# Is the Iran War Legal & the $100,000 H1-B Visas

An episode of [Bloomberg Law](https://invisiblenetwork.ai/podcast/277975394), 13 Mar 2026, 41 min.

Audio: https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.omny.fm/d/clips/e73c998e-6e60-432f-8610-ae210140c5b1/7c892d84-801f-4c0b-b0e9-ae2b0012ff5f/fc8f6cb9-4e6a-4a34-90ef-b40c003d3d4d/audio.mp3?utm_source=Podcast&in_playlist=91224201-26a6-429d-ac3c-ae2b0012ff6d

International law expert Kal Raustiala, a professor at UCLA Law School and director of the Ronald W. Burkle Center for International Relations, discusses the legality of the Iran war under US and international law. Immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland & Knight, discusses the Trump administration asking the Supreme Court to allow it to revoke temporary protected status for Haitians and the first appellate test of President Trump’s $100,000 fee for H1-B visas. 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.
[0:09] Speaker 1: We've won. Let me tell it.
[0:10] Speaker 2: We've won.
[0:12] Speaker 1: You know, you'd never like to say too early. You won.
[0:14] Speaker 1: We won the best in the first hour, it was over.
[0:17] Speaker 2: They don't know what.
[0:18] Speaker 1: The hell hit them, right, they.
[0:20] Speaker 3: Don't know.
[0:23] Speaker 4: They got hit by the American military.
[0:27] Speaker 1: They don't know.
[0:27] Speaker 4: They say, what the hell is happening? They didn't expect
[0:31] Speaker 4: anything like this.
[0:33] Speaker 2: They are absolutely being destroyed. Iran is being absolutely decimated.
[0:40] Speaker 3: Just yesterday, President Trump again declared victory over Iran, despite
[0:46] Speaker 3: the war entering its thirteenth day with no end in sight,
[0:51] Speaker 3: and as American and Israeli strikes pound the Islamic Republic
[0:55] Speaker 3: and Iran attacks Persian Gulf shipping and energy infrastructs RUTURE,
[1:00] Speaker 3: oil prices are soaring. The war costs the US eleven
[1:05] Speaker 3: point three billion dollars in the first week alone, and
[1:09] Speaker 3: Democratic lawmakers like Senator Tammy Baldwin have expressed concerns about
[1:15] Speaker 3: its legality after getting classified briefings.
[1:19] Speaker 1: We were not under attack.
[1:22] Speaker 2: We were not even under imminent threat of attack, which.
[1:25] Speaker 1: Means this is a war of choice, and it means.
[1:29] Speaker 2: That the president has violated both the Constitution and law
[1:34] Speaker 2: to go to war.
[1:36] Speaker 3: So is the Trump administration waging an illegal war against
[1:41] Speaker 3: Duran under US law or international law? Joining me to
[1:45] Speaker 3: answer that question is an expert in international law, cal Rostiella,
[1:50] Speaker 3: a professor at UCLA Law School and director of the
[1:54] Speaker 3: UCLA Ronald W. Burkele Center for International Relations. Under the Constitution,
[2:01] Speaker 3: the president commands the armed forces and directs foreign relations,
[2:06] Speaker 3: but only Congress has the power to declare war. So
[2:11] Speaker 3: is the Iran war illegal under US law?
[2:15] Speaker 1: First? Thanks for having me on.
[2:16] Speaker 4: I would say that yes, it's correct that Congress is
[2:20] Speaker 4: empowered to declare war under the Constitution. But Congress has
[2:23] Speaker 4: only done so five times in American history, and we've
[2:26] Speaker 4: used force over two hundred times, so it's pretty well
[2:29] Speaker 4: established that there's lots of uses of force that the
[2:33] Speaker 4: president can engage in without a declaration of war. And
[2:36] Speaker 4: in fact, in the post un Charter world, a declaration
[2:40] Speaker 4: of war doesn't even really make sense. The system is
[2:42] Speaker 4: predicated on the idea of self defense as the main
[2:46] Speaker 4: rationale for the use of force. But in any event,
[2:49] Speaker 4: the main thing is what's the role of Congress in this?
[2:51] Speaker 4: And I think in many other instances, we see Congress
[2:55] Speaker 4: doing something short of a declaration, like an authorization of
[2:58] Speaker 4: some kind. You go back to the Gulf of Tonkin
[3:00] Speaker 4: resolution during the Vietnam War, or the authorization to use
[3:04] Speaker 4: a military force before the Iraq War two thousand and
[3:07] Speaker 4: one in Afghanistan. And so it is often the case
[3:10] Speaker 4: that Congress plays some supportive role short of a declaration.
[3:15] Speaker 4: We obviously don't have that here.
[3:16] Speaker 3: And so then would you say that this is not
[3:20] Speaker 3: legal under US law?
[3:23] Speaker 1: I wouldn't say it's not legal.
[3:25] Speaker 4: It's difficult to answer that because the parameters of Congress's
[3:29] Speaker 4: powers and the president's.
[3:30] Speaker 1: Powers have sort of evolved over time.
[3:33] Speaker 4: I mean, even the Framing generation understood the idea that
[3:35] Speaker 4: the president had the authority to.
[3:37] Speaker 1: Repel sudden attacks.
[3:39] Speaker 4: What exactly that means and what role Congress should play
[3:43] Speaker 4: has been sort of a bit of a struggle, a
[3:45] Speaker 4: bit of a dance between the two branches. All of
[3:48] Speaker 4: that said, I think, you know, it is certainly a
[3:50] Speaker 4: kind of customary practice generally to seek some degree of
[3:54] Speaker 4: Congressional approval. But it's also the case that the executive
[3:58] Speaker 4: branch has always resisted the idea that they have to
[3:59] Speaker 4: do it and so you mentioned the Warpowers Act, that
[4:03] Speaker 4: was a nineteen seventies era maybe a high point of
[4:06] Speaker 4: Congress's attempt to claw back some of its control and
[4:09] Speaker 4: the wake of President Nixon and the kind of idea
[4:12] Speaker 4: that the presidency was a bit wayward.
[4:14] Speaker 1: But the executive branch has always been.
[4:16] Speaker 4: Resistant to it and always kind of argued either that
[4:19] Speaker 4: it doesn't apply, or it isn't fully legal, or they're
[4:21] Speaker 4: providing information but they don't have to. They've given different
[4:24] Speaker 4: articulations over time, but they don't like it, and they
[4:26] Speaker 4: don't feel that they're really forced to do a lot
[4:29] Speaker 4: of things that congressponds to do.
[4:30] Speaker 1: So it's really hard.
[4:32] Speaker 4: To say whether this is fully a violation without Congress
[4:36] Speaker 4: actually asserting itself in some way. It's more of an
[4:39] Speaker 4: invitation to struggle in a sense between these two branches
[4:42] Speaker 4: rather than clear, brightline rules.
[4:45] Speaker 3: But Congress could vote to withdraw the military from the
[4:49] Speaker 3: conflict if the votes were there.
[4:52] Speaker 4: I mean, ultimately, Congress's power prefaces by saying I'm not
[4:55] Speaker 4: a constitutional lawyer, I'm an international lawyer. But Congress's powers
[4:58] Speaker 4: are ultimately more We're in the realm of yes budget
[5:01] Speaker 4: and control over spending and appropriations and things like that.
[5:05] Speaker 4: The president is the commander in chief, so Congress can't,
[5:08] Speaker 4: as I understand it, command that the troops return. They
[5:11] Speaker 4: can certainly give their opinion about things that relate to
[5:15] Speaker 4: the use of force or the military. Just as an example,
[5:18] Speaker 4: sort of unrelated to this particular instance, but it has
[5:22] Speaker 4: some relevance. A year or two ago, Congress passed a
[5:25] Speaker 4: law about withdrawing from NATO and essentially saying, you know,
[5:28] Speaker 4: we don't support this without our approval. So those are
[5:31] Speaker 4: statements that Congress can use to indicate its preferences, which
[5:35] Speaker 4: might be relevant to a court decision and some future date.
[5:37] Speaker 4: But it's really the president's job as commander in chief
[5:40] Speaker 4: to command the troops. But Congress does have the power
[5:43] Speaker 4: of the purse and can use that. It's just not
[5:45] Speaker 4: very effective short term. And of course, whatever the congressional
[5:49] Speaker 4: powers might be, this Congress, and really every Congress of
[5:53] Speaker 4: the last I don't know, fifty plus years, has shown
[5:56] Speaker 4: very little interest in actually exerting itself as a general
[5:59] Speaker 4: math visa via the president.
[6:01] Speaker 3: What about international law does the Iran war violate?
[6:05] Speaker 1: That also a difficult question.
[6:06] Speaker 4: I would say most international lawyers outside the US government
[6:10] Speaker 4: and maybe outside state departments and foreign ministries generally would
[6:13] Speaker 4: say yes. The framework that's laid out in the UN
[6:16] Speaker 4: Charter is essentially that you can use force if an
[6:21] Speaker 4: armed attack occurs, and then there's a kind of secondary
[6:24] Speaker 4: question about what if it's about to occur, about the
[6:26] Speaker 4: imminence to mention of that, or you can use force
[6:29] Speaker 4: if the Security Council authorizes it, And those are the
[6:32] Speaker 4: only two instances, and neither of those are true here
[6:37] Speaker 4: in the view of I think the majority of international
[6:40] Speaker 4: lawyers around the world, again outside governments, outside the US government,
[6:44] Speaker 4: the Israeli government, maybe some other government. So one of
[6:46] Speaker 4: the interesting features about this particular conflict is a bit
[6:50] Speaker 4: like the Maduro raid earlier this year, there's not an
[6:54] Speaker 4: enormous amount of opprobrium headed in the direction of the US.
[6:59] Speaker 4: So there is some, of course, but there's more approval
[7:01] Speaker 4: or acquiescence than you might have expected, and I think
[7:04] Speaker 4: that partly reflects the fact that in both of those cases,
[7:08] Speaker 4: Venezuela in Iran, these are states that are not widely liked,
[7:11] Speaker 4: that are generally viewed as bad actors, and so politically
[7:14] Speaker 4: it's more difficult, but it's also the case that there's
[7:17] Speaker 4: an argument that the US, certainly I think is making
[7:20] Speaker 4: and will make. The administration is not great at making
[7:22] Speaker 4: its case. In fact, they really have not made much
[7:25] Speaker 4: of an effort at all to do that. But to
[7:27] Speaker 4: degree they have, it's sort of sounding in some kind
[7:29] Speaker 4: of self defense rationale, and you can make the argument.
[7:32] Speaker 4: I don't know if it's soally persuasive, but you can
[7:34] Speaker 4: make the argument that we are in a long term
[7:36] Speaker 4: conflict with eramic dates back decades, and that in a
[7:41] Speaker 4: sense is the continuation of an ongoing conflict rather than
[7:44] Speaker 4: a new conflict. If you accept that idea, then it
[7:48] Speaker 4: can be seen as lawful. I think it's a stretch,
[7:51] Speaker 4: but there isn't really clear rules about that about how
[7:55] Speaker 4: much time passes before a conflict is over.
[7:58] Speaker 3: Aren't there strict legal rep requirements for whether it's considered
[8:02] Speaker 3: self defense under Article fifty one of the UN Charter?
[8:07] Speaker 3: You know whether you actually need an armed attack, not
[8:10] Speaker 3: just a potential threat.
[8:12] Speaker 4: Yes, I mean, the black Letter law is pretty clear
[8:14] Speaker 4: that if an armed attack occurs, you have a customer
[8:19] Speaker 4: international law and a treaty based un Charter based right.
[8:22] Speaker 1: Of self defense. And that could be collective or individual.
[8:24] Speaker 4: In other words, you know, you could protect an ally
[8:27] Speaker 4: and vice versa, which obviously has relevance for Israel in
[8:29] Speaker 4: the United States, but if an armed attack occurs, that
[8:33] Speaker 4: language in the UN Charter makes it sound as if
[8:36] Speaker 4: you have to wait for the attack. But it's long
[8:39] Speaker 4: that understood, dating back to the nineteenth century, that that's
[8:41] Speaker 4: not the case, and that an imminent attack is sufficient
[8:46] Speaker 4: grounds for engaging in self defense. Now, the question of
[8:49] Speaker 4: how imminent has been a difficult one. Obviously, you know,
[8:53] Speaker 4: just conceptually, it's not really clear. What does that mean
[8:55] Speaker 4: is does the missiles have to be in the air
[8:57] Speaker 4: or something like that. Over time, especially in the last
[9:01] Speaker 4: let's say a couple of decades, this was relevant for
[9:03] Speaker 4: the Iraq War. The position the US has taken has
[9:06] Speaker 4: been to extend the time period of imminence such that
[9:11] Speaker 4: it's more in the role of preemptive war or even
[9:14] Speaker 4: preventive war, and that isn't widely accepted, but I think
[9:18] Speaker 4: it's fair to say that a lot of states do
[9:21] Speaker 4: sort of agree that you can't in a time of
[9:24] Speaker 4: let's say, high technology with warfare, weapons of mass destruction, etc.
[9:28] Speaker 4: You can't really wait till the attack is ongoing or
[9:32] Speaker 4: even about to be launched, you may need to act
[9:34] Speaker 4: a bit beforehand. But you know, that's a very slippery slope,
[9:37] Speaker 4: and many international lawyers find that concerning. And of course
[9:40] Speaker 4: most countries in the world are going to find a
[9:43] Speaker 4: rule like that concerning because they are much more likely.
[9:46] Speaker 1: To be attacked than to be attacking. So they worry
[9:48] Speaker 1: about that.
[9:49] Speaker 3: You mentioned President Trump or the administration not really putting
[9:53] Speaker 3: its case forward. There's been all this mixed messaging with
[9:57] Speaker 3: the President saying, you know, this is war wonted and
[10:00] Speaker 3: then talking about an excursion. This is an excursion.
[10:04] Speaker 1: That's not a legal phrase. In case you're wondering.
[10:08] Speaker 3: No, I was sort of stunned by an excursion. What
[10:11] Speaker 3: are we talking about here? I mean, do you see
[10:13] Speaker 3: a message at all here as to why we're in
[10:17] Speaker 3: the situation we're in, why we struck you're in.
[10:20] Speaker 4: Well, there's sort of two things embedded in that question.
[10:22] Speaker 4: I think what is the nature of this conflict?
[10:25] Speaker 1: I think they do not know.
[10:27] Speaker 4: In this administration, they're obviously chaotic in their decision making processes.
[10:31] Speaker 4: It's not really clear at all what was driving other
[10:34] Speaker 4: than some combination of opportunistic advantage that they saw, you know,
[10:40] Speaker 4: possibly pressure from allies, other things like that. We don't
[10:43] Speaker 4: really know. Is it war, is it something short of war?
[10:46] Speaker 4: Obviously they're uncomfortable with using the term war outside the
[10:50] Speaker 4: of office, but the President continues to use it excursion.
[10:53] Speaker 4: I think he misunderstood incursion or who knows what he's doing.
[10:56] Speaker 4: That one doesn't really make sense in terms of why
[10:59] Speaker 4: they are doing it. You know that too. They haven't
[11:02] Speaker 4: really offered a consistent rationality. I think anyone who's followed
[11:06] Speaker 4: the news knows that the rationales have changed by the day,
[11:12] Speaker 4: sometimes within a day, and also by who's speaking. We've
[11:15] Speaker 4: heard different things from different members of the administration. So
[11:18] Speaker 4: I think we actually do not really know, and there
[11:20] Speaker 4: may not be an answer about what the real reasons
[11:23] Speaker 4: are because it might be multiple reasons that are somewhat conflicting.
[11:26] Speaker 3: So there are reports that Iran maybe planning to retaliate
[11:31] Speaker 3: against the US with drone strikes in California. How would
[11:36] Speaker 3: international law view that?
[11:38] Speaker 4: Yeah, we got an email at UCLA about that possibility,
[11:42] Speaker 4: So that's circulated widely. I have to say it seems,
[11:45] Speaker 4: you know, maybe a bit far fetched, but Iran has
[11:47] Speaker 4: shown that it has power to take actions either through
[11:50] Speaker 4: itself or its proxies in other places, so it's not
[11:53] Speaker 4: to be dismissed completely. You know, it would all depend
[11:56] Speaker 4: under the laws of war. If we are in fact
[11:58] Speaker 4: in a conflict, then Iran can attack us as we
[12:01] Speaker 4: are attacking them, but you can't attack civilians. You can't
[12:05] Speaker 4: deliberately attack target civilians, and so those same rules would
[12:10] Speaker 4: apply on either side. Deliberate targeting of civilians is not permitted.
[12:16] Speaker 4: You know, there's a bunch of rules about proportionality and
[12:18] Speaker 4: distinction and so forth. Complicated set of rules that sometimes
[12:21] Speaker 4: can seem academic when you actually apply them to real cases.
[12:24] Speaker 4: But either way, drone strikes against a school or a
[12:27] Speaker 4: hospital or something like that randomly in California, no, that
[12:31] Speaker 4: would be a violation. But against a military target, if
[12:34] Speaker 4: we are in fact in an armed conflict, then that's
[12:36] Speaker 4: part of war, as you do attack military installations. And
[12:40] Speaker 4: for example, the ship that was targeted by the United
[12:42] Speaker 4: States thousands of miles from Iran and sung would be
[12:46] Speaker 4: an example of an attack like that wasn't a drone,
[12:48] Speaker 4: but it's the same idea.
[12:50] Speaker 3: So then how would you characterize the strike on the
[12:53] Speaker 3: girls elementary school in southern Iran that killed one hundred
[12:57] Speaker 3: and sixty five children and teachers.
[13:00] Speaker 4: So that appears to have been the United States. The
[13:02] Speaker 4: evidence seems pretty strong on that. If it's true that
[13:06] Speaker 4: it was deliberately targeted, obviously a violation.
[13:10] Speaker 1: Sometimes schools have been attacked.
[13:12] Speaker 4: This is an ongoing issue in for example, Gaza and
[13:15] Speaker 4: other conflicts where there are fighters embedded in a school
[13:19] Speaker 4: or a hospital or something like that, which can make
[13:21] Speaker 4: it a legitimate target, but it's subject still to some
[13:24] Speaker 4: special protections. That does not appear to be the case
[13:26] Speaker 4: here as I understand it. Again, it's a fast moving issue.
[13:29] Speaker 4: There's a lot we don't know. But if there was
[13:31] Speaker 4: no military value to that target and it was simply hit,
[13:34] Speaker 4: that would be impermissible.
[13:36] Speaker 3: Absolutely broading this out. There's been a string of unilateral
[13:41] Speaker 3: military actions taken by the Trump administration since December of
[13:47] Speaker 3: twenty twenty five. The US bomb Nigeria, shot and killed
[13:52] Speaker 3: drug smugglers in the Caribbean, and the Pacific attacked Venezuela
[13:56] Speaker 3: and kidnapped its president, and now attacked arend Would those
[14:01] Speaker 3: strikes be considered a violation of international law?
[14:07] Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean it's an amazing string of events, disturbing string.
[14:12] Speaker 4: Some of them are really blatant violations of international law. So,
[14:17] Speaker 4: for example, the boat strikes would maybe be the most
[14:19] Speaker 4: blatant in the sense that really they haven't even offered
[14:23] Speaker 4: a very coherent argument about it. But taking out those
[14:27] Speaker 4: are civilians by almost all accounts, Again, it's not like
[14:30] Speaker 4: we're not actually in a conflict with cartels. So that's
[14:34] Speaker 4: maybe the most extreme kind of clear case.
[14:37] Speaker 1: And then maybe.
[14:37] Speaker 4: Iran might be at the other end if you buy
[14:39] Speaker 4: the argument that we're in some kind of long standing
[14:41] Speaker 4: conflict that's continuing on. But when you put them all together,
[14:45] Speaker 4: stepping out of the law for a second, obviously, the
[14:46] Speaker 4: political pattern is really striking and disturbing for a number
[14:50] Speaker 4: of reasons. One because the United States is increasingly using
[14:55] Speaker 4: force abroad in ways that are I think upsetting to
[14:59] Speaker 4: many states. It's violating many rules of international law and
[15:02] Speaker 4: violating just many norms of behavior.
[15:04] Speaker 1: Whether they're legal or not.
[15:06] Speaker 4: A good example would be threatening Greenland, even if that
[15:09] Speaker 4: was not a serious threat, sort of an offhand threat
[15:11] Speaker 4: or something like that. First of all, you're not allowed
[15:13] Speaker 4: to threaten to use force under the UN Charter. That's
[15:16] Speaker 4: also a violation. But regardless of whether the threat was
[15:19] Speaker 4: really a serious one or not, just the very idea
[15:22] Speaker 4: that a NATO ally would be subjected to some kind
[15:25] Speaker 4: of threat is really shocking and was shocking to many of.
[15:29] Speaker 1: Our closest allies.
[15:30] Speaker 4: So when you put all of these things together, it
[15:33] Speaker 4: does seem sort of incredible. The amount of intervention that's
[15:36] Speaker 4: taking place, the amount of military force. Why is it happening?
[15:40] Speaker 4: I cannot answer that question. I think no one really knows.
[15:43] Speaker 4: There are so many different theories of various conspiratorial levels,
[15:47] Speaker 4: about whether there's a pattern here. It does seem like
[15:49] Speaker 4: the Trump administration often acts without any of the elaborate
[15:54] Speaker 4: process that would go on normally in an administration, and
[15:57] Speaker 4: maybe even occurred in the first Trump administration with regard
[16:00] Speaker 4: to the use of fourth Meeting, lots of process through
[16:03] Speaker 4: the National Security Council, through the State Department, through DoD,
[16:06] Speaker 4: et cetera. Thinking these things through, elaborating a strategy, examining
[16:10] Speaker 4: risks that all seems to be short circuited in a
[16:13] Speaker 4: lot of these cases. And so it's not clear that
[16:16] Speaker 4: there is a strategy. In fact, I sort of doubt it.
[16:19] Speaker 3: It's hard to see a strategy in all this. Cal,
[16:21] Speaker 3: thanks so much for joining me on the show. That's
[16:24] Speaker 3: Professor Cal Rostiella of UCLA Law School. The Trump administration
[16:30] Speaker 3: is making an emergency application to the Supreme Court to
[16:33] Speaker 3: allow it to end legal protections from deportation for three
[16:38] Speaker 3: hundred and fifty thousand Haitians. It mirrors a similar emergency
[16:42] Speaker 3: request made two weeks ago to end protections for Syrians.
[16:47] Speaker 3: The administration is also asking that Justice is to take
[16:51] Speaker 3: the unusual step of granting full review in the cases
[16:55] Speaker 3: with arguments and potentially a far reaching ruling in the
[16:59] Speaker 3: nine month term that starts in October. My guest is
[17:04] Speaker 3: immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. Leon.
[17:08] Speaker 3: The Trump administration has been moving aggressively to terminate temporary
[17:13] Speaker 3: protected status since taking power last year, and has done
[17:17] Speaker 3: so for about a dozen countries. Give us the background here.
[17:22] Speaker 2: What happens is there's a status called temporary protected status
[17:25] Speaker 2: that the Congress created out of statute, and they said
[17:28] Speaker 2: that the president has authority to declare eighteen month periods
[17:33] Speaker 2: of time where it might be too dangerous to deport
[17:36] Speaker 2: people to a particular country because of either a pandemic
[17:40] Speaker 2: or a war or a natural disaster or anything of
[17:43] Speaker 2: that element. And so over the course of the Biden administration,
[17:48] Speaker 2: many many countries ended up with temporary protected status, and
[17:52] Speaker 2: so the Trump administration said, when these statuses start to
[17:56] Speaker 2: get close to expiration, we're going to let them all like,
[18:00] Speaker 2: we're not going to renew any of these statuses. And
[18:03] Speaker 2: so you've seen that over the course of these last
[18:06] Speaker 2: eighteen months, whether it's been Venezuela or whether it's been Haiti,
[18:11] Speaker 2: or whether it's been Syria or many many other countries,
[18:14] Speaker 2: every country has had their temporary protected status not renewed.
[18:21] Speaker 2: And so it started with Venezuela, and there's litigation that's
[18:25] Speaker 2: going on with Venezuela. But the Supreme Court in that
[18:28] Speaker 2: litigation stayed a determination that would have required the temporary
[18:33] Speaker 2: protected status to remain while the injunction was in play.
[18:37] Speaker 2: So there was a lower court injunction, and then the
[18:39] Speaker 2: Supreme Court stated, so now with Haiti, there was a
[18:43] Speaker 2: similar claim. So the Trump administration tries to stop temporary
[18:48] Speaker 2: protected status from being renewed for Haitians, and then the
[18:52] Speaker 2: Haitian community challenges in the DC District Court that determination
[18:57] Speaker 2: and said it's not based on any conditions in Haiti.
[19:01] Speaker 2: It's based instead on a discriminatory animis that the Trump
[19:04] Speaker 2: administration has toward Haiti. And they provided a bunch of
[19:08] Speaker 2: comments that had been made by both President Trump and
[19:11] Speaker 2: Christy Nome about Haiti. And so the court issued an
[19:14] Speaker 2: injunction saying you can't terminate the status of the Haitians
[19:19] Speaker 2: under Temporary Protected Status. That gets appealed to the DC Circuit.
[19:24] Speaker 2: The DC Circuit two to one preserves that injunction, saying
[19:29] Speaker 2: that the Haitians can't have their TPS status, their Temporary
[19:32] Speaker 2: Protected status taken away. And so now the Solicitor General's
[19:36] Speaker 2: Office of the Department of Justice is trying to get
[19:39] Speaker 2: the Supreme Court to basically do exactly what it did
[19:42] Speaker 2: in the Venezuelan cases and say, absolutely not, you have
[19:46] Speaker 2: to put a stay on this and allow us to
[19:50] Speaker 2: take away the Temporary Protected status for the.
[19:53] Speaker 3: Haitian And they're also asking the Court to take this
[19:57] Speaker 3: unusual step of not just dealing with it on the
[20:01] Speaker 3: emergency docket, but granting full review in the case. Do
[20:05] Speaker 3: they have a good argument for that because this keeps
[20:07] Speaker 3: coming up.
[20:08] Speaker 2: Well, I think that's correct. I think at this point,
[20:10] Speaker 2: given that you have the Venezuelan cases floating around in
[20:13] Speaker 2: the Ninth Circuit, you have the Haitian case here in
[20:16] Speaker 2: the DC Circuit, you have several decisions that have been
[20:21] Speaker 2: made by the Supreme Court already granting stays, saying that
[20:25] Speaker 2: these cases shouldn't be subject to injunctions at the moment,
[20:29] Speaker 2: and then you have lower courts sort of saying, here's
[20:32] Speaker 2: a loophole reason why those Supreme Court decisions don't actually
[20:37] Speaker 2: apply to this particular case. What the Justice Department is
[20:42] Speaker 2: trying to do is to get sort of a global
[20:45] Speaker 2: three hundred and sixty degree ruling that can be applied
[20:48] Speaker 2: to all of these various TPS revocations so that they
[20:52] Speaker 2: have an understanding of what the answer is, whether the
[20:55] Speaker 2: answer is they can or can't do it, whatever the
[20:57] Speaker 2: answer may be, they just want an ad So I
[21:00] Speaker 2: do think the Supreme Court is going to be sympathetic
[21:03] Speaker 2: to giving an answer as to what is actually permissible
[21:06] Speaker 2: or not permissible in the temporary protective status context.
[21:10] Speaker 3: As we've discussed before, in the name itself, it's temporary
[21:15] Speaker 3: protected status, I mean, or the Haitian, Syrians and Venezuelans
[21:20] Speaker 3: before them trying to get this TPS status changed to
[21:25] Speaker 3: a permanent status.
[21:26] Speaker 2: The best way to describe it is as follows. The
[21:30] Speaker 2: people with this status definitely don't want to lose this
[21:33] Speaker 2: status because this is a status that allows them to
[21:35] Speaker 2: be here legally and allows them to work, and they
[21:39] Speaker 2: probably would make any argument that they could make in
[21:42] Speaker 2: order to keep this status. But here they're trying to
[21:46] Speaker 2: advance an argument that does have some interesting relevance to
[21:51] Speaker 2: it in terms of the court having to decide whether
[21:53] Speaker 2: this kind of argument is reviewable or not, and that
[21:56] Speaker 2: is that the administration is an actually doing a detailed
[22:01] Speaker 2: look at the conditions that led to temporary protected status
[22:07] Speaker 2: in the first place and deciding that those conditions had
[22:10] Speaker 2: changed sufficiently in order to remove the temporary protected status. Instead,
[22:17] Speaker 2: they've already decided they're just getting rid of all of
[22:19] Speaker 2: these statuses, And in fact, the plaintiffs don't just say that,
[22:23] Speaker 2: So they don't just say that there's an insufficient analysis
[22:27] Speaker 2: of the country conditions on the ground, but they're also
[22:29] Speaker 2: saying that there's an actual discriminatory animus toward whichever country
[22:35] Speaker 2: they're suing about. So they'll give from the Venezuelan context
[22:39] Speaker 2: comments that the administration had made about Venezuela or in
[22:43] Speaker 2: the Haitian context, the comments that people the administration had
[22:47] Speaker 2: made about Haiti. And so they're trying to say that
[22:51] Speaker 2: because of those two issues, the lack of analysis as
[22:53] Speaker 2: the country conditions and the discriminatory animists, that the courts
[22:58] Speaker 2: have a role in analyzing whether in that scenario it's
[23:02] Speaker 2: sufficient to revoke temporary protective status. And the government says
[23:07] Speaker 2: absolutely not. This is temporary protective status. Congress gives the
[23:10] Speaker 2: discretion to the president to grant it or not to
[23:13] Speaker 2: grant it. And you can't have the courts forcing the
[23:16] Speaker 2: president to renew temporary protective status. That's way outside the
[23:21] Speaker 2: bounds of anything that courts are allowed to do. When
[23:25] Speaker 2: Congress says, this is up to the president to determine.
[23:28] Speaker 2: And so that's a very strong argument as well, and
[23:32] Speaker 2: we're going to have to see where the courts want
[23:34] Speaker 2: to go.
[23:35] Speaker 3: The first appellate test of the lawfulness of President Trump's
[23:39] Speaker 3: toughest restrictions so far on high skilled immigration took place
[23:44] Speaker 3: at the DC Court of Appeals. The Chamber of Commerce
[23:47] Speaker 3: and other groups are challenging the one hundred thousand dollars
[23:51] Speaker 3: fee Trump put on H one B worker petitions. Tell
[23:55] Speaker 3: us a little bit about this one hundred thousand dollars fee.
[23:58] Speaker 2: So let's start with just the H one B program
[24:01] Speaker 2: in general. The H one B program in general is
[24:03] Speaker 2: a statutory program that the Congress created where there's eighty
[24:07] Speaker 2: five thousand visas permitted per year. Where if a company
[24:11] Speaker 2: has a job opening in an occupation that requires a degree,
[24:16] Speaker 2: whether it be a bachelor's or a master's or a PhD,
[24:20] Speaker 2: then that employer can petition for an H one B
[24:23] Speaker 2: visa for someone that has that exact degree that's required
[24:27] Speaker 2: by that exact job title. So the demand is often
[24:31] Speaker 2: much higher than the eighty five thousand. There are congressionally
[24:36] Speaker 2: created fees that are there for the administration of the program,
[24:40] Speaker 2: meaning to fund the adjudicators that adjudicate the petitions and
[24:45] Speaker 2: the fraud adjudicators that are there to make sure that
[24:49] Speaker 2: the companies aren't using these visas improperly but are actually
[24:52] Speaker 2: paying their workers and are actually employing the workers in
[24:57] Speaker 2: the locations they said they were going to be employing
[24:59] Speaker 2: their workers. And so those fees on average are about
[25:02] Speaker 2: six to seven thousand per year. Now, what has the
[25:05] Speaker 2: Trump administration done. The Trump administration has said that we
[25:10] Speaker 2: have this authority called INA Section two twelve F and
[25:14] Speaker 2: that authority everybody might recognize because it's the same thing
[25:17] Speaker 2: as the travel ban. So, when Trump did the travel
[25:20] Speaker 2: ban in his first term, and that travel ban was
[25:24] Speaker 2: upheld by the Supreme Court that said that Iran, Iraq,
[25:27] Speaker 2: et cetera, those individuals couldn't enter the United States. Now
[25:31] Speaker 2: Trump has extended that ban in this presidency. So what
[25:35] Speaker 2: the Trump administration has said is that statue doesn't just
[25:39] Speaker 2: permit or authorize bans. It authorizes any restrictions that the
[25:45] Speaker 2: president thinks are in the national interest. And so here
[25:50] Speaker 2: the president said, well, let's try a different type of restriction.
[25:54] Speaker 2: Let's try instead of a ban on people coming in
[25:57] Speaker 2: on H to one b's, let's charge to one hundred
[26:00] Speaker 2: thousand dollars a fees for people on H one B visas. Now,
[26:05] Speaker 2: the problem with using the ban statute is that fee
[26:09] Speaker 2: is only going to be applicable to people applying from abroad,
[26:14] Speaker 2: and so the idea is they will have to pay
[26:16] Speaker 2: a one hundred thousand dollars fee if they want one
[26:19] Speaker 2: of these visas. And the reason for that would be Hey,
[26:22] Speaker 2: to the extent that you think that these visas are
[26:25] Speaker 2: undercutting American workers, that the only reason companies are using
[26:28] Speaker 2: this is not because these are the best workers for
[26:31] Speaker 2: the job, but instead because what they're trying to do
[26:34] Speaker 2: is undercut the wages of American workers. Well, now we
[26:38] Speaker 2: know that's not going to be true. If a company
[26:40] Speaker 2: is willing to spend one hundred thousand dollars, then they
[26:43] Speaker 2: clearly value this worker. That's the theory. Let's cut to
[26:47] Speaker 2: the district court. The district court says, hey, that's fine.
[26:50] Speaker 2: The Trump administration has this authority to charge one hundred
[26:53] Speaker 2: thousand dollars and the story. So then there's an appeal.
[26:57] Speaker 2: And in the middle of the appeal there is the
[27:01] Speaker 2: case involving the use of taxation with regard to tariffs
[27:06] Speaker 2: and whether the president exceeded the limits of the presidency
[27:10] Speaker 2: and when the President issued these tariffs in the form
[27:14] Speaker 2: of taxes, and in those cases, what the court said
[27:17] Speaker 2: was only Congress can authorize these taxes. You can't have
[27:21] Speaker 2: the administration basically passing new taxes without congressional authorities. So
[27:27] Speaker 2: now the people who've been challenging this one hundred thousand
[27:30] Speaker 2: dollars fee came and sort of transitioned their argument into
[27:34] Speaker 2: the same argument as the tariffs, which is that this
[27:37] Speaker 2: one hundred thousand dollars fee isn't an immigration restriction, it's
[27:42] Speaker 2: a tax. And if it's a tax, then the president
[27:45] Speaker 2: can't do it. It has to be done by Congress.
[27:48] Speaker 2: And so the oral argument in this case that just
[27:51] Speaker 2: happened on March ninth really focused on this issue as
[27:54] Speaker 2: to what is this one hundred thousand dollars Is it
[27:57] Speaker 2: a de facto ban, in which case we would add
[28:00] Speaker 2: it sort of under the same travel ban free features
[28:04] Speaker 2: we've been analyzing other cases under. Or is this a
[28:07] Speaker 2: tax that's designed to raise revenue, because in the end,
[28:10] Speaker 2: we expect that people are going to pay it, and
[28:14] Speaker 2: so it's not going to ban anybody. People will pay
[28:17] Speaker 2: the fee. Now, in practice, very few people are going
[28:20] Speaker 2: to pay the fee. The administration has claimed that seventy
[28:23] Speaker 2: people have paid this fee, which I find fascinating. I
[28:26] Speaker 2: couldn't imagine that that would even be true. Of all,
[28:29] Speaker 2: I have no reason to disbelieve this. I'm just shocked
[28:32] Speaker 2: that anybody paid this hundred thousand dollars fee, but they
[28:35] Speaker 2: claimed that seventy people did and so it's going to
[28:38] Speaker 2: be interesting to see whether if it's a tax, it's
[28:41] Speaker 2: much more likely to be stricken down, but if it's
[28:43] Speaker 2: a ban, it's a lot less likely to be stricken down.
[28:46] Speaker 3: So during the oral arguments, Judge Michelle Chiles asked counsel
[28:52] Speaker 3: for the Trump administration kept pressing on how it was
[28:55] Speaker 3: classifying what are you calling this? Is it a fee?
[28:58] Speaker 3: Is it a tax? Is it ay? And the Department
[29:01] Speaker 3: of Justice attorney said the label doesn't really matter, But
[29:05] Speaker 3: doesn't the label really matter?
[29:07] Speaker 2: Well, yes, the whole point is the label matters here
[29:10] Speaker 2: because if they want to call it an immigration restriction,
[29:14] Speaker 2: they're going to be in much better shape in terms
[29:17] Speaker 2: of the deference. The Supreme Court has already given this
[29:20] Speaker 2: as an immigration restriction, and I would have advised them
[29:23] Speaker 2: that that was the best argument to make, that the
[29:25] Speaker 2: one hundred thousand dollars fee is an immigration restriction designed
[29:30] Speaker 2: to prevent the undercutting of American workers, it's not designed
[29:34] Speaker 2: to raise revenue for the government. But they didn't make
[29:37] Speaker 2: that argument. They just said it's irrelevant. And so from
[29:41] Speaker 2: that standpoint, now they are having to see what the
[29:45] Speaker 2: court is going to call this thing, and if the
[29:48] Speaker 2: court calls it attacks, they're going to strike it down.
[29:50] Speaker 2: But if the court calls it an immigration restriction that's
[29:54] Speaker 2: designed to be in the national interest by preventing the
[29:56] Speaker 2: eighth to one to B program from being used to
[29:59] Speaker 2: undercut the America can work force, then that's going to
[30:02] Speaker 2: be potentially a restriction they can do. Now that's going
[30:06] Speaker 2: to run into its own potential statutory problem, because there's
[30:09] Speaker 2: a whole bunch of statutes about the wage itself that
[30:12] Speaker 2: you have to charge on H one b's and so
[30:16] Speaker 2: the point being, if you really didn't think that was
[30:18] Speaker 2: sufficient to protect the American workers, then you're running a
[30:22] Speaker 2: foul of what Congress said. And so these are tough questions.
[30:26] Speaker 2: It's band authority versus other statutes. That's something that's happening
[30:31] Speaker 2: in asylum right now, and it's something that's happening in
[30:34] Speaker 2: H one B, where the argument is there's two statutes
[30:38] Speaker 2: that easily are plausible for a court to choose. One
[30:42] Speaker 2: is the version that the Trump administration wants, one is
[30:45] Speaker 2: the version that the foreign nationals suing the Trump administration wants.
[30:50] Speaker 2: And in both cases, the courts are being asked to
[30:52] Speaker 2: determine which statute actually is the applicable statute here.
[30:57] Speaker 3: My guest is immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partner
[31:01] Speaker 3: at Holland and Knight. In recent weeks, immigration agents have
[31:06] Speaker 3: sort of scaled back aggressive enforcement and the streets sweep.
[31:11] Speaker 3: They're focusing on conducting more targeted enforcement operations, so we
[31:16] Speaker 3: haven't seen those violent clashes. So that's led to a
[31:20] Speaker 3: drop in immigration arrests.
[31:23] Speaker 2: Well, I think this is complicated because I think what's
[31:27] Speaker 2: really happening right now is the Trump administration was trying
[31:32] Speaker 2: to the famous expression goes build the plane while they
[31:36] Speaker 2: were flying the plane, and I think they realized that
[31:40] Speaker 2: as well intentioned as their goals may have been in
[31:43] Speaker 2: the sense that they had made a campaign promise to
[31:45] Speaker 2: have mass deportations and they wanted to carry out mass deportations,
[31:50] Speaker 2: the point is is if you wanted to actually build
[31:53] Speaker 2: an infrastructure around that, then you needed to do certain things.
[31:57] Speaker 2: You needed to have more immigration court you needed to
[32:01] Speaker 2: have more ice attorneys. You needed to have more attorneys
[32:05] Speaker 2: in the Justice Department who would then do the appeals
[32:09] Speaker 2: that went into the federal courts. You needed to have
[32:12] Speaker 2: more detention space, and to all of that needed to
[32:15] Speaker 2: be built out, and it needed to be built out
[32:18] Speaker 2: within a framework where a lot of people were resigning
[32:22] Speaker 2: from all of these positions because not everybody agrees with
[32:25] Speaker 2: the mass deportation mission. So whatever you think about it,
[32:29] Speaker 2: these are just the challenges of building a mass deportation infrastructure.
[32:34] Speaker 2: Is you have to build all these things, and then
[32:36] Speaker 2: you have to do it with a supply of lawyers
[32:40] Speaker 2: that might be less because again, like I said, not
[32:43] Speaker 2: so many lawyers go into law thinking that the reason
[32:46] Speaker 2: they're going to have a legal career is to create
[32:48] Speaker 2: a mass deportation framework. I mean, this wasn't even a
[32:51] Speaker 2: thing a few years ago. So very few people who
[32:54] Speaker 2: went to law school who would be eligible to take
[32:56] Speaker 2: these jobs are people who went to law school with
[33:00] Speaker 2: this mindset. And so all of these create challenges for
[33:04] Speaker 2: the administration. And so what I think they've decided to
[33:07] Speaker 2: do is, let's for the moment, while we have an
[33:11] Speaker 2: election coming up in November, focus on the initial mission
[33:16] Speaker 2: of detaining people who are people with criminal convictions or
[33:21] Speaker 2: final orders of removal and getting as much of that
[33:25] Speaker 2: population removed as possible while we build out this infrastructure.
[33:30] Speaker 2: But they're still building it out. They're building more detention
[33:33] Speaker 2: facilities all over the country. They're trying to end what's
[33:37] Speaker 2: called the Board of Immigration Appeals, which was a second
[33:41] Speaker 2: layer of review of a deportation order. So now they
[33:44] Speaker 2: just want to have an immigration judge, one judge who
[33:47] Speaker 2: makes a decision, and then if the federal courts want
[33:50] Speaker 2: to get involved, then the federal courts. But they want
[33:53] Speaker 2: to take away the administrative appeal that existed, and so
[33:57] Speaker 2: that's in litigation right now, and then they want to
[34:00] Speaker 2: have this framework of mandatory detention that whenever you put
[34:04] Speaker 2: someone in deportation proceedings, they're going to have to fight
[34:07] Speaker 2: it from detention, which the way to do that is
[34:11] Speaker 2: to win these cases that are challenging that right now
[34:15] Speaker 2: and then build out the mandatory detention space. So what
[34:19] Speaker 2: they're trying to do now is have this consolidation period
[34:23] Speaker 2: where they get all of these ducks in a row,
[34:25] Speaker 2: so that maybe by January of twenty twenty seven, they
[34:29] Speaker 2: can actually start really tightening the mass deportation machine because
[34:37] Speaker 2: the infrastructure has been built. So I would not call
[34:40] Speaker 2: this pause a permanent pause. I would call this a
[34:44] Speaker 2: temporary pause so that the conflagrations that we saw on
[34:48] Speaker 2: the street don't happen before November, but b to allow
[34:54] Speaker 2: this detention deportation infrastructure to be built so that then
[34:59] Speaker 2: it can re operate in twenty twenty seven and twenty
[35:02] Speaker 2: twenty eight in.
[35:03] Speaker 3: Light of that, you know, detention. On Wednesday, a federal
[35:07] Speaker 3: judge scolded the Department of Homeland Security for detaining immigrants
[35:12] Speaker 3: for a month or longer without bond hearings, calling to
[35:16] Speaker 3: practice shocking and a huge whopping statutory violation. Judge Beryl
[35:22] Speaker 3: Howell said that people accused of committing crimes get such
[35:26] Speaker 3: bond hearings sooner than immigrants accused of civil offenses. So
[35:31] Speaker 3: this is also part of the Trump administration's plan.
[35:35] Speaker 2: Right, Well, what happens is this, So let's remember, first
[35:39] Speaker 2: of all, why is any immigrant in detention? Because remember
[35:43] Speaker 2: that in America we don't put people who are not
[35:47] Speaker 2: criminals in detention. So the only reason immigrants are in
[35:50] Speaker 2: detention is in order to secure their removal. So the
[35:54] Speaker 2: Supreme Court has said, we will make a minor constitutional
[35:58] Speaker 2: loophole for deen in the civil context, which is what
[36:02] Speaker 2: immigration is, it's not considered criminal, it's considered the civil context.
[36:06] Speaker 2: And by the way, that's a designation that benefits the government.
[36:09] Speaker 2: It doesn't harm the government because if it was in
[36:12] Speaker 2: the criminal context, then deportation cases would require jury trials
[36:17] Speaker 2: and you couldn't have expost facto deportations or any of that.
[36:21] Speaker 2: But all of that's permitted in civil So the government
[36:24] Speaker 2: can do almost anything at once in the immigration context
[36:27] Speaker 2: because it's considered a civil punishment, not a criminal punishment.
[36:32] Speaker 2: But the one caveat to that is that the tension
[36:35] Speaker 2: is supposed to be limited only to the bare minimum
[36:39] Speaker 2: that is required in order to execute a deportation. And
[36:44] Speaker 2: the flip side of that is that if you're not
[36:48] Speaker 2: someone who's considered dangerous or a flight risk, constitutionally, the
[36:54] Speaker 2: basis to detain you really starts to become very light
[36:59] Speaker 2: in this context because it's the civil context and you're
[37:03] Speaker 2: not a flight risk and you're not dangerous, And so
[37:06] Speaker 2: that's what Judge Howell is saying, is how are you
[37:09] Speaker 2: detaining these individuals? The Trump administration is saying, we're detaining
[37:13] Speaker 2: them because we believe there's a statute that says that
[37:17] Speaker 2: if you cross the border illegally and we find you,
[37:21] Speaker 2: we can detain you until the day we deport you.
[37:24] Speaker 2: And that's in litigation. The problem is Judge Howell has
[37:29] Speaker 2: a different case she's dealing with, which has to do
[37:32] Speaker 2: with can you arrest people in DC without a warrant
[37:36] Speaker 2: for immigration because people were suing saying there was racial
[37:39] Speaker 2: profiling going on and that there should be warrants, so
[37:43] Speaker 2: that again ICE has to look for people that it
[37:46] Speaker 2: knows are undocumented instead of just grabbing people in the
[37:49] Speaker 2: middle of the street. And so she had agreed with
[37:52] Speaker 2: with that, and this was a content hearing to determine
[37:56] Speaker 2: what is happening now and in that chief that people
[38:01] Speaker 2: are being detained for a month without bond hearings, and
[38:04] Speaker 2: that's because of the backlog and the immigration courts. The
[38:07] Speaker 2: immigration courts again, when you're building this infrastructure out where
[38:12] Speaker 2: you're trying to do mass deportations and mass detentions, if
[38:16] Speaker 2: you have many, many, many more people detained than you
[38:19] Speaker 2: used to have, which is what we have. We used
[38:21] Speaker 2: to have thirty to forty thousand people detained every day
[38:25] Speaker 2: for immigration violations. Now we have something like seventy to
[38:29] Speaker 2: eighty thousand. And you don't double the size of the
[38:32] Speaker 2: immigration court, then what you're going to end up having
[38:35] Speaker 2: is this exact situation where the bond hearings take longer.
[38:40] Speaker 2: And it's not even necessarily a strategy, Hey let's have
[38:45] Speaker 2: the bond hearings take longer. It's just inevitable because you've
[38:49] Speaker 2: doubled the number of people who need bond hearings, and
[38:52] Speaker 2: you haven't doubled the amount of courts or prosecutors or
[38:56] Speaker 2: anything else that would need to deal with that. And
[39:00] Speaker 2: so those are again issues that are going to end
[39:03] Speaker 2: up being litigated. I'm sure there will be a class
[39:05] Speaker 2: action that talks about this, and all of this is
[39:09] Speaker 2: going to come to play, But I think the main
[39:11] Speaker 2: decision that's going to really impact this is when the
[39:14] Speaker 2: Supreme Court ultimately decides this issue of whether the Trump
[39:19] Speaker 2: administration has authority to mandatorily detain any individual who's in
[39:26] Speaker 2: America who not overstate their visa but illegally cross the border,
[39:31] Speaker 2: because that's a new position that the Trump administration has
[39:34] Speaker 2: taken and that's currently working its way up different circuits.
[39:38] Speaker 2: The Fifth Circuit has said, yes, they do have this authority.
[39:42] Speaker 2: Other circuits are ruling that they don't have the authority
[39:45] Speaker 2: or they're about to rule that, and so it's going
[39:47] Speaker 2: to get to the Supreme Court and that's ultimately going
[39:50] Speaker 2: to address millions of people that are here, whether they'll
[39:54] Speaker 2: those millions of people can be detained and put into
[39:57] Speaker 2: a mass deportation framework, or whether the Trump administration has
[40:01] Speaker 2: to give bond hearings to those people once they're apprehended.
[40:06] Speaker 3: Thanks so much. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight,
[40:09] Speaker 3: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
[40:12] Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
[40:14] Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
[40:19] Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
[40:24] Speaker 3: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
[40:27] Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
[40:31] Speaker 3: 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.