1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,520
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:10,520
Speaker 1: We've won. Let me tell it.

3
00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:11,040
Speaker 2: We've won.

4
00:00:12,160 --> 00:00:14,680
Speaker 1: You know, you'd never like to say too early. You won.

5
00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:17,040
Speaker 1: We won the best in the first hour, it was over.

6
00:00:17,480 --> 00:00:18,360
Speaker 2: They don't know what.

7
00:00:18,600 --> 00:00:20,680
Speaker 1: The hell hit them, right, they.

8
00:00:20,560 --> 00:00:21,240
Speaker 3: Don't know.

9
00:00:23,239 --> 00:00:27,080
Speaker 4: They got hit by the American military.

10
00:00:27,120 --> 00:00:27,639
Speaker 1: They don't know.

11
00:00:27,720 --> 00:00:31,120
Speaker 4: They say, what the hell is happening? They didn't expect

12
00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:32,040
Speaker 4: anything like this.

13
00:00:33,040 --> 00:00:39,839
Speaker 2: They are absolutely being destroyed. Iran is being absolutely decimated.

14
00:00:40,800 --> 00:00:46,559
Speaker 3: Just yesterday, President Trump again declared victory over Iran, despite

15
00:00:46,600 --> 00:00:50,600
Speaker 3: the war entering its thirteenth day with no end in sight,

16
00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:55,400
Speaker 3: and as American and Israeli strikes pound the Islamic Republic

17
00:00:55,760 --> 00:01:00,360
Speaker 3: and Iran attacks Persian Gulf shipping and energy infrastructs RUTURE,

18
00:01:00,840 --> 00:01:05,399
Speaker 3: oil prices are soaring. The war costs the US eleven

19
00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:09,640
Speaker 3: point three billion dollars in the first week alone, and

20
00:01:09,760 --> 00:01:15,280
Speaker 3: Democratic lawmakers like Senator Tammy Baldwin have expressed concerns about

21
00:01:15,319 --> 00:01:18,640
Speaker 3: its legality after getting classified briefings.

22
00:01:19,720 --> 00:01:21,560
Speaker 1: We were not under attack.

23
00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:25,680
Speaker 2: We were not even under imminent threat of attack, which.

24
00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:29,640
Speaker 1: Means this is a war of choice, and it means.

25
00:01:29,319 --> 00:01:34,360
Speaker 2: That the president has violated both the Constitution and law

26
00:01:34,400 --> 00:01:35,840
Speaker 2: to go to war.

27
00:01:36,440 --> 00:01:40,880
Speaker 3: So is the Trump administration waging an illegal war against

28
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:45,640
Speaker 3: Duran under US law or international law? Joining me to

29
00:01:45,680 --> 00:01:50,480
Speaker 3: answer that question is an expert in international law, cal Rostiella,

30
00:01:50,680 --> 00:01:53,960
Speaker 3: a professor at UCLA Law School and director of the

31
00:01:54,040 --> 00:02:01,080
Speaker 3: UCLA Ronald W. Burkele Center for International Relations. Under the Constitution,

32
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:06,560
Speaker 3: the president commands the armed forces and directs foreign relations,

33
00:02:06,640 --> 00:02:11,080
Speaker 3: but only Congress has the power to declare war. So

34
00:02:11,360 --> 00:02:14,519
Speaker 3: is the Iran war illegal under US law?

35
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 1: First? Thanks for having me on.

36
00:02:16,520 --> 00:02:19,919
Speaker 4: I would say that yes, it's correct that Congress is

37
00:02:20,000 --> 00:02:22,960
Speaker 4: empowered to declare war under the Constitution. But Congress has

38
00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:26,640
Speaker 4: only done so five times in American history, and we've

39
00:02:26,720 --> 00:02:29,880
Speaker 4: used force over two hundred times, so it's pretty well

40
00:02:29,960 --> 00:02:33,000
Speaker 4: established that there's lots of uses of force that the

41
00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:36,640
Speaker 4: president can engage in without a declaration of war. And

42
00:02:36,680 --> 00:02:40,120
Speaker 4: in fact, in the post un Charter world, a declaration

43
00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:42,840
Speaker 4: of war doesn't even really make sense. The system is

44
00:02:42,880 --> 00:02:46,320
Speaker 4: predicated on the idea of self defense as the main

45
00:02:46,520 --> 00:02:48,959
Speaker 4: rationale for the use of force. But in any event,

46
00:02:49,000 --> 00:02:51,000
Speaker 4: the main thing is what's the role of Congress in this?

47
00:02:51,200 --> 00:02:55,080
Speaker 4: And I think in many other instances, we see Congress

48
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:58,560
Speaker 4: doing something short of a declaration, like an authorization of

49
00:02:58,600 --> 00:03:00,880
Speaker 4: some kind. You go back to the Gulf of Tonkin

50
00:03:00,960 --> 00:03:04,080
Speaker 4: resolution during the Vietnam War, or the authorization to use

51
00:03:04,080 --> 00:03:07,480
Speaker 4: a military force before the Iraq War two thousand and

52
00:03:07,520 --> 00:03:10,760
Speaker 4: one in Afghanistan. And so it is often the case

53
00:03:10,760 --> 00:03:14,760
Speaker 4: that Congress plays some supportive role short of a declaration.

54
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:16,600
Speaker 4: We obviously don't have that here.

55
00:03:16,760 --> 00:03:20,560
Speaker 3: And so then would you say that this is not

56
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:23,080
Speaker 3: legal under US law?

57
00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:25,160
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say it's not legal.

58
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:29,160
Speaker 4: It's difficult to answer that because the parameters of Congress's

59
00:03:29,240 --> 00:03:30,640
Speaker 4: powers and the president's.

60
00:03:30,200 --> 00:03:33,440
Speaker 1: Powers have sort of evolved over time.

61
00:03:33,480 --> 00:03:35,800
Speaker 4: I mean, even the Framing generation understood the idea that

62
00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:37,440
Speaker 4: the president had the authority to.

63
00:03:37,640 --> 00:03:38,880
Speaker 1: Repel sudden attacks.

64
00:03:39,800 --> 00:03:42,880
Speaker 4: What exactly that means and what role Congress should play

65
00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:45,400
Speaker 4: has been sort of a bit of a struggle, a

66
00:03:45,440 --> 00:03:48,080
Speaker 4: bit of a dance between the two branches. All of

67
00:03:48,120 --> 00:03:50,560
Speaker 4: that said, I think, you know, it is certainly a

68
00:03:50,640 --> 00:03:54,440
Speaker 4: kind of customary practice generally to seek some degree of

69
00:03:54,480 --> 00:03:58,040
Speaker 4: Congressional approval. But it's also the case that the executive

70
00:03:58,040 --> 00:03:59,800
Speaker 4: branch has always resisted the idea that they have to

71
00:03:59,840 --> 00:04:03,120
Speaker 4: do it and so you mentioned the Warpowers Act, that

72
00:04:03,240 --> 00:04:06,320
Speaker 4: was a nineteen seventies era maybe a high point of

73
00:04:06,360 --> 00:04:09,840
Speaker 4: Congress's attempt to claw back some of its control and

74
00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:12,920
Speaker 4: the wake of President Nixon and the kind of idea

75
00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:14,440
Speaker 4: that the presidency was a bit wayward.

76
00:04:14,880 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 1: But the executive branch has always been.

77
00:04:16,400 --> 00:04:19,039
Speaker 4: Resistant to it and always kind of argued either that

78
00:04:19,080 --> 00:04:21,360
Speaker 4: it doesn't apply, or it isn't fully legal, or they're

79
00:04:21,360 --> 00:04:24,039
Speaker 4: providing information but they don't have to. They've given different

80
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:26,719
Speaker 4: articulations over time, but they don't like it, and they

81
00:04:26,760 --> 00:04:29,600
Speaker 4: don't feel that they're really forced to do a lot

82
00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:30,880
Speaker 4: of things that congressponds to do.

83
00:04:30,960 --> 00:04:32,200
Speaker 1: So it's really hard.

84
00:04:32,040 --> 00:04:36,320
Speaker 4: To say whether this is fully a violation without Congress

85
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:39,280
Speaker 4: actually asserting itself in some way. It's more of an

86
00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:42,320
Speaker 4: invitation to struggle in a sense between these two branches

87
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:44,560
Speaker 4: rather than clear, brightline rules.

88
00:04:45,240 --> 00:04:49,680
Speaker 3: But Congress could vote to withdraw the military from the

89
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:51,839
Speaker 3: conflict if the votes were there.

90
00:04:52,240 --> 00:04:55,240
Speaker 4: I mean, ultimately, Congress's power prefaces by saying I'm not

91
00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:58,800
Speaker 4: a constitutional lawyer, I'm an international lawyer. But Congress's powers

92
00:04:58,839 --> 00:05:01,679
Speaker 4: are ultimately more We're in the realm of yes budget

93
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:04,920
Speaker 4: and control over spending and appropriations and things like that.

94
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:08,240
Speaker 4: The president is the commander in chief, so Congress can't,

95
00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:11,760
Speaker 4: as I understand it, command that the troops return. They

96
00:05:11,760 --> 00:05:15,640
Speaker 4: can certainly give their opinion about things that relate to

97
00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:18,400
Speaker 4: the use of force or the military. Just as an example,

98
00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:22,360
Speaker 4: sort of unrelated to this particular instance, but it has

99
00:05:22,360 --> 00:05:25,200
Speaker 4: some relevance. A year or two ago, Congress passed a

100
00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:28,120
Speaker 4: law about withdrawing from NATO and essentially saying, you know,

101
00:05:28,160 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 4: we don't support this without our approval. So those are

102
00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:35,160
Speaker 4: statements that Congress can use to indicate its preferences, which

103
00:05:35,240 --> 00:05:37,640
Speaker 4: might be relevant to a court decision and some future date.

104
00:05:37,960 --> 00:05:40,400
Speaker 4: But it's really the president's job as commander in chief

105
00:05:40,520 --> 00:05:43,320
Speaker 4: to command the troops. But Congress does have the power

106
00:05:43,360 --> 00:05:45,599
Speaker 4: of the purse and can use that. It's just not

107
00:05:45,800 --> 00:05:49,240
Speaker 4: very effective short term. And of course, whatever the congressional

108
00:05:49,279 --> 00:05:53,120
Speaker 4: powers might be, this Congress, and really every Congress of

109
00:05:53,120 --> 00:05:56,400
Speaker 4: the last I don't know, fifty plus years, has shown

110
00:05:56,600 --> 00:05:59,720
Speaker 4: very little interest in actually exerting itself as a general

111
00:05:59,760 --> 00:06:01,560
Speaker 4: math visa via the president.

112
00:06:01,880 --> 00:06:05,040
Speaker 3: What about international law does the Iran war violate?

113
00:06:05,160 --> 00:06:06,880
Speaker 1: That also a difficult question.

114
00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:10,200
Speaker 4: I would say most international lawyers outside the US government

115
00:06:10,360 --> 00:06:13,800
Speaker 4: and maybe outside state departments and foreign ministries generally would

116
00:06:13,839 --> 00:06:16,839
Speaker 4: say yes. The framework that's laid out in the UN

117
00:06:16,920 --> 00:06:20,960
Speaker 4: Charter is essentially that you can use force if an

118
00:06:21,040 --> 00:06:23,960
Speaker 4: armed attack occurs, and then there's a kind of secondary

119
00:06:24,040 --> 00:06:26,560
Speaker 4: question about what if it's about to occur, about the

120
00:06:26,600 --> 00:06:29,239
Speaker 4: imminence to mention of that, or you can use force

121
00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:32,200
Speaker 4: if the Security Council authorizes it, And those are the

122
00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:37,600
Speaker 4: only two instances, and neither of those are true here

123
00:06:37,720 --> 00:06:40,159
Speaker 4: in the view of I think the majority of international

124
00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:44,240
Speaker 4: lawyers around the world, again outside governments, outside the US government,

125
00:06:44,279 --> 00:06:46,160
Speaker 4: the Israeli government, maybe some other government. So one of

126
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:50,000
Speaker 4: the interesting features about this particular conflict is a bit

127
00:06:50,080 --> 00:06:54,040
Speaker 4: like the Maduro raid earlier this year, there's not an

128
00:06:54,200 --> 00:06:58,960
Speaker 4: enormous amount of opprobrium headed in the direction of the US.

129
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:01,880
Speaker 4: So there is some, of course, but there's more approval

130
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:04,640
Speaker 4: or acquiescence than you might have expected, and I think

131
00:07:04,640 --> 00:07:08,040
Speaker 4: that partly reflects the fact that in both of those cases,

132
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:11,480
Speaker 4: Venezuela in Iran, these are states that are not widely liked,

133
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:14,440
Speaker 4: that are generally viewed as bad actors, and so politically

134
00:07:14,480 --> 00:07:17,240
Speaker 4: it's more difficult, but it's also the case that there's

135
00:07:17,280 --> 00:07:20,240
Speaker 4: an argument that the US, certainly I think is making

136
00:07:20,240 --> 00:07:22,800
Speaker 4: and will make. The administration is not great at making

137
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:25,360
Speaker 4: its case. In fact, they really have not made much

138
00:07:25,400 --> 00:07:27,080
Speaker 4: of an effort at all to do that. But to

139
00:07:27,120 --> 00:07:29,320
Speaker 4: degree they have, it's sort of sounding in some kind

140
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:32,200
Speaker 4: of self defense rationale, and you can make the argument.

141
00:07:32,720 --> 00:07:34,360
Speaker 4: I don't know if it's soally persuasive, but you can

142
00:07:34,360 --> 00:07:36,240
Speaker 4: make the argument that we are in a long term

143
00:07:36,280 --> 00:07:41,280
Speaker 4: conflict with eramic dates back decades, and that in a

144
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:44,680
Speaker 4: sense is the continuation of an ongoing conflict rather than

145
00:07:44,680 --> 00:07:48,600
Speaker 4: a new conflict. If you accept that idea, then it

146
00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:50,880
Speaker 4: can be seen as lawful. I think it's a stretch,

147
00:07:51,280 --> 00:07:55,520
Speaker 4: but there isn't really clear rules about that about how

148
00:07:55,600 --> 00:07:58,200
Speaker 4: much time passes before a conflict is over.

149
00:07:58,680 --> 00:08:02,320
Speaker 3: Aren't there strict legal rep requirements for whether it's considered

150
00:08:02,400 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 3: self defense under Article fifty one of the UN Charter?

151
00:08:07,040 --> 00:08:10,160
Speaker 3: You know whether you actually need an armed attack, not

152
00:08:10,520 --> 00:08:12,400
Speaker 3: just a potential threat.

153
00:08:12,640 --> 00:08:14,800
Speaker 4: Yes, I mean, the black Letter law is pretty clear

154
00:08:14,920 --> 00:08:19,120
Speaker 4: that if an armed attack occurs, you have a customer

155
00:08:19,200 --> 00:08:22,440
Speaker 4: international law and a treaty based un Charter based right.

156
00:08:22,320 --> 00:08:24,760
Speaker 1: Of self defense. And that could be collective or individual.

157
00:08:24,840 --> 00:08:27,000
Speaker 4: In other words, you know, you could protect an ally

158
00:08:27,360 --> 00:08:29,920
Speaker 4: and vice versa, which obviously has relevance for Israel in

159
00:08:29,920 --> 00:08:33,640
Speaker 4: the United States, but if an armed attack occurs, that

160
00:08:33,800 --> 00:08:36,360
Speaker 4: language in the UN Charter makes it sound as if

161
00:08:36,400 --> 00:08:38,960
Speaker 4: you have to wait for the attack. But it's long

162
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:41,400
Speaker 4: that understood, dating back to the nineteenth century, that that's

163
00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:46,040
Speaker 4: not the case, and that an imminent attack is sufficient

164
00:08:46,160 --> 00:08:49,200
Speaker 4: grounds for engaging in self defense. Now, the question of

165
00:08:49,240 --> 00:08:53,520
Speaker 4: how imminent has been a difficult one. Obviously, you know,

166
00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:55,800
Speaker 4: just conceptually, it's not really clear. What does that mean

167
00:08:55,880 --> 00:08:57,800
Speaker 4: is does the missiles have to be in the air

168
00:08:57,880 --> 00:09:01,480
Speaker 4: or something like that. Over time, especially in the last

169
00:09:01,640 --> 00:09:03,559
Speaker 4: let's say a couple of decades, this was relevant for

170
00:09:03,600 --> 00:09:06,880
Speaker 4: the Iraq War. The position the US has taken has

171
00:09:06,960 --> 00:09:11,439
Speaker 4: been to extend the time period of imminence such that

172
00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:14,440
Speaker 4: it's more in the role of preemptive war or even

173
00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:18,559
Speaker 4: preventive war, and that isn't widely accepted, but I think

174
00:09:18,559 --> 00:09:21,000
Speaker 4: it's fair to say that a lot of states do

175
00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:24,000
Speaker 4: sort of agree that you can't in a time of

176
00:09:24,360 --> 00:09:27,760
Speaker 4: let's say, high technology with warfare, weapons of mass destruction, etc.

177
00:09:28,440 --> 00:09:32,520
Speaker 4: You can't really wait till the attack is ongoing or

178
00:09:32,559 --> 00:09:34,440
Speaker 4: even about to be launched, you may need to act

179
00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:37,520
Speaker 4: a bit beforehand. But you know, that's a very slippery slope,

180
00:09:37,679 --> 00:09:40,520
Speaker 4: and many international lawyers find that concerning. And of course

181
00:09:40,600 --> 00:09:43,320
Speaker 4: most countries in the world are going to find a

182
00:09:43,520 --> 00:09:46,400
Speaker 4: rule like that concerning because they are much more likely.

183
00:09:46,240 --> 00:09:48,880
Speaker 1: To be attacked than to be attacking. So they worry

184
00:09:48,920 --> 00:09:49,240
Speaker 1: about that.

185
00:09:49,600 --> 00:09:53,640
Speaker 3: You mentioned President Trump or the administration not really putting

186
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:57,200
Speaker 3: its case forward. There's been all this mixed messaging with

187
00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:00,680
Speaker 3: the President saying, you know, this is war wonted and

188
00:10:00,720 --> 00:10:04,240
Speaker 3: then talking about an excursion. This is an excursion.

189
00:10:04,760 --> 00:10:08,640
Speaker 1: That's not a legal phrase. In case you're wondering.

190
00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:11,440
Speaker 3: No, I was sort of stunned by an excursion. What

191
00:10:11,480 --> 00:10:13,960
Speaker 3: are we talking about here? I mean, do you see

192
00:10:13,960 --> 00:10:16,520
Speaker 3: a message at all here as to why we're in

193
00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:19,920
Speaker 3: the situation we're in, why we struck you're in.

194
00:10:20,840 --> 00:10:22,760
Speaker 4: Well, there's sort of two things embedded in that question.

195
00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:25,119
Speaker 4: I think what is the nature of this conflict?

196
00:10:25,520 --> 00:10:26,760
Speaker 1: I think they do not know.

197
00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:31,400
Speaker 4: In this administration, they're obviously chaotic in their decision making processes.

198
00:10:31,440 --> 00:10:34,600
Speaker 4: It's not really clear at all what was driving other

199
00:10:34,679 --> 00:10:40,560
Speaker 4: than some combination of opportunistic advantage that they saw, you know,

200
00:10:40,640 --> 00:10:43,400
Speaker 4: possibly pressure from allies, other things like that. We don't

201
00:10:43,440 --> 00:10:46,160
Speaker 4: really know. Is it war, is it something short of war?

202
00:10:46,240 --> 00:10:49,840
Speaker 4: Obviously they're uncomfortable with using the term war outside the

203
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:52,960
Speaker 4: of office, but the President continues to use it excursion.

204
00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:56,520
Speaker 4: I think he misunderstood incursion or who knows what he's doing.

205
00:10:56,679 --> 00:10:58,959
Speaker 4: That one doesn't really make sense in terms of why

206
00:10:59,000 --> 00:11:02,480
Speaker 4: they are doing it. You know that too. They haven't

207
00:11:02,559 --> 00:11:06,520
Speaker 4: really offered a consistent rationality. I think anyone who's followed

208
00:11:06,559 --> 00:11:11,920
Speaker 4: the news knows that the rationales have changed by the day,

209
00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:15,360
Speaker 4: sometimes within a day, and also by who's speaking. We've

210
00:11:15,360 --> 00:11:18,160
Speaker 4: heard different things from different members of the administration. So

211
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:20,560
Speaker 4: I think we actually do not really know, and there

212
00:11:20,600 --> 00:11:23,480
Speaker 4: may not be an answer about what the real reasons

213
00:11:23,480 --> 00:11:26,000
Speaker 4: are because it might be multiple reasons that are somewhat conflicting.

214
00:11:26,360 --> 00:11:31,600
Speaker 3: So there are reports that Iran maybe planning to retaliate

215
00:11:31,800 --> 00:11:36,240
Speaker 3: against the US with drone strikes in California. How would

216
00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:37,920
Speaker 3: international law view that?

217
00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:42,480
Speaker 4: Yeah, we got an email at UCLA about that possibility,

218
00:11:42,520 --> 00:11:45,440
Speaker 4: So that's circulated widely. I have to say it seems,

219
00:11:45,520 --> 00:11:47,719
Speaker 4: you know, maybe a bit far fetched, but Iran has

220
00:11:47,760 --> 00:11:50,600
Speaker 4: shown that it has power to take actions either through

221
00:11:50,600 --> 00:11:53,240
Speaker 4: itself or its proxies in other places, so it's not

222
00:11:53,320 --> 00:11:56,360
Speaker 4: to be dismissed completely. You know, it would all depend

223
00:11:56,520 --> 00:11:58,680
Speaker 4: under the laws of war. If we are in fact

224
00:11:58,720 --> 00:12:01,560
Speaker 4: in a conflict, then Iran can attack us as we

225
00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:05,600
Speaker 4: are attacking them, but you can't attack civilians. You can't

226
00:12:05,640 --> 00:12:10,960
Speaker 4: deliberately attack target civilians, and so those same rules would

227
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:15,960
Speaker 4: apply on either side. Deliberate targeting of civilians is not permitted.

228
00:12:16,040 --> 00:12:18,000
Speaker 4: You know, there's a bunch of rules about proportionality and

229
00:12:18,040 --> 00:12:21,280
Speaker 4: distinction and so forth. Complicated set of rules that sometimes

230
00:12:21,520 --> 00:12:24,400
Speaker 4: can seem academic when you actually apply them to real cases.

231
00:12:24,400 --> 00:12:27,800
Speaker 4: But either way, drone strikes against a school or a

232
00:12:27,800 --> 00:12:31,440
Speaker 4: hospital or something like that randomly in California, no, that

233
00:12:31,480 --> 00:12:34,400
Speaker 4: would be a violation. But against a military target, if

234
00:12:34,400 --> 00:12:36,560
Speaker 4: we are in fact in an armed conflict, then that's

235
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:39,959
Speaker 4: part of war, as you do attack military installations. And

236
00:12:40,080 --> 00:12:42,680
Speaker 4: for example, the ship that was targeted by the United

237
00:12:42,720 --> 00:12:46,240
Speaker 4: States thousands of miles from Iran and sung would be

238
00:12:46,280 --> 00:12:48,640
Speaker 4: an example of an attack like that wasn't a drone,

239
00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:49,920
Speaker 4: but it's the same idea.

240
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:53,000
Speaker 3: So then how would you characterize the strike on the

241
00:12:53,000 --> 00:12:57,160
Speaker 3: girls elementary school in southern Iran that killed one hundred

242
00:12:57,160 --> 00:12:59,559
Speaker 3: and sixty five children and teachers.

243
00:13:00,240 --> 00:13:02,760
Speaker 4: So that appears to have been the United States. The

244
00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:06,800
Speaker 4: evidence seems pretty strong on that. If it's true that

245
00:13:06,920 --> 00:13:09,920
Speaker 4: it was deliberately targeted, obviously a violation.

246
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:12,280
Speaker 1: Sometimes schools have been attacked.

247
00:13:12,320 --> 00:13:15,280
Speaker 4: This is an ongoing issue in for example, Gaza and

248
00:13:15,320 --> 00:13:19,040
Speaker 4: other conflicts where there are fighters embedded in a school

249
00:13:19,080 --> 00:13:21,679
Speaker 4: or a hospital or something like that, which can make

250
00:13:21,720 --> 00:13:24,200
Speaker 4: it a legitimate target, but it's subject still to some

251
00:13:24,240 --> 00:13:26,840
Speaker 4: special protections. That does not appear to be the case

252
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:29,959
Speaker 4: here as I understand it. Again, it's a fast moving issue.

253
00:13:29,960 --> 00:13:31,720
Speaker 4: There's a lot we don't know. But if there was

254
00:13:31,800 --> 00:13:34,400
Speaker 4: no military value to that target and it was simply hit,

255
00:13:34,880 --> 00:13:36,000
Speaker 4: that would be impermissible.

256
00:13:36,160 --> 00:13:41,679
Speaker 3: Absolutely broading this out. There's been a string of unilateral

257
00:13:41,880 --> 00:13:47,320
Speaker 3: military actions taken by the Trump administration since December of

258
00:13:47,360 --> 00:13:52,160
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five. The US bomb Nigeria, shot and killed

259
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:56,600
Speaker 3: drug smugglers in the Caribbean, and the Pacific attacked Venezuela

260
00:13:56,679 --> 00:14:01,760
Speaker 3: and kidnapped its president, and now attacked arend Would those

261
00:14:01,800 --> 00:14:07,160
Speaker 3: strikes be considered a violation of international law?

262
00:14:07,640 --> 00:14:11,400
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean it's an amazing string of events, disturbing string.

263
00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:17,040
Speaker 4: Some of them are really blatant violations of international law. So,

264
00:14:17,040 --> 00:14:19,920
Speaker 4: for example, the boat strikes would maybe be the most

265
00:14:19,960 --> 00:14:23,320
Speaker 4: blatant in the sense that really they haven't even offered

266
00:14:23,360 --> 00:14:27,200
Speaker 4: a very coherent argument about it. But taking out those

267
00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:30,040
Speaker 4: are civilians by almost all accounts, Again, it's not like

268
00:14:30,120 --> 00:14:33,960
Speaker 4: we're not actually in a conflict with cartels. So that's

269
00:14:34,040 --> 00:14:36,920
Speaker 4: maybe the most extreme kind of clear case.

270
00:14:37,000 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 1: And then maybe.

271
00:14:37,480 --> 00:14:39,160
Speaker 4: Iran might be at the other end if you buy

272
00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:41,640
Speaker 4: the argument that we're in some kind of long standing

273
00:14:41,680 --> 00:14:44,600
Speaker 4: conflict that's continuing on. But when you put them all together,

274
00:14:45,000 --> 00:14:46,840
Speaker 4: stepping out of the law for a second, obviously, the

275
00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:50,880
Speaker 4: political pattern is really striking and disturbing for a number

276
00:14:50,880 --> 00:14:55,280
Speaker 4: of reasons. One because the United States is increasingly using

277
00:14:55,320 --> 00:14:59,360
Speaker 4: force abroad in ways that are I think upsetting to

278
00:14:59,440 --> 00:15:02,720
Speaker 4: many states. It's violating many rules of international law and

279
00:15:02,800 --> 00:15:05,160
Speaker 4: violating just many norms of behavior.

280
00:15:04,800 --> 00:15:06,280
Speaker 1: Whether they're legal or not.

281
00:15:06,600 --> 00:15:09,000
Speaker 4: A good example would be threatening Greenland, even if that

282
00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:11,760
Speaker 4: was not a serious threat, sort of an offhand threat

283
00:15:11,840 --> 00:15:13,640
Speaker 4: or something like that. First of all, you're not allowed

284
00:15:13,680 --> 00:15:16,000
Speaker 4: to threaten to use force under the UN Charter. That's

285
00:15:16,000 --> 00:15:19,000
Speaker 4: also a violation. But regardless of whether the threat was

286
00:15:19,040 --> 00:15:21,680
Speaker 4: really a serious one or not, just the very idea

287
00:15:22,280 --> 00:15:25,560
Speaker 4: that a NATO ally would be subjected to some kind

288
00:15:25,560 --> 00:15:29,360
Speaker 4: of threat is really shocking and was shocking to many of.

289
00:15:29,360 --> 00:15:30,320
Speaker 1: Our closest allies.

290
00:15:30,520 --> 00:15:33,120
Speaker 4: So when you put all of these things together, it

291
00:15:33,200 --> 00:15:36,920
Speaker 4: does seem sort of incredible. The amount of intervention that's

292
00:15:36,920 --> 00:15:40,000
Speaker 4: taking place, the amount of military force. Why is it happening?

293
00:15:40,600 --> 00:15:43,360
Speaker 4: I cannot answer that question. I think no one really knows.

294
00:15:43,880 --> 00:15:47,160
Speaker 4: There are so many different theories of various conspiratorial levels,

295
00:15:47,200 --> 00:15:49,680
Speaker 4: about whether there's a pattern here. It does seem like

296
00:15:49,720 --> 00:15:53,680
Speaker 4: the Trump administration often acts without any of the elaborate

297
00:15:54,120 --> 00:15:57,880
Speaker 4: process that would go on normally in an administration, and

298
00:15:57,960 --> 00:16:00,840
Speaker 4: maybe even occurred in the first Trump administration with regard

299
00:16:00,840 --> 00:16:03,160
Speaker 4: to the use of fourth Meeting, lots of process through

300
00:16:03,160 --> 00:16:06,600
Speaker 4: the National Security Council, through the State Department, through DoD,

301
00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:10,520
Speaker 4: et cetera. Thinking these things through, elaborating a strategy, examining

302
00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:13,000
Speaker 4: risks that all seems to be short circuited in a

303
00:16:13,000 --> 00:16:16,120
Speaker 4: lot of these cases. And so it's not clear that

304
00:16:16,160 --> 00:16:19,400
Speaker 4: there is a strategy. In fact, I sort of doubt it.

305
00:16:19,400 --> 00:16:21,920
Speaker 3: It's hard to see a strategy in all this. Cal,

306
00:16:21,960 --> 00:16:24,520
Speaker 3: thanks so much for joining me on the show. That's

307
00:16:24,520 --> 00:16:29,640
Speaker 3: Professor Cal Rostiella of UCLA Law School. The Trump administration

308
00:16:30,000 --> 00:16:33,800
Speaker 3: is making an emergency application to the Supreme Court to

309
00:16:33,920 --> 00:16:38,160
Speaker 3: allow it to end legal protections from deportation for three

310
00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:42,800
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty thousand Haitians. It mirrors a similar emergency

311
00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:46,960
Speaker 3: request made two weeks ago to end protections for Syrians.

312
00:16:47,520 --> 00:16:51,400
Speaker 3: The administration is also asking that Justice is to take

313
00:16:51,440 --> 00:16:55,560
Speaker 3: the unusual step of granting full review in the cases

314
00:16:55,840 --> 00:16:59,720
Speaker 3: with arguments and potentially a far reaching ruling in the

315
00:16:59,800 --> 00:17:04,040
Speaker 3: nine month term that starts in October. My guest is

316
00:17:04,200 --> 00:17:08,920
Speaker 3: immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. Leon.

317
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:13,879
Speaker 3: The Trump administration has been moving aggressively to terminate temporary

318
00:17:13,920 --> 00:17:17,760
Speaker 3: protected status since taking power last year, and has done

319
00:17:17,800 --> 00:17:21,840
Speaker 3: so for about a dozen countries. Give us the background here.

320
00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:25,280
Speaker 2: What happens is there's a status called temporary protected status

321
00:17:25,280 --> 00:17:28,680
Speaker 2: that the Congress created out of statute, and they said

322
00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:33,400
Speaker 2: that the president has authority to declare eighteen month periods

323
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:36,479
Speaker 2: of time where it might be too dangerous to deport

324
00:17:36,520 --> 00:17:40,199
Speaker 2: people to a particular country because of either a pandemic

325
00:17:40,440 --> 00:17:43,800
Speaker 2: or a war or a natural disaster or anything of

326
00:17:43,840 --> 00:17:48,080
Speaker 2: that element. And so over the course of the Biden administration,

327
00:17:48,240 --> 00:17:52,119
Speaker 2: many many countries ended up with temporary protected status, and

328
00:17:52,160 --> 00:17:56,399
Speaker 2: so the Trump administration said, when these statuses start to

329
00:17:56,640 --> 00:17:59,879
Speaker 2: get close to expiration, we're going to let them all like,

330
00:18:00,480 --> 00:18:03,479
Speaker 2: we're not going to renew any of these statuses. And

331
00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:06,000
Speaker 2: so you've seen that over the course of these last

332
00:18:06,040 --> 00:18:10,960
Speaker 2: eighteen months, whether it's been Venezuela or whether it's been Haiti,

333
00:18:11,080 --> 00:18:14,440
Speaker 2: or whether it's been Syria or many many other countries,

334
00:18:14,520 --> 00:18:20,639
Speaker 2: every country has had their temporary protected status not renewed.

335
00:18:21,119 --> 00:18:25,440
Speaker 2: And so it started with Venezuela, and there's litigation that's

336
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:28,639
Speaker 2: going on with Venezuela. But the Supreme Court in that

337
00:18:28,760 --> 00:18:33,840
Speaker 2: litigation stayed a determination that would have required the temporary

338
00:18:33,880 --> 00:18:37,280
Speaker 2: protected status to remain while the injunction was in play.

339
00:18:37,480 --> 00:18:39,879
Speaker 2: So there was a lower court injunction, and then the

340
00:18:39,880 --> 00:18:43,119
Speaker 2: Supreme Court stated, so now with Haiti, there was a

341
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:48,520
Speaker 2: similar claim. So the Trump administration tries to stop temporary

342
00:18:48,560 --> 00:18:52,840
Speaker 2: protected status from being renewed for Haitians, and then the

343
00:18:52,920 --> 00:18:57,399
Speaker 2: Haitian community challenges in the DC District Court that determination

344
00:18:57,520 --> 00:19:00,640
Speaker 2: and said it's not based on any conditions in Haiti.

345
00:19:01,000 --> 00:19:04,800
Speaker 2: It's based instead on a discriminatory animis that the Trump

346
00:19:04,800 --> 00:19:08,199
Speaker 2: administration has toward Haiti. And they provided a bunch of

347
00:19:08,280 --> 00:19:11,160
Speaker 2: comments that had been made by both President Trump and

348
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:14,680
Speaker 2: Christy Nome about Haiti. And so the court issued an

349
00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:19,480
Speaker 2: injunction saying you can't terminate the status of the Haitians

350
00:19:19,560 --> 00:19:24,640
Speaker 2: under Temporary Protected Status. That gets appealed to the DC Circuit.

351
00:19:24,680 --> 00:19:28,960
Speaker 2: The DC Circuit two to one preserves that injunction, saying

352
00:19:29,040 --> 00:19:32,640
Speaker 2: that the Haitians can't have their TPS status, their Temporary

353
00:19:32,640 --> 00:19:36,720
Speaker 2: Protected status taken away. And so now the Solicitor General's

354
00:19:36,760 --> 00:19:39,120
Speaker 2: Office of the Department of Justice is trying to get

355
00:19:39,359 --> 00:19:42,280
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court to basically do exactly what it did

356
00:19:42,720 --> 00:19:46,720
Speaker 2: in the Venezuelan cases and say, absolutely not, you have

357
00:19:46,800 --> 00:19:49,240
Speaker 2: to put a stay on this and allow us to

358
00:19:50,160 --> 00:19:53,199
Speaker 2: take away the Temporary Protected status for the.

359
00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:57,560
Speaker 3: Haitian And they're also asking the Court to take this

360
00:19:57,720 --> 00:20:01,000
Speaker 3: unusual step of not just dealing with it on the

361
00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:04,960
Speaker 3: emergency docket, but granting full review in the case. Do

362
00:20:05,040 --> 00:20:07,480
Speaker 3: they have a good argument for that because this keeps

363
00:20:07,480 --> 00:20:08,040
Speaker 3: coming up.

364
00:20:08,240 --> 00:20:10,480
Speaker 2: Well, I think that's correct. I think at this point,

365
00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:13,520
Speaker 2: given that you have the Venezuelan cases floating around in

366
00:20:13,560 --> 00:20:16,840
Speaker 2: the Ninth Circuit, you have the Haitian case here in

367
00:20:16,880 --> 00:20:20,960
Speaker 2: the DC Circuit, you have several decisions that have been

368
00:20:21,000 --> 00:20:25,399
Speaker 2: made by the Supreme Court already granting stays, saying that

369
00:20:25,560 --> 00:20:29,679
Speaker 2: these cases shouldn't be subject to injunctions at the moment,

370
00:20:29,920 --> 00:20:32,840
Speaker 2: and then you have lower courts sort of saying, here's

371
00:20:32,840 --> 00:20:37,480
Speaker 2: a loophole reason why those Supreme Court decisions don't actually

372
00:20:37,800 --> 00:20:42,600
Speaker 2: apply to this particular case. What the Justice Department is

373
00:20:42,600 --> 00:20:44,960
Speaker 2: trying to do is to get sort of a global

374
00:20:45,080 --> 00:20:48,800
Speaker 2: three hundred and sixty degree ruling that can be applied

375
00:20:48,880 --> 00:20:52,679
Speaker 2: to all of these various TPS revocations so that they

376
00:20:52,720 --> 00:20:55,080
Speaker 2: have an understanding of what the answer is, whether the

377
00:20:55,119 --> 00:20:57,760
Speaker 2: answer is they can or can't do it, whatever the

378
00:20:57,800 --> 00:21:00,600
Speaker 2: answer may be, they just want an ad So I

379
00:21:00,640 --> 00:21:03,080
Speaker 2: do think the Supreme Court is going to be sympathetic

380
00:21:03,160 --> 00:21:06,560
Speaker 2: to giving an answer as to what is actually permissible

381
00:21:06,640 --> 00:21:10,520
Speaker 2: or not permissible in the temporary protective status context.

382
00:21:10,840 --> 00:21:15,040
Speaker 3: As we've discussed before, in the name itself, it's temporary

383
00:21:15,160 --> 00:21:20,080
Speaker 3: protected status, I mean, or the Haitian, Syrians and Venezuelans

384
00:21:20,160 --> 00:21:25,119
Speaker 3: before them trying to get this TPS status changed to

385
00:21:25,600 --> 00:21:26,840
Speaker 3: a permanent status.

386
00:21:26,960 --> 00:21:29,800
Speaker 2: The best way to describe it is as follows. The

387
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:32,920
Speaker 2: people with this status definitely don't want to lose this

388
00:21:33,000 --> 00:21:35,280
Speaker 2: status because this is a status that allows them to

389
00:21:35,320 --> 00:21:39,480
Speaker 2: be here legally and allows them to work, and they

390
00:21:39,600 --> 00:21:42,800
Speaker 2: probably would make any argument that they could make in

391
00:21:42,920 --> 00:21:46,000
Speaker 2: order to keep this status. But here they're trying to

392
00:21:46,880 --> 00:21:51,600
Speaker 2: advance an argument that does have some interesting relevance to

393
00:21:51,640 --> 00:21:53,879
Speaker 2: it in terms of the court having to decide whether

394
00:21:53,960 --> 00:21:56,760
Speaker 2: this kind of argument is reviewable or not, and that

395
00:21:56,880 --> 00:22:01,880
Speaker 2: is that the administration is an actually doing a detailed

396
00:22:01,920 --> 00:22:07,160
Speaker 2: look at the conditions that led to temporary protected status

397
00:22:07,160 --> 00:22:10,640
Speaker 2: in the first place and deciding that those conditions had

398
00:22:10,720 --> 00:22:16,760
Speaker 2: changed sufficiently in order to remove the temporary protected status. Instead,

399
00:22:17,200 --> 00:22:19,720
Speaker 2: they've already decided they're just getting rid of all of

400
00:22:19,760 --> 00:22:23,320
Speaker 2: these statuses, And in fact, the plaintiffs don't just say that,

401
00:22:23,480 --> 00:22:26,760
Speaker 2: So they don't just say that there's an insufficient analysis

402
00:22:27,040 --> 00:22:29,520
Speaker 2: of the country conditions on the ground, but they're also

403
00:22:29,600 --> 00:22:34,760
Speaker 2: saying that there's an actual discriminatory animus toward whichever country

404
00:22:35,080 --> 00:22:39,040
Speaker 2: they're suing about. So they'll give from the Venezuelan context

405
00:22:39,400 --> 00:22:43,000
Speaker 2: comments that the administration had made about Venezuela or in

406
00:22:43,119 --> 00:22:47,880
Speaker 2: the Haitian context, the comments that people the administration had

407
00:22:47,920 --> 00:22:51,000
Speaker 2: made about Haiti. And so they're trying to say that

408
00:22:51,080 --> 00:22:53,920
Speaker 2: because of those two issues, the lack of analysis as

409
00:22:53,960 --> 00:22:58,000
Speaker 2: the country conditions and the discriminatory animists, that the courts

410
00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:02,200
Speaker 2: have a role in analyzing whether in that scenario it's

411
00:23:02,240 --> 00:23:06,760
Speaker 2: sufficient to revoke temporary protective status. And the government says

412
00:23:07,119 --> 00:23:10,320
Speaker 2: absolutely not. This is temporary protective status. Congress gives the

413
00:23:10,440 --> 00:23:13,439
Speaker 2: discretion to the president to grant it or not to

414
00:23:13,480 --> 00:23:16,880
Speaker 2: grant it. And you can't have the courts forcing the

415
00:23:16,880 --> 00:23:21,679
Speaker 2: president to renew temporary protective status. That's way outside the

416
00:23:21,720 --> 00:23:25,760
Speaker 2: bounds of anything that courts are allowed to do. When

417
00:23:25,880 --> 00:23:28,720
Speaker 2: Congress says, this is up to the president to determine.

418
00:23:28,840 --> 00:23:32,360
Speaker 2: And so that's a very strong argument as well, and

419
00:23:32,440 --> 00:23:34,160
Speaker 2: we're going to have to see where the courts want

420
00:23:34,200 --> 00:23:34,480
Speaker 2: to go.

421
00:23:35,080 --> 00:23:39,240
Speaker 3: The first appellate test of the lawfulness of President Trump's

422
00:23:39,280 --> 00:23:44,119
Speaker 3: toughest restrictions so far on high skilled immigration took place

423
00:23:44,200 --> 00:23:47,840
Speaker 3: at the DC Court of Appeals. The Chamber of Commerce

424
00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:51,560
Speaker 3: and other groups are challenging the one hundred thousand dollars

425
00:23:51,600 --> 00:23:55,720
Speaker 3: fee Trump put on H one B worker petitions. Tell

426
00:23:55,800 --> 00:23:57,720
Speaker 3: us a little bit about this one hundred thousand dollars fee.

427
00:23:58,359 --> 00:24:01,080
Speaker 2: So let's start with just the H one B program

428
00:24:01,119 --> 00:24:03,280
Speaker 2: in general. The H one B program in general is

429
00:24:03,320 --> 00:24:07,359
Speaker 2: a statutory program that the Congress created where there's eighty

430
00:24:07,400 --> 00:24:11,520
Speaker 2: five thousand visas permitted per year. Where if a company

431
00:24:11,720 --> 00:24:16,640
Speaker 2: has a job opening in an occupation that requires a degree,

432
00:24:16,720 --> 00:24:19,760
Speaker 2: whether it be a bachelor's or a master's or a PhD,

433
00:24:20,440 --> 00:24:23,480
Speaker 2: then that employer can petition for an H one B

434
00:24:23,640 --> 00:24:27,720
Speaker 2: visa for someone that has that exact degree that's required

435
00:24:27,760 --> 00:24:31,000
Speaker 2: by that exact job title. So the demand is often

436
00:24:31,119 --> 00:24:35,440
Speaker 2: much higher than the eighty five thousand. There are congressionally

437
00:24:36,560 --> 00:24:40,359
Speaker 2: created fees that are there for the administration of the program,

438
00:24:40,400 --> 00:24:45,800
Speaker 2: meaning to fund the adjudicators that adjudicate the petitions and

439
00:24:45,920 --> 00:24:48,919
Speaker 2: the fraud adjudicators that are there to make sure that

440
00:24:49,000 --> 00:24:52,720
Speaker 2: the companies aren't using these visas improperly but are actually

441
00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:57,159
Speaker 2: paying their workers and are actually employing the workers in

442
00:24:57,240 --> 00:24:59,480
Speaker 2: the locations they said they were going to be employing

443
00:24:59,720 --> 00:25:02,560
Speaker 2: their workers. And so those fees on average are about

444
00:25:02,560 --> 00:25:05,679
Speaker 2: six to seven thousand per year. Now, what has the

445
00:25:05,720 --> 00:25:10,119
Speaker 2: Trump administration done. The Trump administration has said that we

446
00:25:10,280 --> 00:25:13,960
Speaker 2: have this authority called INA Section two twelve F and

447
00:25:14,040 --> 00:25:17,160
Speaker 2: that authority everybody might recognize because it's the same thing

448
00:25:17,200 --> 00:25:20,479
Speaker 2: as the travel ban. So, when Trump did the travel

449
00:25:20,520 --> 00:25:23,880
Speaker 2: ban in his first term, and that travel ban was

450
00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:27,399
Speaker 2: upheld by the Supreme Court that said that Iran, Iraq,

451
00:25:27,480 --> 00:25:31,400
Speaker 2: et cetera, those individuals couldn't enter the United States. Now

452
00:25:31,400 --> 00:25:35,879
Speaker 2: Trump has extended that ban in this presidency. So what

453
00:25:35,920 --> 00:25:39,639
Speaker 2: the Trump administration has said is that statue doesn't just

454
00:25:39,960 --> 00:25:45,840
Speaker 2: permit or authorize bans. It authorizes any restrictions that the

455
00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:50,040
Speaker 2: president thinks are in the national interest. And so here

456
00:25:50,160 --> 00:25:54,359
Speaker 2: the president said, well, let's try a different type of restriction.

457
00:25:54,560 --> 00:25:57,719
Speaker 2: Let's try instead of a ban on people coming in

458
00:25:57,760 --> 00:26:00,840
Speaker 2: on H to one b's, let's charge to one hundred

459
00:26:00,920 --> 00:26:05,400
Speaker 2: thousand dollars a fees for people on H one B visas. Now,

460
00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:09,240
Speaker 2: the problem with using the ban statute is that fee

461
00:26:09,280 --> 00:26:13,400
Speaker 2: is only going to be applicable to people applying from abroad,

462
00:26:14,040 --> 00:26:16,040
Speaker 2: and so the idea is they will have to pay

463
00:26:16,040 --> 00:26:19,000
Speaker 2: a one hundred thousand dollars fee if they want one

464
00:26:19,000 --> 00:26:21,960
Speaker 2: of these visas. And the reason for that would be Hey,

465
00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:24,920
Speaker 2: to the extent that you think that these visas are

466
00:26:25,080 --> 00:26:28,520
Speaker 2: undercutting American workers, that the only reason companies are using

467
00:26:28,560 --> 00:26:31,320
Speaker 2: this is not because these are the best workers for

468
00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:34,719
Speaker 2: the job, but instead because what they're trying to do

469
00:26:34,840 --> 00:26:38,399
Speaker 2: is undercut the wages of American workers. Well, now we

470
00:26:38,520 --> 00:26:40,040
Speaker 2: know that's not going to be true. If a company

471
00:26:40,080 --> 00:26:43,080
Speaker 2: is willing to spend one hundred thousand dollars, then they

472
00:26:43,119 --> 00:26:47,399
Speaker 2: clearly value this worker. That's the theory. Let's cut to

473
00:26:47,800 --> 00:26:50,720
Speaker 2: the district court. The district court says, hey, that's fine.

474
00:26:50,840 --> 00:26:53,760
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has this authority to charge one hundred

475
00:26:53,800 --> 00:26:57,320
Speaker 2: thousand dollars and the story. So then there's an appeal.

476
00:26:57,960 --> 00:27:01,800
Speaker 2: And in the middle of the appeal there is the

477
00:27:01,840 --> 00:27:06,560
Speaker 2: case involving the use of taxation with regard to tariffs

478
00:27:06,880 --> 00:27:10,800
Speaker 2: and whether the president exceeded the limits of the presidency

479
00:27:10,840 --> 00:27:14,080
Speaker 2: and when the President issued these tariffs in the form

480
00:27:14,119 --> 00:27:17,160
Speaker 2: of taxes, and in those cases, what the court said

481
00:27:17,520 --> 00:27:21,720
Speaker 2: was only Congress can authorize these taxes. You can't have

482
00:27:21,840 --> 00:27:27,800
Speaker 2: the administration basically passing new taxes without congressional authorities. So

483
00:27:27,880 --> 00:27:30,959
Speaker 2: now the people who've been challenging this one hundred thousand

484
00:27:30,960 --> 00:27:34,800
Speaker 2: dollars fee came and sort of transitioned their argument into

485
00:27:34,880 --> 00:27:37,720
Speaker 2: the same argument as the tariffs, which is that this

486
00:27:37,840 --> 00:27:42,000
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand dollars fee isn't an immigration restriction, it's

487
00:27:42,040 --> 00:27:45,280
Speaker 2: a tax. And if it's a tax, then the president

488
00:27:45,320 --> 00:27:47,919
Speaker 2: can't do it. It has to be done by Congress.

489
00:27:48,280 --> 00:27:51,439
Speaker 2: And so the oral argument in this case that just

490
00:27:51,520 --> 00:27:54,680
Speaker 2: happened on March ninth really focused on this issue as

491
00:27:54,680 --> 00:27:57,240
Speaker 2: to what is this one hundred thousand dollars Is it

492
00:27:57,280 --> 00:27:59,960
Speaker 2: a de facto ban, in which case we would add

493
00:28:00,440 --> 00:28:04,119
Speaker 2: it sort of under the same travel ban free features

494
00:28:04,160 --> 00:28:07,359
Speaker 2: we've been analyzing other cases under. Or is this a

495
00:28:07,480 --> 00:28:10,760
Speaker 2: tax that's designed to raise revenue, because in the end,

496
00:28:10,800 --> 00:28:14,200
Speaker 2: we expect that people are going to pay it, and

497
00:28:14,280 --> 00:28:17,680
Speaker 2: so it's not going to ban anybody. People will pay

498
00:28:17,720 --> 00:28:20,359
Speaker 2: the fee. Now, in practice, very few people are going

499
00:28:20,440 --> 00:28:23,119
Speaker 2: to pay the fee. The administration has claimed that seventy

500
00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:26,359
Speaker 2: people have paid this fee, which I find fascinating. I

501
00:28:26,400 --> 00:28:28,959
Speaker 2: couldn't imagine that that would even be true. Of all,

502
00:28:29,040 --> 00:28:32,159
Speaker 2: I have no reason to disbelieve this. I'm just shocked

503
00:28:32,160 --> 00:28:35,120
Speaker 2: that anybody paid this hundred thousand dollars fee, but they

504
00:28:35,160 --> 00:28:38,720
Speaker 2: claimed that seventy people did and so it's going to

505
00:28:38,720 --> 00:28:41,120
Speaker 2: be interesting to see whether if it's a tax, it's

506
00:28:41,200 --> 00:28:43,800
Speaker 2: much more likely to be stricken down, but if it's

507
00:28:43,800 --> 00:28:46,480
Speaker 2: a ban, it's a lot less likely to be stricken down.

508
00:28:46,920 --> 00:28:52,680
Speaker 3: So during the oral arguments, Judge Michelle Chiles asked counsel

509
00:28:52,720 --> 00:28:55,280
Speaker 3: for the Trump administration kept pressing on how it was

510
00:28:55,360 --> 00:28:58,600
Speaker 3: classifying what are you calling this? Is it a fee?

511
00:28:58,720 --> 00:29:01,440
Speaker 3: Is it a tax? Is it ay? And the Department

512
00:29:01,480 --> 00:29:04,960
Speaker 3: of Justice attorney said the label doesn't really matter, But

513
00:29:05,080 --> 00:29:06,560
Speaker 3: doesn't the label really matter?

514
00:29:07,080 --> 00:29:09,600
Speaker 2: Well, yes, the whole point is the label matters here

515
00:29:10,120 --> 00:29:13,920
Speaker 2: because if they want to call it an immigration restriction,

516
00:29:14,040 --> 00:29:17,080
Speaker 2: they're going to be in much better shape in terms

517
00:29:17,160 --> 00:29:19,960
Speaker 2: of the deference. The Supreme Court has already given this

518
00:29:20,320 --> 00:29:23,240
Speaker 2: as an immigration restriction, and I would have advised them

519
00:29:23,520 --> 00:29:25,520
Speaker 2: that that was the best argument to make, that the

520
00:29:25,560 --> 00:29:29,720
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand dollars fee is an immigration restriction designed

521
00:29:30,080 --> 00:29:34,760
Speaker 2: to prevent the undercutting of American workers, it's not designed

522
00:29:34,760 --> 00:29:37,680
Speaker 2: to raise revenue for the government. But they didn't make

523
00:29:37,720 --> 00:29:41,160
Speaker 2: that argument. They just said it's irrelevant. And so from

524
00:29:41,200 --> 00:29:45,640
Speaker 2: that standpoint, now they are having to see what the

525
00:29:45,680 --> 00:29:47,960
Speaker 2: court is going to call this thing, and if the

526
00:29:48,000 --> 00:29:50,280
Speaker 2: court calls it attacks, they're going to strike it down.

527
00:29:50,680 --> 00:29:54,080
Speaker 2: But if the court calls it an immigration restriction that's

528
00:29:54,160 --> 00:29:56,720
Speaker 2: designed to be in the national interest by preventing the

529
00:29:56,760 --> 00:29:59,000
Speaker 2: eighth to one to B program from being used to

530
00:29:59,120 --> 00:30:02,520
Speaker 2: undercut the America can work force, then that's going to

531
00:30:02,560 --> 00:30:06,080
Speaker 2: be potentially a restriction they can do. Now that's going

532
00:30:06,160 --> 00:30:09,400
Speaker 2: to run into its own potential statutory problem, because there's

533
00:30:09,400 --> 00:30:12,520
Speaker 2: a whole bunch of statutes about the wage itself that

534
00:30:12,560 --> 00:30:15,840
Speaker 2: you have to charge on H one b's and so

535
00:30:16,320 --> 00:30:18,840
Speaker 2: the point being, if you really didn't think that was

536
00:30:18,840 --> 00:30:22,680
Speaker 2: sufficient to protect the American workers, then you're running a

537
00:30:22,680 --> 00:30:26,400
Speaker 2: foul of what Congress said. And so these are tough questions.

538
00:30:26,400 --> 00:30:31,440
Speaker 2: It's band authority versus other statutes. That's something that's happening

539
00:30:31,480 --> 00:30:34,600
Speaker 2: in asylum right now, and it's something that's happening in

540
00:30:34,760 --> 00:30:38,200
Speaker 2: H one B, where the argument is there's two statutes

541
00:30:38,240 --> 00:30:42,480
Speaker 2: that easily are plausible for a court to choose. One

542
00:30:42,560 --> 00:30:45,720
Speaker 2: is the version that the Trump administration wants, one is

543
00:30:45,720 --> 00:30:50,160
Speaker 2: the version that the foreign nationals suing the Trump administration wants.

544
00:30:50,400 --> 00:30:52,720
Speaker 2: And in both cases, the courts are being asked to

545
00:30:52,760 --> 00:30:56,920
Speaker 2: determine which statute actually is the applicable statute here.

546
00:30:57,560 --> 00:31:01,600
Speaker 3: My guest is immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partner

547
00:31:01,600 --> 00:31:06,280
Speaker 3: at Holland and Knight. In recent weeks, immigration agents have

548
00:31:06,440 --> 00:31:11,400
Speaker 3: sort of scaled back aggressive enforcement and the streets sweep.

549
00:31:11,680 --> 00:31:16,560
Speaker 3: They're focusing on conducting more targeted enforcement operations, so we

550
00:31:16,680 --> 00:31:20,840
Speaker 3: haven't seen those violent clashes. So that's led to a

551
00:31:20,960 --> 00:31:22,960
Speaker 3: drop in immigration arrests.

552
00:31:23,920 --> 00:31:27,560
Speaker 2: Well, I think this is complicated because I think what's

553
00:31:27,640 --> 00:31:32,760
Speaker 2: really happening right now is the Trump administration was trying

554
00:31:32,840 --> 00:31:36,920
Speaker 2: to the famous expression goes build the plane while they

555
00:31:36,920 --> 00:31:39,840
Speaker 2: were flying the plane, and I think they realized that

556
00:31:40,120 --> 00:31:43,080
Speaker 2: as well intentioned as their goals may have been in

557
00:31:43,080 --> 00:31:45,720
Speaker 2: the sense that they had made a campaign promise to

558
00:31:45,760 --> 00:31:50,200
Speaker 2: have mass deportations and they wanted to carry out mass deportations,

559
00:31:50,440 --> 00:31:53,040
Speaker 2: the point is is if you wanted to actually build

560
00:31:53,320 --> 00:31:57,360
Speaker 2: an infrastructure around that, then you needed to do certain things.

561
00:31:57,360 --> 00:32:00,960
Speaker 2: You needed to have more immigration court you needed to

562
00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:05,680
Speaker 2: have more ice attorneys. You needed to have more attorneys

563
00:32:05,800 --> 00:32:09,800
Speaker 2: in the Justice Department who would then do the appeals

564
00:32:09,800 --> 00:32:12,440
Speaker 2: that went into the federal courts. You needed to have

565
00:32:12,520 --> 00:32:15,760
Speaker 2: more detention space, and to all of that needed to

566
00:32:15,800 --> 00:32:18,440
Speaker 2: be built out, and it needed to be built out

567
00:32:18,800 --> 00:32:21,880
Speaker 2: within a framework where a lot of people were resigning

568
00:32:22,200 --> 00:32:25,680
Speaker 2: from all of these positions because not everybody agrees with

569
00:32:25,720 --> 00:32:29,280
Speaker 2: the mass deportation mission. So whatever you think about it,

570
00:32:29,320 --> 00:32:34,040
Speaker 2: these are just the challenges of building a mass deportation infrastructure.

571
00:32:34,160 --> 00:32:36,880
Speaker 2: Is you have to build all these things, and then

572
00:32:36,920 --> 00:32:40,040
Speaker 2: you have to do it with a supply of lawyers

573
00:32:40,080 --> 00:32:42,800
Speaker 2: that might be less because again, like I said, not

574
00:32:43,040 --> 00:32:46,520
Speaker 2: so many lawyers go into law thinking that the reason

575
00:32:46,680 --> 00:32:48,600
Speaker 2: they're going to have a legal career is to create

576
00:32:48,640 --> 00:32:51,880
Speaker 2: a mass deportation framework. I mean, this wasn't even a

577
00:32:51,920 --> 00:32:54,200
Speaker 2: thing a few years ago. So very few people who

578
00:32:54,240 --> 00:32:56,720
Speaker 2: went to law school who would be eligible to take

579
00:32:56,760 --> 00:33:00,239
Speaker 2: these jobs are people who went to law school with

580
00:33:00,320 --> 00:33:04,040
Speaker 2: this mindset. And so all of these create challenges for

581
00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:07,280
Speaker 2: the administration. And so what I think they've decided to

582
00:33:07,360 --> 00:33:11,200
Speaker 2: do is, let's for the moment, while we have an

583
00:33:11,240 --> 00:33:15,840
Speaker 2: election coming up in November, focus on the initial mission

584
00:33:16,480 --> 00:33:21,520
Speaker 2: of detaining people who are people with criminal convictions or

585
00:33:21,600 --> 00:33:25,520
Speaker 2: final orders of removal and getting as much of that

586
00:33:25,640 --> 00:33:30,000
Speaker 2: population removed as possible while we build out this infrastructure.

587
00:33:30,000 --> 00:33:32,840
Speaker 2: But they're still building it out. They're building more detention

588
00:33:33,000 --> 00:33:37,320
Speaker 2: facilities all over the country. They're trying to end what's

589
00:33:37,360 --> 00:33:40,760
Speaker 2: called the Board of Immigration Appeals, which was a second

590
00:33:41,160 --> 00:33:44,560
Speaker 2: layer of review of a deportation order. So now they

591
00:33:44,640 --> 00:33:47,520
Speaker 2: just want to have an immigration judge, one judge who

592
00:33:47,520 --> 00:33:50,360
Speaker 2: makes a decision, and then if the federal courts want

593
00:33:50,400 --> 00:33:53,360
Speaker 2: to get involved, then the federal courts. But they want

594
00:33:53,400 --> 00:33:57,400
Speaker 2: to take away the administrative appeal that existed, and so

595
00:33:57,480 --> 00:34:00,000
Speaker 2: that's in litigation right now, and then they want to

596
00:34:00,280 --> 00:34:04,280
Speaker 2: have this framework of mandatory detention that whenever you put

597
00:34:04,320 --> 00:34:07,840
Speaker 2: someone in deportation proceedings, they're going to have to fight

598
00:34:07,880 --> 00:34:11,239
Speaker 2: it from detention, which the way to do that is

599
00:34:11,280 --> 00:34:14,800
Speaker 2: to win these cases that are challenging that right now

600
00:34:15,120 --> 00:34:19,799
Speaker 2: and then build out the mandatory detention space. So what

601
00:34:19,840 --> 00:34:23,400
Speaker 2: they're trying to do now is have this consolidation period

602
00:34:23,440 --> 00:34:25,400
Speaker 2: where they get all of these ducks in a row,

603
00:34:25,760 --> 00:34:29,839
Speaker 2: so that maybe by January of twenty twenty seven, they

604
00:34:29,880 --> 00:34:37,560
Speaker 2: can actually start really tightening the mass deportation machine because

605
00:34:37,560 --> 00:34:40,319
Speaker 2: the infrastructure has been built. So I would not call

606
00:34:40,400 --> 00:34:43,960
Speaker 2: this pause a permanent pause. I would call this a

607
00:34:44,120 --> 00:34:48,840
Speaker 2: temporary pause so that the conflagrations that we saw on

608
00:34:48,880 --> 00:34:53,880
Speaker 2: the street don't happen before November, but b to allow

609
00:34:54,280 --> 00:34:59,319
Speaker 2: this detention deportation infrastructure to be built so that then

610
00:34:59,440 --> 00:35:02,320
Speaker 2: it can re operate in twenty twenty seven and twenty

611
00:35:02,360 --> 00:35:03,399
Speaker 2: twenty eight in.

612
00:35:03,400 --> 00:35:07,320
Speaker 3: Light of that, you know, detention. On Wednesday, a federal

613
00:35:07,680 --> 00:35:12,279
Speaker 3: judge scolded the Department of Homeland Security for detaining immigrants

614
00:35:12,320 --> 00:35:16,400
Speaker 3: for a month or longer without bond hearings, calling to

615
00:35:16,440 --> 00:35:22,160
Speaker 3: practice shocking and a huge whopping statutory violation. Judge Beryl

616
00:35:22,200 --> 00:35:25,879
Speaker 3: Howell said that people accused of committing crimes get such

617
00:35:26,000 --> 00:35:31,120
Speaker 3: bond hearings sooner than immigrants accused of civil offenses. So

618
00:35:31,880 --> 00:35:35,120
Speaker 3: this is also part of the Trump administration's plan.

619
00:35:35,280 --> 00:35:39,239
Speaker 2: Right, Well, what happens is this, So let's remember, first

620
00:35:39,280 --> 00:35:43,640
Speaker 2: of all, why is any immigrant in detention? Because remember

621
00:35:43,920 --> 00:35:47,120
Speaker 2: that in America we don't put people who are not

622
00:35:47,239 --> 00:35:50,759
Speaker 2: criminals in detention. So the only reason immigrants are in

623
00:35:50,800 --> 00:35:54,279
Speaker 2: detention is in order to secure their removal. So the

624
00:35:54,280 --> 00:35:58,360
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has said, we will make a minor constitutional

625
00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:02,120
Speaker 2: loophole for deen in the civil context, which is what

626
00:36:02,200 --> 00:36:06,719
Speaker 2: immigration is, it's not considered criminal, it's considered the civil context.

627
00:36:06,880 --> 00:36:09,680
Speaker 2: And by the way, that's a designation that benefits the government.

628
00:36:09,920 --> 00:36:12,040
Speaker 2: It doesn't harm the government because if it was in

629
00:36:12,080 --> 00:36:16,799
Speaker 2: the criminal context, then deportation cases would require jury trials

630
00:36:17,200 --> 00:36:20,759
Speaker 2: and you couldn't have expost facto deportations or any of that.

631
00:36:21,080 --> 00:36:24,000
Speaker 2: But all of that's permitted in civil So the government

632
00:36:24,160 --> 00:36:27,279
Speaker 2: can do almost anything at once in the immigration context

633
00:36:27,600 --> 00:36:31,960
Speaker 2: because it's considered a civil punishment, not a criminal punishment.

634
00:36:32,400 --> 00:36:35,880
Speaker 2: But the one caveat to that is that the tension

635
00:36:35,920 --> 00:36:39,279
Speaker 2: is supposed to be limited only to the bare minimum

636
00:36:39,280 --> 00:36:44,239
Speaker 2: that is required in order to execute a deportation. And

637
00:36:44,920 --> 00:36:47,719
Speaker 2: the flip side of that is that if you're not

638
00:36:48,239 --> 00:36:54,480
Speaker 2: someone who's considered dangerous or a flight risk, constitutionally, the

639
00:36:54,520 --> 00:36:58,799
Speaker 2: basis to detain you really starts to become very light

640
00:36:59,440 --> 00:37:03,120
Speaker 2: in this context because it's the civil context and you're

641
00:37:03,160 --> 00:37:06,200
Speaker 2: not a flight risk and you're not dangerous, And so

642
00:37:06,280 --> 00:37:09,120
Speaker 2: that's what Judge Howell is saying, is how are you

643
00:37:09,280 --> 00:37:13,880
Speaker 2: detaining these individuals? The Trump administration is saying, we're detaining

644
00:37:13,920 --> 00:37:17,239
Speaker 2: them because we believe there's a statute that says that

645
00:37:17,280 --> 00:37:21,000
Speaker 2: if you cross the border illegally and we find you,

646
00:37:21,120 --> 00:37:23,920
Speaker 2: we can detain you until the day we deport you.

647
00:37:24,160 --> 00:37:29,359
Speaker 2: And that's in litigation. The problem is Judge Howell has

648
00:37:29,400 --> 00:37:32,239
Speaker 2: a different case she's dealing with, which has to do

649
00:37:32,360 --> 00:37:36,000
Speaker 2: with can you arrest people in DC without a warrant

650
00:37:36,160 --> 00:37:39,680
Speaker 2: for immigration because people were suing saying there was racial

651
00:37:39,719 --> 00:37:43,200
Speaker 2: profiling going on and that there should be warrants, so

652
00:37:43,239 --> 00:37:46,040
Speaker 2: that again ICE has to look for people that it

653
00:37:46,160 --> 00:37:49,920
Speaker 2: knows are undocumented instead of just grabbing people in the

654
00:37:49,920 --> 00:37:52,120
Speaker 2: middle of the street. And so she had agreed with

655
00:37:52,120 --> 00:37:56,000
Speaker 2: with that, and this was a content hearing to determine

656
00:37:56,680 --> 00:38:01,200
Speaker 2: what is happening now and in that chief that people

657
00:38:01,280 --> 00:38:04,319
Speaker 2: are being detained for a month without bond hearings, and

658
00:38:04,400 --> 00:38:07,960
Speaker 2: that's because of the backlog and the immigration courts. The

659
00:38:07,960 --> 00:38:12,239
Speaker 2: immigration courts again, when you're building this infrastructure out where

660
00:38:12,239 --> 00:38:16,239
Speaker 2: you're trying to do mass deportations and mass detentions, if

661
00:38:16,280 --> 00:38:19,440
Speaker 2: you have many, many, many more people detained than you

662
00:38:19,560 --> 00:38:21,759
Speaker 2: used to have, which is what we have. We used

663
00:38:21,800 --> 00:38:25,279
Speaker 2: to have thirty to forty thousand people detained every day

664
00:38:25,680 --> 00:38:29,239
Speaker 2: for immigration violations. Now we have something like seventy to

665
00:38:29,360 --> 00:38:32,680
Speaker 2: eighty thousand. And you don't double the size of the

666
00:38:32,680 --> 00:38:35,680
Speaker 2: immigration court, then what you're going to end up having

667
00:38:35,840 --> 00:38:40,440
Speaker 2: is this exact situation where the bond hearings take longer.

668
00:38:40,480 --> 00:38:44,920
Speaker 2: And it's not even necessarily a strategy, Hey let's have

669
00:38:45,000 --> 00:38:49,160
Speaker 2: the bond hearings take longer. It's just inevitable because you've

670
00:38:49,200 --> 00:38:52,600
Speaker 2: doubled the number of people who need bond hearings, and

671
00:38:52,719 --> 00:38:56,719
Speaker 2: you haven't doubled the amount of courts or prosecutors or

672
00:38:56,760 --> 00:39:00,279
Speaker 2: anything else that would need to deal with that. And

673
00:39:00,360 --> 00:39:03,160
Speaker 2: so those are again issues that are going to end

674
00:39:03,239 --> 00:39:05,640
Speaker 2: up being litigated. I'm sure there will be a class

675
00:39:05,680 --> 00:39:09,279
Speaker 2: action that talks about this, and all of this is

676
00:39:09,320 --> 00:39:11,120
Speaker 2: going to come to play, But I think the main

677
00:39:11,160 --> 00:39:14,920
Speaker 2: decision that's going to really impact this is when the

678
00:39:14,960 --> 00:39:19,000
Speaker 2: Supreme Court ultimately decides this issue of whether the Trump

679
00:39:19,040 --> 00:39:26,040
Speaker 2: administration has authority to mandatorily detain any individual who's in

680
00:39:26,080 --> 00:39:31,239
Speaker 2: America who not overstate their visa but illegally cross the border,

681
00:39:31,560 --> 00:39:34,239
Speaker 2: because that's a new position that the Trump administration has

682
00:39:34,280 --> 00:39:38,400
Speaker 2: taken and that's currently working its way up different circuits.

683
00:39:38,400 --> 00:39:41,640
Speaker 2: The Fifth Circuit has said, yes, they do have this authority.

684
00:39:42,040 --> 00:39:45,520
Speaker 2: Other circuits are ruling that they don't have the authority

685
00:39:45,560 --> 00:39:47,880
Speaker 2: or they're about to rule that, and so it's going

686
00:39:47,960 --> 00:39:50,640
Speaker 2: to get to the Supreme Court and that's ultimately going

687
00:39:50,680 --> 00:39:54,160
Speaker 2: to address millions of people that are here, whether they'll

688
00:39:54,200 --> 00:39:57,800
Speaker 2: those millions of people can be detained and put into

689
00:39:57,840 --> 00:40:01,879
Speaker 2: a mass deportation framework, or whether the Trump administration has

690
00:40:01,920 --> 00:40:05,520
Speaker 2: to give bond hearings to those people once they're apprehended.

691
00:40:06,160 --> 00:40:09,600
Speaker 3: Thanks so much. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight,

692
00:40:09,880 --> 00:40:12,200
Speaker 3: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

693
00:40:12,520 --> 00:40:14,840
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

694
00:40:14,920 --> 00:40:19,200
Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

695
00:40:19,400 --> 00:40:24,440
Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

696
00:40:24,840 --> 00:40:27,400
Speaker 3: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

697
00:40:27,480 --> 00:40:31,360
Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

698
00:40:31,520 --> 00:40:33,120
Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg