Latest / Bloomberg Law / Birthright Citizenship Again & 'Justice in Motion' Bus Tour

Transcript

Birthright Citizenship Again & 'Justice in Motion' Bus Tour · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: At the end of last month, the Supreme Court upheld
0:11
Speaker 2: more than a century of legal president by rejecting President
0:15
Speaker 2: Trump's attempt to end automatic US citizenship for babies born here.
0:21
Speaker 2: It was a six to three decision that cut across
0:24
Speaker 2: ideological lines and rejected the Trump administration's contentions about what
0:30
Speaker 2: it calls birth tourism, women traveling from countries like China
0:35
Speaker 2: to give birth in the US to get citizenship for
0:38
Speaker 2: their children, something Trump has long argued It wasn't for
0:44
Speaker 2: billionaire Chinese people who have fifty seven children that become
0:47
Speaker 2: American citizens. But now Trump says he'll ask the Supreme
0:51
Speaker 2: Court to rehear the case, an extremely long shot move.
0:56
Speaker 2: Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco of Holland
1:00
Speaker 2: and Knight.
1:01
Speaker 3: Leon.
1:01
Speaker 2: They haven't filed the papers yet, but do you have
1:04
Speaker 2: any idea what the administration is going to base this
1:07
Speaker 2: request for a rehearing on?
1:10
Speaker 4: Well, the Trump administration, as you said, is asking for
1:13
Speaker 4: a rehearing of the decision in the birth rights citizenship case.
1:18
Speaker 4: A losing party has twenty five days to request rehearing
1:22
Speaker 4: and Basically, what the Trump administration is saying is that
1:25
Speaker 4: there are ads that he is pointing to, including one
1:29
Speaker 4: from a Texas hospital aimed that expected mothers in Mexico,
1:33
Speaker 4: and he's saying that those ads are showing that the
1:37
Speaker 4: Supreme Court's decision has led to a surge in birth
1:40
Speaker 4: tourism and therefore the Court's ruling is wrong, and so
1:45
Speaker 4: he's saying that the Court needs to revisit the decision.
1:48
Speaker 1: Now, is that actually true? Are more people coming?
1:52
Speaker 4: I think all of these safeguards are in place to
1:55
Speaker 4: obviously prevent people from entering the United States. Now, the
1:59
Speaker 4: Trump administration actually has language in the Foreign Affairs Manual
2:03
Speaker 4: that says, don't give a visitor visa to anyone who
2:06
Speaker 4: appears is coming to give birth in the United States
2:09
Speaker 4: unless there's very clear medical necessity for it and clear
2:12
Speaker 4: evidence that they're sufficient money to pay for it. And
2:16
Speaker 4: so from that perspective, I think the systems are in
2:18
Speaker 4: place already to prevent this kind of birth tourism. But nevertheless,
2:22
Speaker 4: the Trump administration is pushing and saying that the Court's
2:26
Speaker 4: decision has unwittingly at leashed a new round of birth
2:30
Speaker 4: tourism in the United States, The.
2:32
Speaker 2: Actual number of cases of birth tourism is very low,
2:37
Speaker 2: isn't it.
2:37
Speaker 1: That's correct?
2:38
Speaker 2: Do you know what the number is?
2:40
Speaker 4: The problem is it's one of these proven negative things.
2:43
Speaker 4: No one will actually know for sure because when people
2:47
Speaker 4: travel to the United States, they very rarely disclose that
2:51
Speaker 4: they're doing it for the purposes of giving birth. Very
2:55
Speaker 4: rarely do people go through the actual formalities of getting
2:58
Speaker 4: a visitor visa that for the purpose of getting medical
3:01
Speaker 4: treatment to give birth. But people think at the maximum
3:05
Speaker 4: it's in the low thousand.
3:06
Speaker 1: So not even in the ten thousand range.
3:09
Speaker 4: Of people who are actually coming and sort of circumventing
3:14
Speaker 4: the US policies and giving birth while i'm visitor visas.
3:18
Speaker 2: And the Supreme Court made its decision on constitutional grounds
3:22
Speaker 2: that Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship couldn't be squared
3:27
Speaker 2: with the fourteenth Amendment. So what's happening now is not
3:30
Speaker 2: going to change a decision based on the constitution, correct.
3:34
Speaker 4: I mean, the last time the Supreme Court agreed to
3:36
Speaker 4: rehear a fully argued case was in nineteen sixty five,
3:40
Speaker 4: and a full plenary rehearing hasn't been granted since nineteen
3:44
Speaker 4: fifty six. So this is clearly a very long shot bid.
3:48
Speaker 4: And I mean the beginning of the oral argument in
3:51
Speaker 4: the birthright citizenship case was the Solicitor General talking about
3:56
Speaker 4: birth tourism and saying it was a new world, and
3:59
Speaker 4: Chief Justice Roberts says it wasn't a new constitution. And
4:02
Speaker 4: so I think this issue, as they say in the law,
4:05
Speaker 4: has been asked and answered, and so I don't think
4:08
Speaker 4: that question can be re asked again because I think
4:11
Speaker 4: that that was fully considered.
4:13
Speaker 2: Also a bit of irony this week that the American
4:16
Speaker 2: soccer star that President Trump intervened on behalf of is
4:21
Speaker 2: a birthright citizen.
4:22
Speaker 1: Correct.
4:23
Speaker 4: The leading goal scorer for the US men's national team,
4:26
Speaker 4: Fuller and Baligan, by all intents and purposes, should have
4:29
Speaker 4: been born in England, but his mother was not permitted
4:31
Speaker 4: to board a plane because she was in the eighth
4:33
Speaker 4: month of the pregnancy, and so Fuller in Baligan was
4:36
Speaker 4: born in the United States and because of that he
4:39
Speaker 4: was conferred US citizenship. And a few years ago he
4:43
Speaker 4: was becoming a very promising soccer player, and the US
4:46
Speaker 4: Soccer Federation realized that he had this birthright citizenship, and
4:51
Speaker 4: so they asked if he would be willing to play
4:53
Speaker 4: for the US men's national team, and he said yes,
4:56
Speaker 4: and so the rest is history.
4:58
Speaker 1: And had there not been birthright citizen and Chip.
5:00
Speaker 4: That would not be an individual who would have been
5:03
Speaker 4: allowed to play in the United States soccer team.
5:06
Speaker 2: Let's turn now to the growing number of shootings by
5:09
Speaker 2: ICE agents. There was another deadly shooting on Tuesday. An
5:14
Speaker 2: ICE officer shot a thirty nine year old Mexican national
5:18
Speaker 2: who was in his car during an immigration enforcement stop
5:22
Speaker 2: in Houston. He'd been living in the US for decades
5:26
Speaker 2: without legal status. Federal officials say he weaponized his vehicle,
5:31
Speaker 2: but they say that all the time in these cases,
5:33
Speaker 2: and this time they've offered no evidence.
5:36
Speaker 4: This case is already one of the more complicated cases
5:40
Speaker 4: from the standpoint that ICE usually tries, in order to
5:44
Speaker 4: avoid any conflagration like this, to go to an individual's
5:49
Speaker 4: home or to at worst go to their workplace or
5:54
Speaker 4: a specific check insite to conduct arrests. But at the moment,
5:59
Speaker 4: the White House is really pressing, and then now the
6:02
Speaker 4: new Secretary of Homeland Security's really pressing again to try
6:05
Speaker 4: to get two thousand arrests per day, although he's trying
6:09
Speaker 4: also to say, try to make these arrests as low
6:12
Speaker 4: profile as possible, and nevertheless, when you try to get
6:16
Speaker 4: these numbers, now they've caught this individual in traffic as opposed.
6:20
Speaker 1: To at home or at work.
6:22
Speaker 4: And so it's unclear if this individual was someone they
6:25
Speaker 4: were trying to catch at home and they couldn't and
6:29
Speaker 4: found them on the road, or whether this was an
6:32
Speaker 4: individual that just looked suspicious to Ice who was happened
6:36
Speaker 4: to be on the road as well. But the point is,
6:38
Speaker 4: once Ice confronted this individual who was clearly undocumented, this
6:43
Speaker 4: individual sort of reacted in a manner that led.
6:47
Speaker 1: Ice to shoot them.
6:49
Speaker 4: And we'll have to wait and see with regard to
6:51
Speaker 4: body camera footage and other witness testimony. Was this like
6:56
Speaker 4: the situation in Minnesota where people argued that the Ice
7:00
Speaker 4: agents were not under thread from the vehicle and still
7:04
Speaker 4: shot the woman in their car, or is this a
7:07
Speaker 4: real situation where someone was trying to run over Ice
7:11
Speaker 4: officers in order to avoid detection. I mean, anyone who
7:15
Speaker 4: tries to comment without knowing the facts really is doing
7:18
Speaker 4: a diservice. But the point is, when you do these
7:21
Speaker 4: car apprehensions, that's always a risk that doesn't exist when
7:26
Speaker 4: you do the home apprehension or the office apprehension is obviously,
7:31
Speaker 4: no one's.
7:31
Speaker 1: Going to run you over with a car if they're
7:33
Speaker 1: not in their car.
7:34
Speaker 2: According to the New York Times, as you referred to,
7:36
Speaker 2: there's been a major surge in arrest and orders from
7:41
Speaker 2: the top, and ICE agents have been arresting people at
7:44
Speaker 2: check ins with immigration authorities, during traffic stops and on
7:48
Speaker 2: the streets, and apprehensions doubled from the one thousand picked
7:53
Speaker 2: up each day earlier this year. So in trying to
7:58
Speaker 2: increase the numbers, they have to go outside of arresting
8:02
Speaker 2: people at their homes.
8:04
Speaker 4: Correct, It's basically impossible because what you need when you
8:08
Speaker 4: go into a home.
8:09
Speaker 1: Is you need a warrant, and you need.
8:13
Speaker 4: A group of people because you can't just have one
8:15
Speaker 4: person because of safety reasons, and so all of that
8:18
Speaker 4: takes time and energy and resources and manpower, and so
8:23
Speaker 4: if you need two thousand arrests a day, you have
8:25
Speaker 4: to find easier ways to do that.
8:28
Speaker 1: And to the extent ICE has.
8:29
Speaker 4: Now been given permission to arrest anyone it deems to
8:34
Speaker 4: be suspicious on.
8:35
Speaker 1: The road, then there's no doubt more.
8:38
Speaker 4: Situations like this are going to happen, whether they be
8:41
Speaker 4: from the person that gets arrested, or whether they be
8:45
Speaker 4: from people who are protesting the person getting arrested, because
8:49
Speaker 4: we've seen both kinds of situations flare up where now
8:53
Speaker 4: we've seen the person getting arrested involved in a shooting,
8:57
Speaker 4: but we've also seen the people protesting.
8:59
Speaker 1: The arrest get involved in the shooting.
9:02
Speaker 4: And so, you know, this is sort of like a
9:04
Speaker 4: push pool where when there's less of these operations, then
9:10
Speaker 4: there's less of these incidents. But any sort of intensification
9:15
Speaker 4: of these operations, unfortunately always seems to carry an intensification
9:20
Speaker 4: of these incidents.
9:21
Speaker 2: More than twenty people have been shot by ice since September,
9:25
Speaker 2: and nearly all of them in their cars. At least
9:29
Speaker 2: six have been killed. I mean, last year there was
9:31
Speaker 2: a federal immigration agents shot at fatally shot a twenty
9:35
Speaker 2: three year old US citizen during the late night traffic stop.
9:40
Speaker 2: And in most of these cases, the federal officials said
9:43
Speaker 2: that the actions were justified because the vehicles had been
9:46
Speaker 2: weaponized and the agent's lives were in danger. Shouldn't there
9:50
Speaker 2: be better procedures if they're going to do these traffic
9:54
Speaker 2: stops to eliminate this right.
9:57
Speaker 1: No, absolutely.
9:58
Speaker 4: I mean, at the end of the day, the traffic
10:01
Speaker 4: stop really should be for someone who is avoiding being
10:05
Speaker 4: apprehended at their home or at their work where they've
10:08
Speaker 4: sort of gotten in their car and they're trying to
10:10
Speaker 4: run away. Now, but I think routine traffic stops for
10:15
Speaker 4: ice where ICE is being told you have the authority
10:18
Speaker 4: to arrest people who you if you're driving around you
10:22
Speaker 4: think they look suspicious. That to me is impossible to
10:27
Speaker 4: think that it's not going to continue to lead to
10:29
Speaker 4: these situations. Because someone is in their car, they're desperate.
10:33
Speaker 4: They now are thinking in their head, oh my lord,
10:36
Speaker 4: I'm going to be apprehended. I'm not going to be
10:38
Speaker 4: able to see my children or my spouse, I'm not
10:40
Speaker 4: gonna be able to tell them where they are. And
10:42
Speaker 4: they just flip out, and the first thing they think
10:44
Speaker 4: to do is to drive the car away, And that
10:47
Speaker 4: act of driving the car away can easily be seen
10:50
Speaker 4: as a weaponization of the car. It's not justifiable, it's
10:54
Speaker 4: just predictable, is the only point that I'm making.
10:57
Speaker 1: And so I'm not trying to.
10:58
Speaker 4: Justify the act of the foreign nation who's moving their car.
11:02
Speaker 4: I'm just trying to say that in some number of cases,
11:05
Speaker 4: if you are actuarially at analyzing this, you would say
11:08
Speaker 4: it's predictable that the foreign national is going to try
11:11
Speaker 4: to get away if they're inside their car.
11:13
Speaker 2: So the Department of Homeland Security Inspectors General's Office is
11:18
Speaker 2: conducting an investigation. The FBI has opened an investigation into
11:22
Speaker 2: a possible assault on a federal law enforcement officer. But
11:26
Speaker 2: once again they are excluding local authorities. So the DA
11:31
Speaker 2: of Harris County that covers Houston said that federal authorities,
11:36
Speaker 2: unfortunately are continuing to exclusively handle all aspects in this case.
11:41
Speaker 2: Isn't this a problem? You have the administration investigating the
11:45
Speaker 2: administration with local authorities always cut out well.
11:50
Speaker 4: So we have a couple of cases recently that sort
11:53
Speaker 4: of talk about these issues. We have these cases where
11:56
Speaker 4: the states are trying to impose obligations on and the
12:01
Speaker 4: courts are saying, no, you can't do that. You can't
12:03
Speaker 4: impose obligations on how federal law enforcement officials operate and
12:09
Speaker 4: enforce federal law. And then you have the general doctrine
12:12
Speaker 4: on this issue, which came up when Minnesota tried to
12:15
Speaker 4: prosecute these ICE agents which is that you have to
12:17
Speaker 4: show that these federal agents are basically acting so far
12:21
Speaker 4: outside of the scope of their employment that they're basically murderers,
12:26
Speaker 4: because that's the only way that their immunity can be
12:28
Speaker 4: taken away, and that's very hard to prove. And in Texas,
12:33
Speaker 4: the local officials don't want to get in that business.
12:36
Speaker 4: Maybe like in New York or Minnesota or some other places,
12:40
Speaker 4: they're more willing to try to get into that business
12:43
Speaker 4: of saying that the ICE agents were not acting.
12:46
Speaker 1: Within the scope for employment and.
12:48
Speaker 4: Were essentially murdering someone, But the local officials in Texas
12:52
Speaker 4: don't want to go down that route.
12:53
Speaker 2: Coming up next, the Department of Homeland Security is stuck
12:57
Speaker 2: between two conflicting federal court rooms rulings. This is Bloomberg.
13:03
Speaker 2: The Department of Homeland Security is stuck between two conflicting
13:07
Speaker 2: federal court rulings. One in Florida compels it to play
13:11
Speaker 2: ball with red states looking for information on immigration status.
13:16
Speaker 2: The other in DC does just the opposite and compels
13:20
Speaker 2: DHS to shut down such bulk inquiries using social security numbers.
13:26
Speaker 2: The dispute boils down to whether federal privacy laws prevents
13:31
Speaker 2: states from utilizing SAVE, the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement
13:37
Speaker 2: system to perform checks on migrant status for use in
13:41
Speaker 2: state licensing and election registration processes. I've been talking to
13:46
Speaker 2: Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. He was the former
13:49
Speaker 2: head of the Office of Civil Immigration Litigation in the
13:52
Speaker 2: Obama administration. Leon explained the issue with this SAVE system.
13:57
Speaker 1: So this is a little bit complex.
13:59
Speaker 4: So I want to take your listeners through this so
14:01
Speaker 4: that they understand everything that's going on. So there's a
14:04
Speaker 4: database called SAFE Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Database, and
14:10
Speaker 4: so that actually has a meaning for entitlements, meaning that
14:15
Speaker 4: the purpose of that database was originally for states to
14:19
Speaker 4: determine in programs.
14:21
Speaker 1: Like Medicare, Medicaid.
14:23
Speaker 4: Food stamps, et cetera, whether people had the correct immigration
14:27
Speaker 4: status to be able to collect those entitlements. You know
14:31
Speaker 4: what people used to call welfare programs or public benefits programs.
14:36
Speaker 1: And if you didn't.
14:37
Speaker 4: Have the correct immigration status to collect, then you wouldn't
14:41
Speaker 4: get it. You'd run the system. And that was required
14:44
Speaker 4: by Congress that THEHS provide these databases to the states
14:49
Speaker 4: in order to check for welfare benefits. Now what happens
14:55
Speaker 4: is you have the election in twenty twenty you have
14:57
Speaker 4: President Trump say that he was cheated from winning because
15:02
Speaker 4: of documented people were voting on mass etc. And many
15:06
Speaker 4: states took this too hard, and in twenty twenty four
15:10
Speaker 4: they sued the federal government, the Biden administration, and said, look,
15:15
Speaker 4: we want access to this saved database in order to
15:19
Speaker 4: determine if our voter roles are filled with undocumented people.
15:24
Speaker 4: And they argued that there were a number of statutory
15:28
Speaker 4: requirements that basically required the states to actually do this.
15:34
Speaker 4: So they said that there was four statutes, the National
15:38
Speaker 4: Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, the Civil
15:42
Speaker 4: Rights Act of nineteen sixty and there were actually already
15:45
Speaker 4: memorandums of agreement between the states and the federal government
15:50
Speaker 4: that all said that states had a duty to make
15:53
Speaker 4: sure that illegal voters could not vote.
15:57
Speaker 1: And so the state sudents said, if you don't.
15:59
Speaker 4: Give us access to this saved database for the purposes
16:03
Speaker 4: of clearing our voter roles of undocumented individuals, then you
16:08
Speaker 4: are basically putting a mandate on us and not giving
16:11
Speaker 4: us the materials we need to fulfill that mandate. And
16:15
Speaker 4: that case didn't get adjudicated. What happened was DHS reached
16:20
Speaker 4: a settlement with the States and said, fine, we'll give
16:25
Speaker 4: you access to the safe database, and we'll actually add
16:29
Speaker 4: some citizenship information in it that we know, whether it
16:33
Speaker 4: be from passports or social security numbers and drivers licenses
16:38
Speaker 4: and other things.
16:39
Speaker 1: We're going to add.
16:40
Speaker 4: All of that into the database because now they have
16:42
Speaker 4: all this very expert IT and AI and everything else,
16:47
Speaker 4: and we're going to give you this so that you
16:49
Speaker 4: can then purge your.
16:51
Speaker 1: Voter roles of undocumented people.
16:53
Speaker 4: But then what happened is Public Interest Organization sued in Washington,
16:59
Speaker 4: in the District of Columbia, and they said, wait a second,
17:02
Speaker 4: this information that you're providing about citizens now not just
17:06
Speaker 4: about foreign nationals, which was what used to be the
17:09
Speaker 4: SAVE database. You didn't run this by the Correct Privacy Act,
17:14
Speaker 4: Social Security Act, e Government Act of two thousand and two.
17:19
Speaker 4: You didn't do any of that privacy protections and analysis.
17:22
Speaker 4: And so now you're having DHS, which is supposed to
17:25
Speaker 4: only be dealing with foreign nationals, having a database of citizens.
17:30
Speaker 4: That's violating their privacy. That that settlement agreement violated all
17:35
Speaker 4: these statutes violated their privacy.
17:37
Speaker 1: And so the District Court in DC issued.
17:40
Speaker 4: An injunction saying, stop it, stop it, Department of Homeland Security,
17:44
Speaker 4: do not share this information with the states about the
17:48
Speaker 4: citizenship and the voter roles and who's undocumented.
17:52
Speaker 1: And who isn't.
17:53
Speaker 4: And then the court where there was the settlement, which
17:57
Speaker 4: was in Florida, came back now and said, hey, the
18:01
Speaker 4: DC court is wrong. The government is now violating the settlement.
18:06
Speaker 4: So the government, we're gonna hold you in content if
18:08
Speaker 4: you don't give this information. So now THEHS is stuck
18:12
Speaker 4: between I rock and a hard place because it's either
18:15
Speaker 4: violating the court order in DC or it's violating the
18:19
Speaker 4: court order in Tallahassee. Obviously, the Trump administration wants to
18:24
Speaker 4: comply with the court order in Tallahassee, not with the
18:27
Speaker 4: one in DC.
18:28
Speaker 2: The Florida Federal judge, a Trump appointee, said, the court
18:32
Speaker 2: understands that this puts defendants in a bind because they're
18:35
Speaker 2: subject to two contradictory orders. One of the orders has
18:39
Speaker 2: to give, and not surprisingly, the court is not persuaded
18:42
Speaker 2: by defendants and Amiki's arguments that its order is the
18:46
Speaker 2: one that should give.
18:47
Speaker 4: So what happens, So the Trump administration has had a
18:50
Speaker 4: high priority of trying to enforce these purging of the
18:55
Speaker 4: voter rolls for undocumented people. So they're gonna comply with
18:58
Speaker 4: the Florida Court, the Dallazi Court.
19:01
Speaker 1: That says that at the end of the day.
19:04
Speaker 4: You have to provide this information. So what that will
19:07
Speaker 4: lead to is the District Court in DC holding the
19:10
Speaker 4: federal government in contempt for violating its order, which then
19:14
Speaker 4: the federal government will have to appeal to the DC
19:18
Speaker 4: Circuit and then ultimately to the Supreme Court if the
19:21
Speaker 4: DC Circuit doesn't give the government relief from that. I
19:24
Speaker 4: don't think that anything's going to happen in the Eleventh
19:27
Speaker 4: Circuit because what I think is going to happen is
19:30
Speaker 4: the government is going to abide buy the Florida court order,
19:35
Speaker 4: and so then the litigation will end up coming through
19:38
Speaker 4: DC in order to try to get relief from the
19:41
Speaker 4: DC order.
19:42
Speaker 1: That's what I think is going to happen.
19:44
Speaker 2: Another immigration case at the Supreme Court. No surprise there.
19:48
Speaker 2: On another topic, employers looking to hire workers from outside
19:52
Speaker 2: the US may be feeling a little whiplash about the
19:56
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand dollars fee required for every new AI
20:01
Speaker 2: visa petition, it's caught up in litigation. Start by giving
20:05
Speaker 2: us the background on this leon.
20:07
Speaker 4: We all remember, starting in twenty seventeen and working our
20:10
Speaker 4: way through today twenty twenty six, the Trump administration has
20:15
Speaker 4: been using what's called INA Section two twelve f, which
20:18
Speaker 4: is a statute that says when the president thinks it's
20:21
Speaker 4: in the national interest to ban certain foreign nationals from
20:25
Speaker 4: coming to the United States, the president could ban those
20:28
Speaker 4: foreign nationals. So we knew that from the context of
20:31
Speaker 4: what was called the travel ban or the Muslim ban.
20:34
Speaker 4: That was the original ban of six countries, and then
20:38
Speaker 4: it got extended to other countries like North Korea, and
20:41
Speaker 4: there was the Trump versus Hawaii case where the Supreme
20:44
Speaker 4: Court said, yes, the banning authority is legal and it
20:47
Speaker 4: can be used. So after that, the Trump administration started
20:52
Speaker 4: using the ban for more things. COVID public charge that
20:55
Speaker 4: they think that people from certain countries are going to
20:58
Speaker 4: have welfare.
20:59
Speaker 1: There's thirty nine countries that are currently banned.
21:02
Speaker 4: After the shooting that happened in front of the White
21:04
Speaker 4: House by an Afghan refugee, there's thirty nine countries that
21:08
Speaker 4: are fully banned from getting any visa. So a new
21:11
Speaker 4: ban like six months ago was to say instead of
21:15
Speaker 4: a ban, what we'll do is, we'll have a ban
21:18
Speaker 4: on all people who want to get an H one
21:21
Speaker 4: B visa, which is a visa for high skilled immigrants
21:24
Speaker 4: who want to perform work in the United States. We're
21:27
Speaker 4: going to ban those people from coming in unless their
21:30
Speaker 4: employer pays one hundred thousand dollars.
21:33
Speaker 1: And so the question in.
21:34
Speaker 4: This litigation is is that just a normal ban that
21:38
Speaker 4: has an exception to it, or is that really a
21:41
Speaker 4: tax that's not a ban, it's just a tax. And
21:45
Speaker 4: if it's a tax, then Congress has to pass the tax.
21:49
Speaker 4: It's not something that can be done as part of
21:51
Speaker 4: the banning authority that the President has under I in
21:54
Speaker 4: a section two twelve F.
21:56
Speaker 2: How has the one hundred thousand dollars fee affected the
21:59
Speaker 2: number of peace people getting H one B visus.
22:03
Speaker 4: There are a lot of companies that hire foreign students
22:06
Speaker 4: in the US, so it hasn't affected those people because
22:08
Speaker 4: those people are inside the United States, so they can't
22:11
Speaker 4: be banned.
22:12
Speaker 1: Because they're already here.
22:13
Speaker 4: But there are some companies that have a business model
22:16
Speaker 4: that what they do is that people get educated in
22:19
Speaker 4: the prestigious universities in India, and then they hire those
22:22
Speaker 4: people directly from those prestigious universities in India to come
22:26
Speaker 4: directly into the United States and provide work, whether it's
22:30
Speaker 4: in IAI or IT or whatever else it is.
22:33
Speaker 1: And now those individuals cannot.
22:35
Speaker 4: Come into the US because the employers do not want
22:37
Speaker 4: to pay this one hundred thousand dollars fee to bring
22:41
Speaker 4: in those employees. They'll take them to Canada or somewhere else.
22:45
Speaker 4: They won't bring them into the United States. And so
22:48
Speaker 4: the question is for those employers and the US Chamber
22:51
Speaker 4: of Commerce first file the lawsuit in DC and then others.
22:56
Speaker 4: There's a lawsuit that was filed in the first Circuit,
22:59
Speaker 4: and there's a lawsuit was filed in the Northern District
23:01
Speaker 4: of California. But different employers have filed and have argued that.
23:07
Speaker 1: That law was illegal.
23:09
Speaker 4: And really what happened was the first court in the
23:12
Speaker 4: District of Columbia said it was fine because it was
23:16
Speaker 4: part of the ban authority. So if you could impose
23:18
Speaker 4: a ban, then why couldn't you impose a way around
23:21
Speaker 4: the ban, a conditional ban. And so the court said
23:25
Speaker 4: it was fine. But then in between that decision and
23:28
Speaker 4: the decision that happened in the district court that was
23:31
Speaker 4: in the first Circuit. There was a case involving tariffs
23:34
Speaker 4: that the Supreme Court said that the tyreffs were really
23:37
Speaker 4: attacks and that the tax needed to be done by Congress.
23:41
Speaker 4: And so then the plaintiffs changed their argument to say
23:44
Speaker 4: that alas, this is the problem. The problem is not
23:47
Speaker 4: that the banning authority was used improperly. The problem was
23:52
Speaker 4: that this is actually a tax, and a tax needs
23:55
Speaker 4: to be done by Congress. And so the District Court
23:59
Speaker 4: agreed with that and has basically said, I'm enjoining this
24:04
Speaker 4: one hundred thousand dollars fee. But the only problem is
24:08
Speaker 4: that then the District Court stayed its order while it's
24:12
Speaker 4: on appeal in the First Circuit. And so even though
24:15
Speaker 4: there's a District of Massachusetts decision that currently says that
24:19
Speaker 4: the fee is an illegal tax, the fee is still
24:21
Speaker 4: being charged because that decision has been stayed and we
24:25
Speaker 4: will see what the First Circuit says about this. And
24:28
Speaker 4: there's also similar litigation in the Northern District of California.
24:33
Speaker 4: So in the end, what this means is that the
24:34
Speaker 4: Supreme Court is likely going to get involved and decide
24:38
Speaker 4: whether not just the banning authority is.
24:40
Speaker 1: Legal, because we know that that's legal.
24:42
Speaker 4: But whether the president can say you're banned unless you
24:46
Speaker 4: pay a fee.
24:47
Speaker 1: Can they do that or does that become now a tax?
24:50
Speaker 4: And so you could either do a ban or no ban,
24:53
Speaker 4: but you can't do a ban with a fee to
24:55
Speaker 4: work your way around the band.
24:57
Speaker 2: And so yet another immigration case for this Supreme Court.
25:01
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for covering the gamut on immigration with me. Leon.
25:05
Speaker 2: That's Leon Fresco of Honda Knight. I'm June Grosso and
25:09
Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg. A bipartisan group of state and
25:14
Speaker 2: federal judges, both current and retired, are hitting the road
25:18
Speaker 2: in a first of its kind bus tour across three
25:21
Speaker 2: states to bring judges out of the courthouses and into
25:25
Speaker 2: the communities. The Justice in Motion Tour is designed to
25:29
Speaker 2: promote public trust in the judiciary by explaining the role
25:33
Speaker 2: court's play in our lives and countering disinformation. The judges
25:38
Speaker 2: will travel through Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, meeting with students,
25:43
Speaker 2: civic leaders, attorneys, business owners, and others, answering their questions
25:48
Speaker 2: and giving them the rare opportunity to speak directly with judges.
25:53
Speaker 2: My guest is one of the judges on that bus,
25:56
Speaker 2: Chief Justice Mourn O'Connor retired from the Ohio Supreme Court.
26:00
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining me today, Chief Justice. So tell us
26:03
Speaker 2: why you decided to go on this bus tour and
26:06
Speaker 2: what you hope to accomplish.
26:08
Speaker 3: To draw attention to the fact that the judiciary is
26:11
Speaker 3: under attack. You know, we have obviously, I don't have
26:14
Speaker 3: to tell you that. You know, the three branches of government,
26:17
Speaker 3: they're supposed to be coequal, and what we at the
26:20
Speaker 3: public seem almost daily is elected officials, usually in Washington
26:27
Speaker 3: but other places denigrating personally demonstrating judges and attributing motives
26:34
Speaker 3: to those judges that are just not true. You know
26:38
Speaker 3: that they're not corrupt, they're following the law. Never is
26:41
Speaker 3: the criticism of the opinion based on a legal analysis
26:46
Speaker 3: by the person who is speaking. It's they don't like
26:50
Speaker 3: the results, and so they're going to do a personal
26:52
Speaker 3: attack on that judge. They're going to name the judge,
26:55
Speaker 3: you know, the President, for example, the rating justices on
26:58
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court because they weren't oil to him. You know,
27:01
Speaker 3: I want to say, yes, mister Putin, you know, that's
27:04
Speaker 3: exactly what it sounds like. So you know, these personal
27:07
Speaker 3: attacks on judges are dangerous. The increase in the number
27:12
Speaker 3: of reports for the Federal Judiciary, I think they had
27:15
Speaker 3: almost six hundred investigations last year and at this point
27:20
Speaker 3: in time they have I think about two hundred and
27:22
Speaker 3: fifty two hundred and sixty trusts against judges that they
27:25
Speaker 3: are investigating. You know about the piazza deliveries to judges addressers,
27:30
Speaker 3: So that's the message we know where you live sort
27:33
Speaker 3: of thing, or to their children. It's diabolical and they're
27:37
Speaker 3: doing it because they don't want to follow the rule
27:40
Speaker 3: of law. They want to influence and intimidate. And then,
27:44
Speaker 3: you know, think about it, the less informed individuals would
27:49
Speaker 3: believe that it's okay to target and judge, and there
27:53
Speaker 3: have been attempts and there have been murders of judges
27:56
Speaker 3: here in the United States by parties to the cases,
28:00
Speaker 3: or parties that are interested in the cases, or somebody
28:03
Speaker 3: who's is a zealot. And you know, they always use
28:05
Speaker 3: the example of the Federal New Jersey a judge whose
28:09
Speaker 3: son was killed and her husband was wounded. She was
28:12
Speaker 3: in home at the time, and in Ohio in twenty seventeen,
28:16
Speaker 3: a party was laying in wait for a judge, Judge
28:20
Speaker 3: Berziz trial judge, and he had had a conversation with
28:24
Speaker 3: his attorney, and the attorney was preparing him for losing
28:27
Speaker 3: the case because you know, legally it was an unsounded
28:30
Speaker 3: case and the judge was probably going to rule against him.
28:33
Speaker 3: So he shows up in the morning as the judge's
28:35
Speaker 3: parking his car in a parking lot. This guy's laying
28:38
Speaker 3: in wait with a gun. The judge almost dies. And
28:40
Speaker 3: again that was twenty seventeen. He's back on the bed.
28:43
Speaker 3: But you know, immediately then you think, well, if that happens,
28:47
Speaker 3: is they could inspire another koup, you know, to take action.
28:51
Speaker 3: The rhetoric that is being thrown around now is you know,
28:54
Speaker 3: doing just that we're under attack, and if the judiciary's
28:57
Speaker 3: under attack, the rule of law cannot stand.
29:01
Speaker 2: You can't stop President Trump and members of the administration
29:06
Speaker 2: even from saying these things about judges. So what are
29:10
Speaker 2: you trying to do specifically on this trip.
29:13
Speaker 3: We're trying to identify whatever is being said as misinformation
29:18
Speaker 3: and political theater. Really, and the judicial system is suffering.
29:24
Speaker 3: So here's what judges really do. We explain that we
29:28
Speaker 3: have just a varied audience. I just left a group
29:31
Speaker 3: called Law and Leadership, which are high school students, minority
29:34
Speaker 3: students primarily, and we just had a wonderful conversation with them.
29:38
Speaker 3: So we're imparting information, you know, straight from the horse's mouth,
29:42
Speaker 3: so to speak about the judicial system, about it, the
29:46
Speaker 3: undertach how these personal taxs are misinformation disinformation, and you know,
29:52
Speaker 3: we talk about the rule of law, and we talk
29:55
Speaker 3: about if we don't have the rule of law. In
29:57
Speaker 3: other words, if judges are making decisions based on intimidation
30:02
Speaker 3: or party affiliation or you know, being loyal to someone
30:07
Speaker 3: who's helped them become a judge, that's a breach of
30:10
Speaker 3: the rule of law. And when that breaks down, society
30:14
Speaker 3: breaks down. We don't have, you know, a law that
30:17
Speaker 3: we can rely on. Businesses can you know, conduct their
30:20
Speaker 3: business with certainty because they don't know what the rules are. Now,
30:24
Speaker 3: you know, it really reverberates through society. And that's the
30:28
Speaker 3: message and I know it's a big message. But the
30:30
Speaker 3: way it can be done we ask these people to
30:32
Speaker 3: be messengers. Once we explain things and say, help educate
30:38
Speaker 3: your family, help educate, you know, your circle of friends
30:41
Speaker 3: about this and you know, be messengers.
30:44
Speaker 2: And how has it been going so far?
30:46
Speaker 3: There have been some really delightful times and we're getting
30:49
Speaker 3: prouds of people that are so sincere. We just left
30:55
Speaker 3: the Ohio State University and we were with a group
30:58
Speaker 3: called Law and Leadership, which is primarily minority membership for
31:03
Speaker 3: kids in high school and the goal is to encourage
31:07
Speaker 3: them to go to college and give them experiences. And
31:11
Speaker 3: I have been involved with long leadership, you know, since
31:14
Speaker 3: its infection, and we got to do a lot of
31:17
Speaker 3: small group interaction with them. I had two young ladies
31:21
Speaker 3: and we just had a wonderful conversation and you know,
31:25
Speaker 3: I wish them well. They were just delightful and smart.
31:29
Speaker 2: I'm curious about something, and I know you have both
31:31
Speaker 2: federal and state judges on the bus tour. So the
31:35
Speaker 2: National Center for State Courts in December of last year
31:39
Speaker 2: did its yearly survey and it found that sixty two
31:42
Speaker 2: percent of respondents expressed trust in the state court system.
31:48
Speaker 2: And that's more than express trust in the federal court
31:51
Speaker 2: system that was just fifty two percent. And I'm wondering
31:54
Speaker 2: if you have a feel for why that's the case.
31:58
Speaker 3: Well, they judiciary is much closer to the people in Ohio.
32:04
Speaker 3: For example, all of our judges are elected, so judges campaign.
32:08
Speaker 3: You know, I always have said to judges, get off
32:11
Speaker 3: the bench and get out into the community. You know,
32:13
Speaker 3: you come from the community, and then you isolate yourself.
32:16
Speaker 3: You know, some judges suits, you know, don't do that.
32:18
Speaker 3: You know, still speak to the rotaries, you know, whatever
32:21
Speaker 3: the organizations are. Speak to high school classes. It's a
32:25
Speaker 3: wonderful thing to do to help educate the public about
32:29
Speaker 3: the third branch of governments.
32:31
Speaker 2: Well, thank you so much for joining me today, Chief Justice,
32:35
Speaker 2: and good luck on your tour. That's retired Chief Justice
32:38
Speaker 2: Moreno O'Connor of the Ohio Supreme Court. The DC Circuit
32:44
Speaker 2: has rejected the Justice Department's request to temporarily lift a
32:49
Speaker 2: judge's ruling against the renaming of the Kennedy Center. A
32:53
Speaker 2: three judge panel ruled unanimously that President Trump's name must
32:58
Speaker 2: stay off the Kennedy's Center's facade while the administration fights
33:03
Speaker 2: in court to reinstate it's renaming of the historic performing
33:07
Speaker 2: arts center. My guest is Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monyac,
33:11
Speaker 2: who's been covering all these cases on the challenges to
33:15
Speaker 2: Trump's attempts to redo DC. Suzanne start by reminding us
33:20
Speaker 2: what the DC federal judge had ruled in May.
33:24
Speaker 5: Judge Casey Cooper and DC ruled in May that Trump
33:27
Speaker 5: essentially didn't have legal authority to change the.
33:30
Speaker 6: Name of the Kennedy Center to his own.
33:32
Speaker 5: He found that a law passed by Congress making this
33:34
Speaker 5: a memorial for the late President John F. Kennedy was
33:38
Speaker 5: clear and that it couldn't be named for somebody else,
33:40
Speaker 5: and so as a result, that his name couldn't remain
33:42
Speaker 5: on the building.
33:43
Speaker 2: I'm recalling, if I'm correct, that at the time of
33:47
Speaker 2: the ruling, President Trump said, Okay, they're dropping it. But
33:52
Speaker 2: they didn't drop it. They took it to the DC
33:54
Speaker 2: Appellate Court.
33:55
Speaker 5: Well, it just sort of looked that way because the
33:57
Speaker 5: judge gave them fourteen days to do something about it
34:00
Speaker 5: before his ruling would take effect, and they didn't do anything.
34:03
Speaker 5: So for a minute it looked like, Oh, they're going
34:05
Speaker 5: to take his name down and they're just going to
34:06
Speaker 5: abandon this fight.
34:08
Speaker 6: But that at the very last minute.
34:09
Speaker 5: They filed a request to to Washington d C's Federal
34:12
Speaker 5: appeals Court and asked them for a ruling giving them
34:15
Speaker 5: a relief for some temporary reprieve from this lower court.
34:19
Speaker 6: Ruling while they appealed it. But the d C. Circuit
34:22
Speaker 6: has now twice said no. Dice.
34:23
Speaker 5: Initially they said no, you know, they didn't say much
34:26
Speaker 5: about it, but I think the thought was that it
34:27
Speaker 5: had been very last minute, and they said no, I'm
34:30
Speaker 5: not going to lift this ruling. They initially denied what's
34:33
Speaker 5: called it administrative stay, so just a very late temporary stay.
34:37
Speaker 5: So they denied that, so the name came down, but
34:39
Speaker 5: then they did brief it, and this latest has been
34:41
Speaker 5: that they have said, no, you can't have your name
34:43
Speaker 5: on it while the case continues.
34:45
Speaker 2: So tell us what the Justice Department's argument was the
34:49
Speaker 2: latest argument.
34:50
Speaker 5: In this latest development post Casey Cooper's ruling and now
34:54
Speaker 5: their efforts to lift it. They've been arguing that by
34:57
Speaker 5: having his name be taken off the building that it
35:00
Speaker 5: would irreparably harm the government. That's the standard for getting
35:03
Speaker 5: what's known as a stay of a lower court ruling
35:05
Speaker 5: while you appeal it. They are claiming that that's for
35:07
Speaker 5: two reasons, one of which no longer applies. They initially
35:10
Speaker 5: argued that it didn't make sense for them to have
35:12
Speaker 5: to take Trump's name off the building only to have
35:14
Speaker 5: to put it back if they were to eventually win
35:16
Speaker 5: the case, which they think they're likely to do. Of course,
35:18
Speaker 5: now his name's already off the building, so that no
35:20
Speaker 5: longer applies. The other argument that they've made was that
35:24
Speaker 5: having his name no longer be on the building. Trump's
35:26
Speaker 5: name would hurt their fundraising efforts. They'd argued that people
35:30
Speaker 5: give money to the center because it is named for Trump,
35:33
Speaker 5: and that it would undermine the center financially. But the
35:36
Speaker 5: DC Circuit, Washington's federal appeals Court, really wasn't moved by
35:40
Speaker 5: that and found that there had not been enough material
35:43
Speaker 5: facts or evidence to back up that claim, and that
35:46
Speaker 5: also it hadn't been presented before in court and was
35:48
Speaker 5: just being presented now on appeal for the first time.
35:51
Speaker 5: But specifically just said that they didn't see any evidence
35:54
Speaker 5: just conclusiory is the word that they used assertions of
35:57
Speaker 5: financial harm. They just didn't think that what they had
36:00
Speaker 5: put forward was enough to meet the standard for a day,
36:04
Speaker 5: which is known as to be more extraordinary relief. So
36:07
Speaker 5: that was their explanation in a relatively brief order denying
36:10
Speaker 5: the Trump administration's request for relief.
36:12
Speaker 2: Here, it was a unanimous ruling by a panel of
36:15
Speaker 2: two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee.
36:18
Speaker 6: That's correct. It was a percurium ruling, noicense.
36:21
Speaker 2: Cooper ordered Trump's name to come down. They took his
36:24
Speaker 2: name down, but then they put.
36:25
Speaker 3: Up a tarp.
36:26
Speaker 6: That's correct. This fight is not quite yet over.
36:30
Speaker 5: They took his name down as requested and filed a
36:35
Speaker 5: statement in the court that they had done so, but
36:37
Speaker 5: it's been covered up by a tarp and scaffolding.
36:39
Speaker 6: So now that issue is getting raised in the lower court.
36:42
Speaker 5: Judge Cooper has now said that the government must submit
36:46
Speaker 5: some kind of status report do later this month explaining
36:49
Speaker 5: the purpose of the tarp. They are daring to do
36:51
Speaker 5: some repairs on the center, so perhaps we'll see that
36:54
Speaker 5: be an explanation that we've seen the challengers in this case,
36:57
Speaker 5: that's Representative Joyce Batty of Ohio raise an eyebrow at
37:02
Speaker 5: the use of the tarp and express concerns that perhaps
37:05
Speaker 5: it's not actually there for any needed repairs and is
37:07
Speaker 5: just there to cover the name. So we'll certainly have
37:10
Speaker 5: to see what explanation the government provides when they submit
37:13
Speaker 5: that report.
37:14
Speaker 2: She called it in papers an act of petty defiance
37:17
Speaker 2: to massage broken egos. Also, they had planned to close
37:23
Speaker 2: the Kennedy Center for two years for renovations. Where does
37:27
Speaker 2: that stand?
37:29
Speaker 5: That was the other element of Judge Cooper's ruling. In
37:31
Speaker 5: addition to the renaming. He blocked board vote that had
37:34
Speaker 5: been to, like as you mentioned, close the center completely
37:38
Speaker 5: for two years during renovations. He essentially found that the
37:41
Speaker 5: board had not had the evidence presented before it to
37:45
Speaker 5: have made a reasoned decision, that it was essentially a
37:47
Speaker 5: predetermined outcome, and so he said basically that they have
37:51
Speaker 5: to go back to the drawing board. It's not that
37:52
Speaker 5: they can't later decide, hey, we do actually think it
37:55
Speaker 5: makes sense to close this while we do major renovations.
37:58
Speaker 5: It's that they have to have considered all the options,
38:01
Speaker 5: had more materials presented before them. So they're going to
38:04
Speaker 5: have to go back and eventually vote on this.
38:07
Speaker 6: Again.
38:07
Speaker 5: We've seen in the latest status report in June, government
38:10
Speaker 5: said that they're going to present the board with a
38:12
Speaker 5: couple of different options regarding a longer closure, a partial closure,
38:17
Speaker 5: no closure, at all, so they'll have the opportunity to
38:19
Speaker 5: consider that again.
38:21
Speaker 2: So this is another loss for Trump over his efforts
38:26
Speaker 2: to change or renovate Washington's landmark. So just remind us,
38:31
Speaker 2: I mean the ballroom is the one that stands out.
38:34
Speaker 2: Is work proceeding on the ballroom.
38:37
Speaker 6: Work has been allowed to proceed on the ballroom.
38:39
Speaker 5: The d C Circuit did grant stay in that case,
38:42
Speaker 5: and as construction has continued, but it's currently on appeal
38:45
Speaker 5: on the merit. So we are waiting for the appeals
38:47
Speaker 5: court to decide it on the legal question.
38:50
Speaker 2: And what about the arch that he wants to put.
38:53
Speaker 6: Up, Well, that one's a little more TVD.
38:57
Speaker 5: We haven't seen them break round, and we saw the
39:00
Speaker 5: judge in that case when she had hearing on it
39:02
Speaker 5: earlier this year express concerns like, hey, I don't want
39:04
Speaker 5: to wake up to bulldozers here on this art. So
39:07
Speaker 5: that one is, you know, kind of on hold of
39:09
Speaker 5: it in the lower court. And we haven't seen construction yet.
39:13
Speaker 5: I'm sure if we do the plaineiffs in that case,
39:15
Speaker 5: we'll come stry back to court.
39:17
Speaker 2: Let's turn now to the Lincoln Memorial, reflecting Pool, the
39:21
Speaker 2: former Olympian who's been charged with a felony by the
39:24
Speaker 2: DCUs Attorney's Office for alleged vandalism of the pool, was
39:29
Speaker 2: in court.
39:30
Speaker 5: On Wednesday morning and DC Superior Court David Hearn, the
39:33
Speaker 5: Olympic canoeist who was charged with defacing the lining of
39:37
Speaker 5: the pool, was arranged.
39:38
Speaker 6: He's pleaded not guilty.
39:40
Speaker 2: And are there any lawsuits still going on over Trump's repainting,
39:46
Speaker 2: relining whatever it is of the pool?
39:48
Speaker 5: It was challenged and actually is still being challenged. They
39:51
Speaker 5: had made an initial request to a DC federal judge
39:54
Speaker 5: to block the you know, we coloring of the of
39:58
Speaker 5: the pool.
39:58
Speaker 6: I don't want to stay painting.
40:00
Speaker 5: It's not literally paint, but the relining of the reflecting pool.
40:03
Speaker 5: The judge didn't issue a ruling really in either way
40:06
Speaker 5: in time, and then essentially it was done, so it
40:09
Speaker 5: was like a fat of complete So at that point
40:11
Speaker 5: they kind of had said, you know, obviously this is done,
40:14
Speaker 5: but they still had express an interest in proceeding to
40:17
Speaker 5: the merits of this. Did the administration have the legal
40:19
Speaker 5: authority to do what it did without going through review processes?
40:23
Speaker 5: And that's been really the core of nearly all of
40:25
Speaker 5: these challenges to Trump's different efforts to build things or
40:29
Speaker 5: change things in DC. When he's talking about I want
40:31
Speaker 5: to build a monument, I want to paint this building,
40:34
Speaker 5: I want to change the color of the reflecting pool,
40:36
Speaker 5: build a new ballroom. Did he go through the correct processes?
40:39
Speaker 5: These are environmental reviews, historic preservation reviews, consultation requirements, things
40:45
Speaker 5: like that that are legally required for certain types of
40:49
Speaker 5: buildings in the district of Columbia as our nation's capital.
40:52
Speaker 5: And so that's been really out the crux of these
40:54
Speaker 5: cases or what are their obligations here?
40:56
Speaker 6: Did they satisfy them? Were they required to do more?
40:59
Speaker 5: And then there's also the secondary question when it comes
41:01
Speaker 5: to buildings and renovations that I've already been made. Is
41:04
Speaker 5: there anything a court can do? So these are all
41:06
Speaker 5: cases that we're going to see play out in the
41:08
Speaker 5: next year, and you know see how DC's skyline is affected.
41:12
Speaker 2: I mean, except for the arch. The problem is that
41:15
Speaker 2: he acts first and the ballroom came down, as we've
41:19
Speaker 2: discussed before, so quickly. But the east wing is down,
41:22
Speaker 2: so I mean, what now, what are they looking for
41:25
Speaker 2: there since the east wing is already down.
41:27
Speaker 5: Now that was a huge aspect of the d C
41:30
Speaker 5: Circuit Oral arguments in the White House Ballroom case, which
41:32
Speaker 5: were held in early June, was this idea of what
41:35
Speaker 5: courts do they ever have authority to intervene it anywhere
41:38
Speaker 5: in this process. The government was essentially arguing that given
41:42
Speaker 5: that construction had begun, it would just be you know,
41:44
Speaker 5: too harmful for them, and for a court to step
41:46
Speaker 5: in at this point, you know, the balance of equities,
41:49
Speaker 5: as they say in court, was just going to be
41:50
Speaker 5: on their side.
41:51
Speaker 6: They were going to be more hurt.
41:52
Speaker 5: And the plainiffs obviously are arguing in that case that
41:55
Speaker 5: that's a you know, injury of their own making. But
41:58
Speaker 5: it was interesting to see how far the govern was
42:00
Speaker 5: willing to take that. They had even argued that they could,
42:03
Speaker 5: you know, knock down the statue of liberty, you know,
42:05
Speaker 5: without warning, and that a court couldn't step in. So
42:08
Speaker 5: I think that has been a really interesting line of
42:11
Speaker 5: argument that we've seen from this administration, that you know,
42:14
Speaker 5: if they have begun a project, courts can't intervene. And certainly,
42:18
Speaker 5: I think what happened with the Ballroom is something that
42:21
Speaker 5: looms over all of these cases, and really loomed over
42:23
Speaker 5: the Triumphal Arch case. When Trump was posting pictures of
42:26
Speaker 5: building an arch was like and that's as I mentioned earlier,
42:29
Speaker 5: what you know, Judge ty and Chuckkin in that case
42:31
Speaker 5: was what am I going to wake up to?
42:32
Speaker 6: Bulldozers?
42:33
Speaker 5: And I think that's just a concern that that weighs
42:35
Speaker 5: over all of these all of these cases.
42:37
Speaker 2: They've been reguards on the statue of liberty. I guess
42:40
Speaker 2: let's turn to the Supreme Court for a moment. Justices
42:42
Speaker 2: Elena Kagan and Amy Cony Barrett are going to testify
42:47
Speaker 2: before congressional panels next week about the Court's budget. I
42:51
Speaker 2: remember seeing Kagan and Justice Samuel Alito testify about the
42:56
Speaker 2: budget years ago, but they haven't done that in the
43:00
Speaker 2: long time, right.
43:01
Speaker 6: That's right.
43:01
Speaker 5: The last time justices appeared on the Hill to testify
43:04
Speaker 5: about the budget was in twenty nineteen.
43:06
Speaker 2: Did they give a reason as to why they decided
43:09
Speaker 2: to testify this year? And I notice again it's one
43:13
Speaker 2: Democratic appointee and one Republican appointee, so a bipartisan appearance.
43:19
Speaker 5: A top Democratic appropriator had indicated back in the spring
43:22
Speaker 5: that she would like to see the justices or you know,
43:25
Speaker 5: someone from the Supreme Court talk a little bit about
43:27
Speaker 5: the budget.
43:28
Speaker 6: I mean on the Hill.
43:29
Speaker 5: You know, Congress decides how much funding different parts of
43:32
Speaker 5: the government get, and it's generally standard practice that representatives
43:36
Speaker 5: from an agency being funded would come to the Hill
43:39
Speaker 5: and justify the amount of money they're asking for. So
43:41
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court isn't a bit of a unique posture
43:43
Speaker 5: that they've been asking for increasingly more money in recent
43:46
Speaker 5: years not necessarily unjustified. There are definitely legitimate security concerns
43:50
Speaker 5: that the Court has been dealing with that absolutely might
43:52
Speaker 5: merit increase funding, but they haven't had to come and
43:55
Speaker 5: you know, testify publicly about it. Certainly they may have
43:58
Speaker 5: been having closed door meetings, but I think it'll be
44:00
Speaker 5: very interesting for the public to get to hear from
44:02
Speaker 5: the justices publicly in that way on their budget, on
44:05
Speaker 5: their resource needs for the first time in seven years.
44:08
Speaker 2: I know I'll be watching. Thanks so much, Suzanne. That's
44:11
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Reporter Suzanne Monnac, and that's it for this
44:15
Speaker 2: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
44:17
Speaker 2: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast.
44:21
Speaker 2: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
44:24
Speaker 2: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and
44:29
Speaker 2: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
44:32
Speaker 2: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
44:36
Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg