1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,279
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. On Friday, the

6
00:00:22,360 --> 00:00:26,200
Speaker 1: California federal judge presiding over the reunification of immigrant children

7
00:00:26,239 --> 00:00:30,920
Speaker 1: separated from their parents called the government efforts unacceptable. Earlier

8
00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:34,000
Speaker 1: in the weeks, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley also

9
00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:40,840
Speaker 1: criticized the administration's policies. However, like many well intentioned policies UH,

10
00:00:41,159 --> 00:00:47,720
Speaker 1: these UH were on there were unintended consequences. And in

11
00:00:47,720 --> 00:00:50,519
Speaker 1: another federal courtroom on Friday, on the opposite side of

12
00:00:50,520 --> 00:00:53,240
Speaker 1: the country, a judge upheld his order that the DOCCA

13
00:00:53,280 --> 00:00:56,720
Speaker 1: program should be fully restored, giving the administration twenty days

14
00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:00,360
Speaker 1: to appeal. Joining me is David Beer, immigration policy analyst

15
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:04,959
Speaker 1: at the Cato Institute. David turning to the federal court

16
00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:08,080
Speaker 1: room in d C. Judge John Bates gave the Trump

17
00:01:08,120 --> 00:01:10,760
Speaker 1: administration a second chance to show him there was a

18
00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:15,000
Speaker 1: legitimate reason to rescind DOCCA. Tell us what he asked

19
00:01:15,000 --> 00:01:20,080
Speaker 1: the administration and what the administration provided. Well, when the

20
00:01:20,120 --> 00:01:25,959
Speaker 1: administration first rescinded DOCCA for the Dreamers, who immigrants who

21
00:01:26,080 --> 00:01:30,760
Speaker 1: entered the United States as children, Uh, they did not

22
00:01:30,920 --> 00:01:35,480
Speaker 1: explain why they believed that that was a proper decision

23
00:01:35,720 --> 00:01:39,679
Speaker 1: for the government to be taking. And so what the

24
00:01:39,720 --> 00:01:43,839
Speaker 1: court found was that this decision was arbitrary and capricius

25
00:01:44,120 --> 00:01:48,600
Speaker 1: did not have a basis in law, and the judge

26
00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:55,520
Speaker 1: required the administration to reissue that memo rescinding that policy

27
00:01:55,720 --> 00:02:00,960
Speaker 1: or provide the court with a valid legal reasons why

28
00:02:01,280 --> 00:02:06,160
Speaker 1: it believed that that policy was unlawful. Uh, the government

29
00:02:06,320 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: really failed to do that, And the decision um from

30
00:02:10,440 --> 00:02:14,680
Speaker 1: the judge really lays out in detail why the court

31
00:02:14,840 --> 00:02:19,040
Speaker 1: felt that the Department of Homeland Security has not shown

32
00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:25,200
Speaker 1: why they are taking this action. So the judge didn't

33
00:02:25,680 --> 00:02:30,680
Speaker 1: say that the DHS secretary didn't have authority to rescind

34
00:02:31,080 --> 00:02:34,799
Speaker 1: the program. So if the Trump administration, which is expected

35
00:02:34,840 --> 00:02:38,400
Speaker 1: to appeal, can come up with a better explanation, with

36
00:02:38,440 --> 00:02:41,720
Speaker 1: a good explanation, is it possible that the judge will

37
00:02:41,720 --> 00:02:44,880
Speaker 1: rescind the order or that the appeals Court will Well,

38
00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:48,120
Speaker 1: at this point, really the Appeals Court is going to

39
00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:52,840
Speaker 1: be looking at whether or not the judge has abused

40
00:02:53,840 --> 00:02:59,720
Speaker 1: his discretion in this case too basically enjoin the memos

41
00:02:59,800 --> 00:03:02,400
Speaker 1: that the Department of Homeland Security has put out, so

42
00:03:02,440 --> 00:03:04,640
Speaker 1: that they're really going to be ruling on whether or

43
00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:10,920
Speaker 1: not uh DHS has provided the courts with a legitimate

44
00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:13,600
Speaker 1: reason so they could overturn it. But at this point,

45
00:03:13,960 --> 00:03:17,639
Speaker 1: you know, providing new rationales is not going to help

46
00:03:17,680 --> 00:03:20,920
Speaker 1: the administration. It's going to be decided based on what

47
00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:24,919
Speaker 1: they've already put out there. And what's your legal opinion

48
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:27,120
Speaker 1: about what they've put out there? Do you think you

49
00:03:27,160 --> 00:03:32,120
Speaker 1: can sustain an appeal? Well, I would be surprised that

50
00:03:32,240 --> 00:03:35,200
Speaker 1: if this went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court

51
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:40,360
Speaker 1: did not uphold the determinations by the Department of Homeland Security.

52
00:03:40,480 --> 00:03:44,600
Speaker 1: I mean, when this policy was rolled out, was done

53
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:49,480
Speaker 1: without going through the regulatory process. Uh. This has always

54
00:03:49,560 --> 00:03:53,760
Speaker 1: been an agency uh you know, the types of decisions

55
00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:59,840
Speaker 1: that agencies have routinely taken based on their own discretion

56
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:06,120
Speaker 1: without judicial review. And it's somewhat surprising that the the

57
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:10,840
Speaker 1: administration has so far been unable to convince any court

58
00:04:11,320 --> 00:04:14,920
Speaker 1: across the country that they actually have the authority to

59
00:04:15,000 --> 00:04:20,920
Speaker 1: do this without providing a detailed explanation of their decision.

60
00:04:20,960 --> 00:04:24,560
Speaker 1: And part of the reason why they've had so much

61
00:04:24,600 --> 00:04:27,680
Speaker 1: trouble is that they've tried to say that they're not

62
00:04:27,839 --> 00:04:30,960
Speaker 1: doing this for policy reasons. It's not that they don't

63
00:04:31,040 --> 00:04:34,760
Speaker 1: want DOCCA to exist. It's that they believe that DOCCA

64
00:04:35,279 --> 00:04:39,920
Speaker 1: is illegal. And that is what the judge continuously came

65
00:04:39,960 --> 00:04:43,440
Speaker 1: back to and said, you never explained why you think

66
00:04:43,560 --> 00:04:47,360
Speaker 1: it's illegal, and your justifications for why you think so

67
00:04:47,760 --> 00:04:50,760
Speaker 1: don't hold any water. So why not tell us the

68
00:04:50,800 --> 00:04:54,960
Speaker 1: real reasons that you're doing that? And they failed, again,

69
00:04:55,560 --> 00:04:59,280
Speaker 1: uh to provide the real reasons for them taking this action.

70
00:05:00,320 --> 00:05:03,919
Speaker 1: There have been previous court rulings in California and New York.

71
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:08,039
Speaker 1: There's another case pending in Texas which may find the

72
00:05:08,040 --> 00:05:11,080
Speaker 1: program to be unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit is going to

73
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:13,800
Speaker 1: issue a decision. How do all these cases fit together?

74
00:05:15,680 --> 00:05:19,600
Speaker 1: It's really all of these cases so far have pointed

75
00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 1: in the same direction that, uh, you know, really the

76
00:05:22,760 --> 00:05:26,880
Speaker 1: administration has done a very poor job in how they

77
00:05:26,880 --> 00:05:31,960
Speaker 1: have justified the decision to rescind DOCCA. And of course

78
00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: you uh may know that the court in Texas is

79
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:39,640
Speaker 1: also looking at this. This is the same court that's

80
00:05:39,640 --> 00:05:43,719
Speaker 1: struck down the Obama administration's expansion of a DOCTA program

81
00:05:43,800 --> 00:05:49,679
Speaker 1: to parents of of of American born children, and UH,

82
00:05:49,839 --> 00:05:54,160
Speaker 1: he is likely to strike down DOCTA based on the

83
00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 1: reasoning that he provided back in and so we could

84
00:05:59,080 --> 00:06:03,440
Speaker 1: have conflict thing decisions both in d C and Texas

85
00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:08,320
Speaker 1: and California, one requiring the administration to continue DAKA and

86
00:06:08,400 --> 00:06:12,240
Speaker 1: the other ones UH, the other one in Texas UH

87
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:15,640
Speaker 1: striking it down. So that will lead to the Supreme

88
00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:19,080
Speaker 1: Court intervening and deciding the issue once and for all.

89
00:06:19,360 --> 00:06:23,599
Speaker 1: And you think the Supreme Court will uphold the government's position.

90
00:06:24,560 --> 00:06:27,359
Speaker 1: I expect that the Supreme Court will side with the

91
00:06:27,400 --> 00:06:30,480
Speaker 1: administration on this issue, despite the fact that more lower

92
00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:34,719
Speaker 1: courts have gone against the admitted the administration. That's right

93
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:40,279
Speaker 1: because well, I think the reason is that, as I

94
00:06:40,360 --> 00:06:46,240
Speaker 1: explained before, many agency actions UH similar to this one

95
00:06:46,320 --> 00:06:49,080
Speaker 1: have been taken in the past and have been allowed

96
00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:53,400
Speaker 1: to stand, particularly decisions about whether or not to um

97
00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:58,679
Speaker 1: issue certain benefits on a discretionary basis or within certain

98
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:03,960
Speaker 1: administrative acts, such as creating a program for people who

99
00:07:04,000 --> 00:07:07,080
Speaker 1: do not want to remove David, we run out of time.

100
00:07:07,279 --> 00:07:09,280
Speaker 1: It's always great to have you on. That's David Beer,

101
00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:14,840
Speaker 1: immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Four cities have

102
00:07:14,960 --> 00:07:18,360
Speaker 1: had enough of executive actions that are slowly killing Obamacare,

103
00:07:18,400 --> 00:07:21,400
Speaker 1: and they're letting the Trump administration know that with a lawsuit.

104
00:07:21,880 --> 00:07:24,240
Speaker 1: Just last week, the Trump administration announced that it would

105
00:07:24,240 --> 00:07:27,640
Speaker 1: allow insurers to offer short term healthcare plan that don't

106
00:07:27,680 --> 00:07:31,280
Speaker 1: meet the Affordable Care Acts minimum coverage requirements. Health and

107
00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:34,640
Speaker 1: Human Services Secretary Alex Azar explained the change in an

108
00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:39,040
Speaker 1: interview with Bloomberg. These can be fifty to eighty percent

109
00:07:39,320 --> 00:07:43,200
Speaker 1: cheaper than Obamacare exchange plans, So this is a really

110
00:07:43,240 --> 00:07:47,280
Speaker 1: important new option for millions of Americans. Joining me is

111
00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:51,520
Speaker 1: Timothy Johns, a professor at Washington and Lee University School

112
00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:54,800
Speaker 1: of Law. Tim the City's claimed that the Trump administration

113
00:07:54,880 --> 00:07:58,080
Speaker 1: is trying to sabotage Obamacare, and they explain all this

114
00:07:58,120 --> 00:08:01,320
Speaker 1: in a nearly one fifty page complaint. Give us some

115
00:08:01,400 --> 00:08:06,360
Speaker 1: of the highlights of the administration's actions they're complaining about. Well.

116
00:08:06,440 --> 00:08:11,680
Speaker 1: The complaint focuses on two different kinds of actions. One

117
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:16,400
Speaker 1: is a rule that was put out earlier this year

118
00:08:16,920 --> 00:08:22,840
Speaker 1: to govern the sale of of insurance policies for for

119
00:08:24,720 --> 00:08:28,920
Speaker 1: and the complaints singles out quite a number of things

120
00:08:28,960 --> 00:08:32,840
Speaker 1: that are included in that rule that are reducing the

121
00:08:32,880 --> 00:08:39,880
Speaker 1: regulation of health insurers UH and reducing access by consumers

122
00:08:39,920 --> 00:08:45,080
Speaker 1: to information about health insurance and generally will probably have

123
00:08:45,200 --> 00:08:49,840
Speaker 1: the effect of suppressing enrollment. Beyond that, the complaint also

124
00:08:49,920 --> 00:08:55,680
Speaker 1: and the complaint alleges that those actions violate the Administrative

125
00:08:55,720 --> 00:09:02,560
Speaker 1: Procedures Act, which governs the UM the promulgation of federal regulations,

126
00:09:03,360 --> 00:09:07,120
Speaker 1: in that the rules are arbitrary and capricious and also

127
00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:12,480
Speaker 1: in violation of federal law. The second UH issue raised

128
00:09:12,480 --> 00:09:16,199
Speaker 1: by the complaint, which is a bigger issue UM, which

129
00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:22,960
Speaker 1: is the claim that the administration generally is violating what

130
00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:26,120
Speaker 1: is called to take care clause of the Constitution. The

131
00:09:26,200 --> 00:09:32,600
Speaker 1: United States Constitution U requires the president to take care

132
00:09:32,760 --> 00:09:38,520
Speaker 1: that the laws are faithfully executed UM, and President Trump

133
00:09:38,559 --> 00:09:43,360
Speaker 1: has repeatedly said, and the complaint listed pages of his

134
00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:47,120
Speaker 1: tweets and statements that he is trying to kill the

135
00:09:47,160 --> 00:09:51,840
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act, which is a law that was duly

136
00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:55,480
Speaker 1: enacted by Congress and which Congress refused to repeal last

137
00:09:55,559 --> 00:09:58,520
Speaker 1: year when it had the chance. UM and so it

138
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:02,400
Speaker 1: lifts a number of action is taken by the Trump administration,

139
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:06,400
Speaker 1: including the new Short Term Rule UM and other rules

140
00:10:06,480 --> 00:10:09,320
Speaker 1: that are driving up the cost of health insurance for

141
00:10:09,400 --> 00:10:14,960
Speaker 1: people with pre existing conditions UM and undermining the market

142
00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:19,720
Speaker 1: for health insurance coverage. So Tim has to take care.

143
00:10:19,880 --> 00:10:23,960
Speaker 1: Clause of the Constitution gotten much play, so to speak,

144
00:10:24,080 --> 00:10:28,120
Speaker 1: in the federal courts. There haven't been a lot of

145
00:10:28,200 --> 00:10:35,040
Speaker 1: cases raising the issue in this way. There are Supreme

146
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:38,640
Speaker 1: Court cases and appellate court cases that are cited in

147
00:10:38,679 --> 00:10:43,000
Speaker 1: the complaint that make it clear that the president, the

148
00:10:43,000 --> 00:10:46,640
Speaker 1: federal government does not have the option of simply ignoring

149
00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:51,320
Speaker 1: federal law, of simply refusing to enforce federal law. But

150
00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:55,840
Speaker 1: what's going on here is really unprecedented. Uh. It's it's

151
00:10:55,880 --> 00:11:00,320
Speaker 1: hard to think of another instance where a pres evident

152
00:11:00,440 --> 00:11:06,679
Speaker 1: has so openly and vociferously and uh and actively in

153
00:11:07,000 --> 00:11:11,640
Speaker 1: the actions that the administration has taken refuse to implement

154
00:11:11,679 --> 00:11:14,040
Speaker 1: a federal law and done everything that it could do

155
00:11:14,200 --> 00:11:17,040
Speaker 1: to undermine that a federal law that was adopted by

156
00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:21,160
Speaker 1: Congress that as we all remember from from Civics in

157
00:11:21,600 --> 00:11:25,520
Speaker 1: high school. UM, Congress adopts the law and the President

158
00:11:26,240 --> 00:11:29,440
Speaker 1: executes and enforces the law, and this president is just

159
00:11:29,559 --> 00:11:32,640
Speaker 1: refusing to do that with the Affordable Care Act. So

160
00:11:32,880 --> 00:11:36,280
Speaker 1: the Trump administration hasn't filed a response yet, But can

161
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:41,640
Speaker 1: you anticipate what the response might be? Uh? Yeah, I

162
00:11:41,679 --> 00:11:44,640
Speaker 1: mean I would guess that they will probably start by

163
00:11:44,679 --> 00:11:50,160
Speaker 1: trying to raise jurisdictional issues, challenging whether the cities, which

164
00:11:50,200 --> 00:11:54,000
Speaker 1: are in fact heavily burdened by the administration's actions, have

165
00:11:54,240 --> 00:11:57,720
Speaker 1: the right to sue um and then I guess will

166
00:11:57,760 --> 00:12:02,200
Speaker 1: probably also claim that that to take care claus is unenforceable,

167
00:12:03,400 --> 00:12:06,120
Speaker 1: and so we'll see where they go. They do have

168
00:12:06,240 --> 00:12:12,400
Speaker 1: some time to respond, although I'm not privy to the

169
00:12:12,480 --> 00:12:14,840
Speaker 1: what the planeffs planned to do, but if they move

170
00:12:14,960 --> 00:12:19,760
Speaker 1: for a preliminary injunction, then maybe things will move more quickly. Now,

171
00:12:20,240 --> 00:12:23,480
Speaker 1: is this suit an uphill battle for the cities or

172
00:12:23,920 --> 00:12:28,840
Speaker 1: which side has the advantage here? In your mind? Well,

173
00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:34,920
Speaker 1: because it is a claim that is going to be

174
00:12:35,080 --> 00:12:39,120
Speaker 1: somewhat novel, I think it will be somewhat of an

175
00:12:39,200 --> 00:12:41,679
Speaker 1: uphill battle. On the other hand, as you pointed out,

176
00:12:41,760 --> 00:12:45,160
Speaker 1: this is a very long complaint that points out in

177
00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:49,080
Speaker 1: great detail many actions the administration has taken to undermine

178
00:12:49,120 --> 00:12:53,080
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act um and uh. And so I

179
00:12:53,120 --> 00:12:57,360
Speaker 1: think that there is certainly a very good possibility that

180
00:12:57,480 --> 00:13:01,280
Speaker 1: it will succeed in some of those claims. Least, the

181
00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:05,440
Speaker 1: Justice Department announced that it would not defend Obamacare against

182
00:13:05,520 --> 00:13:08,000
Speaker 1: a lawsuit that was brought by the Attorney's General of

183
00:13:08,080 --> 00:13:12,360
Speaker 1: Texas and nineteen other Republican led states. How does that

184
00:13:12,400 --> 00:13:16,800
Speaker 1: fit in with the scenario that this lawsuit points out? Well,

185
00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:20,240
Speaker 1: I think the lawsuit specifically mentions that action is one

186
00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:23,000
Speaker 1: of the actions that the Trump administration has been taking

187
00:13:23,000 --> 00:13:27,800
Speaker 1: to sabotage the the Affordable Care Act um. And yes,

188
00:13:27,920 --> 00:13:32,840
Speaker 1: that's very concerning. Uh that the administration they they did

189
00:13:32,840 --> 00:13:35,520
Speaker 1: not say that they would not defend the entire law,

190
00:13:35,600 --> 00:13:38,960
Speaker 1: but they said specifically that they would not defend the

191
00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:42,440
Speaker 1: parts of the law that protect people with pre existing

192
00:13:42,480 --> 00:13:47,840
Speaker 1: conditions um and make sure that they get affordable health coverage.

193
00:13:48,360 --> 00:13:52,560
Speaker 1: So it's it's kind of ironic that a provision of

194
00:13:52,559 --> 00:13:56,360
Speaker 1: the law that is supported by the vast majority of

195
00:13:56,360 --> 00:14:01,439
Speaker 1: the American republic of public, including a majority of Republicans

196
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:05,080
Speaker 1: in recent polls, is the one provision that this administration

197
00:14:05,120 --> 00:14:08,439
Speaker 1: has singled out to say that they will refuse to enforce.

198
00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:13,560
Speaker 1: Just about a minute here, we're seeing Trump's words and

199
00:14:13,679 --> 00:14:19,120
Speaker 1: specifically his tweets used in several lawsuits. Now, how have

200
00:14:19,240 --> 00:14:22,280
Speaker 1: courts responded in general to the use of the tweets

201
00:14:22,280 --> 00:14:25,840
Speaker 1: and lawsuits. Well, that's that's a developing issue. But in

202
00:14:25,880 --> 00:14:29,760
Speaker 1: some of the cases involving immigration law, at least some

203
00:14:29,920 --> 00:14:33,720
Speaker 1: of the courts have found the tweets to be significant

204
00:14:33,760 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 1: evidence of the Trump administration's position. And in a case

205
00:14:37,720 --> 00:14:41,200
Speaker 1: like this, where the claim is that the administration is

206
00:14:41,240 --> 00:14:46,000
Speaker 1: explicitly not fulfilling its obligation to implement and enforce the law,

207
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:49,520
Speaker 1: I think the tweets are very powerful evidence that that's

208
00:14:49,560 --> 00:14:53,120
Speaker 1: exactly what's going on. And what's the what do you

209
00:14:53,160 --> 00:14:55,720
Speaker 1: what do you put the chances at of the states

210
00:14:56,080 --> 00:14:59,200
Speaker 1: or the city's rather being able to get an injunction here?

211
00:15:00,440 --> 00:15:04,840
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sorry, Okay, forget that's all right. We run

212
00:15:04,840 --> 00:15:08,360
Speaker 1: out of time anyway. Thank you so much. That's Timothy Josh,

213
00:15:08,360 --> 00:15:12,240
Speaker 1: professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. Thanks

214
00:15:12,280 --> 00:15:15,600
Speaker 1: for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

215
00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:18,840
Speaker 1: and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and

216
00:15:18,920 --> 00:15:23,400
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg dot com. Slash Podcast. I'm June Basso. This

217
00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:24,440
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg