Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Loses as SCOTUS Affirms Birthright Citizenship

Transcript

Trump Loses as SCOTUS Affirms Birthright Citizenship · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio. Today,
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court upheld the long held principle of birthright citizenship,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: rejecting President Trump's attempt to redefine what it means to
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: be an American. Trump's executive order would have restricted birthright
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: citizenship to babies with at least one parent who's a
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: US citizen or a Green Card holder, but in a
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: six to three decision, the Court reaffirmed a ruling from
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty eight years ago that except for
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: the children of ambassadors, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that all
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: people born in the United States are citizens.
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: The Supreme Court decided this issue definitively in eighteen ninety eight,
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: and again today reaffirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment means that
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: everyone born here is a citizen alike that can only
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: be changed by constitutional amendment, and that effort will fail.
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: The case was personal for Celia Wang, the ACLU attorney
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: who argued it before the court. She was born in
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: Oregon to parents from Taiwan who are not naturalized citizens
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: at the time. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: Roberts said that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: that promise of citizenship quote to every freeborn person in
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: this land, and we keep that promise today. My guest
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: is an expert in constitutional law, Professor David super of
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Georgetown Law. How big a loss is this for President Trump?
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: I mean, he has been using this as an issue
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: for more than a decade. He even sat in on
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: the oral arguments, part of them at least, and issued
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: this executive order within hours of his inauguration.
• 1:55
  Speaker 3: This is important for him symbolically, but I don't think
• 2:01
  Speaker 3: it ever mattered very much substantively, And I'm sure his
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: lawyers told him from the get go that he had
• 2:07
  Speaker 3: no chance.
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: The Court's decision and the descents were almost two hundred pages.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, explain what he
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: based the decision on.
• 2:19
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the Chief Justice looked at the history of the
• 2:24
  Speaker 3: language of the Fourteenth Amendment and found that, going far
• 2:29
  Speaker 3: back into the English common law, someone who is born
• 2:34
  Speaker 3: in a place is subject to the jurisdiction of that place.
• 2:38
  Speaker 3: And when the Fourteenth Amendment says that children that are
• 2:42
  Speaker 3: born in the US subject to the US's jurisdiction are citizens,
• 2:47
  Speaker 3: he said that that means they're just here, except in
• 2:51
  Speaker 3: the very special circumstance of the kids of diplomats or
• 2:55
  Speaker 3: perhaps people who are born during a foreign military operation.
• 2:59
  Speaker 3: But with those very very limited exceptions. He found that
• 3:03
  Speaker 3: the framers of the fourteenth Amendment used well known terms
• 3:07
  Speaker 3: from the English common law, and we were bound by them.
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: And he said there was scant evidence to support the
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Trump administration's dramatically revisionist few. And I remember during the
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: oral arguments that Justice Elena Kagan pointed out to the
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: Solicitor General that he was relying on obscure sources like
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: an oration delivered at President Lincoln's funeral. They didn't have
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: much law to back them up, did they.
• 3:33
  Speaker 3: They really didn't. And again they should have understood this.
• 3:38
  Speaker 3: It's striking that what they effectively were trying to do
• 3:42
  Speaker 3: is overrule a case from the nineteenth century called wom
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: King Art, which was handed down by almost the same
• 3:51
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court that gave us separate but equal at plus
• 3:54
  Speaker 3: e v. Ferguson, one of the most reactionary courts in
• 3:58
  Speaker 3: the history of the country. Found found that birthright citizenship
• 4:02
  Speaker 3: means what it says, and if President Trump is trying
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: to get even farther to the right, even deeper into
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: white supremacy than the plus ev Ferguson Court. That's a challenge.
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: Despite that, And I remember when Trump's executive order first
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: came out, people were like, this is crazy, this is
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: not going to fly. But yet you had three of
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: the Court's most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Leito, and
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Neil Gorsitch dissented. Now Thomas and Alito are no surprise,
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: they even dissented in the tariff's case, But how did
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: they defend their descents.
• 4:40
  Speaker 3: In many respects? Therefore, descents because Justice Kavanaugh agreed with
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: the dissenters on the constitutional issues, so only a five
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: to four majority said that the Constitution protects people's birthright citizenship.
• 4:55
  Speaker 3: Three of them thought that the president can take it
• 4:58
  Speaker 3: away himself and or thought that Congress could. And it's
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: instructive that the dissenters really don't come up with a
• 5:08
  Speaker 3: single coherent theory, nor really does the federal government. They're
• 5:13
  Speaker 3: getting a scrap from here and a scrap from there
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: and trying to weave it into something. And they have
• 5:21
  Speaker 3: quite a number of different legal theories going on. But
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: they seem to say well, at some point the US
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: deviated from the English common law. Kind of remarkable from
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: judges who, on other occasions treat the common laws as
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: practically having been handed down on tablets Moses. But apparently
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: we deviated from the English common law. But no one's
• 5:46
  Speaker 3: quite sure when or how. Maybe someone said something at
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: someone's funeral, so maybe that's a big deal. But they
• 5:54
  Speaker 3: say that we've gone off to a different theory, but
• 5:58
  Speaker 3: he can't say where, he can't provide legal authority for that,
• 6:03
  Speaker 3: and the legal theories they come up with don't make
• 6:06
  Speaker 3: a great deal of sense. Taking some of them seriously,
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: they would seem to mean that anyone born here to
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: foreign parents, no matter how legal the parent status might be,
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: is not a US citizen. And if that's true, then
• 6:23
  Speaker 3: why did they even bother putting that language into the
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: fourteenth Amendment?
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Are they going more and more away from textual analysis then, or.
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: It's strikingly unprincipled. And I mean, we've come to expect
• 6:37
  Speaker 3: a lot of this from Justice Alito and Justice Kavanaugh.
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: I had hoped that Justice Thomas would use this as
• 6:45
  Speaker 3: a chance to make a strong pitch for originalism and
• 6:50
  Speaker 3: say I don't like this result. I do like this President,
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: but originalism tells me that that's what this means. But
• 6:58
  Speaker 3: he doesn't do that. He comes up up with this
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: very convoluted theory, which I think badly undercuts originalism. I
• 7:05
  Speaker 3: was also disappointed frankly with Justice Gorsuch's position here, because
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: I think he takes originalism seriously. And the case that
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: they were trying to overrule Wan kim Ark is a
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: model of originalist reasoning, something that you would think they
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: would want to emulate rather than try to pick apart.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: Speaking about Wan kim Ark from one hundred and twenty
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: eight years ago, just yesterday the court overruled Humphrey's executor,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: a ninety year old precedent, and today in the campaign
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: finance case they overruled a precedent from two thousand and one.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Does precedent have any effect on them anymore? Do they
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: even feel like they have to follow it?
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: I think President has stopped mattering very much. There are
• 7:55
  Speaker 3: some respectable theories that say that we should follow the
• 8:01
  Speaker 3: best reading of the Constitution, we should follow an originalist meaning,
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: or we should follow a textual analysis or something like that,
• 8:12
  Speaker 3: but they don't do that either. And in the case
• 8:16
  Speaker 3: overruling Humphrey's executor. They create a bunch of exceptions because
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: they think these are good public policy. They don't have
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: a coherent originalist theory for these exceptions. Indeed, their theory
• 8:27
  Speaker 3: for the whole Slaughter case would seem to suggest that
• 8:31
  Speaker 3: the Federal Reserve should be under the most presidential control.
• 8:35
  Speaker 3: But for policy reasons and because they don't want to
• 8:37
  Speaker 3: be blamed for a recession, they create an exception. So
• 8:41
  Speaker 3: precedent doesn't matter, but neither does a coherent theory. This
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: is very policy driven judging.
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: I was going to say that, you know, you hear
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: from Trump and others in the administration complaints about liberal
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: activist judges, but it seems like the Supreme Court's conservative
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: justices have become activists.
• 9:05
  Speaker 3: They have become activists activists in pursuit of what they
• 9:10
  Speaker 3: think is good public policy, which is usually conservative but
• 9:14
  Speaker 3: sometimes has other wrinkles to it. They're making an exception
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: to presidential power over the federal Reserve is not really conservative.
• 9:24
  Speaker 3: It's that they don't want to crash the economy. And
• 9:28
  Speaker 3: I don't want to crash the economy either, so I'm
• 9:30
  Speaker 3: glad the Federal Reserve is not under the president's sum completely,
• 9:34
  Speaker 3: but I don't think that's principal judging. So we're not
• 9:38
  Speaker 3: a court of precedent, and we're not really originalist. We
• 9:42
  Speaker 3: cite old stuff, but not usually definitive evidence of original
• 9:48
  Speaker 3: public meaning, just sort of random old stuff. So we're
• 9:51
  Speaker 3: really off on our own with this court doing what
• 9:55
  Speaker 3: they think is best.
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: So this may have been an immigration laws for but
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: in every other immigration case this term, the court has
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: ruled against immigrants' rights and for the Trump administration, I
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: mean time after time. Just last week you had the
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: ending of GPS and also that asylum seekrets can be
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: turned away at the border. So all in all, Trump
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: has had a very good term on immigration with this court.
• 10:23
  Speaker 3: He has and some of those decisions are plausible. Some
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: of them are weird. I mean, I didn't think that
• 10:32
  Speaker 3: he would lose any of them, and he didn't, but
• 10:36
  Speaker 3: they really had to bend themselves into pretzels for some
• 10:40
  Speaker 3: of them. And it's kind of remarkable that they didn't
• 10:46
  Speaker 3: even require him to make a finding consistent with the
• 10:50
  Speaker 3: statute about temporary protective status. If he wants to make
• 10:54
  Speaker 3: a finding that conditions have improved in thus in such
• 10:57
  Speaker 3: a country, that might just doing it, but of course
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: saying conditions have improved in Haiti when the State Department
• 11:06
  Speaker 3: is hopping up and down, don't go there, don't go there.
• 11:09
  Speaker 3: If you go there, you won't come back. And yet
• 11:12
  Speaker 3: we are sending people there implicitly saying that things have improved,
• 11:17
  Speaker 3: but not making the president say it. This Supreme Court
• 11:21
  Speaker 3: has said that we need openness and then let the
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: voters decide. Here Congress has said, you grant temporary protective
• 11:30
  Speaker 3: status to people fleeing extremely unsafe places, and you end
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: it when the place becomes safe. And we aren't forcing
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: the president to make that declaration, stand behind it and
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: go to the voters to defend it.
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: The Chief Justice, when he's in the majority, gets to
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: assign the opinion, and Roberts assigned himself the majority opinion
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: in this birthright citizenship case, which is one of the
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: biggest of the term, and yesterday in two other very
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: high profile cases, the ones involving Fed Governor Lisa Cook
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: and former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. And that's a pattern
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: we've seen in other terms. Obviously, he has the right
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: to do that, But what's your take on Robert saving
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: the best for himself.
• 12:19
  Speaker 4: Essentially, he hasn't done that all the time, but he
• 12:24
  Speaker 4: has certainly done it a great deal, and I think
• 12:27
  Speaker 4: it's because he understands the scrutiny the court is under
• 12:32
  Speaker 4: and believes that he can write an opinion that will
• 12:36
  Speaker 4: be less vulnerable to.
• 12:38
  Speaker 3: Public criticism than some of his colleagues would. He's a
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: very hard worker, He's got impressive skills, and I think
• 12:47
  Speaker 3: he believes he will produce the most teflon opinions, and
• 12:53
  Speaker 3: history suggests that he may be right.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: How did other Chief Justices handle the assignment of the
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: Jardi opinion?
• 13:02
  Speaker 3: It really varies a great deal. There are some very
• 13:06
  Speaker 3: important war in court decisions that Chief Justice Warren assigned
• 13:10
  Speaker 3: to himself, most obviously Brown versus Board of Education. He
• 13:14
  Speaker 3: was trying to get a unanimous court, which he succeeded
• 13:17
  Speaker 3: in doing, and felt that having personal control of the
• 13:21
  Speaker 3: opinion as he was negotiating with the holdouts would allow
• 13:25
  Speaker 3: him to make the kinds of modifications that we unify
• 13:28
  Speaker 3: the court. Chief Justice Burger assigned himself opinions that seemed
• 13:34
  Speaker 3: interesting and important. Chief Justice Burger's skills were probably not
• 13:38
  Speaker 3: on the level of either Chief Justice Ward or Chief
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: Justice Roberts, and some of those opinions that he assigned
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: himself have puzzled people ever since. My sense of Chief
• 13:49
  Speaker 3: Justice Ranquist is that he did not particularly abuse the
• 13:53
  Speaker 3: privilege of assigning opinions. He certainly took some important ones
• 13:57
  Speaker 3: for himself, but left as many for his colleagues. So
• 14:01
  Speaker 3: it's a matter of different style. I think we've never
• 14:05
  Speaker 3: had a Chief Justice since John Marshall who cared as
• 14:09
  Speaker 3: much about the Court's public image as the current Chief
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: Justice does, and I think he correctly sees the tone
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: of these opinions as being very important to persuading the
• 14:21
  Speaker 3: public that the Court is in fact pursuing a legal
• 14:25
  Speaker 3: agenda rather than an ideological one.
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: Speaking of that, of the seventeen cases announced in the
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: last two weeks of the term, eleven were split six
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: to three down ideological lines. And that involves some of
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: the cases that we've been talking about, immigration, presidential power,
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: gun rights, human rights, etc. What does that tell you
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: on a court that now is the liberals are all
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: Democratic appointees and the Conservatives are all Republican appointees.
• 14:54
  Speaker 3: Well, one thing that tells this is something I think
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: we've known for a while is that both parties are polarizing.
• 15:00
  Speaker 3: The last really moderate Republican appointee was David Suitor. President
• 15:07
  Speaker 3: George H. W. Bush was harshly criticized for that and
• 15:11
  Speaker 3: was defeated for reelection. I think you could make an
• 15:14
  Speaker 3: argument that both Justice Stephen Bryer and Justice Atlanta Kagan
• 15:17
  Speaker 3: were fairly moderate Democratic appointees. I'm not sure that a
• 15:22
  Speaker 3: president today could make similar pointees without getting pretty harshly
• 15:28
  Speaker 3: criticized by parts of the Democratic coalition. But the other
• 15:33
  Speaker 3: point here is that because we've gotten rid of the
• 15:37
  Speaker 3: filibuster for judicial confirmations, if a president controls the Senate,
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: they can appoint whomever they want, and you end up
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: with justices who are extremely ideologically reliable. You don't have
• 15:51
  Speaker 3: to make the case that this is a distinguished jurist.
• 15:54
  Speaker 3: You just have to make the case that they're going
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: to vote for your party.
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: Do you think that these you know, six to three decisions.
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: Do you think that that's part of the reason why
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: it seems like the justice's nerves are frayed. I mean,
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: we have you know, Justic Soda Mayor involved in that
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: criticism of Justice Kavanaugh. You have Justice Soda Mayor reading
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: from her dissent, and Justice Alito saying, you know, he
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: was surprised by it. I mean, it seems like things
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: are fraid they are.
• 16:26
  Speaker 3: Things can sometimes get a little chippy at the end
• 16:28
  Speaker 3: of the term when people have strong emotional feelings about things.
• 16:33
  Speaker 3: But I think the problem that the liberal justices have
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: at this point is that they don't see a coherent
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: judicial philosophy of the conservatives. It's one thing, we're going
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: all in with originalism. Even if you aren't an originalist.
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: You say, okay, that gives us something predictable and lets
• 16:53
  Speaker 3: us know where the law is going to be. It's
• 16:55
  Speaker 3: wondering if we're going to be strong on upholding precedent.
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: But what we have here is a court that chuck's
• 17:03
  Speaker 3: precedent fairly, casually, without a lot of reason, without going
• 17:07
  Speaker 3: through the steps that have been adhere to previously. That
• 17:11
  Speaker 3: they cite reasons and then immediately ignore those reasons in
• 17:15
  Speaker 3: literally the next case. And so I think the sense
• 17:19
  Speaker 3: is that this is a very political process rather than
• 17:24
  Speaker 3: an adjudicatory one, and that's not what they signed up for.
• 17:28
  Speaker 3: They signed up to be judges on the highest court
• 17:31
  Speaker 3: in the land, not political overlords.
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: Just as Aldo and Justice Gorsa didn't even appear on
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: the bench today. Is that an indication of something or
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: am I just reading too much into it They had
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: something to do. I don't know.
• 17:45
  Speaker 3: On the one hand, the Court's public release of opinions
• 17:50
  Speaker 3: is a bit anachronistic. Most of us don't tune into that,
• 17:55
  Speaker 3: but get the opinions off of the Court's website and
• 17:58
  Speaker 3: start reading the instead. Very very few courts do public
• 18:03
  Speaker 3: announcements of opinions. A few district judges do. Most lawyers,
• 18:08
  Speaker 3: I think, find that annoying. So I don't put a
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: lot of truck in the ceremony, and if they ended
• 18:14
  Speaker 3: the ceremony, I wouldn't be terribly disturbed. But if they're
• 18:19
  Speaker 3: having it, it says something about how much respect for
• 18:22
  Speaker 3: your institution you have if you can't bother to show up,
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: if you can't change your plane reservations or whatever it
• 18:30
  Speaker 3: is to your south Sea getaway long enough to sit
• 18:35
  Speaker 3: for the last day of opinions.
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and it's nice to be on vacation for three months.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: Thanks so much, David for all your analysis of the
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions this term. That's Georgetown Law professor David
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: super and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: com slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to tune into
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg