# No Constitutional Right to Clean Drinking Water & TPS for Salvadorans

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 10 Sep 2026, 42 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/ba357ca3-3cae-416a-9167-b4c001791071/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Environmental lawyer Jennifer Novak discusses the Fifth Circuit ruling that the US Constitution doesn’t guarantee the right to clean drinking water. Then immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses the Justice Department pressing criminal charges for noncitizen voting and the expiration of Temporary Protected Status for Salvadorans. June Grasso hosts. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 1: In a 10-to-5 decision, the full Fifth Circuit Court of
[0:12] Speaker 1: Appeals ruled that the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee the right
[0:17] Speaker 1: to clean drinking water, rejecting a lawsuit by residents of Jackson, Mississippi,
[0:23] Speaker 1: over the city's contaminated water system. The residents claimed that
[0:28] Speaker 1: officials deliberately allowed lead to contaminate the drinking water, harming
[0:32] Speaker 1: those who drank it, and violating their constitutional right to
[0:36] Speaker 1: bodily integrity under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The
[0:41] Speaker 1: majority was composed of all Republican appointees, and the opinion
[0:46] Speaker 1: by Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Trump appointee, said that while
[0:51] Speaker 1: the deprivation of clean water was grievous... It did not
[0:55] Speaker 1: infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right. Joining me is
[0:59] Speaker 1: environmental lawyer Jennifer Novak. Jennifer, tell us about the underlying
[1:04] Speaker 1: dispute here.
[1:07] Speaker 2: In the Sterling case, the city of Jackson, Mississippi, was
[1:11] Speaker 2: providing drinking water to its citizens, and by 2013 knew
[1:16] Speaker 2: they had a real problem with the quality of water.
[1:20] Speaker 2: And the combination of aging infrastructure using lead pipes, along
[1:25] Speaker 2: with a high acidity level from where they were taking
[1:28] Speaker 2: the water meant that instead of just passing through the pipes,
[1:32] Speaker 2: the water was picking up lead along the way. And
[1:35] Speaker 2: by the time 2013 rolled around, the city was well
[1:38] Speaker 2: aware that the levels of lead were at least two
[1:41] Speaker 2: times too high for public health and safety. And yet,
[1:46] Speaker 2: It didn't tell the public that there was a problem.
[1:48] Speaker 2: It continued to serve them the same water. And when
[1:52] Speaker 2: questioned about the water quality, the city lied effectively or
[1:57] Speaker 2: made misstatements saying that the water was safe. So the
[2:01] Speaker 2: citizens continued to drink it. And what ended up happening
[2:04] Speaker 2: is once this was discovered, a number of citizens brought
[2:08] Speaker 2: a lawsuit against city officials and citing our federal civil
[2:12] Speaker 2: rights laws, their 14th Amendment right to life and liberty
[2:16] Speaker 2: and property had been violated because of these two different
[2:20] Speaker 2: actions by the city officials.
[2:23] Speaker 1: This was a decision by the full Fifth Circuit en banc.
[2:26] Speaker 1: Explain why the majority found that the lawsuit by the
[2:30] Speaker 1: Jackson residents alleged violations of due process rights that were
[2:35] Speaker 1: not granted by the Constitution.
[2:38] Speaker 2: I mean, if we look at the literal text of
[2:40] Speaker 2: the Constitution itself, obviously there is no right to clean water.
[2:45] Speaker 2: But both the Fifth Amendment at the federal level and
[2:48] Speaker 2: the 14th Amendment at the state level have been read
[2:51] Speaker 2: to mean that we do have certain levels of bodily
[2:55] Speaker 2: autonomy and integrity and that a state cannot, for example,
[3:01] Speaker 2: allow an officer to assault you. They can't force you
[3:04] Speaker 2: to have a surgery if you don't want it.
[3:06] Speaker 3: And so it's.
[3:07] Speaker 2: Along the lines of this bodily integrity that the plaintiffs
[3:10] Speaker 2: were saying they had been violated because they were led
[3:15] Speaker 2: to believe they could ingest this water safely. And yet
[3:19] Speaker 2: it was not safe to do so. And presumably that
[3:21] Speaker 2: meant they weren't really consenting to drink this contaminated water.
[3:26] Speaker 2: And that was the equivalent of forcing them to take
[3:28] Speaker 2: a medicine or ingest a poison or something along those lines.
[3:32] Speaker 1: And do you think that sort of stretches constitutional rights?
[3:37] Speaker 1: The court here looked for the history and tradition, and
[3:39] Speaker 1: they say there's no historical tradition or Supreme Court precedent
[3:44] Speaker 1: on this.
[3:45] Speaker 4: Right.
[3:46] Speaker 3: So there is a conflict.
[3:48] Speaker 2: Most courts in the United States have not addressed this
[3:51] Speaker 2: exact same situation. But we do have the Sixth Circuit,
[3:55] Speaker 2: which heard all the Flint, Michigan cases on the Sixth
[3:58] Speaker 2: Circuit case. came out differently saying, no, we think that
[4:01] Speaker 2: the government did have a requirement to tell you the
[4:03] Speaker 2: truth and you have the right to at least discover
[4:06] Speaker 2: the true facts before we shut you down. Here in
[4:10] Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit, what they really held on to is
[4:13] Speaker 2: perhaps not unsurprising given the Dobbs decision by the Supreme Court,
[4:17] Speaker 2: which is a look at history.
[4:20] Speaker 3: And if we don't see that in.
[4:21] Speaker 2: History, courts were ruling a certain way, then we're not
[4:25] Speaker 2: going to be the first court to do so and saying, look,
[4:29] Speaker 2: You have no right to government services. You don't even
[4:32] Speaker 2: have a right to having the government give.
[4:34] Speaker 3: You services well.
[4:36] Speaker 2: So you've been harmed. We recognize that. We feel bad
[4:39] Speaker 2: for you. But that doesn't make it a constitutional right.
[4:43] Speaker 2: And you need to pursue other remedies. That's really where
[4:46] Speaker 2: the Fifth Circuit came out. And it does create a
[4:49] Speaker 2: bit of an interesting situation. If you're a prisoner, you
[4:52] Speaker 2: can't be forced to ingest something that you don't want
[4:56] Speaker 2: to And yet, if you're one of many people living
[4:59] Speaker 2: in a city who presumably think you are drinking clean
[5:02] Speaker 2: water and wouldn't drink it if you knew it was
[5:05] Speaker 2: going to be harmful, perhaps you don't have that same right,
[5:08] Speaker 2: even though it's the same constitution that we're talking about.
[5:12] Speaker 2: So there is a bit of a contradiction as far
[5:15] Speaker 2: as what the courts are finding, how they're.
[5:17] Speaker 3: Applying those rights.
[5:19] Speaker 2: And again, there's a tendency within courts courts right now
[5:24] Speaker 2: to say, we don't want to extend the Constitution to
[5:27] Speaker 2: create new rights. We're going to interpret it more as
[5:30] Speaker 2: a check on government power and just talk about what
[5:34] Speaker 2: the government can't do to you.
[5:37] Speaker 1: In the dissent was a George W. Bush appointee and
[5:41] Speaker 1: the four liberal members of the court. Is this a
[5:44] Speaker 1: conservative liberal issue? or split?
[5:49] Speaker 3: It can be.
[5:50] Speaker 2: What the dissenters noted was that this is a little
[5:55] Speaker 2: bit different from saying that you have a right to
[5:58] Speaker 2: have the state or a municipality give you clean water.
[6:01] Speaker 2: This is a situation where the city has affirmatively taken
[6:05] Speaker 2: on the obligation to serve its citizens drinking water. And
[6:09] Speaker 2: we're not just talking about a situation where maybe they
[6:12] Speaker 2: were incompetent, but once they knew, they still failed to
[6:16] Speaker 2: act in the citizens' best interest. So the minority judges
[6:20] Speaker 2: felt that this argument of there being a state-created danger
[6:25] Speaker 2: was one worth looking at, and not necessarily that the
[6:28] Speaker 2: plaintiffs would win, but that they had the right to
[6:31] Speaker 2: pursue this a little further to see if maybe there
[6:34] Speaker 2: was some traction there. Maybe they would uncover something that
[6:38] Speaker 2: would allow them to keep going.
[6:40] Speaker 1: The dissenting judge, Judge Katharina Haynes, a George W. Bush appointee,
[6:46] Speaker 1: said that other courts have addressed that theory of state-created danger.
[6:51] Speaker 1: And the Fifth Circuit stands practically alone in its decades-long fence-sitting,
[6:57] Speaker 1: declining to either adopt or definitively rule out the state-created
[7:01] Speaker 1: danger doctrine. So is there a split in the circuits
[7:06] Speaker 1: on that or on this whole issue so that it
[7:08] Speaker 1: might go to the Supreme Court?
[7:10] Speaker 3: So two different issues.
[7:12] Speaker 2: One is that because we have the Sixth Circuit line
[7:15] Speaker 2: of cases that are exactly opposite of what the Fifth
[7:18] Speaker 2: Circuit found. On the primary issue, we definitely have a
[7:22] Speaker 2: split of authority. And there's enough case law from other circuits.
[7:27] Speaker 2: For example, in the Second Circuit, after 9-11, the EPA
[7:31] Speaker 2: was found to have mischaracterized, misrepresented air quality, and the
[7:36] Speaker 2: courts did not allow those lawsuits to go forward. So
[7:39] Speaker 2: it's more aligned with the Fifth Circuit. So just on
[7:43] Speaker 2: that alone, It could be something that the United States
[7:46] Speaker 2: Supreme Court would want to take up because there is
[7:49] Speaker 2: now a split amongst the districts. On this other issue
[7:53] Speaker 2: of the state creative danger, yes, it was pointed out
[7:56] Speaker 2: by the dissent that almost all the other circuits have
[7:59] Speaker 2: ruled in a way that is different than what the
[8:01] Speaker 2: Fifth Circuit has done here. That also then sets up
[8:05] Speaker 2: a different type of split on that issue alone. The
[8:08] Speaker 2: question is whether if you are the Jackson City plaintiff's
[8:13] Speaker 2: that's where you want to go, as opposed to trying
[8:16] Speaker 2: a different tact.
[8:17] Speaker 1: Yeah, what the majority suggested was that plaintiffs pursue tort claims,
[8:22] Speaker 1: elect officials who will better manage the water system, and
[8:26] Speaker 1: petition representatives for other solutions.
[8:29] Speaker 2: I saw that, and one of them is always, well,
[8:32] Speaker 2: you could elect somebody better. They do note that if
[8:35] Speaker 2: you want damages, then tort claims are your only avenue.
[8:40] Speaker 2: and you can give it a shot. That doesn't mean
[8:43] Speaker 2: it's going to be easy. It doesn't mean you're going
[8:45] Speaker 2: to get everything that you believe you are entitled to.
[8:48] Speaker 3: And they coupled it.
[8:50] Speaker 2: Also with you can work within the system. Perhaps your
[8:54] Speaker 2: local officials will create.
[8:55] Speaker 3: Some sort of fund or system of redress.
[8:57] Speaker 2: And while the court doesn't get that specific, I think
[9:00] Speaker 2: that's what they were alluding to, that there could be
[9:03] Speaker 2: some reparations at that level, in addition to electing better
[9:08] Speaker 2: officials who will pay better attention to you, won't lie
[9:11] Speaker 2: to you, etc. I'll note that if the issue is
[9:15] Speaker 2: fixing the problem, you do have federal laws like the
[9:18] Speaker 2: Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, but those
[9:22] Speaker 2: are to fix the problem and maybe penalize the actors.
[9:26] Speaker 2: That doesn't give you money for the damages that you
[9:29] Speaker 2: may have suffered.
[9:30] Speaker 1: What's your take on whether or not the Constitution guarantees
[9:34] Speaker 1: this right to safe water?
[9:37] Speaker 2: I find it a little hard to square some of
[9:41] Speaker 2: the cases where we have said, okay, that is a
[9:44] Speaker 2: bodily integrity situation, but this one is not.
[9:47] Speaker 3: And I don't know if.
[9:49] Speaker 2: At the end of the day, it becomes a constitutional
[9:51] Speaker 2: question so much as a real fear. And maybe the
[9:55] Speaker 2: best way I could put it is a no good
[9:58] Speaker 2: deed going unpunished. If your a city and you're providing
[10:02] Speaker 2: drinking water or municipal waste services or something to the
[10:06] Speaker 2: community to be helpful, you know, because that's what people
[10:10] Speaker 2: think government should do, then you really might be opening
[10:14] Speaker 2: yourself up to a whole slew of lawsuits and complaints
[10:18] Speaker 2: over every thing you might do wrong, every bad.
[10:21] Speaker 3: Decision you make.
[10:22] Speaker 2: So to that extent, I understand from a policy standpoint,
[10:25] Speaker 2: we don't want this to rise to the level of
[10:28] Speaker 2: a constitutional problem. And I think my real problem is
[10:32] Speaker 2: when we have those contradictory interpretations. Well, we'll say it's
[10:36] Speaker 2: fine if you're a prisoner being force-fed something or being
[10:41] Speaker 2: forced into a surgery. But if you're one of thousands,
[10:44] Speaker 2: if not millions of people consuming lead in your water, oops,
[10:49] Speaker 2: That's where I come out with this. I'm not certain
[10:51] Speaker 2: I'm going to say that we automatically have a right
[10:56] Speaker 2: in the Constitution to everything, but I probably do trend
[10:59] Speaker 2: more toward looking at this as it's a little bit
[11:02] Speaker 2: of a catch-22. We're going to say that historically speaking,
[11:07] Speaker 2: we didn't recognize this as a right, therefore we won't now.
[11:11] Speaker 2: I think our expectations of what the government is and
[11:14] Speaker 2: its role and just our society have changed. And I'm
[11:18] Speaker 2: not going to hew to the exact words of the
[11:22] Speaker 2: Constitution and say that that's the only thing it could
[11:24] Speaker 2: ever mean. People didn't have municipal drinking water at the
[11:27] Speaker 2: time that the Constitution was written. They were primarily relying
[11:30] Speaker 2: on well water and other things. And we have drastically
[11:33] Speaker 2: changed where we are as a society.
[11:35] Speaker 1: And that's the constant problem with the Supreme Court's history
[11:39] Speaker 1: and tradition test. Now, other states, including California and Virginia,
[11:44] Speaker 1: have protected access to safe water. So does that sort
[11:49] Speaker 1: of tell you that officials in those states think that
[11:53] Speaker 1: it's not in the Constitution and they need to pass
[11:57] Speaker 1: laws to ensure safe water?
[11:59] Speaker 2: It certainly does suggest that, or at least a belt
[12:02] Speaker 2: and suspenders. If the federal government isn't going to protect us,
[12:06] Speaker 2: we'll protect our own people. And I believe there are
[12:09] Speaker 2: two states, Pennsylvania and Montana, that have written something similar
[12:13] Speaker 2: into their state constitutions, whereas states like California and many
[12:19] Speaker 2: others passed laws to that effect. I think in the
[12:22] Speaker 2: case of many states, they simply say you have a
[12:25] Speaker 2: right to a healthful environment. I think California's law goes
[12:28] Speaker 2: so far as to say you have a right to
[12:30] Speaker 2: clean water. And certainly even in a state like California,
[12:34] Speaker 2: we have both rural and municipal users who can't.
[12:38] Speaker 3: Turn on the tap and simply drink the water from it.
[12:41] Speaker 1: The majority also found that you don't have the right
[12:44] Speaker 1: to have officials tell you the truth. I mean, is
[12:48] Speaker 1: that basically what they said?
[12:50] Speaker 3: That's what they said.
[12:53] Speaker 2: The Sterling Court, the Fifth Circuit said, of course, we
[12:57] Speaker 2: want our public officials to be truthful and honest with us.
[13:01] Speaker 2: But we just don't think that rises to the level
[13:04] Speaker 2: of a constitutional right.
[13:06] Speaker 3: And I agree with them.
[13:08] Speaker 2: Again, it's a slippery slope if every not entirely truthful
[13:13] Speaker 2: press release that a government issues suddenly becomes, you know,
[13:16] Speaker 2: my constitutional right has been violated.
[13:18] Speaker 3: In some way.
[13:19] Speaker 2: I do think at some point in time, you can
[13:21] Speaker 2: probably go down that slope and find situations where that
[13:24] Speaker 2: might rise to that type of infringement. But for the
[13:28] Speaker 2: most part, I think it also has the danger of
[13:31] Speaker 2: confusing the Situations where the government is acting on the
[13:35] Speaker 2: best information it has at the time, learns something else
[13:39] Speaker 2: and has to change direction or change opinion, change a policy.
[13:43] Speaker 2: And at what point in time do we call that
[13:45] Speaker 2: misrepresentation versus that's just the scientific process at work?
[13:50] Speaker 1: The Fifth Circuit is the most conservative circuit in the country,
[13:54] Speaker 1: and it often has decisions that are outliers sometimes. So
[13:58] Speaker 1: how important is this particular decision we've been talking about?
[14:02] Speaker 2: I would call it important, but I did make the
[14:06] Speaker 2: comment earlier that I'm not certain if I was the
[14:08] Speaker 2: Jackson plaintiffs, if I would try to take this to
[14:10] Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit is the circuit that
[14:15] Speaker 2: resides over Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. So really small part of
[14:21] Speaker 2: the country, already conservative leaning in its courts. It could
[14:25] Speaker 2: be seen as a standalone. I know it got the headlines,
[14:28] Speaker 2: everyone talking about no constitutional right to clean water, which
[14:32] Speaker 2: I think offends most people. I think we believe that
[14:35] Speaker 2: we have the right to not be poisoned by our
[14:37] Speaker 2: public drinking water or to at least have an honest
[14:40] Speaker 2: assessment of what's in it. We've had other situations more
[14:43] Speaker 2: recently where we're now testing, for example, microplastics in drinking water.
[14:49] Speaker 2: And that's a real shocker to people who assumed that
[14:52] Speaker 2: that we wouldn't have plastic in our drinking water.
[14:55] Speaker 3: So I think that.
[14:57] Speaker 2: As we continue to see infrastructure fail, as we continue
[15:02] Speaker 2: to see a lack of investment in infrastructure to address
[15:05] Speaker 2: these kinds of problems, and as we continue to understand
[15:09] Speaker 2: more and more about environmental issues within our cities and
[15:13] Speaker 2: throughout the country, we will be looking for more opportunities
[15:17] Speaker 2: to ensure that our government officials are doing the jobs
[15:19] Speaker 2: we would like them to do. And as we know,
[15:23] Speaker 2: the legislative process is not always the best one to
[15:28] Speaker 2: make progress here, but perhaps at the local level, it
[15:31] Speaker 2: will still work that way.
[15:33] Speaker 3: Maybe even at the state level, it will still work
[15:35] Speaker 3: that way.
[15:36] Speaker 2: And people just need to be informed and then they
[15:38] Speaker 2: need to have a voice and use that voice as well.
[15:41] Speaker 2: And courts cannot be the only place where we're making
[15:45] Speaker 2: that happen.
[15:46] Speaker 1: It's been great having you on, Jennifer. Thanks so much.
[15:48] Speaker 1: That's environmental attorney Jennifer Novak. Coming up next, the Trump
[15:53] Speaker 1: administration is once again asking the Supreme Court to get
[15:57] Speaker 1: involved in an election-related issue. This is Bloomberg. It's the
[16:03] Speaker 1: latest high-stakes election-related fight to reach the Supreme Court recently,
[16:08] Speaker 1: with less than two months until the November midterms. A
[16:12] Speaker 1: federal judge had blocked the administration from resuming expansion of
[16:16] Speaker 1: an internal government database available to states to verify the
[16:21] Speaker 1: citizenship of voters. saying the federal government had knowingly trampled
[16:25] Speaker 1: on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner
[16:29] Speaker 1: that threatened the sacred right to vote. The D.C. Federal
[16:33] Speaker 1: Appeals Court refused to lift the judge's block, and so
[16:37] Speaker 1: the Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to enter
[16:40] Speaker 1: the fight over the systematic alien verification entitlements or SAVE database.
[16:46] Speaker 1: Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner in Holland &
[16:49] Speaker 1: Knight and the former head of the Office of immigration
[16:52] Speaker 1: litigation in the Obama administration. Leon, tell us about the
[16:56] Speaker 1: fight over the SAVE database.
[16:59] Speaker 4: This SAVE database is used by federal, state, and local
[17:02] Speaker 4: agencies to verify immigration or citizenship status when people ask
[17:08] Speaker 4: for benefits, licenses, and other programs. That's done by federal
[17:11] Speaker 4: statute and it's done as part of the Personal Work
[17:15] Speaker 4: Responsibility Act where the idea was that the Congress said
[17:19] Speaker 4: certain people couldn't qualify for certain benefits. Now the issue is,
[17:23] Speaker 4: can we take that database, which is supposed to tell
[17:26] Speaker 4: the states whether someone can qualify for a driver's license
[17:30] Speaker 4: or for Medicaid or Medicare or Social Security or something
[17:33] Speaker 4: like that, and use it for voting? And so that's
[17:37] Speaker 4: where Florida had sued the Biden administration in 2024, saying
[17:41] Speaker 4: that the federal government wasn't providing benefits this data that
[17:45] Speaker 4: was needed for states to maintain accurate voter rolls. They
[17:48] Speaker 4: were saying, if you're putting a mandate on us that
[17:51] Speaker 4: we need to have accurate voter rolls, then you need
[17:55] Speaker 4: to give us this database. And so when Trump returned
[17:57] Speaker 4: to office, a collusive settlement was reached with Florida saying that, yes,
[18:03] Speaker 4: you have access to this database. But the problem was
[18:06] Speaker 4: there was a separate lawsuit that had already been filed
[18:08] Speaker 4: before that settlement with the League of Women Voters, that
[18:13] Speaker 4: said in the D.C. Circuit and the D.C. District Court, no, no, no,
[18:17] Speaker 4: giving this database for voting purposes violates the Privacy Act
[18:22] Speaker 4: that governs Social Security and other privacy information. And so
[18:26] Speaker 4: that's the debate we're having here.
[18:28] Speaker 1: In June, that D.C. federal judge you referenced found administration
[18:33] Speaker 1: officials haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions
[18:38] Speaker 1: of Americans including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable.
[18:43] Speaker 1: So is it that it's unreliable or that it's violating
[18:46] Speaker 1: privacy rights?
[18:48] Speaker 4: Well, there's two different issues. So the first issue is
[18:51] Speaker 4: that it violates the privacy of people because this data
[18:55] Speaker 4: was compiled not for this purpose. So the point is
[18:59] Speaker 4: that whenever under the Privacy Act the government uses your
[19:02] Speaker 4: data for information that was not for the purpose that
[19:06] Speaker 4: it was originally used, basically designated for, then it violates
[19:11] Speaker 4: the Privacy Act. So yes, you can use it for
[19:14] Speaker 4: Medicaid or Medicare or driver's licenses because the government has
[19:18] Speaker 4: passed statutes that say that, but it never passed the
[19:21] Speaker 4: statute that said that this database could be used for voting.
[19:24] Speaker 4: So that's the privacy issue. Now, in terms of the
[19:27] Speaker 4: accuracy issue, What people say, and there is some truth
[19:31] Speaker 4: to this, is that when you naturalize to become a U.S. citizen,
[19:36] Speaker 4: there's a lag there between the date of the naturalization
[19:40] Speaker 4: of the person and the updating of that database. To
[19:44] Speaker 4: the extent that there are errors in the saved database,
[19:47] Speaker 4: it's there during that little interval. period between when a
[19:51] Speaker 4: person naturalizes and when the database is uploaded or updated
[19:58] Speaker 4: to the extent that the fear is that there would
[20:00] Speaker 4: be a striking of people who could vote who are
[20:04] Speaker 4: now being stricken because the saved database didn't update their
[20:07] Speaker 4: naturalization status.
[20:09] Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has ordered that the voting rights and
[20:13] Speaker 1: privacy advocacy groups that sued have to respond by September 15th.
[20:19] Speaker 1: What do you think the Supreme Court's going to do here?
[20:23] Speaker 4: Well, there's a couple of issues that are very interesting. First,
[20:27] Speaker 4: there's a standing problem, which is that the government is
[20:31] Speaker 4: now raising the issue that if people are saying that
[20:33] Speaker 4: their privacy rights are being violated, that has to be
[20:36] Speaker 4: done by individual plaintiffs, not by organizations. such as the
[20:40] Speaker 4: League of Voters and the Electronic Privacy Coalition. And so
[20:44] Speaker 4: that'll be very interesting to see if the Supreme Court
[20:47] Speaker 4: actually just wants to dismiss this case on standing. But
[20:50] Speaker 4: let's say it doesn't dismiss this case on standing and
[20:54] Speaker 4: it goes through. One of the other arguments is that
[20:58] Speaker 4: the government has basically forfeited these arguments because they've only
[21:02] Speaker 4: raised them now after they've lost. And so this is
[21:06] Speaker 4: not the time to raise them. That would be the
[21:08] Speaker 4: second issue. But then the third issue that's also very
[21:11] Speaker 4: fascinating is that the CASA case, which bans these universal injunctions,
[21:17] Speaker 4: which the court didn't like, would potentially also be in play.
[21:21] Speaker 4: And the issue is, is a universal injunction appropriate here?
[21:27] Speaker 4: Because at the end of the day, maybe it's only
[21:29] Speaker 4: appropriate for specific organizations, etc. And so the idea was
[21:35] Speaker 4: only if you were a member of EPIC or of
[21:39] Speaker 4: the League of Women Voters or something, could you not
[21:42] Speaker 4: have your information used for voting purposes? So the court
[21:47] Speaker 4: has a lot of interesting options here, potentially, but at
[21:50] Speaker 4: the end of the day, what the government wants is
[21:53] Speaker 4: a stay on the district court order so that every
[21:57] Speaker 4: state who wants to use this database can use it
[22:01] Speaker 4: in order to disqualify people from the voting rolls.
[22:05] Speaker 1: Well, you also have this... quiet period before the midterms
[22:10] Speaker 1: and federal prohibition on states making a push to systematically
[22:16] Speaker 1: remove voters from rolls 90 days before an election?
[22:20] Speaker 4: Yeah, there's a National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits states
[22:25] Speaker 4: from doing systematic programs to remove voter rolls. Now, what
[22:31] Speaker 4: the government is saying is this wouldn't be a systematic thing.
[22:34] Speaker 4: This would be individualized removals. based on specific correction of
[22:39] Speaker 4: voter information. And that's like, you know, eye of the beholder,
[22:43] Speaker 4: is the dress blue or is the dress gold? Because,
[22:47] Speaker 4: you know, you need the systematic program access to the
[22:50] Speaker 4: database in order to do the individual removals. So is
[22:55] Speaker 4: this an individual removal case or is it a systematic
[22:59] Speaker 4: program case? And that's going to have to be the
[23:02] Speaker 4: court who's going to have to decide that.
[23:04] Speaker 1: And also having to do with non-citizen voting. And this,
[23:08] Speaker 1: according to Bloomberg sources, Justice Department leaders are pressing prosecutors
[23:13] Speaker 1: across the country to bring up criminal charges for non-citizen
[23:19] Speaker 1: voting before the midterm. So prosecuting immigrants who've unlawfully voted
[23:25] Speaker 1: or attempted to do so. And, you know, there was
[23:28] Speaker 1: a huge unlawful voter initiative where the Department of Homeland
[23:32] Speaker 1: Security is looking for people.
[23:34] Speaker 4: Well, this comes all from the belief that people voted
[23:39] Speaker 4: unlawfully in past elections and that perhaps people who voted
[23:43] Speaker 4: who shouldn't have voted led to results that shouldn't have
[23:46] Speaker 4: occurred we don't know if that happened or not that's
[23:49] Speaker 4: not been convincingly proven in any particular race that a
[23:53] Speaker 4: specific person won or lost because of a number of
[23:56] Speaker 4: people voting without citizenship but as a result of this
[24:01] Speaker 4: the Department of Justice is trying to figure out, it's
[24:03] Speaker 4: not a lot of people that they can find for
[24:06] Speaker 4: actually voting, but can they prosecute people who are registered
[24:11] Speaker 4: to vote under the guise of they've attempted to vote?
[24:16] Speaker 4: And that's complicated because the people who have registered to vote,
[24:20] Speaker 4: many of them are as a result of these motor
[24:23] Speaker 4: voter programs where people go and get a license and
[24:27] Speaker 4: and then unwittingly, unbeknownst to them, they're registered to vote.
[24:31] Speaker 4: And the question is, did that person actually check a
[24:34] Speaker 4: box during that that said that they were a U.S. citizen,
[24:39] Speaker 4: or did the state actually make a mistake? And even
[24:43] Speaker 4: if the person checked the box, would the argument be
[24:47] Speaker 4: that the person had no idea what this box was
[24:50] Speaker 4: they were checking? They were not checking this in order
[24:52] Speaker 4: to get registered to vote, but instead... were checking it
[24:57] Speaker 4: because they just didn't understand the box or anything. All
[25:00] Speaker 4: they thought they were doing that day was getting a
[25:02] Speaker 4: driver's license. They knew they were eligible for a driver's
[25:05] Speaker 4: license because they were here lawfully. They didn't think they
[25:08] Speaker 4: were being asked any question about citizenship or voting, and
[25:12] Speaker 4: they just randomly checked this box because they're checking boxes
[25:16] Speaker 4: in order to get a license. I don't know how
[25:19] Speaker 4: these would go in an individual jury case. We've seen
[25:22] Speaker 4: a lot of cases this month about juries doing things
[25:25] Speaker 4: because they feel it's the right thing to do or
[25:28] Speaker 4: not the right thing to do. But one thing I
[25:31] Speaker 4: do know is that even if these folks are not
[25:34] Speaker 4: criminally prosecuted, they could be placed in deportation proceedings under
[25:39] Speaker 4: the guise of making a false claim to U.S. citizenship.
[25:43] Speaker 4: And there, it wouldn't be a jury who might have sympathy.
[25:45] Speaker 4: There would be an immigration judge. And many immigration judges
[25:49] Speaker 4: today are being told, you have to increase your numbers
[25:52] Speaker 4: of deportations You have to find deportation whenever it's possible.
[25:56] Speaker 4: And in that forum, even if the person isn't criminally prosecuted,
[26:00] Speaker 4: it might make no difference if they end up getting
[26:02] Speaker 4: deported from the United States.
[26:04] Speaker 1: Yeah, and also, I mean, they're doing this before the midterms,
[26:07] Speaker 1: but any case is going to take longer than the midterms.
[26:11] Speaker 1: I don't know why the push is right now to
[26:13] Speaker 1: scare people into not voting if they're non-citizens.
[26:17] Speaker 4: There's definitely a deterrence component to this to say... to
[26:22] Speaker 4: the extent that the government believes that unlawful voting is
[26:26] Speaker 4: a problem, look, we're prosecuting this. We're going to find
[26:29] Speaker 4: that wherever it exists, we're going to root it out.
[26:31] Speaker 4: So don't even think of doing anything within 20 miles
[26:35] Speaker 4: of the radius of unlawful voting. And we'll see if
[26:39] Speaker 4: that actually ends up making any difference or is dispositive
[26:42] Speaker 4: of anything.
[26:42] Speaker 1: And I just want to mention that cases of non-citizen
[26:46] Speaker 1: voting are extremely low. Most recently, though, About 400 non-citizens
[26:54] Speaker 1: voted in New Jersey after a software glitch led to
[26:58] Speaker 1: their improper registration while, as you described before, applying for
[27:03] Speaker 1: a driver's license. State officials said those votes didn't affect
[27:07] Speaker 1: the outcome of any election. Stay with me, Leon. Coming
[27:12] Speaker 1: up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this
[27:14] Speaker 1: conversation with Leon Fresco. The Trump administration is taking a
[27:19] Speaker 1: more aggressive approach to enforcing H-1B visa rules and is
[27:24] Speaker 1: also proposing basically doubling the fees to more than $ 200, 000
[27:30] Speaker 1: for visa applicants. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.
[27:36] Speaker 1: The Trump administration has taken a more aggressive approach to
[27:40] Speaker 1: enforcing H-1B visa rules, and now it's proposing to double
[27:46] Speaker 1: the fees to more than $ 200, 000 for H-1B visa applicants
[27:52] Speaker 1: from abroad in specialty occupations. I've been talking to immigration
[27:56] Speaker 1: law attorney Leon Fresco of Holland & Knight. Leon, tell
[28:00] Speaker 1: us about the plan to double the fees for H-1B
[28:04] Speaker 1: visa applicants.
[28:05] Speaker 4: The history of this, just in case people aren't aware
[28:08] Speaker 4: of it. The history of this is, from the time
[28:11] Speaker 4: the Trump administration started running for this new term, there
[28:16] Speaker 4: was a lot of people within this field that were
[28:18] Speaker 4: saying that the H-1B visa for high-skilled workers was being abused.
[28:22] Speaker 4: It needed to be amended so that people wouldn't use
[28:26] Speaker 4: it to get labor at a lower cost than American workers.
[28:30] Speaker 4: This isn't a skilled program, it's a low-wage program, etc., etc.
[28:34] Speaker 4: So the first move the Trump administration tried to do is,
[28:38] Speaker 4: just like it has travel bans for people from many countries,
[28:41] Speaker 4: it tried using that travel ban statute to say, well,
[28:44] Speaker 4: we're going to have a travel ban, but that ban
[28:47] Speaker 4: is going to be on H-1B visa holders from abroad,
[28:50] Speaker 4: and the only way they can get around that travel
[28:53] Speaker 4: ban is to pay $ 100, 000. Courts have been saying that
[28:58] Speaker 4: that's a tax, that's not a travel ban. And so
[29:02] Speaker 4: the administration is not happy about this and is trying
[29:05] Speaker 4: to figure out another way to accomplish the same objective.
[29:09] Speaker 4: So here's what they're trying to do now. The statutes
[29:13] Speaker 4: say that the Immigration Service is a fee-funded agency. And
[29:18] Speaker 4: To the extent that the immigration service is a fee-funded agency,
[29:22] Speaker 4: they're allowed to put user fees on visa applications to
[29:26] Speaker 4: fund the program. Now, the problem is the regulation that
[29:31] Speaker 4: now they're doing for user fees adds $ 100, 000 more, meaning
[29:37] Speaker 4: anybody who wants an H-1B visa will have to pay $ 100, 000.
[29:40] Speaker 4: $ 100, 000 in order to do this, which will dramatically reduce it. Basically,
[29:44] Speaker 4: the program will not be used anymore. But the problem
[29:47] Speaker 4: is that the agency has said that the fees it's
[29:51] Speaker 4: already collected are sufficient to fund the agency. So what
[29:54] Speaker 4: they're saying is that these fees that they're additionally collecting
[29:58] Speaker 4: will will go to other agencies who already have congressional
[30:03] Speaker 4: appropriations that fund them. And so that's going to be
[30:07] Speaker 4: the argument that the plaintiffs are going to make there
[30:09] Speaker 4: is you can't do that. You can't use user fees
[30:12] Speaker 4: that are meant to fund a specific department that is
[30:15] Speaker 4: relying upon user fees. in order to fund other departments
[30:18] Speaker 4: that rely upon appropriations. That's called an augmentation, which is
[30:23] Speaker 4: illegal in appropriation laws. And the purpose of the fees
[30:27] Speaker 4: is to reimburse USCIS. It's not to supplement their income.
[30:32] Speaker 4: That's in the actual statute itself. And so... It looks
[30:36] Speaker 4: like it will be very difficult for this regulation to
[30:39] Speaker 4: survive judicial scrutiny, but we're going to have to, again,
[30:42] Speaker 4: wait and see. The regulation isn't out yet. It's in
[30:44] Speaker 4: the notice and comment period. It's certainly newsworthy globally. Every
[30:48] Speaker 4: global newspaper is covering this at a much higher extent
[30:52] Speaker 4: currently than the United States. But when this comes out,
[30:55] Speaker 4: it's going to create a global shock. And then the
[30:58] Speaker 4: question will be, will it actually survive the courts or not?
[31:02] Speaker 1: I mean, is this an attempt really to... abolish or
[31:05] Speaker 1: at least devastate the H-1B program?
[31:10] Speaker 4: You've seen contemporaneous tweets by administration officials after this regulation
[31:14] Speaker 4: was announced that undermine the stated purpose of the regulation.
[31:20] Speaker 4: The regulation itself says it's a cost recovery and budget supplementation,
[31:25] Speaker 4: and that's the only reason they're doing this. And then
[31:28] Speaker 4: you see tweets from administration officials saying, don't come here
[31:32] Speaker 4: and work. We have plenty of American workers. Things of
[31:34] Speaker 4: this nature. So yes, if you just use the text
[31:39] Speaker 4: of what administration officials are tweeting, they're saying that the
[31:42] Speaker 4: purpose of this is to take jobs that would have
[31:45] Speaker 4: ordinarily been allocated to the H-1B program and get rid
[31:49] Speaker 4: of them so that hopefully an American would fill that job.
[31:52] Speaker 1: Let me ask you this. I read that there are
[31:53] Speaker 1: about 730,000 visa holders in the U.S. now. Are those
[31:59] Speaker 1: mostly visitor visas?
[32:02] Speaker 4: No, those aren't people on H-1B because what happens is this.
[32:05] Speaker 4: It's a very weird program. There are, every year, 85,000
[32:09] Speaker 4: visas that are allowed to be issued. And so those
[32:13] Speaker 4: are 85,000 new people. And those people are allowed six-year terms.
[32:18] Speaker 4: So if you do 85,000 times six, you get something like,
[32:23] Speaker 4: you know, five, 600,000 visas. Some of these people end
[32:26] Speaker 4: up getting green cards, so they move off the H-1B visa.
[32:30] Speaker 4: But some cannot get green cards because the problem is
[32:33] Speaker 4: that of the 120,000 employment-based green cards that are allowed
[32:38] Speaker 4: each year, only 7% are permitted for any one country.
[32:43] Speaker 4: And the problem is that the majority of H-1B visa
[32:46] Speaker 4: holders are from India... But there's only 9,800 green cards
[32:51] Speaker 4: available per year for India. So those 750,000 people are
[32:57] Speaker 4: trying to squeeze into a funnel of 9,800 per year.
[33:02] Speaker 4: And so that's why that number never goes down is
[33:04] Speaker 4: because H-1Bs happen each year. A bunch of Indian applicants
[33:09] Speaker 4: come in each year and very few actually end up
[33:12] Speaker 4: going processed into the green card funnel. And so it's
[33:16] Speaker 4: a number of people that are in flux. So you're
[33:18] Speaker 4: allowed under statutes passed by Congress to remain on your
[33:22] Speaker 4: H-1B visa forever here while you're waiting in line, unless
[33:28] Speaker 4: and until an employer fires you. And if the employer
[33:31] Speaker 4: fires you, then at the moment you have 60 days
[33:35] Speaker 4: to find a new job, but the administration has a
[33:37] Speaker 4: separate regulation that they're trying to do now that says
[33:40] Speaker 4: you don't have 60 days to find a new job.
[33:42] Speaker 4: You have zero days. So it would make you deportable
[33:45] Speaker 4: immediately if you lose your job, which is intended to
[33:49] Speaker 4: basically create a mass deportation program of the Indian nationals
[33:55] Speaker 4: that are currently here on the H-1B visa.
[33:58] Speaker 1: The... administrations taking a more aggressive approach to enforcing the
[34:02] Speaker 1: H-1B rules. They suspended IT firm Cognizant's ability to file
[34:08] Speaker 1: new applications for the H-1B and PERM programs.
[34:14] Speaker 4: Yes, what happened was this. The Department of Labor has
[34:19] Speaker 4: certain obligations depending on the program, but the PERM one
[34:22] Speaker 4: is the main one, which is when a company wants
[34:25] Speaker 4: to apply for a green card for a foreign worker,
[34:27] Speaker 4: It has to prove that there's not an American worker
[34:30] Speaker 4: who's willing and able to do the job. And it's
[34:34] Speaker 4: another new novel thing that's going to be coming up soon.
[34:38] Speaker 4: But it seems like the Department of Labor has an
[34:41] Speaker 4: interest in trying to figure out the following, which is
[34:45] Speaker 4: that there are clear rules and regulations that a business
[34:48] Speaker 4: has to follow in order to try to find an
[34:50] Speaker 4: American worker. And they're laid out. So it says you
[34:54] Speaker 4: have to put two ads in the Sunday paper. You
[34:57] Speaker 4: have to do an internet post of your company. You
[35:01] Speaker 4: have to put a radio ad. It gives you a
[35:03] Speaker 4: menu of 10 different things. And you have to pick
[35:06] Speaker 4: four out of the 10. And so companies do this.
[35:10] Speaker 4: And then they don't find an American worker. But the
[35:12] Speaker 4: problem is the Department of Labor is saying now under
[35:17] Speaker 4: this new theory that Yeah, but if you do what
[35:21] Speaker 4: the regulation says, fine. But if you're not using what
[35:25] Speaker 4: you normally do when you're actually trying to find an
[35:28] Speaker 4: American worker, then you're still trying to find no American
[35:33] Speaker 4: worker and we view what you're doing as illegal. And
[35:36] Speaker 4: so Cognizant went through a whole trial about discriminating against
[35:42] Speaker 4: American workers and being pro-foreign workers. And that trial, the
[35:47] Speaker 4: guilt phase was huge. decided the penalty phase is still
[35:51] Speaker 4: operating through. So they were the easiest target for this.
[35:55] Speaker 4: But it's going to be very interesting if this starts
[35:58] Speaker 4: to spread to other companies, because all of the biggest
[36:01] Speaker 4: companies in America do green card applications for their workers,
[36:06] Speaker 4: and they use the regulations that the Department of Labor said.
[36:11] Speaker 4: They said, here's what you have to use in order
[36:14] Speaker 4: to prove there's no American worker problem. And so it
[36:17] Speaker 4: will be very interesting if they now are going to
[36:19] Speaker 4: be held to a new standard which says, no, you
[36:21] Speaker 4: have to do these plus whatever else you would normally
[36:24] Speaker 4: do in order to try to find the American worker.
[36:28] Speaker 4: And so that's what we're going to see. And the
[36:30] Speaker 4: most alarming part is that the Secretary of Labor and
[36:33] Speaker 4: President the inspector general both said, we're going to see
[36:37] Speaker 4: handcuffs soon. So to the extent that people are going
[36:40] Speaker 4: to be put in handcuffs, we're going to have to
[36:42] Speaker 4: see if there's actually actual fraud or if there's just
[36:45] Speaker 4: this interpretation problem because handcuffs would certainly be a much
[36:49] Speaker 4: more dramatic issue for a legal interpretation issue than if
[36:53] Speaker 4: there was actual fraud. So we're going to have to
[36:55] Speaker 4: see at some point, they're going to have to release
[36:57] Speaker 4: their cards and say, was there actual fraud at these
[37:00] Speaker 4: companies or was there just this legal interpretation problem?
[37:04] Speaker 1: So they're talking about putting people at the company, executives,
[37:08] Speaker 1: in handcuffs.
[37:09] Speaker 4: Correct.
[37:10] Speaker 3: It's a long shot, I think.
[37:11] Speaker 1: So a lot of companies have settled with the government, right,
[37:15] Speaker 1: over this?
[37:16] Speaker 4: Right. When companies are usually accused of favoring foreign workers
[37:20] Speaker 4: over U.S. workers, usually the Department of Justice, it's called
[37:24] Speaker 4: the Employee and Immigrant Rights Section, they make a complaint
[37:28] Speaker 4: and people try to fight it and say, no, I
[37:30] Speaker 4: wasn't doing that. but to the extent that the evidence
[37:33] Speaker 4: doesn't show that that's correct, then usually the companies will
[37:37] Speaker 4: settle for a fine or back pay or something like that.
[37:41] Speaker 4: So to the extent that it becomes a criminal matter,
[37:43] Speaker 4: that really is an escalation that is not the usual
[37:47] Speaker 4: in these cases.
[37:49] Speaker 1: Leon, let's turn to temporary protected status for a moment
[37:52] Speaker 1: because TPS for Salvadorans was set to expire today, but
[37:58] Speaker 1: the Department of Homeland Security hasn't announced yet whether it
[38:02] Speaker 1: will end or extend TPS for some 170,000 Salvadorans.
[38:09] Speaker 4: This is a fascinating case because unlike all of the
[38:13] Speaker 4: other countries that we've talked about in the past where
[38:15] Speaker 4: there's temporary protected status, where the administration issued these documents
[38:20] Speaker 4: saying there's no more temporary protected status because the conditions
[38:24] Speaker 4: are fine in Haiti and or in Syria or Venezuela
[38:29] Speaker 4: or wherever else. There was no such document in the
[38:32] Speaker 4: El Salvador case. The administration is completely silent about El Salvador.
[38:37] Speaker 4: And there may be some interesting reasons for that. For instance,
[38:40] Speaker 4: here in D.C., this is the largest population of Salvadoran nationals,
[38:45] Speaker 4: and a lot of them are nannies and workers that
[38:49] Speaker 4: work for people in the government. And so... That's one
[38:52] Speaker 4: issue that's interesting. The other one is we have a
[38:55] Speaker 4: very strong relationship with the president of El Salvador, who
[38:58] Speaker 4: may not be so comfortable with having to bring back
[39:01] Speaker 4: 300,000 people at one foul swoop. And so what this
[39:06] Speaker 4: administration did is they didn't actually cancel the temporary protected status.
[39:12] Speaker 4: They just didn't reauthorize it. And so what the statute
[39:16] Speaker 4: says is when that happens, six more months, it's like
[39:19] Speaker 4: Groundhog Day. The groundhog doesn't show six more months of
[39:24] Speaker 4: winter or whatever. It's the same thing for temporary protected status.
[39:28] Speaker 4: If you don't do anything, it ought extends for six months.
[39:31] Speaker 4: And that has happened in the past. But the administration
[39:35] Speaker 4: weirdly is saying that it's expired. So it's putting on
[39:39] Speaker 4: the website that it's expired as of today. People can't
[39:42] Speaker 4: legally work today. But it knows that the law is
[39:47] Speaker 4: that when you don't actually do the notice you're supposed
[39:49] Speaker 4: to do, that extends it automatically by six months. There
[39:54] Speaker 4: are going to be lawsuits about this that say, hey,
[39:56] Speaker 4: give people work permits for six more months because they
[39:59] Speaker 4: didn't do this. Is the administration going to say, look,
[40:02] Speaker 4: these are the kinds of things that are foreclosed by
[40:06] Speaker 4: the Mullen versus Doe case, which says you can't challenge
[40:09] Speaker 4: an extermination of TPS because Or will the court say, yeah,
[40:13] Speaker 4: but you didn't do that. Nobody's challenging an extermination of TPS.
[40:17] Speaker 4: They're challenging that the statute says there are six months
[40:21] Speaker 4: and you didn't do anything about this. So if you
[40:24] Speaker 4: wanted to terminate TPS, you could have, but you didn't
[40:27] Speaker 4: do it. So you don't get to say it's over
[40:30] Speaker 4: by doing nothing. And so that's going to be a
[40:32] Speaker 4: very interesting challenge. And I think perhaps the way this
[40:36] Speaker 4: is rolled out, it seems like it's rolled out in
[40:38] Speaker 4: a manner where the administration wouldn't mind losing. And so
[40:42] Speaker 4: this is why it's rolled out. So they can keep TPS,
[40:46] Speaker 4: the people can keep their nannies and their workers and
[40:49] Speaker 4: everything else, but it wasn't done in a way where
[40:52] Speaker 4: the government acquiesced to it. This is the only explanation
[40:56] Speaker 4: for this, because otherwise there would have been a termination
[40:59] Speaker 4: letter that was issued that explained why El Salvador was
[41:03] Speaker 4: ending TPS. So we'll have to wait and see. But
[41:06] Speaker 4: it's a fascinating dynamic for all of those different reasons.
[41:09] Speaker 1: I mean, El Salvador, conditions there have changed for the
[41:13] Speaker 1: better in the last.
[41:14] Speaker 4: Yes, correct. They have very little crime there. Everything is
[41:17] Speaker 4: stable there. And so it does seem like the kind
[41:21] Speaker 4: of country where you would terminate TPS based on... If
[41:24] Speaker 4: you're terminating TPS for Haiti, then no one would ever
[41:28] Speaker 4: say that the conditions in El Salvador are worse than
[41:31] Speaker 4: the conditions in Haiti... But this is, I think, what's
[41:35] Speaker 4: happening here.
[41:36] Speaker 1: Politics involved in immigration, of course. Thanks so much, Leon,
[41:40] Speaker 1: as always. That's Leon Fresco of Holland & Knight. And
[41:42] Speaker 1: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember,
[41:45] Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
[41:48] Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[41:52] Speaker 1: and at www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to
[41:58] Speaker 1: tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m.
[42:01] Speaker 1: Wall Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.

Shows are listed from Apple Podcasts' charts and directory, and Podcast Index where it is used. Every show and episode belongs to its publisher and plays from the publisher's own feed; this site hosts none of them.