Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Can't Use Wartime Law for Deportations

Transcript

Trump Can't Use Wartime Law for Deportations · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: Venezuela has been a very bad actor. They've been as
0:11
Speaker 2: you know, They've been sending millions of people into our country,
0:15
Speaker 2: many of them trend de Aragua, some of the worst gangs,
0:19
Speaker 2: some of the worst people anywhere in the world in
0:22
Speaker 2: terms of gangs. And we had some in Washington, DC.
0:26
Speaker 2: We took care of them very quickly. But they're out
0:28
Speaker 2: of here. They've gone.
0:29
Speaker 3: The Trump administration used in eighteenth century wartime act to
0:34
Speaker 3: try to quickly deport alleged members of a violent Venezuelan
0:38
Speaker 3: gang in March, arguing that the trend Hiragua gang had
0:42
Speaker 3: been sent to the US by Venezuela as president to
0:46
Speaker 3: destabilize the country. But a federal appeals court has weighed
0:50
Speaker 3: in for the first time blocking the administration from using
0:54
Speaker 3: the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight to deport
0:58
Speaker 3: the Venezuelans, finding that quote a country's encouraging its residents
1:03
Speaker 3: and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the
1:07
Speaker 3: modern day equivalent of sending an armed organized force to occupy,
1:12
Speaker 3: to disrupt, or to otherwise harm. The United States borders
1:16
Speaker 3: are Tom Holman had admitted that the law was being
1:19
Speaker 3: used to bypass normal deportation procedures like hearings in immigration court.
1:26
Speaker 4: I'm not arguing to hear that nobody should get due prices.
1:29
Speaker 4: I'm just saying there's a different process.
1:30
Speaker 5: Under Alien Enemies Act. Unless of a process, and you
1:33
Speaker 5: see through Title A.
1:34
Speaker 3: DC Federal Appellate Judge Patricia Millet had criticized the government
1:39
Speaker 3: for not giving the Venezuelans any opportunity to challenge their removal.
1:44
Speaker 6: There were planeloads of people, there were no procedures in
1:49
Speaker 6: place to notify people. Nazi's got better treatment under the
1:54
Speaker 6: Alien Enemy Act, and has happened here where the proclamation
1:57
Speaker 6: require the promulgation of regulations and they had hearing boards
2:01
Speaker 6: before people removed.
2:03
Speaker 3: The two to one decision from the New Orleans Appellate Court,
2:07
Speaker 3: the most conservative in the country, will most likely end
2:10
Speaker 3: up back at the Supreme Court. Joining me is Leon Fresco,
2:14
Speaker 3: a partner at Holland and Knight and the former head
2:17
Speaker 3: of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration.
2:22
Speaker 3: Leon This case has been going on almost six months.
2:25
Speaker 3: It has been up to the Supreme Court twice already
2:28
Speaker 3: catch us up.
2:29
Speaker 1: This case is a case involving President Trump's proclamation in
2:33
Speaker 1: March of twenty twenty five that the Venezuelan gang Trend
2:37
Speaker 1: de Arragua, was a dangerous invading force into the United
2:42
Speaker 1: States such that its members should be deported under the
2:45
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act, which permits deportation without due process. Essentially,
2:50
Speaker 1: the government can just apprehend anyone it says is in
2:53
Speaker 1: the Alien Enemies Act group, which in this case is
2:56
Speaker 1: Trend the Arragua, and deport them. And in the iteration
3:00
Speaker 1: that occurred, people were being deported to El Savador, to
3:03
Speaker 1: the Sea Coats Prison. Now there was two iterations of
3:07
Speaker 1: this case. The first one started in DC, where just
3:10
Speaker 1: Vozberg had said that the government couldn't do this, and
3:13
Speaker 1: there was the debate about the flights and the debate
3:16
Speaker 1: about whether anything that was done was proper or there
3:19
Speaker 1: should be contempt. But nevertheless, the Supreme Court comes in
3:22
Speaker 1: and says, no, no, no, all of that was wrong.
3:25
Speaker 1: None of that should have been filed in DC. These
3:27
Speaker 1: kinds of cases should be filed as habeas cases. Now,
3:31
Speaker 1: mind you, there was a decision a couple of years
3:33
Speaker 1: ago where just as Alito had said no more habeas
3:36
Speaker 1: for immigration, but nevertheless, I think that these facts on
3:41
Speaker 1: the ground concerned the Supreme Court so much they said, well,
3:44
Speaker 1: you got to be able to file something, so fine,
3:47
Speaker 1: we're back to habeas again. So you've got to file
3:49
Speaker 1: them as habeas cases. And the habeas cases have to
3:52
Speaker 1: be in the locations where people were being detained. Well
3:55
Speaker 1: where were people being detained. They were being detained all
3:58
Speaker 1: over Texas. So there were district court decisions all over Texas.
4:02
Speaker 1: But now finally the main case reaches the Fifth Circuit,
4:06
Speaker 1: and the Fifth Circuit, in a two to one decision,
4:09
Speaker 1: grants the preliminary injunction preventing the removal of the petitioners
4:14
Speaker 1: who were the Venezuelan nationals that the Trump administration wanted
4:18
Speaker 1: to deport under the Alien Enemies Act, saying that at
4:22
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the Alien Enemies Act doesn't
4:25
Speaker 1: justify their removals because there isn't a declared war and
4:29
Speaker 1: that the actions of this trend that Aragua Gang do
4:32
Speaker 1: not constitute an invasion or a predatory incursion by a
4:37
Speaker 1: foreign nation or a government, which requires, in their view,
4:40
Speaker 1: military like actions directed by a foreign power. They're saying
4:44
Speaker 1: this is more of some sort of a gang or
4:47
Speaker 1: criminal type of things, but it isn't actually a military incursion.
4:53
Speaker 1: They don't even get into anything about whether these individuals
4:57
Speaker 1: specifically are members of trend Aragua or anything like that.
5:01
Speaker 1: They just say that this manner of invocation of the
5:05
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act is unlawful and so it cannot be
5:08
Speaker 1: used to create deportation without due process. Now, they did
5:12
Speaker 1: say if the Trump administration wants to deport these people,
5:15
Speaker 1: they can deport them under any other grounds that's permissible,
5:18
Speaker 1: just not this Alien Enemies Act provision that doesn't require
5:22
Speaker 1: any due process to occur.
5:24
Speaker 3: So I was listening to some of Tom Holman, the
5:28
Speaker 3: bordersar's comments in the past about this, and he kept
5:33
Speaker 3: saying that they're terrorists. Was the argument that they're terrorists.
5:38
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, you're correct. There's a very concerted effort,
5:41
Speaker 1: even in this bombing that occurred this week with the
5:44
Speaker 1: Venezuelan and drug lords on the boat, that everybody calling
5:48
Speaker 1: them in the administration terrorists, to try to link that
5:53
Speaker 1: with some sort of military like action directed by a
5:58
Speaker 1: foreign power, to get it as close as possible to
6:01
Speaker 1: the Alien Enemies Act. But what this court is saying
6:04
Speaker 1: is that's not really what these people are. These people
6:08
Speaker 1: are not being instructed by the Venezuelan government to come
6:12
Speaker 1: to the United States and commit war acts against the
6:16
Speaker 1: United States. These are just individual criminals trying to basically
6:20
Speaker 1: profit off of drug and gang activities. But they're not
6:24
Speaker 1: soldiers or quasi soldiers acting on behalf of the Venezuelan government.
6:29
Speaker 3: This is a Fifth Circuit decision, a panel of the
6:31
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit, the most conservative appellate court in the country.
6:35
Speaker 3: As you mentioned, two to one decision George W. Bush
6:38
Speaker 3: appointee and a Biden appointee in the majority and in
6:42
Speaker 3: descent a Trump appointee. What did the dissent argue.
6:47
Speaker 1: Well, the desenting judge who used to be the Solicitor
6:51
Speaker 1: General of the State of Texas, a very well known
6:54
Speaker 1: strong conservative judge, Judge Oldham. He basically argued that the
6:59
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act is something that is so broad in
7:03
Speaker 1: terms of the congressional authority that the courts really don't
7:07
Speaker 1: have a role in reviewing a presidential determination under the
7:13
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act. Basically, what he was saying is that
7:16
Speaker 1: the courts should not be given the ability to second
7:20
Speaker 1: guess when the president says there's a war, because this
7:24
Speaker 1: can lead to very dangerous circumstances, and that you know,
7:28
Speaker 1: you have the president who has all of this sort
7:30
Speaker 1: of expertise in the sense that they have the Defense
7:33
Speaker 1: Department and the CIA and the NSA and the Apartment
7:37
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security to do all of this work and consultation,
7:41
Speaker 1: and if they make a determination that there is a
7:45
Speaker 1: dangerous environment akin to the environment that's required under the
7:50
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act, that for the courts who are just
7:53
Speaker 1: judges sitting there in you know, Louisiana or Texas or
7:57
Speaker 1: wherever they're sitting that don't have all this access to
8:01
Speaker 1: the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security
8:06
Speaker 1: and the NSA and the CIA, et cetera to be
8:09
Speaker 1: able to come in and say, well, we don't actually
8:11
Speaker 1: think this rises to the kind of war level threat
8:15
Speaker 1: that is required under the Alien Enemies that he's saying
8:19
Speaker 1: that it is incredibly dangerous because what is the limiting
8:22
Speaker 1: principle there? Now the judges can decide what is a
8:25
Speaker 1: war what isn't a war, and that's not what Congress
8:29
Speaker 1: had intended here. The problem with that is, at the
8:34
Speaker 1: end of the day. If you really have no limiting
8:36
Speaker 1: principles on the Alien Enemies Act at all, including whether
8:42
Speaker 1: it can be invoked and who it can be invoked again,
8:45
Speaker 1: then at that point, I mean, there really would be
8:48
Speaker 1: no way for either you or I or any of
8:50
Speaker 1: your listeners to go into court if we were mistakenly
8:53
Speaker 1: apprehended by Ice. Ice could say, you know, Leon or June,
8:57
Speaker 1: you're members of this trend, that Ragua gang, and we're
9:00
Speaker 1: sending you Tel Salvador. And you could say, yeah, but
9:02
Speaker 1: I've never visited Venezuela, and I don't even know any Venezuelans,
9:06
Speaker 1: and I'm not a member of the gang. I host
9:08
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg. So and it won't matter because there's no
9:11
Speaker 1: court to bring it to. And so I don't think
9:15
Speaker 1: anyone will be fully comfortable with that kind of decision,
9:20
Speaker 1: and I don't think the Supreme Court was comfortable with that,
9:22
Speaker 1: which is why they didn't issue that decision. And moving forward,
9:27
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going to get there in terms
9:30
Speaker 1: of that ability to just not have any due process
9:33
Speaker 1: determination as to these decisions.
9:36
Speaker 3: Yeah, Colorado judge called that argument nonsense.
9:40
Speaker 1: It's a difficult argument to make. I mean, look, It
9:42
Speaker 1: all depends where you're approaching this from. If you're approaching
9:46
Speaker 1: this from a belief system that everybody in the world
9:51
Speaker 1: acts in good faith, then you could conceivably understand. You say, well,
9:55
Speaker 1: why would a president ever want to do something like
9:58
Speaker 1: this if it wasn't absolutely necessary? And why would anyone
10:03
Speaker 1: ever put someone in a detention that is it absolutely necessary,
10:07
Speaker 1: et cetera. And so under that you could understand a
10:10
Speaker 1: decision like that. But if you were to approach it
10:13
Speaker 1: from the perspective that sometimes people don't act in good faith,
10:16
Speaker 1: or sometimes people make a mistake or anything else, then
10:20
Speaker 1: maybe you do need some due process in that system,
10:23
Speaker 1: because otherwise, what is checking those kinds of abuses from occurring.
10:28
Speaker 3: The ruling could be appealed to the full Circuit, the
10:31
Speaker 3: full Fifth Circuit, or could be appealed directly to the
10:34
Speaker 3: Supreme Court. Is there any reason to bother going for
10:38
Speaker 3: and on bank hearing at the Fifth Circuit when the
10:41
Speaker 3: case is just going to end up at the Supreme
10:44
Speaker 3: Court anyway, Well, it may.
10:46
Speaker 1: Give you a stronger hand to show how you know
10:51
Speaker 1: right now it's the government doesn't have the strongest hand,
10:54
Speaker 1: and maybe you know the government wins in the Fifth
10:56
Speaker 1: Circuit fully, and so then it would be the then
11:01
Speaker 1: on the foreign nationals to actually that appeal to the
11:04
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So from that perspective, they may want to
11:07
Speaker 1: strengthen their hand. But honestly, if the Trump administration is
11:12
Speaker 1: trying to really say, hey, these are the most dangerous
11:15
Speaker 1: people in the world and we need to get them
11:17
Speaker 1: out as soon as possible, asking for un Bank review
11:21
Speaker 1: of the Fifth Circuit doesn't seem to make a lot
11:23
Speaker 1: of sense because why are you delaying getting to the
11:25
Speaker 1: ultimate outcome here. So I don't think from a political
11:29
Speaker 1: perspective it makes a lot of sense to go for
11:32
Speaker 1: un Bank review. It may make sense from strengthening the
11:36
Speaker 1: argument in a typical case because you might win in
11:39
Speaker 1: the on Bank. But at the end of the day,
11:41
Speaker 1: if what you're trying to say is, look, we need
11:43
Speaker 1: a final answer, we need to get these theorists out
11:45
Speaker 1: of the country as soon as possible, I think you
11:48
Speaker 1: would want the Supreme Court to look at this as
11:50
Speaker 1: soon as possible.
11:51
Speaker 3: So the Supreme Court never answered the question of whether
11:55
Speaker 3: Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act is valid. Do
12:00
Speaker 3: you have any inkling from the way they ruled in
12:02
Speaker 3: the two other cases how they might rule.
12:05
Speaker 1: Well, I think that at the end of the day,
12:07
Speaker 1: there won't be five justices that say that you can't
12:12
Speaker 1: review this general concept of whether it was proper to
12:17
Speaker 1: have an Alien Enemies Act determination. Now, they may give
12:21
Speaker 1: some very strong difference to the administration. In fact, I
12:24
Speaker 1: would be shocked if they didn't give strong difference to
12:27
Speaker 1: the administration. But they may say, look, even with very
12:30
Speaker 1: strong difference, this isn't the kind of case that gets it.
12:33
Speaker 1: I mean, that issue is going to be closed. I
12:36
Speaker 1: don't think there will be any justice that says that
12:39
Speaker 1: an individual person can't come forward and make a claim. Well, yeah,
12:44
Speaker 1: but I'm not part of whatever group you're trying to
12:46
Speaker 1: claim I'm a part of I think those people will
12:49
Speaker 1: not nothing be able to get due process in habeas
12:53
Speaker 1: or in some other way to be able to make
12:55
Speaker 1: that argument that look, you may claim there's a problem,
12:58
Speaker 1: but I'm not a member of the problem group. That's
13:01
Speaker 1: the second thing. And then the third thing, which the
13:03
Speaker 1: court doesn't really do too much with. It's sort of
13:07
Speaker 1: a two to one way. They say that seven days
13:10
Speaker 1: is enough to make these claims, so that the government,
13:13
Speaker 1: if they designate you as part of the problem group.
13:16
Speaker 1: You have seven days to file a lawsuit or you
13:19
Speaker 1: can be deported. And you know, the dissenting judged there,
13:22
Speaker 1: Judge Ramirez, who was the majority for most of it
13:25
Speaker 1: but not for this, said no, you need twenty one
13:28
Speaker 1: days at least. And you know this is all everybody's
13:30
Speaker 1: just making this up out of old clause. But the
13:33
Speaker 1: question is, you know, if you don't speak English, you
13:35
Speaker 1: don't have access to a lawyer, what is a reasonable
13:37
Speaker 1: amount of time to give you to file a federal
13:40
Speaker 1: habeast complaint in the court. That's not the easiest thing
13:43
Speaker 1: for someone to do. Imagine you know, you or I
13:46
Speaker 1: going to China right now and trying to file a
13:49
Speaker 1: court document there when we don't speak Chinese, we don't
13:52
Speaker 1: know anything about the law, we don't know anything. You know,
13:55
Speaker 1: what would be a reasonable amount of time to give
13:57
Speaker 1: a person in that situation. And so that's the question here,
14:01
Speaker 1: and you know the Supreme Court's going to have to
14:03
Speaker 1: grapple with that too.
14:04
Speaker 3: Coming up next, we'll tell you why seventy six Guatemalan
14:08
Speaker 3: children were put on planes during the early morning hours
14:12
Speaker 3: Sunday until a judge stepped in. This is Bloomberg a
14:17
Speaker 3: group of Guatemalan children are caught in a legal battle.
14:21
Speaker 3: Seventy six children, one as young as seven, were put
14:24
Speaker 3: on three planes in Texas during the early morning hours
14:28
Speaker 3: Sunday to return to the Central American country, but a
14:33
Speaker 3: judge blocked their removal after attorneys argued that the administration
14:38
Speaker 3: was attempting to repatriate them without giving them the opportunity
14:42
Speaker 3: to challenge their removals. Renato Castro is an immigration attorney.
14:48
Speaker 4: Imagine the position of the children inside those planes today.
14:53
Speaker 4: While we were arguing over the government's practices in court,
14:57
Speaker 4: the children were sitting in a plane at the Hardinger
15:00
Speaker 4: Engine Airport or a Pastor airport for hours, not knowing
15:03
Speaker 4: what's going to happen or why, or where they are
15:05
Speaker 4: going or where they're going to be let go. Is
15:08
Speaker 4: just horrendous.
15:10
Speaker 3: I've been talking to immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a
15:14
Speaker 3: partner at Hollanden Knight. Leon, why were these seventy six
15:17
Speaker 3: children put on planes over Labor Day weekend in the
15:22
Speaker 3: early morning hours.
15:24
Speaker 1: So here's what happens. So in general, the Office of
15:28
Speaker 1: Refugee Resettlement, which is part of the Department of Health
15:31
Speaker 1: and Human Services, keeps some number of unaccompanied miners who
15:35
Speaker 1: come into the United States and custody until they can
15:38
Speaker 1: be given to some caring adults in the United States.
15:41
Speaker 1: That has to be vetted by the Office of Reputee Resettlement.
15:45
Speaker 1: So at the moment, the administration had identified sort of
15:50
Speaker 1: a class of people that was in this kind of detention,
15:53
Speaker 1: and so it's about six to seven hundred Quadamlan foreign
15:57
Speaker 1: nationals that were miners. And what they said was, these
16:01
Speaker 1: miners actually have parents in Guatemala that are still there.
16:05
Speaker 1: And you know, this is disputed whether that's true or not,
16:08
Speaker 1: but for the purposes of this, let's just start with
16:10
Speaker 1: what the Trump administration is saying. They're saying that all
16:13
Speaker 1: of these six to seven hundred miners basically ran away
16:16
Speaker 1: from home, but they actually have parents in Guatemala. They're
16:20
Speaker 1: not orphaned, so to speak. And so what they wanted
16:24
Speaker 1: to do was to say, instead of having them go
16:27
Speaker 1: through the whole immigration deportation process, they basically went to
16:31
Speaker 1: these kids and said, do you want to do that
16:34
Speaker 1: and it's going to basically end the deportation anyway and
16:36
Speaker 1: you'll never be allowed to come in, or do you
16:38
Speaker 1: want to sort of let bygones, be bygones, and we'll
16:41
Speaker 1: pretend you were never here and one of these days
16:44
Speaker 1: you could always come back legally. And so their argument
16:47
Speaker 1: is that these kids consented to quote unquote voluntary departure,
16:52
Speaker 1: which would mean they didn't have to go through any
16:54
Speaker 1: of these proceedings, and Guatemala consented to bring these kids back,
16:58
Speaker 1: so they were just going to fly them back to Guatemala. Well,
17:01
Speaker 1: then the lawsuits come in, basically saying no, no, no, no, no,
17:05
Speaker 1: this is not what's happening at all. This is a
17:08
Speaker 1: deportation in cheap clothing. And they didn't give the kids
17:12
Speaker 1: the chance to make asylum clanes or claims that they
17:15
Speaker 1: had been traffic or claims for something known as special
17:18
Speaker 1: immigrant juvenile status, which is that if you've been abandoned, abuser,
17:22
Speaker 1: neglected by your parents, you can actually have a status
17:25
Speaker 1: that allows you to remain in the United States. And
17:28
Speaker 1: so they're saying that those opportunities should have been permitted,
17:32
Speaker 1: and this was essentially a coerce deportation. And so for
17:37
Speaker 1: now we have an injunction from a district court that
17:40
Speaker 1: prevents this for at least the next fourteen days until
17:44
Speaker 1: we can get to the bottom of whether this kind
17:46
Speaker 1: of operation is legal or not.
17:48
Speaker 3: These kids, some as young as seven, do they just
17:52
Speaker 3: show up at the border by themselves.
17:55
Speaker 1: Well, it could happen in one of two ways. They
17:58
Speaker 1: could either show up at the border come completely unaccompanied.
18:01
Speaker 1: Then sometimes that does happen, but more often than not,
18:04
Speaker 1: what happens is they show up at the border with
18:06
Speaker 1: an adult, but that adult isn't their parents, so it's
18:09
Speaker 1: just somebody else who brought them. And then they said
18:12
Speaker 1: where are your parents, And they say, you know, my
18:14
Speaker 1: parents abandoned the abuse, they're neglected me. Then they get
18:17
Speaker 1: put in these shelters. And what these kids are essentially
18:20
Speaker 1: trying to do is they're trying to get this status
18:22
Speaker 1: called special Immigrant Juvenile Status, which permits them to stay
18:27
Speaker 1: in the United States permanently if they can show that
18:31
Speaker 1: they've been abandoned, abuse, or neglected by their parents, and
18:34
Speaker 1: that a state court, so it would have to be
18:36
Speaker 1: any state, would say that it's in the best interests
18:39
Speaker 1: of this child to remain with whatever now guardian has
18:43
Speaker 1: them in the United States. Now people think this was
18:46
Speaker 1: a sort of a manipulation of what had been meant
18:50
Speaker 1: to occur. So I'll give you just very briefly, if
18:53
Speaker 1: you want to say, a quintessential case. I had a
18:56
Speaker 1: case a long, long time ago where there was a
18:58
Speaker 1: Haitian couple and what happened was the Haitian couple traveled
19:03
Speaker 1: with their child to the United States and they were
19:05
Speaker 1: here legally, and what happened was the father shot the
19:08
Speaker 1: mother murdered the mother, and so the mother is no
19:11
Speaker 1: longer available. The father is now in prison for life.
19:15
Speaker 1: And now the question is what do you do with
19:17
Speaker 1: this three year old child? Do you send them back
19:19
Speaker 1: on a plane to Haiti? Good luck? And so that's
19:22
Speaker 1: what special immigrant juvenile status was meant for. Is no, no, no, no, no.
19:25
Speaker 1: You know, we're not going to just send a three
19:27
Speaker 1: year old child on a plane and say good luck
19:29
Speaker 1: and just push them out of the plane. We're going
19:31
Speaker 1: to try to find them some guardian like we would
19:34
Speaker 1: have this occurred in the US, and then that guardian
19:36
Speaker 1: doesn't have to worry about the child's status because we'll
19:39
Speaker 1: give the child a permanent status. So that's what it
19:42
Speaker 1: was meant for. But over the course of the last
19:45
Speaker 1: fifteen years people figured it out. But yeah, I can
19:47
Speaker 1: engineer this claim by just coming to the us by
19:51
Speaker 1: myself as a miner and saying that my parents abandoned
19:56
Speaker 1: the views or neglected me, and so that's why I'm
19:59
Speaker 1: coming to the And so you've seen in some years
20:02
Speaker 1: up to one hundred thousand of these kinds of miners
20:05
Speaker 1: coming into the United States, and that is what the
20:09
Speaker 1: Trump administration is trying to end. They're trying to end
20:12
Speaker 1: that by basically telling these miners, look, this is going
20:16
Speaker 1: to end in deportation, it's not going to end in
20:18
Speaker 1: lawful status, So voluntarily agree to lead. And so that's
20:21
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do here.
20:23
Speaker 3: So it is correcting an abuse, then of the system.
20:26
Speaker 1: Well, it's correcting what the Trump administration would argue as
20:30
Speaker 1: an abuse of the system. The people who do this
20:32
Speaker 1: for a living on behalf of the miners would say,
20:35
Speaker 1: it's not an abuse of the system. So I'm not
20:37
Speaker 1: going to opine, but I would say that I don't
20:40
Speaker 1: think that the people who drafted these laws in Congress
20:44
Speaker 1: probably would have consented to a situation where any miner
20:49
Speaker 1: could come to the United States and just say they
20:51
Speaker 1: were abandoned, abuse, or neglected and get a green card
20:54
Speaker 1: to stay here. I don't think that was their intent.
20:56
Speaker 1: I think their intent was to take care of a
20:59
Speaker 1: situation where there was a case where it was an
21:03
Speaker 1: unforeseen situation. And now you have an abandoned miner in
21:06
Speaker 1: the US, and what are you going to do with
21:08
Speaker 1: this abandoned minor.
21:10
Speaker 3: So there's going to be a hearing on September tenth
21:13
Speaker 3: on a children's request to extend the temporary restraining order.
21:18
Speaker 3: This seems like a novel issue. Do you think the
21:21
Speaker 3: case will be one of the ones that ends up
21:24
Speaker 3: being appealed to the appellate court and then the Supreme Court.
21:28
Speaker 1: I think it will eventually if it gets enjoined by
21:32
Speaker 1: the district court permanently. I do think they will want
21:35
Speaker 1: to go up to the appellate Court. I don't think
21:38
Speaker 1: it will work here because it's the first circuits pretty
21:42
Speaker 1: liberal at the moment, so they're not really citing with
21:44
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. But then would it go all the
21:47
Speaker 1: way up to the Supreme Court and would the Supreme
21:49
Speaker 1: Court allow these kinds of voluntary because really what this
21:52
Speaker 1: is going to come down to is is this a deportation.
21:54
Speaker 1: If it's a deportation, they can't do it. They have
21:57
Speaker 1: to follow certain laws in order to deport kids. These
22:01
Speaker 1: laws are established by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
22:05
Speaker 1: of two thousand and eight, so they have to follow
22:07
Speaker 1: all of those procedures. But what the Trump administration is
22:10
Speaker 1: trying to say is these are deportations. These kids want
22:13
Speaker 1: to go back home. And so the question is can
22:15
Speaker 1: they get a court to agree that these kids want
22:18
Speaker 1: to go back home or is this going to be
22:20
Speaker 1: viewed as a coer type of situation.
22:23
Speaker 3: So now the Trump administration is reinstating a practice that
22:27
Speaker 3: hasn't been used since the nineties of conducting neighborhood checks
22:33
Speaker 3: for people who want to become citizens.
22:36
Speaker 1: Correct. And what's very interesting about this is, just like
22:40
Speaker 1: in the Alien Enemies Act situation, where you had a
22:44
Speaker 1: situation where they're re reincarnating let's say a statute that
22:50
Speaker 1: was from seventeen eighty nine that has been used but
22:52
Speaker 1: very rarely, and so all that is old is do again.
22:56
Speaker 1: Here's another example where there is a statute. There's no
22:59
Speaker 1: doubt that statute was written in eighteen oh two essentially,
23:04
Speaker 1: and here in that statute, petitioners for nationalization were required
23:09
Speaker 1: to present witnesses who could testify to their qualifications for
23:13
Speaker 1: citizenship and then in nineteen eighty one, Congress comes in
23:17
Speaker 1: and says, you know what, let's not do the witnesses anymore.
23:19
Speaker 1: Let's just have an investigation. That's better if we need it.
23:23
Speaker 1: And so they were doing investigations from nineteen eighty one
23:26
Speaker 1: to nineteen ninety one, but then in nineteen ninety one
23:29
Speaker 1: the government basically stopped because there's a waiver authority in
23:33
Speaker 1: the statute that says, look, if the Attorney General, which
23:36
Speaker 1: now is the Secretary of Homeland Security doesn't want to
23:39
Speaker 1: do the investigation, they don't have to. They can decide
23:42
Speaker 1: in any specific case not to do it. And so
23:45
Speaker 1: they just decided in every case not to do it.
23:47
Speaker 1: Post nineteen ninety one. Well, now they're bringing it back,
23:51
Speaker 1: and they're bringing it back to determine one very specific
23:55
Speaker 1: issue in the statute. And this is what's very interesting,
23:58
Speaker 1: because in the statute it's that the only way you
24:02
Speaker 1: can be naturalized to a US citizen is if you
24:05
Speaker 1: are quote unquote attached to the principles of the Constitution
24:09
Speaker 1: of the United States and well disposed to the good
24:12
Speaker 1: order and happiness of the United States. And so now
24:15
Speaker 1: what they're basically saying is, look, we're going to conduct
24:18
Speaker 1: those investigations if we feel it's necessary to find out
24:22
Speaker 1: if a specific person is quote unquote attached to the
24:25
Speaker 1: principles of the Constitution of the United States and well
24:29
Speaker 1: disposed to the good order of the United States. But
24:31
Speaker 1: what they're also doing is they're warning everybody, look, if
24:34
Speaker 1: you're applying for citizenships, don't make us come to your neighborhood.
24:38
Speaker 1: Start now and give us this kind of information. Basically,
24:41
Speaker 1: send us some references and some letters that say this
24:45
Speaker 1: on your behalf already from some people, so that we
24:49
Speaker 1: don't have to go and do this. And so they're
24:51
Speaker 1: basically trying to add this requirement and sort of give
24:55
Speaker 1: the carrot and the stick. The stick would be, if
24:57
Speaker 1: you don't do it, we're going to actually go out
24:59
Speaker 1: to your neighborhood and investigate you. But if you do
25:02
Speaker 1: give us this information up front, then we won't have
25:05
Speaker 1: to do this because you've given it to us upfront.
25:08
Speaker 1: So they're essentially reverse engineering this requirement now that people
25:12
Speaker 1: have to give you, you know, positive references in order for
25:16
Speaker 1: you to get citizenship, which hasn't been needed since nineteen
25:19
Speaker 1: ninety one.
25:20
Speaker 3: We've discussed other aspects of you know, seeming to add
25:25
Speaker 3: on to the requirements for citizenship. Is the Trump administration
25:29
Speaker 3: deliberately adding requirements or steps to the naturalization process to
25:35
Speaker 3: slow it down or to ensure that fewer people become citizens.
25:40
Speaker 1: Yes, I think what they're trying to do is And
25:43
Speaker 1: what's interesting is the previous one we talked about had
25:46
Speaker 1: to do with good moral character and not just proving
25:49
Speaker 1: it through an absence of bad moral character, but having
25:52
Speaker 1: to show evidence that you actually had good moral character.
25:55
Speaker 1: I think they realized there that that had a very specific,
26:00
Speaker 1: expatiatory definition, and so those kinds of things wouldn't work
26:05
Speaker 1: for that. So now they're attaching it instead to this
26:09
Speaker 1: other issue about whether you have an attachment to the
26:13
Speaker 1: US Constitution and you are disposed to the good order
26:16
Speaker 1: and happiness of the United States, which isn't actually defined,
26:20
Speaker 1: and so then you can make this more nebulous determination.
26:24
Speaker 1: And what I think they want to do is to say, look,
26:26
Speaker 1: if you're a person who's got all of this sort
26:29
Speaker 1: of questionable verbal conduct I suppose where you're bashing the
26:35
Speaker 1: US all the time, et cetera, that they don't want
26:37
Speaker 1: to make those kind of people US citizens because at
26:40
Speaker 1: the end of the day. Once you make someone a citizen,
26:42
Speaker 1: then you can't support them if they've been truthful with
26:45
Speaker 1: you the whole time. And they're basically trying to impose
26:49
Speaker 1: an ethous into this system. And you can either say
26:52
Speaker 1: it's good or it's bad. I'm not trying to give
26:54
Speaker 1: a personal opinion here. I'm just trying to say what
26:57
Speaker 1: I think is trying to be done is they're basically
26:59
Speaker 1: trying to impose an ethos into the system of we
27:03
Speaker 1: don't want people becoming citizens who aren't one hundred percent
27:06
Speaker 1: thrilled to be Americans and aren't just going to start arguing, Oh,
27:10
Speaker 1: Americas are rotten plays that's terrible. Well why did you
27:13
Speaker 1: become a citizen then? And so from their view, they
27:16
Speaker 1: want to sort of cut this off before the naturalization occurred.
27:21
Speaker 3: LeAnn, a client came to you and said, you know,
27:24
Speaker 3: I want to start the naturalization process. Would you advise
27:27
Speaker 3: them to wait until after the Trump administration to see
27:31
Speaker 3: what administrations.
27:32
Speaker 1: That't No, I would advise them to wait. But what
27:35
Speaker 1: I would do, and I am doing it as we speak,
27:37
Speaker 1: is I'm saying, look, go get two or three letters
27:40
Speaker 1: from either co workers or friends or whoever that say Hey,
27:45
Speaker 1: this person is a good person. They have good moral character,
27:48
Speaker 1: and they have strong allegiance to the United States. And
27:52
Speaker 1: I think you're going to need data, and I think
27:54
Speaker 1: it would be malpracticed not to put that in now
27:56
Speaker 1: as part of a news starting now citizenship outation, I
28:00
Speaker 1: think you need to do that, you know. I do
28:02
Speaker 1: think if there are questions about a person's case, then
28:06
Speaker 1: maybe you don't want to go forward. But if it's
28:08
Speaker 1: just a normal case, I don't think you should have
28:10
Speaker 1: a problem going forward because in the end, you can
28:12
Speaker 1: get judicial review of a denial of a citizenship case
28:16
Speaker 1: if you don't have anything to worry about, I think
28:18
Speaker 1: a judge would say, hey, this is ridiculous, why are
28:20
Speaker 1: you not giving this person's citizenship. But if it is
28:24
Speaker 1: a questionable case, so for instance, you know, you take
28:27
Speaker 1: the case of Mamood Khalil, who is a Green card
28:30
Speaker 1: holder and he's got all of this sort of background
28:33
Speaker 1: of literature, maybe that's not someone I'd be comfortable taking
28:37
Speaker 1: on as a client at the moment, because I would say,
28:40
Speaker 1: this is going to be a honeypot of complications. Maybe
28:45
Speaker 1: in your best interest to wait to see if the
28:47
Speaker 1: policy has changed.
28:48
Speaker 3: One more thing, before I let you go.
28:50
Speaker 2: Leon.
28:50
Speaker 3: The Trump administration is trying in different ways to restrict visas.
28:55
Speaker 3: Tell us what the latest restrictions are for student visas.
29:00
Speaker 1: Currently, if you enter on a student visa, you can
29:03
Speaker 1: stay in America for as long as it takes for
29:06
Speaker 1: you to finish any studies you're in. So you could
29:09
Speaker 1: enter as a high school student at an Exeter or
29:11
Speaker 1: an Andover or one of those schools, and then go
29:14
Speaker 1: to college, and then go to grad school and go
29:16
Speaker 1: to PhD and you never have to leave the country.
29:19
Speaker 1: You could be here twenty years based on that first
29:21
Speaker 1: student visa you were given, and you could transfer a
29:24
Speaker 1: bunch of times. And basically, what this new rule would
29:27
Speaker 1: do is say no, no, no, no no. Each time you
29:30
Speaker 1: do something, you're gonna have to check in with the
29:32
Speaker 1: government and get permission to do so. The days of
29:36
Speaker 1: changing schools or changing programs or going from one program
29:40
Speaker 1: to another without checking in and getting permission to the
29:43
Speaker 1: government are over. So we're only going to give you
29:45
Speaker 1: permission for the specific program you signed up for, and
29:49
Speaker 1: then you're going to need a new permission for any
29:51
Speaker 1: new program. And so that certainly sounds very rationalist, but
29:56
Speaker 1: there's a lot of problems in terms of the way
29:58
Speaker 1: the programs work make this super complicated. For instance, the
30:02
Speaker 1: biggest one being that they only are going to give
30:05
Speaker 1: you four years to finish an undergraduate program. And if
30:08
Speaker 1: you notice, the Department of Education basically now says that
30:12
Speaker 1: those programs take on average six years to finish. The
30:15
Speaker 1: majority of people are taking six years to finish a
30:18
Speaker 1: four year program. So the question is why isn't then,
30:22
Speaker 1: what the foreign students are being given in line with
30:25
Speaker 1: what the US students are doing, especially if the foreign
30:28
Speaker 1: students have to pay for those extra years anyway, so
30:31
Speaker 1: it's not like they're getting them for free. They have
30:33
Speaker 1: to pay. It's everyone's benefit. So those kinds of things
30:37
Speaker 1: that are going to be debated as this moves forward,
30:39
Speaker 1: but that's basically what's happening under this new rule.
30:42
Speaker 3: My question is why is it taking college students six
30:45
Speaker 3: years to finish a four year program? But that's a
30:48
Speaker 3: question for another day and another guest, thanks so much
30:51
Speaker 3: for taking us through all these immigration issues. Leon. That's
30:55
Speaker 3: Leon Fresco of Honda Night. Coming up next, the fight
30:59
Speaker 3: over a seton and a tradition. You're listening to Bloomberg
31:03
Speaker 3: there's been chaos around Elina Habba, President Trump's pick for
31:08
Speaker 3: US Attorney in New Jersey. Federal criminal courts in the
31:11
Speaker 3: state have been basically at a standstill, and a judge
31:15
Speaker 3: rule last month that Habba has been illegally leading the
31:18
Speaker 3: office since July first. She's been vocal about blue slips,
31:23
Speaker 3: which she says stopped her nomination from going forward, and
31:27
Speaker 3: President Trump says he'll sue of the Senate's century old
31:31
Speaker 3: tradition of allowing home state senators to sign off on
31:35
Speaker 3: US attorney and district court nominees. Joining me is Carl Tobias,
31:40
Speaker 3: a professor at the University of Richmond Law School and
31:43
Speaker 3: an expert on the federal judiciary. Explain the uproar recently
31:49
Speaker 3: about the blue slips. I mean it comes mainly because
31:53
Speaker 3: of the US attorneys who are not being approved by
31:59
Speaker 3: the Senate on their home states.
32:01
Speaker 5: Yes, that has sparked it, but the problem has been
32:07
Speaker 5: that the administration is not following the tradition of nominating
32:13
Speaker 5: and having confirmed the US attorneys as it did in
32:16
Speaker 5: the first Trump administration, when eighty five of them went
32:20
Speaker 5: through all quite smoothly on voice votes in committee and
32:25
Speaker 5: on the floor. But Trump has been in a big
32:28
Speaker 5: hurry to seat people, and so he's using interims and actings,
32:34
Speaker 5: and that has led to controversies that we've talked about before,
32:38
Speaker 5: especially in New Jersey, but in other states or districts
32:42
Speaker 5: around the country. In their ninety plus or so, but
32:45
Speaker 5: only two have been confirmed pro for the DC District
32:50
Speaker 5: and quinonas for the Southern District of Florida. In that context,
32:55
Speaker 5: the President has urged Senator Grassley, the chair of the
32:59
Speaker 5: st Judiciary Committee, to abolish the blue slips for US
33:05
Speaker 5: attorneys as well as for district nominees to the bench,
33:12
Speaker 5: and Senator Grassley has said very explicitly that he has
33:18
Speaker 5: no intention of changing the blue slip policy for either
33:22
Speaker 5: US attorneys or for judicial nominees.
33:26
Speaker 3: Trump has said that he's going to sue over this.
33:30
Speaker 3: Tell us what the chances of that going through are.
33:33
Speaker 5: Well, the chances of a judge ruling in his favor
33:38
Speaker 5: are minimal, But hopefully the White House Council and the
33:43
Speaker 5: Justice Department will suggest to him politely that no court
33:48
Speaker 5: is likely to rule in his favor, so it might
33:51
Speaker 5: be better not to do that. Graffley has been very
33:55
Speaker 5: clear and one hundred year history going back to nineteen
33:59
Speaker 5: seventeen of Blueslips has been that the discretion is in
34:04
Speaker 5: the chair of the Judiciary Committee, and different chairs have
34:08
Speaker 5: treated in different ways, But the point is that it
34:12
Speaker 5: has withstood the test of time, and as senators have
34:17
Speaker 5: pointed out in the GOP that it actually helps to
34:22
Speaker 5: have that when you don't have the president in the
34:27
Speaker 5: White House of your own party. And so everyone has
34:31
Speaker 5: agreed with Durbin's idea, and that is we won't have
34:35
Speaker 5: separate rules for Democrats and Republicans depending on who occupies
34:39
Speaker 5: the White House or who has the Senate majority. So
34:42
Speaker 5: I think there's pretty strong agreement among senators that it
34:47
Speaker 5: should remain in the Chair of Judiciary at that discretion.
34:51
Speaker 5: And as you suggest with your question, in the past,
34:56
Speaker 5: there have been a number of Supreme Court rulings that
34:58
Speaker 5: have just said that the executive cannot dictate what the
35:04
Speaker 5: rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate especially are,
35:09
Speaker 5: And so it seems unlikely that the President will make
35:15
Speaker 5: good on his promise to sue, and if he does,
35:17
Speaker 5: it seems very likely that it won't go anywhere. The
35:21
Speaker 5: judges will just kick it out. So I think it's
35:24
Speaker 5: not going to happen, but that doesn't mean something won't happen.
35:28
Speaker 5: And in fact, there's discussions on the GOP side about
35:32
Speaker 5: ways to expedite the process now. And the easy way
35:38
Speaker 5: with the US attorneys would be to do as they
35:41
Speaker 5: have in the past, but that hasn't proved to be
35:46
Speaker 5: what the White House wants to do and has done
35:48
Speaker 5: so far. So you have all kinds of different variations,
35:52
Speaker 5: but mostly interims and actings as US attorneys around the country.
35:56
Speaker 5: Now there are a number of people who are for example,
35:59
Speaker 5: they're a to them US attorney nominees scheduled to have
36:03
Speaker 5: a committee vote, so I think the logjam may be
36:06
Speaker 5: broken sometime soon. But Senator Durbin, in the committee and
36:10
Speaker 5: the hearing on five nominees basically said, again, we can't
36:16
Speaker 5: have different rules, and he traced out what had happened
36:18
Speaker 5: in the Biden years and how a number of holds
36:22
Speaker 5: were placed on US attorneys by GOP senators that delayed
36:27
Speaker 5: Biden's ability and he only was able to name something
36:31
Speaker 5: like sixty to permanent four year appointments. So we'll see,
36:36
Speaker 5: but I don't think there's going to be a blanket
36:39
Speaker 5: veto coming from Democrats, but they may take it case
36:42
Speaker 5: by case and so it may take more time.
36:45
Speaker 3: Years ago, wasn't it Grassley who eliminated the blue slips
36:48
Speaker 3: for appellate court candidates?
36:51
Speaker 5: Yes, in Trump one in twenty seventeen, when there were
36:56
Speaker 5: a number of Blue states where vacancies had been left
37:00
Speaker 5: because McConnell and the GOP blocked Obama's choices in the
37:04
Speaker 5: last two years, many of whom were highly qualified for
37:08
Speaker 5: the appeals courts. There was something like eighteen vacancies in
37:12
Speaker 5: Blue states, and the GOP wanted to move them as
37:15
Speaker 5: fast as possible, and so they decided to eliminate the
37:21
Speaker 5: blue slip for appellate judges. He said then Durbin. Of course,
37:26
Speaker 5: when Democrats came in twenty twenty one, retained that and
37:32
Speaker 5: so rastly has retained it as well. At some point
37:35
Speaker 5: in the future they may decide to not do that,
37:38
Speaker 5: but it has to be in a fair way that
37:41
Speaker 5: treats both parties the same way.
37:43
Speaker 3: So now let's talk about the Pellet nomination of Jennifer
37:48
Speaker 3: Mascot to the Delaware seat on the Court of Appeals
37:52
Speaker 3: for the Third Circuit, and why the Home state senators
37:57
Speaker 3: are criticizing this.
37:58
Speaker 5: Well, that was ventilated in committee, especially by Senator Kohns,
38:03
Speaker 5: who's a senior senator, longtime member of the Judiciary Committee,
38:07
Speaker 5: and he made a strong point that the nominee mascot
38:12
Speaker 5: has very few, if any ties to the state of Delaware.
38:16
Speaker 5: She has a vacation home there, she spent most of
38:19
Speaker 5: her adult life in the DC area, going to school
38:23
Speaker 5: Maryland and DC, and as not a member of the
38:26
Speaker 5: bar and hasn't really practiced there. But more affirmatively, I
38:32
Speaker 5: think the Senator explained it clearly that you want to
38:36
Speaker 5: have people who are familiar with the law in the
38:40
Speaker 5: particular state, know the lawyers in the state, know the
38:44
Speaker 5: judges in the state, know the customs of the state
38:48
Speaker 5: and its legal system, especially with Delaware, which you know
38:51
Speaker 5: is a corporate center and so sees a lot of
38:55
Speaker 5: those kinds of cases. But he was also concerned just
38:57
Speaker 5: about her ability to deal with district rulings in areas
39:03
Speaker 5: that she wasn't familiar with because most of her work
39:05
Speaker 5: has been an administrative law and being a law professor
39:09
Speaker 5: and constitutional specialists, but hasn't done much if any, litigating
39:15
Speaker 5: in the district courts or handled things like depositions, and
39:20
Speaker 5: that's a fair amount of what she would see on
39:23
Speaker 5: the Third Circuit. The DC Circuit has a dock at
39:26
Speaker 5: much more like what she has been working on. And
39:30
Speaker 5: in fairness, she has been in all three branches of
39:33
Speaker 5: the federal government. She worked on the Hill for some time,
39:36
Speaker 5: and she was in Trump once administration. In any event,
39:40
Speaker 5: Senator Koon's just made a very strong point about the
39:44
Speaker 5: need to have someone who is a consensus nominee. And
39:49
Speaker 5: there was apparently no consultation from the White House about
39:53
Speaker 5: her nomination with the Home State senators, and they had
39:56
Speaker 5: already interviewed a number of Delaware lawyers and practitioners and judges.
40:01
Speaker 5: They thought that a number of them would be excellent candidates,
40:04
Speaker 5: but the White House didn't even speak with them or
40:07
Speaker 5: interview anybody. And so he was concerned as the Home
40:11
Speaker 5: State senator. That means, I think he's going to not
40:14
Speaker 5: vote for her.
40:16
Speaker 3: We saw what happened with the last Third Circuit nominee,
40:19
Speaker 3: which there was so much opposition to Emil Bovy and
40:23
Speaker 3: he went through. So, I mean, do you think the
40:26
Speaker 3: Republican senators are not going to vote for her because
40:29
Speaker 3: of this?
40:30
Speaker 5: No, they're going to vote for her. I don't think
40:33
Speaker 5: there's any question about it. I mean, if they voted
40:35
Speaker 5: for Bov, I think there's no doubt that they'll vote
40:38
Speaker 5: for Mascot because she doesn't have a lot of the baggage,
40:44
Speaker 5: if you will, that Bov had involving the Department of Justice,
40:49
Speaker 5: his representation of Trump and his private capacity, and the
40:54
Speaker 5: many troubling kinds of facts that were elicted during his
40:59
Speaker 5: hearing from the whistleblower and others about his time at
41:04
Speaker 5: the Department of Justice. There are no questions of that
41:07
Speaker 5: sort about Jennifer Mascot as far as I understand, I
41:11
Speaker 5: don't think there'll be very many no votes on the
41:14
Speaker 5: Republican side, but we'll see. I think all the senators
41:17
Speaker 5: care about their home state prerogatives and want to have
41:21
Speaker 5: on the appeals courts and the district courts people who
41:24
Speaker 5: are from the particular district or state on those courts
41:27
Speaker 5: because they understand the law, the customs, the practices and
41:32
Speaker 5: all of that in the home state, and the senators
41:36
Speaker 5: are responsible for that, and so there's concern.
41:40
Speaker 3: There's concern, but I mean, nothing changes, that's right, I.
41:43
Speaker 5: Mean, because those are their prerogatives. But they can't enforce
41:48
Speaker 5: them when the chair of the committee is of the
41:51
Speaker 5: other party and it is made clear that he doesn't
41:54
Speaker 5: intend to require blue slips for circuit nominees. That's the
42:00
Speaker 5: way it is.
42:01
Speaker 3: Give us an update on Trump nominations.
42:05
Speaker 5: Sure, at the appellate level, there have only been six
42:09
Speaker 5: vacancies and they have confirmed to Bovi and herman Or
42:15
Speaker 5: for the sixth circuit. There are four more, one from
42:19
Speaker 5: Maine for the first circuit, one from California for the
42:22
Speaker 5: ninth circuit. They've had a hearing and I think they're
42:25
Speaker 5: still waiting for a committee both that'll come soon. Then
42:28
Speaker 5: Rebecca tableson for the seventh circuit vacancy of the chief
42:32
Speaker 5: judge who's stepping down and taking senior status. So all
42:37
Speaker 5: of the vacancies either have nominees or people confirm. Other
42:41
Speaker 5: people have to take senior status or retire for Trump
42:45
Speaker 5: to fill any more pealet vacancies. So we'll see how
42:48
Speaker 5: that proceeds. And there have been none really this year.
42:52
Speaker 5: There are many who are eligible, but they haven't chosen to.
42:56
Speaker 5: On the district level, there are nineteen nominee. They're approximately
43:03
Speaker 5: thirty five or forty vacancies and Most of those don't
43:07
Speaker 5: have nominees yet, but they're moving on those.
43:11
Speaker 3: Thanks so much for joining me, Carl. That's Professor Carl
43:13
Speaker 3: Tobias of the University of Richmond Law School. And that's
43:18
Speaker 3: it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
43:20
Speaker 3: you can always get the latest legal news on our
43:22
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
43:27
Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law,
43:32
Speaker 3: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
43:35
Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
43:39
Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg