June 26, 2025 • 22 mins
Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of the school’s Immigrants Rights Clinic, discusses the Supreme Court decision allowing quick deportations of noncitizens to third countries. Suzanne Monyak, Bloomberg Law judiciary reporter, discusses the confirmation hearings for Emil Bove to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. 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.
This week, the Supreme Court, divided down ideological lines, gave
the Trump administration the ok to resume quickly deporting migrants
to countries other than their own, lifting a judge's order
that gave them notice and a chance to argue that
(00:24):
they would be at risk of torture. Over a scathing
descent from the court's three liberals, the court's conservatives granted
an emergency request from the administration, joining me is Alara Mukherjee,
a professor at Columbia Law School who directs the school's
immigrants rights clinic. I Laura tell us about the judge's
order that the Trump administration was appealing on an emergency basis.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
A federal district court judged in Massachusetts was concerned that
people would be deported to countries third countries where they
would be tortured, where they would be persecuted, where they
might die and be killed. And what the judge did
is require that before non citizens if the United States
(01:11):
be deported to countries that are not their home countries,
countries that they are not nationals of, that the US
government provides them an opportunity to contest and explain why
they shouldn't be deported to that country. So that is
called a credible fear interview process. And the judge held
that people must get at least fifteen days to challenge
(01:34):
their deportations to countries where they fear torture and persecution.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Why are these non citizens not being sent to their
home countries? Why is the government trying to send them
to third countries?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
The Trump administration would like the ability, the power, the
authorization to deport people to third countries when their home
governments won't take them back. The men in these case
hail from various countries including Me and mar Laos, Vietnam, Cuba,
and Mexico, and some of these governments actually do take
(02:10):
back their own nationals, but the Trump administration would like
sweeping authority to deport people basically to anywhere in the world.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
The government made an emergency request to the Supreme Court.
What did they argue?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
The Executive branch argued to the Supreme Court that the
lower court order interfered with their ability to deport nationals
to third countries. And the Supreme Court sided with the
executive branch in that case and blocked the lower court
order that required fifteen days notice before individuals could be
(02:47):
deported to countries other than their own.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
So the six conservatives granted this without any opinion. Can
we assume they bought the government's argument?
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Then I think that's affair reading of the unreasoned order
issued by the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that three
justices dissented from the opinion and accused the conservative majority
of quote unquote, rewarding lawlessness.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who wrote that dissent, said that
the administration had twice violated the Court's orders in this case.
The Conservatives just ignored that. And does that send a
message to the Trump administration that they can violate court orders?
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Yes, this sends a message to the Trump administration that
the Supreme Court is willing to turn a blind eye
to the executive branch's flouting of federal court orders. Justice
Soto Mayor recognized in her opinion that the government had
removed six people to South Sudan with less than sixteen
hours notice, without any opportunity to contact their lawyers or
(04:00):
be heard in court. And it is lawlessness. As Justice
Sodomyor wrote, quote this is not the first time the
Court closes its eyes to non compliance, nor I fear
will it be the last? End quote.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Doesn't this conflict with the decision in April, where the
Court said that the government has to give people a
reasonable time to challenge their deportations.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
The April case was in the context of a different
set of laws. It was in the context of the
President invoking the Alien Enemies Act, and in that case,
the Court held that individuals who were subject to the
Alien Enemies Act needed to first be given notice that
they would be subject to the Alien Enemies Act and
(04:49):
then a meaningful opportunity to file a habeas petition. But
what that meaningful period of time is is not resolved
by US Supreme Court. That issue is currently being litigated
in lower courts across the country where the Executive branch
has invoked the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan nationals who
(05:13):
are accused of being members of STRA in the Aragua
Criminal Gang.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court yesterday in
the case of those eight men and wants to deport
to South Sudan. So tell us what's happening there?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
So, after the Supreme Court issued its ruling. On Monday,
the Federal District judge issued another order saying that a
previous order in his case protected a group of men
from being deported to South Sudan. The Executive Branch then
filed a motion to clarify the Court's June twenty third
(05:51):
opinion on June twenty fourth, and that motion has now
been fully briefed as of today, June twenty fifth, and
we will see what the Court does next.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Is it a problem because the Court is issuing these
rulings this time without any opinion at all on the
emergency docket, where they're not fully briefed, and so is
it hard to interpret what they mean?
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Yes, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has exploded in recent
years and especially in recent months, and the Supreme Court
is taking sweeping actions on the shadow docket that have
just in the last eight weeks deprived more than eight
hundred thousand non citizens of their legal status in the
(06:41):
United States. This current case that we're discussing now, DVD,
is another example of the Supreme Court making extremely consequential
decisions on the shadow docket without the benefit of full
briefing and arguments.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
What does it mean on the ground. I mean, how
many people might be affected by this order.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
That's a really good question. The Executive Branch wants to
implement third country deportations on a sweeping basis. It's one
of the pillars of their effort to deport one million
people from the United States this year. I think it's
(07:24):
fair to expect that thousands of people could be subject
to third country deportations under the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
This is a temporary order while the litigation continues. What's
left of that litigation So.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
To date, the judge has only issued preliminary injunctions, that
is a form of temporary relief. The full case hasn't
been presented to the court. There hasn't been a trial
before the court yet. The judge doesn't have all the
evidence needed in the case to issue a final decision. Typically,
(08:03):
a federal district court will rule on all the evidence
in the case and then issue a final injunction. Then
the case would be heard by a federal Court of Appeals,
and then the Supreme Court would take up the matter.
It's a process of litigation that can easily take years,
so it's extremely unusual that the Supreme Court intervened in
(08:25):
this case. At such an early stage.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
In the government's filing, the Solicitor General assured the court
that under the Convention against Torture, the administration will not
remove an alien to any country where he's likely to
be tortured. Does that deserve any credence.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
When it's coming from the same government that is trying
to deport people to South Dudan with less than sixteen
hours notice, that claim seems meaningless.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Is there a question of what what the Trump administration
is doing violates the Convention against Torture.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
The US government is a signatory to the Convention against Torture.
We as a nation will not support people to countries
where they are more likely than not to face torture.
Deporting people to South Sudan with less than sixteen hours
notice raises a very high risk that the US government
(09:26):
is deporting people to a country where they will face torture.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Another escalation, the Trump administration has sued all the judges
on the Maryland Federal Trial Court over a standing order
that prevents the government from deporting a person for two
business days after a Habeast challenge is filed. Two business
days doesn't seem like a long time. What is the
(09:51):
rush with all these cases?
Speaker 2 (09:54):
The executive branch seeks to extend its power well beyond
the of checks and balances set up in the US Constitution,
and it is breaking our constitutional democracy. This is most
evident in the immigration space and the lawless actions the
executive branch is taking there, and it is exemplified by
(10:18):
this case that is pending now in the District of Maryland,
where the executive branch is suing federal judges for simply
trying to afford them due process before individuals can be
deported out of this country.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
In the order from the Maryland court, it says that
it's a response to an increase in habeas petitions filed
outside of normal business hours from immigrants facing imminent deportation.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
People including children, are being picked up off the streets
at courthouses outside of school and being swept into a
process that could very rapidly lead to their deportation, and
federal habeas petitions are among the last bulwarks to protect
people's due process right and afford them an opportunity to
(11:12):
prove why they should be allowed to stay in the
United States, why it's unlawful to summarily deport them.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Thanks for joining me a Laura. That's Professor Laura Mokerjee
of Columbia Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
Law Show. President Trump's pick to sit on the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals gets a heated confirmation hearing. I'm
June Grasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's pick
(11:41):
for a New Jersey based seat on the US Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit is his former criminal
defense lawyer, Emil beauvet a former federal prosecutor in the
Southern District of New York. He was on Trump's legal
team during his New York hush money trial and defended
Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the
(12:02):
Justice Department. Beauveay now serves as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney
in the Justice Department and has been at the forefront
of some of the most contentious Justice Department actions since
Trump's return to the White House, including the dismissal of
the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams,
(12:23):
ordering the firings of a group of prosecutors involved in
the January sixth criminal cases, and accusing FBI officials of
insubordination for refusing to hand over the names of agents
who investigated the US Capital Riot. Democrats on the Senate
Judiciary Committee Grille Beauvet over those incidents, as well as
(12:44):
a whistleblower's allegations that Beauvay had suggested at a March
meeting that the government lawyers ignore court orders against the
Trump administration's deportation policies. Here's Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of
Californifornia questioning Beauvea.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
In the complaint, it says Beauvey stated that DOJ would
need to consider telling the courts and ignoring any such
court order. Did you say anything of that kind in the.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
Meeting, Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of
that kind to the extent I should.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Recall, mister bouve if you said or suggested during a
meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling
the court to you. It seems to me that would
be something you'd remember, unless that's the kind of thing
you say frequently.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Well, I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the Department
to fight hard for valid positions that we have to
take into it and if you frequently, I did not
suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring
court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were
no court orders to discuss.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Well, did you suggest telling the courts you in any manner?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I don't recall joining me is Bloomberg Lawn Judiciary reporter
Suzanne Mognac. Suzanne, it appears that this confirmation hearing got
quite heated.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
It was heated in some respects. I certainly the Judiciary
Committee gets heated pretty often, so I can't say it's
the most heated hearing I've seen. I think a lot
of the grilling was what we more or less expected
it to be. I mean, Emil Bouvet, you know, really
emerges a pretty controversial candidate for this seat and someone
that we've really seen Democrats rally against. And in recent
we've seen months, we've seen quite a bit of reporting
(14:29):
in the news, and by recently just this week, a
whistleblower making some pretty serious allegations against him, and so
those were all things that we saw Democrats really pressed
him on. But I generally did see that the nominee
kind of kept his composure and and did answer the
questions and in some insuses didn't answer the questions, but
most of the fire was coming from the side of
the senators.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Tell us about the questions that related to the whistle
blower and allegations that Beauvey suggested ignoring court orders.
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Earlier this week, just one day before the hearing, we
had a blower complaint made public by a former Justice
Department lawyer than the Department for over a decade, or Azravenni,
who alleged that Emil Bovie had in a meeting in
March suggested that Justice Department lawyers actually ignore a court
ruling against the administration's deportation policy if they were to
receive one. That's a charge that Bobe was asked about
(15:19):
quite a few times during the hearings, and one that
he pretty blatantly denied. He said that he has never
advised the DOJ lawyer to violate a court order and
that what was said about him should not disqualify him
for the judgeship. That's also been the statement we've gotten
from other Justice Department officials when the whistle blower complaint
was first made public, to say absolutely not that didn't happen,
but that was certainly a scene that we saw come
(15:39):
up quite a few times during Democrats questioning both.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
A is probably most well known as the Justice Department
official who moved to dismiss the corruption charges against New
York City Mayor Eric Adams, leading to mass resignations at
the Justice Department. I take it there was a lot
of quests about that.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
Absolutely. That initially was maybe one of the ways that
he was most infamous on the Hill was for his
directive to dismiss coruption charges against the New York City
mayor that led to resignations of high profile prosecutors in
New York and Washington, including the US attorneys for the
Southern District of New York, who resigned rather than carry
out that directive. That was obviously something that we saw
(16:21):
Democrats pressed Bovie about and he, you know, pretty much
defended that decision, and you felt that that, you know,
the dismissal was granted, so it must not have been,
you know, an extreme position. He denied the idea that
it was political or any type of quid pro quo
in any way. Democrats didn't seem convinced that he did
maintain that line of denial on that accusation.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
If I remember correctly, the judge in that case, Dale
Hole was critical of the Justice Department, and, contrary to
the Justice Department's contention that there was no quid pro quo,
said that everything in the case smacked of a bargain
dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.
(17:05):
I mean, he's done a lot in the Justice Department
in the short time he's been there. Was he the
one who decided to fire the prosecutors who worked on
the capital riot cases.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
Yes, that was yet another charge that we really saw
brought up quite a bit by Democrats, was that he
had really, at the beginning of his tenure, while he
was still serving as the acting Deputy Attorney General for
the Justice Department at the second in command, he directed
then PC and a REMUS attorney Ed Martin, to fire
a number of prosecutors who had worked on capital riot cases,
(17:38):
the cases against participants in the January sixth, twenty twenty
one at the US Capitol during certification of that presidential election.
Those have been prosecutors who had not been in office
as long, which meant that they didn't have the same
level of protections and it was easier for them to
be fired, but it was something that was really heavily
criticized at the time by people who saw it as
retribution against career lawyers who were doing what they had
(18:01):
been asked to do. Again, Bovy denied that this was
any type of political or retributive decision and really maintained
that it was more of a personnel decision. He brought
up that the prosecutors had been hired to be temporary
and had been placed in a more permanent disposition by
the Biden administration toward the end of their term, and
that he didn't agree with that decision. So again just
(18:23):
really like maintained his position that the decisions that he
made that he was getting criticism for were not political.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
What kind of questions did the Republican senators ask him
and did they try to sort of rehabilitate him?
Speaker 5 (18:37):
You know, I think as his typical during these hearings,
you tend to get tougher questions from the opposing side
than you do from the side that nominated him. We
did get some interesting questions from as Senator Josh Howley
just done sort of how Bovey would be as a
judge and what his approach to judging would be kind
of separate from his past actions at the Justice Department.
(18:59):
Bove said that he was a textualist and that he
would really like consult the statutory statue, look at usages,
try to look at the legislation at the time, and
also indicated that he would be one to exercise restraint
and avoid inserting himself or declaring a definition of a
law that was ambiguous, and would more prefer to defer
(19:19):
back to Congress where language is ambiguous. So that kind
of gave us a bit of a window on the
more like technical judging side of things. How at least
he would see his own philosophy as a judge if
he were to be confirmed.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
I believe there's a two person Republican majority on this committee.
Is there any indication that he won't get through this committee?
Speaker 5 (19:40):
Not that I have heard so far, though of course
I always say with politics, never say never. We have
seen the occasional Trump nominee taken down. I think of
Martin from the DCUs Attorney's Office that I had mentioned
earlier as an example, is he lost the support of
one Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that
was enough to tank his nomination. But of course in
this inte and the blue split process whereby the majority
(20:03):
party would consider the home state senator's consent and approval
before moving forward to nominee, is no longer in effect
for Circuit court picks and Emmelsove of course, is nominated
for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
So the opposition from the two Democrats who are the
two senators from New Jersey is not a problem for
his nomination to move forward. I did not hear any
(20:24):
opposition from Senate Republicans from what I observed during that hearing,
but we will have to see. I think at this
point it seems that there are no obstacles, but of
course he's facing a lot of opposition from Democrats and
some ethics complaints, So we'll have to see how he
moves forward.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
And what can you tell us about those ethics complaints.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
He's been subject to some ethics complaints, various complaints by
mostly Democrats and other critics, including to relate to his
conducts during the Eric Adams litigation.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Interesting that during his time as a federal prosecutor in
New York, Bovet was involved in several high profile cases,
but his actions apparently rankled some fellow prosecutors and defense attorneys.
In twenty eighteen, the Federal Public Defender's Office compile complaints
about his behavior from defense attorneys and sent them to
(21:15):
two top officials in the US Attorney's Office. Yet, about
eighteen months after the email was sent, Beauve was promoted
to be co chief of the office's National Security and
International Narcotics Unit. He certainly has an interesting history. Thanks
so much, Suzanne. That's Suzanne Monnac, Bloomberg Law Judiciary Reporter,
(21:41):
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 podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten Tim Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,
(22:03):
and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
This week, the Supreme Court, divided down ideological lines, gave
the Trump administration the ok to resume quickly deporting migrants
to countries other than their own, lifting a judge's order
that gave them notice and a chance to argue that
(00:24):
they would be at risk of torture. Over a scathing
descent from the court's three liberals, the court's conservatives granted
an emergency request from the administration, joining me is Alara Mukherjee,
a professor at Columbia Law School who directs the school's
immigrants rights clinic. I Laura tell us about the judge's
order that the Trump administration was appealing on an emergency basis.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
A federal district court judged in Massachusetts was concerned that
people would be deported to countries third countries where they
would be tortured, where they would be persecuted, where they
might die and be killed. And what the judge did
is require that before non citizens if the United States
(01:11):
be deported to countries that are not their home countries,
countries that they are not nationals of, that the US
government provides them an opportunity to contest and explain why
they shouldn't be deported to that country. So that is
called a credible fear interview process. And the judge held
that people must get at least fifteen days to challenge
(01:34):
their deportations to countries where they fear torture and persecution.
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Why are these non citizens not being sent to their
home countries? Why is the government trying to send them
to third countries?
Speaker 2 (01:49):
The Trump administration would like the ability, the power, the
authorization to deport people to third countries when their home
governments won't take them back. The men in these case
hail from various countries including Me and mar Laos, Vietnam, Cuba,
and Mexico, and some of these governments actually do take
(02:10):
back their own nationals, but the Trump administration would like
sweeping authority to deport people basically to anywhere in the world.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
The government made an emergency request to the Supreme Court.
What did they argue?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
The Executive branch argued to the Supreme Court that the
lower court order interfered with their ability to deport nationals
to third countries. And the Supreme Court sided with the
executive branch in that case and blocked the lower court
order that required fifteen days notice before individuals could be
(02:47):
deported to countries other than their own.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
So the six conservatives granted this without any opinion. Can
we assume they bought the government's argument?
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Then I think that's affair reading of the unreasoned order
issued by the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that three
justices dissented from the opinion and accused the conservative majority
of quote unquote, rewarding lawlessness.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
So Justice Sonya Sotomayor, who wrote that dissent, said that
the administration had twice violated the Court's orders in this case.
The Conservatives just ignored that. And does that send a
message to the Trump administration that they can violate court orders?
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Yes, this sends a message to the Trump administration that
the Supreme Court is willing to turn a blind eye
to the executive branch's flouting of federal court orders. Justice
Soto Mayor recognized in her opinion that the government had
removed six people to South Sudan with less than sixteen
hours notice, without any opportunity to contact their lawyers or
(04:00):
be heard in court. And it is lawlessness. As Justice
Sodomyor wrote, quote this is not the first time the
Court closes its eyes to non compliance, nor I fear
will it be the last? End quote.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Doesn't this conflict with the decision in April, where the
Court said that the government has to give people a
reasonable time to challenge their deportations.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
The April case was in the context of a different
set of laws. It was in the context of the
President invoking the Alien Enemies Act, and in that case,
the Court held that individuals who were subject to the
Alien Enemies Act needed to first be given notice that
they would be subject to the Alien Enemies Act and
(04:49):
then a meaningful opportunity to file a habeas petition. But
what that meaningful period of time is is not resolved
by US Supreme Court. That issue is currently being litigated
in lower courts across the country where the Executive branch
has invoked the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan nationals who
(05:13):
are accused of being members of STRA in the Aragua
Criminal Gang.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court yesterday in
the case of those eight men and wants to deport
to South Sudan. So tell us what's happening there?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
So, after the Supreme Court issued its ruling. On Monday,
the Federal District judge issued another order saying that a
previous order in his case protected a group of men
from being deported to South Sudan. The Executive Branch then
filed a motion to clarify the Court's June twenty third
(05:51):
opinion on June twenty fourth, and that motion has now
been fully briefed as of today, June twenty fifth, and
we will see what the Court does next.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
Is it a problem because the Court is issuing these
rulings this time without any opinion at all on the
emergency docket, where they're not fully briefed, and so is
it hard to interpret what they mean?
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Yes, the Supreme Court's shadow docket has exploded in recent
years and especially in recent months, and the Supreme Court
is taking sweeping actions on the shadow docket that have
just in the last eight weeks deprived more than eight
hundred thousand non citizens of their legal status in the
(06:41):
United States. This current case that we're discussing now, DVD,
is another example of the Supreme Court making extremely consequential
decisions on the shadow docket without the benefit of full
briefing and arguments.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
What does it mean on the ground. I mean, how
many people might be affected by this order.
Speaker 2 (07:04):
That's a really good question. The Executive Branch wants to
implement third country deportations on a sweeping basis. It's one
of the pillars of their effort to deport one million
people from the United States this year. I think it's
(07:24):
fair to expect that thousands of people could be subject
to third country deportations under the Supreme Court's ruling on Monday.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
This is a temporary order while the litigation continues. What's
left of that litigation So.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
To date, the judge has only issued preliminary injunctions, that
is a form of temporary relief. The full case hasn't
been presented to the court. There hasn't been a trial
before the court yet. The judge doesn't have all the
evidence needed in the case to issue a final decision. Typically,
(08:03):
a federal district court will rule on all the evidence
in the case and then issue a final injunction. Then
the case would be heard by a federal Court of Appeals,
and then the Supreme Court would take up the matter.
It's a process of litigation that can easily take years,
so it's extremely unusual that the Supreme Court intervened in
(08:25):
this case. At such an early stage.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
In the government's filing, the Solicitor General assured the court
that under the Convention against Torture, the administration will not
remove an alien to any country where he's likely to
be tortured. Does that deserve any credence.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
When it's coming from the same government that is trying
to deport people to South Dudan with less than sixteen
hours notice, that claim seems meaningless.
Speaker 1 (08:58):
Is there a question of what what the Trump administration
is doing violates the Convention against Torture.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
The US government is a signatory to the Convention against Torture.
We as a nation will not support people to countries
where they are more likely than not to face torture.
Deporting people to South Sudan with less than sixteen hours
notice raises a very high risk that the US government
(09:26):
is deporting people to a country where they will face torture.
Speaker 1 (09:31):
Another escalation, the Trump administration has sued all the judges
on the Maryland Federal Trial Court over a standing order
that prevents the government from deporting a person for two
business days after a Habeast challenge is filed. Two business
days doesn't seem like a long time. What is the
(09:51):
rush with all these cases?
Speaker 2 (09:54):
The executive branch seeks to extend its power well beyond
the of checks and balances set up in the US Constitution,
and it is breaking our constitutional democracy. This is most
evident in the immigration space and the lawless actions the
executive branch is taking there, and it is exemplified by
(10:18):
this case that is pending now in the District of Maryland,
where the executive branch is suing federal judges for simply
trying to afford them due process before individuals can be
deported out of this country.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
In the order from the Maryland court, it says that
it's a response to an increase in habeas petitions filed
outside of normal business hours from immigrants facing imminent deportation.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
People including children, are being picked up off the streets
at courthouses outside of school and being swept into a
process that could very rapidly lead to their deportation, and
federal habeas petitions are among the last bulwarks to protect
people's due process right and afford them an opportunity to
(11:12):
prove why they should be allowed to stay in the
United States, why it's unlawful to summarily deport them.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Thanks for joining me a Laura. That's Professor Laura Mokerjee
of Columbia Law School. Coming up next on the Bloomberg
Law Show. President Trump's pick to sit on the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals gets a heated confirmation hearing. I'm
June Grasso, and you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's pick
(11:41):
for a New Jersey based seat on the US Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit is his former criminal
defense lawyer, Emil beauvet a former federal prosecutor in the
Southern District of New York. He was on Trump's legal
team during his New York hush money trial and defended
Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the
(12:02):
Justice Department. Beauveay now serves as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney
in the Justice Department and has been at the forefront
of some of the most contentious Justice Department actions since
Trump's return to the White House, including the dismissal of
the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams,
(12:23):
ordering the firings of a group of prosecutors involved in
the January sixth criminal cases, and accusing FBI officials of
insubordination for refusing to hand over the names of agents
who investigated the US Capital Riot. Democrats on the Senate
Judiciary Committee Grille Beauvet over those incidents, as well as
(12:44):
a whistleblower's allegations that Beauvay had suggested at a March
meeting that the government lawyers ignore court orders against the
Trump administration's deportation policies. Here's Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of
Californifornia questioning Beauvea.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
In the complaint, it says Beauvey stated that DOJ would
need to consider telling the courts and ignoring any such
court order. Did you say anything of that kind in the.
Speaker 4 (13:14):
Meeting, Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of
that kind to the extent I should.
Speaker 3 (13:21):
Recall, mister bouve if you said or suggested during a
meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling
the court to you. It seems to me that would
be something you'd remember, unless that's the kind of thing
you say frequently.
Speaker 4 (13:35):
Well, I've certainly said things encouraging litigators at the Department
to fight hard for valid positions that we have to
take into it and if you frequently, I did not
suggest that there would be any need to consider ignoring
court orders. At the point of that meeting, there were
no court orders to discuss.
Speaker 3 (13:53):
Well, did you suggest telling the courts you in any manner?
Speaker 1 (13:58):
I don't recall joining me is Bloomberg Lawn Judiciary reporter
Suzanne Mognac. Suzanne, it appears that this confirmation hearing got
quite heated.
Speaker 5 (14:09):
It was heated in some respects. I certainly the Judiciary
Committee gets heated pretty often, so I can't say it's
the most heated hearing I've seen. I think a lot
of the grilling was what we more or less expected
it to be. I mean, Emil Bouvet, you know, really
emerges a pretty controversial candidate for this seat and someone
that we've really seen Democrats rally against. And in recent
we've seen months, we've seen quite a bit of reporting
(14:29):
in the news, and by recently just this week, a
whistleblower making some pretty serious allegations against him, and so
those were all things that we saw Democrats really pressed
him on. But I generally did see that the nominee
kind of kept his composure and and did answer the
questions and in some insuses didn't answer the questions, but
most of the fire was coming from the side of
the senators.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Tell us about the questions that related to the whistle
blower and allegations that Beauvey suggested ignoring court orders.
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Earlier this week, just one day before the hearing, we
had a blower complaint made public by a former Justice
Department lawyer than the Department for over a decade, or Azravenni,
who alleged that Emil Bovie had in a meeting in
March suggested that Justice Department lawyers actually ignore a court
ruling against the administration's deportation policy if they were to
receive one. That's a charge that Bobe was asked about
(15:19):
quite a few times during the hearings, and one that
he pretty blatantly denied. He said that he has never
advised the DOJ lawyer to violate a court order and
that what was said about him should not disqualify him
for the judgeship. That's also been the statement we've gotten
from other Justice Department officials when the whistle blower complaint
was first made public, to say absolutely not that didn't happen,
but that was certainly a scene that we saw come
(15:39):
up quite a few times during Democrats questioning both.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
A is probably most well known as the Justice Department
official who moved to dismiss the corruption charges against New
York City Mayor Eric Adams, leading to mass resignations at
the Justice Department. I take it there was a lot
of quests about that.
Speaker 5 (16:01):
Absolutely. That initially was maybe one of the ways that
he was most infamous on the Hill was for his
directive to dismiss coruption charges against the New York City
mayor that led to resignations of high profile prosecutors in
New York and Washington, including the US attorneys for the
Southern District of New York, who resigned rather than carry
out that directive. That was obviously something that we saw
(16:21):
Democrats pressed Bovie about and he, you know, pretty much
defended that decision, and you felt that that, you know,
the dismissal was granted, so it must not have been,
you know, an extreme position. He denied the idea that
it was political or any type of quid pro quo
in any way. Democrats didn't seem convinced that he did
maintain that line of denial on that accusation.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
If I remember correctly, the judge in that case, Dale
Hole was critical of the Justice Department, and, contrary to
the Justice Department's contention that there was no quid pro quo,
said that everything in the case smacked of a bargain
dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.
(17:05):
I mean, he's done a lot in the Justice Department
in the short time he's been there. Was he the
one who decided to fire the prosecutors who worked on
the capital riot cases.
Speaker 5 (17:17):
Yes, that was yet another charge that we really saw
brought up quite a bit by Democrats, was that he
had really, at the beginning of his tenure, while he
was still serving as the acting Deputy Attorney General for
the Justice Department at the second in command, he directed
then PC and a REMUS attorney Ed Martin, to fire
a number of prosecutors who had worked on capital riot cases,
(17:38):
the cases against participants in the January sixth, twenty twenty
one at the US Capitol during certification of that presidential election.
Those have been prosecutors who had not been in office
as long, which meant that they didn't have the same
level of protections and it was easier for them to
be fired, but it was something that was really heavily
criticized at the time by people who saw it as
retribution against career lawyers who were doing what they had
(18:01):
been asked to do. Again, Bovy denied that this was
any type of political or retributive decision and really maintained
that it was more of a personnel decision. He brought
up that the prosecutors had been hired to be temporary
and had been placed in a more permanent disposition by
the Biden administration toward the end of their term, and
that he didn't agree with that decision. So again just
(18:23):
really like maintained his position that the decisions that he
made that he was getting criticism for were not political.
Speaker 1 (18:29):
What kind of questions did the Republican senators ask him
and did they try to sort of rehabilitate him?
Speaker 5 (18:37):
You know, I think as his typical during these hearings,
you tend to get tougher questions from the opposing side
than you do from the side that nominated him. We
did get some interesting questions from as Senator Josh Howley
just done sort of how Bovey would be as a
judge and what his approach to judging would be kind
of separate from his past actions at the Justice Department.
(18:59):
Bove said that he was a textualist and that he
would really like consult the statutory statue, look at usages,
try to look at the legislation at the time, and
also indicated that he would be one to exercise restraint
and avoid inserting himself or declaring a definition of a
law that was ambiguous, and would more prefer to defer
(19:19):
back to Congress where language is ambiguous. So that kind
of gave us a bit of a window on the
more like technical judging side of things. How at least
he would see his own philosophy as a judge if
he were to be confirmed.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
I believe there's a two person Republican majority on this committee.
Is there any indication that he won't get through this committee?
Speaker 5 (19:40):
Not that I have heard so far, though of course
I always say with politics, never say never. We have
seen the occasional Trump nominee taken down. I think of
Martin from the DCUs Attorney's Office that I had mentioned
earlier as an example, is he lost the support of
one Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and that
was enough to tank his nomination. But of course in
this inte and the blue split process whereby the majority
(20:03):
party would consider the home state senator's consent and approval
before moving forward to nominee, is no longer in effect
for Circuit court picks and Emmelsove of course, is nominated
for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
So the opposition from the two Democrats who are the
two senators from New Jersey is not a problem for
his nomination to move forward. I did not hear any
(20:24):
opposition from Senate Republicans from what I observed during that hearing,
but we will have to see. I think at this
point it seems that there are no obstacles, but of
course he's facing a lot of opposition from Democrats and
some ethics complaints, So we'll have to see how he
moves forward.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
And what can you tell us about those ethics complaints.
Speaker 5 (20:42):
He's been subject to some ethics complaints, various complaints by
mostly Democrats and other critics, including to relate to his
conducts during the Eric Adams litigation.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
Interesting that during his time as a federal prosecutor in
New York, Bovet was involved in several high profile cases,
but his actions apparently rankled some fellow prosecutors and defense attorneys.
In twenty eighteen, the Federal Public Defender's Office compile complaints
about his behavior from defense attorneys and sent them to
(21:15):
two top officials in the US Attorney's Office. Yet, about
eighteen months after the email was sent, Beauve was promoted
to be co chief of the office's National Security and
International Narcotics Unit. He certainly has an interesting history. Thanks
so much, Suzanne. That's Suzanne Monnac, Bloomberg Law Judiciary Reporter,
(21:41):
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 podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten Tim Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,
(22:03):
and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.