Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump's Assault on the Rule of Law

Transcript

Trump's Assault on the Rule of Law · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:09
Speaker 2: President Donald Trump has been complaining about a legal system
0:13
Speaker 2: rigged against him for years.
0:16
Speaker 1: We'd have a system that was rigged and disgusting.
0:18
Speaker 3: I did nothing wrong.
0:20
Speaker 2: That's been his basic complaint, although there have been many
0:23
Speaker 2: variations on the theme, and now that he's back in power,
0:27
Speaker 2: he hasn't wasted much time in targeting judges, lawyers and
0:32
Speaker 2: law firms, especially those he feels wronged him. And it's
0:37
Speaker 2: a fight that Trump keeps escalating. Joining me is an
0:40
Speaker 2: expert on the legal profession, Matthew Diller, a professor at
0:44
Speaker 2: Fordham Law School. He's written a column for Bloomberg Law
0:47
Speaker 2: entitled Trump's orders are attacks on the rule of Law.
0:52
Speaker 2: Tell us about the extent of Trump's attacks on the
0:55
Speaker 2: rule of law.
0:56
Speaker 1: The Trump administration has really broadened out at the tax.
1:00
Speaker 1: Initially started with its attacks on the judiciary, and now
1:04
Speaker 1: it is continuing to attack the judiciary and has added
1:08
Speaker 1: in attacks on the legal profession really as a whole.
1:12
Speaker 1: And the attacks go to the fundamental ethos and role
1:16
Speaker 1: of the legal profession in our society. So from the
1:20
Speaker 1: very start of the administration, government lawyers, lawyers who worked
1:24
Speaker 1: for the federal government were under siege, and those lawyers
1:28
Speaker 1: play a critical role in our system of law enforcement
1:32
Speaker 1: and upholding rules and making sure the government is not abusive.
1:37
Speaker 1: And so almost as soon as he came into office,
1:40
Speaker 1: President Trump began to remove the most experienced leaders within
1:45
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. And I'm not talking about the
1:47
Speaker 1: political appointees. I'm talking about the career lawyers of the
1:50
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. We saw this with the blow up
1:53
Speaker 1: over the lawyers working on the Eric Adams case, quite
1:56
Speaker 1: a few of whom resigned. But there's also Denise Chung,
1:59
Speaker 1: the top prosecutor in the DCUs Attorney's officer, who resigned
2:04
Speaker 1: when she was asked to launch an investigation without any basis.
2:08
Speaker 1: The Chief Irs Council was pushed out, all the inspector
2:13
Speaker 1: generals and the different agencies, and so the lawyers in
2:16
Speaker 1: key positions who have put a premium on making sure
2:21
Speaker 1: that governments follows the law, who put an allegiance to
2:25
Speaker 1: the law first, are being removed and being replaced with
2:29
Speaker 1: the lawyers who focused on loyalty to the administration. And
2:33
Speaker 1: that to me is scary because those government lawyers play
2:37
Speaker 1: a critical role. And then what's happened over the past
2:40
Speaker 1: few weeks is that the attack has broadened out to
2:43
Speaker 1: cover the private bar, and really the elements in the
2:45
Speaker 1: private bar that are the ones that the administration used
2:49
Speaker 1: as the biggest threat, which are the major of private
2:52
Speaker 1: law firms that have a lot of resources and a
2:54
Speaker 1: lot of experience in litiating against the government. So it
2:58
Speaker 1: started with a memorandum attacking the law firm of Covington
3:01
Speaker 1: and Burwing and then expanded to two executive orders, one
3:05
Speaker 1: targeted at the firm of Perkins koe and the other
3:08
Speaker 1: targeted at Paul Weiss. And those executive orders just simply
3:12
Speaker 1: shocked me. They are astounding documents to read.
3:15
Speaker 2: He revoked the security clearances at Covington and Berlin that
3:19
Speaker 2: he stepped it up in an executive order against Perkins
3:23
Speaker 2: Cooey and Paul Weiss. Tell us about those executive orders
3:26
Speaker 2: and is there any legal basis for them set out
3:30
Speaker 2: in the order.
3:31
Speaker 1: So the executive orders are really attempts to take down
3:34
Speaker 1: these firms, because you know, they go far beyond revoking
3:38
Speaker 1: security clearances. They also terminate all contracts with the firms,
3:42
Speaker 1: so that if the government any arm of the government
3:45
Speaker 1: has hired the firms to do anything mose contract would end.
3:48
Speaker 1: But then the single most devastating piece of it, they
3:51
Speaker 1: require businesses that have relationships with the firms to disclose
3:56
Speaker 1: those relationships and then instruct the agent determinate their contracts
4:02
Speaker 1: with those businesses. So what that does is it strikes
4:05
Speaker 1: at the client of the firm. So what it says
4:08
Speaker 1: to the firm's clients is that if you continue to
4:11
Speaker 1: retain these firms, you will lose all your government contracts.
4:15
Speaker 1: And that, of course strikes at the heart of these
4:18
Speaker 1: firms and their business model and their basic income and
4:21
Speaker 1: ability to survive as a firm. And you asked about
4:24
Speaker 1: the legal basis for these orders, the orders cite no
4:27
Speaker 1: legal basis. Typically in executive order and the pre Trump
4:31
Speaker 1: euro we'd most often start with a recitation of what
4:34
Speaker 1: the legal basis for the order is, what the authority is,
4:37
Speaker 1: where the statutes are. These orders don't do that in
4:40
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form, and in fact, they include
4:43
Speaker 1: a lot of language that shows that the purposes of
4:47
Speaker 1: these orders are clearly unconstitutional and illegal, and just to
4:51
Speaker 1: flesh that out of it, First of all, they make
4:53
Speaker 1: claim that the basis of the order is that the
4:55
Speaker 1: administration doesn't like representations that that have been undertaken by
5:01
Speaker 1: lawyers of these firms, and so those lawyers have a
5:04
Speaker 1: right to undertake those representations. You know, the First Amendment
5:09
Speaker 1: gives them the right to both express their views. There's
5:11
Speaker 1: a right of access to the court system. These firms
5:15
Speaker 1: have no obligation to only undertake litigation and representations that
5:19
Speaker 1: President Trump approves of. And then secondly, they did this
5:24
Speaker 1: without any hearing of any kind. So these orders just
5:27
Speaker 1: came completely out of the blue. There was no hearing
5:31
Speaker 1: and opportunity for these firms to contest whatever the quote
5:35
Speaker 1: charges might be against them. And then a final element
5:39
Speaker 1: that's very concerning is that it really impinges on the
5:42
Speaker 1: rights of the clients of these firms to choose their lawyers.
5:46
Speaker 1: In our country, the basic system for regulating lawyer conduct
5:51
Speaker 1: is governed by the states and by the courts, and
5:53
Speaker 1: there are proceedings and rules about what happens when a
5:57
Speaker 1: lawyer is accused of unethical or improper conduct. Those lawyers
6:02
Speaker 1: received notice of the charges basically in an opportunity to
6:05
Speaker 1: defend themselves. Nothing like that happened in these cases, and indeed,
6:09
Speaker 1: the executive branch of the federal government. The president has
6:13
Speaker 1: no general free roaming authority to impost discipline on lawyers senilatterally,
6:19
Speaker 1: So I'm unaware of any arguments. I have trouble even
6:23
Speaker 1: thinking of an argument of how these orders can be legal.
6:27
Speaker 2: Two firms had very different reactions to this order. There
6:32
Speaker 2: was defiance from Perkins Coohy and capitulation from Paul Weiss.
6:38
Speaker 2: Tell us first about what Perkins cooy has done, and
6:41
Speaker 2: they hired this hard charging law firm.
6:44
Speaker 1: So Perkins Coohy responded by hiring, as you say, Williams
6:48
Speaker 1: and Connolly, which is a very well known litigation firm
6:52
Speaker 1: in Washington, DC, and immediately filed a lawsuit and sought
6:56
Speaker 1: a temporary restraining order, which the judge granted. And the
7:00
Speaker 1: judge said the executive order against Perkins could we sent
7:03
Speaker 1: chills down her spine. And to date, the government has
7:07
Speaker 1: not put in any papers defending the legality of the
7:10
Speaker 1: executive order against Perkins. Instead, the government has just sought
7:14
Speaker 1: to remove the judge, arguing that she's biased. So I
7:18
Speaker 1: don't know what the government's argument will be why the
7:20
Speaker 1: order against Perkins was legal. We haven't seen that yet
7:24
Speaker 1: Paul Weis took a very different path. Instead, the head
7:27
Speaker 1: of Paul Wise met with President Trump directly one on one.
7:31
Speaker 1: The meeting was said to be three hours long. And
7:34
Speaker 1: then President Trump and Brad carp who's the head of
7:37
Speaker 1: Paul Weiss, ironed at an agreement and President Trump withdrew
7:41
Speaker 1: the executive order. And I think there are a couple
7:43
Speaker 1: of things to really focus on here. So the biggest
7:46
Speaker 1: one is that this was a shakedown of Paul Wess,
7:49
Speaker 1: that Paul Wise. You know, there's a lot of debate
7:51
Speaker 1: now about whether Paul Weiss did the right thing by
7:54
Speaker 1: reaching an agreement with President Trump. But I think the
7:56
Speaker 1: larger picture to look at is that Paul Weis never
7:59
Speaker 1: should have been in this situation in the first place.
8:02
Speaker 1: That the White House really put Paul Weiss under an
8:06
Speaker 1: existential threat that never should have been there. So that's
8:10
Speaker 1: the single biggest thing I think to keep at the
8:13
Speaker 1: forefront of one's mind is that Paul why should not
8:16
Speaker 1: have been in this situation. I myself, I'm disappointed that
8:19
Speaker 1: it has played out this way because it firms like
8:22
Speaker 1: Paul Weiss don't push back against illegal executive orders like this,
8:26
Speaker 1: then who will so it sends a message to the
8:29
Speaker 1: legal profession that is very disheartening because the Trump administration
8:33
Speaker 1: has made plain that they're not stopping with Jess Perkins,
8:36
Speaker 1: Pooty and Paul West. They're going to continue to target firms.
8:40
Speaker 2: I know a lot of people who were disappointed and
8:42
Speaker 2: a lot of people who were shocked that Paul Weiss
8:44
Speaker 2: caved the way it did. What do you think the
8:47
Speaker 2: message is after a firm like Paul Weiss just gives
8:50
Speaker 2: in to Trump.
8:52
Speaker 1: So I think it really reflects the incredible power of
8:55
Speaker 1: the federal government that Trump is really harnessing here in
8:58
Speaker 1: an illegitimate ways. You know, Paul White's calculation was even
9:03
Speaker 1: when they won the lawsuit, and you can be sure
9:06
Speaker 1: they were highly confident of winning this lawsuit, it wouldn't
9:10
Speaker 1: save them because it would send the message to all
9:13
Speaker 1: their clients that do business with the federal government, to
9:16
Speaker 1: all the criminal defendants whom they are represented or being
9:20
Speaker 1: prosecuted by the federal government, that they will not get
9:23
Speaker 1: a fair treatment from the federal government as long as
9:26
Speaker 1: they're represented by a firm that the administration doesn't like.
9:30
Speaker 1: And so that's an existential threat for a firm like
9:32
Speaker 1: Paul Wite, and they never should have been in that situation.
9:36
Speaker 1: One thing that's interesting me is there are some discrepancies
9:39
Speaker 1: between the way the White House has described the agreement
9:43
Speaker 1: and the way Paul Weite has described it. Paul Weiss
9:46
Speaker 1: has really broadcast that it didn't agree to much beyond
9:49
Speaker 1: what it would ordinarily do. And if the agreement is
9:52
Speaker 1: true to the firm's values, and some of the things
9:55
Speaker 1: in the agreement, like a commitment to not accept clients
9:58
Speaker 1: and matters based on the politics and political leanings of
10:02
Speaker 1: the clients, is the value that Paul Weiss has always
10:06
Speaker 1: had and saying that they would Paul Weiss would do
10:09
Speaker 1: pro bono work on behalf of veteran's combat anti Semitism.
10:12
Speaker 1: Paul Weiss's position is that's all fine with them. They
10:16
Speaker 1: would do this work anyway. But to me, there are
10:19
Speaker 1: a couple of aspects of the agreement that I have
10:22
Speaker 1: questions about that don't strike me as business as usual.
10:26
Speaker 1: So one is Paul Weis has agreed to an audit
10:29
Speaker 1: of its employment practices by a mutually agreed expert, So
10:34
Speaker 1: that means that Paul Weiss now has to reach an
10:37
Speaker 1: agreement with the administration as to who will review their
10:41
Speaker 1: employment practices, and the administration has taken a position, particularly
10:47
Speaker 1: around issues of race and gender discrimination that is really
10:51
Speaker 1: incredibly aggressive and not at all clear that is required
10:55
Speaker 1: by law. And so that we'll see what happens with that.
10:58
Speaker 1: The audit of Paul Weis's hiring practices, who they will
11:01
Speaker 1: find whom they can reach an agreement should be the auditor.
11:05
Speaker 1: And then the second piece of language that particularly concerns
11:08
Speaker 1: me is that the commitment to do forty million dollars
11:12
Speaker 1: worth of pro bono work, it lists a couple of
11:14
Speaker 1: projects and then it says and usually agreed projects. So
11:19
Speaker 1: does that mean that Paul Weis needs to go back
11:21
Speaker 1: to the Trump administration to get approval as to whether
11:25
Speaker 1: particular pro bono representations counter don't count towards the forty
11:29
Speaker 1: million dollars. That troubles me in terms of giving the
11:33
Speaker 1: White House a direct voice in what cases Paul wise
11:37
Speaker 1: now will select the pro bono work. We'll see how
11:40
Speaker 1: it plays out. I mean, I think it's very unclear
11:43
Speaker 1: what this agreement will mean in practice, But those are
11:46
Speaker 1: some of my particular concerns with the substance of it.
11:49
Speaker 1: Of Course, the message sent by the agreement is far broader,
11:52
Speaker 1: and it's the message, as you said, that Paul Wis
11:55
Speaker 1: won't stand up to the Trump administration, than who will.
11:58
Speaker 1: And I think that that's a important question to.
12:01
Speaker 2: Ask coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. In
12:05
Speaker 2: a new memo, Trump is authorizing the Attorney General and
12:09
Speaker 2: the Homeland Security Secretary to go after law firms that
12:13
Speaker 2: file lawsuits they deem frivolous, another major escalation of his
12:18
Speaker 2: assault on law firms. I'm June Grosso when you're listening
12:21
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg. The presidential memo issued on Friday is called
12:27
Speaker 2: Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Courts.
12:31
Speaker 2: In it, President Trump authorizes the Attorney General and Secretary
12:36
Speaker 2: of Homeland Security to seek sanctions against lawyers who engage
12:40
Speaker 2: in quote frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the government.
12:47
Speaker 2: It's all part of Trump's escalating war against the legal system,
12:51
Speaker 2: and that includes judges, lawyers, and law firms. I've been
12:56
Speaker 2: talking to Fordham Law professor Matthew Diller, So does this
12:59
Speaker 2: new memo mean basically that any lawyers who sue the
13:04
Speaker 2: Trump administration can be.
13:07
Speaker 4: Sanctioned the first part the language you read, I read
13:10
Speaker 4: is kind of bluster in the sense of so they
13:13
Speaker 4: will seek sanctions, but a court then has to decide
13:16
Speaker 4: or a disciplinary arm needs to then independently decide whether.
13:21
Speaker 1: Sanctions are warranted. So it struck me, as you know,
13:24
Speaker 1: as a threat that wasn't that potent because some independent
13:30
Speaker 1: arbiter would then decide whether the sanctions are appropriate. And
13:33
Speaker 1: of course the issue has been not that so many
13:36
Speaker 1: frivolis suits are being filed against the Trump administrations, but
13:40
Speaker 1: that so many successful suits are being filed against the
13:44
Speaker 1: Trump administration. But then further down in this document there's
13:48
Speaker 1: a language that really does give me pause because below
13:52
Speaker 1: the language about referring attorneys in law firms for disciplinary
13:56
Speaker 1: action or sanctions, it says the Attorney General and the
14:00
Speaker 1: Secretary of Homeland Security are also instructed to recommend additional consequences,
14:05
Speaker 1: including reassessing security clearances or terminating federal contracts for attorneys
14:10
Speaker 1: and law firms that engage in conduct deserving of sanctions
14:15
Speaker 1: or other disciplinary action, meaning that they themselves the Attorney
14:20
Speaker 1: General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are are supposed
14:23
Speaker 1: to decide whether the conduct is deserving of a sanction
14:27
Speaker 1: rather than waiting to see others thanks and issues. And
14:30
Speaker 1: so this is an authorization due to other firms and
14:34
Speaker 1: attorneys what the administration has done to Paul Weiss into
14:38
Speaker 1: Perkinscuies and presumably in the future we need not see
14:42
Speaker 1: presidential executive orders doing it. We will see the Attorney
14:45
Speaker 1: General doing it, and in the Secretary of Homeland Security.
14:48
Speaker 1: And so this is a way of taking those examples
14:51
Speaker 1: and really spreading them across the profession, and that troubles
14:55
Speaker 1: moved tremendously. The other thing that's interesting about the documents
15:00
Speaker 1: that came out Friday is it really targets both big
15:03
Speaker 1: law firms but then also lawyers who work on immigration,
15:07
Speaker 1: and of course immigration, you know, the top priority of
15:10
Speaker 1: the administration, and its actions in the area of immigration
15:13
Speaker 1: have been some of its most controversial and most contested
15:17
Speaker 1: in terms of their legality. And so this really is
15:20
Speaker 1: an attempt to strike at the immigration bar that's pushing
15:24
Speaker 1: back on the Trump immigration initiatives.
15:27
Speaker 2: What do you think this means for future litigation against
15:30
Speaker 2: the Trump administration. Are we only going to see organizations
15:33
Speaker 2: like the ACLU and public advocacy groups suing the Trump administration?
15:38
Speaker 1: I think this will have a shilling aspect on big
15:41
Speaker 1: law firms taking very controversial cases that are going to
15:45
Speaker 1: be high profile. I think that's unfortunate. I think that's
15:48
Speaker 1: you know, one of the functions of the legal profession
15:52
Speaker 1: is to bring issues to the courts for resolution. That's
15:54
Speaker 1: how our rule of law works, and so putting them
15:57
Speaker 1: in a position where they feel threatened and in timidated
16:00
Speaker 1: not to do that is very troubling. And so then
16:03
Speaker 1: it does leave the work to public interest organizations places
16:07
Speaker 1: like the ASLU, And they have their own vulnerabilities because
16:11
Speaker 1: first they're much smaller, but then seconds they're entirely dependent
16:15
Speaker 1: on philanthropy, and the administration can put the squeeze on
16:18
Speaker 1: them too in different ways. And so we haven't seen that,
16:22
Speaker 1: but we may see it, and so that's something to
16:24
Speaker 1: be concerned about. The last group of lawyers who are
16:29
Speaker 1: very important are state attorney generals, and state attorney generals
16:33
Speaker 1: have really risen to the challenge, particularly the attorney generals
16:37
Speaker 1: who are Democrats. Right They're out there bringing challenges to
16:42
Speaker 1: the most contentious Trump policies. And many of the cases
16:47
Speaker 1: that have been most successful have been brought by attorney generals.
16:50
Speaker 1: But Attorney generals are also limited in what they can
16:53
Speaker 1: do because they're briefs. Their charge is to represent the state.
17:00
Speaker 1: To bring a case, they have to show that some
17:02
Speaker 1: entity or arm of the state government has been affected
17:06
Speaker 1: by the policy. And so we can expect and we're
17:09
Speaker 1: already seeing pushback from frump from the Trump administration about
17:13
Speaker 1: whether attorneys generals has standing to bring some of the
17:17
Speaker 1: cases they've been bringing.
17:19
Speaker 2: All the legal experts seem to agree that Perkins Koi
17:22
Speaker 2: is going to win its lawsuit against the Trump administration,
17:25
Speaker 2: but explain the damage that's already being done to that
17:29
Speaker 2: law firm.
17:30
Speaker 1: Perkins Cooy is already suffering damage from the executive order
17:35
Speaker 1: and will suffer damage even though it's likely to win
17:38
Speaker 1: the case. And that's because some clients will think twice
17:43
Speaker 1: about going to a law firm that the administration has
17:47
Speaker 1: declared to be an enemy. The executive Order essentially declared
17:51
Speaker 1: Perkins Cooi to be an enemy of the Trump administration.
17:55
Speaker 1: And if you are an individual or a company that
17:59
Speaker 1: has business under the federal government or that is under investigation,
18:03
Speaker 1: you're going to think twice about choosing a lawyer whom
18:06
Speaker 1: you know the federal government hates. Are you going to
18:09
Speaker 1: get the same kind of flea deal? Is the investigation
18:12
Speaker 1: going to be conducted in the same way? You know,
18:14
Speaker 1: it's natural the clients would ask those questions when they're
18:18
Speaker 1: deciding what lawyers to retain, and so that's the harm
18:21
Speaker 1: that Perkins Coolie will suffer, whether or not a winded case.
18:26
Speaker 2: This attack on law firms, does it seem like it's
18:30
Speaker 2: well planned and maybe years in the making.
18:33
Speaker 1: I think, you know, the attack on law firms, we
18:36
Speaker 1: reflect years of grievances against law firms, since some of
18:40
Speaker 1: the things that the administration has cited in the executive orders,
18:45
Speaker 1: you know, date back years. So I think it reflects
18:49
Speaker 1: a grievance that has been festering for years. And I
18:52
Speaker 1: do think it's part of a larger strategy. You know,
18:56
Speaker 1: it goes with the attack on the judges and the
18:58
Speaker 1: judiciary to try and just shut down litigation against the
19:03
Speaker 1: Trump administration. Since Congress has been relatively accommodating to the administration,
19:10
Speaker 1: it's really the courts that have pushed back the most,
19:12
Speaker 1: and therefore the administration is focused on attacking judges and
19:17
Speaker 1: now on attacking lawyers because if lawyers won't bring the cases,
19:20
Speaker 1: then the judges never even come into play.
19:23
Speaker 2: What's the best strategy for lawyers now, I mean, what
19:27
Speaker 2: should they do?
19:28
Speaker 1: So a couple of things. So first, I do think
19:32
Speaker 1: lawyers should come together to fight these policies and these actions.
19:36
Speaker 1: And so I do think the law firms of the
19:39
Speaker 1: United States should indeed back up workinscoy, which they've been
19:44
Speaker 1: reluctant to do. They've been intimidated by the administration. And
19:49
Speaker 1: it's the kind of situation where there's safety in numbers.
19:52
Speaker 1: Any one firm is isolated, but to do it in numbers,
19:57
Speaker 1: to respond in numbers would really bring much more power.
20:00
Speaker 1: And then the second, I think the judiciary should take
20:04
Speaker 1: a strong stand on it. So the person's coopy case
20:08
Speaker 1: when it does get decided, if it does get decided,
20:11
Speaker 1: I think the judiciary should really make a strong statement
20:15
Speaker 1: about just how egregious and outrageous the government's conduct is.
20:18
Speaker 5: Here.
20:19
Speaker 2: In the end, this is all about Trump getting retribution,
20:22
Speaker 2: something that he promised over and over in the campaign.
20:26
Speaker 1: You know, retribution is backward looking, and so it is
20:29
Speaker 1: indeed restribution, you know, payback, but it's also forward looking.
20:33
Speaker 1: You know, it's also designed to intimidate lawyers and law
20:37
Speaker 1: firms into thinking twice, three times, four times before going
20:42
Speaker 1: up against the administration.
20:43
Speaker 2: We'll see how it plays out. Thanks so much for
20:45
Speaker 2: joining me on the show, Best Professor, Matthew Diller, a
20:48
Speaker 2: Fordham Law School. President Donald Trump and his administration launched
20:53
Speaker 2: an attack on DC federal Judge James Bodsburg last week,
20:58
Speaker 2: with Trump calling him a radical left lunatic of a judge,
21:02
Speaker 2: a troublemaker, and an agitator and calling for his impeachment.
21:07
Speaker 2: With Trump's borders are Tom Holman saying he didn't care
21:10
Speaker 2: what the judge said.
21:12
Speaker 1: I don't care what that judges.
21:13
Speaker 3: Thankers virus case.
21:14
Speaker 4: We're going to continue to arrest public safety threats and
21:17
Speaker 4: national security threats.
21:18
Speaker 1: We're going to continue to deport for the United States, and.
21:21
Speaker 2: With the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondy
21:25
Speaker 2: saying the judge didn't have the authority to make rulings
21:28
Speaker 2: in the case.
21:29
Speaker 5: This judge has no right to ask those questions. You
21:32
Speaker 5: have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies,
21:38
Speaker 5: trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have
21:42
Speaker 5: no business presiding over.
21:44
Speaker 2: The nature of the attacks. Led Chief Justice John Roberts
21:48
Speaker 2: to issue a rare rebuke, making it clear that impeachment
21:52
Speaker 2: is not the avenue for disagreement with a judge's order. Well,
21:56
Speaker 2: Judge Bosburg, the well respected chief judge of the Federal
22:00
Speaker 2: Court in DC with twenty three years on the bench,
22:03
Speaker 2: didn't back down, and today he reaffirmed his ruling blocking
22:08
Speaker 2: the Trump administration from using a wartime law to deport
22:12
Speaker 2: alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. The legal issue
22:17
Speaker 2: at the heart of these hearings is Trump's unprecedented use
22:21
Speaker 2: of the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight to
22:25
Speaker 2: deport hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members without giving them
22:29
Speaker 2: any hearings. The law has been used only three times
22:33
Speaker 2: in US history, and that was during declared wars. Joining
22:38
Speaker 2: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson. Judge Bosburg ruled
22:42
Speaker 2: his temporary order will remain in effect and that the
22:46
Speaker 2: Trump administration can't keep deporting Venezuelans under that act.
22:51
Speaker 3: Explain his reasoning, so, the judges reasoning was that the
22:55
Speaker 3: harms that the plaintiffs were alleging that he found was
22:59
Speaker 3: valid for the purposes of that temporary restraining order still existed.
23:03
Speaker 3: He said that nothing had essentially been presented to change
23:06
Speaker 3: his mind that the tro wasn't necessary, and it really
23:10
Speaker 3: all boiled down to the judge's continued contention that these
23:15
Speaker 3: individuals deserve to have some sort of due process before
23:18
Speaker 3: they can be deported, that they need to be able
23:20
Speaker 3: to argue that they are not in fact members of
23:23
Speaker 3: that violence that isuel As gang. And we know that
23:25
Speaker 3: the plaintiffs in the case have argued that they're not,
23:29
Speaker 3: and many of the other individuals who have already been deported,
23:33
Speaker 3: some of them were making the same claims too, that
23:35
Speaker 3: they weren't members of the gang, that they had been
23:37
Speaker 3: swept up for other reasons. So the judge says that
23:40
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, in his view, they
23:43
Speaker 3: deserve to have a hearing and cannot just be summarily
23:46
Speaker 3: deported in this way.
23:48
Speaker 2: Did he make any ruling on Trump's power to invoke
23:52
Speaker 2: the Alien Enemies Act?
23:54
Speaker 3: You know, he didn't. He said that at this stage
23:57
Speaker 3: he wasn't going to make a ruling whether or not
24:00
Speaker 3: any judge could rule on this. You know, Trump has
24:03
Speaker 3: said that no one in the judiciary can question his
24:06
Speaker 3: use of this act. Whether or not the Act is
24:09
Speaker 3: being properly invoked? Is the question here? Are we in
24:11
Speaker 3: a state of war? Is there an invasion of the
24:14
Speaker 3: United States? You know, these are things that eventually we
24:17
Speaker 3: might have arguments over whether or not it was properly invoked.
24:21
Speaker 3: But the judge said, for the purposes of this ruling,
24:23
Speaker 3: what matters is that, assuming that it was properly invoked,
24:27
Speaker 3: you still have to give some sort of chance for
24:29
Speaker 3: these individuals to argue that they aren't actually Part of
24:33
Speaker 3: this game is.
24:34
Speaker 2: Whether Trump can invoke the Alien Enemies Act. Is that
24:37
Speaker 2: what the oral arguments in the DC circuit are about today.
24:41
Speaker 3: I think they'll be focusing on all of the arguments.
24:44
Speaker 3: I don't know which one, you know, the panel of
24:47
Speaker 3: appellate judges will will focus on. But it seems to
24:51
Speaker 3: me that just for the purposes of today's hearing whether
24:54
Speaker 3: or not to stay that tro that judges might be
24:58
Speaker 3: looking more closely at these claims that these plaintiffs are
25:01
Speaker 3: not actually members of the gang, because arguably, if Trump
25:06
Speaker 3: can invoke this law, the Alien Enemies Act, he could
25:10
Speaker 3: deport members of the gang without having to go through
25:14
Speaker 3: the usual immigration processes. But really it's a matter of
25:18
Speaker 3: proving whether or not they're actually part of the gang.
25:21
Speaker 3: So Judge Bozberg said that that was their strongest argument
25:24
Speaker 3: so far, and.
25:26
Speaker 2: He pointed out something that immigration lawyers have been pointing
25:30
Speaker 2: out to me, which is that if they are gang members,
25:32
Speaker 2: they're already subject to deportation as being a member of
25:36
Speaker 2: a foreign terrorist organization. They don't need the Alien Enemies Act, right.
25:40
Speaker 3: This Venezuelan gang is a known violent gang. It is real,
25:43
Speaker 3: it is dangerous, it's been declared a terror organization, and
25:48
Speaker 3: under the usual immigration laws, they can be deported, as
25:52
Speaker 3: you said, and the judge pointed that out in his
25:54
Speaker 3: decision to said, nothing in his pro prevents the government
25:58
Speaker 3: from deporting these gang members or even from rounding the
26:02
Speaker 3: month and attaining them. It really is just, in the
26:05
Speaker 3: judge's view, this narrow issue about unilateral deportation without any
26:10
Speaker 3: chance to argue that they're not a member of the gang.
26:13
Speaker 3: That is what it boils down to.
26:15
Speaker 2: So tell us about this extraordinary standoff last week between
26:20
Speaker 2: government lawyers and Boseburg over information that he wanted about
26:25
Speaker 2: the flight times. I don't know if he ever got
26:27
Speaker 2: that information.
26:28
Speaker 3: You know, I don't believe that he's gotten all of
26:30
Speaker 3: his questions answered, and I think that's still very much
26:33
Speaker 3: a live issue here in it. It may show up
26:36
Speaker 3: and more of these court proceedings as the case progresses,
26:39
Speaker 3: but you know, there is a possibility that the judge
26:42
Speaker 3: could find that the government openly ignored his court orders.
26:46
Speaker 3: The government doesn't believe that the judge has any rights
26:49
Speaker 3: to interfere as they see it in this process at all.
26:54
Speaker 3: So in his order to judge reiterated it is concerned
26:57
Speaker 3: about when the flights had taken off and said that
27:00
Speaker 3: in his view, the only reasonable way to look at
27:03
Speaker 3: the details of what happened was that the government was
27:06
Speaker 3: intentionally trying to rush these men onto the plane to
27:10
Speaker 3: just get them in the air before an order could
27:12
Speaker 3: be issued.
27:14
Speaker 2: What seems ludicrous to me is that several news organizations
27:19
Speaker 2: have already tracked down the flights when they left and
27:22
Speaker 2: when they landed, so it's sort of in the public record.
27:25
Speaker 2: Yet the government is refusing to hand over the information
27:31
Speaker 2: so far.
27:31
Speaker 3: I think that sums it up. I think that not
27:34
Speaker 3: just the details, I think the judge also wants to
27:36
Speaker 3: get a specific explanation as well, to get to the
27:40
Speaker 3: bottom of whether someone made the call to ignore the order.
27:44
Speaker 2: Is this the last thing happening in Judge Bozburg's courtroom?
27:48
Speaker 2: Are they going to continue?
27:50
Speaker 3: My expectation is that they're going to request the preliminary injunction,
27:55
Speaker 3: something that would last much longer than the tro The
27:58
Speaker 3: judge's decision today essentially invited the plaintiffs to make such
28:03
Speaker 3: a request, and based on his findings so far, I
28:06
Speaker 3: think it seems clear he's pretty open to issuing an
28:09
Speaker 3: injunction which would prohibit the government long term from unilaterally
28:15
Speaker 3: deporting these alleged gang members without giving them a chance
28:19
Speaker 3: to prove that they're not part of the gang. So
28:22
Speaker 3: I think that we'll see plenty more going on in
28:25
Speaker 3: his courtroom.
28:26
Speaker 2: We have a new interim US Attorney for New Jersey.
28:31
Speaker 2: Tell us who Alena Habba is.
28:34
Speaker 3: So, Alena Habba is a lawyer from New Jersey. Most
28:37
Speaker 3: recently she's been counselor to the President and then she
28:41
Speaker 3: is now going to become, as you said, the US
28:44
Speaker 3: attorney for New Jersey. But she's known Trump, I believe
28:48
Speaker 3: since around twenty twenty one. She was a member of
28:53
Speaker 3: his Bedminster golf Club in New Jersey. She met him there.
28:57
Speaker 3: She'd been doing some legal work for other members there
29:01
Speaker 3: and they had referred her to him. He had a
29:03
Speaker 3: lot of litigation going on. She took over some of
29:06
Speaker 3: the cases that others were working on. He wanted someone
29:09
Speaker 3: who was more aggressive, and so she took over a
29:13
Speaker 3: case involving some reservos who had accused him of sexual assault.
29:17
Speaker 3: She went on to take over his representation in the
29:21
Speaker 3: New York Attorney General's investigation into the Trump Organization for fraud,
29:26
Speaker 3: and then of course she went on to represent Trump
29:29
Speaker 3: in the lawsuits filed by EA Gene Carroll. So she
29:33
Speaker 3: a lot. She's did a lot of work for him
29:35
Speaker 3: in the years before his November election victory. He lost
29:40
Speaker 3: those big cases and they're being appealed, but he didn't
29:44
Speaker 3: blame PABA for that and blamed the system. And of
29:47
Speaker 3: course when he won the election, he picked her to
29:50
Speaker 3: be counselors of the President and now enter on the
29:53
Speaker 3: US Attorney for New Jersey.
29:55
Speaker 2: She has no criminal experience whatsoever. That's Todd Blanche and
30:01
Speaker 2: Emil Beoufe also lost his cases, yet they're in among
30:05
Speaker 2: the highest positions and the justice departments.
30:07
Speaker 3: I think what he's looking for in these high level
30:11
Speaker 3: legal positions. As president, he's looking for loyalty and looking
30:15
Speaker 3: for how hard these lawyers fought for him in court,
30:19
Speaker 3: sometimes to their own detriment, so that would seem to
30:22
Speaker 3: be what he's looking for. I think that's true for
30:24
Speaker 3: a lot of the positions all throughout the government and
30:27
Speaker 3: the White House. So they really did go to that
30:30
Speaker 3: for him. And we know that Trump does blame, as
30:33
Speaker 3: he described it, bias judges, bias juries. You know, he
30:36
Speaker 3: doesn't blame the lawyers for the outcomes of these cases.
30:41
Speaker 2: Because she's been named as the interim US attorney, she
30:44
Speaker 2: doesn't have to be confirmed by Congress.
30:48
Speaker 3: That's my understanding, and I have no idea how long
30:51
Speaker 3: she'll be in this position either, so remains to be seen.
30:56
Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe he's chosen several US attorneys in the
31:00
Speaker 2: interim category, which you used during his first administration as well.
31:05
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Eric. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson,
31:09
Speaker 2: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
31:12
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
31:14
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
31:18
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast slash law,
31:24
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
31:26
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
31:31
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg