Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Sued on Day 1 & TikTok Reprieve

Transcript

Trump Sued on Day 1 & TikTok Reprieve · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
0:13
Speaker 2: This is a proclamation guaranteeing the state's protection against invasion
0:17
Speaker 2: based on the current crisis of the Southern border. It
0:20
Speaker 2: invokes various executive powers relating to the ongoing invasion at
0:23
Speaker 2: the southern border.
0:25
Speaker 3: Prominent and President Donald Trump's executive orders, signed hours after
0:30
Speaker 3: taking office, were a flood of actions on immigration, from
0:34
Speaker 3: declaring a national emergency at the southern border and barring asylum,
0:39
Speaker 3: to cracking down on undocumented immigrants already in the country
0:44
Speaker 3: and cutting off birthright citizenship, a right enshrined in the Constitution.
0:50
Speaker 3: Before the ink was barely dry on the order ending
0:53
Speaker 3: birthright citizenship, the first lawsuits against the administration were filed
0:58
Speaker 3: by Democratic led state and immigration advocates.
1:03
Speaker 1: I have one message for President Trump.
1:05
Speaker 4: I'll see you in court.
1:06
Speaker 3: Joining me is an expert in immigration law, Leon Fresco. Leon.
1:11
Speaker 3: He declared a national emergency at the southern border, and
1:14
Speaker 3: he wants to send troops down there. What are the
1:17
Speaker 3: parameters for using the military within the country.
1:21
Speaker 1: So this has always been an area of considerable legal debate.
1:26
Speaker 1: There is no doubt of any kind that troops can
1:29
Speaker 1: be sent there for a observation capacity in terms of
1:34
Speaker 1: pointing out to domestic law enforcement officials, Hey there's someone
1:38
Speaker 1: we've observed crossing, go apprehend them. Now. As to whether
1:43
Speaker 1: the troops have actual apprehension authority, this is always debated
1:48
Speaker 1: under posse comitatus, where the issue is whether you could
1:52
Speaker 1: have the military enforce domestic law inside the border of
1:56
Speaker 1: the United States. President Trump and his administration are trying
1:59
Speaker 1: to say, what we're trying to do is prevent an invasion.
2:02
Speaker 1: We're not trying to actually enforce domestic law. We're trying
2:06
Speaker 1: to prevent people from invading US, and so that issue
2:11
Speaker 1: will be one of first impression if you actually want
2:13
Speaker 1: to litigate this issue whether military people should actually be
2:18
Speaker 1: the individuals making arrests at the border. I don't think
2:23
Speaker 1: they're necessary given how few people are crossing at the moment,
2:27
Speaker 1: So it would be more of an intimidation factor just
2:31
Speaker 1: to have the people there. And certainly they can have
2:34
Speaker 1: the people there to create that intimidation factor, but whether
2:38
Speaker 1: they actually can be the ones who conduct the arrest,
2:42
Speaker 1: that's the open legal question.
2:45
Speaker 3: Does national guards fit under.
2:46
Speaker 1: The National Guarden has the same problem as the actual military,
2:51
Speaker 1: and so National Guard always gets sent to the border.
2:54
Speaker 1: And then what happens is they get sent there, they
2:57
Speaker 1: hold their guns, they create an intimidation factor, they point
3:01
Speaker 1: people out to be arrested by this CBP and I
3:06
Speaker 1: but they don't actually conduct any immigration law enforcement. And
3:10
Speaker 1: that's been the way that has been settled for quite
3:14
Speaker 1: a bit of time. But the question is what would
3:17
Speaker 1: happen now subsequently if they actually want to have this
3:20
Speaker 1: debate about, well, what we want the military to do
3:24
Speaker 1: is actually to repel an invasion, what are we permitted
3:28
Speaker 1: to do? And I mean, in that world you could
3:30
Speaker 1: shoot at people trying to come across the border, because
3:33
Speaker 1: if you actually think they're invading you, well that you're right.
3:37
Speaker 1: But I mean, that's the question the court they're going
3:40
Speaker 1: to have to grapple with. At that point.
3:42
Speaker 3: Let's turn to the issue of asylum and refugees. So
3:46
Speaker 3: he signed a proclamation to end the asylum process. Is
3:50
Speaker 3: that within his purview to end the asylum process?
3:54
Speaker 1: So this has been the issue that's been in litigation
3:57
Speaker 1: since the first Trump administration and then the Biden administration
4:01
Speaker 1: reversed the first Trump's administration's attempt to ban asylum, and
4:07
Speaker 1: then near the end of the Biden administration, the Biden
4:09
Speaker 1: administration attempted to ban asylum, albeit with two caveats that
4:15
Speaker 1: were supposed to distinguish it from the Trump administration. The
4:18
Speaker 1: first one is something that was eliminated yesterday which was
4:22
Speaker 1: a very big deal, called the CBP one app. And
4:25
Speaker 1: so what is the CBP one app. I think this
4:28
Speaker 1: is something I've heard a lot about on TV and
4:31
Speaker 1: on other podcasts where people misunderstand what's going on. The
4:35
Speaker 1: CBP one app is an app that all it's doing
4:38
Speaker 1: is is organizing in a coordinated manner, the process by
4:43
Speaker 1: which foreign nationals appear at ports of entry along the
4:47
Speaker 1: southern border to ask for asylum. So I've heard people say, oh, no,
4:51
Speaker 1: this is just ending illegal asylum or whatever else. No, no, no,
4:56
Speaker 1: this is ending the actual thing that people are saying
4:59
Speaker 1: that you can still theoretically do, which is go to
5:02
Speaker 1: the port of entry and ask for asylum. So the
5:05
Speaker 1: whole point of the CBP one app is instead of
5:07
Speaker 1: having people just show up there willy nilly and create chaos,
5:11
Speaker 1: give people an appointment and have them show up in
5:14
Speaker 1: a coordinated fashion. Well, that was ended, and so that
5:17
Speaker 1: was going to be a main defense to we don't
5:19
Speaker 1: have an asylum ban. What we have is a coordinated
5:22
Speaker 1: system where you can ask for asylum at the ports
5:25
Speaker 1: of entry. No, we don't. That's gone, and so now
5:28
Speaker 1: the question is can you actually have an asylum ban?
5:32
Speaker 1: And we're back to this issue that we've spoken about
5:34
Speaker 1: in prior podcast, which is this is an issue in
5:38
Speaker 1: which there is tension between two different statutes. One statue
5:43
Speaker 1: says you cannot have an asylum ban. It's the actual
5:45
Speaker 1: asylum statute, which says that you're allowed to apply for
5:48
Speaker 1: asylum no matter how you entered the country. And then
5:51
Speaker 1: there's another statue which gives discretion to limit the factors
5:57
Speaker 1: of which one can obtain asylum. And so the question is, yes,
6:02
Speaker 1: but can one of those factors that are a discretionary
6:05
Speaker 1: factor be illegal crossing when there's another statue that specifically
6:09
Speaker 1: says you can apply for asylum even if there's an
6:12
Speaker 1: illegal crossing. And so those are the two statutes that
6:16
Speaker 1: are intentioned, and we need to get to the Supreme
6:18
Speaker 1: Court to figure out which statute wins. We certainly can
6:22
Speaker 1: have a scenario where, for instance, you put in a
6:25
Speaker 1: discretionary factor where you say, oh, we're denying anyone asylum
6:30
Speaker 1: who's ever participated with the trend to agua gang in Venezuela.
6:35
Speaker 1: That's fine, you can do that. That certainly makes sense,
6:38
Speaker 1: and I don't think any court would overturn that. But
6:41
Speaker 1: can you have a wholesale asylum ban as a discretionary
6:44
Speaker 1: factor for crossing. I don't think that's going to be permitted,
6:49
Speaker 1: because then what's the whole point of the other statute,
6:52
Speaker 1: which says that you can apply for asylum regardless of
6:55
Speaker 1: if you crossed illegally. But I don't know. I think
6:57
Speaker 1: this is going to be a close call in the
6:59
Speaker 1: Supreme Court five four either way, and we'll have to see.
7:03
Speaker 3: An immigration advocacy group took legal action against the move
7:07
Speaker 3: to end the CBP one app filing a motion for
7:11
Speaker 3: emergency status in DC District Court, and the lawyer representing
7:15
Speaker 3: the ACLU Legal Learned said, whether or not Trump enac's
7:19
Speaker 3: additional border policies, the termination of the CBP one appointment
7:24
Speaker 3: process means there is now no way for anyone to
7:27
Speaker 3: seek asylum at the border, even for families.
7:31
Speaker 4: Correct.
7:32
Speaker 1: So this was the case. The one in DC was
7:35
Speaker 1: the case where the Biden asylum restriction verb being challenged
7:39
Speaker 1: because what happened was they had to challenge it in
7:42
Speaker 1: DC based upon a previous Supreme Court ruling that happened
7:46
Speaker 1: in the Biden administration, which said, if you want to
7:49
Speaker 1: challenge these things, there's no nationwide injunctions that you can
7:53
Speaker 1: get in a specific case like this. You have to go,
7:57
Speaker 1: you know, district by district, and you have to this
8:00
Speaker 1: specific statutory authority. So they had to go to DC
8:03
Speaker 1: because there's an actual statue which talks about when you're
8:06
Speaker 1: doing this kind of asylum ban in what's called the
8:10
Speaker 1: expedited removal process, you have to challenge anything in that
8:14
Speaker 1: process in DC. So they went to DC, and the
8:17
Speaker 1: Biden administration they've gone for a full summary judgment, not
8:21
Speaker 1: an injunction, because there's some question about whether a court
8:25
Speaker 1: can issue an injunction. So they said, forget about that,
8:27
Speaker 1: let's just ask for some rejudgment saying that the Biden
8:31
Speaker 1: asylum regulations were illegal. That was about to be decided,
8:35
Speaker 1: But now we have the Trump asylum regulations, which are
8:38
Speaker 1: even more stringent than the Biden asylum regulations, or rather
8:43
Speaker 1: executive orders is what they both are. And so in
8:46
Speaker 1: this situation, what the ACLU is saying is you have
8:49
Speaker 1: to take whatever you were going to do under Biden,
8:51
Speaker 1: which we thought was illegal, and add the Trump parts
8:55
Speaker 1: which were taking away the mitigating defenses of what Biden
8:59
Speaker 1: was saying. Because what Biden was saying is, yes, we
9:01
Speaker 1: have asylum, but it has to be at the port
9:04
Speaker 1: of entry, organized under CBP one, and we should be
9:07
Speaker 1: allowed to do that, but we should be allowed to
9:09
Speaker 1: have an organized process where people ask for asylum. But
9:12
Speaker 1: if you actually take away the organized process part and
9:16
Speaker 1: you have no process, it appears to me that it
9:18
Speaker 1: would be easier for the acl YOU to win the litigation.
9:21
Speaker 1: But we'll have to wait and see.
9:23
Speaker 3: Let's talk about deportations. In his speech, he said, we'll
9:26
Speaker 3: begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal
9:29
Speaker 3: aliens back to the places from which they came. And
9:34
Speaker 3: when he was signing orders in the Oval office, they
9:37
Speaker 3: asked him about whether there would be raids and he said,
9:39
Speaker 3: there have to be raids. I'm not telling you when,
9:42
Speaker 3: but there have to be. I mean, what does he
9:43
Speaker 3: intend as far as deportations.
9:46
Speaker 1: Well, in terms of the actual operations, we're still not
9:50
Speaker 1: at the point where you're seeing those on X or
9:53
Speaker 1: Twitter or blue Sky or whatever. We're not at that
9:56
Speaker 1: point yet, but what we are going to likely see
10:00
Speaker 1: are operations where there are known individuals who already have
10:04
Speaker 1: final orders of removal or who already have basically criminal
10:09
Speaker 1: convictions that allow them to have a very quick order
10:13
Speaker 1: of removal. We know about the criminal conviction, we hadn't
10:15
Speaker 1: put them through the immigration process. Those people, there's going
10:19
Speaker 1: to be some home operations, but actually what you're going
10:23
Speaker 1: to see more of is operations in places like workplaces
10:27
Speaker 1: and other public places, so that it creates a larger
10:31
Speaker 1: ripple effect of people getting worried about where can I
10:34
Speaker 1: go and not be subject to an operation, And the
10:37
Speaker 1: idea is that that would encourage people to self support
10:40
Speaker 1: because they would be nervous that they might be subject
10:42
Speaker 1: to an operation. But those operations, in order to make
10:46
Speaker 1: sure it's not just people you're holding and you're not
10:49
Speaker 1: going to be able to remove, are limited still to
10:52
Speaker 1: people with criminal convictions or prior orders of removal, and
10:55
Speaker 1: so that's where people have to understand that I see
11:00
Speaker 1: operating under some constraints there.
11:02
Speaker 3: He's expected to give new authority to the Immigration Customs
11:07
Speaker 3: Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection officers to carry out deportations.
11:13
Speaker 1: Yes, So here's what that is. So there is a
11:15
Speaker 1: statute called the expedited Removal Statue which says that if
11:19
Speaker 1: you are within one hundred miles of the US border,
11:24
Speaker 1: which believe it or not, actually covers a very large
11:26
Speaker 1: portion of the country because that's any border, any water border,
11:31
Speaker 1: any land border, So the northern border, the western Ocean,
11:35
Speaker 1: the Eastern Ocean, the southern Ocean. You take one hundred
11:39
Speaker 1: miles in any direction and you're within the area where
11:41
Speaker 1: you could be subject to expedite of removal. And so
11:44
Speaker 1: if you are within one hundred miles of any border,
11:47
Speaker 1: plus you've been here less than two years, then the
11:51
Speaker 1: government doesn't need to take you through the normal removal
11:54
Speaker 1: process where there's a hearing, and that hearing is six
11:57
Speaker 1: years from now. Because there's a million persons backlog at
12:00
Speaker 1: immigration court, they can just literally give you an order,
12:03
Speaker 1: put you on the plane, and take you out unless
12:06
Speaker 1: you say that you need asylum, and then you have
12:09
Speaker 1: to have a credible fear that you establish and if not,
12:11
Speaker 1: they can take you out. Now, the Biden administration and
12:15
Speaker 1: other administrations have limited that authority to fourteen days as
12:19
Speaker 1: opposed to two years. They self limited that because what
12:22
Speaker 1: they're trying to say is, look, we're trying to limit
12:24
Speaker 1: this to people we literally see coming across the border,
12:28
Speaker 1: because how will we know if someone's been here two
12:31
Speaker 1: years or not. That's going to create a lot of
12:32
Speaker 1: litigation that's going to create problems. If we can actually show, hey,
12:37
Speaker 1: Agent Smith observed this person coming across, then that's one thing.
12:42
Speaker 1: But if we can't actually do that, then how do
12:45
Speaker 1: we know they haven't been here two years? And that's
12:47
Speaker 1: where you start having this very problematic situation where you
12:51
Speaker 1: start reinserting potential areas of litigation that have been actually
12:56
Speaker 1: ruled in favor of the government. So right now, the
12:58
Speaker 1: government has pretty expanded into authorities on expedited removal where
13:03
Speaker 1: they can't be challenged in federal courts. But if they
13:06
Speaker 1: start getting into this scenario where a bunch of people
13:08
Speaker 1: start saying, oh, I've been here for more than two
13:10
Speaker 1: years and you're trying to deport me, then if the
13:14
Speaker 1: government is seemed to be abusing this, this may reopen
13:18
Speaker 1: the courts may say well, wait a second, we need
13:20
Speaker 1: a vehicle where people can challenge this and then that
13:24
Speaker 1: same vehicle can start getting used to challenge other parts
13:26
Speaker 1: of the expedited removal process. So that's why people haven't
13:30
Speaker 1: wanted to open that door. But if the Trump administration says, look,
13:34
Speaker 1: we want to reopen that door, and we're fine doing it,
13:37
Speaker 1: and we have the best environment we've ever had in
13:40
Speaker 1: the courts to do this in then it's possible that
13:43
Speaker 1: they may actually I mean, they will give themselves the authorities,
13:48
Speaker 1: but whether they actually start implementing this in practice and saying, look,
13:52
Speaker 1: we think this person's been here for one year in
13:54
Speaker 1: six months, but we can just grab them and immediately
13:57
Speaker 1: put them on a plane and not have to give
13:58
Speaker 1: them any due process. That's going to be very interesting
14:02
Speaker 1: to see if that happens.
14:03
Speaker 3: Speaking about putting them on a plane, where can they
14:06
Speaker 3: put them on a plane too?
14:08
Speaker 1: At this point, that's another question. Is there's going to
14:11
Speaker 1: have to be countries that are willing to accept them.
14:14
Speaker 1: I just read earlier today on Bloomberg News, which is
14:16
Speaker 1: obviously the best news source that there is, about India
14:20
Speaker 1: saying that it's going to work with the United States
14:23
Speaker 1: to repatriate people that weren't previously being repatriated to India.
14:28
Speaker 1: And so that's one example where sort of President Trump
14:31
Speaker 1: has this mythical ability to bend reality to his will.
14:35
Speaker 1: And India wasn't accepting these people previously, and so now
14:38
Speaker 1: it may accept them. And certainly President Trump has been
14:41
Speaker 1: threatening other countries who don't accept US deporties that they
14:46
Speaker 1: will create all kinds of other sanctions on them. And
14:49
Speaker 1: so if that works, if the India example is one
14:52
Speaker 1: example of this, then we may see others where President
14:55
Speaker 1: Trump ends up being very successful getting countries to accept
14:59
Speaker 1: people that were to the board that we previously weren't
15:02
Speaker 1: successful in having.
15:03
Speaker 3: That happened coming up the lawsuits against Trump's order ending
15:07
Speaker 3: birthright citizenship, this is bloomberg. On his first day in office,
15:12
Speaker 3: President Donald Trump signed sweeping executive actions designed to crack
15:17
Speaker 3: down on illegal border crossings and target undocumented migrants already
15:22
Speaker 3: in the country. One of his high profile orders was
15:25
Speaker 3: to end birthright citizenship, which says children born in the
15:29
Speaker 3: United States are US citizens under the fourteenth Amendment to
15:33
Speaker 3: the Constitution. That order led to democratic state attorneys general
15:38
Speaker 3: and immigration advocates launching the first suits against the Trump administration.
15:44
Speaker 3: New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin says he's confident that
15:47
Speaker 3: order is never going to take effect because it's so
15:50
Speaker 3: clearly unconstitutional.
15:52
Speaker 5: The reason why you put something in the constitution, the
15:54
Speaker 5: reason why we talk about rule of law. This is
15:56
Speaker 5: not an abstract concept. It's so that President, Congress, the
16:00
Speaker 5: majority cannot simply change a right on a whim. This
16:05
Speaker 5: is a right that was codified in one of the
16:07
Speaker 5: most important amendments ever codified in our nation's nearly two
16:11
Speaker 5: and a half century history.
16:13
Speaker 3: I've been talking to immigration law expert Leon Fresco this
16:17
Speaker 3: before because Trump has been promising to end birthright citizenship
16:22
Speaker 3: for some time. So tell us about this executive order.
16:26
Speaker 1: Previously we talked about it in the theoretical. Now we
16:29
Speaker 1: actually have the executive order, and the executive order is
16:33
Speaker 1: actually not very detailed. So what it just says is,
16:37
Speaker 1: in thirty days, the administration is to not give the
16:41
Speaker 1: accoutrement of citizenship, meaning pass forward social Security numbers, et cetera,
16:47
Speaker 1: to people who are born in the United States unless
16:50
Speaker 1: one of their parents is either a citizen or a
16:53
Speaker 1: lawful permanent resident. Period. If this executive order is not
16:58
Speaker 1: enjoyed by the court, then what would happened. Is any
17:01
Speaker 1: future person applying for a US passport, for instance, you
17:05
Speaker 1: would need to show that not just you were born here,
17:08
Speaker 1: which is all you have to show. Now you just
17:10
Speaker 1: show your birth certificate, which is given to you by
17:12
Speaker 1: the hospital. Now that wouldn't be enough. You would need
17:15
Speaker 1: to show a birth certificate either before February twentieth, twenty
17:20
Speaker 1: twenty five, that would be one way, or you would
17:23
Speaker 1: need to show a birth certificate after February twentieth of
17:26
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, and proof of one of your parents'
17:30
Speaker 1: green cards or one of their passports, or one of
17:33
Speaker 1: their birth certificates, something of that nature. And the question
17:37
Speaker 1: is will that actually be implemented. And here is where
17:42
Speaker 1: we go to the legal theory, which is that under
17:44
Speaker 1: the fourteenth Amendment, the fourteenth Amendment very clearly says anybody
17:48
Speaker 1: born here is a US citizen unless you're not subject
17:52
Speaker 1: to the jurisdiction of the US laws. And that was
17:57
Speaker 1: done as part of the fourteenth Amendment in order to
17:59
Speaker 1: end slavery, where people who were born here were allowed
18:03
Speaker 1: to be slaves and didn't have the full rights of citizenships.
18:06
Speaker 1: So the fourteenth Amendment ended that, it said everybody born
18:10
Speaker 1: here has the full rights of citizenship. No one can
18:12
Speaker 1: be given a second class citizenship that can lead them
18:16
Speaker 1: to be put into slavery or some other second class status.
18:20
Speaker 1: And so from that standpoint, the only way to eliminate
18:24
Speaker 1: birthright citizenship without changing the Constitution is to make a
18:28
Speaker 1: determination that people who are born here that you're trying
18:32
Speaker 1: to eliminate this from are not subject to the jurisdiction
18:36
Speaker 1: of the United States. Well, that's what this executive order says,
18:40
Speaker 1: but is that really true. I mean, that would mean
18:43
Speaker 1: that they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
18:45
Speaker 1: I actually tweeted earlier today, I said, for the moment,
18:50
Speaker 1: if you are a criminal defense attorney and you have
18:54
Speaker 1: a client in federal court and they are not a
18:57
Speaker 1: Green card holder or they are not a US citizen,
19:01
Speaker 1: then you, I think, would be very close to committing
19:04
Speaker 1: malpractice if you don't file emotion to dismiss saying that
19:09
Speaker 1: at the moment, the current administration believes that my client
19:13
Speaker 1: is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
19:15
Speaker 1: meaning we can't criminally prosecute this person because they're not
19:20
Speaker 1: subject to our jurisdiction. And so that is an unintended
19:23
Speaker 1: consequence here, and is that really something that the administration
19:28
Speaker 1: is comfortable with. I really don't know, and I don't
19:31
Speaker 1: know how you can make someone subject to the jurisdiction
19:34
Speaker 1: for crimes but not subject to the jurisdiction for citizenship.
19:38
Speaker 1: That word either means what it means or it doesn't,
19:41
Speaker 1: which means typically diplomatic immunity. So diplomats and their children
19:47
Speaker 1: are usually the ones interpreted under this statute and this
19:51
Speaker 1: constitutional provision to be the ones exempted from birthright citizenship,
19:56
Speaker 1: but not anyone else.
19:58
Speaker 3: Democratic Attorney's General file two sets of lawsuits to strike
20:02
Speaker 3: down this executive order. Tell us about the grounds for
20:06
Speaker 3: their lawsuits.
20:07
Speaker 1: Their argument is that this cannot be changed via an
20:09
Speaker 1: executive order, that there's a constitutional provision and actually a
20:13
Speaker 1: statute which codifies the constitutional provision, So there's actually two
20:17
Speaker 1: different legal authorities here, and that both of them mean
20:21
Speaker 1: that the only people exempt from this are diplomats and
20:25
Speaker 1: the children of diplomats. It's not other people. And so
20:28
Speaker 1: the executive order would be ultra virus. And so they're
20:32
Speaker 1: all representing that they have people in their state or
20:35
Speaker 1: in their organization, et cetera that are going to have
20:38
Speaker 1: children after February twentieth of twenty twenty five, and those
20:42
Speaker 1: children will not have U as citizenship, so they will
20:44
Speaker 1: be harmed by this. And then some of the interesting
20:47
Speaker 1: arguments they make is there are some countries where if
20:50
Speaker 1: you're born in another country you might be considered stateless.
20:54
Speaker 1: They may not give you their citizenship either, And so
20:57
Speaker 1: what are these poor kids supposed to do they being stateless.
21:01
Speaker 1: This is, by the way, not just a problem for
21:03
Speaker 1: people who are undocumented. The way the executive Order is
21:06
Speaker 1: written again, it will be the children of anybody who
21:10
Speaker 1: doesn't have a Green Card or a US passport, Meaning
21:14
Speaker 1: there's millions of people here on other kinds of work
21:17
Speaker 1: visas that their children will not have US citizenship if
21:21
Speaker 1: they're born here, which previously was the case, which will
21:25
Speaker 1: mean that if those people want to stay in the US,
21:28
Speaker 1: ultimately those children will be in a limbo where it's
21:32
Speaker 1: not clear what their citizenship status will be.
21:35
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in one case way
21:40
Speaker 3: back in eighteen ninety eight, and it seems like the
21:43
Speaker 3: Democratic ags have a good case against this executive order.
21:49
Speaker 1: If I were a chech GPP or a computer judge
21:52
Speaker 1: or an AI judge or a robot judge. I would
21:55
Speaker 1: put the statistical odds of this being enjoyed that are
21:59
Speaker 1: very very high numerical percentage. But because human beings are
22:04
Speaker 1: involved and you just never know, you can never say
22:06
Speaker 1: for sure that you are certain that this won't get enjoined.
22:10
Speaker 1: But I do think it will very likely to get
22:12
Speaker 1: enjoined in the lower court and in the courts of appeals.
22:16
Speaker 1: And then the question is if this goes to the
22:17
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, would there really be five judges that say
22:21
Speaker 1: you could overturn birthright citizenship BAIA an executive order? And
22:25
Speaker 1: I'm very skeptical of that, But since one can never
22:29
Speaker 1: guarantee anything, you just never know.
22:31
Speaker 3: One of his orders target sanctuary cities that refuse to
22:36
Speaker 3: cooperate with I spy, restricting federal funds and potentially taking
22:41
Speaker 3: legal action against them. During his first administration, weren't there
22:45
Speaker 3: legal actions related to his.
22:47
Speaker 1: His n What happened was there were these initiatives to
22:50
Speaker 1: take away DOJ police funding and other detention funding and
22:55
Speaker 1: other federal funding that had to do with with law
22:58
Speaker 1: enforcement from city that did not report when they had
23:02
Speaker 1: people arrested who are not in status to the federal government.
23:06
Speaker 1: Those are what's called spectuary cities or states are places
23:10
Speaker 1: where if there's a foreign nationals who's arrested, those foreign
23:14
Speaker 1: nationals aren't reported to ICE, and that they don't let
23:18
Speaker 1: ICE go into the jails to determine if there's foreign
23:21
Speaker 1: nationals in there that can be removed when their prison
23:25
Speaker 1: sentences or their jail terms are up. And so the
23:29
Speaker 1: point was, if you're not going to allow us to
23:31
Speaker 1: do that, you shouldn't get federal funding for police. Those
23:34
Speaker 1: cases were litigated and pretty much the states in the
23:37
Speaker 1: cities won in those litigations, but that was because they
23:42
Speaker 1: were executive orders like these were. What will be interesting
23:46
Speaker 1: is that now that there is control over the Congress
23:49
Speaker 1: and we're seeing things like the Lake and Riley ACKs
23:51
Speaker 1: pass with some democratic health, can you actually get sixty vote,
23:56
Speaker 1: meaning there would be some democratic support for the principles
23:59
Speaker 1: that a sanctuary city should have their grants taken away
24:04
Speaker 1: because they're once it's not just an executive order, but
24:07
Speaker 1: it's Congress actually limiting funds to localities that it is appropriating.
24:15
Speaker 1: Then the claims are going to be much harder to
24:17
Speaker 1: win in litigation by the states and the city. So
24:21
Speaker 1: for now, if it's executive orders, yes, the point is
24:24
Speaker 1: being made. There will be the same litigation. The litigation
24:27
Speaker 1: is likely to be successful and the refusal to give
24:31
Speaker 1: the funding will be overturned. But the long term battle
24:35
Speaker 1: here is going to be will there be bipartisan votes
24:39
Speaker 1: for actually eliminating funding to sanctuary cities.
24:42
Speaker 3: He has one order that instructs federal agencies to identify
24:46
Speaker 3: countries that don't provide sufficient information about their citizens for
24:51
Speaker 3: the US to be able to vet and screen them.
24:55
Speaker 1: Yes, that is the old travel band statute. If you remember.
24:59
Speaker 3: That, it would be hard to forget.
25:01
Speaker 1: Last time, in the first Trump administration, they were there
25:04
Speaker 1: was the ban first, and then all the questions were
25:06
Speaker 1: asked later, and so that's what led to a lot
25:09
Speaker 1: of litigation. And then finally, after many iterations of the band,
25:13
Speaker 1: the final ban was upheld because the questions were asked first,
25:18
Speaker 1: and then the final band was written. So this time
25:21
Speaker 1: they agree, let's ask the questions first, let's do the investigation,
25:25
Speaker 1: then we'll come back and do the band. And so
25:27
Speaker 1: they're going to ask the questions first, which countries are
25:30
Speaker 1: unsafe or we don't know who is who, or when
25:34
Speaker 1: we get information from them. This could all be fake
25:36
Speaker 1: or whatever. And then if we can figure out which
25:39
Speaker 1: country should go on a list like that, then there
25:41
Speaker 1: will be a travel band put in place for people
25:44
Speaker 1: from those countries.
25:46
Speaker 3: Also, he wants to complete the building of the wall
25:50
Speaker 3: along the Mexico US border. How much wall was built
25:54
Speaker 3: and how much has to be built.
25:57
Speaker 1: Well, again, this depends on what you consider wall and
26:00
Speaker 1: what will be the final product. And do you consider
26:03
Speaker 1: barriers that are there now that are not wall like
26:07
Speaker 1: barriers to be considered part of the wall. So all
26:10
Speaker 1: of this is in the eye of the beholder. But
26:13
Speaker 1: let's say that, without any controversy of any kind, there's
26:16
Speaker 1: at least five hundred miles that are completely wide open,
26:20
Speaker 1: and then there's another five hundred or so miles that
26:23
Speaker 1: have some kind of substandard barrier that probably President Trump,
26:28
Speaker 1: if he were talking about the big, beautiful wall, would
26:31
Speaker 1: not think that that would qualify because it would be
26:34
Speaker 1: traversible barriers that might be there to prevent vehicles or
26:38
Speaker 1: something of that nature, but that's to prevent an industrious
26:41
Speaker 1: person from traversing the walls. Can it be done?
26:44
Speaker 5: Yet?
26:44
Speaker 1: It can be done. There's been litigation on this that
26:47
Speaker 1: you can declare a national emergency, you can repurpose the
26:50
Speaker 1: military funds for the wall. And then the only thing
26:54
Speaker 1: that had happened in the prior administration was all of
26:57
Speaker 1: that got decided way too late, and so at the
27:00
Speaker 1: time the money started being used, the administration was over.
27:04
Speaker 1: So now the point is start on day one and
27:07
Speaker 1: the idea is well, then hopefully by the end of
27:10
Speaker 1: the administration, you would have your two thousand mile complete
27:15
Speaker 1: wall of the southern border. And so that's the intent,
27:18
Speaker 1: that's what they say they're going to do. Let's see
27:21
Speaker 1: what actually happens over the next four years.
27:24
Speaker 3: I have a feeling there is going to be a
27:25
Speaker 3: lot of litigation over immigration issues. Thanks so much, Leon.
27:30
Speaker 3: That's Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. Coming
27:34
Speaker 3: up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show. Trump gives TikTok
27:37
Speaker 3: a reprieve. What does it mean? I'm June Gross. When
27:40
Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg. President Donald Trump temporarily halted the
27:46
Speaker 3: ban on TikTok in the US, granting the company and
27:49
Speaker 3: its Chinese parent, Byte Dance, a seventy five day reprieve
27:54
Speaker 3: to reach a deal for the popular app that would
27:56
Speaker 3: resolve national security concerns. TikTok Lifeline came in an executive
28:02
Speaker 3: order signed by Trump on Monday, in one of his
28:05
Speaker 3: first acts after taking office. His stance is that American
28:09
Speaker 3: company should own half of the wildly popular app.
28:13
Speaker 6: The US should be entitled to get half of TikTok,
28:17
Speaker 6: and congratulations, TikTok has a good partner, and that would
28:22
Speaker 6: be worth you know, it could be five hundred billion
28:25
Speaker 6: dollars or something. It's crazy, The numbers are crazy, but
28:28
Speaker 6: it's worthless. If I don't if the President doesn't sign,
28:32
Speaker 6: then it's worthless.
28:33
Speaker 3: Joining me is first Amendment expert doctor Kirk McGill of
28:36
Speaker 3: hall Estell. So tell us about Trump's order granting TikTok
28:41
Speaker 3: this reprieve for seventy five days.
28:44
Speaker 4: So the order is exactly what you just said. It
28:46
Speaker 4: simply says, I, President Trump, with the authority I claim
28:49
Speaker 4: under the law hereby extend for seventy five days the
28:53
Speaker 4: band on TikTok. And I encourage all companies, for example
28:57
Speaker 4: Google and Apple in their stores to allow TikTok to
28:59
Speaker 4: get They need to operate during that period, and I
29:02
Speaker 4: promise not to send you to jail if you do
29:03
Speaker 4: that sign Donald Trump, does he have.
29:06
Speaker 3: The authority to issue that kind of executive order because
29:10
Speaker 3: according to the TikTok ban the law, an extension is
29:14
Speaker 3: only possible if he can show Congress that there's a
29:18
Speaker 3: viable path forward to make a deal.
29:21
Speaker 4: Likely, he does not have the legal authority under the
29:23
Speaker 4: statute strictly speaking. But the question is, is anybody going
29:27
Speaker 4: to be able to do anything about it in those
29:29
Speaker 4: seventy five days? Court system works rather slowly, so is
29:33
Speaker 4: anyone going to have standing to go stop him from
29:36
Speaker 4: doing that, that's going to be able to get a
29:37
Speaker 4: judge to put a stop to it within that seventy
29:39
Speaker 4: day five day period. Clearly he's betting that they are not.
29:43
Speaker 3: So he sort of shrugged off the national security concerns
29:47
Speaker 3: around TikTok, which was the ostensible reason for the ban,
29:51
Speaker 3: saying the US has bigger problems than any threat of
29:54
Speaker 3: China potentially getting information about young kids.
29:58
Speaker 4: So Trump, of course, is plus playing a game here,
30:01
Speaker 4: which is he's trying to get a deal done. He's
30:04
Speaker 4: very open about saying that, and so he's trying to
30:07
Speaker 4: deliver a message to China of I'm your friend, I'm
30:11
Speaker 4: the good cop. I'm the one that could get a
30:13
Speaker 4: deal done here, because the alternative is a US Congress
30:16
Speaker 4: that voted overwhelmingly for banning you. And you couldn't get
30:20
Speaker 4: that many members of Congress to agree on what day
30:22
Speaker 4: of the week. It is much less on what constitutes
30:25
Speaker 4: a national security threat. So the fact that they all
30:27
Speaker 4: walked out of those classified briefings that voted overwhelmingly for
30:31
Speaker 4: banning TikTok sets them up very much as the bad
30:34
Speaker 4: cop in this deal making. And so Trump seems to
30:37
Speaker 4: be brushing off those national security implications not because he
30:40
Speaker 4: isn't aware of them and doesn't respect them, but rather
30:43
Speaker 4: because he's trying to set himself up to be the
30:46
Speaker 4: deal maker. And this is a man who's written an
30:48
Speaker 4: entire book about half he tries to make deals. This
30:51
Speaker 4: is pretty much par for how he tries to make deals.
30:53
Speaker 4: He's either the good cop or the bad cop, and
30:55
Speaker 4: he set himself up in this one to be either one.
30:58
Speaker 4: He's certainly cautioned China that he's aware of the national
31:00
Speaker 4: security implication and that any deal that gets done is
31:04
Speaker 4: going to have to protect the Americans. So he set
31:06
Speaker 4: himself up to be able to play whichever side he
31:08
Speaker 4: needs to in order to get a deal done, assuming
31:11
Speaker 4: there's one to be had.
31:12
Speaker 3: He said, I could see a deal where the US
31:15
Speaker 3: gets fifty percent of TikTok police. Is it a little
31:17
Speaker 3: bit or a lot, depends on them. Do you see
31:21
Speaker 3: a deal like that anywhere?
31:24
Speaker 4: I don't think I see a deal in which the
31:25
Speaker 4: United States government is going to own a major institution
31:29
Speaker 4: of public communication that simply has so many First Amendment
31:33
Speaker 4: implications that the lawyers at the Justice Department will probably
31:36
Speaker 4: all walk out and start having a group cry in
31:38
Speaker 4: the parking lot. If he actually was serious about doing that.
31:41
Speaker 4: I don't think he's serious about doing it now. Trying
31:43
Speaker 4: to predict what Donald Trump is going to do, let's
31:45
Speaker 4: all admit, is an exercise in guessing at best. But
31:50
Speaker 4: if I had to guess, I would say that's simply
31:52
Speaker 4: all part of his game. Ultimately, what he wants is
31:54
Speaker 4: he wants to have his cake and eat it too.
31:57
Speaker 4: He wants TikTok to be able to survive in some form,
32:00
Speaker 4: as it would get him a large amount of political
32:01
Speaker 4: support from all of the TikTok users who say yay,
32:05
Speaker 4: Donald Trump, save TikTok. At the same time, he's not
32:07
Speaker 4: a fool. He's got national security people talking about to
32:11
Speaker 4: him to explain just how dangerous TikTok is and its
32:14
Speaker 4: information collection could be to America in the future, particularly
32:17
Speaker 4: with people who aren't necessarily aware of what they're giving up, teenagers,
32:21
Speaker 4: people that aren't even on TikTok, but whose information is
32:24
Speaker 4: being provided to TikTok through, for example, access to the
32:28
Speaker 4: phone book of people who are on TikTok, and the
32:31
Speaker 4: kind of danger that composed in the future to the
32:34
Speaker 4: United States, to our national security. So he's trying to
32:37
Speaker 4: balance those things out, and ultimately the only way to
32:40
Speaker 4: do that is to not have China own TikTok, and
32:43
Speaker 4: that's what Congress decided, That's what the courts have ultimately upheld,
32:47
Speaker 4: and that is certainly what his national security experts are
32:49
Speaker 4: going to be telling him. What he's trying to find
32:52
Speaker 4: out is can I have that cake and eat it too?
32:54
Speaker 4: Can I keep TikTok in one piece and functional in
32:57
Speaker 4: the United States, but do so in a way that
32:59
Speaker 4: takes it out of it for all of China. China
33:01
Speaker 4: obviously doesn't want to let him do that, so he's
33:03
Speaker 4: playing a game of brinksmanship with them, and that's why
33:05
Speaker 4: we're seeing things like, for example, him coming out and saying,
33:08
Speaker 4: maybe he'll put a one hundred percent tariff on China's
33:11
Speaker 4: goods if the deal isn't being made. That's all the
33:13
Speaker 4: kind of brinksmanship that Trump loves and in many cases
33:16
Speaker 4: has been successful at in forcing other countries to come
33:19
Speaker 4: to the bargaining table. Whether he's going to be successful
33:22
Speaker 4: here or not, that remains to be seen.
33:24
Speaker 3: Let me ask you this about the security threat. Is
33:27
Speaker 3: it just a prospective threat. There's been no public information
33:31
Speaker 3: that they've accessed to anyone's data or engaged in any
33:36
Speaker 3: propaganda on TikTok? Is there is it a concern about
33:39
Speaker 3: what might.
33:40
Speaker 4: Happen in the publicly available information. It is primarily about
33:45
Speaker 4: what could theoretically be done by China as opposed to
33:49
Speaker 4: what has been done. But we know there's this large
33:52
Speaker 4: trough of classify informations not publicly available that Congress had
33:57
Speaker 4: access to, but that no one else has had access to.
34:00
Speaker 4: The theory, and this, of course is just a theory,
34:03
Speaker 4: is that anything about actual use of that information would
34:06
Speaker 4: be in that classified file because it could give away
34:09
Speaker 4: our sources and methods. In other words, if we say, hey,
34:11
Speaker 4: we know that China used this information because in this meeting,
34:15
Speaker 4: on this date, these Chinese officials did that, well, by definition,
34:19
Speaker 4: we're giving away our methods, or at least risking our
34:23
Speaker 4: methods of how did we get that information. Did we
34:26
Speaker 4: breach them electronically, did we have an agent in the room,
34:30
Speaker 4: How did we get that information? And so that's not
34:32
Speaker 4: the kind of thing the United States government would want
34:35
Speaker 4: to be publicly known. I think we have to rely
34:37
Speaker 4: on the fact again that Congress came out of those
34:40
Speaker 4: meetings with sufficient concern to vote so overwhelmingly for the ban.
34:44
Speaker 4: That would suggest that whatever they saw it posed a
34:47
Speaker 4: sufficient danger to the United States that they were able
34:49
Speaker 4: to come to it to an overwhelming agreement on the
34:51
Speaker 4: TikTok law, when again, those same individuals could degree on
34:55
Speaker 4: almost anything else in the universe right now.
34:57
Speaker 3: Bite Dance has previously that it has no intention of divesting.
35:03
Speaker 3: I mean, do you see any movement there?
35:06
Speaker 4: I think Trump's plan, and again I'm guessing on a
35:09
Speaker 4: man who likes to not make it easy to guess
35:11
Speaker 4: what he's doing. That's part of his negotiation strategy. But
35:14
Speaker 4: I'm guessing that this is the plan. China doesn't want
35:17
Speaker 4: to divest TikTok. Trump's betting, however, if the choice is
35:21
Speaker 4: between not having TikTok and any money associated with it
35:25
Speaker 4: at all, having it be simply something you spent a
35:27
Speaker 4: bunch of money on and now you can't use in
35:30
Speaker 4: relation to your biggest competitor, or selling it to the
35:33
Speaker 4: United States, they'll sell. So if he's able to put
35:36
Speaker 4: his foot down and say, your choices China are not
35:39
Speaker 4: operating TikTok under the control of China. Your choices are,
35:42
Speaker 4: we'll pay you fair value for that, and you can
35:47
Speaker 4: let us operate it, so you lose the spying aspect,
35:50
Speaker 4: but you at least make some money off of it,
35:52
Speaker 4: or will shut you down completely in accordance with the law,
35:54
Speaker 4: in which case, not only will you not get your spine,
35:57
Speaker 4: but you also won't get any money. And you've sunk
35:59
Speaker 4: a huge amount of money into TikTok and you're just
36:02
Speaker 4: going to eat that. And that seems to be the
36:04
Speaker 4: game that he's playing with him is he's betting if
36:06
Speaker 4: the choices between money and no money, that the issue
36:09
Speaker 4: of whether they operate or not is off the table.
36:11
Speaker 4: They're not going to be allowed to operate or Chinese control,
36:14
Speaker 4: that the Chinese will take the money and run. And
36:16
Speaker 4: whether or not that's true or not, we'll see, but
36:18
Speaker 4: it's at least a rational move to be making on
36:21
Speaker 4: his part to back them into that corner.
36:24
Speaker 3: One prospective ownership group led by billionaire real estate investor
36:28
Speaker 3: Frank McCourt is proposing to buy TikTok without that recommendation algorithm.
36:36
Speaker 3: Isn't that algorithm what makes TikTok so popular?
36:40
Speaker 4: Arguably yes. The question is is could you take the
36:44
Speaker 4: brand in essence and all of the current users of
36:47
Speaker 4: TikTok and develop an algorithm that's sufficiently good that you
36:51
Speaker 4: wouldn't go lose all of those users? The course seems
36:54
Speaker 4: to be betting the answer is yes, that they would
36:57
Speaker 4: be able to do that. The key it seems to
36:59
Speaker 4: be of that deal is is if I have a
37:01
Speaker 4: cactive audience, I have those one hundred and seventy million
37:03
Speaker 4: Americans that are using TikTok, how many of those are
37:06
Speaker 4: going to go jump ship just because the algorithm may
37:09
Speaker 4: not be as good as the one that it's replacing.
37:11
Speaker 4: And he's betting not enough to make it not worth
37:14
Speaker 4: what he's willing.
37:15
Speaker 3: To pay for so, despite Trump's talking about this fifty
37:18
Speaker 3: to fifty deal, House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Sunday
37:22
Speaker 3: that there must be full divestiture from the Chinese Communist Party.
37:26
Speaker 3: Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton said in a post
37:29
Speaker 3: on x there was no legal basis for any kind
37:32
Speaker 3: of extension. But do you think that Trump can get
37:35
Speaker 3: Congress this Congress to do what he wants.
37:38
Speaker 4: I don't think he's going to have a lot of
37:40
Speaker 4: success in getting Congress to back off on the divestioner
37:43
Speaker 4: because that's the whole point. Keeping the Chinese government out
37:46
Speaker 4: of TikTok is the point of the statue. Either the
37:49
Speaker 4: vest or be banned, and there's such overwhelming support for that.
37:53
Speaker 4: Does Trump really want to burn his capital with Congress
37:56
Speaker 4: on that issue. The problem, to some extent is Trump
37:59
Speaker 4: has took himself in a corner. I think quite knowingly
38:02
Speaker 4: he's taken on the risk. But if he had done nothing,
38:06
Speaker 4: then one hundred percent of the blame could rightly have
38:09
Speaker 4: been put on Congress and on President by President Biden
38:12
Speaker 4: unquestionably had the statutory authority to extend the time they
38:15
Speaker 4: had before the band kicked in, he chose not to
38:18
Speaker 4: do that. Congress of course passed the original law. So
38:22
Speaker 4: Trump really had no responsibility for TikTok up until Sunday night.
38:26
Speaker 4: But as soon as he came in and said, I'm
38:28
Speaker 4: now extending this time, I'm going to go stay TikTok,
38:31
Speaker 4: and not just doing that on the campaign trail, but
38:33
Speaker 4: doing it as president in an executive order. If TikTok
38:37
Speaker 4: now goes dark because Trump isn't able to get a
38:40
Speaker 4: deal done, then TikTok when you try to log into TikTok,
38:43
Speaker 4: it's not going to say what it says right now,
38:45
Speaker 4: which is We've been saved by Donald Trump. It's going
38:48
Speaker 4: to say this is all Donald Trump's fault. So the
38:50
Speaker 4: Chinese government is unquestionably aware of the fact that they
38:53
Speaker 4: have that leverage. And if I was giving advice to
38:55
Speaker 4: the Chinese government rather than Donald Trump, I'd be telling
38:58
Speaker 4: him to use that. He's just put himself in the
39:01
Speaker 4: crosshairs of one hundred and seventy million American TikTok users.
39:04
Speaker 1: Make him eating.
39:05
Speaker 4: And again, Trump's not a fool. He knows he's put
39:08
Speaker 4: himself in that position, and he seems to be betting
39:10
Speaker 4: that he's going to be able to get a deal
39:11
Speaker 4: done as satisfy factory to everybody. If he does that,
39:15
Speaker 4: I think he's going to reap the political reward of that.
39:18
Speaker 4: If he doesn't do that, he's going to reach the
39:20
Speaker 4: political consequences. Either he's going to have to go try
39:22
Speaker 4: to get Congress to back off on something that Congress
39:24
Speaker 4: feels very strongly about from a national security perspective, which
39:28
Speaker 4: burns his political capital with Congress, or he's going to
39:31
Speaker 4: go have to tick off a bunch of TikTok users
39:34
Speaker 4: unintended around the country. And so he's playing a very
39:38
Speaker 4: high stakes game of chicken. That this is a man
39:41
Speaker 4: who's made his entire career out of playing a high
39:43
Speaker 4: stakes game of chicken. Donald Trump doesn't believe in the
39:46
Speaker 4: no win scenario. He believed in the immovable object against
39:50
Speaker 4: the unstoppable force. That in fact, something's got to give
39:53
Speaker 4: and it's not going to be him, And whether or
39:55
Speaker 4: not he can pull that off in this case, I
39:57
Speaker 4: have him a clue. And anybody who says that they
39:59
Speaker 4: do either is lying or has gotten personal assurances from
40:04
Speaker 4: a higher power on what's going to happen. Because I
40:07
Speaker 4: couldn't put odds on this of how it's going to
40:09
Speaker 4: come out. I can tell you it's going to be
40:11
Speaker 4: interesting to watch, and I can tell you that we've
40:13
Speaker 4: got two very motivated powers in Trump for the United
40:17
Speaker 4: States and China to both have a lot at stake
40:20
Speaker 4: at this issue and want to see this work out
40:22
Speaker 4: in a particular way. The difference is the Chinese Communist
40:26
Speaker 4: Party ultimately is looking for an outcome that's acceptable to them,
40:30
Speaker 4: whereas Trump has to deal with the democratic forces of
40:33
Speaker 4: our country, public opinion, Congress. There are a lot more
40:36
Speaker 4: moving parts for him than there are in China.
40:39
Speaker 3: And seventy five days goes by pretty quickly. Thanks so
40:43
Speaker 3: much for being on the show. That's doctor Kirk McGill
40:46
Speaker 3: of hall Estel and that's it for this edition of
40:48
Speaker 3: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
40:51
Speaker 3: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
40:54
Speaker 3: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
40:58
Speaker 3: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to
41:03
Speaker 3: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
41:06
Speaker 3: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening
41:10
Speaker 3: to Bloomberg