September 9, 2025 • 32 mins
David Harris, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School and an expert in racial profiling, discusses the Supreme Court lifting the restrictions on immigrations stops in Los Angeles. Laura Davison, Washington Deputy Bureau Chief, discusses the latest on the Jeffrey Epstein files. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We know that this is simply un American, but as
enraging as the news is for Minny Angelinos and people
across the country, let me make this very clear for
the press and to our country that we will not
allow the Supreme Court or anyone to divide us.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass slammed the Supreme Court's emergency
ruling on Monday that lifted a federal judge's order that
barred ice agents from stomping people solely on the basis
of their race, language, job, or location. The ruling was
six to three down ideological lines, and the conservative majority
(00:51):
didn't provide an explanation for their decision, but immigration advocates
say it means the court has basically legalized racial profiling.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Emigration agents are now being given the power to profile, stop, detain,
and arrest people because of the color of their skin,
the language they speak, or the work that they do.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
We should not have to live in a country where
the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish,
and appears to work a low wage job, wrote Justice
to the mayor.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote a blistering descent for the Court's liberals,
writing that she would not stand idly by while our
constitutional freedoms are lost and pointing out that the reasoning
behind the Court's entirely unexplained order is anyone's guests. My
guest is David Harris, a professor at the University of
(01:51):
Pittsburgh Law School and an expert in racial profiling. David,
under the Fourth Amendment, when can law enforcement agents stop someone?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
People can be stopped by the police under the Fourth
Amendment when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is
afoot and they may be involved in the crime, and
reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause, but it is
based on facts and reasons. Now, when we transition from
detecting crime to looking at immigration issues, the standard is
(02:24):
still reasonable suspicion. There must be facts and there must
be proper inferences. But what we're looking for, of course,
is whether a person is in immigration status or not.
And you're still looking at reasonable suspicion. So what would
those factors be for immigration? The standard is the same.
(02:46):
You just have to reference facts.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
What exactly did the Supreme Court do in its decision
on Monday.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
Well, what they did was to stop the decision of
the lower court stay it. The lower court in Los
Angeles had decided that ICE and its law enforcement allies
were using factors to stop people that inevitably led to
unconstitutional stops. And the lower court had said, you may
(03:18):
not use, either alone or in combination, the factors of
somebody's Hispanic or Latino appearance, speaking Spanish or having an
accent to speak Spanish appearance, that you are engaged in
low wage work and being at a location associated with
(03:39):
day labor. And the Court said, you can't do this
anymore because I can see from the evidence that I took.
The judge said that this is being done in ways
that violate the Constitution. And what the Supreme Court did
on its emergency docket was to say, no, no, this
(04:00):
order will not go into effect. We're holding it for
now until we have more time to look at it.
And Justice Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that is not a
full opinion, it is not for the court, saying that
he believed that the administration of Trump and his allies
who want to be able to use those factors will
(04:23):
succeed when they get to a full hearing that they'll win,
and therefore Ice and the police allies can go back
to using those factors when they stop people to see
if they are in violation of the immigration laws. And
this called forth some opinions from the other justices, notably
(04:46):
Justice Sonia Sotomayer, who said that this was going to
lead us in the wrong direction. You'd have people being
stopped just for their Hispanic appearance, just for speaking Spanish.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
So is what the courts do. Though the court conveniently,
as you mentioned, did not issue a majority opinion, so
we don't know why they said this. But are they
basically saying, well, racial profiling's okay.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Then what they're doing is they're looking back and this
is the best we can tell. We're not really sure because,
like you said, there is no opinion, there's been no
briefing on this, there's been no argument, there's no full opinion,
so we're having to speculate to some extent. But what
they seem to be saying, based on the fact that
they stopped the lower court's ruling, which would have put
(05:31):
a stop to all of this, and Justice Kavanaugh's opinion
for himself is it's okay. To use some combination of
those four factors, ethnic appearance, Spanish speaking or accent, appearance
of being a low wage worker in these particular locations. Now,
Kavanaugh was clear on saying, you can't just say, well,
(05:54):
this person looks Mexican and that's enough. That wouldn't be
alone by itself. But it's a very slippery slope down
to exactly that point. Our experience with this sort of
thing goes back many years now. I've been studying racial
and ethnic profiling for well over thirty years, and we've
seen it. We've seen exactly this kind of thing before.
(06:15):
We saw it when Arizona enacted they show your paper
statue back in about two thousand and eight or so,
and Sheriff Joe Arpaio went to town on that and
it was just picking up people because of how they
looked and their Spanish speaking or their accent. And that
is racial profiling by any other name. I mean, we
(06:36):
don't want to call it that, fine, but that's what happened.
Law enforcement begins to lean on the most obvious factors,
and that's what the judge saw in Los Angeles, and
that's why the judge stopped them from doing this in
the first place. So all of this will move immigration
enforcement efforts right up to that very same line, and
(06:56):
we will have people getting picked up just for how
they look, weather they're Spanish speaking. It's going to happen
as night follows day.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
And I mean, the only way you'll get to see
what the officers relied on is if a case is
brought right.
Speaker 5 (07:13):
Exactly, and there will be some cases broad chances there,
because one of the other effects of this is going
to be that lots of people will be interrogated and
even picked up and arrested who are in good order
as far as immigration law. That's another thing that we see.
Whenever there is widespread sort of dragnet pulling people in
(07:37):
on these very basic factors, they end up making mistakes
law enforcement folks do when they're allowed to lean on
those kind of factors, and we will get a few
people who end up in custody, maybe for a few days,
maybe for a long time, maybe even getting deported before
it can be reversed and they can bring a case.
Justice Kavanaugh says in his opinion, well, look, if everything's
(08:00):
in order, they'll just let you go. And he says
it's an important problem in Los Angeles, because there's an
estimate of stake two million people who are undocumented in
Los Angeles. But what he does say is that there
are millions more who share those characteristics, who have ethnic
features of people from Latin America, who speak Spanish, who
(08:23):
have a Spanish accent, and they're going to be swept
up in this too, and that's where the cases will
probably come from.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Just as Kavanaugh said, as for stops of those individuals
who are legally in the country, the questioning in those
circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go
free after making clear to the immigration officers that they
are US citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.
He doesn't mention that one of the plaintiffs here, Jason
(08:51):
Brian Gavidia, who's an American citizen, was stopped by immigration agents,
shoved into a metal fence and his arm was twisted
behind his back, all the while that he's shouting, I'm American,
I was born in East LA And there's video of
it that anyone can see on the internet.
Speaker 6 (09:09):
Look literally based off with skin color.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Gavidia says that he was frightened and the agents took
his phone and ID. He was released, but he never
did get his ID card back.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
Yeah, I mean this is going to happen. This is
going to happen more now that everybody can see, including
the ICE agents and the police are helping them, that
they've been given the green light. So we will have
that happen. It's a certainty. And for Justice Cavanaugh to say, hey,
it's all fine as long as you carrying your papers
(09:49):
with it, well, I mean, do you carry your birth
certificate to work? I mean does everybody do that? And
even if you do, you might not get those things back.
You can be in big trouble even if you have
crushed every t and dited every eye and you were
born here. So I just really took offense at that.
I think it's somebody who never has to confront these
(10:09):
problems making a pronouncement he knows nothing about.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
So Justice Sodomayo wrote a stinging descent quote, we should
not have to live in a country where the government
can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears
to work a low wage job. She quoted a nineteen
seventy five case that said it was unconstitutional for the
border patrol to stop a car and question its occupants
(10:34):
when the only ground for suspicion was that they appeared
to be of Mexican ancestry. Does this shadow docket decision
contradict that decision or is it broader.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
It's a little broader, But again we're less to speculate
because it's just on the shadow docket and there's been
no full opinion. There was no briefing for the court,
there was no argument. But that's a live question.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
For sure.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
There is an older case that says things like that
you have to go beyond just ethnic appearance, but certainly
it does also say that same case, ethnic appearance counts.
And my experience, in the experience of those who study
this as I have, is that when that's a factor
that is relied on, even with others in the mix,
(11:23):
law enforcement leans heavily on. It discounts the other factors
that may go in the other direction, and you get
mistakes and the enforcement itself becomes less efficient. But more
than that, people who are in good order will have
this imposed on them, and it'll be up to them
to prove no, no, I'm here legally, I was born here,
(11:45):
whatever it is. Instead of the other way around.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Coming up is Chicago. Next, this is Bloomberg. I've been
talking to Professor David Harris of the University of Pittsburgh
Law School about the Supreme Court in a six to
three decision and lifting a restraining order from a judge
who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stomps in
(12:07):
and around LA. The order had barred immigration agents from
stomping people solely based on their race, language, job, or location.
So Ice has promised in an online post to quote
continue to flood the zone in Los Angeles. So they
seem to be taking this as an okay from the
(12:28):
Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Absolutely, it's the green light. They can all see it.
Everybody can read it. And when they say flood the zone,
they mean lots and lots of people from our force
will be out there doing this. And you know, like
I said before, this is just so unfortunate because when
we pour people into a problem like this and we
give them, give them the green light and the thumbs up,
(12:50):
we know that some people are going to be impacted
negatively who have done nothing wrong and shouldn't have to
be imposed upon. And long range, what you care about
is public safety. If that's on your agenda, you are
doing the wrong thing. You're cutting off your nose despite
your face. Because public safety depends on public support. You
(13:11):
need the public to give the police information about what's
what in the neighborhoods. If this is happening not just
to people who might be deported legitimately, let's say, but
to other members of their family who are here legally,
to people who are just in the neighborhood and who
have been born here because they look a certain way.
(13:32):
That is going to alienate people, not just from ice
but from police generally. And that is a terrible message
to send out, and it makes them less likely to
cooperate with any policing of any type, and that will
leave predators on our streets. So this immigration policy of
flooding the zone with forces with these low accuracy factors,
(13:55):
this is going to make it more dangerous for us
just on the level of regular crime.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
The way they're stopping based on these factors, I mean,
is that proving to be a good way to find
people who are here illegally. Are they making a lot
of arrest because of that?
Speaker 5 (14:12):
Undoubtedly they are making some arrest of people who are deportable.
There's no doubt about that. It works. Sometimes the question
is isn't there a better way that doesn't also sweep in
lots of people who have nothing to do with this,
who are not part of whatever you consider the immigration problem.
If you simply rely on this sort of blunt instrument,
(14:34):
you're going to be doing damage along with whatever you
see as moving toward your goals. So it will work,
There's no question that sometimes it will work. Can I
give you a number? No? Is it nine out of
ten times? Is it one out of two times? Nobody knows?
And this stuff isn't being tracked. But when you lean
(14:54):
on ethnic or racial appearance even as one factor along,
the data for years and years has been clear that
this kind of approach is far less accurate than others
you might use, and it alienates the public that you
really need to support you.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Yeah, I was reading that in some neighborhoods in Los Angeles,
when they see those vans with tinted windows, the neighbors
who are here legally go out and warn people.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
And absolutely, and we can't be surprised by that given
what we've seen, given the way that force has been
used on people, and that has been sort of publicized,
pushed out. Look, this is a good thing. Is it surprising?
Not at all? People have been put in fear by this,
and quite deliberately put in fear. So you can't be
(15:47):
shocked when members of the public turn around and say,
this isn't the kind of thing I want going on,
and they start warning people. You know, they're not on
the enforcement team, they're on the non enforcement team. Think
of it like.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
That immigration advocates say and fear that this is going
to open the door to racial profiling of Hispanic people
across the United States. Do you think now that the
Supreme Court has said this is okay in Los Angeles,
it'll be okay in Chicago or New York or other cities.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
Well, again, we're left without full knowledge of what the
Supreme Court has done or will do, because they have
made this statement, put out this stay of the lower
court's order, and then you have Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, which
doesn't represent the whole court. We don't know how far
they will go or what they will say in the end.
But people who know just the headline, if they're in
(16:47):
the enforcement business, that's how they're going to take it
Supreme Court says it's okay to use racial or ethnic appearance.
They're not even going to make the distinction that Justice
Kavanaugh does, which is that wouldn't be enough by itself.
They're going to take it as racial profiling is okay.
And if it's okay in LA, why wouldn't it be
(17:08):
okay in Chicago or New York. So this has the
potential to do a lot of damage in ways that
we would probably want to avoid. But with this decision,
the way it's come out and the insufficient explanation, I
think there's no avoiding it.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
And just as so Demayor pointed out that there's no
way of knowing what the reasoning of the Court was.
That it's anybody's guess what they based this on. I mean,
is it possible that they didn't base it on what
Kavanaugh says?
Speaker 5 (17:39):
No, he's probably got most of it in the sense
that there is a legitimate legal issue about issuing an
injunction under the current standards of the court to stop
activity like this, and there's a legitimate legal issue about
whether you can have ethnic or racial appearance being a factor.
(17:59):
And he suggests that he thinks the law is clear
on that, and that's going to be debated if there's
ever a full argument and a full briefing of this
for the court, and we'll see where the court comes out.
But if he's an indication, that's how many of the
justices on the right we'll see it.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
The judge below made some specific findings. Now the case
is going to go forward. I mean, is there any
chance that there'll be some different kind of findings that
will change the Supreme Court's mind? It seemed like the
court below is pretty thorough.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
It was, and no matter what the Supreme Court does,
let's say that they follow what we have on the
books now, which leaves us guessing with a full opinion
that basically follows up and down with what Justice Kavanas said.
If that's the case, you will have lower courts still
confronted with lawsuits by people who are citizens or legal
(18:56):
permanent presidents. You will have lower courts receiving information about
what ice is done. Have they only relied, for instance,
on racial appearance, ethnic appearance without considering other factors, and
cases will continue to come. What tells me that is
prior experience when this kind of an order comes out. Hey,
(19:17):
let's flood the zone. Let's get in there, let's get everybody,
vacuum them up. Mistakes are going to be made, and
those will end up in a record, and a lower
court will walk along the lines dictated by the Supreme
Court whatever it decides. But I don't think these cases
will stop coming, just given the volume of activity and
the way the people from ICE are being urged to
(19:38):
proceed by those in charge.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
There's a preliminary injunction hearing schedule for September twenty fourth,
But in light of this Supreme Court decision, can a
judge is your preliminary injunction at this point?
Speaker 5 (19:52):
And whatever it was that the lower court did is stayed,
So proceedings will not go forward on that level until
there's clarity.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
And when will their reclarity?
Speaker 5 (20:03):
Your guess is as good as mine. I don't think
anybody knows. And the more of these emergency shadow docket
cases we get with the half opinions that aren't supposed
to be precedents, but then Justice Gorsuch tells us no,
the lower court should be looking at them as authoritative.
In the National Student Health case, I mean, confusion is
(20:24):
really sprouting here. It's really really hard for lower courts
and for anybody to know what's happening when and when
we might have some real clarity on any of these issues.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Yes, Justice gor such did not like that in the
space of a few weeks, all these different courts were
not following the Supreme Court's obvious guidance.
Speaker 5 (20:45):
Yeah, that's right. And yet that quote obvious guidance is
coming in a form which has always been regarded as
without presidential value. So for him to say that, I
really think was just out of line. The lower Court
in that instance apologized that he did not mean to
ignore them. But what are you supposed to do? I mean,
(21:07):
I wouldn't want that job right now of trying to
figure out what the Supreme Court is telling me to do.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
And now, apparently in Chicago, local activists said that, you know,
ICE agents had been targeted in their tactics presenting warrants
at specific homes or detaining people an immigration court. But
now they're stopping people on the streets in what seems
to be a fairly random fashion. So it seems to
(21:31):
be copying what they did in La.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
Well, exactly random stops, that kind of roving, random stops,
that's exactly what the lower court judge had in mind.
Those don't have to be unconstitutional in the legal sense,
but they lead to that behavior. That's essentially what the
judge in the Los Angeles case found. And you know,
(21:55):
when you basically tell them it's all up to you.
All you have to do is see somebody who looks
hispanic and is dressed for low wage work. You know
they're just going to go to town with that. You know
they're going to follow the direction that the Supreme Court
has pointed them. So I hope nobody is surprised to
see that.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
So, David, how big a win is this for the
Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
Well, it's a win in the sense that a judge
in Los Angeles on the ground ordered this activity stopped
in the form that it was taking, and now the
Supreme Court has said no, it can go forward. It's
not a permanent win, even if we have good indications
that this is the direction that the Supreme Court is
going to go. But again, we're less in a little
(22:39):
confusion about that. What we do know is that now
Ice and whatever law enforcement allies have signed up to
help will go ahead and keep doing things the way
they were in Los Angeles, with these kind of randomized
activities sweeping in lots of people, some of whom are
undocumented and some of whom are not. And I would predict,
(23:03):
without knowing how people think in the White House, that
they're going to applaud that and remind me.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
What happened with the show me your papers in Arizona.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Yeah, what happened there is the law passed. It was
a state law, and police started going with that, and
Sheriff Joe, you know, chief among them, and it was
pretty quickly found that he was using ethnic appearance, focusing
on Latino people in ways that violated the Fourth Amendment
(23:33):
and violated the Equal Protection claw. A judge ordered it stopped,
and he went ahead and did it anyway, and he
ended up in criminal contempt. That's why Trump eventually had
to pardon him.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Now it's coming back to me. Thanks so much, David,
It's always great to talk to you. That's Professor David
Harris of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Coming
up next on The Bloomberg Law Show. President Trump calls
a birthday note he allegedly sent to Joffree Epstein a
dead issue, but many Democrats and Republicans I'm June Grosso
(24:06):
and you're listening to Bloomberg. House Democrats on the committee
that's looking into the Jeffrey Epstein case have released a
photo they say is from a compilation of the fiftieth
birthday messages for Epstein. It's allegedly written and signed by
President Trump, something the White House has consistently denied. President
(24:29):
did not write this letter. He did not sign this letter,
and that's why the President's external legal team is aggressively
pursuing litigation against the Wall Street Journal and they will
continue to The compilation, also known as the Birthday Book,
is from two thousand and three. Trump has said in
the past that he had a falling out with Epstein
in the mid two thousands. This comes as lawmakers on
(24:50):
both sides of the isle are calling for the entirety
of the files on Jeffrey Epstein's case to be released
to the public. Joining me is Laura Davison, Washington Deputy
Bureau Chief. You know, the talk today has been about
this birthday card to Epstein, allegedly from Trump. Tell us
how we got here? Yes.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
So, this was something that The Wall Street Journal originally
reported on over the summer back in July, and they,
you know, referenced a birthday card where Trump was referring
to a wonderful secret and it included sort of a
suggestive drawing and was signed by the President to Jeffrey
Epstein and given to him for his fiftieth birthday. At
(25:34):
the time, you know, Trump vehemently denied this. All know,
He's team still denies that this is an authentic document
that he that he sent, but we've never had the
image of it. So what's happened over the past couple
of months as the the Epstein story has really become
a wedge issue for Republicans that you know, you have
a group of Republicans including some you know, people who
have been known to be very staunch Trump allies. People
(25:56):
are like Marjorie Taylor Green and James Comer at the
Resite Committee in the House, they have been pushing to
release more documents from Epstein's estate. This actually came to
a head at the at the very end of July
in the House, Mike Johnson sent his members home early
because this is becoming such a hot button political issue.
(26:17):
It did not die over the August recess, and as
lawmakers have come back to Washington this week. They have
subpoenaed and then received documents from Epstein's estate. So this
includes not only this birthday card that they released Democrats
will not released the image of it, but it also
include other papers from his estate, things like entries from
(26:38):
his contact books spanning a couple of decades, and you know,
information about his bank accounts, as well as his last
will and testament. So there was a lot of papers
that have been released. You know, this has been the
piece of information that has you know, certainly gotten the
most buzz. You know, it was released yesterday afternoon and immediately,
i mean Trump's team came out and said that, you know,
(26:59):
it couldn't possible. They say that the signatures don't match.
You know, Trump has said that he doesn't draw, and
so therefore this couldn't be, you know, something he would
have created. I'll note that there are several other drawings
out there in the public domain that he's donated to
various groups. But this has been you know, a sort
of Trump Denny Deny strategy is clearly what his team
is employing here.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
And he said today that this is a dead issue.
What makes him think that it doesn't.
Speaker 6 (27:24):
Seem dead it's certainly not a dead issue if you
ask both Democrats as well as Republicans on the hill
and also you know, out on you know, kind of
among his base. This is something that has also animated
a lot of voters as well. But this is something
that that Trump wants.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
To go away.
Speaker 6 (27:39):
And so by branding it a dead issue, he is,
you know, signaling that he does not want to talk
about this. But of course this because he continues to
be a political issue that is dogging him and splitting
the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
I know, I had to look twice or three times
when I saw the picture of Marjorie Taylor Green being
hugged by Rocanna. So, I mean that goes to the
fact that there are Republicans pushing for the release of
the Epstein, all the Epstein documents.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Reck.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
Yes, I mean, so Marjorie Taylor Green, you know, who
is you know, among one of the most vocal and
conservative voices in the House of Representatives, has joined forces
with Rocanna, who is a Democrat from California, you know,
someone who's also thought to sort of be a rising
star within the Democratic Party, you know, seeking higher office
and higher ambitions. They have joined together in this effort
(28:25):
to get the people Epstein abused to come forward. Marjorie
Taylor Green has said she would come forward and you know,
release more information on the House floor. This is a
very unlikely duo and on perhaps any other issue they
would not agree. But this just shows that one, this
is something that is really ignited a fire among some Republicans,
(28:47):
and you know, has also been an issue for Democrats,
you know, cynically, you know, some Republicans are saying Democrats
are just using this as a way to embarrass the
president or as a way to you know, kind of
further sew division among the Republican party. But there's no
denying that this has become a political issue, whether or
not Trump wants it to be.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
Explain what's happening with this discharge petition.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
So essentially what Thomas Massey, again a Republican who has
actually had sort of his own uh splits with Trump
on on other issues relating tax policy and and government spending,
they had been pushing for this discharge position petition, which
is essentially a way to force a vote on the
House floor. Generally, it is the majority party, you have
(29:27):
the speaker and the majority leader who's determining what things
come up for a vote. But there is a way
that if you get enough support from from fellow UH
House members, that you can force an issue up.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
For a vote.
Speaker 6 (29:40):
They have so far not gotten enough support to make
this happen, but if they could, they could, you know,
one put some Republicans in a very tricky situation where
they may you know, politically, uh, you know, sort of
be of two minds of whether they should break with
Trump and vote to release more of these Epstein documents
or uh, if they side with Trump, with the potent
actually you know, anger their own voters by you know,
(30:02):
sort of asking to quell some of these documents from
being released.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
They have something like more than thirty thousand documents. How
many more are there?
Speaker 6 (30:11):
You know, I don't know the total number of documents
that exist, though the House Republicans, you know, they started
releasing these as they've been getting them. There's more to come,
and they you know, a lot of what has been
out there at least and last week that they started
releasing was already in the public domain or was heavily redacted. Essentially,
they want, you know, sort of the full bounty of
(30:33):
documents released without reactions so they can finally, you know,
they say, if they have these kind of get to
the bottom of you know, who Jeffrey Epstein was in
contact and who else might have been implicated, you know,
in you know, his activities with the underage girls.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
So when does this end? I just I see no
end in sight here.
Speaker 6 (30:52):
What is really difficult here is that, you know, Republicans,
at least before Trump was in office, really primed their
base their supporters that there would be some sort of
smoking gun, some answer just as long as they could
get their hands on these documents, that there was a
client list. Pam Bondi said out there that she would
be releasing what is you know, frequently the case in
(31:13):
some of these very messy situations where you have, you know,
you know, someone who is now deceased and you're trying
to piece together a very complicated and you know, perhaps
sordid affair is that there aren't solid and specific answers
that you can get posthumously. So as long as both
Republicans and Democrats continue to be this drum, it will
(31:33):
be an issue whether this continues to be an issue
into the midterms or in twenty twenty eighties that's a
very long way away. Hard to know if that will
continue to be out there, but it's clear that there's
probably not going to be some very decisive answer that's
just going to pop up in a document that will
put this matter to rest.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
Thanks so much, Laura. That's Washington Deputy Bureau Chief Flora Davison,
and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law PODCA. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
(32:08):
and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
We know that this is simply un American, but as
enraging as the news is for Minny Angelinos and people
across the country, let me make this very clear for
the press and to our country that we will not
allow the Supreme Court or anyone to divide us.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass slammed the Supreme Court's emergency
ruling on Monday that lifted a federal judge's order that
barred ice agents from stomping people solely on the basis
of their race, language, job, or location. The ruling was
six to three down ideological lines, and the conservative majority
(00:51):
didn't provide an explanation for their decision, but immigration advocates
say it means the court has basically legalized racial profiling.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Emigration agents are now being given the power to profile, stop, detain,
and arrest people because of the color of their skin,
the language they speak, or the work that they do.
Speaker 4 (01:15):
We should not have to live in a country where
the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish,
and appears to work a low wage job, wrote Justice
to the mayor.
Speaker 1 (01:29):
Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote a blistering descent for the Court's liberals,
writing that she would not stand idly by while our
constitutional freedoms are lost and pointing out that the reasoning
behind the Court's entirely unexplained order is anyone's guests. My
guest is David Harris, a professor at the University of
(01:51):
Pittsburgh Law School and an expert in racial profiling. David,
under the Fourth Amendment, when can law enforcement agents stop someone?
Speaker 5 (02:01):
People can be stopped by the police under the Fourth
Amendment when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is
afoot and they may be involved in the crime, and
reasonable suspicion is less than probable cause, but it is
based on facts and reasons. Now, when we transition from
detecting crime to looking at immigration issues, the standard is
(02:24):
still reasonable suspicion. There must be facts and there must
be proper inferences. But what we're looking for, of course,
is whether a person is in immigration status or not.
And you're still looking at reasonable suspicion. So what would
those factors be for immigration? The standard is the same.
(02:46):
You just have to reference facts.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
What exactly did the Supreme Court do in its decision
on Monday.
Speaker 5 (02:53):
Well, what they did was to stop the decision of
the lower court stay it. The lower court in Los
Angeles had decided that ICE and its law enforcement allies
were using factors to stop people that inevitably led to
unconstitutional stops. And the lower court had said, you may
(03:18):
not use, either alone or in combination, the factors of
somebody's Hispanic or Latino appearance, speaking Spanish or having an
accent to speak Spanish appearance, that you are engaged in
low wage work and being at a location associated with
(03:39):
day labor. And the Court said, you can't do this
anymore because I can see from the evidence that I took.
The judge said that this is being done in ways
that violate the Constitution. And what the Supreme Court did
on its emergency docket was to say, no, no, this
(04:00):
order will not go into effect. We're holding it for
now until we have more time to look at it.
And Justice Kavanaugh wrote an opinion that is not a
full opinion, it is not for the court, saying that
he believed that the administration of Trump and his allies
who want to be able to use those factors will
(04:23):
succeed when they get to a full hearing that they'll win,
and therefore Ice and the police allies can go back
to using those factors when they stop people to see
if they are in violation of the immigration laws. And
this called forth some opinions from the other justices, notably
(04:46):
Justice Sonia Sotomayer, who said that this was going to
lead us in the wrong direction. You'd have people being
stopped just for their Hispanic appearance, just for speaking Spanish.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
So is what the courts do. Though the court conveniently,
as you mentioned, did not issue a majority opinion, so
we don't know why they said this. But are they
basically saying, well, racial profiling's okay.
Speaker 5 (05:11):
Then what they're doing is they're looking back and this
is the best we can tell. We're not really sure because,
like you said, there is no opinion, there's been no
briefing on this, there's been no argument, there's no full opinion,
so we're having to speculate to some extent. But what
they seem to be saying, based on the fact that
they stopped the lower court's ruling, which would have put
(05:31):
a stop to all of this, and Justice Kavanaugh's opinion
for himself is it's okay. To use some combination of
those four factors, ethnic appearance, Spanish speaking or accent, appearance
of being a low wage worker in these particular locations. Now,
Kavanaugh was clear on saying, you can't just say, well,
(05:54):
this person looks Mexican and that's enough. That wouldn't be
alone by itself. But it's a very slippery slope down
to exactly that point. Our experience with this sort of
thing goes back many years now. I've been studying racial
and ethnic profiling for well over thirty years, and we've
seen it. We've seen exactly this kind of thing before.
(06:15):
We saw it when Arizona enacted they show your paper
statue back in about two thousand and eight or so,
and Sheriff Joe Arpaio went to town on that and
it was just picking up people because of how they
looked and their Spanish speaking or their accent. And that
is racial profiling by any other name. I mean, we
(06:36):
don't want to call it that, fine, but that's what happened.
Law enforcement begins to lean on the most obvious factors,
and that's what the judge saw in Los Angeles, and
that's why the judge stopped them from doing this in
the first place. So all of this will move immigration
enforcement efforts right up to that very same line, and
(06:56):
we will have people getting picked up just for how
they look, weather they're Spanish speaking. It's going to happen
as night follows day.
Speaker 1 (07:05):
And I mean, the only way you'll get to see
what the officers relied on is if a case is
brought right.
Speaker 5 (07:13):
Exactly, and there will be some cases broad chances there,
because one of the other effects of this is going
to be that lots of people will be interrogated and
even picked up and arrested who are in good order
as far as immigration law. That's another thing that we see.
Whenever there is widespread sort of dragnet pulling people in
(07:37):
on these very basic factors, they end up making mistakes
law enforcement folks do when they're allowed to lean on
those kind of factors, and we will get a few
people who end up in custody, maybe for a few days,
maybe for a long time, maybe even getting deported before
it can be reversed and they can bring a case.
Justice Kavanaugh says in his opinion, well, look, if everything's
(08:00):
in order, they'll just let you go. And he says
it's an important problem in Los Angeles, because there's an
estimate of stake two million people who are undocumented in
Los Angeles. But what he does say is that there
are millions more who share those characteristics, who have ethnic
features of people from Latin America, who speak Spanish, who
(08:23):
have a Spanish accent, and they're going to be swept
up in this too, and that's where the cases will
probably come from.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Just as Kavanaugh said, as for stops of those individuals
who are legally in the country, the questioning in those
circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go
free after making clear to the immigration officers that they
are US citizens or otherwise legally in the United States.
He doesn't mention that one of the plaintiffs here, Jason
(08:51):
Brian Gavidia, who's an American citizen, was stopped by immigration agents,
shoved into a metal fence and his arm was twisted
behind his back, all the while that he's shouting, I'm American,
I was born in East LA And there's video of
it that anyone can see on the internet.
Speaker 6 (09:09):
Look literally based off with skin color.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Gavidia says that he was frightened and the agents took
his phone and ID. He was released, but he never
did get his ID card back.
Speaker 5 (09:27):
Yeah, I mean this is going to happen. This is
going to happen more now that everybody can see, including
the ICE agents and the police are helping them, that
they've been given the green light. So we will have
that happen. It's a certainty. And for Justice Cavanaugh to say, hey,
it's all fine as long as you carrying your papers
(09:49):
with it, well, I mean, do you carry your birth
certificate to work? I mean does everybody do that? And
even if you do, you might not get those things back.
You can be in big trouble even if you have
crushed every t and dited every eye and you were
born here. So I just really took offense at that.
I think it's somebody who never has to confront these
(10:09):
problems making a pronouncement he knows nothing about.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
So Justice Sodomayo wrote a stinging descent quote, we should
not have to live in a country where the government
can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears
to work a low wage job. She quoted a nineteen
seventy five case that said it was unconstitutional for the
border patrol to stop a car and question its occupants
(10:34):
when the only ground for suspicion was that they appeared
to be of Mexican ancestry. Does this shadow docket decision
contradict that decision or is it broader.
Speaker 5 (10:46):
It's a little broader, But again we're less to speculate
because it's just on the shadow docket and there's been
no full opinion. There was no briefing for the court,
there was no argument. But that's a live question.
Speaker 6 (10:59):
For sure.
Speaker 5 (11:00):
There is an older case that says things like that
you have to go beyond just ethnic appearance, but certainly
it does also say that same case, ethnic appearance counts.
And my experience, in the experience of those who study
this as I have, is that when that's a factor
that is relied on, even with others in the mix,
(11:23):
law enforcement leans heavily on. It discounts the other factors
that may go in the other direction, and you get
mistakes and the enforcement itself becomes less efficient. But more
than that, people who are in good order will have
this imposed on them, and it'll be up to them
to prove no, no, I'm here legally, I was born here,
(11:45):
whatever it is. Instead of the other way around.
Speaker 1 (11:47):
Coming up is Chicago. Next, this is Bloomberg. I've been
talking to Professor David Harris of the University of Pittsburgh
Law School about the Supreme Court in a six to
three decision and lifting a restraining order from a judge
who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stomps in
(12:07):
and around LA. The order had barred immigration agents from
stomping people solely based on their race, language, job, or location.
So Ice has promised in an online post to quote
continue to flood the zone in Los Angeles. So they
seem to be taking this as an okay from the
(12:28):
Supreme Court.
Speaker 5 (12:29):
Absolutely, it's the green light. They can all see it.
Everybody can read it. And when they say flood the zone,
they mean lots and lots of people from our force
will be out there doing this. And you know, like
I said before, this is just so unfortunate because when
we pour people into a problem like this and we
give them, give them the green light and the thumbs up,
(12:50):
we know that some people are going to be impacted
negatively who have done nothing wrong and shouldn't have to
be imposed upon. And long range, what you care about
is public safety. If that's on your agenda, you are
doing the wrong thing. You're cutting off your nose despite
your face. Because public safety depends on public support. You
(13:11):
need the public to give the police information about what's
what in the neighborhoods. If this is happening not just
to people who might be deported legitimately, let's say, but
to other members of their family who are here legally,
to people who are just in the neighborhood and who
have been born here because they look a certain way.
(13:32):
That is going to alienate people, not just from ice
but from police generally. And that is a terrible message
to send out, and it makes them less likely to
cooperate with any policing of any type, and that will
leave predators on our streets. So this immigration policy of
flooding the zone with forces with these low accuracy factors,
(13:55):
this is going to make it more dangerous for us
just on the level of regular crime.
Speaker 1 (14:01):
The way they're stopping based on these factors, I mean,
is that proving to be a good way to find
people who are here illegally. Are they making a lot
of arrest because of that?
Speaker 5 (14:12):
Undoubtedly they are making some arrest of people who are deportable.
There's no doubt about that. It works. Sometimes the question
is isn't there a better way that doesn't also sweep in
lots of people who have nothing to do with this,
who are not part of whatever you consider the immigration problem.
If you simply rely on this sort of blunt instrument,
(14:34):
you're going to be doing damage along with whatever you
see as moving toward your goals. So it will work,
There's no question that sometimes it will work. Can I
give you a number? No? Is it nine out of
ten times? Is it one out of two times? Nobody knows?
And this stuff isn't being tracked. But when you lean
(14:54):
on ethnic or racial appearance even as one factor along,
the data for years and years has been clear that
this kind of approach is far less accurate than others
you might use, and it alienates the public that you
really need to support you.
Speaker 1 (15:14):
Yeah, I was reading that in some neighborhoods in Los Angeles,
when they see those vans with tinted windows, the neighbors
who are here legally go out and warn people.
Speaker 5 (15:26):
And absolutely, and we can't be surprised by that given
what we've seen, given the way that force has been
used on people, and that has been sort of publicized,
pushed out. Look, this is a good thing. Is it surprising?
Not at all? People have been put in fear by this,
and quite deliberately put in fear. So you can't be
(15:47):
shocked when members of the public turn around and say,
this isn't the kind of thing I want going on,
and they start warning people. You know, they're not on
the enforcement team, they're on the non enforcement team. Think
of it like.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
That immigration advocates say and fear that this is going
to open the door to racial profiling of Hispanic people
across the United States. Do you think now that the
Supreme Court has said this is okay in Los Angeles,
it'll be okay in Chicago or New York or other cities.
Speaker 5 (16:22):
Well, again, we're left without full knowledge of what the
Supreme Court has done or will do, because they have
made this statement, put out this stay of the lower
court's order, and then you have Justice Kavanaugh's opinion, which
doesn't represent the whole court. We don't know how far
they will go or what they will say in the end.
But people who know just the headline, if they're in
(16:47):
the enforcement business, that's how they're going to take it
Supreme Court says it's okay to use racial or ethnic appearance.
They're not even going to make the distinction that Justice
Kavanaugh does, which is that wouldn't be enough by itself.
They're going to take it as racial profiling is okay.
And if it's okay in LA, why wouldn't it be
(17:08):
okay in Chicago or New York. So this has the
potential to do a lot of damage in ways that
we would probably want to avoid. But with this decision,
the way it's come out and the insufficient explanation, I
think there's no avoiding it.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
And just as so Demayor pointed out that there's no
way of knowing what the reasoning of the Court was.
That it's anybody's guess what they based this on. I mean,
is it possible that they didn't base it on what
Kavanaugh says?
Speaker 5 (17:39):
No, he's probably got most of it in the sense
that there is a legitimate legal issue about issuing an
injunction under the current standards of the court to stop
activity like this, and there's a legitimate legal issue about
whether you can have ethnic or racial appearance being a factor.
(17:59):
And he suggests that he thinks the law is clear
on that, and that's going to be debated if there's
ever a full argument and a full briefing of this
for the court, and we'll see where the court comes out.
But if he's an indication, that's how many of the
justices on the right we'll see it.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
The judge below made some specific findings. Now the case
is going to go forward. I mean, is there any
chance that there'll be some different kind of findings that
will change the Supreme Court's mind? It seemed like the
court below is pretty thorough.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
It was, and no matter what the Supreme Court does,
let's say that they follow what we have on the
books now, which leaves us guessing with a full opinion
that basically follows up and down with what Justice Kavanas said.
If that's the case, you will have lower courts still
confronted with lawsuits by people who are citizens or legal
(18:56):
permanent presidents. You will have lower courts receiving information about
what ice is done. Have they only relied, for instance,
on racial appearance, ethnic appearance without considering other factors, and
cases will continue to come. What tells me that is
prior experience when this kind of an order comes out. Hey,
(19:17):
let's flood the zone. Let's get in there, let's get everybody,
vacuum them up. Mistakes are going to be made, and
those will end up in a record, and a lower
court will walk along the lines dictated by the Supreme
Court whatever it decides. But I don't think these cases
will stop coming, just given the volume of activity and
the way the people from ICE are being urged to
(19:38):
proceed by those in charge.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
There's a preliminary injunction hearing schedule for September twenty fourth,
But in light of this Supreme Court decision, can a
judge is your preliminary injunction at this point?
Speaker 5 (19:52):
And whatever it was that the lower court did is stayed,
So proceedings will not go forward on that level until
there's clarity.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
And when will their reclarity?
Speaker 5 (20:03):
Your guess is as good as mine. I don't think
anybody knows. And the more of these emergency shadow docket
cases we get with the half opinions that aren't supposed
to be precedents, but then Justice Gorsuch tells us no,
the lower court should be looking at them as authoritative.
In the National Student Health case, I mean, confusion is
(20:24):
really sprouting here. It's really really hard for lower courts
and for anybody to know what's happening when and when
we might have some real clarity on any of these issues.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Yes, Justice gor such did not like that in the
space of a few weeks, all these different courts were
not following the Supreme Court's obvious guidance.
Speaker 5 (20:45):
Yeah, that's right. And yet that quote obvious guidance is
coming in a form which has always been regarded as
without presidential value. So for him to say that, I
really think was just out of line. The lower Court
in that instance apologized that he did not mean to
ignore them. But what are you supposed to do? I mean,
(21:07):
I wouldn't want that job right now of trying to
figure out what the Supreme Court is telling me to do.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
And now, apparently in Chicago, local activists said that, you know,
ICE agents had been targeted in their tactics presenting warrants
at specific homes or detaining people an immigration court. But
now they're stopping people on the streets in what seems
to be a fairly random fashion. So it seems to
(21:31):
be copying what they did in La.
Speaker 5 (21:34):
Well, exactly random stops, that kind of roving, random stops,
that's exactly what the lower court judge had in mind.
Those don't have to be unconstitutional in the legal sense,
but they lead to that behavior. That's essentially what the
judge in the Los Angeles case found. And you know,
(21:55):
when you basically tell them it's all up to you.
All you have to do is see somebody who looks
hispanic and is dressed for low wage work. You know
they're just going to go to town with that. You know
they're going to follow the direction that the Supreme Court
has pointed them. So I hope nobody is surprised to
see that.
Speaker 1 (22:13):
So, David, how big a win is this for the
Trump administration.
Speaker 5 (22:18):
Well, it's a win in the sense that a judge
in Los Angeles on the ground ordered this activity stopped
in the form that it was taking, and now the
Supreme Court has said no, it can go forward. It's
not a permanent win, even if we have good indications
that this is the direction that the Supreme Court is
going to go. But again, we're less in a little
(22:39):
confusion about that. What we do know is that now
Ice and whatever law enforcement allies have signed up to
help will go ahead and keep doing things the way
they were in Los Angeles, with these kind of randomized
activities sweeping in lots of people, some of whom are
undocumented and some of whom are not. And I would predict,
(23:03):
without knowing how people think in the White House, that
they're going to applaud that and remind me.
Speaker 1 (23:09):
What happened with the show me your papers in Arizona.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Yeah, what happened there is the law passed. It was
a state law, and police started going with that, and
Sheriff Joe, you know, chief among them, and it was
pretty quickly found that he was using ethnic appearance, focusing
on Latino people in ways that violated the Fourth Amendment
(23:33):
and violated the Equal Protection claw. A judge ordered it stopped,
and he went ahead and did it anyway, and he
ended up in criminal contempt. That's why Trump eventually had
to pardon him.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Now it's coming back to me. Thanks so much, David,
It's always great to talk to you. That's Professor David
Harris of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Coming
up next on The Bloomberg Law Show. President Trump calls
a birthday note he allegedly sent to Joffree Epstein a
dead issue, but many Democrats and Republicans I'm June Grosso
(24:06):
and you're listening to Bloomberg. House Democrats on the committee
that's looking into the Jeffrey Epstein case have released a
photo they say is from a compilation of the fiftieth
birthday messages for Epstein. It's allegedly written and signed by
President Trump, something the White House has consistently denied. President
(24:29):
did not write this letter. He did not sign this letter,
and that's why the President's external legal team is aggressively
pursuing litigation against the Wall Street Journal and they will
continue to The compilation, also known as the Birthday Book,
is from two thousand and three. Trump has said in
the past that he had a falling out with Epstein
in the mid two thousands. This comes as lawmakers on
(24:50):
both sides of the isle are calling for the entirety
of the files on Jeffrey Epstein's case to be released
to the public. Joining me is Laura Davison, Washington Deputy
Bureau Chief. You know, the talk today has been about
this birthday card to Epstein, allegedly from Trump. Tell us
how we got here? Yes.
Speaker 6 (25:10):
So, this was something that The Wall Street Journal originally
reported on over the summer back in July, and they,
you know, referenced a birthday card where Trump was referring
to a wonderful secret and it included sort of a
suggestive drawing and was signed by the President to Jeffrey
Epstein and given to him for his fiftieth birthday. At
(25:34):
the time, you know, Trump vehemently denied this. All know,
He's team still denies that this is an authentic document
that he that he sent, but we've never had the
image of it. So what's happened over the past couple
of months as the the Epstein story has really become
a wedge issue for Republicans that you know, you have
a group of Republicans including some you know, people who
have been known to be very staunch Trump allies. People
(25:56):
are like Marjorie Taylor Green and James Comer at the
Resite Committee in the House, they have been pushing to
release more documents from Epstein's estate. This actually came to
a head at the at the very end of July
in the House, Mike Johnson sent his members home early
because this is becoming such a hot button political issue.
(26:17):
It did not die over the August recess, and as
lawmakers have come back to Washington this week. They have
subpoenaed and then received documents from Epstein's estate. So this
includes not only this birthday card that they released Democrats
will not released the image of it, but it also
include other papers from his estate, things like entries from
(26:38):
his contact books spanning a couple of decades, and you know,
information about his bank accounts, as well as his last
will and testament. So there was a lot of papers
that have been released. You know, this has been the
piece of information that has you know, certainly gotten the
most buzz. You know, it was released yesterday afternoon and immediately,
i mean Trump's team came out and said that, you know,
(26:59):
it couldn't possible. They say that the signatures don't match.
You know, Trump has said that he doesn't draw, and
so therefore this couldn't be, you know, something he would
have created. I'll note that there are several other drawings
out there in the public domain that he's donated to
various groups. But this has been you know, a sort
of Trump Denny Deny strategy is clearly what his team
is employing here.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
And he said today that this is a dead issue.
What makes him think that it doesn't.
Speaker 6 (27:24):
Seem dead it's certainly not a dead issue if you
ask both Democrats as well as Republicans on the hill
and also you know, out on you know, kind of
among his base. This is something that has also animated
a lot of voters as well. But this is something
that that Trump wants.
Speaker 1 (27:38):
To go away.
Speaker 6 (27:39):
And so by branding it a dead issue, he is,
you know, signaling that he does not want to talk
about this. But of course this because he continues to
be a political issue that is dogging him and splitting
the Republican Party.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
I know, I had to look twice or three times
when I saw the picture of Marjorie Taylor Green being
hugged by Rocanna. So, I mean that goes to the
fact that there are Republicans pushing for the release of
the Epstein, all the Epstein documents.
Speaker 4 (28:05):
Reck.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
Yes, I mean, so Marjorie Taylor Green, you know, who
is you know, among one of the most vocal and
conservative voices in the House of Representatives, has joined forces
with Rocanna, who is a Democrat from California, you know,
someone who's also thought to sort of be a rising
star within the Democratic Party, you know, seeking higher office
and higher ambitions. They have joined together in this effort
(28:25):
to get the people Epstein abused to come forward. Marjorie
Taylor Green has said she would come forward and you know,
release more information on the House floor. This is a
very unlikely duo and on perhaps any other issue they
would not agree. But this just shows that one, this
is something that is really ignited a fire among some Republicans,
(28:47):
and you know, has also been an issue for Democrats,
you know, cynically, you know, some Republicans are saying Democrats
are just using this as a way to embarrass the
president or as a way to you know, kind of
further sew division among the Republican party. But there's no
denying that this has become a political issue, whether or
not Trump wants it to be.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
Explain what's happening with this discharge petition.
Speaker 6 (29:07):
So essentially what Thomas Massey, again a Republican who has
actually had sort of his own uh splits with Trump
on on other issues relating tax policy and and government spending,
they had been pushing for this discharge position petition, which
is essentially a way to force a vote on the
House floor. Generally, it is the majority party, you have
(29:27):
the speaker and the majority leader who's determining what things
come up for a vote. But there is a way
that if you get enough support from from fellow UH
House members, that you can force an issue up.
Speaker 5 (29:39):
For a vote.
Speaker 6 (29:40):
They have so far not gotten enough support to make
this happen, but if they could, they could, you know,
one put some Republicans in a very tricky situation where
they may you know, politically, uh, you know, sort of
be of two minds of whether they should break with
Trump and vote to release more of these Epstein documents
or uh, if they side with Trump, with the potent
actually you know, anger their own voters by you know,
(30:02):
sort of asking to quell some of these documents from
being released.
Speaker 1 (30:05):
They have something like more than thirty thousand documents. How
many more are there?
Speaker 6 (30:11):
You know, I don't know the total number of documents
that exist, though the House Republicans, you know, they started
releasing these as they've been getting them. There's more to come,
and they you know, a lot of what has been
out there at least and last week that they started
releasing was already in the public domain or was heavily redacted. Essentially,
they want, you know, sort of the full bounty of
(30:33):
documents released without reactions so they can finally, you know,
they say, if they have these kind of get to
the bottom of you know, who Jeffrey Epstein was in
contact and who else might have been implicated, you know,
in you know, his activities with the underage girls.
Speaker 1 (30:47):
So when does this end? I just I see no
end in sight here.
Speaker 6 (30:52):
What is really difficult here is that, you know, Republicans,
at least before Trump was in office, really primed their
base their supporters that there would be some sort of
smoking gun, some answer just as long as they could
get their hands on these documents, that there was a
client list. Pam Bondi said out there that she would
be releasing what is you know, frequently the case in
(31:13):
some of these very messy situations where you have, you know,
you know, someone who is now deceased and you're trying
to piece together a very complicated and you know, perhaps
sordid affair is that there aren't solid and specific answers
that you can get posthumously. So as long as both
Republicans and Democrats continue to be this drum, it will
(31:33):
be an issue whether this continues to be an issue
into the midterms or in twenty twenty eighties that's a
very long way away. Hard to know if that will
continue to be out there, but it's clear that there's
probably not going to be some very decisive answer that's
just going to pop up in a document that will
put this matter to rest.
Speaker 1 (31:48):
Thanks so much, Laura. That's Washington Deputy Bureau Chief Flora Davison,
and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.
Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
our Bloomberg Law PODCA. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
(32:08):
and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.