Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Phil Wiser joins this joins the show. He is Attorney
General of the State of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
He is a Democratic governor Democratic.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Candidate for governor. He is an attorney.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
He has clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and has taught
as a professor of law and other such things. And
I will note, by way of caveat, that Phil and
I are pretty good friends. But that doesn't mean I
won't tell him when I think he's got something wrong,
which is one of my favorite hobbies. Actually, Hi, Phil,
(00:31):
how are you good to be here? Yeah, it's good,
it's good to have you. I wanted to start with
a question that's half sarcastic and half serious. But it
seems like you're making something of a hobby of suing
the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
It seems like your new favorite thing to do.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
And I would like to know how much of this
is because you really think they're doing it wrong, and
how much of this And this is a question I
shouldn't ask you in public, but I'm gonna ask you anyway,
And how much of this is because it's a political time,
and and you're running for governor, and you know, want
people to know who you are.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
The point I would start with, is my standard is
identical to what it was.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
In the first Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
My standard is has the administration broken the law in
harm Colorado.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
I was Attorney General for two.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Years in the first Trump administration, and a lot of
the cases I got involved with actually were matters that
started before I took office, and I joined them, like
a case against illegally handling the census or a case
against undermining the protections from the dreamers. We won both
those cases the Supreme Court. They started before I became
ag The total number cases in Trump one that I
(01:44):
brought eleven as we are here today six months a
little bit more in I brought thirty three. I don't
have a different standard. And you can look at the
kawdasan article headline is so wise to sue the Trump
administration thirty to three times, He's mostly winning. That scorecard
actually is conservative against me on that scorecard. I'm not
(02:05):
winning the tariff case, even though we want it at
the district court.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
It's just being stayed.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Why the federal circuit looks at the tariff case, I
think we're gonna went into the circuit court too, based
on the oral arguments. So I would say Ross, if
you look at the cases I'm bringing, my point is
I'm bringing them because I have to bring them to
defend the law and protect Colorado. We can go through
all these funding cases, education funding America, or public health
funding and more. If final bring the cases, Colorado is
(02:32):
out money to which we're entitled. Finally, the politics will
be what they will be. But I will say this point,
there are two types of stances that we're seeing related
to the Trump administration. Some who are trying to find
their way to accommodate, to try to make nice, Others
who are saying I'm standing my ground, I'm fighting for
(02:53):
principles and I'm not going to give into what I
would use as a lawless bullying tactic.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
All this stuff about withholding money.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
It's not an option for the Federal Garden to say,
I know there's an AmeriCorps program. I'm just not going
to honor the law. I'm going to do what I want.
That's why I'm in court. That's my job.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
I had forgotten. I want to follow up on something
you just mentioned. I had forgotten that there was a
census case, and that's interesting in the context of today's
news and I don't know if you've seen it that
Donald Trump announced today that he is going to have
the he's going to order the Department of Commerce to
go do what he's calling a census without counting illegal aliens.
(03:36):
And what I said on my show earlier when I
was talking about it today, I mean, I said, I
actually share that goal, but I think every single level
of federal court will strike it down as unconstitutional within
five minutes because the language of the Constitution the way
just let me go for thirty seconds. You're a better
lawyer than I am. But in the Constitution, the framers
(03:59):
in some places use the word persons and in other
places use the word citizens, so they clearly know the difference,
and then when it comes to the census, they talk
about persons not citizens. So I think that what Trump
wants to do, even though I actually share the goal,
I think it's obviously illegal. But my question for you,
since you mentioned that, is this.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
The same issue.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
It's a different issue.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
But I want to first lift up what you just said,
and it underscores my first answer.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
The commitment to.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Offer due process of law to all persons is what
the Fourteenth Amendment says, and exactly what you said. I
remind people this all the time. The clause right before
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is known
as the Privileges and Immunities clause that only applies to citizens.
The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment knew the difference between
citizens and persons.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
They chose to commit to provide due process of law
and equal protection of law to all persons. That's the
very important point you made as to the sentences.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
The earlier case involved an effort to ask people, is
someone in your family here without legal authorization? And that
question was, as our view put it, designed for mixed families.
A lot of families have all sorts of different people
with different statuses. It was designed to get someone who
(05:21):
might have two kids who are citizens and parents who
might have who knows what status, not to answer the
census at all. That would lead to a deliberate undercount
of certain individuals, and we argue that was a violation
of what you just put it. Well, the framers had
in mind for the census, and we won that case
at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Right, So, yeah, you reminded me about that, and I
agree with you actually about the motivation of that one.
I think the motivation of that one clearly was to
depress certain turnout in the census. Let's get granular for
a second, and maybe we'll back out again later and
talk about, you know, big picture, your approach to Trump.
But let's talk about a law suit. You mentioned the
Colorado Sun. There's another one, Colora, another piece of the
(06:03):
Colorado Sun. Colorado jumps into lawsuit against USDA over demand
for personal information of SNAP recipients and for those people.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Who aren't involved in this program.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
SNAP is kind of the newer name for food stamps
food assistants.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
What's this lawsuit about.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
We have a program in Colorado. We're given discretion to
operate it where we'll give out food assistants. And one
of the ways it works is we have distribution channels.
We know who people are facing food and security. And
the challenge that the federal government is now trying to
do is to force us to collect and give them
(06:43):
all sorts of data that's going to make it more
difficult and more expensive to operate the program. There's not
a statutory authorization for them to do this, and they
would be undermining our ability to do this important work.
Our question is also, by the way, if we were
to give you the data, would the data be private
(07:05):
or would it actually risk people's personal information. There's a
federal law called the Privacy Act. The federal government has
to follow it. And we actually approached in this one
the administration before the litigation happened, and said, can we
call up some protocols to keep information private? And we
didn't get any assurance, and we don't want to put
people's information at risk. This is a related issue. One
(07:28):
another loss that we have against the Treasury Department, which
involved personal information from people held by the IRS, for example,
bank account records or sociurity numbers. Those wanted access to
it without proper protections, and we fought that protecting people's
private information.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Regarding the Colorado Sun headline that you mentioned first, and
it says Colorado's attorney general is Sude Trump thirty three
times since inauguration so far he's mostly won. Now, I
want you to really give me a truly honest answer here. Okay,
it seems to me it's not about you, but about
how some of these cases on different issues, and you
(08:05):
might be pushing different issues separate from the ones I'm
referring to here, But there have been quite a few
cases where federal district courts jumped in on Trumps side,
and then appeals courts or the Supreme Court overturned the
lower court and Trump ended up winning. So if you
had looked at it early on and given some kind
of scorecard, you would say the States are beating Trump.
(08:26):
But when you looked at the final score, Trump is
beating the States on those whatever those are. So of
this stuff that you're suing on, you know, how much
do you think you're winning? Because you've got early, maybe
left leaning courts that are likely to get overturned by
a higher level court.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
So there are a lot of possible responses. Let me
start with one. In maybe the cases that we brought
where we're winning, the Trump administration is basically a seating
that we're right.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
They're basically yielding.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
And this is an important point for our recent education case.
I was in western Colorado, a superintendent of a school
district scess. I can't believe what's happening. He's the one
who told me about this this money that's mandated that
we rely on, that we need our budget. They just
told me the two cents email, you're not getting it.
We got to work literally over July Firth weekend we
filed the case. They've now totally said we were wrong
(09:30):
obviously to use those words, but that's the net effect.
We're giving you the money. So that's the clear, clear
victory we've wanted. Whether or not that issue would have
ended up differently litting it to the Supreme Court, we'll
never know, but I will say this, the principle of
that case, like many other cases I mentioned this public
health case, is Congress mandates funding. The executive branch has
(09:50):
to give the money that Congress mandated.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
They can't just withhold it for whatever reasons they might have.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
And if that's the principle of separation of powers, that's
correct in the education case, we're going to win a
whole bunch of cases on that principle alone. Second point
I'll make if you look at this condis Sound article,
it's actually updated in real time, so it's not giving
me a score card based on my initial district court victories.
It's accounting for any subsequent developments. The terror off case
(10:19):
I mentioned is now at the Federal Circuit. They could,
in theory overall district court that would be a loss.
The current score card has me losing that case. I
believe we're going to win that case to the Federal circuit.
And it's an unfortunate technicality of the scorekeeper here saying
that it's a loss because there's a stay of the
ruling we wont below the Federal Circuit. They asked the question,
(10:42):
this is another basic issue we're litigating. The law here
says the president can impose these terriffs under the law
he cites in emergency and extraordinary situations. What actually is
being done by the president is across the board tariffs
that are not connected to an underlying.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Emergency a justication. They're basically we can do whatever we want.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
And at the oral argument, there was a question asked
of the government's.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Lawyers, is your basic position that.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
There are no legal limits you have to follow and
the laws guardrails are irrelevant. And the answer is basically yes,
that's our position. I don't see them winning that Tearff case.
So we're not going to know until years out after
these cases go all the way up whether any victories
we have now are because of who the lower courts
(11:33):
happened to be.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
But I'll tell you when you look at the principles.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
We're relaterigating and some of the cases as they progress,
I believe that we are seeing legal principles vindicated that
are bread and butter ones and this administration losing again
and again because they didn't take the time on the
front end to actually ask whether their final.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Law or not.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
We're talking with Phil Weiser, Attorney General of the City
of Colorado and candidate for god Nor of Colorado as well.
Let me just say I'm I'm one hundred percent with
you on the tariff case.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
I think what he's doing is illegal on.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Everything that he is doing outside of the specific sections
where he's got specific authority based on a specific set
of circumstances, and I think he's abusing those.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
But I think he's across the board.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Tariffs on everybody are obviously illegal, and I think you're
going to win that case, and I hope you're going
to win that case. But I do have one more
question for you on that case, and that is how
do you have standing?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
There's two theories of sand For those who are not lawyers,
let me just explain standing means how do you have
an injury? How are you affected? So you have a
right to sue. And there's two answers. One is, the
state of Colorado, as a buyer of goods, is directly
affected by tariffs that are illegal, and we got to
pay more for goods as a state because these tariffs
(12:58):
are jacking up prices. Second, there's a theory that applies
to me as an attorney general.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
The Latin term is parent's patriari.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
I have the ability to pursue cases on behalf the
people of Colorado, whether it's protecting our air quality, whether
it's protecting consumers, whether it's protecting workers. I have this
unique authority as the state attorney general to sue on
behalf of the people of Colorado in this tariff case.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Both theories give me standing to sue.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
A couple of listener questions, how many cases did you
bring against the Biden administration?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
I think there are a couple that we brought that
were involving the EPA acting in ways that we thought
was unfair to Colorado.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Okay, I'll just ask my own question, why wouldn't you
have brought a lawsuit if the principal is a lawless president?
Why wouldn't you have sued Biden repeatedly for all the
illegal stuff he tried to do regarding student loan can
He called a cancelation, but reassigned student loans from the
people who took them out to taxpayers.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Was all obviously illegal.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The Supreme Court slapped him down, and then he kept
doing it again. And I would have expected you to
sue over that, because that was as wrong as almost
anything Trump is doing.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
The student loan case, actually, your doctrine before you mentioned
about standing.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
Was quite complicated.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
There there were people who had standing to sue there
and didn't, and the theory by which the Supreme Court
found standing in that case is pretty sketchy. I understand
the argument why that was illegal. I ultimately stayed out
of that case. The challenge is always going to be
how much do I view this as harming and affecting Colorado?
(14:46):
And who was harmed by that student loan case in
terms of Colorado's I think is a much trickier question
than the tariff case.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
For example, you filed lawsuit against Mason County on this
law enforcement thing where there was a I guess a
sheriff's deputy who community communicated information about a young illegal
alien woman who was pulled over for essentially a nonfic
a traffic enforcement the thing that she should never have
been pulled over for anyway, and it led to a
(15:17):
whole huge mess. Just we got about four minutes left,
just briefly explain what this lawsuit is. And now I
see that Mason County is countersuing you, and why are
you only going.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
After Mason County?
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Right, some folks are wondering, why aren't you, you know,
going after the Feds as well or others.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
All right, there's a lot there, and I am quite limited,
given as you note the amount of active litigation. What
I will provide by way of background is Colorado has
established a requirement that law enforcement in Colorado does law enforcement.
And the principle here is immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.
(16:00):
We don't want the federal government coercing us to do
their job. The federal government, by the way, has tried
to coerce us in the first jump ininustration I mentioned
eleven suits.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Those are ones that I actually had to participate in.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
One of those lawsuits was one that we had on
our own, and it was against the Justice Department for
withholding law enforcement funds trying to make cow out of
law enforcement do immigration enforcement, which is something again that
we don't do here. We want to make sure that
our law does law enforcement. We don't have enough law
enforcement officers in goll to do law enforcement. We want
(16:36):
to make sure that people in Colwada to know cud
TO law enforcement is doing law enforcement, not going to
do immigration enforcement. That's the requirement, and what I will
say is my job as Attorney General is to make
sure that requirement is enforced. Will continue review facts that
may come to us, and to do that work and
the best way we can. It is important that we
continue to work to operate under the.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Rule of law. I take those responsibilities seriously.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
And again, given that there is some actual litigation here,
I can't get into some more of the specifics.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
All right, I hate that story all the way around.
That girl never should have been pulled over. She never
should have been in that situation. I don't think the
sheriff's deputy should have reported her in that signal chat.
I'm not sure whether that signal chat should even exist.
But I also don't know that he did anything wrong,
and I guess maybe that's what this lawsuit is about.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
I got time for one other issue with you.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Colorado is one of multiple states, and I actually have
some Republican friends who were involved in getting this done,
where quote unquote dreamers, illegal aliens in the state of
Colorado who meet certain qualifications can get in state tuition
at Colorado State universities. And the Department of Justice has
(17:48):
just announced, and i'll quote from the Associated Press, the
DOJ is suing states to end tuition breaks for students
without legal residency, starting with Texas.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Actually, I guess a couple of months ago.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
I won't name a bunch of other states. Clearly we're
going to be on that list because we have that
same thing going on. And I don't know if you've
been served a lawsuit already. I don't know if you
can confirm or deny if you have. Their argument, as
I understand it is, you can't give an illegal alien
something that citizens of the United States can't get.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
I'm not sure.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I sort of get where they're coming from, but I
think there's a hard question. Actually, what's your take in
is there a lawsuit?
Speaker 4 (18:27):
The our knowledge DJ is not targeted Colorado.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
I want to highlight Cowarda's law is different than some
other states. There is no favoritism in our law of
those who are here who are have an alien status
as opposed to those who might be, as you put it,
out of state American citizens. What color Law does is
has a physical presence requirement. It's not even a residency requirement.
(18:52):
It's a physical presence requirement for at least one year
before you complete the high school equivalency exam. If you
do that, or you're a present in you in your
president of Colorado for twelve months before you enroll at
whatever constitution, then you're eligible for this in state tuition.
Because of the way it's crafted as this physical residency requirement,
(19:15):
I actually think it is different than some of the
laws you're referring to being targeted, and I do think
our law is going to pass muster.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
That's interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
I wonder if it was drafted that way in order
to defend against this particular possibility. In fact, I do
think that came up at the time. My vague recollection
is this did come up as a question at the time,
but you would probably know better than I.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
No, I wasn't involved at all when this was drafted.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
I'm sure there were smart lawyers consulted, but I didn't
have any direct involvement, so I don't know the backstory
on this. I do think you mentioned dreamers. For example,
one of the constitutional requirements from an earlier case is
that if children are here and they're undocumented, that they
are constitutionally required to get an education. They're not in
some type of permanent underclass, and I think there's an
(20:03):
extension of that point that is being honored here making
sure people have access to higher education as well. It's
a smart policy the way it's done here. I do
think it is gonna withstand whatever attack that the DJ
might try to bring. We'll see if they do bring
it or not, but I'm prepared to defend it.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Phil Wiser is Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
He's a candidate for governor as well.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Phil.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I like to keep our political and legal conversation separate,
so we will do a political conversation some other day.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
I wanted to focus on.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
The law with you today and your various lawsuits and
all that. Thank you as always for making time for us,
and be prepared. I may reach out to you requesting
an indictment of producer Dragon if he keeps playing Neil
Young on the show. You may need to look for
some kind of torture statutes. All right, thanks for something
good to have you
Phil Wiser joins this joins the show. He is Attorney
General of the State of Colorado.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
He is a Democratic governor Democratic.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Candidate for governor. He is an attorney.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
He has clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and has taught
as a professor of law and other such things. And
I will note, by way of caveat, that Phil and
I are pretty good friends. But that doesn't mean I
won't tell him when I think he's got something wrong,
which is one of my favorite hobbies. Actually, Hi, Phil,
(00:31):
how are you good to be here? Yeah, it's good,
it's good to have you. I wanted to start with
a question that's half sarcastic and half serious. But it
seems like you're making something of a hobby of suing
the Trump administration.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
It seems like your new favorite thing to do.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
And I would like to know how much of this
is because you really think they're doing it wrong, and
how much of this And this is a question I
shouldn't ask you in public, but I'm gonna ask you anyway,
And how much of this is because it's a political time,
and and you're running for governor, and you know, want
people to know who you are.
Speaker 3 (01:08):
The point I would start with, is my standard is
identical to what it was.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
In the first Trump administration.
Speaker 3 (01:17):
My standard is has the administration broken the law in
harm Colorado.
Speaker 4 (01:21):
I was Attorney General for two.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Years in the first Trump administration, and a lot of
the cases I got involved with actually were matters that
started before I took office, and I joined them, like
a case against illegally handling the census or a case
against undermining the protections from the dreamers. We won both
those cases the Supreme Court. They started before I became
ag The total number cases in Trump one that I
(01:44):
brought eleven as we are here today six months a
little bit more in I brought thirty three. I don't
have a different standard. And you can look at the
kawdasan article headline is so wise to sue the Trump
administration thirty to three times, He's mostly winning. That scorecard
actually is conservative against me on that scorecard. I'm not
(02:05):
winning the tariff case, even though we want it at
the district court.
Speaker 4 (02:08):
It's just being stayed.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Why the federal circuit looks at the tariff case, I
think we're gonna went into the circuit court too, based
on the oral arguments. So I would say Ross, if
you look at the cases I'm bringing, my point is
I'm bringing them because I have to bring them to
defend the law and protect Colorado. We can go through
all these funding cases, education funding America, or public health
funding and more. If final bring the cases, Colorado is
(02:32):
out money to which we're entitled. Finally, the politics will
be what they will be. But I will say this point,
there are two types of stances that we're seeing related
to the Trump administration. Some who are trying to find
their way to accommodate, to try to make nice, Others
who are saying I'm standing my ground, I'm fighting for
(02:53):
principles and I'm not going to give into what I
would use as a lawless bullying tactic.
Speaker 4 (03:00):
All this stuff about withholding money.
Speaker 3 (03:02):
It's not an option for the Federal Garden to say,
I know there's an AmeriCorps program. I'm just not going
to honor the law. I'm going to do what I want.
That's why I'm in court. That's my job.
Speaker 2 (03:15):
I had forgotten. I want to follow up on something
you just mentioned. I had forgotten that there was a
census case, and that's interesting in the context of today's
news and I don't know if you've seen it that
Donald Trump announced today that he is going to have
the he's going to order the Department of Commerce to
go do what he's calling a census without counting illegal aliens.
(03:36):
And what I said on my show earlier when I
was talking about it today, I mean, I said, I
actually share that goal, but I think every single level
of federal court will strike it down as unconstitutional within
five minutes because the language of the Constitution the way
just let me go for thirty seconds. You're a better
lawyer than I am. But in the Constitution, the framers
(03:59):
in some places use the word persons and in other
places use the word citizens, so they clearly know the difference,
and then when it comes to the census, they talk
about persons not citizens. So I think that what Trump
wants to do, even though I actually share the goal,
I think it's obviously illegal. But my question for you,
since you mentioned that, is this.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
The same issue.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
It's a different issue.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
But I want to first lift up what you just said,
and it underscores my first answer.
Speaker 4 (04:28):
The commitment to.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Offer due process of law to all persons is what
the Fourteenth Amendment says, and exactly what you said. I
remind people this all the time. The clause right before
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is known
as the Privileges and Immunities clause that only applies to citizens.
The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment knew the difference between
citizens and persons.
Speaker 4 (04:51):
They chose to commit to provide due process of law
and equal protection of law to all persons. That's the
very important point you made as to the sentences.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
The earlier case involved an effort to ask people, is
someone in your family here without legal authorization? And that
question was, as our view put it, designed for mixed families.
A lot of families have all sorts of different people
with different statuses. It was designed to get someone who
(05:21):
might have two kids who are citizens and parents who
might have who knows what status, not to answer the
census at all. That would lead to a deliberate undercount
of certain individuals, and we argue that was a violation
of what you just put it. Well, the framers had
in mind for the census, and we won that case
at the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (05:41):
Right, So, yeah, you reminded me about that, and I
agree with you actually about the motivation of that one.
I think the motivation of that one clearly was to
depress certain turnout in the census. Let's get granular for
a second, and maybe we'll back out again later and
talk about, you know, big picture, your approach to Trump.
But let's talk about a law suit. You mentioned the
Colorado Sun. There's another one, Colora, another piece of the
(06:03):
Colorado Sun. Colorado jumps into lawsuit against USDA over demand
for personal information of SNAP recipients and for those people.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Who aren't involved in this program.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
SNAP is kind of the newer name for food stamps
food assistants.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
What's this lawsuit about.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
We have a program in Colorado. We're given discretion to
operate it where we'll give out food assistants. And one
of the ways it works is we have distribution channels.
We know who people are facing food and security. And
the challenge that the federal government is now trying to
do is to force us to collect and give them
(06:43):
all sorts of data that's going to make it more
difficult and more expensive to operate the program. There's not
a statutory authorization for them to do this, and they
would be undermining our ability to do this important work.
Our question is also, by the way, if we were
to give you the data, would the data be private
(07:05):
or would it actually risk people's personal information. There's a
federal law called the Privacy Act. The federal government has
to follow it. And we actually approached in this one
the administration before the litigation happened, and said, can we
call up some protocols to keep information private? And we
didn't get any assurance, and we don't want to put
people's information at risk. This is a related issue. One
(07:28):
another loss that we have against the Treasury Department, which
involved personal information from people held by the IRS, for example,
bank account records or sociurity numbers. Those wanted access to
it without proper protections, and we fought that protecting people's
private information.
Speaker 2 (07:45):
Regarding the Colorado Sun headline that you mentioned first, and
it says Colorado's attorney general is Sude Trump thirty three
times since inauguration so far he's mostly won. Now, I
want you to really give me a truly honest answer here. Okay,
it seems to me it's not about you, but about
how some of these cases on different issues, and you
(08:05):
might be pushing different issues separate from the ones I'm
referring to here, But there have been quite a few
cases where federal district courts jumped in on Trumps side,
and then appeals courts or the Supreme Court overturned the
lower court and Trump ended up winning. So if you
had looked at it early on and given some kind
of scorecard, you would say the States are beating Trump.
(08:26):
But when you looked at the final score, Trump is
beating the States on those whatever those are. So of
this stuff that you're suing on, you know, how much
do you think you're winning? Because you've got early, maybe
left leaning courts that are likely to get overturned by
a higher level court.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
So there are a lot of possible responses. Let me
start with one. In maybe the cases that we brought
where we're winning, the Trump administration is basically a seating
that we're right.
Speaker 4 (09:02):
They're basically yielding.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
And this is an important point for our recent education case.
I was in western Colorado, a superintendent of a school
district scess. I can't believe what's happening. He's the one
who told me about this this money that's mandated that
we rely on, that we need our budget. They just
told me the two cents email, you're not getting it.
We got to work literally over July Firth weekend we
filed the case. They've now totally said we were wrong
(09:30):
obviously to use those words, but that's the net effect.
We're giving you the money. So that's the clear, clear
victory we've wanted. Whether or not that issue would have
ended up differently litting it to the Supreme Court, we'll
never know, but I will say this, the principle of
that case, like many other cases I mentioned this public
health case, is Congress mandates funding. The executive branch has
(09:50):
to give the money that Congress mandated.
Speaker 4 (09:52):
They can't just withhold it for whatever reasons they might have.
Speaker 3 (09:56):
And if that's the principle of separation of powers, that's
correct in the education case, we're going to win a
whole bunch of cases on that principle alone. Second point
I'll make if you look at this condis Sound article,
it's actually updated in real time, so it's not giving
me a score card based on my initial district court victories.
It's accounting for any subsequent developments. The terror off case
(10:19):
I mentioned is now at the Federal Circuit. They could,
in theory overall district court that would be a loss.
The current score card has me losing that case. I
believe we're going to win that case to the Federal circuit.
And it's an unfortunate technicality of the scorekeeper here saying
that it's a loss because there's a stay of the
ruling we wont below the Federal Circuit. They asked the question,
(10:42):
this is another basic issue we're litigating. The law here
says the president can impose these terriffs under the law
he cites in emergency and extraordinary situations. What actually is
being done by the president is across the board tariffs
that are not connected to an underlying.
Speaker 4 (11:02):
Emergency a justication. They're basically we can do whatever we want.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
And at the oral argument, there was a question asked
of the government's.
Speaker 4 (11:10):
Lawyers, is your basic position that.
Speaker 3 (11:13):
There are no legal limits you have to follow and
the laws guardrails are irrelevant. And the answer is basically yes,
that's our position. I don't see them winning that Tearff case.
So we're not going to know until years out after
these cases go all the way up whether any victories
we have now are because of who the lower courts
(11:33):
happened to be.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
But I'll tell you when you look at the principles.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
We're relaterigating and some of the cases as they progress,
I believe that we are seeing legal principles vindicated that
are bread and butter ones and this administration losing again
and again because they didn't take the time on the
front end to actually ask whether their final.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Law or not.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
We're talking with Phil Weiser, Attorney General of the City
of Colorado and candidate for god Nor of Colorado as well.
Let me just say I'm I'm one hundred percent with
you on the tariff case.
Speaker 1 (12:07):
I think what he's doing is illegal on.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
Everything that he is doing outside of the specific sections
where he's got specific authority based on a specific set
of circumstances, and I think he's abusing those.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
But I think he's across the board.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Tariffs on everybody are obviously illegal, and I think you're
going to win that case, and I hope you're going
to win that case. But I do have one more
question for you on that case, and that is how
do you have standing?
Speaker 3 (12:36):
There's two theories of sand For those who are not lawyers,
let me just explain standing means how do you have
an injury? How are you affected? So you have a
right to sue. And there's two answers. One is, the
state of Colorado, as a buyer of goods, is directly
affected by tariffs that are illegal, and we got to
pay more for goods as a state because these tariffs
(12:58):
are jacking up prices. Second, there's a theory that applies
to me as an attorney general.
Speaker 4 (13:03):
The Latin term is parent's patriari.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
I have the ability to pursue cases on behalf the
people of Colorado, whether it's protecting our air quality, whether
it's protecting consumers, whether it's protecting workers. I have this
unique authority as the state attorney general to sue on
behalf of the people of Colorado in this tariff case.
Speaker 4 (13:25):
Both theories give me standing to sue.
Speaker 2 (13:28):
A couple of listener questions, how many cases did you
bring against the Biden administration?
Speaker 3 (13:33):
I think there are a couple that we brought that
were involving the EPA acting in ways that we thought
was unfair to Colorado.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Okay, I'll just ask my own question, why wouldn't you
have brought a lawsuit if the principal is a lawless president?
Why wouldn't you have sued Biden repeatedly for all the
illegal stuff he tried to do regarding student loan can
He called a cancelation, but reassigned student loans from the
people who took them out to taxpayers.
Speaker 1 (14:03):
Was all obviously illegal.
Speaker 2 (14:04):
The Supreme Court slapped him down, and then he kept
doing it again. And I would have expected you to
sue over that, because that was as wrong as almost
anything Trump is doing.
Speaker 3 (14:16):
The student loan case, actually, your doctrine before you mentioned
about standing.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
Was quite complicated.
Speaker 3 (14:24):
There there were people who had standing to sue there
and didn't, and the theory by which the Supreme Court
found standing in that case is pretty sketchy. I understand
the argument why that was illegal. I ultimately stayed out
of that case. The challenge is always going to be
how much do I view this as harming and affecting Colorado?
(14:46):
And who was harmed by that student loan case in
terms of Colorado's I think is a much trickier question
than the tariff case.
Speaker 2 (14:54):
For example, you filed lawsuit against Mason County on this
law enforcement thing where there was a I guess a
sheriff's deputy who community communicated information about a young illegal
alien woman who was pulled over for essentially a nonfic
a traffic enforcement the thing that she should never have
been pulled over for anyway, and it led to a
(15:17):
whole huge mess. Just we got about four minutes left,
just briefly explain what this lawsuit is. And now I
see that Mason County is countersuing you, and why are
you only going.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
After Mason County?
Speaker 2 (15:29):
Right, some folks are wondering, why aren't you, you know,
going after the Feds as well or others.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
All right, there's a lot there, and I am quite limited,
given as you note the amount of active litigation. What
I will provide by way of background is Colorado has
established a requirement that law enforcement in Colorado does law enforcement.
And the principle here is immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility.
(16:00):
We don't want the federal government coercing us to do
their job. The federal government, by the way, has tried
to coerce us in the first jump ininustration I mentioned
eleven suits.
Speaker 4 (16:11):
Those are ones that I actually had to participate in.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
One of those lawsuits was one that we had on
our own, and it was against the Justice Department for
withholding law enforcement funds trying to make cow out of
law enforcement do immigration enforcement, which is something again that
we don't do here. We want to make sure that
our law does law enforcement. We don't have enough law
enforcement officers in goll to do law enforcement. We want
(16:36):
to make sure that people in Colwada to know cud
TO law enforcement is doing law enforcement, not going to
do immigration enforcement. That's the requirement, and what I will
say is my job as Attorney General is to make
sure that requirement is enforced. Will continue review facts that
may come to us, and to do that work and
the best way we can. It is important that we
continue to work to operate under the.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Rule of law. I take those responsibilities seriously.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
And again, given that there is some actual litigation here,
I can't get into some more of the specifics.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
All right, I hate that story all the way around.
That girl never should have been pulled over. She never
should have been in that situation. I don't think the
sheriff's deputy should have reported her in that signal chat.
I'm not sure whether that signal chat should even exist.
But I also don't know that he did anything wrong,
and I guess maybe that's what this lawsuit is about.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
I got time for one other issue with you.
Speaker 2 (17:27):
Colorado is one of multiple states, and I actually have
some Republican friends who were involved in getting this done,
where quote unquote dreamers, illegal aliens in the state of
Colorado who meet certain qualifications can get in state tuition
at Colorado State universities. And the Department of Justice has
(17:48):
just announced, and i'll quote from the Associated Press, the
DOJ is suing states to end tuition breaks for students
without legal residency, starting with Texas.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Actually, I guess a couple of months ago.
Speaker 2 (18:00):
I won't name a bunch of other states. Clearly we're
going to be on that list because we have that
same thing going on. And I don't know if you've
been served a lawsuit already. I don't know if you
can confirm or deny if you have. Their argument, as
I understand it is, you can't give an illegal alien
something that citizens of the United States can't get.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
I'm not sure.
Speaker 2 (18:17):
I sort of get where they're coming from, but I
think there's a hard question. Actually, what's your take in
is there a lawsuit?
Speaker 4 (18:27):
The our knowledge DJ is not targeted Colorado.
Speaker 3 (18:30):
I want to highlight Cowarda's law is different than some
other states. There is no favoritism in our law of
those who are here who are have an alien status
as opposed to those who might be, as you put it,
out of state American citizens. What color Law does is
has a physical presence requirement. It's not even a residency requirement.
(18:52):
It's a physical presence requirement for at least one year
before you complete the high school equivalency exam. If you
do that, or you're a present in you in your
president of Colorado for twelve months before you enroll at
whatever constitution, then you're eligible for this in state tuition.
Because of the way it's crafted as this physical residency requirement,
(19:15):
I actually think it is different than some of the
laws you're referring to being targeted, and I do think
our law is going to pass muster.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
That's interesting.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
I wonder if it was drafted that way in order
to defend against this particular possibility. In fact, I do
think that came up at the time. My vague recollection
is this did come up as a question at the time,
but you would probably know better than I.
Speaker 4 (19:37):
No, I wasn't involved at all when this was drafted.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
I'm sure there were smart lawyers consulted, but I didn't
have any direct involvement, so I don't know the backstory
on this. I do think you mentioned dreamers. For example,
one of the constitutional requirements from an earlier case is
that if children are here and they're undocumented, that they
are constitutionally required to get an education. They're not in
some type of permanent underclass, and I think there's an
(20:03):
extension of that point that is being honored here making
sure people have access to higher education as well. It's
a smart policy the way it's done here. I do
think it is gonna withstand whatever attack that the DJ
might try to bring. We'll see if they do bring
it or not, but I'm prepared to defend it.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Phil Wiser is Attorney General of the state of Colorado.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
He's a candidate for governor as well.
Speaker 4 (20:25):
Phil.
Speaker 2 (20:25):
I like to keep our political and legal conversation separate,
so we will do a political conversation some other day.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
I wanted to focus on.
Speaker 2 (20:33):
The law with you today and your various lawsuits and
all that. Thank you as always for making time for us,
and be prepared. I may reach out to you requesting
an indictment of producer Dragon if he keeps playing Neil
Young on the show. You may need to look for
some kind of torture statutes. All right, thanks for something
good to have you
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
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.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
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!