.800 --> 0:22:59.560
<v Speaker 1>not done for political purposes?

0:23:00.720 --> 0:23:02.960
<v Speaker 2>Right? I think one of the main arguments that we've

0:23:02.960 --> 0:23:06.399
<v Speaker 2>seen from them in filings is that race has a

0:23:06.520 --> 0:23:10.959
<v Speaker 2>proxy here and that they're using this political argument in

0:23:11.160 --> 0:23:16.680
<v Speaker 2>order to actually do racial gerrymandering. They cited testimony from

0:23:17.200 --> 0:23:20.120
<v Speaker 2>one of the consultant map makers that the state used

0:23:20.119 --> 0:23:25.160
<v Speaker 2>when they were redrawing this redrawing these congressional districts, and

0:23:25.280 --> 0:23:28.720
<v Speaker 2>that individual said made reference to ensuring that there were

0:23:28.720 --> 0:23:31.880
<v Speaker 2>certain Latino districts that were bolstered in order to make

0:23:31.920 --> 0:23:35.639
<v Speaker 2>them more effective. And so what the GOP party in

0:23:35.680 --> 0:23:39.080
<v Speaker 2>California and the DOJ are arguing is that they are

0:23:39.280 --> 0:23:44.680
<v Speaker 2>using this guise of political retribution to redraw the maps

0:23:44.720 --> 0:23:47.080
<v Speaker 2>in order to actually racially gerrymander.

0:23:47.359 --> 0:23:49.960
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court cleared the way for Texas to use

0:23:50.119 --> 0:23:54.560
<v Speaker 1>those Republican drawn maps, and actually there was some mention

0:23:54.760 --> 0:23:57.200
<v Speaker 1>of California in that decision.

0:23:57.880 --> 0:24:01.320
<v Speaker 2>Right, So the way that redistricting came work is that

0:24:01.440 --> 0:24:04.000
<v Speaker 2>they're decided by a three judge panel at the lower

0:24:04.000 --> 0:24:07.760
<v Speaker 2>court level, and then there's no the appellate process just

0:24:07.840 --> 0:24:10.159
<v Speaker 2>skips over the circuit court and goes right to the

0:24:10.200 --> 0:24:14.000
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court. And so unlike traditional cases that come before

0:24:14.040 --> 0:24:17.000
<v Speaker 2>the High Court, there's no cert petition here. The Supreme

0:24:17.000 --> 0:24:21.119
<v Speaker 2>Court really has to answer to request for emergency action.

0:24:21.800 --> 0:24:24.080
<v Speaker 2>And so that's what we saw in the Texas case.

0:24:24.119 --> 0:24:27.119
<v Speaker 2>They said in their ruling, as you mentioned, they said

0:24:27.200 --> 0:24:30.320
<v Speaker 2>that it's clear that the Texas maps were drawn, they

0:24:30.320 --> 0:24:33.200
<v Speaker 2>were politically motivated, there was no evidence that there was

0:24:33.320 --> 0:24:37.359
<v Speaker 2>racial gerrymandering, and they made mention to California as a

0:24:37.400 --> 0:24:40.480
<v Speaker 2>comparable effort. They said, just like in California, where the

0:24:40.520 --> 0:24:44.720
<v Speaker 2>districts have been redrawn with politics in mind, and so

0:24:45.160 --> 0:24:47.479
<v Speaker 2>we've heard the Supreme Court weigh in on this before.

0:24:47.920 --> 0:24:51.280
<v Speaker 2>I think I don't think that we're expecting a lot

0:24:51.320 --> 0:24:53.560
<v Speaker 2>of surprise when we get a ruling from them. Of course,

0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:55.159
<v Speaker 2>you never know. I don't want to be in the

0:24:55.160 --> 0:24:57.720
<v Speaker 2>business of predicting what the Supreme Court is going to do,

0:24:58.280 --> 0:25:01.240
<v Speaker 2>but basically the case is are very similar. They have

0:25:01.400 --> 0:25:05.800
<v Speaker 2>acknowledged in this separate ruling that California is like Texas

0:25:05.840 --> 0:25:09.199
<v Speaker 2>in that they were drawn with politics as the motivating factor.

0:25:09.560 --> 0:25:13.760
<v Speaker 1>Redistricting efforts were being done with the mid term election

0:25:14.359 --> 0:25:18.119
<v Speaker 1>in mind. Let's start with Texas. I've been reading that

0:25:18.160 --> 0:25:21.560
<v Speaker 1>it's not a guarantee that Republican candidates would win all

0:25:21.720 --> 0:25:24.600
<v Speaker 1>five of the new Texas districts, right.

0:25:24.680 --> 0:25:28.480
<v Speaker 2>I think it's very early to try to say how

0:25:28.600 --> 0:25:30.480
<v Speaker 2>any of these races are going to shake out in

0:25:30.520 --> 0:25:34.000
<v Speaker 2>the midterms. But you're correct that the Texas maps, the

0:25:34.080 --> 0:25:38.320
<v Speaker 2>idea is that they've created five congressional districts in Texas

0:25:38.320 --> 0:25:42.400
<v Speaker 2>that are likely to go for Republicans. But I think

0:25:42.480 --> 0:25:45.840
<v Speaker 2>kind of given the current state of play, it's very

0:25:45.840 --> 0:25:48.840
<v Speaker 2>difficult to make any kind of predictions, and Texas is

0:25:48.840 --> 0:25:51.000
<v Speaker 2>a very unique place. I know it's easy to put

0:25:51.000 --> 0:25:53.400
<v Speaker 2>it in this red state bucket, but there's a ton

0:25:53.440 --> 0:25:56.800
<v Speaker 2>of diversity, and especially when we're talking about counties that

0:25:56.840 --> 0:26:00.720
<v Speaker 2>are around the border, it's not a garantee how they're

0:26:00.720 --> 0:26:03.480
<v Speaker 2>going to go in the race. And so I think

0:26:03.240 --> 0:26:06.560
<v Speaker 2>the bid there was that we're going to create five

0:26:06.840 --> 0:26:10.240
<v Speaker 2>additional safe Republican seats in the House, which is incredibly

0:26:10.240 --> 0:26:13.879
<v Speaker 2>important because at this point, Democrats need to gain just

0:26:14.000 --> 0:26:17.240
<v Speaker 2>three seats in order to have control of the House,

0:26:17.800 --> 0:26:21.040
<v Speaker 2>and so by having these five new Republican districts, they

0:26:21.040 --> 0:26:25.440
<v Speaker 2>would really be a roadblock to Democrats' efforts to take

0:26:25.480 --> 0:26:29.280
<v Speaker 2>control of the House. And that's where California comes into play,

0:26:29.359 --> 0:26:33.080
<v Speaker 2>where they drafted their maps as an attempt to neutralize

0:26:33.119 --> 0:26:37.080
<v Speaker 2>this effort in Texas, and they've created five Democratic seats

0:26:37.720 --> 0:26:39.920
<v Speaker 2>that they expect to go safely to their party. I

0:26:39.960 --> 0:26:42.880
<v Speaker 2>think it's a little more clear in California that those

0:26:42.920 --> 0:26:45.520
<v Speaker 2>seats will be safely Democratic. So this could have been

0:26:45.560 --> 0:26:50.880
<v Speaker 2>a miscalculation on the Republican's parts because California is set

0:26:50.920 --> 0:26:53.680
<v Speaker 2>to give five more Democrats seats in Congress if the

0:26:53.800 --> 0:26:56.720
<v Speaker 2>Supreme Court upholds these districts, but the same is not

0:26:56.920 --> 0:26:59.760
<v Speaker 2>necessarily a guarantee in Texas for the five seats that

0:26:59.800 --> 0:27:01.000
<v Speaker 2>they're seeking to create.

0:27:01.200 --> 0:27:05.480
<v Speaker 1>But there are other Republican states in play now or

0:27:05.600 --> 0:27:07.800
<v Speaker 1>trying to be in play. Tell us what other states

0:27:07.840 --> 0:27:08.680
<v Speaker 1>are doing.

0:27:08.960 --> 0:27:12.240
<v Speaker 2>That's right. There was just news earlier this month in

0:27:12.359 --> 0:27:15.520
<v Speaker 2>New York, a state court judge said that the state's

0:27:15.640 --> 0:27:19.480
<v Speaker 2>only Republican held congressional district needed to be redrawn because

0:27:19.480 --> 0:27:23.160
<v Speaker 2>it diluted black and Latino voters, and so Democrats are

0:27:23.200 --> 0:27:26.000
<v Speaker 2>now expected to pick up an additional House seat in

0:27:26.119 --> 0:27:30.560
<v Speaker 2>New York. And there's also the potential for Republicans to

0:27:30.600 --> 0:27:34.440
<v Speaker 2>pick up seats in Missouri and North Carolina and potentially

0:27:34.480 --> 0:27:38.760
<v Speaker 2>in Ohio in Florida as well as a result of redistricting,

0:27:39.080 --> 0:27:40.840
<v Speaker 2>but some of those are still up in the air.

0:27:40.840 --> 0:27:42.359
<v Speaker 2>That's an issue that we're going to get to a

0:27:42.359 --> 0:27:45.600
<v Speaker 2>little later this year. And then the Supreme Court is

0:27:45.640 --> 0:27:50.440
<v Speaker 2>also weighing this Voting Rights Act case relating to Louisiana's

0:27:50.480 --> 0:27:54.119
<v Speaker 2>congressional map, and a ruling that we get there could

0:27:54.119 --> 0:27:58.119
<v Speaker 2>potentially eliminate one of the state's majority black, heavily Democratic

0:27:58.119 --> 0:28:02.520
<v Speaker 2>congressional districts and could also prompt other states to take action. So,

0:28:03.040 --> 0:28:05.919
<v Speaker 2>although we're in the year of the midterm election and

0:28:05.960 --> 0:28:09.520
<v Speaker 2>it feels close but also very far, a lot is

0:28:09.600 --> 0:28:12.560
<v Speaker 2>still on the table and in play as we're talking

0:28:12.560 --> 0:28:14.520
<v Speaker 2>about how these races are going to shake out.

0:28:14.880 --> 0:28:18.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I'm wondering if suppose the Supreme Court doesn't come

0:28:18.040 --> 0:28:22.000
<v Speaker 1>down with a decision in that case until June, if

0:28:22.000 --> 0:28:25.720
<v Speaker 1>there would be enough time for the legislatures to ramp

0:28:25.800 --> 0:28:29.399
<v Speaker 1>up and do more redistricting. The time seems really tight,

0:28:29.720 --> 0:28:31.320
<v Speaker 1>but it is.

0:28:31.480 --> 0:28:33.880
<v Speaker 2>It's tight, and it's hard to say with any certainty

0:28:33.960 --> 0:28:40.000
<v Speaker 2>because this is a redistricting is the responsibility of state legislatures,

0:28:40.080 --> 0:28:45.680
<v Speaker 2>and while they tend to follow similar procedures for doing that,

0:28:46.160 --> 0:28:48.880
<v Speaker 2>every state is different and has slightly different rules and

0:28:48.960 --> 0:28:52.040
<v Speaker 2>slightly different approaches to how they do this, and so

0:28:52.200 --> 0:28:55.920
<v Speaker 2>those local rules and regulations could also factor into whether

0:28:55.960 --> 0:28:58.959
<v Speaker 2>there's enough time to make anything happen by the election.

0:29:00.040 --> 0:29:02.800
<v Speaker 1>Let's turn to another topic, and that's the social media

0:29:02.840 --> 0:29:08.360
<v Speaker 1>addiction trial that's starting in Los Angeles, and TikTok on

0:29:08.480 --> 0:29:11.440
<v Speaker 1>the eve of trial is settling.

0:29:12.400 --> 0:29:15.600
<v Speaker 2>The last number we got is that there's roughly twenty

0:29:15.600 --> 0:29:19.720
<v Speaker 2>five hundred people individuals, family members that are part of

0:29:19.760 --> 0:29:23.840
<v Speaker 2>this bucket of personal injury cases. And so that's either

0:29:24.120 --> 0:29:29.240
<v Speaker 2>individuals suing or family members of individuals suing saying they

0:29:29.440 --> 0:29:33.840
<v Speaker 2>personally suffered harms because of the design of these social

0:29:33.880 --> 0:29:37.920
<v Speaker 2>media platforms. And so this is a settlement with one

0:29:38.040 --> 0:29:41.800
<v Speaker 2>individual plaintiff. But this plaintiff is the very first to

0:29:41.880 --> 0:29:45.120
<v Speaker 2>go to trial of these thousands of cases, and she's

0:29:45.160 --> 0:29:48.520
<v Speaker 2>part of this bell Weather category of cases where the

0:29:48.600 --> 0:29:52.400
<v Speaker 2>outcome of these trials, whether it's through settlements or verdicts

0:29:52.400 --> 0:29:54.920
<v Speaker 2>from the jury, is going to inform how the rest

0:29:54.920 --> 0:29:57.280
<v Speaker 2>of these thousands of cases get resolved.

0:29:58.320 --> 0:30:02.440
<v Speaker 1>But to be clear, the social media case is starting

0:30:02.480 --> 0:30:03.440
<v Speaker 1>this week.

0:30:03.440 --> 0:30:08.240
<v Speaker 2>That's correct. Today was jury selection in that very first trial.

0:30:08.680 --> 0:30:12.360
<v Speaker 2>The plaintiff there has reached settlement agreements with snap snap

0:30:12.360 --> 0:30:16.960
<v Speaker 2>first Snapchat, and with TikTok, but her claims against Meta's

0:30:17.080 --> 0:30:21.080
<v Speaker 2>Facebook and Instagram and Google's YouTube are still alive and

0:30:21.120 --> 0:30:24.040
<v Speaker 2>still will go before the jury unless there's some kind

0:30:24.040 --> 0:30:27.040
<v Speaker 2>of a chord reached with those individual defendants as well.

0:30:27.640 --> 0:30:29.880
<v Speaker 1>And of course we don't know how much was paid

0:30:29.920 --> 0:30:30.600
<v Speaker 1>in the settlement.

0:30:30.680 --> 0:30:33.800
<v Speaker 2>I take it no, don't the terms of the specific

0:30:33.840 --> 0:30:36.640
<v Speaker 2>agreements that have not been made public at this point,

0:30:36.680 --> 0:30:40.240
<v Speaker 2>but there's been a lot of analysis done. This personal

0:30:40.280 --> 0:30:43.239
<v Speaker 2>injury bucket of cases is just one. There's also been

0:30:43.360 --> 0:30:46.920
<v Speaker 2>lawsuits filed by school districts and by state attorneys general.

0:30:47.400 --> 0:30:50.200
<v Speaker 2>And I know that a Bloomberg intelligence analyst who's been

0:30:50.200 --> 0:30:54.880
<v Speaker 2>following these cases, he's estimated that there's a multi billion

0:30:55.000 --> 0:30:58.680
<v Speaker 2>dollar liability here for the social media companies in terms

0:30:58.680 --> 0:31:02.719
<v Speaker 2>of the potential for or settlements or payouts in trials

0:31:02.880 --> 0:31:06.000
<v Speaker 2>as all of these cases move forward. But you know,

0:31:06.040 --> 0:31:08.320
<v Speaker 2>that's very far down the road. We're at the very

0:31:08.320 --> 0:31:11.120
<v Speaker 2>beginning of a long process here that could see that out.

0:31:11.680 --> 0:31:14.480
<v Speaker 1>And this is the first time these kinds of claims

0:31:14.520 --> 0:31:17.600
<v Speaker 1>are going to go before a jury. I mean, we've

0:31:17.640 --> 0:31:20.880
<v Speaker 1>heard them in congressional investigations. But tell us why that

0:31:20.920 --> 0:31:22.320
<v Speaker 1>makes a difference.

0:31:22.280 --> 0:31:25.280
<v Speaker 2>Because so far they've been able to use Section two

0:31:25.440 --> 0:31:28.280
<v Speaker 2>thirty to argue that they shouldn't be held liable for

0:31:28.400 --> 0:31:32.000
<v Speaker 2>content on their platforms. But that's what's unique about these

0:31:32.080 --> 0:31:36.040
<v Speaker 2>cases is the argument is about the fact that these

0:31:36.080 --> 0:31:40.200
<v Speaker 2>plaintiffs believe that the social media platforms intentionally designed their

0:31:40.240 --> 0:31:43.600
<v Speaker 2>products to be addictive. So it's about design features and

0:31:43.720 --> 0:31:47.360
<v Speaker 2>not about content that's being produced on the website. So

0:31:47.520 --> 0:31:49.640
<v Speaker 2>it's kind of a unique pathway to get them to court.

0:31:49.720 --> 0:31:53.160
<v Speaker 2>And we are expecting Mark Zuckerberg to testify at some

0:31:53.200 --> 0:31:54.120
<v Speaker 2>point during the trial.

0:31:54.720 --> 0:31:57.600
<v Speaker 1>After all the times he's testified, he might qualify as

0:31:57.600 --> 0:32:01.600
<v Speaker 1>an expert witness soon. Thanks so much, Mad. That's Bloomberg

0:32:01.680 --> 0:32:04.960
<v Speaker 1>Legal reporter Madelein Mecklberg, and that's it for this edition

0:32:05.000 --> 0:32:07.640
<v Speaker 1>of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

0:32:07.680 --> 0:32:10.800
<v Speaker 1>the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You

0:32:10.840 --> 0:32:14.960
<v Speaker 1>can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

0:32:15.080 --> 0:32:19.360
<v Speaker 1>dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember

0:32:19.400 --> 0:32:22.360
<v Speaker 1>to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

0:32:22.360 --> 0:32:25.840
<v Speaker 1>ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

0:32:25.920 --> 0:32:27.160
<v Speaker 1>listening to Bloomberg