Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: New ICE Strategy, Geofence Warrants

Transcript

Weekend Law: New ICE Strategy, Geofence Warrants · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg Law.
• 0:10
  Speaker 3: Congress can have no saying making an office independent. I
• 0:13
  Speaker 3: think all agencies need a degree of autonomy.
• 0:16
  Speaker 4: It really tests whether the amendments to the law.
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: Have Keith interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts.
• 0:23
  Speaker 5: Joining me is Constitutional law professor David Super, Bloomberg News,
• 0:26
  Speaker 5: Supreme Court reporter Greg Store.
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines.
• 0:32
  Speaker 6: Apples of Waltgarden.
• 0:33
  Speaker 4: They don't license their technology.
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: That is a valid basis to dismiss the case.
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:45
  Speaker 5: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. Ahead
• 0:48
  Speaker 5: in this hour, the Supreme Court allows Trump to fire
• 0:52
  Speaker 5: independent agency officials and immigration law roundup from challenges to
• 0:58
  Speaker 5: ice agents, waiting and Immigration court hallways and do geofence
• 1:03
  Speaker 5: warrants violate your right to privacy A ninety year old
• 1:10
  Speaker 5: legal precedent setting up independent agencies isn't dead yet, but
• 1:15
  Speaker 5: after the Supreme Court's emergency order allowing President Trump to
• 1:19
  Speaker 5: fire members of two independent agencies, the effect may be
• 1:24
  Speaker 5: the same The Court's nineteen thirty five ruling in Humphrey's
• 1:27
  Speaker 5: executor said that Congress in some instances can set up
• 1:31
  Speaker 5: agencies that are independent from the executive branch and whose
• 1:35
  Speaker 5: members can only be fired for cause. But in recent
• 1:39
  Speaker 5: years the Supreme Court has significantly cut back on Humphreys.
• 1:44
  Speaker 5: Over the dessense of three liberal justices, the Court allowed
• 1:47
  Speaker 5: Trump to fire National Labor Relations Board member Gwynn Wilcox
• 1:51
  Speaker 5: and Merits Systems Protection Board member Kathy Harris without cause
• 1:56
  Speaker 5: as their legal challenges play out. My guest Isauren McFerrin,
• 2:00
  Speaker 5: senior fellow at the Century Foundation and former chairman of
• 2:04
  Speaker 5: the NLRB in the Biden administration.
• 2:07
  Speaker 4: So what the Supreme Court did was stay and order
• 2:11
  Speaker 4: of the District Court which had ordered the reinstatement of
• 2:14
  Speaker 4: Gwynn Wilcox and Kathy Harris. And the removal of Gwynn
• 2:19
  Speaker 4: and Kathy from office was clearly contrary to statute. The
• 2:23
  Speaker 4: President is prohibited by both the National Labor Relations Act
• 2:27
  Speaker 4: and the law governing the Merit Systems Protection Board from
• 2:30
  Speaker 4: removing people from office except for cause, and no qualifying
• 2:34
  Speaker 4: cause was given to either of these officials, so the
• 2:38
  Speaker 4: action was clearly contrary to law, and so the President
• 2:41
  Speaker 4: kind of took the law into his own hands here
• 2:42
  Speaker 4: and basically said, I don't care what Congress wanted, and
• 2:45
  Speaker 4: I don't have to follow Supreme Court precedent, and he
• 2:47
  Speaker 4: removed them from office anyway. The Supreme Court then stepped
• 2:51
  Speaker 4: in and on what's called the shadow dockets, which is
• 2:54
  Speaker 4: supposed to be for emergency relief and emergency orders, indicated
• 2:59
  Speaker 4: that the President is right to do that, but it
• 3:01
  Speaker 4: is okay for him to ignore Congress and to ignore
• 3:03
  Speaker 4: Supreme Court precedent, and kind of went to extraordinary length
• 3:06
  Speaker 4: to keep that result in place because they basically think
• 3:09
  Speaker 4: the President took a good gamble about their plans to
• 3:11
  Speaker 4: revisit precedents. So it was very unusual from a court
• 3:16
  Speaker 4: process perspective, the so called shadow dock that is supposed
• 3:19
  Speaker 4: to be used for, like I said, emergencies, it's typically
• 3:22
  Speaker 4: also used to preserve the doctrinal status quo, not to
• 3:27
  Speaker 4: overrule it. You're certainly not supposed to use the shadow
• 3:29
  Speaker 4: docket to effectively change precedent without the benefit of full
• 3:33
  Speaker 4: briefing and careful consideration, which is what the descent pointed out.
• 3:37
  Speaker 4: So it was a procedurally very odd thing to do.
• 3:41
  Speaker 4: But it certainly sent a very strong signal about where
• 3:44
  Speaker 4: the Supreme Court is headed in terms of whether it
• 3:48
  Speaker 4: plans to overrule Humphrey's Executor, which is the decision that
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: had originally upheld Congress's ability to create positions like this
• 3:57
  Speaker 4: that can only be removed from office by the pre
• 4:00
  Speaker 4: resident for cause.
• 4:01
  Speaker 5: So, according to the dissenting justices, the effect of this
• 4:05
  Speaker 5: is essentially to overturn Humphrey's Executor.
• 4:09
  Speaker 4: I think that will be the practical read that a
• 4:11
  Speaker 4: lot of people take away from it.
• 4:13
  Speaker 7: Now.
• 4:13
  Speaker 4: The Majority did ultimately hedge on that question. The Majority
• 4:16
  Speaker 4: said that they're not ultimately deciding whether these two agencies
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: fall within the recognized exceptions of Humphrey's Executor. That does
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: suggest that there still will be some recognized exception, but
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: they signaled pretty clearly that they didn't think either the
• 4:34
  Speaker 4: National Labor Relations Board of the Merit Sista's Protection Board
• 4:37
  Speaker 4: would fall within that exception.
• 4:40
  Speaker 5: Tell us about Humphrey's Executor, it's sort of been on
• 4:43
  Speaker 5: the way out, or people have been calling for its
• 4:46
  Speaker 5: demise for a long time.
• 4:48
  Speaker 4: I mean, Humphrey's Executive. There's no question that it is
• 4:50
  Speaker 4: still good law. The case that everyone cites for the
• 4:55
  Speaker 4: proposition that Humphrey's executor is on the way out the
• 4:58
  Speaker 4: door is a case called steal a law and see
• 5:01
  Speaker 4: a law. Was very careful to say that Humphreys still
• 5:05
  Speaker 4: is good law and that they were not revisiting Humphreys.
• 5:08
  Speaker 4: But what they did was that they certainly said they
• 5:10
  Speaker 4: were not expanding Humphrey's executor, who encompassed independent agencies that
• 5:16
  Speaker 4: aren't like the Federal Trade Commission that was the original
• 5:20
  Speaker 4: subject of Humphrey's itself. So they were unwilling to expand
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: the reach of Humprey's executor. This exception that allows Congress
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: to create entities whose leaders can't be removed except for cause.
• 5:34
  Speaker 4: They were going to expand that exception to a single
• 5:38
  Speaker 4: headed agency like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But it
• 5:42
  Speaker 4: is very clear that Humphreys, at this point in time,
• 5:46
  Speaker 4: or at least until this order issued, that Humphreys itself,
• 5:49
  Speaker 4: the exception it creates for quasi judicial and quasi legislative
• 5:53
  Speaker 4: agencies that are structured like a multi member body like
• 5:57
  Speaker 4: the National Labor Relations Board of the Merit Systems protect
• 6:00
  Speaker 4: Board still exists, and that exception is still valid.
• 6:04
  Speaker 5: The Supreme Court in recent years has cut back on humphries.
• 6:07
  Speaker 5: I mean, it's still standing, but is it in sort
• 6:11
  Speaker 5: of chatters.
• 6:12
  Speaker 4: I think it's safe to say that the Court has
• 6:14
  Speaker 4: constrained its reach and has at times, you know, one
• 6:20
  Speaker 4: or two justices in a separate opinion or indicta in
• 6:25
  Speaker 4: a majority opinion, have called into question its continuing viability. Basically,
• 6:31
  Speaker 4: this notion that there can be an entity, even if
• 6:35
  Speaker 4: it is structured like a multi member body, even if
• 6:38
  Speaker 4: it is a body of experts that's supposed to make
• 6:40
  Speaker 4: expert decisions, that there could be an entity like this
• 6:45
  Speaker 4: that would not be sufficiently executive in the nature of
• 6:49
  Speaker 4: the powers that it is exercising, such that its leaders
• 6:54
  Speaker 4: should not be removable by the president. I mean, that's
• 6:57
  Speaker 4: the core issue here for proponents of the unitary execut
• 7:00
  Speaker 4: it theory on the Court is that any entity that
• 7:03
  Speaker 4: is exercising any level of executive power should be removable
• 7:08
  Speaker 4: from office by the president. And the Court has certainly
• 7:10
  Speaker 4: set signals in recent years that it thinks the scope
• 7:14
  Speaker 4: of the universe of agencies that might actually not exercise
• 7:17
  Speaker 4: any executive power is minimal or not existent.
• 7:23
  Speaker 5: The justices took pains to point out that this doesn't
• 7:27
  Speaker 5: affect the FED. The FED is different.
• 7:30
  Speaker 4: Yes, that was a really strange little red flag in
• 7:34
  Speaker 4: this decision. It kind of comes out of nowhere. In
• 7:37
  Speaker 4: the decision. They might as well have basically said, oh,
• 7:40
  Speaker 4: by the way, President Trump, please don't take this order
• 7:44
  Speaker 4: as a green light that you can fire the chair
• 7:46
  Speaker 4: of the FED. And they carved out the FED in
• 7:48
  Speaker 4: like two sentences when it wasn't an issue in the case.
• 7:52
  Speaker 4: And they carved out the said by making what is
• 7:54
  Speaker 4: basically a factual observation about the set, which is that
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: it is uniquely structured and it has a just historical tradition.
• 8:01
  Speaker 4: That is actually true of many independent agencies right now,
• 8:05
  Speaker 4: my own agency that I used to work for, the
• 8:07
  Speaker 4: National Labor Relations for That is certainly true. It is
• 8:10
  Speaker 4: uniquely structured, and it has a distinct historical tradition. But
• 8:14
  Speaker 4: that doesn't speak to the reasons why the FED is independent,
• 8:20
  Speaker 4: which are fundamentally similar to the reasons that other independent
• 8:24
  Speaker 4: agencies are independent. The reason that Congress chose to create
• 8:28
  Speaker 4: independent agencies is because it wanted to have entities, even
• 8:32
  Speaker 4: entities within the executive branch, that made decisions based on expertise,
• 8:37
  Speaker 4: and that made decisions, and we're capable of making decisions
• 8:41
  Speaker 4: that might be in the short run politically unpopular, but
• 8:46
  Speaker 4: in the long run in the best interests of the country.
• 8:48
  Speaker 4: And it's very easy to see, of course, how that
• 8:50
  Speaker 4: plays out in the context of the set, and particularly
• 8:53
  Speaker 4: when the SET is wearing its monetary policy hat, it's
• 8:56
  Speaker 4: very easy to see why it's going to have to
• 8:59
  Speaker 4: make this visions that are short term politically unpopular but
• 9:03
  Speaker 4: long term beneficial to the country. But the FED is
• 9:05
  Speaker 4: not unique in that regard. And one agency that leads
• 9:09
  Speaker 4: to my mind, for example, is the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
• 9:11
  Speaker 4: Sometimes it is very politically unpopular to find a product
• 9:16
  Speaker 4: to be unsafe, to pull a product off the market,
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: but it might well be in the long term public interest.
• 9:21
  Speaker 4: So there's not something that makes the FED distinguishable in
• 9:24
  Speaker 4: a principled manner from other independent agencies when it comes
• 9:28
  Speaker 4: to the reason for its independence.
• 9:31
  Speaker 5: Let's say the Supreme Court does get rid of Humphrey's executor.
• 9:34
  Speaker 5: What might the repercussions be, Well, it would depend on
• 9:38
  Speaker 5: how the Supreme Court did it.
• 9:40
  Speaker 4: There's lots of people who predict about these things, and
• 9:42
  Speaker 4: there's a group of predictors who say that they will
• 9:43
  Speaker 4: basically get rid of Humphrey's Executor but carve out the set,
• 9:46
  Speaker 4: or at least the set in its monetary policy role.
• 9:49
  Speaker 4: I think there's an argument to be made that they
• 9:52
  Speaker 4: could also kind of split the baby in different ways.
• 9:55
  Speaker 4: I think one of the most difficult challenges that we
• 9:58
  Speaker 4: will have in a post Umphrey's Executor world if Humphrey's
• 10:01
  Speaker 4: Executor is swept off the book, is what to do
• 10:04
  Speaker 4: with agencies that are primarily adjudicative. You know that do
• 10:07
  Speaker 4: business as courts basically, and it's very hard to imagine
• 10:12
  Speaker 4: how an agency that's supposed to function as a court
• 10:15
  Speaker 4: will function when it's adjudicators can be fired for the
• 10:19
  Speaker 4: outcome of individual decisions. So I think there's potentially a
• 10:22
  Speaker 4: chance that the court could also look at the various
• 10:24
  Speaker 4: functions that agencies are performing and say these are executives
• 10:29
  Speaker 4: and these are not executives. And this order, being a
• 10:31
  Speaker 4: preliminary order, doesn't delve into that at all. But you
• 10:34
  Speaker 4: could have a course that says, well, if an agency
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: is making rules, it is by nature executive because rulemaking
• 10:41
  Speaker 4: is an executive function. But leave open the question, for example,
• 10:44
  Speaker 4: of whether if an agency was truly just a court system,
• 10:47
  Speaker 4: you know, like tax courts or something like that, whether
• 10:50
  Speaker 4: that potentially could be treated differently. So I think it's
• 10:53
  Speaker 4: a question of whether the court will just wipe Humpter's
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: executor off the books altogether with some possible car about
• 10:59
  Speaker 4: for the fact and monetary policy, or if it will
• 11:03
  Speaker 4: kind of pick and choose which agency functions. It seems
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: to be so executive in nature that the president must
• 11:10
  Speaker 4: be able to control them.
• 11:12
  Speaker 5: And as far as your old agency, the NLRB, what
• 11:16
  Speaker 5: effect would it have if the president is able to
• 11:19
  Speaker 5: fire board members without cause.
• 11:22
  Speaker 4: I think it's really hard to overstate how different that
• 11:26
  Speaker 4: would be from the way that the agency operates now.
• 11:30
  Speaker 4: The NMRB and many other adjudicative agencies. Like I said,
• 11:33
  Speaker 4: the nb does business primarily by deciding cases like a court,
• 11:36
  Speaker 4: and we as judges never had to worry about whether
• 11:42
  Speaker 4: our decisions were going to be politically popular or politically unpopular,
• 11:47
  Speaker 4: or whether we were deciding a case in favor of
• 11:50
  Speaker 4: somebody that the president was friendly with or someone that
• 11:52
  Speaker 4: the president was not friendly with. I think you can
• 11:54
  Speaker 4: see this playing out totally differently in a world where
• 11:57
  Speaker 4: board members I need these the judges could be fired
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: for the outcome of a particular case. You can very
• 12:05
  Speaker 4: much have a system where entities that are closely allied
• 12:09
  Speaker 4: with the president, certain very powerful companies, etc. Were effectively
• 12:13
  Speaker 4: exempt from the law because adjudicators would fear for their
• 12:16
  Speaker 4: jobs if they found against them. Conversely, if the shoes
• 12:19
  Speaker 4: on the other foot, and you have a president in
• 12:21
  Speaker 4: office who's extremely pro union and very closely allied with
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: many labor organizations, there are provisions of the National Labor
• 12:27
  Speaker 4: Relations Acts that are enforceable against unions, and you could
• 12:31
  Speaker 4: see that type of enforcement basically fall by the wayside
• 12:34
  Speaker 4: if you have a president that super union friendly. So
• 12:37
  Speaker 4: it will go from being an adjudicator that jealously guards
• 12:41
  Speaker 4: the integrity of its adjudicative process to being a fundamentally
• 12:46
  Speaker 4: different and political entity where judges are making decisions at
• 12:50
  Speaker 4: the peril of their job based on their predictions about
• 12:53
  Speaker 4: whether they'll face backslash for them or not.
• 12:56
  Speaker 5: Thanks for joining me, Lauren. That's Lauren McPherrin, senior fellow
• 12:59
  Speaker 5: at the Entry Foundation. Coming up, we'll look at the
• 13:02
  Speaker 5: latest immigration disputes. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: It's hard to keep up with breaking global business news.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: That was a mixtay.
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: Here in the.
• 13:11
  Speaker 5: States, volatility is sky high.
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: But at Bloomberg, our seasoned reporters and anchors make it
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: look easy.
• 13:18
  Speaker 5: Up instills hit a fresh record.
• 13:20
  Speaker 8: We consider the lack of motion on Capitol Hills.
• 13:22
  Speaker 5: Are you worried about a wage price spiral?
• 13:24
  Speaker 6: A lot of Wall Street strategists getting more and more
• 13:27
  Speaker 6: cautious here.
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: Listen on Applecarplay or Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app,
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: and always on Bloomberg Radio.
• 13:34
  Speaker 6: Context changes everything. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso
• 13:43
  Speaker 6: from Bloomberg Radio.
• 13:45
  Speaker 5: The Trump administration is once again appealing to the Supreme
• 13:48
  Speaker 5: Court as it tests the boundaries of the government's power
• 13:52
  Speaker 5: to deport migrants. The Department of Homeland Security is asking
• 13:56
  Speaker 5: the court to block a judge's order that requires the
• 14:00
  Speaker 5: government to give people ten days notice and an opportunity
• 14:04
  Speaker 5: to object before they're deported to places other than their
• 14:07
  Speaker 5: home countries. Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco,
• 14:12
  Speaker 5: a partner at Holland and Knight and a former head
• 14:14
  Speaker 5: of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration. Leon,
• 14:19
  Speaker 5: a Massachusetts federal judge, ordered the government last month to
• 14:23
  Speaker 5: give people ten days notice and an opportunity to object
• 14:28
  Speaker 5: before they are sent to a country which is not
• 14:30
  Speaker 5: their home country. And he said last week that the
• 14:34
  Speaker 5: administration violated his earlier decisions.
• 14:38
  Speaker 7: Well, what happened was, this is a case where there
• 14:41
  Speaker 7: are a number of foreign nationals who did commit sometimes
• 14:45
  Speaker 7: very heinous crimes, and they're from Laos, Vietnam and some
• 14:49
  Speaker 7: other places that don't really accept people that the US
• 14:52
  Speaker 7: is trying to deport bax of those countries, and so
• 14:56
  Speaker 7: the US tried to arrange a scenario whereby it could
• 14:59
  Speaker 7: deport those people to South Sudan as part of a
• 15:02
  Speaker 7: diplomatic arrangement it was having with South Sudan to free
• 15:06
  Speaker 7: up some issues because earlier in the year, South Sudanese
• 15:10
  Speaker 7: people couldn't get visas to travel to the United States,
• 15:13
  Speaker 7: and so this was part of a global arrangement where
• 15:16
  Speaker 7: that would be fixed, and that also South Sudan would
• 15:19
  Speaker 7: agree to accept people that the United States was trying
• 15:22
  Speaker 7: to deport to other countries, not South Sudan. The people
• 15:27
  Speaker 7: who were going to be deported to South Sudan heard
• 15:30
  Speaker 7: about this and said, well, wait a second, I can't
• 15:33
  Speaker 7: be deported to South Sudan. I'm not from there. That's
• 15:36
  Speaker 7: very dangerous. It's a country in the middle of a
• 15:38
  Speaker 7: civil war, and so they tried to file convention against
• 15:42
  Speaker 7: torture claims. There was actually this case filed in the
• 15:46
  Speaker 7: District of Massachusetts, which was a habeas claim saying I
• 15:50
  Speaker 7: can't be deported without being given the opportunity to have
• 15:53
  Speaker 7: an adjudication as to whether the conditions in South Sudan
• 15:56
  Speaker 7: are tent amount to torturing me, because if you just
• 16:00
  Speaker 7: drop me off there, what am I supposed to do?
• 16:02
  Speaker 7: I'm going to start to that because you know, it's
• 16:04
  Speaker 7: not a place where you could just go and get
• 16:05
  Speaker 7: a job and start working. And so that was the claim,
• 16:10
  Speaker 7: and at that time the district court, at the US government,
• 16:14
  Speaker 7: we're arguing about, well, how do you do these claims?
• 16:17
  Speaker 7: Can you do them where these people were, which is
• 16:19
  Speaker 7: at the moment they're being detained in Djibouti, a different
• 16:22
  Speaker 7: African country where it's just sort of a military operation
• 16:27
  Speaker 7: and there's not really this ability to long term have
• 16:32
  Speaker 7: these folks there. There was this debate about where do
• 16:35
  Speaker 7: these convention against torture claims get decided or do you
• 16:39
  Speaker 7: have to bring the people back to the United States.
• 16:41
  Speaker 7: The federal government didn't want to bring back the people
• 16:44
  Speaker 7: to the United States. It asked that they'd be allowed
• 16:47
  Speaker 7: to make these adjudications in Djibouti. The judge said, okay, fine,
• 16:51
  Speaker 7: I will let you do that. And then after that
• 16:54
  Speaker 7: the government said, no, wait a second, this is way
• 16:56
  Speaker 7: too complicated. We actually can't do it in Djibouti. And
• 17:00
  Speaker 7: so now the government has gone to the Supreme Court
• 17:03
  Speaker 7: and said, just let us do these deportations. The judge
• 17:07
  Speaker 7: shouldn't be allowed to prevent us from doing this.
• 17:11
  Speaker 5: The Supreme Court has said that the government has to
• 17:13
  Speaker 5: give people a reasonable amount of time in order to
• 17:17
  Speaker 5: challenge their deportations, but it hasn't spelled out exactly what
• 17:22
  Speaker 5: that means, how much time even. But is this situation
• 17:25
  Speaker 5: different from the cases that the Supreme Court has dealt
• 17:29
  Speaker 5: with because these migrants have already been through the immigration
• 17:33
  Speaker 5: system and there are orders of deportation against them.
• 17:37
  Speaker 7: Correct. The problem is here, these individuals have an order
• 17:41
  Speaker 7: of deportation that can be executed at any point to
• 17:45
  Speaker 7: their home country, whether it's Allows or Vietnam or whatever,
• 17:48
  Speaker 7: and it can also be executed to any other country.
• 17:52
  Speaker 7: So long as in any of those other countries, there's
• 17:56
  Speaker 7: not a likelihood that these individuals will be tortured. The
• 18:00
  Speaker 7: question is, well, can these individuals make that claim, where
• 18:05
  Speaker 7: can they make that claim, When can they make that claim,
• 18:07
  Speaker 7: how long do they have to make that claim, and
• 18:10
  Speaker 7: does the district court have the ability to interrupt that
• 18:14
  Speaker 7: when a person has already been moved outside of the
• 18:19
  Speaker 7: United States. And I think that's what the debate is
• 18:21
  Speaker 7: going to be, because I think where the federal government
• 18:24
  Speaker 7: is concerned is what are we supposed to do now
• 18:27
  Speaker 7: that these individuals are in Africa? How do we deal
• 18:30
  Speaker 7: with this? Are we going to be forced to bring
• 18:32
  Speaker 7: them back to the United States or will we be
• 18:35
  Speaker 7: forced to actually adjudicate these cases inside of Djibouti, which
• 18:40
  Speaker 7: is where the people are now, or can we finalize
• 18:43
  Speaker 7: our intentions to deport them to South Sudan? And will
• 18:46
  Speaker 7: there just be prophylactic language in the future about what
• 18:50
  Speaker 7: is required in the future if they're going to do
• 18:53
  Speaker 7: one of these third country deportations. But really we're in
• 18:56
  Speaker 7: uncharted territory here, and the Supreme Court is going to
• 18:59
  Speaker 7: have to set some standards and some guidelines because if
• 19:03
  Speaker 7: the federal government really is focused on these third country deportations,
• 19:07
  Speaker 7: then they're going to need to be done in a
• 19:10
  Speaker 7: manner that everybody's comfortable with. And the complication with South
• 19:13
  Speaker 7: Sudan is just imagine any of us. I mean, if
• 19:16
  Speaker 7: any of us get dropped off in South Sudan, what
• 19:18
  Speaker 7: do we do next? If there's no food, there's no job.
• 19:21
  Speaker 7: You know, if you end up being deported to a
• 19:23
  Speaker 7: place where you know that the solution is just the starvation,
• 19:28
  Speaker 7: does that end up violating the Convention against torture?
• 19:31
  Speaker 5: So how do you think the Supreme Court will approach this?
• 19:35
  Speaker 5: Given how it's handled the other deportation cases.
• 19:38
  Speaker 7: The Supreme Court is going to have to decide where
• 19:41
  Speaker 7: can these individuals make these claims? Are they allowed to
• 19:44
  Speaker 7: make these claims at all? What district court jurisdiction exists here?
• 19:49
  Speaker 7: And I don't necessarily think that the Supreme Court, given
• 19:54
  Speaker 7: what we've seen so far, is going to be too
• 19:56
  Speaker 7: friendly toward this concept of not being able to give
• 19:59
  Speaker 7: people opportunity to make a claim that a deportation Assab
• 20:03
  Speaker 7: Sudan is tent amount to torturing.
• 20:06
  Speaker 5: That okay, So turning two other cases, ICE appears to
• 20:11
  Speaker 5: be employing a new strategy that it used in arresting
• 20:15
  Speaker 5: a high school student in New York City. Government attorneys
• 20:18
  Speaker 5: are asking judges to dismiss cases against migrants who are
• 20:22
  Speaker 5: there for scheduled hearings and then waiting ICE agents arrest
• 20:27
  Speaker 5: the migrants and put them in expedited removal proceedings. That's
• 20:31
  Speaker 5: what reportedly happened to a New York City high school
• 20:34
  Speaker 5: student from Venezuela Leon. So, this Venezuelan high school student
• 20:40
  Speaker 5: was in immigration court for a regularly scheduled hearing, and
• 20:45
  Speaker 5: after the case against him was dismissed, ICE agents arrested him.
• 20:49
  Speaker 5: His lawyer says he's here legally seeking asylum, but the
• 20:54
  Speaker 5: Trump administration says he's here illegally. And apparently this is
• 20:57
  Speaker 5: not an isolated scenario happening.
• 21:00
  Speaker 7: Is this? So the Biden administration had this program called
• 21:05
  Speaker 7: the CBP one app parole program, which what it said
• 21:10
  Speaker 7: was don't just cross the border illegally. That's creating a
• 21:15
  Speaker 7: lot of chaos on the southern border. We can't have
• 21:18
  Speaker 7: it go to a port of entry. Get an appointment
• 21:21
  Speaker 7: to go to a port of entry under the CBP
• 21:23
  Speaker 7: one app and then if we think that you're a
• 21:26
  Speaker 7: legitimate asylum seeker, will parole you into the country legally,
• 21:31
  Speaker 7: so you have a legal status while you're here trying
• 21:34
  Speaker 7: to get asylum, and you'll go through the asylum case.
• 21:36
  Speaker 7: So what's happening now is that the Trump administration is saying,
• 21:41
  Speaker 7: for all those people who have been led in legally
• 21:44
  Speaker 7: to do an asylum case and immigration court, we are
• 21:48
  Speaker 7: going to cancel your legal admission. We're going to close
• 21:54
  Speaker 7: that case, and we're going to pretend like none of
• 21:58
  Speaker 7: that had happened, and we're going to put you in
• 22:00
  Speaker 7: expedited removal, which says that if you are here for
• 22:06
  Speaker 7: less than two years and you never had a legal
• 22:08
  Speaker 7: basis for coming, you can be removed on an expedited basis.
• 22:13
  Speaker 7: But what that requires is for the person to be
• 22:16
  Speaker 7: arrested and then they have to have a new adjudication
• 22:19
  Speaker 7: as to whether they have a credible asylum case, and
• 22:22
  Speaker 7: if they don't, they can immediately be removed. But if
• 22:25
  Speaker 7: they do, then they're basically back in square one, which
• 22:28
  Speaker 7: is the same immigration court hearing that they were arrested
• 22:31
  Speaker 7: at minutes ago. So this BRONXE student was exactly this
• 22:37
  Speaker 7: situation where they were let in legally under the CBP
• 22:40
  Speaker 7: one parole app but now they're arrested, placed in expedited
• 22:46
  Speaker 7: removal proceedings, and.
• 22:49
  Speaker 5: This type of scenario is being played out in immigration
• 22:52
  Speaker 5: courts across the country.
• 22:54
  Speaker 7: So there's basically three goals of this. Number one is
• 22:59
  Speaker 7: maybe twenty percent of the people that they're going to
• 23:02
  Speaker 7: do this too won't actually be able to show that
• 23:06
  Speaker 7: they have a credible asylum claim, and so with that
• 23:09
  Speaker 7: group they can just remove them outside of the United States,
• 23:13
  Speaker 7: and so that increases the removal numbers. So that's goal
• 23:17
  Speaker 7: number one. Goal Number two is to the extent people
• 23:20
  Speaker 7: are now scared to go to immigration court. When you
• 23:23
  Speaker 7: don't show up the immigration court, you get what's called
• 23:26
  Speaker 7: an in absentia removal order, which is you basically lose
• 23:30
  Speaker 7: by default. You get ordered deported and that's the end
• 23:33
  Speaker 7: of it. And as long as the government can show
• 23:35
  Speaker 7: that you had notice of the hearing, then that did
• 23:38
  Speaker 7: you know, unless there was some earthquake or some bridge
• 23:41
  Speaker 7: collapse or something and that prevented you from going to
• 23:43
  Speaker 7: the hearing that day, you're pretty much in a bad
• 23:46
  Speaker 7: position there. But the government, then if they get these
• 23:49
  Speaker 7: in absentia removal orders, can also try to execute those
• 23:55
  Speaker 7: and that also is easier than trying to win a
• 23:57
  Speaker 7: removal order in a hearing. Well, that's the second reason
• 24:01
  Speaker 7: to do this is people stop going to court, they
• 24:04
  Speaker 7: get in upset to removal orders, you can deport them
• 24:06
  Speaker 7: more easily. And then the third is people will be
• 24:09
  Speaker 7: so afraid about finishing this process they'll just take matters
• 24:13
  Speaker 7: into their own hands and go home. And so that's
• 24:16
  Speaker 7: really the purpose of this is to create this level
• 24:19
  Speaker 7: of fear that people either don't show up to court
• 24:22
  Speaker 7: and they get ordered to port it or they go home.
• 24:25
  Speaker 7: But if they do go to court, they're going to
• 24:27
  Speaker 7: get arrested. If you haven't been in this country for
• 24:29
  Speaker 7: more than two years, what will happen is you will
• 24:32
  Speaker 7: be arrested and put into these expedited removal proceedings. And
• 24:37
  Speaker 7: what that will do is for some segment of the people,
• 24:40
  Speaker 7: they will be deported immediately. For a larger segment, let's
• 24:45
  Speaker 7: say seventy to seventy five percent, they will be placed
• 24:49
  Speaker 7: back into the same proceeding they were supposed to go
• 24:51
  Speaker 7: to court for that day. But after having been arrested
• 24:55
  Speaker 7: and detained and having to pay out a bond and
• 24:58
  Speaker 7: so all of this is very scary and unsettling, and
• 25:03
  Speaker 7: that's part of the strategy is to impose those kinds
• 25:06
  Speaker 7: of conditions to make it as older as as possible
• 25:09
  Speaker 7: for the people here without status to remain here.
• 25:11
  Speaker 5: So then will this student definitely get a hearing.
• 25:15
  Speaker 7: Well, so they will first have to show that they
• 25:17
  Speaker 7: have a credible asylum playing and of course, because the
• 25:21
  Speaker 7: student is from Venezuela, probably will not be that difficult
• 25:24
  Speaker 7: because Venezuela does crack down on political dissident and this
• 25:27
  Speaker 7: person can show that they had some political oppression in
• 25:32
  Speaker 7: the past or they have some political issue, they can
• 25:35
  Speaker 7: clear that threshold and then they'll actually have an asylum hearing,
• 25:40
  Speaker 7: which was the whole purpose of why they went the
• 25:42
  Speaker 7: court in the first place.
• 25:43
  Speaker 5: Thanks so much as always, Leon. That's Leon Fresco of
• 25:46
  Speaker 5: Honden Knight. Coming up next. The courts are split on
• 25:51
  Speaker 5: geofans warrants. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to.
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Breaking political news from the team that knows DC.
• 25:58
  Speaker 8: A breaking story, Greg Storreloomberg Supreme Court Reporter.
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: With US Joe Matthew and Kaylee Lyne, along with DC's
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: most respected news team.
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: Nick watdams Key leads are US national security coverage at.
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg's Balance of Power with Joe Matthew and Kaylee Lyne.
• 26:12
  Speaker 8: We welcome Greg recording Bloomberg Politics Reporter.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: Listen live weekdays at noon and five pm Eastern or
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: on demand wherever you get your podcasts. Bloomberg Radio Context
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: changes everything.
• 26:25
  Speaker 8: This is the Bloomberg Green Report. The World Meteorological Organization
• 26:29
  Speaker 8: is downbeat. It predicts human made climate change will continue
• 26:33
  Speaker 8: to warm the planet and we'll see new temperature highs
• 26:36
  Speaker 8: over the next five years. Furthermore, the WMO sees an
• 26:40
  Speaker 8: eighty percent chance that at least one of the next
• 26:42
  Speaker 8: five years will be hotter than twenty twenty four, which
• 26:45
  Speaker 8: was the hottest year ever for planet Earth. The report
• 26:49
  Speaker 8: says the world's average temperatures will be between one point
• 26:52
  Speaker 8: two and one point nine degrees celsius higher than the
• 26:55
  Speaker 8: average in pre industrial times, and the warming will increase
• 26:59
  Speaker 8: extreme weather events that will impact ecosystems, societies, economies, and
• 27:04
  Speaker 8: people's daily lives. Coberrett, the WMO's Deputy Secretary General, says, Unfortunately,
• 27:10
  Speaker 8: the report sees no sign of respite over the coming years.
• 27:14
  Speaker 8: Forecasts say every fraction of a degree of warming will
• 27:17
  Speaker 8: lead to more intense, frequent and harmful heat waves, extreme rain,
• 27:21
  Speaker 8: and drought. Jeff Bellinger, Bloomberg Radio.
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 27:34
  Speaker 5: Geofence warrants are relatively new. Google received its first in
• 27:39
  Speaker 5: twenty sixteen, but the use of such warrants has proliferated,
• 27:44
  Speaker 5: as have court cases challenging them. Unlike a warrant authorizing
• 27:49
  Speaker 5: surveillance of a known suspect, geofencing is used to identify
• 27:54
  Speaker 5: would be suspects. Google has been the primary recipient of
• 27:58
  Speaker 5: these warrants due to its extensive location history database. Federal
• 28:03
  Speaker 5: courts have split on whether these geofence warrants are constitutional,
• 28:08
  Speaker 5: but now New Jersey State Court has ruled that police
• 28:11
  Speaker 5: use of geofence warrants does not violate constitutional privacy protections
• 28:18
  Speaker 5: and is not an impermissible general warrant. Joining me is
• 28:22
  Speaker 5: Alex Ebert, Bloomberg Law correspondent, So, Alex tell us what
• 28:26
  Speaker 5: a geofence warrant is.
• 28:29
  Speaker 3: A geofence warrant is a broad warrant that allows police
• 28:33
  Speaker 3: to find out who may have been in a certain
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: location at a given time. So imagine you're the police
• 28:41
  Speaker 3: and you're looking for people, let's say at the Capitol
• 28:45
  Speaker 3: riot on January sixth, and you want to find out, hey,
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: whose cell phones might have been present around the Capitol
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: when things started going down. Or let's say there was
• 28:55
  Speaker 3: another event where we have a ride after there's a
• 28:58
  Speaker 3: police shooting. Aesthetically, police officers could find out who was
• 29:02
  Speaker 3: in the vicinity of building when it got broken into.
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: That's the sort of information that police officers can.
• 29:09
  Speaker 2: Be looking for.
• 29:10
  Speaker 5: So what is the question when using a geofence warrant?
• 29:14
  Speaker 5: Is it privacy concerns? What are the constitutional concerns?
• 29:19
  Speaker 7: That's right?
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: So this all boils down to privacy, and there's two
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: sort of big questions that courts are grappling with. One
• 29:26
  Speaker 3: is this a general warrant that would violate the Fourth
• 29:29
  Speaker 3: Amendment protections we have against the police invading our privacy?
• 29:34
  Speaker 3: And two would this be considered the stuff that we
• 29:38
  Speaker 3: don't really have an entitlement to protect because it's held
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: by third parties. This is an issue that courts have
• 29:44
  Speaker 3: grappled with for decades and it gets only more complex
• 29:48
  Speaker 3: as more of our data is being given to third
• 29:51
  Speaker 3: party tell us what.
• 29:52
  Speaker 5: Happened in this case? What you know the facts of
• 29:54
  Speaker 5: the case.
• 29:55
  Speaker 3: Sure, So, this case involves a Milltown robbery. What happens
• 30:00
  Speaker 3: is someone came into a convenience store gas station late
• 30:04
  Speaker 3: at night and the clerk who got assaulted hurt someone
• 30:08
  Speaker 3: talking on the phone. That was really all the police
• 30:11
  Speaker 3: had to go off of in this case. And so
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: because they knew there was a phone conversation going on,
• 30:18
  Speaker 3: they went to Google and said, Hey, was there anyone
• 30:21
  Speaker 3: in this particular area. Usually it's a couple of blocks
• 30:25
  Speaker 3: that was making a phone call or accessing their phone
• 30:28
  Speaker 3: at this given time period. They went to Google and
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: Google found only one identifiable person that was there, and
• 30:36
  Speaker 3: from there the police officers were able to request from
• 30:39
  Speaker 3: Google demand that they provide the identification of that Google.
• 30:45
  Speaker 5: User and so explain what the court found here.
• 30:49
  Speaker 3: Sure So, the New Jersey Court of Appeals was extremely divided,
• 30:53
  Speaker 3: as other courts have been in recent times on this issue.
• 30:57
  Speaker 3: The majority found that this is okay, that there's a
• 31:02
  Speaker 3: process through which the police here are requesting information from Google,
• 31:06
  Speaker 3: and they're narrowing it down based on the location and
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: the time period that they're seeking pings on people's cell phones,
• 31:14
  Speaker 3: and from there it's fine, it's articulable suspicion. We've got
• 31:19
  Speaker 3: the probable cause necessary to get this information in a warrant.
• 31:24
  Speaker 3: But the descent here is.
• 31:25
  Speaker 7: Saying, no way.
• 31:27
  Speaker 3: What we're asking for here is to hoover up all
• 31:30
  Speaker 3: this information and you're able to tap into whomever might
• 31:34
  Speaker 3: be in this location at a given time, whether or
• 31:37
  Speaker 3: not they might be related to this crime or not.
• 31:40
  Speaker 5: This New Jersey case is a case in state court,
• 31:44
  Speaker 5: but the federal courts are split on this. The Fourth Circuit,
• 31:48
  Speaker 5: sitting on Bank couldn't produce a majority opinion explaining why
• 31:54
  Speaker 5: they allowed the geofence warrant, so it issued eight separate
• 31:59
  Speaker 5: concut ccurrences.
• 32:01
  Speaker 3: It is such a messchoon. So we have that court
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: going that direction, and then we have the Fifth Circuit,
• 32:08
  Speaker 3: what we would consider to be extremely conservative, going to
• 32:11
  Speaker 3: complete other routes. So we have this circuit split, where
• 32:15
  Speaker 3: we have a court that says this isn't a search
• 32:18
  Speaker 3: at all, This is information held by third parties. The
• 32:21
  Speaker 3: defendants aren't entitled to protection over right. Then we've got
• 32:24
  Speaker 3: the Fifth Circuit saying this isn't just a search, this
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: is an unconstitutional general warrant. You know, this is the
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: thing that you know, we created the Fourth Amendment to stop.
• 32:34
  Speaker 3: We don't want the British officers coming in and ransacking
• 32:38
  Speaker 3: our houses just generally looking for stuff. And that's what
• 32:41
  Speaker 3: you're trying to do here with these general warrants of
• 32:44
  Speaker 3: disinformation to Google users and just pulling it back. We're
• 32:48
  Speaker 3: talking about hundreds of millions of devices in the United States.
• 32:52
  Speaker 3: You know, hundreds of millions of people have access to
• 32:55
  Speaker 3: just Google's accounts. And so if you're looking at the
• 32:59
  Speaker 3: split here, the difference between can we get at that
• 33:02
  Speaker 3: private information that's held by these service providers, by these
• 33:07
  Speaker 3: apps or is that just too much data? Do we
• 33:11
  Speaker 3: have an updated sense of privacy that is being invaded here?
• 33:16
  Speaker 5: Do you have any idea how many of these GEO
• 33:19
  Speaker 5: warrants are issued in a year.
• 33:22
  Speaker 3: I haven't been able to find information how many it is. However,
• 33:25
  Speaker 3: when I've spoken with attorneys off the record, they've told
• 33:27
  Speaker 3: me that it's increasing again and again and again because
• 33:31
  Speaker 3: it's becoming more valuable information. We also have other courts
• 33:36
  Speaker 3: considering this issue right now. Just last month, the Texas
• 33:40
  Speaker 3: Criminal Court of Appeals, which is their highest level of
• 33:43
  Speaker 3: criminal courts they allowed the geofense warrants, and the Minnesota
• 33:48
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court is considering right now a case on the
• 33:51
  Speaker 3: constitutionality of geofense warrants. So this is bubbling up across
• 33:55
  Speaker 3: the country.
• 33:56
  Speaker 5: Could this be appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court?
• 34:00
  Speaker 3: Indeed, so, because this is a divided decision in the
• 34:05
  Speaker 3: Court of Appeals, the New Jersey Supreme Court will automatically
• 34:08
  Speaker 3: grant review if the loser wants it. That is a
• 34:12
  Speaker 3: certainty here. This is going to be a huge case
• 34:16
  Speaker 3: and you're going to see, you know, amachist briefs from
• 34:19
  Speaker 3: all over the country pour in on this thing because
• 34:21
  Speaker 3: there's so few of these decisions that are either bubbling
• 34:24
  Speaker 3: up or at that highest core level. And in particular,
• 34:28
  Speaker 3: New Jersey is extremely strong in Fourth Amendment terms, and
• 34:32
  Speaker 3: it has interpreted both the national the federal Fourth Amendment
• 34:37
  Speaker 3: and its own privacy protections broadly for criminal defendants.
• 34:41
  Speaker 5: Google is implementing changes to encryption. Explain what they're trying
• 34:45
  Speaker 5: to do, that's right.
• 34:47
  Speaker 3: Yeah, So it's been over a year now since Google
• 34:49
  Speaker 3: has announced that it's going to be implementing changes to
• 34:52
  Speaker 3: encryption that would prevent somewhat you know, some of these
• 34:56
  Speaker 3: broader geofense warrants we're talking about. Instead of Google storing
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: this information, it will be stored on a local device,
• 35:05
  Speaker 3: or it will be you know, encrypted in such a
• 35:08
  Speaker 3: way that giving Google can't read it and so it
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: can't turn over account information to police officers. But that's
• 35:15
  Speaker 3: not necessarily going to stop, either for Google or for
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: other apps. If you think about it, there's other warrants
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: that you know, could function well beyond this. Right, So
• 35:26
  Speaker 3: if you're taking an uber somewhere, why can't the police say, hey, Uber,
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: give me all of the rides that you know came
• 35:32
  Speaker 3: into this block, right, or this series of blocks within
• 35:37
  Speaker 3: the you know, three hours the night of April twenty fifth,
• 35:40
  Speaker 3: or Facebook or Apple, you know, were there any location
• 35:43
  Speaker 3: tags or people that bought things, you know, using Apple
• 35:47
  Speaker 3: pay or whatever within certain radius around here. It's not
• 35:51
  Speaker 3: just Google that you know, defendants might have to worry about.
• 35:54
  Speaker 3: And beyond that, you could even think of ways where
• 35:57
  Speaker 3: you can get at this sort of information without really
• 36:00
  Speaker 3: looking at you know, pinging from someone's location through geolocation.
• 36:05
  Speaker 3: What if you could go to Google and say, hey,
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: give me anyone that's searched for you know, the victim's
• 36:12
  Speaker 3: house or areas around there in a certain time period.
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: So you can think of creative ways where the police
• 36:19
  Speaker 3: could really use an expansive access to these geofence warrants
• 36:24
  Speaker 3: to look for information, you know, even outside of what
• 36:26
  Speaker 3: Google is trying to prohibit.
• 36:28
  Speaker 5: Has the Supreme Court taken up any case that's similar
• 36:32
  Speaker 5: to these geo warrants?
• 36:34
  Speaker 3: Not exactly on point tune. So over the course of
• 36:37
  Speaker 3: my lifetime, the Supreme Court has gone from a more
• 36:40
  Speaker 3: favorable access to third party data to a less favorable
• 36:44
  Speaker 3: access to third party data framework and stamp. In twenty eighteen,
• 36:49
  Speaker 3: we had a Carpenter case, which is about the pinging
• 36:53
  Speaker 3: of cell phone towers right, and there the Supreme Court
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: made sort of a great ruling for or defendants that hey,
• 37:01
  Speaker 3: police have to get a warrant to get access to this.
• 37:04
  Speaker 3: You can't just hoover in this information. But there's nothing
• 37:07
  Speaker 3: that's on this level that involves this kind of technology
• 37:12
  Speaker 3: and this kind of warrant.
• 37:15
  Speaker 5: And how's the privacy bar taking this case?
• 37:18
  Speaker 3: Privacy rights attorneys are really up in arms about this
• 37:21
  Speaker 3: because of the huge implications here, and you know, for
• 37:24
  Speaker 3: the creative ways that it could be used. You know,
• 37:27
  Speaker 3: oftentimes these sort of maneuvers aren't really discovered until, you know,
• 37:31
  Speaker 3: months or years after. You know, police are looking for
• 37:34
  Speaker 3: this information. But at the same time, police officers say, hey,
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: we didn't have anything on this guy, you know that
• 37:42
  Speaker 3: committed this robbery. You know, there's no CCTV, there's nothing
• 37:45
  Speaker 3: really that would have given us this lead. And so
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: on one hand, you have this extremely powerful tool for
• 37:53
  Speaker 3: police officers, and then the other you have this really scary,
• 37:57
  Speaker 3: sort of invasive ability to look into what we're doing
• 38:01
  Speaker 3: on our phone.
• 38:02
  Speaker 5: I'm sure we're going to hear more about these Warrens.
• 38:04
  Speaker 5: Thanks so much, Alex. That's Bloomberg Law correspondent Alex Ebert
• 38:08
  Speaker 5: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
• 38:11
  Speaker 5: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by
• 38:14
  Speaker 5: listening to our Bloomberg Law podcast wherever you get your
• 38:17
  Speaker 5: favorite podcasts. I'm June Grosso. Stay with us. Today's top
• 38:22
  Speaker 5: stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.