# Trump Can Deploy Troops to Portland But Not to Chicago

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 21 Oct 2025, 38 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/ba12c3d2-0bb2-4b75-a4e0-b37d0021b113/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses conflicting appellate court rulings about Trump sending troops into Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, Illinois. Then former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter & English, discusses Supreme Court oral arguments over when police can enter a home, without a warrant, to render emergency aid. June Grasso hosts. 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: Chicago residents are now documenting violent encounters with federal agents,
[0:14] Speaker 2: from the use of tear gas on protesters, to vehicle
[0:18] Speaker 2: crashes to forceful takedowns, all on video.
[0:22] Speaker 1: That you don't know what's going on.
[0:27] Speaker 2: Federal Judge Sarah Ellis said the images she's seen indicate
[0:31] Speaker 2: her order restricting ICE agent's use of force was being ignored.
[0:35] Speaker 2: The judge issued a new order on Friday that federal
[0:39] Speaker 2: agents have to turn their body cameras on when making
[0:42] Speaker 2: arrests or interacting with the public. Here's Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker.
[0:48] Speaker 3: I think the judge reacted to that properly by ordering
[0:52] Speaker 3: that now the federal agents are required to have body
[0:56] Speaker 3: cameras on them because they clearly lie about what goes on.
[1:02] Speaker 2: Judge Ellis also ordered immigration officials to testify in her
[1:06] Speaker 2: courtroom today and answer questions about the aggressive tactics. My
[1:11] Speaker 2: guest is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight
[1:14] Speaker 2: and an expert in immigration law. Leon explain what's been
[1:18] Speaker 2: happening in Chicago with ICE.
[1:21] Speaker 4: So, what's been happening in Chicago's all based on an
[1:23] Speaker 4: operation called Operation Midway Blitz, and that operation started early
[1:29] Speaker 4: in October, where there was a deployment of all kinds
[1:33] Speaker 4: of federal troops. There was ICE, there was CBP, there
[1:37] Speaker 4: was National Guard troops into the Chicago area to try
[1:42] Speaker 4: to ostensively stop violent protests, help immigration enforcement do their
[1:48] Speaker 4: job stop crying. There's a lot of different justifications that
[1:52] Speaker 4: were given for this, but in any case, there was
[1:56] Speaker 4: immediate lawsuits by the State of Illinois and the City
[1:59] Speaker 4: of Chicago, and there's multiple findings, ones that had to
[2:04] Speaker 4: do with the use of force and how people were operating.
[2:09] Speaker 4: And so there were orders that were given by the
[2:11] Speaker 4: judge with regards to having to use body cameras so
[2:15] Speaker 4: that the agents wouldn't just be operating without any accountability there.
[2:20] Speaker 4: And the judge was hearing arguments today about the fact
[2:24] Speaker 4: that body camera uses wasn't happening and was basically saying, look,
[2:28] Speaker 4: you're going to be held in concept of court if
[2:30] Speaker 4: you don't use these body cameras. Then there's also some
[2:34] Speaker 4: debate about tear gas being used and whether that's proper
[2:37] Speaker 4: to be used during the protests, and so the judge
[2:41] Speaker 4: also had ordered the agents to stop dispersing peaceful crowds
[2:44] Speaker 4: and ban the use of tear gas on people who
[2:47] Speaker 4: are in a threat and so both of those are
[2:50] Speaker 4: part of this overall litigation that involves also limitations on
[2:55] Speaker 4: the use of the National Guard, but specifically with regard
[2:58] Speaker 4: to the use of force by federals. This is the
[3:01] Speaker 4: immediate concern is the use of body cameras, especially when
[3:05] Speaker 4: there's use of force, and also the use of tear
[3:09] Speaker 4: gas and chemical agents without proper justification for it.
[3:14] Speaker 2: Yeah, So last Friday, the judge issued the additional order
[3:19] Speaker 2: about the body cams because she was concerned that ICE
[3:23] Speaker 2: wasn't obeying her first order that banned the use of
[3:27] Speaker 2: tear gas and other munitions against protesters who are not
[3:33] Speaker 2: posing an immediate threat. And then she sees all this
[3:35] Speaker 2: video of the use of tear gas that the ICE
[3:39] Speaker 2: agents didn't listen to her.
[3:41] Speaker 4: Correct, That was the concern is she was telling the
[3:45] Speaker 4: government attorneys in court, hey, are you following my order?
[3:50] Speaker 4: And she said she was caught a little startled after seeing,
[3:53] Speaker 4: as you said, these TV images of street confrontations that
[3:57] Speaker 4: involved teergas. And so they had witnesses from ICE and
[4:01] Speaker 4: from CBP saying that they're all going to be wearing
[4:04] Speaker 4: body cameras now and that this isn't going to be
[4:09] Speaker 4: something that's going to happen any longer that they will
[4:11] Speaker 4: respect or order. But we'll see again if there's just
[4:14] Speaker 4: another injunction that is shoo, or if there's actually content
[4:18] Speaker 4: order that issued, or where this judge is going to
[4:21] Speaker 4: go here. But certainly, I think no matter what side
[4:24] Speaker 4: you stand on this, there's certainly been an escalation and
[4:28] Speaker 4: detention in Chicago, and we will have to see how
[4:31] Speaker 4: this all plays out, whether the courts will be able
[4:34] Speaker 4: to resolve this escalation on their own, or how it
[4:37] Speaker 4: will end up getting results.
[4:38] Speaker 2: The ICE agents are camouflaged with masks, you can't tell
[4:44] Speaker 2: who's who. Could she issue individual contempt citations against specific
[4:50] Speaker 2: Ice officers?
[4:52] Speaker 4: Absolutely, I mean, at the end of the day, there's
[4:55] Speaker 4: multiple remedies here in terms of, yes, one contempt of
[4:59] Speaker 4: court against the ICE leadership first of all if she
[5:03] Speaker 4: can't identify the individual people, but also against the individual
[5:06] Speaker 4: ICE agents. And then there's certainly claims that individuals can
[5:10] Speaker 4: file under the Federal Thwart Claims Act or Bivens, which
[5:14] Speaker 4: is the remedy that's created when federal officers personally violate
[5:19] Speaker 4: constitutional rights. And so from that perspective, there are multiple
[5:24] Speaker 4: claims that can be made, both individually in separate lawsits.
[5:28] Speaker 4: But even in this area, content orders can be issued.
[5:32] Speaker 4: And the thing with these content orders is those can
[5:34] Speaker 4: either have a financial component to it or they can
[5:37] Speaker 4: actually have, in a very unlikely but theoretically possible scenarioid
[5:42] Speaker 4: prison component to it. And so from that perspective, it
[5:47] Speaker 4: does benefit people to follow these orders because unless they
[5:51] Speaker 4: get those orders overturned by an appellate courts, the judge
[5:54] Speaker 4: has that kind of content authority, is.
[5:57] Speaker 2: The Trump administration I or they can think that the
[6:00] Speaker 2: judge doesn't have the authority to tell them how to
[6:03] Speaker 2: carry out their actions.
[6:05] Speaker 4: Well, I think this is all going to be part
[6:07] Speaker 4: and parcel of the litigation as it goes to the
[6:10] Speaker 4: Supreme Court. Is they're going to say that the judge
[6:15] Speaker 4: certainly has authority in terms of issuing an injunction and
[6:19] Speaker 4: enforcing their injunction, but they're going to say that at
[6:22] Speaker 4: the end of the day, the judge's injunction was wrongly issued,
[6:27] Speaker 4: that there isn't this constitutional right to have body cameras
[6:32] Speaker 4: that's going to be the argument that Trump administration makes
[6:35] Speaker 4: is that may be something that Congress can put as
[6:37] Speaker 4: a requirement, or that may be something that the agencies
[6:42] Speaker 4: themselves can put as a requirement. But whether the judge
[6:45] Speaker 4: actually has an enforceable manner in which to enforce this
[6:50] Speaker 4: body camera obligation or even the tear gas obligation. They
[6:55] Speaker 4: may say, Look, the judge exceeded her legal mandate under
[7:00] Speaker 4: either Bivins or under the Federal Toward Claims Act to
[7:03] Speaker 4: come in and say, here are my specific remedies for
[7:07] Speaker 4: these issues. And judge can perhaps say, here is a
[7:11] Speaker 4: specific violation that occurred and punished that specific violation. But
[7:16] Speaker 4: to issue an injunction with regard to how one can
[7:19] Speaker 4: use force or with regard to how one has to
[7:23] Speaker 4: document that use of force, that may be considered an
[7:26] Speaker 4: overstepping of the bounds. But we'll have to wait and see.
[7:28] Speaker 4: I mean, judges have issued those kinds of orders in
[7:31] Speaker 4: the past, and we'll just have to see. Not so
[7:34] Speaker 4: much the Seventh Circuit, but as the Supreme Court actually
[7:37] Speaker 4: wants the weigh in and limit the abilities that the
[7:40] Speaker 4: judges have to issue these prospective enforcement orders that limit
[7:45] Speaker 4: the enforcement authorities of the federal government.
[7:49] Speaker 2: As of today, we have conflicting decisions from the Seventh
[7:52] Speaker 2: Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. So let's start with the
[7:56] Speaker 2: Seventh Circuit's decision from last Thursday extending the order that
[8:01] Speaker 2: blocks Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago. And
[8:07] Speaker 2: the three judge panel consisted of a Trump appointee, an
[8:10] Speaker 2: Obama appointee, and a George H. W. Bush appointee.
[8:15] Speaker 4: Well, again, this was the case that involved both the
[8:18] Speaker 4: federalization of deployment and the National Guard deployment in the
[8:25] Speaker 4: area of Chicago or of the state of Illinois. And
[8:29] Speaker 4: the issue was, first of all, was this subject to
[8:33] Speaker 4: judicial review? Because the Trump administration has been arguing that
[8:37] Speaker 4: this isn't subject to judicial review and that this should
[8:41] Speaker 4: be an unreviewable discretion. The court said, no, we actually
[8:45] Speaker 4: when the president wants to operationalize a state guard in
[8:50] Speaker 4: contravention of the wishes of the state, that that is
[8:53] Speaker 4: a reviewable situation that has specific fractual predicates that the
[8:58] Speaker 4: courts can review and that the president's discretion is not absolute.
[9:02] Speaker 4: There and so then it starts asking the questions about
[9:05] Speaker 4: the statue, which talk about when a president can operationalize
[9:11] Speaker 4: the state National Guard in contravention of the wishes of
[9:15] Speaker 4: the state. So that's is there a rebellion or is
[9:17] Speaker 4: there danger of rebellion? And the court rules here that
[9:22] Speaker 4: knows there was protests, but those protests aren't rebellion. There
[9:26] Speaker 4: may be, you know, some political opposition, but that's not
[9:29] Speaker 4: designed to actually overturn the government of the United States
[9:33] Speaker 4: or to have a coup or some kind of insurrection,
[9:36] Speaker 4: So that's not going to be enough to do that.
[9:40] Speaker 4: And then it asks, okay, well, is there an inability
[9:42] Speaker 4: to execute federal laws? And here the courts basically took
[9:48] Speaker 4: the language of DHS against it, where DHS has been saying, hey,
[9:52] Speaker 4: we're having record immigration enforcement. We're having a lot of
[9:55] Speaker 4: success in arrests and deportations, and so the court says, well,
[9:59] Speaker 4: if you have all of that record success, then this
[10:03] Speaker 4: must mean you don't have an inability to execute the
[10:06] Speaker 4: federal laws. And so then you don't need this ice
[10:09] Speaker 4: can operate without the need for guard to protect it.
[10:13] Speaker 4: And then also the court ruled that the local and
[10:16] Speaker 4: state law enforcement was able to manage their protests without
[10:20] Speaker 4: this federal military aid. So you took all of those factors,
[10:25] Speaker 4: and the court ultimately ruled. The Seventh Circuit ultimately ruled
[10:29] Speaker 4: that the District court judge was correct that there was
[10:32] Speaker 4: a harm to illinois constitutional right by taking the Guard
[10:37] Speaker 4: and operationalizing it against Illinois's wishes, and that that harm
[10:41] Speaker 4: outweighs the federal interest in deploying the Guard. And so
[10:44] Speaker 4: they said, yes, you can federalize the Guard, but you
[10:47] Speaker 4: can't deploy the Guard in Illinois pending further proceedings. And
[10:51] Speaker 4: so now the Supreme Court is looking at it, and
[10:55] Speaker 4: briefing is scheduled to be finalized by the end of Monday,
[11:00] Speaker 4: the twentieth, and then the Supreme Court will decide what
[11:02] Speaker 4: it's going to do. Is it going to issue a
[11:04] Speaker 4: temporary say that allows the Guard to keep operating, or
[11:08] Speaker 4: is it going to issue an order saying we're going
[11:10] Speaker 4: to consider this on an expedited basis and not issue
[11:13] Speaker 4: a stay. So it'll be very interesting to see this
[11:16] Speaker 4: week what happened.
[11:17] Speaker 2: Could they just ignore it. They could ignore they're not
[11:20] Speaker 2: taking any action at all.
[11:22] Speaker 4: They could just take no action at all, and you know, hey,
[11:25] Speaker 4: we are in a government shutdown, so you never know,
[11:27] Speaker 4: they may say, hey, look we're we're not getting paid,
[11:29] Speaker 4: we're not doing any cases. Well, we're not getting paid.
[11:33] Speaker 4: But I doubt that will happen. If I had to
[11:35] Speaker 4: make a prediction, I do think they will probably, as
[11:38] Speaker 4: they've been very differential to the president, at least conduct
[11:43] Speaker 4: expedited briefings to come up with a decision. If not,
[11:46] Speaker 4: even more likely potentially just allow the President to continue
[11:51] Speaker 4: with this deployment without any explanation, subject to better briefing
[11:57] Speaker 4: in the meantime, because I think what worries then is
[12:01] Speaker 4: what if things really did get out of hand, that
[12:03] Speaker 4: there was an injunction and now you couldn't do anything.
[12:06] Speaker 4: And so I think the Supreme Court might have this
[12:08] Speaker 4: practical concern and they'll say, look at the moment, let's
[12:12] Speaker 4: not place any limitations on deployment, and then let's have
[12:16] Speaker 4: some very detailed briefing where we can figure this out
[12:19] Speaker 4: long term. That's where I think this is most likely
[12:22] Speaker 4: to go if I had to make a prediction, but
[12:24] Speaker 4: I couldn't say for sure.
[12:26] Speaker 2: And coming up next, we're going to talk about the
[12:29] Speaker 2: Ninth Circuit's decision, which is the opposite of the Seventh
[12:33] Speaker 2: Circuits decision, meaning that Trump can send federal troops into Portland, Oregon,
[12:38] Speaker 2: but not into Chicago, Illinois, at least at this point.
[12:42] Speaker 2: That's coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm
[12:45] Speaker 2: June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, it's a major
[12:49] Speaker 2: boost for the administration's effort to send the military into
[12:53] Speaker 2: democratic led cities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in
[12:57] Speaker 2: a divided opinion, is allowing President Trump to deploy troops
[13:02] Speaker 2: to Portland, Oregon, to counter protests against his immigration crackdown.
[13:08] Speaker 2: The two to one Appella decision focused on a series
[13:10] Speaker 2: of violent acts by protesters starting in early June at
[13:15] Speaker 2: a single ice facility outside downtown Portland. The city and
[13:20] Speaker 2: state argued those incidents were isolated and had been handled
[13:24] Speaker 2: effectively by local law enforcement, but the appeals court agreed
[13:28] Speaker 2: with the administration. Now last week, on Thursday, the Seventh
[13:33] Speaker 2: Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration could
[13:37] Speaker 2: not send troops into Chicago, Illinois. I've been talking to
[13:41] Speaker 2: immigration attorney Leon Fresco Leon tell Us about this Ninth
[13:45] Speaker 2: Circuit decision. The same basic facts, different city, different court.
[13:51] Speaker 4: Correct. So the Ninth Circuit actually ruled differently than the
[13:54] Speaker 4: Seventh Circuit. And even though it's the same statute ten Usc.
[13:57] Speaker 4: Twelve four h six, which is the federalization of National
[14:01] Speaker 4: Guard statutes, the difference here is that two out of
[14:06] Speaker 4: the three judges, they were judges appointed by Trump. On
[14:09] Speaker 4: the Ninth Circuit ruled that the president's actions were likely
[14:13] Speaker 4: lawful under this section twelve four to zero six, which
[14:17] Speaker 4: permits federalization when the president is quote unable with the
[14:21] Speaker 4: regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.
[14:24] Speaker 4: And what the court ruled here is they basically created
[14:28] Speaker 4: the standard. And we were talking about this with the
[14:30] Speaker 4: Seventh Circuit and the Supreme Court what standard would be
[14:33] Speaker 4: created in terms of difference, and they decided to use
[14:37] Speaker 4: a standard called colorable assessment of the facts and law
[14:41] Speaker 4: within a range of honest judgment. And so if the
[14:45] Speaker 4: president has a colorable assessment of the facts in law
[14:49] Speaker 4: within a range of honest judgment, which is a highly
[14:52] Speaker 4: deferential standard, then the president's assessment that there is violence
[14:57] Speaker 4: that needs to be dealt with is going to be
[14:59] Speaker 4: the to And so that executive judgment in national security
[15:04] Speaker 4: matters was deferred to here and the court issued as
[15:07] Speaker 4: stay saying that the National Guard can continue in the
[15:11] Speaker 4: organ case.
[15:12] Speaker 2: So did they just make up that standard to apply
[15:15] Speaker 2: that standard here?
[15:16] Speaker 4: Basically? Basically obviously there wasn't a case like this before,
[15:22] Speaker 4: and so the court took a standard but way very
[15:24] Speaker 4: similar standard in the visa adjudication front. When you try
[15:28] Speaker 4: to sue for visas, it's this sort of facially legitimate
[15:33] Speaker 4: and bonified standard. And even that standard has been taken
[15:37] Speaker 4: away almost to where there's no depending on the context,
[15:40] Speaker 4: there's basically no judicial review here. They've taken a very
[15:43] Speaker 4: similar deferential standard colorable assessment of facts in law within
[15:48] Speaker 4: a range of honors judgment similar concept basically saying unless
[15:52] Speaker 4: the president is telling you they're acting illegally, if they
[15:56] Speaker 4: basically have any facts to support it, then you or
[16:00] Speaker 4: to the president. And here the court said, look, there
[16:02] Speaker 4: were facts, there were months of riots in Portland. You
[16:06] Speaker 4: didn't just have to look at the minutes before the judgment,
[16:08] Speaker 4: you could look at the months before. And because of that,
[16:12] Speaker 4: the Court said there was sufficient evidence here to permit
[16:16] Speaker 4: difference and to permit the National Guard to be deployed.
[16:19] Speaker 2: So is it because of a difference in the facts
[16:21] Speaker 2: in the two cases or a difference in the standard.
[16:25] Speaker 4: That it's a difference. It's a difference in the standard
[16:28] Speaker 4: of defference being given to the president. So in the
[16:31] Speaker 4: Seventh Circuit, they just analyzed the facts and they're basically
[16:35] Speaker 4: a clearly erroneous standpoint, and they said the district judge
[16:39] Speaker 4: wasn't clearly erroneous in deciding that there were no reasons
[16:44] Speaker 4: that the federal law couldn't be enforced in the Chicago area. Here,
[16:49] Speaker 4: the court added, difference is that you can't just look
[16:52] Speaker 4: at it that way. You actually have to start with
[16:54] Speaker 4: a standard that the president wins unless you show that
[16:58] Speaker 4: the president wasn't in this highly deferential standard of colorable
[17:03] Speaker 4: assessment of the facts in law within a range of
[17:05] Speaker 4: honors judgments. And so the court did look at the
[17:09] Speaker 4: facts of Oregon and said, look here in Oregon, there
[17:12] Speaker 4: was a situation where there were months of assaults and
[17:18] Speaker 4: arts and attempts and docsing a federal agent. And so
[17:21] Speaker 4: because of that, that was enough to trigger this and
[17:24] Speaker 4: they're not going to disturb the president's determination there, and
[17:27] Speaker 4: that was two to one. There wasn't descent where the
[17:30] Speaker 4: descent said that at the end of the day, there
[17:34] Speaker 4: isn't any difference. That's permitted in this there wasn't a
[17:37] Speaker 4: president emergency. The protests were small and peaceful, and the
[17:41] Speaker 4: states have sovereignty and there's constitutional limits, just all the
[17:44] Speaker 4: stuff the Seventh Circuit said. And so we'll see on
[17:47] Speaker 4: an non bank or what happens with the Supreme Court now. Anyway,
[17:50] Speaker 4: probably this case just sits there as persuasive until the
[17:54] Speaker 4: Supreme Court decided something, but lots the aagency.
[17:58] Speaker 2: The judge who dissented, a Clinton An appointee, Susan Graber,
[18:03] Speaker 2: suggested a swift on bank review. Quote above all, I
[18:08] Speaker 2: asked those who are watching this case unfold to retain
[18:11] Speaker 2: faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.
[18:15] Speaker 2: Very unusual.
[18:16] Speaker 4: It definitely doesn't hurt to ask for the en banc
[18:19] Speaker 4: panel for the lawyers for Oregon. But the problem is,
[18:23] Speaker 4: we're going to get some guidance pretty soon from the
[18:25] Speaker 4: Supreme Court in the Chicago case, and that's going to
[18:27] Speaker 4: figuratively and literally trump anything that happened from the Ninth
[18:32] Speaker 4: Circuits standpoint. But I think you have to just play
[18:36] Speaker 4: out the string in the way the schedule works, and
[18:38] Speaker 4: so here you would normally ask for n bank review.
[18:41] Speaker 4: You'd ask for it here in this case.
[18:44] Speaker 2: Okay, so Leon, So do you think that the Trump
[18:47] Speaker 2: administration will now jump to the Supreme Court and say, hey,
[18:50] Speaker 2: we have two conflicting opinions.
[18:52] Speaker 4: Well, you're already there. The briefing was already required of
[18:55] Speaker 4: Chicago as of the end of today. So I do
[18:58] Speaker 4: think they'll do a notice of supplement authority that says, hey,
[19:01] Speaker 4: here's this great Ninth Circuit decision for us, so please
[19:04] Speaker 4: let us know what's going on.
[19:07] Speaker 2: Let's talk about some other immigration issues. There's a new
[19:11] Speaker 2: report that nearly as many migrants have died in detention
[19:15] Speaker 2: so far this year than over the four years of
[19:18] Speaker 2: the Biden administration. So you've had ICE reporting twenty detainee
[19:22] Speaker 2: deaths in custody since Trump took office, compared to twenty
[19:26] Speaker 2: four deaths in the Biden administration. There are lots of
[19:30] Speaker 2: complaints about the conditions in ICE custody.
[19:36] Speaker 4: I would say there's multiple factors going on. So the
[19:39] Speaker 4: first and most important is when you have more people
[19:42] Speaker 4: in custody, more people will perish in custody, because that's
[19:47] Speaker 4: just an actuarial table situation. And so you have more
[19:51] Speaker 4: people in custody than ever before. You have over sixty
[19:54] Speaker 4: thousand people in custody right now, and that was never
[19:58] Speaker 4: anywhere close to that in the administration. You have to
[20:01] Speaker 4: remember that during the first two years of the Biden
[20:04] Speaker 4: administration you were dealing with COVID and so there was
[20:07] Speaker 4: very few people in immigration detention at all during the
[20:10] Speaker 4: COVID era. So that's one issue, and then the second
[20:14] Speaker 4: issue is during the last two years, the detention centers
[20:19] Speaker 4: were much more short term in terms of what they
[20:22] Speaker 4: were doing is taking people who had come across the border,
[20:25] Speaker 4: detaining them for some period of time, and then either
[20:30] Speaker 4: immediately removing them or letting them into the United States,
[20:34] Speaker 4: which was called guidgen release. And so from that perspective,
[20:38] Speaker 4: you're going to have a lot fewer debts just because
[20:40] Speaker 4: the amount of time in detention is much lower per person.
[20:45] Speaker 4: So even if you have a lot of people that
[20:47] Speaker 4: the amount of time matters. But now you have more
[20:50] Speaker 4: people for more time. You have people being detained until
[20:53] Speaker 4: they either win their case or they are deported. You
[20:57] Speaker 4: have more people in the tention, you have more people
[20:59] Speaker 4: in detention in facilities that perhaps cannot hold that many people,
[21:04] Speaker 4: and you have a shortage of health professionals. Ice admit
[21:07] Speaker 4: that so they're hiring over forty new health professionals, including doctors, nurses, psychiatrists,
[21:14] Speaker 4: and pharmacists to try to meet this shortage of care.
[21:18] Speaker 4: And so that's what's causing the debt is you have
[21:21] Speaker 4: more people to pain for a longer period of time
[21:24] Speaker 4: with fewer health professionals. This is unfortunately going to lead
[21:28] Speaker 4: to more deaths of people in attention.
[21:31] Speaker 2: A terrible situation, A terrible situation all around. Let's talk
[21:35] Speaker 2: about another report, also bad news. A new study released
[21:40] Speaker 2: Friday said the immigration enforcement policies will decrease the country's
[21:45] Speaker 2: workforce by fifteen million people over the next decade. I mean,
[21:50] Speaker 2: is this being considered at all in Trump's immigration crackdown?
[21:54] Speaker 2: The need for workers?
[21:56] Speaker 4: So this is kind of a tricky subject, I would say,
[22:01] Speaker 4: amongst everybody in the in this space, because there are
[22:06] Speaker 4: so many subtexts to this. You have, first of all,
[22:09] Speaker 4: some groups of people who say, that's great, we want
[22:12] Speaker 4: fewer people, and we want fewer people because we think
[22:17] Speaker 4: that fewer people means that there will be a higher
[22:21] Speaker 4: demand for the workers that are here, which will raise
[22:24] Speaker 4: the wages of workers that are here. And yes, there's
[22:27] Speaker 4: certainly some truth to that. But remember that the economy
[22:32] Speaker 4: is not static, meaning there's not just a set number
[22:36] Speaker 4: of jobs. Because if that was true, then whatever the
[22:39] Speaker 4: population was in eighteen hundred, we would have unemployment that
[22:44] Speaker 4: is equal to the amount of people we have now
[22:47] Speaker 4: in twenty twenty five minus the amount of people at
[22:49] Speaker 4: eighteen hundred. So it obviously doesn't work that way. It's
[22:53] Speaker 4: not that that when there's more people there's more unemployment,
[22:56] Speaker 4: because those people create jobs. They need things, they need aircuts,
[23:00] Speaker 4: they need mechanics, they need plumbers, et cetera. So it
[23:04] Speaker 4: creates a cyclical thing. But having said all of this,
[23:08] Speaker 4: there are some long term tensions in terms of mechanization, AI, automation,
[23:16] Speaker 4: other things of that nature, which I think no one
[23:18] Speaker 4: is talking about, and so we don't actually know are
[23:21] Speaker 4: we going to need more or less workers moving forward.
[23:25] Speaker 4: This is a big tension that neither the left nor
[23:30] Speaker 4: the right talks about when they talk about this immigration issue.
[23:33] Speaker 4: And then another tension that I think the right deals
[23:36] Speaker 4: with sometimes is they'll say, we need more Americans to
[23:41] Speaker 4: have babies, we don't want more immigrants coming in. And
[23:44] Speaker 4: so that's a separate sort of social argument that has
[23:48] Speaker 4: all kinds of undercurrents that I don't like to deal
[23:51] Speaker 4: with an illegal show. So those are the debates. Where
[23:54] Speaker 4: are the people, I mean, should we have more or
[23:56] Speaker 4: less people? Period? If we should, should they be American
[24:01] Speaker 4: born people or people who are supplemented through immigration? And
[24:05] Speaker 4: then third, do we have anybody who actually has any
[24:09] Speaker 4: idea what a labor force will look like ten years
[24:11] Speaker 4: from now? So does that even matter if we have
[24:14] Speaker 4: more or less people? And I think that's where really
[24:17] Speaker 4: the thought needs to be given at all. There's no
[24:21] Speaker 4: thought being given to this by any leaders because this
[24:24] Speaker 4: is really the issue that should then be driving what
[24:27] Speaker 4: you're doing with immigration policy.
[24:30] Speaker 2: It seems doubtful that any of those considerations were behind
[24:34] Speaker 2: Trump's immigration policy. Thanks so much, Leon. As always, that's
[24:40] Speaker 2: Leon Fresco of Honda Night. Coming up next on The
[24:43] Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show, the Supreme Court will decide when police
[24:47] Speaker 2: officers can enter a home to respond to an emergency.
[24:51] Speaker 2: I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg. Police didn't
[24:58] Speaker 2: have a warrant when they I entered the home of
[25:00] Speaker 2: an army veteran in Montana, but they weren't there to
[25:04] Speaker 2: arrest William Trevor case. They were there to render emergency aid.
[25:09] Speaker 2: His ex girlfriend had called police saying he had a
[25:12] Speaker 2: loaded handgun and had threatened to commit suicide. The police knocked,
[25:16] Speaker 2: they yelled, they waited forty minutes, and then they went in.
[25:20] Speaker 2: The question before the Supreme Court was what's the standard
[25:24] Speaker 2: for police answering to help people in an emergency. Justice
[25:28] Speaker 2: is from across the ideological spectrum seemed to think that
[25:32] Speaker 2: the officers were right to go in on these facts.
[25:35] Speaker 5: That's not a question of whether they could dispense with
[25:38] Speaker 5: a warrant requirement. If there's no probable cause, then they
[25:41] Speaker 5: can't get a warrant. It seems to me that if
[25:46] Speaker 5: the police could not enter this house based on the
[25:52] Speaker 5: facts that they knew, then I don't know when the
[25:55] Speaker 5: police are ever going to be able to enter a
[25:57] Speaker 5: house to prevent somebody from committing suicide. What more would
[26:03] Speaker 5: they need here? They need to be able to look
[26:05] Speaker 5: through the window and see them with a gun and
[26:08] Speaker 5: pointed to his head, or they need to see a
[26:09] Speaker 5: dead body on the floor. What more did they need?
[26:13] Speaker 2: And Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the defense attorney about a
[26:17] Speaker 2: possible tragic outcome if police chose not to enter the home.
[26:22] Speaker 6: Well, if they, after deliberations, walk away and he commits suicide,
[26:26] Speaker 6: I mean, what are you thinking then it's the officers.
[26:28] Speaker 4: Would be that would be unfortunate and tragic. But we
[26:31] Speaker 4: are trying to strike a balance.
[26:33] Speaker 6: Between them, and the officers need some clarity, I would
[26:36] Speaker 6: think in circumstances like this about what they can do
[26:39] Speaker 6: and what they can't do. And it seems like they
[26:43] Speaker 6: thought about it carefully and decided that the risk was
[26:46] Speaker 6: sufficiently high at Justice Jackson's point, and that harm that
[26:51] Speaker 6: would occur was sufficiently substantial that they should go in.
[26:55] Speaker 6: And by the way, they're going in at great risk themselves.
[26:59] Speaker 6: Of course, you know this is not just of course,
[27:02] Speaker 6: such is pretextually looking for a crime, or going in
[27:06] Speaker 6: for some other pretextual reason, or going into you know,
[27:09] Speaker 6: for it's going in really to help someone.
[27:15] Speaker 2: My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner
[27:18] Speaker 2: maccarter and English Bob. So police normally need a warrant
[27:23] Speaker 2: to enter home, but there are some emergency situations that
[27:27] Speaker 2: are exceptions. Tell us about that.
[27:31] Speaker 7: So there is a so called emergency Aid exception to
[27:35] Speaker 7: the Fourth Amendment which allows police officers to conduct a
[27:38] Speaker 7: warrantless search if they have reasonable suspicion that there is
[27:42] Speaker 7: an emergency and an immediate need to protect others or
[27:46] Speaker 7: themselves from harm.
[27:48] Speaker 2: And tell us about the facts in this case.
[27:50] Speaker 7: The defendant in this case, William Trevor Case, was an
[27:53] Speaker 7: army veteran who had a girlfriend who contacted police suggesting
[27:59] Speaker 7: that mister Case might be suicidal. Officers arrived at mister
[28:02] Speaker 7: Case's house around nine pm, and they were familiar with
[28:06] Speaker 7: his history of alcohol abuse and certain mental health issues.
[28:10] Speaker 7: The ex girlfriend had told police that mister Case had
[28:13] Speaker 7: a loaded gun, he had threatened to harm police if
[28:16] Speaker 7: she tried to send officers to his home, and she
[28:18] Speaker 7: claimed before she hung up with the police that she
[28:21] Speaker 7: had heard a pop and then silence and was concerned
[28:24] Speaker 7: that mister Case had actually pulled the trigger. The officers
[28:28] Speaker 7: arrived at mister Case's door, they yelled, they shine flashlights
[28:31] Speaker 7: through the windows.
[28:32] Speaker 1: They could see empty beer.
[28:33] Speaker 7: Cans, an empty handgun, holster, and a notepad with handwriting,
[28:38] Speaker 7: which the officers believed at the time was a.
[28:40] Speaker 1: Possible suicide note.
[28:42] Speaker 7: After about forty minutes, they entered through the unlocked front door,
[28:46] Speaker 7: and when they went upstairs, they saw a closet curtain open.
[28:50] Speaker 7: Mister Case lunged forward, his armed outstretched with what officers.
[28:54] Speaker 1: Believed was a pangun.
[28:55] Speaker 7: The officer fired one shot, striking mister Case and the abdomen.
[28:59] Speaker 7: It turned out handgun was found in a nearby laundry basket.
[29:03] Speaker 1: The issue with trial.
[29:04] Speaker 7: Then, was when the defense tried to exclude the gun
[29:07] Speaker 7: and other evidence of the confrontation from the trial. The
[29:10] Speaker 7: trial judge overruled that defense and allowed the prosecution to
[29:15] Speaker 7: present it to the jury, and he was convicted after
[29:17] Speaker 7: a trial.
[29:18] Speaker 2: It seemed like the police had a lot of reasons
[29:21] Speaker 2: to go in. How much more did the defense think
[29:24] Speaker 2: they should have before they entered the house.
[29:26] Speaker 7: To put this in context, the Fourth Amendment of the
[29:28] Speaker 7: Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and provides protections for a person's
[29:33] Speaker 7: home by generally prohibiting law enforcement from entering without a
[29:37] Speaker 7: warrant that is really set up in order to allow
[29:40] Speaker 7: people to have privacy in their home in the context
[29:44] Speaker 7: of a possible criminal case. The question that was facing
[29:47] Speaker 7: justices in this case is what level of certainty must
[29:51] Speaker 7: police have that an emergency is underway before entering a
[29:55] Speaker 7: home without a warrant. Mister case's lawyers argued that it
[29:59] Speaker 7: should be a eyebar. They argue that it should be
[30:01] Speaker 7: something called probable cause, which is what police officers need
[30:05] Speaker 7: in order to get a warrant to search your home
[30:09] Speaker 7: in the case of a criminal investigation. But here this
[30:12] Speaker 7: was not a criminal investigation. This was a circumstance in
[30:15] Speaker 7: which they believed that there was an emergency and there
[30:18] Speaker 7: was someone's life at risk inside the house.
[30:21] Speaker 1: So the question is what is.
[30:23] Speaker 7: The level of certainty that police officers need to have
[30:25] Speaker 7: in order to enter the home without a warrant? And
[30:28] Speaker 7: the defense argued that that level of certainty in order
[30:31] Speaker 7: to avoid needless and dangerous confrontations and to prevent police
[30:34] Speaker 7: officers from circumventing the concept of probable cause, that there
[30:38] Speaker 7: has to be probable cause that they believe that there
[30:41] Speaker 7: is an emergency and that somebody is in imminent danger.
[30:45] Speaker 2: And what's the government arguing here? What's the standard they want?
[30:49] Speaker 7: The government argued that the justices should rely on A
[30:53] Speaker 7: Supreme Court case from two thousand and six was a
[30:56] Speaker 7: unanimous opinion in a case called Brigham City versus Stewart,
[31:00] Speaker 7: in which the Supreme Court held the police may enter
[31:02] Speaker 7: a building without a warrant when they have an objectively
[31:06] Speaker 7: reasonable basis to believe that an occupant is seriously injured
[31:10] Speaker 7: or threatened with such injury. So in that case, they
[31:14] Speaker 7: took it completely out of the context of probable cause,
[31:17] Speaker 7: which really has an entire body of case law that
[31:20] Speaker 7: talks about when police may enter a home with or
[31:23] Speaker 7: without a warrant in the context of a criminal investigation,
[31:26] Speaker 7: and said that here we're talking about imminent risk to somebody.
[31:31] Speaker 7: It's not a criminal investigation. It's really a circumstance where
[31:34] Speaker 7: police officers may come into a home in order to
[31:37] Speaker 7: arguably save the life of somebody or save the life
[31:40] Speaker 7: of somebody who may be with somebody who's in danger
[31:43] Speaker 7: of hurting them. And in that case the standard is
[31:46] Speaker 7: objectively reasonable basis to believe that the occupant is seriously
[31:49] Speaker 7: injured or threatened with such injury.
[31:52] Speaker 2: It seemed like justice is across the ideological spectrum, thought
[31:56] Speaker 2: that the police had good reason to enter here.
[32:00] Speaker 7: Yeah, Well, what's interesting here is that the Montana Supreme Court,
[32:04] Speaker 7: which is the court that had just heard the case
[32:06] Speaker 7: before going to the US Supreme Court, sided with the state,
[32:09] Speaker 7: but it was a four to three decision, and there
[32:11] Speaker 7: were actually three judges on the Montana Supreme Court who
[32:15] Speaker 7: dissented and said that for a warrantless search to be reasonable,
[32:19] Speaker 7: the higher bar or probable cause must apply, And then
[32:22] Speaker 7: they went further and added that there was no probable
[32:24] Speaker 7: cause to believe mister Case was an imminent danger or.
[32:28] Speaker 1: In need of immediate.
[32:29] Speaker 7: Assistants that would have justified the warrantless entry into the home.
[32:33] Speaker 1: When the case went to the Supreme.
[32:35] Speaker 7: Court and was argued before the Justice is there there
[32:38] Speaker 7: was virtual unanimity that the standard that had been applied by.
[32:43] Speaker 1: The state was the correct one.
[32:45] Speaker 7: First, for example, Justice Thomas noted that the issue of
[32:49] Speaker 7: probable cause is a standard that is normally limited to
[32:52] Speaker 7: the criminal context. This was not a criminal investigation, and
[32:56] Speaker 7: Justice Robert joined in on that to say, when we
[32:58] Speaker 7: talk about probable call cause, we talk about probable cause
[33:02] Speaker 7: that a crime is occurring. What standard would be used
[33:05] Speaker 7: here when we're not talking about a crime, but about
[33:08] Speaker 7: a risk of injury to somebody? And Justice Kagan also
[33:12] Speaker 7: jumped in, saying that there is a full body of
[33:14] Speaker 7: case law out there describing what probable cause is it's
[33:19] Speaker 7: not a self defining term. It has been raised in
[33:22] Speaker 7: many cases, and there is a full explanation in the
[33:26] Speaker 7: criminal context of what constitutes probable cause, but this is
[33:30] Speaker 7: something entirely different. And the justices all seemed to go
[33:34] Speaker 7: back to the Brigham City versus Stewart case from two
[33:37] Speaker 7: thousand and six to say that the standard of objectively
[33:42] Speaker 7: reasonable basis for believing if somebody needs emergency help. Is
[33:46] Speaker 7: this standard that should apply here, and Justice Alito and
[33:50] Speaker 7: Justice Brown agreed, which doesn't happen very often. They both
[33:54] Speaker 7: push back on the contention here of the defense lawyer
[33:58] Speaker 7: that this was an unreasonable act by police. Justice Alito
[34:01] Speaker 7: went so far as to say, if the police could
[34:04] Speaker 7: not enter the house based on the facts that they
[34:06] Speaker 7: knew in this case, then I don't know when police
[34:09] Speaker 7: are ever able to go into a house to prevent
[34:11] Speaker 7: something from committing suicide. The concern here is that if
[34:15] Speaker 7: there is a legal standard of probable cause in order
[34:19] Speaker 7: to go in under these emergency situations, that police officers may.
[34:23] Speaker 1: Hesitate to go into a house.
[34:25] Speaker 7: When somebody's life is at risk, and they seem to
[34:28] Speaker 7: weigh more in favor of protecting the life of an
[34:32] Speaker 7: individual and allowing police officers more latitude to go in
[34:37] Speaker 7: under these circumstances than they were about the privacy concerns
[34:41] Speaker 7: of entering a house without a warrant.
[34:43] Speaker 2: Whether police have met this standard, is that going to
[34:47] Speaker 2: turn out to be a jury question or a question
[34:50] Speaker 2: for the judge about whether evidence even gets into trial.
[34:54] Speaker 7: If the Supreme Court decides to uphold the lower court,
[34:58] Speaker 7: then there was some discussion of what comes next. In
[35:01] Speaker 7: other words, there were some justices who said that they
[35:05] Speaker 7: should simply rule that the lower court was correct and
[35:08] Speaker 7: that the standard of objectively reasonable was properly applied, and
[35:14] Speaker 7: that in this case, clearly the facts warranted the police
[35:17] Speaker 7: entering the home. Justice Soto Mayor and Justice Thomas, on.
[35:20] Speaker 1: The other hand, argued that it's the normal.
[35:23] Speaker 7: Practice of the court if they're not certain about a standard,
[35:25] Speaker 7: and we state a new standard, that it should.
[35:27] Speaker 1: Be sent back to the Montana.
[35:29] Speaker 7: Supreme Court to determine whether, based on these facts, that
[35:33] Speaker 7: objectively reasonable standard.
[35:35] Speaker 1: Had in fact been satisfied.
[35:36] Speaker 7: Justice Alito expressed some concern that in doing that it
[35:40] Speaker 7: might suggest to the lower court that this was in
[35:43] Speaker 7: some way a close call, and could, he argued, have
[35:46] Speaker 7: some kind of a killing effect on police when they're
[35:49] Speaker 7: trying to determine whether to enter a house to prevent
[35:52] Speaker 7: somebody from committing suicide.
[35:54] Speaker 2: And we should point out that here some civil rights
[35:56] Speaker 2: groups did line up behind the defendants.
[36:00] Speaker 1: Sure case is defense.
[36:01] Speaker 7: His attorney argued to the Supreme Court that the reasonableness
[36:04] Speaker 7: standard that the state was suggesting was so vague as
[36:08] Speaker 7: to invite abuse and confusion by law enforcement.
[36:12] Speaker 1: He reminded the justices.
[36:13] Speaker 7: That police had entered mister Case's home without permission, without
[36:17] Speaker 7: a warrant, or without even probable cause, and ended up
[36:20] Speaker 7: shooting him in his own home. That was essentially the
[36:23] Speaker 7: civil rights argument that mister Case's lawyer was arguing, and
[36:27] Speaker 7: a number of prominent civil rights organizations came out in
[36:31] Speaker 7: favor of the defense, arguing that the warrantless surch here
[36:35] Speaker 7: was a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and they were
[36:38] Speaker 7: more comfortable with the probable cost standard to allow police
[36:41] Speaker 7: to enter a home even in a case where there
[36:44] Speaker 7: was an emergency and there was some concern for the
[36:47] Speaker 7: safety of an individual inside the home.
[36:50] Speaker 2: This is one case this term where it appears you
[36:53] Speaker 2: never know, but it appears that we know how it's
[36:56] Speaker 2: going to turn out. We shall see. Thanks so much.
[37:00] Speaker 2: That's Robert Mints of maccarter and English. And that's it
[37:03] Speaker 2: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
[37:06] Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
[37:09] Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[37:12] Speaker 2: and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
[37:18] Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[37:21] Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[37:25] Speaker 2: 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.