Latest / Bloomberg Law / White House Media Ban & New Argument for DC Arch

Transcript

White House Media Ban & New Argument for DC Arch · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: White House has restored access for now to three media
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: outlets that President Donald Trump had banned last week. This
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: after an overnight order from federal judge Timothy Kelly, a
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Trump appointee, directing the White House to temporarily reinstate access
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: to CNN, MSNOW, and Politico while a lawsuit filed by
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: the media companies proceeds. Trump had announced on September 18th
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: that he was banning the three organizations from the White House,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: citing what he deemed unfavorable coverage. In formal letters sent
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: to the outlets four days later, the administration said the
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: decision was based on national security concerns related to news
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: reports about the administration. The news outlet sued, arguing the
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: ban is a direct assault on the First Amendment and
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: a blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles. In
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: his order, Judge Kelly said that the news organizations met
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: the high bar of showing they were likely to succeed
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: on the merits of the case, citing a lack of
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: due process, violation of constitutional freedoms, and the overall public interest. However,
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: he didn't directly address whether they're also likely to win
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: their broader allegation that the ban violates the First Amendment's
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: protections for the press. The judge's temporary restraining order is
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: set to stay in place for two weeks, and he'll
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: be scheduling a hearing to consider whether to extend access
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: for the outlets. My guest is First Amendment expert Timothy Zick.
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: a professor at William & Mary Law School. Did you
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: expect the judge to issue this temporary restraining order? Was
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: it any surprise? I did.
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: I'm not surprised because the same judge issued a similar
• 1:56
  Speaker 2: order with respect to Jim Acosta, who had been denied
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: his press credential without due process during the first Trump administration.
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: So it's the same judge, same issue. So it comes
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: as no surprise.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about the national security argument, which the government
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: raised yesterday. after the lawsuit was filed. And letters which
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: were provided to the court said that CNN, MSNOW, and
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: Politico were banned for trafficking in verifiable falsehoods about national
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: security and publishing sensitive or classified information. The judge tore
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: that argument apart in several different ways. What's your take
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: on it?
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: Well, I'm as skeptical as the judge was at the
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: hearing and in the opinion, in part because none of
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: that was mentioned when Trump blurted out his ban. So
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: the explanation that he gave was fake news, and these
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: stories are negative, and they diminish me, and you shouldn't
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: have the right to do that from inside the hallowed
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: halls of the White House. So it seems like a
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: post hoc rationalization and effort to sort of have a
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: court defer because when courts hear national security, oftentimes they
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: will give some deference to the government. But this judge didn't,
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: in part because he said this all seems to be
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: post hoc. And at least so far on the record,
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: they didn't submit any affidavits or any evidence of any
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: kind of national security breach. Worse than that, I think
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: some of their examples were situations where the press had
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: based its news reporting on anonymous sources from inside the
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: White House. So it's pretextual, I think, is the right
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: word for it, unless and until they come up with
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: some evidence to support it.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: So was the weight of the judge's decision based on
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: due process arguments?
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: Yes, this opinion is based solely on the deprivation of
• 3:48
  Speaker 2: due process, the lack of any sort of process or
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: standards or notice to these journalists before their credential was revoked.
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: And the court mentions press freedoms, but only as part
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: of the reason to grant preliminary relief, this sort of
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: irreparable harm that would occur in the absence of some relief.
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: And that irreparable harm, of course, is press freedoms are
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: being violated sort of as we speak or as he
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: was considering the decision. So it does not address the
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: sort of, you know, is the White House a public forum?
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: Do you have a First Amendment right to report from there?
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: Nothing about the sort of seeming viewpoint discrimination that's part
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: of any of this. So if that's going to come in,
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: it's going to come in in some future proceeding.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: During the arguments, the Justice Department argued that Trump wasn't
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: engaging in viewpoint discrimination because the president had criticized other
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: news organizations but not banned them. For example, he called
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: ABC the worst.
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 4:48
  Speaker 2: But they're all, to his mind, aligned with the left.
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: You know, they all favor Democrats. And the fundamental problem
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: is the reason he's picking on these particular outlets is
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: because of the critical nature of their coverage. So the
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: fact that he hasn't banned every single– outlet that critically
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: covers him does not mean he hasn't engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: And by the way, he said there may be more,
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: there may be others. And so I don't think that
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: has any bearing on this at all.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: Will you explain the media outlet's argument that the ban
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: was a blatant violation of the First Amendment?
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: Of the First Amendment?
• 5:30
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: Because the president Singled out particular media outlets for sanction,
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: in this case, exclusion and revocation of their press credentials
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: based on what they wrote, based on the sort of
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: negative coverage, as he sees it, or critical coverage or
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: the perspective of their publications. That is a violation of
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: the First Amendment, whether it takes place in this context
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: or some other. And the reason it's a violation here
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: is that journalists are, of course, invited to come to
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: the White House where news is made and to do
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: their job. It's important that they be there. And when
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: the government makes that kind of benefit available access, it
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: can't deprive it just for certain media outlets based on
• 6:11
  Speaker 2: the content of what they're reporting.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: So what the press got here was a temporary restraining order.
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: The judge is going to schedule expedited briefing for the
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: motion for a preliminary injunction. Do you expect the arguments
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: will basically be the same and perhaps the outcome too?
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: I would expect so. You know, it's possible that on
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: that schedule, the administration will have someone, who knows who,
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: sign an affidavit about some national security problem. In other words,
• 6:40
  Speaker 2: try to fix one of the problems that Judge Kelly identified,
• 6:45
  Speaker 2: which is a lack of any sort of evidence. But
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: I'm not sure that's going to fix the problem or
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: unring the bell of the president saying in the beginning,
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: I'm banning a free press. I'm doing it because I
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: don't like the way they report on me. They shouldn't
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: have the right to come here and criticize me was
• 7:00
  Speaker 2: the essence of what he said in my own house.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: It's our house, but he said in the White House.
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: So I expect the arguments to be similar. I expect
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: maybe a the administration. But I would expect a preliminary injunction.
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: And then, of course, beyond that, efforts to stay that injunction,
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: to get the D.C. Court of Appeals involved, and on
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: we go.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: Through the years, reporters have had scoops based on classified information,
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: leaks of national security, etc. There's no law or case
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: that makes that illegal, right?
• 7:41
  Speaker 4: Correct.
• 7:41
  Speaker 2: There's no law that's alleged to have been broken. Reporting
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: on national security matters is legal, lawful, and I would
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: add valuable in terms of self-government and democracy and all
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: of that. So they're not alleging unlawful behavior. They're sort
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: of making vague arguments about national security. One thing I
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: should say that I think could be different is that
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: in the sort of interim here, in the period we're
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: in now, it's possible the administration says, well, we'll come
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: up with a process. you can have your credentials back.
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: The court said we had to have a process before
• 8:14
  Speaker 2: we deprived you of them. And they'll come up with
• 8:17
  Speaker 2: a process and then deny them, which may or may
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: not resolve the due process problem. And it says nothing
• 8:22
  Speaker 2: about the First Amendment issue. So going forward, you know,
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: if the administration doesn't do that sort of due process fix,
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: it's going to be the same result. It could be
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: that they can fix the process piece, but not the
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: First Amendment piece. So there's going to be more litigation
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: on this, I suspect. I don't expect the administration to
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: just lay down and say, well, welcome back in. It's
• 8:44
  Speaker 2: good to see everyone.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: You know, that's not.
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: The MO of Trump 2.0. And so expect further proceedings.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: Let's say the Supreme Court affirms Judge Kelly, which I
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: would expect. I mean, would the Supreme Court ever take
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: a case like this? Is there any reason to take it?
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's possible they would, you know, whether it's
• 9:06
  Speaker 2: on the due process issue or the First Amendment issue,
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: you know, that they wanted the Supreme Court to make
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: some law on this. I don't have any inside information
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: or even projection as to whether they do or don't.
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: One of the things the administration was arguing in the
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: district court is some of the D.C. circuit precedents should
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: be overruled. And we do not have at this point
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: guidance on, again, what kind of forum is the White House,
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: what kind of access rights do journalists have there? So
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: it's possible the court, you know, could be interested in
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: making law on that. I mean, what it said about
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: news gathering and press freedoms, as you probably know, isn't comprehensive.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: So there isn't a lot of detail. The press has
• 9:47
  Speaker 2: the rights that ordinary Americans have, right, to gather information
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: and publish it. But of course, the press plays a
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: special role in that process and is a particularly interested institution.
• 9:59
  Speaker 2: And I don't know. I would worry if the court
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: did get it. It has not been sort of making
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: positive noises about press and press freedoms and its opinions.
• 10:08
  Speaker 2: And so I would be wary of the court sort
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: of opening this issue.
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: And this is another judge who has faced criticism from
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: people President Trump. In 2018, after the White House suspended
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: the credentials of correspondent Jim Acosta, after a lawsuit was filed,
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: Judge Kelly quickly ordered the White House to restore Acosta's
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: press pass, citing a lack of due process. And Trump
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: on Monday said, they have drawn a great judge for them,
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: a man who ruled in favor of Jim Acosta, who
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: now seems to have disappeared from the planet. The judge's
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: name is Tim Kelly, and he was sadly appointed by Trump.
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: Well, you know, he was a Trump 1.0 appointee, so
• 10:57
  Speaker 2: maybe there's a difference between those and the ones he's appointed,
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: nominated and appointed since. Given the law on the D.C.
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: Circuit with respect to this issue, which has come up
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: multiple times now, it's hard to escape. the conclusion. You
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: can't just say, well, we granted you some process after
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: the fact. That's not what the due process clause requires
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: in this particular context. So even a devoted Trump appointee,
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: when confronted with that law, either has to find a
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: way around it or ignore it, or in this case,
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: as he did, simply apply it. So who knows what
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: happens after that, but at least as far as due
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: process is concerned, this is a necessary decision and one
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: that follows the law.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to see how Judge Kelly rules on
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: the preliminary injunction and what happens next. Thanks so much, Tim.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: That's Professor Timothy Zick of William & Mary Law School.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: In October of 2025, President Trump first unveiled plans for
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: his proposed Triumphal Arch in Washington, D.C. He debuted a
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: model of the 250-foot structure in the Oval Office.
• 12:11
  Speaker 3: We're building an arc like the Arc de Triomphe, and
• 12:14
  Speaker 3: we're building it by the Arlington Bridge, the Arlington Cemetery,
• 12:20
  Speaker 3: opposite the Lincoln Memorial. You could say Jefferson, Washington, everything,
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: because they're all right there. And it's something that is
• 12:28
  Speaker 3: so special. It will be like the one in Paris,
• 12:33
  Speaker 3: but to be honest with you, it blows it away,
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: blows it away in every way.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: A group of Vietnam War veterans is challenging the ARCH
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: plans in court, and a Washington federal judge ordered the
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: government earlier this month to provide at least 48 hours'
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: notice before conducting activities on the planned ARCH. And then suddenly,
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: on Sunday, Trump raised a national security rationale for the
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: ARCH in a Truth Social post, where he said he'd
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: agreed to convert the proposed triumphal ARCH at the strong
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: request of the military, into a top-grade military complex, Triumphal Arch.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: He said the arch would house and store drones and
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: ammunition and provide space for snipers on the roof and plaza.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: It's part of a well-trodden playbook for the administration, which
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: has cited national security to defend against legal challenges to
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: immigration restrictions, sweeping tariffs, and most recently, Trump's new White
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: House ballroom. Joining me is constitutional law professor David Super
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: of Georgetown Law. David, national security seems to be Trump's
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: go-to argument.
• 13:48
  Speaker 4: Well, there are a bunch of cases from the Supreme
• 13:51
  Speaker 4: Court and elsewhere going back many years suggesting that the
• 13:56
  Speaker 4: court should defer to the president on national security matters.
• 14:00
  Speaker 4: And it's easy to understand why. But the assumption in
• 14:03
  Speaker 4: those cases is that the national security claim is at
• 14:07
  Speaker 4: least plausible. And what I think he is doing here
• 14:11
  Speaker 4: is showing that if you're willing to lie without constraint,
• 14:18
  Speaker 4: that you can make any of these legal categories irrelevant.
• 14:21
  Speaker 4: We've seen that in many other ways, where he's used
• 14:26
  Speaker 4: money from one program to address a completely different passing
• 14:32
  Speaker 4: fancy of his. And he's, I think, now going to
• 14:37
  Speaker 4: force the courts to reconsider deference to the president on
• 14:40
  Speaker 4: national security, because they certainly are not going to want
• 14:44
  Speaker 4: to be dragged into something as absurd as you get
• 14:49
  Speaker 4: to build an arch anytime you put a sniper on it.
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: Just the other day, the administration used national security as
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: part of the reason why the White House was denying
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: press passes to those three outlets. And the judge there
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: rejected those claims, looked at the sequence of events, and
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: noted that that only came up after a suit had
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: been filed. But the Supreme Court didn't do that in
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: the ballroom case.
• 15:18
  Speaker 4: The Supreme Court's decision on the ballroom was based on standing.
• 15:21
  Speaker 4: The majority stayed as far away from the merits as
• 15:24
  Speaker 4: they humanly could. The dissent from the chief justice was
• 15:29
  Speaker 4: very happy to talk about the merits and found it
• 15:32
  Speaker 4: was completely lawless. I think part of the reason the
• 15:35
  Speaker 4: court is finding procedural grounds so attractive in ruling for
• 15:39
  Speaker 4: the president is because the president's arguments are increasingly absurd.
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: The problem is that all the agencies that are reviewing
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: this are populated by Trump appointees. So there's no independent
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: review of this. So suppose he gets now, you know,
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: military Pete Hegseth to say that we really need this.
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: We really need this in the middle of a traffic
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: circle in D.C.
• 16:04
  Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I've lived in D.C. for many, many years,
• 16:10
  Speaker 4: and I've probably entered D.C. by that traffic circle twice
• 16:14
  Speaker 4: in a couple decades. It's not like an invader would
• 16:19
  Speaker 4: have to go through that traffic circle. There are only
• 16:22
  Speaker 4: about 200 other ways they could come in. Do we
• 16:25
  Speaker 4: get 200 triumphal arcs to protect us at every possible location?
• 16:30
  Speaker 4: I think there's going to be a president coming up,
• 16:34
  Speaker 4: maybe President Trump, maybe one of his successors, who's going
• 16:37
  Speaker 4: to really regret his invoking national security in such frivolous
• 16:43
  Speaker 4: ways because the courts are going to feel that they
• 16:46
  Speaker 4: have to stop giving deference on claims of national security
• 16:51
  Speaker 4: because they get lied to too often. And there will
• 16:53
  Speaker 4: be a situation where there really are delicate national security
• 16:57
  Speaker 4: issues and courts are going to be uncomfortable giving them
• 17:00
  Speaker 4: a blank check.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: There is no federal agency that's going to go against
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: what he wants. So then what about Congress? I mean,
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: the Democratic congressman from that district, talked about to make
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: the Arch an ammunition depot for snipers in a location
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: where snipers have never been needed, would place a large
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: weapons cache within feet of thousands of tourists, pedestrians, cyclists,
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: and drivers on major commuter traffic thoroughfares and metros Blue Line. So,
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, what can Congress do?
• 17:33
  Speaker 4: Congress, Congress. Oh, yes, I remember Congress. Thank you. Thank you.
• 17:38
  Speaker 4: Congress can say this is illegal, but they already have.
• 17:41
  Speaker 4: There's no law allowing it. And there's a statute that
• 17:45
  Speaker 4: goes back to the early days of the republic saying
• 17:48
  Speaker 4: you cannot spend appropriated funds on anything other than the
• 17:52
  Speaker 4: purposes for that appropriation. So it's already illegal, and asking
• 17:57
  Speaker 4: Congress to step in is effectively asking them to say
• 18:00
  Speaker 4: it's doubly illegal or it's triply illegal. You don't get
• 18:03
  Speaker 4: extra points for violating the law three times. Yeah.
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: I mean, the federal law requires congressional approval for monuments
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: on federal land in D.C., the Commemorative Works Act and
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: 40 U.S.C. Section 8106. So they require express approval from Congress.
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: So shouldn't that be the major issue when this goes
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: before a judge? Do they have express approval from Congress?
• 18:28
  Speaker 2: No.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: The administration claims a 1925 law that allowed for the
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: construction of a pair of 166-foot columns at that location
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: that were ultimately never built. Is there authorization?
• 18:41
  Speaker 4: Well, there's a lot of problems with that. Number one,
• 18:44
  Speaker 4: they don't want to build what that law called for.
• 18:46
  Speaker 4: They've got their own fancy plan. Number two, they still
• 18:51
  Speaker 4: are using federal money to arrange this, and they don't
• 18:56
  Speaker 4: have a valid appropriation for it. And under the Constitution...
• 18:59
  Speaker 4: Federal money shall not be spent unless Congress provides an
• 19:03
  Speaker 4: appropriation for it. They probably could have gotten one through
• 19:06
  Speaker 4: this Congress, but they didn't ask.
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about standing for a minute. So the Supreme Court,
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: as you said, said the National Trust for Historic Preservation
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: didn't have standing. Opposing this art, you have a group
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: of Vietnam War veterans challenging it. Do you think that
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: they have standing?
• 19:24
  Speaker 4: I suspect they do, but I think it's almost certain
• 19:27
  Speaker 4: that somebody does. because this is not just an aesthetic problem.
• 19:33
  Speaker 4: It is a safety problem. It is a traffic snarls problem.
• 19:37
  Speaker 4: So I think you just get a commuter from Arlington
• 19:41
  Speaker 4: who says, I don't want my commute messed up. That's
• 19:45
  Speaker 4: clearly an injury. In fact, that gives them standing. There
• 19:49
  Speaker 4: just wasn't anyone with quite that kind of a personal
• 19:53
  Speaker 4: inconvenience argument in the White House ballroom case. But this
• 19:58
  Speaker 4: is out where people go, and it's going to make
• 20:01
  Speaker 4: it much harder for people to go.
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: I've read they're going to break ground on this arch,
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: and that would be against the judge's order. But might
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: they do it anyway?
• 20:13
  Speaker 4: Yes, given their increasing willingness to violate court orders, their
• 20:17
  Speaker 4: handling of the Kennedy Center situation suggests that they don't
• 20:21
  Speaker 4: care very much about court orders. Their response to many
• 20:25
  Speaker 4: court orders about their immigration activities suggests they don't care
• 20:29
  Speaker 4: very much. So I can certainly see them doing it.
• 20:33
  Speaker 4: If I were the administration, Judge Shutkin would not be
• 20:36
  Speaker 4: my choice for the first judge to get into a
• 20:38
  Speaker 4: big fight with. She'd be pretty much my last choice.
• 20:41
  Speaker 4: But I'm not them. And this is clearly something the
• 20:45
  Speaker 4: president is rather emotional about. And there may not be
• 20:49
  Speaker 4: anyone that can tell him this is madness.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Let me ask you, because people say, well, what are
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: you going to do to the president, even a judge?
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: But can they serve contempt citations or do something to
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: the people who are apparently going to be working 20
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: hours a day or to the interior secretary to stop
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: them from physically constructing this?
• 21:11
  Speaker 4: Certainly, there's a lot that can be done in this case.
• 21:14
  Speaker 4: They could order people to not work on it. And
• 21:17
  Speaker 4: if they do hold them in criminal contempt, the president
• 21:21
  Speaker 4: could then pardon them. but they can also hold them
• 21:24
  Speaker 4: in civil contempt unless and until they repair the damage
• 21:28
  Speaker 4: that was done to the traffic circle or any surrounding
• 21:31
  Speaker 4: areas contrary to the order. And the president cannot pardon
• 21:36
  Speaker 4: people for civil contempt, so the judge could effectively force
• 21:41
  Speaker 4: them to undo whatever they do or put people in
• 21:44
  Speaker 4: jail until they change their minds.
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: And the next step is the National Capital Planning Commission
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: for final approval, but that's pact with Trump appointees.
• 21:54
  Speaker 4: All these laws were written on the assumption of good faith.
• 21:58
  Speaker 4: They were written on the assumption that you would put
• 22:01
  Speaker 4: people who are experts, who are representative of public sentiment,
• 22:06
  Speaker 4: that you would have some partisan balance in these boards
• 22:09
  Speaker 4: and that they would be loyal to the mission of
• 22:12
  Speaker 4: the law. None of that works if a condition for
• 22:16
  Speaker 4: being appointed to these boards is that you are unswervingly
• 22:20
  Speaker 4: politically loyal to the president. In that case, having these
• 22:24
  Speaker 4: boards around doesn't serve the purposes of Congress and indeed
• 22:28
  Speaker 4: just waste time and money.
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: Let's say Judge Chutkan issues an order to stop construction
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: and the construction goes forward. I mean, might the Supreme
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: Court even step in then?
• 22:39
  Speaker 4: My sense is that the Supreme Court is very conservative.
• 22:44
  Speaker 4: They're fairly deferential to the president, but they're not stupid people.
• 22:49
  Speaker 4: And Triumphal Arch.
• 22:52
  Speaker 4: That serves no particular purpose, that is justified on the
• 22:56
  Speaker 4: most laughable national security grounds, and that is being built
• 23:00
  Speaker 4: in contradiction to a court order, I suspect will be
• 23:04
  Speaker 4: a bit too much for most of the justices.
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: Except for two.
• 23:08
  Speaker 4: Except for two. Maybe three.
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 23:11
  Speaker 4: I also think that at some point, someone, at least privately,
• 23:15
  Speaker 4: is going to note that generally you don't build a
• 23:18
  Speaker 4: triumphal arch after losing a war. That's not the custom.
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: Also, even if he builds this, even if his name
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: is put on it, I mean, doesn't he realize that
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: his name would come down in two years? It doesn't
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: make any sense to me.
• 23:32
  Speaker 4: I mean, American politics has a shorter and shorter vision
• 23:36
  Speaker 4: into the future. We think more and more about the
• 23:39
  Speaker 4: here and now. And maybe it's good enough to him
• 23:43
  Speaker 4: to be commemorated for two years. And after that, he'll
• 23:48
  Speaker 4: be gone. So Maybe he doesn't care. But when you
• 23:52
  Speaker 4: put your name on things in such blatantly illegal ways,
• 23:56
  Speaker 4: you really don't give your successors any choice but to
• 23:59
  Speaker 4: strip them off.
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: Well, it'll be fascinating to see how this proceeds and whether–
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: thanks so much, David. That's Professor David Super of Georgetown Law.
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember,
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m.
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.