# Weekend Law: Trump's $1.8B Fund, Luigi Mangione Evidence & ICE Barred

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 22 May 2026, 38 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/de12be9a-570c-4dd6-ba88-b45201717683/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Bloomberg’s June Grasso speaks to Professor David Super of Georgetown Law, former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz of McCarter & English and immigration attorney Leon Fresco of Holland & Knight, about the top legal stories of the week. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

## Transcript

[0:02] Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
[0:08] Speaker 2: Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his
[0:13] Speaker 2: own government for ten billion dollars and then directed the
[0:16] Speaker 2: settlement of the case and the establishment of a payout fund?
[0:20] Speaker 3: Not that I'm aware, But there's a lot of things
[0:22] Speaker 3: that President Trump's the first of.
[0:23] Speaker 4: Under questioning by Democratic Senator Chris Coons, this week, acting
[0:28] Speaker 4: Attorney General Todd Blanche had to admit it was another
[0:32] Speaker 4: unprecedented action by President Trump and the Justice Department, the
[0:37] Speaker 4: creation of a one point eight billion dollar fund to
[0:40] Speaker 4: pay victims of so called government weaponization as part of
[0:45] Speaker 4: a settlement to en Trump's thirty billion dollar lawsuit against
[0:48] Speaker 4: the IRS, a settlement that was not approved by a judge,
[0:53] Speaker 4: And in response to questions from Democratic Senator Chris Van Holland,
[0:58] Speaker 4: Blanche wouldn't rule out that rioters who attacked police at
[1:02] Speaker 4: the Capitol on January sixth of twenty twenty one could
[1:06] Speaker 4: receive payouts from the fund.
[1:08] Speaker 3: Well, individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be eligible
[1:12] Speaker 3: for this.
[1:12] Speaker 1: Fund well, as it makes plain. Just let me know
[1:17] Speaker 1: if they're eligible for the funds. As was made plained yesterday.
[1:21] Speaker 1: Anybody in this country is eligible to apply.
[1:25] Speaker 4: That was the piece of the deal that seemed to
[1:27] Speaker 4: ignite resistance from several Senate Republicans like Tom Tillis.
[1:31] Speaker 2: And I think it's irresponsible since the signal, hey, go
[1:35] Speaker 2: breach the capital, destroy the building, assault police officers.
[1:38] Speaker 1: You may even get compensated for someday.
[1:40] Speaker 4: That's absurd, and so Senate Republicans abandoned plans to pass
[1:45] Speaker 4: a partisan seventy two billion dollar immigration enforcement package before
[1:50] Speaker 4: leaving Washington for a week long Memorial Day break. My
[1:54] Speaker 4: guest is constitutional law professor David Souper of Georgetown Law.
[1:58] Speaker 5: David, starting with the lawsuit, let alone the settlement.
[2:01] Speaker 4: Have you ever seen a lawsuit like this, a sitting
[2:04] Speaker 4: president suing part of his government for monetary damages.
[2:09] Speaker 6: No, there hasn't, and there have been some pretty compelling
[2:13] Speaker 6: cases where you might imagine that happening. You can imagine
[2:16] Speaker 6: President Reagan suing for the Secret Service failure to protect
[2:20] Speaker 6: him from John Hinckley. You could imagine some president suing
[2:24] Speaker 6: for terrible medical care that they receive the estate of
[2:27] Speaker 6: President Garfield. Perhaps, but this is an example of norms collapsing.
[2:34] Speaker 6: Every president previously, even ones who allowed much more independence
[2:39] Speaker 6: of the Justice Department than President Trump does, understood that
[2:44] Speaker 6: it would be grossly inappropriate for them to sue a
[2:48] Speaker 6: Justice department that reported to them.
[2:50] Speaker 4: So basically, the same person is controlling both sides of
[2:54] Speaker 4: the lawsuit. The plaintiff and the defendant are Donald Trump.
[2:59] Speaker 6: Yes, this is textbook example of collusive litigation, when there's
[3:03] Speaker 6: no adversity, when no claims a fact or law are
[3:08] Speaker 6: checked by anybody with a contrary interest, where they're all
[3:13] Speaker 6: agreeing together. It's a settlement agreement between Donald Trump's private
[3:18] Speaker 6: lawyers and Donald Trump's Justice Department lawyers. And the Supreme
[3:22] Speaker 6: Court has said that you cannot invoke the power of
[3:25] Speaker 6: the federal courts on a collusive case. The federal courts
[3:28] Speaker 6: are only there to resolve genuinely adverse controversies, which this
[3:33] Speaker 6: is not.
[3:34] Speaker 4: And this was settled before they were scheduled to go
[3:37] Speaker 4: to court to explain to a judge how their lawsuit
[3:41] Speaker 4: presented a case or controversy.
[3:44] Speaker 6: Yeah, they're really trying to have it both ways. They
[3:47] Speaker 6: settled it in a big hurry to avoid having to
[3:51] Speaker 6: explain to the courts why this could be a case
[3:55] Speaker 6: because they can't, so they make the case go away
[3:58] Speaker 6: before the judge can dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.
[4:02] Speaker 6: But they use the fact that this case was here
[4:05] Speaker 6: as a justification for this settlement, which provides a slush
[4:10] Speaker 6: fund for whomever President Trump wants to serve.
[4:14] Speaker 4: The Justice Department has already been approving seven figure payouts
[4:19] Speaker 4: from the judgment fund for some Trump allies who claim
[4:23] Speaker 4: they were wrongfully investigated or prosecuted during the Biden administration.
[4:28] Speaker 4: For example, one point two five million to former Trump
[4:32] Speaker 4: National security advisor Michael Flynn. So that's already going on.
[4:36] Speaker 4: How is this fund different?
[4:38] Speaker 6: This is different because it isn't paying damages. I would
[4:44] Speaker 6: be terribly offended if President Trump ordered the fund to
[4:47] Speaker 6: pay him some large sum of money. That would be
[4:51] Speaker 6: another example of abuse of the fund inclusive litigation. But
[4:55] Speaker 6: this goes much farther. This is basically taking away the
[4:59] Speaker 6: power the purse from Congress. It is creating a whole
[5:03] Speaker 6: new program that Congress never authorized, that Congress never appropriated
[5:08] Speaker 6: a dime for, and creating it entirely within the executive
[5:13] Speaker 6: branch to spend tax dollars.
[5:16] Speaker 4: They're saying that there is going to be a committee,
[5:18] Speaker 4: but the president can fire anyone he wants on the committee.
[5:22] Speaker 4: I mean, are there any safeguards in place?
[5:25] Speaker 6: Absolutely none. This is at one hundred percent slush fund.
[5:28] Speaker 6: The President or the Attorney General will appoint, without Senate confirmation,
[5:33] Speaker 6: all five members of this committee. If any of them
[5:36] Speaker 6: do anything the President doesn't like, he can fire them
[5:39] Speaker 6: and replace them with whomever he wants. So the committee
[5:43] Speaker 6: is completely subservient to the president on both a macrell
[5:47] Speaker 6: and a micro level. So this is allowing the president
[5:52] Speaker 6: to distribute one point seven seven six billion dollars to
[5:57] Speaker 6: whomever he wants based on whatever they want. These are
[6:01] Speaker 6: people who have no evidence that they were innocent, have
[6:06] Speaker 6: no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. None of that's required here.
[6:10] Speaker 6: We're simply paying them because they are on Team Trump.
[6:13] Speaker 4: Tell us the reasons why you think this settlement is unlawful.
[6:18] Speaker 6: Article one of our Constitutions says that no money shall
[6:21] Speaker 6: be drawn from the Treasury except where Congress has enacted
[6:26] Speaker 6: and appropriation, and the Anti Deficiency Act, which goes back
[6:30] Speaker 6: over one hundred years, gives teeth to that and makes
[6:34] Speaker 6: it a federal crime with two years in prison if
[6:37] Speaker 6: you distribute federal funds without a valid appropriation. This is
[6:44] Speaker 6: an attempt to circumvent that. They're claiming they can use
[6:47] Speaker 6: the Judgment Fund, which is an appropriation, but it's four
[6:52] Speaker 6: settlements arrived at in accordance with law, and one provision
[6:57] Speaker 6: of federal law says you cannot obtain the juri station
[7:00] Speaker 6: of the federal courts collusively. Another provision of federal law
[7:04] Speaker 6: says that federal lawyers have to follow the same ethical
[7:07] Speaker 6: rules that apply in their states, and those rules prohibit
[7:13] Speaker 6: collusive litigation. So the very fact that this case is
[7:16] Speaker 6: Donald Trump versus Donald Trump means that it is not
[7:20] Speaker 6: eligible to be settled under the Judgment Fund.
[7:23] Speaker 4: On Wednesday, two Capital Police officers, Harry Dunn and Daniel Hodges,
[7:29] Speaker 4: who responded to the riots on January sixth, suit to
[7:33] Speaker 4: block the creation of this fund. Although Doune admits that
[7:36] Speaker 4: it will be challenging.
[7:38] Speaker 7: They are potentially going to be paying insurrectionists or people
[7:41] Speaker 7: who have participated in insurrection, which is clearly a violation
[7:46] Speaker 7: to the Constitution. So we do understand that it might
[7:50] Speaker 7: be an uphill fight, but we do believe there's validity
[7:52] Speaker 7: in it.
[7:53] Speaker 4: Their first challenge will be proving that they have standing
[7:56] Speaker 4: to bring the lawsuit explain the standing issues.
[8:00] Speaker 6: I don't think there's a serious question that the fund
[8:04] Speaker 6: is illegal, but the Supreme Court has said just because
[8:08] Speaker 6: something is illegal or even unconstitutional, you don't get to
[8:11] Speaker 6: go into court to challenge it. The Supreme Court requires
[8:15] Speaker 6: what they call injury. In fact, you have to show
[8:19] Speaker 6: that you are harmed in a way other than a
[8:22] Speaker 6: person who cares about the Constitution. And the police officers
[8:27] Speaker 6: are saying that this money is being made available to
[8:31] Speaker 6: the people who assaulted them before and who are actively
[8:36] Speaker 6: threatening them, and who could well assault them again in
[8:42] Speaker 6: the same way, and so that this is encouraging and
[8:46] Speaker 6: arguably even subsidizing violent behavior against them, which gives them
[8:51] Speaker 6: standing to challenge it.
[8:53] Speaker 4: That sounds really speculative. Do you think the suit will
[8:57] Speaker 4: get past a motion to dismiss I.
[8:59] Speaker 6: Think the Supreme Court has been cutting way back on
[9:03] Speaker 6: standing and it's hard for me to see them deviating
[9:08] Speaker 6: from that course in a case that would embarrass the president.
[9:12] Speaker 6: But I think this is better than a lot of
[9:16] Speaker 6: far fetched standing cases because they're not saying something bad
[9:22] Speaker 6: happened to us in the past, and so we want
[9:25] Speaker 6: to litigate the future. They're saying that both the beneficiaries
[9:30] Speaker 6: of these funds and the administration that's handing them out
[9:33] Speaker 6: are saying that the assault on the police officers was okay.
[9:38] Speaker 6: These people have been pardon The President has repeatedly said
[9:41] Speaker 6: they were treated very badly for being prosecuted in this manner.
[9:45] Speaker 6: And so I think the police officers can make an
[9:49] Speaker 6: argument of an ongoing abuse better than most people do.
[9:54] Speaker 4: And it looks like the lawsuits will keep coming. On
[9:57] Speaker 4: Friday at January sixth, prosecutor who was fired by former
[10:02] Speaker 4: Attorney General Pam Bondi and a law professor who was
[10:05] Speaker 4: acquitted in a federal criminal case brought by this Justice
[10:09] Speaker 4: Department also sued to block the fund. How about a
[10:13] Speaker 4: suit by taxpayers?
[10:15] Speaker 6: The Supreme Court could entertain a lawsuit that this is unconstitutional.
[10:20] Speaker 6: The Supreme Court held many years ago that the only
[10:23] Speaker 6: way to enforce the establishment clause that prohibits government from
[10:27] Speaker 6: funding religion is to allow individual taxpayers to sue that
[10:32] Speaker 6: their moneys are being inappropriately spent. They could say absolutely
[10:36] Speaker 6: the same thing about the appropriation's clause. But given how
[10:39] Speaker 6: cooperative this Supreme Court has been with the President, I
[10:43] Speaker 6: don't see that very likely.
[10:44] Speaker 4: Many say that Todd blanche is trying his best to
[10:48] Speaker 4: be the attorney general that Trump wants. He indicted former
[10:52] Speaker 4: FBI director James Comy and the Southern Poverty Law Center
[10:56] Speaker 4: on flimsy charges. This week alone. He indicted former Cuban
[11:00] Speaker 4: President Raoul Castro in what appears to be a show indictment.
[11:04] Speaker 4: And then you have this unprecedented fund.
[11:07] Speaker 6: They have been for some time taking advantage of the
[11:12] Speaker 6: Supreme Court's restrictions on access to federal court to do
[11:16] Speaker 6: things that are not legally defensible, but where they won't
[11:19] Speaker 6: be forced to defend themselves in court because the Supreme
[11:22] Speaker 6: Court disallows the challenges. So the notion of doing something
[11:27] Speaker 6: that's unlawful but unlitigable is actually old news for these people.
[11:33] Speaker 6: They didn't put together something that's legal here. They actually
[11:37] Speaker 6: misdrafted the papers. So this isn't really eligible for payment
[11:41] Speaker 6: from the judgment fund because the amount that is specified
[11:45] Speaker 6: in the press release is not in the settlement papers.
[11:49] Speaker 6: So you can't say that they have to draw one
[11:52] Speaker 6: point seven seven to six billion from the judgment fund
[11:56] Speaker 6: to settle the case, because on the terms they settle
[11:59] Speaker 6: it for or one dollar would suffice everything above. That
[12:03] Speaker 6: is Todd Blanche giving a gift to his boss, probably
[12:07] Speaker 6: in the hopes of getting the word acting knocked off
[12:09] Speaker 6: of his title.
[12:10] Speaker 4: Oh, he's a pleasure, Thanks David. That's Professor David super
[12:14] Speaker 4: of Georgetown Law. You're listening to Bloomberg. It was a
[12:18] Speaker 4: critical motion on the evidence that the prosecution will be
[12:22] Speaker 4: able to use at Luigi Mangioni's trial for the killing
[12:25] Speaker 4: of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
[12:29] Speaker 8: So as to the map issues, I find that the
[12:32] Speaker 8: search of the backpack at the McDonald's was improper warrantless search,
[12:38] Speaker 8: that the backpack was not within the mediate control or
[12:42] Speaker 8: gravable area of the defendant, and further, the people failed
[12:46] Speaker 8: to demonstrate exeggen circumstances. Therefore, those items found in the
[12:51] Speaker 8: backpack during the search at the McDonald's will be suppressed.
[12:56] Speaker 4: The defense one in part when Judge Gregory Caro excluded
[13:00] Speaker 4: from evidence the items police found when they were searching
[13:03] Speaker 4: Mangioni's backpack before arresting him at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania.
[13:09] Speaker 4: A loaded handgun, magazine, a cell phone, a passport, a wallet,
[13:13] Speaker 4: and a computer. Chip, but there was a big However, however.
[13:18] Speaker 8: The people have established that the subsequent search of the
[13:21] Speaker 8: backpack at the station was a valid inventory search, and
[13:25] Speaker 8: therefore the items recovered at the station.
[13:29] Speaker 4: Will not be suppressed, and those items that can be
[13:33] Speaker 4: introduced into evidence are crucial to the prosecution's case, including
[13:38] Speaker 4: the alleged murder weapon, a nine millimeter handgun, and a
[13:42] Speaker 4: notebook that describes wanting to quote whack. A health insurance executive.
[13:48] Speaker 4: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a PARTNERM Carter.
[13:52] Speaker 4: In English, Bob, give us the background for this motion. Bob,
[13:56] Speaker 4: give us the background here.
[13:58] Speaker 3: To set the stage here, Police police responded to a
[14:01] Speaker 3: McDonald's in Altuna, Pennsylvania, after receiving a call about a
[14:06] Speaker 3: suspicious person who looked like the alleged shooter of United
[14:12] Speaker 3: Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Local police showed up and began
[14:17] Speaker 3: questioning mister Mangioni and later searched his backpack.
[14:21] Speaker 1: The focus of.
[14:22] Speaker 3: The hearing was whether or not the evidence discovered by
[14:27] Speaker 3: local police in the search of the backpack would be
[14:30] Speaker 3: admissible at trial.
[14:32] Speaker 4: And the defense claimed that the police needed a warrant
[14:36] Speaker 4: before they could search.
[14:37] Speaker 3: Yeah, So this is really interesting because it was a
[14:40] Speaker 3: critical hearing for the defense. Should the defense succeed here
[14:45] Speaker 3: and should the court have ruled that the evidence that
[14:48] Speaker 3: was later found in Luigi Mangiono's backpack would be excluded
[14:52] Speaker 3: a trial, it would have been a huge setback for prosecutors.
[14:55] Speaker 3: There was an enormous amount at stake here for both sides.
[14:59] Speaker 3: The defense argued in a days long hearing last December
[15:03] Speaker 3: that the evidence in the backpack should be thrown out
[15:06] Speaker 3: because police searched the backpack without a warrant. They said
[15:10] Speaker 3: that basically police did not follow proper protocol, that he
[15:14] Speaker 3: posed no threat to them at the time, and that
[15:16] Speaker 3: there was no basis to search the backpack. And the
[15:19] Speaker 3: fact is that a warrant was not obtained for the
[15:22] Speaker 3: search of that backpack until seven hours after mister Mangioni was.
[15:26] Speaker 5: In custody and tell us about the judge's ruling.
[15:29] Speaker 3: So the judge ultimately issued a mixed ruling which was
[15:33] Speaker 3: largely a victory for prosecutors but also gave some small
[15:38] Speaker 3: victory to the defense. The judge ruled that prosecutors could
[15:42] Speaker 3: use certain evidence that was seized at an.
[15:45] Speaker 1: Inventory search later at.
[15:47] Speaker 3: The police station, but could not allow evidence that they
[15:51] Speaker 3: seized during a search at the McDonald's. Basically, the judge
[15:55] Speaker 3: decided that the search at the McDonald's that was conducted
[15:59] Speaker 3: while they were sing mister Mangoni was an illegal, improper
[16:03] Speaker 3: warrantless search. The prosecution tried to argue that local police
[16:08] Speaker 3: searched the backpack at the McDonald's for public safety reasons,
[16:12] Speaker 3: but the judge did not accept that, saying that the
[16:14] Speaker 3: backpack had been moved out of mister Mangoni's reach and
[16:18] Speaker 3: no longer posed any public health or safety issue.
[16:22] Speaker 1: And therefore that search was not permitted.
[16:25] Speaker 3: There was a subsequent search after mister Mangoni was arrested
[16:29] Speaker 3: and brought to the police station. That was an inventory search,
[16:32] Speaker 3: in other words, a search that was done in connection
[16:35] Speaker 3: with going through the belongings of somebody who was then
[16:39] Speaker 3: under arrest. An items seized during that inventory search, the
[16:43] Speaker 3: judge said, would be permitted to be used by prosecutors
[16:47] Speaker 3: at the trial.
[16:48] Speaker 4: Why did it take police seven hours to get a
[16:51] Speaker 4: search warrant? They'd arrested him and concluded that he was
[16:54] Speaker 4: the suspect wanted in the shooting at the McDonald's well.
[16:59] Speaker 3: Once they arrested him, and they certainly could have obtained
[17:02] Speaker 3: a warrant based upon evidence that they had. Mister Mangoni
[17:06] Speaker 3: had presented a false identification and there was other evidence
[17:09] Speaker 3: that tied him to the crime, and prosecutors could have
[17:12] Speaker 3: gotten a warrant, but waited and instead local police searched
[17:18] Speaker 3: the backpack in connection with his inventory and the judge
[17:21] Speaker 3: allowed it in. That would have been a major blow
[17:24] Speaker 3: to the prosecution if that evidence was excluded, but in
[17:28] Speaker 3: this case, the judge excluded, for example, a loaded magazine,
[17:32] Speaker 3: a passport, a wallet, a cell phone, and a computer chip.
[17:36] Speaker 3: All of those items were taken from mister Mangoni's backpack
[17:40] Speaker 3: at the McDonald's. But the big victory here for prosecutors
[17:44] Speaker 3: was at the subsequent search back at the police station.
[17:47] Speaker 3: They found a gun allegedly the weapon used to shoot
[17:52] Speaker 3: the victim here, and also a notebook that contained, according
[17:56] Speaker 3: to prosecutors, mister Mangon's manifesto. This is where he has
[18:00] Speaker 3: writings where he goes on about national health care and
[18:04] Speaker 3: about how insurance companies are doing damage to people by
[18:08] Speaker 3: delaying and denying them coverage. This is really the critical
[18:12] Speaker 3: piece of evidence because it goes to his intent, it
[18:15] Speaker 3: goes to a state of mind. And there's no question
[18:17] Speaker 3: the prosecutors will be relying largely on that notebook and
[18:22] Speaker 3: on what they will allege is the murder weapon itself
[18:25] Speaker 3: when this case goes to trial.
[18:26] Speaker 4: Why do you think the federal judge, who look at
[18:29] Speaker 4: the same circumstances, decide to let everything in.
[18:32] Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good question.
[18:33] Speaker 3: The federal judge allowed everything in. As you said, there
[18:36] Speaker 3: was nothing that was suppressed by the federal judge in
[18:38] Speaker 3: the second trial. But the State Cork judge here, I
[18:41] Speaker 3: think was somewhat troubled by what went on at the McDonald's,
[18:46] Speaker 3: and I think here, when you look at the decision
[18:48] Speaker 3: by the State Cork judge, he put great weight on
[18:51] Speaker 3: the fact that the police officers began to search through
[18:55] Speaker 3: the backpack and when they found the gun magazine, they
[18:58] Speaker 3: immediately stopped. We also found the notebook, but allegedly did
[19:02] Speaker 3: not look in to see what the writings were. But
[19:04] Speaker 3: they stopped searching at that point, and the court seemed
[19:07] Speaker 3: to give certain way to the fact that they held
[19:10] Speaker 3: off searching at that point and then did not continue
[19:12] Speaker 3: to search until mister Mangoni was in custody back at
[19:16] Speaker 3: the police station, and then the search was done in
[19:18] Speaker 3: an inventory search, not at a search incident to arrest
[19:22] Speaker 3: at the McDonald's.
[19:24] Speaker 4: So defense attorneys often, I don't know always, but very
[19:29] Speaker 4: often make motions to have evidence suppressed. Have you ever
[19:32] Speaker 4: seen a case where the judge was, I don't know,
[19:35] Speaker 4: gutsy enough to throw out all the evidence from a
[19:38] Speaker 4: tainted search.
[19:39] Speaker 5: I mean, it.
[19:40] Speaker 4: Seems like these are just uphill battles, no matter what
[19:43] Speaker 4: the facts are.
[19:44] Speaker 1: Well, they are uphill battles.
[19:45] Speaker 3: And you're absolutely right that this is the type of
[19:48] Speaker 3: motion that is made.
[19:50] Speaker 1: In every criminal case.
[19:51] Speaker 3: Whenever there is a search, whether it's done by search
[19:54] Speaker 3: warrant or a search incident to arrest, and evidence is
[19:57] Speaker 3: obtained as.
[19:58] Speaker 1: A result of that search that critical to.
[20:00] Speaker 3: The prosecution, the first thing defense lawyers are going to
[20:03] Speaker 3: do is to try to suppress that evidence, because if
[20:06] Speaker 3: that evidence doesn't come in at trial in certain cases,
[20:10] Speaker 3: it can be very difficult for prosecutors to make their case.
[20:14] Speaker 3: This case, given all the notoriety and the publicity surrounding it,
[20:18] Speaker 3: put enormous weight on the court in making a decision,
[20:21] Speaker 3: because a judge would he put in a difficult circumstance
[20:25] Speaker 3: if they rule to suppress key evidence in a case
[20:28] Speaker 3: like this where there's so much publicity. But in this
[20:30] Speaker 3: case the stake where judge certainly spent a long time.
[20:33] Speaker 3: There was extensive hearing, there were days of testimony. They
[20:36] Speaker 3: judged that through hours and hours of bodycam video footage
[20:40] Speaker 3: and her testimony from many law enforcement officers on the
[20:44] Speaker 3: scene at the time of the arrest. So they judge
[20:46] Speaker 3: spent a considerable amount of time considering this, and then
[20:48] Speaker 3: it took him months to finally render a decision on this.
[20:52] Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, while he gave.
[20:54] Speaker 3: Some small victory to the defense, he did largely rule
[20:58] Speaker 3: in favor of the prosecution.
[20:59] Speaker 1: And if you're the prosecutor.
[21:01] Speaker 3: And you have the alleged murder weapon and you have
[21:03] Speaker 3: the NOPA containing the alleged manifesto, you're feeling pretty good
[21:07] Speaker 3: about your chances of conviction at the end of a trial.
[21:10] Speaker 4: Let's talk about the statements Mangioni made to police at
[21:13] Speaker 4: the McDonald's that the defense wanted suppressed, and Judge Carol
[21:18] Speaker 4: also pars those down to the minute, using the officer's
[21:22] Speaker 4: bodycam footage.
[21:23] Speaker 8: As Miranda warnings were not given until some seconds after.
[21:28] Speaker 9: Nine forty eight in the morning.
[21:30] Speaker 8: Those statements made shortly before that in response to improper
[21:35] Speaker 8: custodial questions that were not merely a request for pedigree
[21:40] Speaker 8: information will be suppressed.
[21:43] Speaker 5: Explain his decision, Bob.
[21:45] Speaker 3: After hearing extensive testimony from law enforcement about the circumstances
[21:50] Speaker 3: surrounding the arrest and the context in which those statements
[21:54] Speaker 3: were made. In other words, were they made before or
[21:56] Speaker 3: after the witness was given as Miranda warnings before after
[22:00] Speaker 3: the witness was in custody, and the court ultimately decided
[22:03] Speaker 3: that statements made by mister Mangioni at the McDonald's before
[22:07] Speaker 3: he was actually in custody were going to be allowed.
[22:11] Speaker 3: But he did find that once he decided to no
[22:14] Speaker 3: longer talk with law enforcement, that law enforcement should have
[22:18] Speaker 3: stopped questioning him, and statements he made in response to
[22:21] Speaker 3: that questioning.
[22:22] Speaker 1: After he was in custody will not be primitted at
[22:24] Speaker 1: the trial.
[22:25] Speaker 4: Some of the statements that will be suppressed include an
[22:28] Speaker 4: officer asking Mangioni why he had lied about his name
[22:32] Speaker 4: and whether he had a fake ID. The defense so
[22:35] Speaker 4: far has focused, at least in court on the suppression
[22:39] Speaker 4: of evidence. We don't know what kind of defense they'll
[22:42] Speaker 4: mount at trial, but do you think that dury nullification
[22:46] Speaker 4: will be part of it.
[22:48] Speaker 3: Well, there's a huge difference between being a prosecutor and
[22:51] Speaker 3: being a defense lawyer. Prosecutors have the burden of proof.
[22:55] Speaker 3: It's beyond a reasonable doubt. It's the highest standard in
[22:57] Speaker 3: our legal system, and so there our job is to
[23:01] Speaker 3: present overwhelming evidence that the defendant is guilty. The defense,
[23:05] Speaker 3: on the other hand, doesn't have to present anything. They
[23:08] Speaker 3: don't have to present any witnesses. They have no burden
[23:10] Speaker 3: of proof whatsoever. And so what they will typically do
[23:14] Speaker 3: is not necessarily present a counter narrative, in other words,
[23:18] Speaker 3: a different version of events, but they will try to
[23:22] Speaker 3: poke holes in the government's case. And so what they'll
[23:24] Speaker 3: do is they'll see the way the case goes into trial,
[23:27] Speaker 3: They'll cross examine the government's witnesses, and if they can
[23:30] Speaker 3: find any area where the government may have a weakness,
[23:33] Speaker 3: they try to exploit that and ultimately argue to the
[23:37] Speaker 3: jury that there's reasonable doubt here that the government has
[23:40] Speaker 3: not met its burden. So I suspect what will happen
[23:43] Speaker 3: here is that the defense will be largely based on
[23:47] Speaker 3: the government's not meeting its burden of proof. But at
[23:50] Speaker 3: the same time, I think we can certainly expect the
[23:53] Speaker 3: undercurrents of a jury nullification argument, and that is basically
[23:57] Speaker 3: arguing to jurors that even if the defendant committed the crime,
[24:02] Speaker 3: you shouldn't convict him for some other reason. It's not
[24:06] Speaker 3: a legal defense, it's more of an emotional reaction by jurors.
[24:11] Speaker 3: And this case has already generated a ground spoil of
[24:14] Speaker 3: support for Luigi Mangioni, which is surprising because of the
[24:18] Speaker 3: position he allegedly took with regard to healthcare in this country,
[24:23] Speaker 3: and specifically with regard to health insurers. So I think
[24:26] Speaker 3: you can expect to see the defense play that card
[24:29] Speaker 3: and play that up at trial in the hopes that
[24:32] Speaker 3: at least one member of the jury may be sympathetic
[24:36] Speaker 3: to him and to his cause and to be willing
[24:39] Speaker 3: to overlook some of the evidence that prosecutors have at trial,
[24:43] Speaker 3: and if they can get even one juror to agree
[24:45] Speaker 3: with them, lay will at least get a mistrial and
[24:48] Speaker 3: prosecutors will have to try the case all over again.
[24:51] Speaker 4: His trial is set to begin on September eighth, thanks
[24:54] Speaker 4: so much, Bob, that's Robert Mens of McCarter and English.
[25:00] Speaker 4: For decades, ICE refrained from making civil arrests at immigration courthouses,
[25:06] Speaker 4: but that changed in May of twenty twenty five, when
[25:09] Speaker 4: ICE issued a new policy that allowed agents to arrest
[25:12] Speaker 4: non citizens as they were appearing for scheduled hearings. The
[25:16] Speaker 4: policy led to protests and some ugly scenes at immigration
[25:21] Speaker 4: courts in Manhattan, like the handcuffing and arrest of New
[25:24] Speaker 4: York City comptroll Or Brad Lander in the hallway outside
[25:28] Speaker 4: a courtroom as he was trying to escort a migrant
[25:31] Speaker 4: whose case had just been dismissed last November.
[25:40] Speaker 10: Arrest citizens, Sir, you don't have the authority to arrest
[25:44] Speaker 10: whos citizens.
[25:47] Speaker 9: You don't have standing right here in the hallway. I
[25:50] Speaker 9: asked to see that. You never learn.
[25:52] Speaker 4: Lander was later released and all charges against him were dropped.
[25:56] Speaker 4: That scene will not be revisited in New York City
[26:00] Speaker 4: now that a federal judge has ruled that the three
[26:02] Speaker 4: immigration courthouses in Manhattan are off limits to ICE officers
[26:07] Speaker 4: making arrests. My guest is Leon Fresco, a partner at
[26:11] Speaker 4: Holland and Knight and the former head of the Office
[26:13] Speaker 4: of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration, Leon tell Us
[26:17] Speaker 4: about Judge Costell's order temporary order pending the outcome of
[26:22] Speaker 4: litigation that challenges ICE's policy of making arrests at immigration courts.
[26:28] Speaker 10: So, the current state of affairs in New York City is,
[26:31] Speaker 10: if you go to one of the immigration court houses
[26:34] Speaker 10: in New York City, ICE is not allowed to arrest
[26:38] Speaker 10: you unless you either have serious offenses in terms of
[26:42] Speaker 10: a criminal history, or you have a final order of removal,
[26:46] Speaker 10: or you're a national security or public safety risk.
[26:50] Speaker 9: And so this all comes from.
[26:52] Speaker 10: The idea that people were being deterred from going into
[26:56] Speaker 10: Immigration court to have their immigration hearings because they were
[27:00] Speaker 10: worried that ICE was going to arrest them when they
[27:03] Speaker 10: were to show up at.
[27:04] Speaker 9: The immigration court.
[27:06] Speaker 10: Because that was actually happening during the time period where
[27:10] Speaker 10: there was the arrest quota three thousand people a day.
[27:14] Speaker 10: Arresting three thousand people a day is not so easy,
[27:17] Speaker 10: and so a lot of the places where people were
[27:19] Speaker 10: getting arrested were the places where they were most likely
[27:23] Speaker 10: to be, which were at ICE check ins and immigration court.
[27:27] Speaker 9: So you knew people were going there.
[27:29] Speaker 10: But the point was you didn't want to deter people
[27:31] Speaker 10: from going there because those were the key points of
[27:35] Speaker 10: the throughput of the immigration system.
[27:38] Speaker 4: But previously, in September, Judge Castell had refused to stop
[27:43] Speaker 4: ICE arrests at courthouses.
[27:45] Speaker 10: So this judge had originally not wanted to enjoin ICE
[27:51] Speaker 10: from arresting people in immigration court because the government had
[27:56] Speaker 10: made the argument previously that there was an ICE guidance
[28:00] Speaker 10: that was issued on May twenty seven, twenty twenty five,
[28:04] Speaker 10: that actually allowed them to do this, so that they
[28:07] Speaker 10: had considered the matter, they had reviewed it, they investigated it,
[28:11] Speaker 10: and they said yes, so according to this memo, we can.
[28:14] Speaker 9: Arrest people at immigration court.
[28:17] Speaker 10: And so the judge said, well, look, you had a
[28:19] Speaker 10: policy basis for conducting these arrests. I'm not going to
[28:22] Speaker 10: enjoin them. But then just recently the Department of Justice
[28:26] Speaker 10: actually went back to the court and said to the court,
[28:31] Speaker 10: sorry about that. You remember when we told you that
[28:33] Speaker 10: we had a memo that considered the need to go
[28:37] Speaker 10: to immigration courts and have arrest just kidding, We didn't
[28:40] Speaker 10: actually have a memo like that. It didn't actually apply
[28:44] Speaker 10: to immigration courts until We're sorry. And so because there
[28:48] Speaker 10: was no memo that actually considered this issue.
[28:51] Speaker 9: Then the judge said, well, then.
[28:52] Speaker 10: You clearly didn't use your obligations under the Administrative Procedure
[28:57] Speaker 10: Act to actually consider this.
[28:59] Speaker 9: I'm not I'll let you do this while the case
[29:02] Speaker 9: is pending.
[29:02] Speaker 10: I think the judge probably more frustrated about how this
[29:06] Speaker 10: was done rather than the state of actual law. But
[29:10] Speaker 10: because of the sort of I don't know whether you
[29:12] Speaker 10: want to call it omission or whatever you want to
[29:14] Speaker 10: call it, the judge said, no more arrest and immigration
[29:18] Speaker 10: courts in New York while this case is pending.
[29:21] Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean that was a startling admission by the
[29:24] Speaker 4: US Attorney's office, and basically they blamed it on Ice.
[29:28] Speaker 4: So the judge said that a revision in his order
[29:31] Speaker 4: was needed to correct a clear error and prevent a
[29:34] Speaker 4: manifest injustice. Was it a legal error by Ice that
[29:39] Speaker 4: caused that to happen?
[29:41] Speaker 10: I don't know exactly, but I actually have a theory, June,
[29:44] Speaker 10: because I was involved in this for many years at
[29:47] Speaker 10: the Department of Justice, and so.
[29:48] Speaker 9: Here's what happens.
[29:49] Speaker 10: Ice coordinates extremely well with the Department of Justice. When
[29:54] Speaker 10: the cases are pretty much in any district outside of
[29:58] Speaker 10: New York City, because those are all handled by the
[30:02] Speaker 10: Department of Justice Civil Division, opposite of immigration litigation where
[30:06] Speaker 10: I was dead, and so everything could be coordinated. But
[30:09] Speaker 10: in New York, it's a joke called the Sovereign District
[30:12] Speaker 10: of New York that you don't tell the US attorneys
[30:15] Speaker 10: there what to do. They don't listen to anything going
[30:18] Speaker 10: on in Washington. They do their own thing. So as
[30:22] Speaker 10: a result of that, they have to correspond with ICE.
[30:26] Speaker 10: And it's not clear who if I start corresponding with
[30:29] Speaker 10: a New York person, some random person in DC who's
[30:33] Speaker 10: not in the know, And so many times you would
[30:35] Speaker 10: see I would call this one of the achilles heels
[30:38] Speaker 10: or weaknesses of the entire litigation platform of the Department
[30:44] Speaker 10: of Justice is if you suit in New York, you'd
[30:47] Speaker 10: have a completely different strategy, case approach. Whatever you're doing
[30:51] Speaker 10: in New York doesn't apply anywhere else, And so you
[30:53] Speaker 10: almost have these two random, completely different things going on.
[30:58] Speaker 10: And so it's very easy, and that's any for the
[31:01] Speaker 10: US Attorney's Office in New York to not actually know
[31:04] Speaker 10: anything about what's going on in ICE and just be
[31:06] Speaker 10: told by some ICE New York person. Oh yeah, this
[31:09] Speaker 10: memo covers Immigration Court. That's not a surprising scenario.
[31:13] Speaker 4: When I hear it, the judge was surprised.
[31:16] Speaker 10: Yes, well, the judge, your viewers are getting inside knowledge
[31:20] Speaker 10: here in terms of very few people understand this disconnect
[31:24] Speaker 10: that goes on.
[31:24] Speaker 9: Between New York and the rest of the country.
[31:26] Speaker 10: So the judge is not going to understand why the
[31:29] Speaker 10: Department of Justice written large, because that's all the judge
[31:32] Speaker 10: knows is this is the Department of Justice doesn't have
[31:35] Speaker 10: the correct information. Since this is the government, so the
[31:39] Speaker 10: government quote unquote should have the correct information. But as
[31:43] Speaker 10: we all know, there's not one government. There's a lot
[31:45] Speaker 10: of people in the government, and depending on who you
[31:48] Speaker 10: talk to in the government, you might hear something that's
[31:50] Speaker 10: not correct. And so while this shouldn't happen and it's
[31:55] Speaker 10: not something trivial, it's something I'm not surprised to hear
[31:59] Speaker 10: has occurred, because that's the kind of thing that unless
[32:02] Speaker 10: and until one day the US Attorney's Office in New
[32:05] Speaker 10: York actually wants to let their immigration cases get handled
[32:09] Speaker 10: by the National Civil Division so that all the immigration
[32:13] Speaker 10: cases are handled harmoniously, you're going to get potential situations
[32:17] Speaker 10: like this.
[32:18] Speaker 4: So the judge handed down the decision on Monday. On Tuesday,
[32:22] Speaker 4: ICE violated the order. They arrested a twenty one year
[32:26] Speaker 4: old Honduran at twenty six Federal Plaza, which is one
[32:29] Speaker 4: of the three immigration courthouses in Manhattan that the judge
[32:33] Speaker 4: had ruled were off limits for arrests, and according to
[32:37] Speaker 4: The New York Times, a man who worked with the
[32:39] Speaker 4: Immigration Assistance Program tried to hand the ICE officers a
[32:43] Speaker 4: copy of the decision and they refused to take it,
[32:47] Speaker 4: and one told him that the agency didn't care. Is
[32:51] Speaker 4: that just a blatant violation of a court order?
[32:53] Speaker 10: Again, I don't want to give excuses. I just want
[32:58] Speaker 10: to say sort of how these things work. So a
[33:00] Speaker 10: judge issues an order on a Monday, and on a
[33:04] Speaker 10: Tuesday there's an arrest. It's not like ICE is some
[33:09] Speaker 10: integrated artificial intelligence system where every human being is plugged
[33:14] Speaker 10: in and suddenly knows all of America's case law instantaneously
[33:19] Speaker 10: when that case law is introduced. So what happens is
[33:23] Speaker 10: ICE clearly isn't implementing this memo with sufficient rapidity. And
[33:29] Speaker 10: you had an officer who probably on Monday already knew
[33:33] Speaker 10: I'm going to arrest this individual because you know, they
[33:36] Speaker 10: say that they're a dangerous gang member.
[33:38] Speaker 9: Who knows if this is.
[33:39] Speaker 10: True or not, I don't know, But if they really
[33:42] Speaker 10: think they have a dangerous gang member in their sights,
[33:44] Speaker 10: all the better for them to arrest this person to
[33:47] Speaker 10: make sure that they're not walking around. But it turns
[33:50] Speaker 10: out that they don't know the court order. Then people
[33:53] Speaker 10: tell them the court order. The problem from the perspective
[33:56] Speaker 10: of the government is just people randomly handing and I
[33:59] Speaker 10: say a court order. That ICE agent isn't an attorney.
[34:03] Speaker 10: What they know about the law is sort of within
[34:05] Speaker 10: their training materials, and so it's very complicated because they're
[34:10] Speaker 10: not just going to read a court order and know
[34:12] Speaker 10: the significance of what that court order is, what it's
[34:15] Speaker 10: telling them to do. So you ended up with this
[34:18] Speaker 10: very unfortunate situation, and probably there will be content hearings
[34:23] Speaker 10: about it, but just another set of facts of I
[34:26] Speaker 10: get how it led to this. It shouldn't have led
[34:28] Speaker 10: to this. There's no excuse for it. It's a violation
[34:32] Speaker 10: of the court order. But you can understand how these
[34:36] Speaker 10: ICE agents who are not attorneys, are given very specific
[34:39] Speaker 10: guidance you can only do XYZ. They continue to operate
[34:44] Speaker 10: as they've been operating, and nothing will deter them from
[34:48] Speaker 10: their orders until the same person who gave them their
[34:51] Speaker 10: prior order gives them a new order.
[34:53] Speaker 4: And I should note that in their petition the lawyers
[34:57] Speaker 4: for the man who was arrested said he'd never been
[34:59] Speaker 4: conc of a crime. Let's turn out to the underlying
[35:02] Speaker 4: case before Judge Castell, which is a lawsuit by two
[35:06] Speaker 4: New York based nonprofits challenging the Trump administration guidance that
[35:13] Speaker 4: broadens the circumstances in which civil immigration arrests can be
[35:17] Speaker 4: made in or near a courthouse and rolls back Biden
[35:21] Speaker 4: error guidance restricting courthouse arrests, and the judge is found
[35:25] Speaker 4: that there's a substantial likelihood of showing that the arrest
[35:29] Speaker 4: policy is arbitrary and capricious. What's your take on how
[35:33] Speaker 4: successful this challenge will be.
[35:36] Speaker 9: Well, I think it's going to be tough.
[35:38] Speaker 10: These lawsuits have been filed all around the country and
[35:41] Speaker 10: nobody's been able to get an injunction that is of
[35:44] Speaker 10: any significant ump to it that has really stopped this.
[35:48] Speaker 9: Now. I do think in this case in New York.
[35:51] Speaker 10: It may be that given where this administration is right
[35:55] Speaker 10: now where it's not trying to ruffle any more feathers
[35:58] Speaker 10: between now and the election, and then is sort of
[36:01] Speaker 10: gearing up for a post election immigration enforcement round up
[36:06] Speaker 10: that it may not do anything for now.
[36:08] Speaker 9: I could see them just litigating this kind of in a.
[36:11] Speaker 10: Slow track, low profile for now, But I don't think
[36:16] Speaker 10: that the statutory scheme dissuades the Department of Homeland Security
[36:22] Speaker 10: legally from conducting these arrests. The problem is if people
[36:26] Speaker 10: stop showing up the immigration court, at some point, the
[36:31] Speaker 10: immigration enforcement personnel have to make a decision do they
[36:35] Speaker 10: want to start having to enforce all of these what
[36:37] Speaker 10: are called in absentia removal orders, which is, if you
[36:41] Speaker 10: don't show up the court, you're like ordered by default
[36:44] Speaker 10: to be removed, And then people will litigate these on
[36:49] Speaker 10: an individual basis, and all of that takes more time
[36:52] Speaker 10: than just getting the actual removal order in the first place.
[36:56] Speaker 10: So you almost want to try to figure out is
[36:58] Speaker 10: the juice worth the squad of these arrests. And I
[37:02] Speaker 10: don't know what they're gonna decide there, because if they're
[37:04] Speaker 10: really focused on an arrest, quota removals be damned, then
[37:08] Speaker 10: they'll keep doing the arrest because this is the way
[37:11] Speaker 10: to raise the arrest quota. But if they're really looking
[37:14] Speaker 10: at what is the way to get the highest number
[37:17] Speaker 10: of completely enforceable, unappealable removal orders, then you wouldn't start
[37:22] Speaker 10: arresting people in court because you leave yourself vulnerable to
[37:26] Speaker 10: these new process claims.
[37:27] Speaker 4: I guess we'll see what ICE and DHS decide to
[37:30] Speaker 4: do after the midterms. Thanks for joining me, Leon. That's
[37:34] Speaker 4: Leon Fresco of Honden Knight and that's it for this
[37:37] Speaker 4: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
[37:40] Speaker 4: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
[37:43] Speaker 4: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
[37:47] Speaker 4: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and.
[37:52] Speaker 5: Remember to tune into The Bloomberg.
[37:53] Speaker 4: Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.
[37:57] Speaker 4: I'm Jim Grosso, and you're listening to bloom

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.