This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
President Trump has been complaining about the legal protections given to alleged Venezuelan gang members to prevent their quick deportations.
We're getting them out, and a judge can't say no, you have to have a trial. That's the trial is going to take two years, and we're going to have a very We're going to have a very dangerous country if we're not allowed to do what we're entitled to do.
Well.
On Friday, the administration lost its bid at the Supreme Court to quickly deport about one hundred and seventy six alleged Venezuelan gang members to a salvador In prison using the seventeen ninety eight Alien Enemies Act. But it got to win at the Supreme Court today, when the Justice has allowed the administration to end legal protections for three hundred and fifty thousand Venezuelans, stripping them of the right to temporarily live and work in the US and opening
many of them to immediate deportations. The Justices lifted a federal court order that had said the Venezuelans could keep their temporary protected status while a legal fight continues. Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partnered Holland and Knight. Leon first explained, and I know you've explained this many times before, but first explain what temporary protected status is.
Well. Temporary protected status in general is permitted by a statute that is enacted by Congress. And what that statue does is it allows the president, whoever the president is at any given time, to create a class of people that, because of either a natural disaster or some political turmoil or some environmental problem something that it would be considered very dangerous to them to deport them back to their country.
And so actually, at the end of the Trump presidency in twenty twenty, Trump had declared something similar called deferred
enforced departure for Venezuelans. But what Biden did was he changed that to temporary protective status, and he said that about three hundred and fifty thousand Venezuelans could stay in the country using this temporary protected status under the theory that deporting them back to Venezuela would be deporting them back to a place where the government was very oppressive, and most of these people would probably qualify for asylum anyway,
and so rather than clog the courts with those asylum cases, it's just simpler to have temporary protective status allow them to stay legally and work legally while they're in the United States. Well, what the Trump administration did when it came back in twenty twenty five now is it said we're going to cancel those three hundred and fifty thousand Venezuelans temporary protective status. But what's interesting about that is it didn't just say it's not going to renew it.
It actually said, if you have it right this minute, we're canceling it, which people were shocked because they had at least thought they had a reliance interest until the time that the temporary protected status would expire, which for some people would have been in June and some people would have been in October.
I mean, it sounds like temporary protected status is something within the administration's bailliwick.
Correct, So the administration the president has the authority to extend TPS in eighteen months increments under Congress, or not
to extend it. But what's interesting is in the prior Trump administration, there had been temporary protected status given to people from Central America, and when the Trump administration tried to end it, the lower courts actually gave injunctions, and those individuals succeeded for four years during the Trump presidency to not have their temporary protective status rescinded because they had gotten rulings that there were equal protection violations in
the way that the temporary protective status had been rescinded, because the idea was that Trump was doing this for some sort of animus or discriminatory reason and not for real judgments on whether those countries had actually changed or not. And so interestingly enough, because that strategy worked in the first Trump administration to sort of run out the clock, then this new attempt in this second administration to do
the same thing to stop temporary protective status. The individuals sued again, saying the same arguments, and they succeeded again in getting an injunction in the lower court. But this time the Supreme Court today stayed the injunction. So what they said was the injunction does not apply to just the one issue, so the issue of renewal, meaning that now there's not going to be an injunction like there was in the first Trumpet administration. That keeps people on
temporary protected status after it expires. Now, they do say that this order doesn't apply to the issues of whether you could be ejected from the status earlier, whether your work authorization could be taken away early. But what the ruling today says is when your status expires, the Supreme Court has no order in place giving you your status back, and so those are going to have to be litigated
in the lower court. But in the meantime, there is no injunction in place preventing people's temporary protected status from expiring on the day it was supposed to expire in the first place.
So, just to be clear, the order today only applies to renewal of temporary prient checked IT status. In other words, it allows the administration not to renew TPS status.
So the order from today only pertains to once the normal day it was going to expire comes, then it is allowed to expire. There is now no injunction as of today requiring it to be renewed, and so that's what's been changed is there was an injunction saying you just can't end this period until the court gets back
to you, and now that's not true. It can be ended, but it has to be ended as of the date that it was supposed to end originally, rather than an earlier expedited date given by President Trump.
So how big a victory is this for the Trump administration?
Obviously, what they're trying to do is flood the zone and get as many people to be subject to removal early as possible. So from that standpoint, if your concern is, I want as many people subject to removal as soon as possible, And it is a very big victory for the Trump administration to say that they don't have to renew the temporary protected status because that is a significant
change from the first Trump administration. In the first Trump administration, the clock ran out from their attempt to end temporary protected status for people, and so people were able to maintain their temporary protected status during the four entire years of the Trump administration, plus obviously the Biden administration. And so now the Trump administration in year one gets a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court that says that that's not going to happen this time around.
What happens now because the Venezuelans that have temporary protected status when it ends, can they be deported or will they apply for asylum.
So what will happen is anybody who is subject to deportation is most likely going to apply for asylum. They don't have to apply for asylum, but most likely they are going to apply for asylum. And from Venezuela, you already have a prime of facia eligibility for asylum in the sense that you have an oppressive government that commits
acts of oppression against political enemies. So all of those cases are going to have to be heard on an individual basis, unless the Trump administration can succeed in this other case that it's working on saying that Venezuelans or some class of them, can be deported en mass because
they're alien enemies of the United States. But other than that, every Venezuelan is probably going to have to go through asylum proceedings, which, again, even if it's just these three hundred and fifty thousand, will be two three years of court time just for this one group of people.
How has temporary projected status worked in the past, Do people actually go back to their home countries?
Well, this is problematic because this is where the Trump administration has its highest level of currency. Is there's actually almost never been an instance other than very small, very targeted instances of less than one hundred people, where a group of people has been given temporary protective status and it's actually been revoked. We have people in America who've had temporary protective status since nineteen ninety six and their
status just keeps getting renewed every eighteen months. And so what the Trump administration has said is at some point this has to end because it makes a mockery of the statute temporary protected status. But what happens is once you make someone legal and you give them a work permit, and you give them legal status and they have kids in the United States, every moment that they're here is
an extended moment of currency building. And you start getting people like these people who've been here since nineteen ninety six who are now going to to lose their temporary protective status, who will say, hey, I've been here for over thirty years and now you're trying to deport me just now. And this becomes a big problem for both sides. And so that's why it's understandable that people who've been here less time, but for some of the temporary protective
status people who've been here thirty years. Yes, they probably shouldn't have had temporary protective status for thirty years, but the truth is they've had it now, and so the question is what are you going to do with those people.
They're also moving to revoke temporary protected status for Haitians, Cubans, and Nicaragua.
Everybody, yes, other than South Sudan, which they gave a sort of neutral six month extension. Everyone else. They're moving so far to say that the conditions have improved in all of these countries, no matter how bad others might argue theoretically that they are. The Trump administration has said, no, the conditions are good enough to warrant deportations to these places, and so yes, the temporary protective statuses are being revoked from everybody else who has them, and so the idea
is those individuals will be in undocumented status. And then the question becomes, well, what happens to the next? What happens to the next is either they leave on their own or somebody comes and places them in deportation proceedings. And if that happens, then what happens. Does these people apply for asylum or do they do something else?
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, the Trump Administration's Friday defeat at the Supreme Court, and are they really talking about a reality show for undocumented immigrants you're listening to Bloomberg. The Trump administration had a victory today from the Supreme Court, but a defeat on Friday by a vote of seven to two. The court blocked the administration from deporting about one hundred and seventy six Venezuelans
to a Salvadorian prison. Fault in the government for giving the men in adequate notice and failing to explain how they could contest deportation. I've been talking to immigration law expert le On Fresco, a partner at Hollanden Knight. Leon tell us why the Supreme Court said the Trump administration couldn't deport this group of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Well, let's start with the legal issue at play. There's a law, the Alien Enemies Act from the seventeen hundreds, which says that if you are put into this group of people who are alien enemies by the president, you can be removed without any due process. That's what the statute says. And the question is what does that really mean, because it gives a step of determining whether you are
subject to the statue. You know, So the Trump administration says, we want to be able to deport these Venezuelan gang members from Trend, de Aragua. We want to be able to do that without having to have individual trials for every one of them. But that skips the step of saying, well, what if I'm not one of these people, either because I'm Venezuelan but I'm not in the gang, or I'm not even Venezuelan in the first place and you just got the wrong person, or I'm a US citizen, Where
do I get to actually make this claim? And so first the Supreme Court said, well, you will make this claim in a habeas case. That was the first Supreme Court decision that came out a month ago that said you have to file a habeas corpus and the government has to give you notice and an opportunity to do that. And then there's a second question, which the courts have gone in two different directions on, which is can you even use the Alien Enemies Act for this type of situation?
Because does this Venezuelan gang count as an invading force such that you can actually use the Alien Enemies Act to deport people, or is this just immigration, it's not an invading force coming from Venezuela with the approval of the Venezuelan government to invade the United States. Because that's the threshold that you have to meet. And so the Supreme Court said, look, you got to give people notice
to make these arguments. The government came back into lower courts and there were arguments about, well, how long does the government have to let you file your habeas? Is it twenty four hours, is it four hours? Is it forty eight hours? And what the Supreme Court basically said, finally, because it was I think concerned about a situation where people were not going to be given enough notice to
file habeas corpus actions in these cases. It said, look, we're saying all of these Venezuelan Alien Enemies Act cases until they can get up to this court and we can decide these two issues. The Alien enemies is it even applicable here? And in specific cases are people subject to it even if it is applicable, And the issue of what is a proper amount of notice to give
in a particular case. So the Court said In the meantime, we're just putting this injunction in and nobody's going to be able to be deported under this Alien Enemies Act until we can find so. It tould the lower courts get to it, move, move, move quickly, get us these cases, and then we will finally decide these larger issues.
And they mentioned a couple of times that the stakes were high, basically because of the case of Kilmar Abrigo Garcia, who the government says it can't return. I don't know where that case is at this point.
Well, correct, the problem is there. The irreparable harm argument really sort of became nuclear, because if the government is going to say that once it deports somebody, it's not going to bring them back, then you raise the stakes to a level that makes it impossible to say there's not going to be a reparable arm. And so this might be a situation where again the litigating posture in one case came back to the government's credit here, whereas that had just done the one time return, then it
might have won this case. And so these things are always operating in a back and forth discussion. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum. And so now the government has to understand that if it's going to make the arguments I want to deport someone it's never going to bring them back, then that is irreparable arm by its nature. Because you can bring someone back, then maybe you can argue there's no irreparable arm. But if you're saying you're never going to bring someone back, then that is by
the definition irreparable arm. We are in that situation now where all of these cases have been stated, and with regards to Brego Garcia, what you have is a situation where the district judge in Maryland is sort of getting back into this case now, and even though they're trying to theoretically work something out, you have administration officials still saying to the Congress that Abrego Garcia is never coming back.
And so now the district judge in Maryland is really starting to lose her patients, and she's trying to figure out again back into this adjudicating posture, who ordered what, when, where, and why, to try to decide that there's more that this judge can order, either with regard to content or with regard to relief, that can get Abrego Garcia back into the United States.
So let's move now to Thursday of last week, where the birthright citizenship question was before the Supreme Court. I mean, was most of it about birthright citizenship or about nationwide injunctions?
Right? Very little of the case had to do with birthright citizenship. There were some remarks by certain of the justices where the justices said, you know, let's assume that your birthright citizenship argument is wrong, what do we do in terms of the injunction here? And so there was a lot of that. There was not a lot of discussion in regard to anybody trying to argue too much that the birthright Citizenship Executive Order was legal, And I don't think the Court is ever going to be inclined
to rule in that direction. But the question is what is the remedy for this and here? Really is there a way that there's maybe four or five justices that would carve out some new standard that has to be applied before a nationwide injunction could be issued, or are they just going to do away with them period and make people have to certify a class and get class action relief, which may be available in some types of
cases and may not be available in other types of cases. So, for instance, in the alien enemies that case where those are not have to be filed in habeass you actually have in this case that just got decided now about pausing, you had a LEDO and Thomas saying you can't get
class action relief in a hate case. And so that's the kind of example of perhaps it wouldn't be available, and so you would need a nationwide injunction if you're going to do this, And so there's a lot of those scenarios the Court was trying to grapple with, where is there an adequate substitute for a nationwide injunction in cases where it's actually needed, or would you be creating some pretty crazy outcomes where for instance, as an example,
just in the birthright citizenship context, if you had two different circuits that ruled two different ways on birthright citizenship and if the Supreme Court denied third, just to take that example, then what would happen is if you apply for a passport in California, you might get it, and if you applied for a passport in Texas you might
not get it. And that's absurd that there is literally two different rules for American citizenship depending on which passport office you apply in, and so you would think that this would not be the exact kind of case where you'd want to see this issue up. But I don't know what they're going to end up with in this context.
Jess as Elena Kagan, who was a FORMERUS Listener General I believe, said something like I wouldn't have brought this case if I were you.
Yeah, it definitely seems as the weirdest case ever to bring a nationwide injunction case. You would think you would want to bring it with regard to something like can you fire people in the parking meter service or something? You know some case of states like that way or Okay, so maybe the parking meter people in one place would be fired in another place. They couldn't be that kind of thing. But to do it here in a case that clearly there should be one federal standard of who
is a US citizen and who isn't and where. If you don't have one standard, all that will happen is that people will move to the location where they can get citizenship just seems very strange to use that as the case that people want to have this issue of
nationwide injunction. But at least, it clarifies the issues for the court to really think of the stakes here of having an interesting background of saying okay in this exact nationwide injunction case involving birthright citizenship, if we banned nationwide injunctions, how would we move forward in this world? And so at least it gives an interesting thought process. It really
is the opposite of a straw man. This is sort of the Steelman thing where if you can write an argument in this case for ending nationwide injunctions, then you definitely have a strong standard that would apply in pretty much any other context.
Now, let's turn to a reality show where immigrants would compete for US citizenship. I say that with a question mark because it sounds over the top, But the Department of Homeland Security is reportedly con considering being part of a show where immigrants would compete in various contests and the winner would be awarded citizenship. The show is being pitched by Rob Warsoff, who produced the Duck Dynasty reality show. Is this doable?
Leon Well? What has been admitted to so far is that there have been meetings with officials at the Department of Justice about this, and what has also been I think seems to be not refuted by anyone, is that Secretary Nome has not met with the individuals trying to do this show. But what we know is that there is a desire to have a show where it's a reality show type competition where there's multiple people trying to get US citizenship and only one of them gets it
at the end of the show. So there's a whittling down each episode as to a person who gets eliminated, and then only one person or perhaps one family gets the citizenship. And so interestingly, I've been asked by various reporters if I can think of a way where this could actually work under the law, and I haven't actually responded, but I'll do it here June, since we have since
we have our podcast. And so as much as I wouldn't want this to be a show, you know, there's another immigration show that has huge rating called Ninety Day Fiance. I don't know if you've seen that one. I hadn't.
I didn't know it was an immigration show though, okay, it's.
An immigration show. Yeah, Because what happens is there's a visa called a cave visa. Here's how this works. If a US citizen is abroad. Let's say you go abroad because you're at your university and you take a semester abroad in France or something. Or let's say you're working at a project in Germany or Australia or wherever. You
meet someone that you love. You're now in a very difficult situation because if you bring the person into America on a visitor visa and you get married to them, theoretically that person is committing immigration fraud because you're not supposed to be coming in on a visitor visa with an intent to get married. And if you do the long marriage process, how broad, then you might be separated from your spouse for a year or two, which is its own hardship. Nobody wants to be separated from their
spouse for a year or two. So there's a visa that was created by Congress called the CA visa, the fiance visa, which says, we're going to help you circumvent this intent problem by giving you a visa that allows you to come in kind of like a visitor, but you have to get married in ninety days in order to say and then you can do the process like if you had met someone here and got married, and
so that's the fiance visa. But what this TV show did is it decided to flip that on its head and say, we're going to bring people in and give them ninety days to decide whether they fall in love with each other or not. If they don't fall in love with each other, then they have to go. So it's kind of flipped the idea on its head. And so because that show has been wildly successful, even though
it's not really what the fiancee visus for. It's not meant for the spouse to say, here, you have ninety days to impress me, or you're out of the country. It's not meant for that. But that's what this show has turned into very riveting television.
Nevertheless, I'll admit my daughter has watched it.
No, no, fair enough, I've seen it. I've seen it because people have brought it to my attention, and I'm both shocked and admiring at the same time that someone had such a perverse idea to take the immigration code and turn it on its head like this.
It seems like competing for US citizenship would involve the government more. In the show, people.
Say, well, no, the government doesn't have the authority to do well. So I've tried to think how could you do this? And the point is you could do it, but what you would need to do is you would need to have the Department of Justice in cahoots with this. And here's how it would work. So there is a
stud called the cancelation of removal statues. And what the cancelation of removal statues says is, if you have been here illegally for ten years or more, and you have either a US citizen or a lawful permanent resident child or spouse who you being deported would cause extreme and unusual hardship to them, then you can ask an immigration judge to let you cancel your removal and stay in
the United States. And what actually happens is if the immigration judge cancels the removal, you get a green card. This is a defense to a deportation proceeding. But again, you have to have been here ten years, and you have to have a qualifying US citizen child or US
citizen spouse. And usually the point is these people have to be very sick or there has to be some major, major problem for why you would get this approved Okay, So the rule is only four thousand people can get this status a year, and so at the moment there's many more people who have been approved for this status, then there are slots, and so there's a bunch of
people whose cases are in abeyan. So what you could do if you had the approval from the Department of Justice is you could pick twelve of these people whose cases are in abeyan and basically have them fight it out on TV as perversus, that is, for which one of them will get one of these four thousand plucks. Now they wouldn't get citizenships, they would get a green card.
But then there actually is another statue which, if you wanted to interpret it again very very very very broadly and loosely compared to its text, allows five people, literally just five, to be given citizenship immediately if either the direct sure of the CIA or the Attorney General or the DHS Secretary says they've made an extraordinary contribution to the national security of the United States, which obviously winning
a TV show wouldn't do. But maybe you'd make some argument that they provided such a good role model that now everyone will last that way, and that will make the security of the US better in some way. I don't know.
Maybe you should expect to call from the producer. Leon. It sounds like a crazy idea, but there are a lot of reality shows that I would never have imagined would work. This could be the next one. Thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Honden Knight Up. Next, does Trump's interim pick for DCUs attorney test the appointment's power? This is Bloomberg. President Trump has appointed a second interim US
attorney for the District of Columbia. Former Fox Knew host Janine Pierro was sworn in Wednesday as the next interim US Attorney for DC after Trump pulled the nomination of Ed Martin, who had served as the interim DC US attorney since January. The back to back interim US attorneys test the bounds of the federal statute governing temporary officials.
Joining me, as constitutional law expert Harold Krant, a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, he'll tell us about what happened with Ed Martin that led to Janine Piero getting appointed.
Well.
The Attorney General, through the President, has the power to appoint an interim United States Attorney, which is the chief prosecutor for a variety of federal districts. Ed Martin was selected as the chief prosecutor for the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, and under the statute, a interim
can serve for one hundred and twenty days. If at one hundred and twenty day is there's no permanent US Attorney appointed, then according to the statute, it's the DC Circuit, which is somewhat unusual then would have the power to appoint an interim. After the fact Ed Martin was removed from office because of political pressure prior to the one hundred and twenty days, which leaves open the question of
who can fill the gap. Can the Attorney General appoint another interim or with that displaced the power of the Court to appoint an interim, And in the background is the Senate's power to confirm an important position might be US Attorney because with these successive interims, who either appointed by the Court or by the Attorney General, there is no rule for the Senate in terms of confirming a permanent person in that position.
Does the US Attorney have to be from the area that he or she's.
Appointed to there's no residency requirements to knowledge, so she is qualified and indeed in the background is lurking. I think the Senate would probably confirm her selection as the US Attorney even though obviously she's controversial because of her background with Fox News.
So she has one hundred and twenty days in office. Is that right?
That's the question because some people think, and Senator Durbin raised the question of whether her appointment was illegal, that perhaps the Attorney General can only have one answer appointment and after that time, either the Court would have to make an interemployment or the President would have to submit a permanent name for Senate consideration. So the difficulty with
her appointment is that it might be illegal. And if it's illegal, then anybody who's convicted while she serves as the interim use attorney might have grounds to challenge their conviction on the ground that she was improperly appointed.
I mean, it has been done before, right where there's the interim after interim after interim.
There have been several of circumstances of a sort of a chain of interim appointments which then cut into either Again, the power of the Senate to approve a permanent appointment or the power of the court to appoint an interim attorney. So it's happened in Massachusetts and a lower court appeldate. There was an issue in New Mexico, and I believe in Illinois, so that's not unprecedented. But there is very few judicial tests, and it's really kind of a question
of a letter versus the spirit of the law. There's nothing in a law that clearly states you can't have two, three, four seven interim appointments all less than one hundred and twenty days. But it's certainly the spirit of the statute that suggests that you only can have one intern appointment and then it would go either to a permanent appointment or to judicial appointment of a interim use security, which has also happened in our history.
I mean, he could just nominate her to be the US Attorney for DC.
Right absolutely, and I think the Senate would confirm he hasn't done that yet, maybe because he wants to see how she'll behave I have no idea what the thinking is, or maybe he wants to test the statute. But this seems to be a very minor tesk in comparison to all of the other article two challenges that he has instigated, so it's unclear why he hasn't point her and then this whole issue would go away.
In his first term, he said he likes the temporary There was more turnover in his first term. At this point in his first term, well, I do think.
That it does give him some kind of immediate power. And the message to Janine is, do a great job what I want you to do, and then maybe I'll give you the permanent employment and I don't want to worry about any kind of removal or not. I'll just give a permanent employment. And that way he has more of a control sort of testing out whether or not she would serve his will, if you will effectively in that role.
He's not the only president to use interim appointments. Is it a trend sort of? And is that because Senate confirmation is difficult.
Lots of times, particularly at the beginning of an administration, before you know all your stucture in order, there's a need to have a great many interim appointments, and Congresses tried to regulate that, specifically with US attorneys as we're discussing, but also with all generally officers nined States, and they've done a very complex statue calls of the Federal Vacancy's Reform Act, which tries to limit who the president can
appoint for these acting roles. But this particular statute is carve out from the Federal Vacancy Reform Acts, and so it is more open ended as to whether these successive appointments can be made or not. Not Ironically, President Trump benefited from this because in his Moral Lago Documents case, Judge Ilean Cannon dismissed the indictment against him because she ruled that the Special Council have been illegally appointed. And
most people disagree with that ruling as a remedy. But the problem with the appointment is that that is a president or any criminals who's been convicted under the watch of an interim US attorney to argue that the whole indictment should be thrown out. So again, I think many people disagree with Judge Cannon's reasoning in President Trump's case, but it does show that there is a risk with this particular appointment.
I mean, if this was a Senate that was less partisan, would they be concerned that this is taking away the Senate's power.
Well, that's exactly what Senator Durbin articulated and said that, you know, by having the successive or he called it a daisy chain of appointment of interims, the president can sap the Senate of its power to either confer or withhold consent. And you know, in a matter of theory, Center Durbin's absolutely correct. But there's nothing in the statute specifically that prevents a series of inter appointments.
And tell us how Trump is pushing his power to fire anyone, even those heading independent agencies.
Indeed, he has discharged members of many agencies that Congress's deemed should be somewhat independent of the president's control, namely those sitting on top the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the National Labor Relations for the Federal Trade Commission, among others in his executive order. And well, his conduct suggests that
there is not such thing as an independent agency. In other words, that Congress lacks authority under Article one of the Constitution in creating an office to determine that the office is more effectively run if it can boast some
kind of independence from day to day presidential meddling. So that's the big issue, And indeed, just a couple of days ago, the administration announced that it would not defend a challenge to even the independence of an administrative law judge in an agency proceeding was a case involving in the National Labor Relations Board, and there it's not even
ahead of an agency. Here, there is somebody who's totally subordinate to an agency, and Administration at least has expanded this view that even such inferior officers of the United States cannot be shielded from a plenary move authority in that case of the agency, which again is then subject
to the plenary move authority of the president. So it's even expanding this notion of the fact that there can be no independence extended even to independent fact finders who are the administrative law judges in those cases, suggests an incredible extent and breadth of this theory that there is
no role for Congress to stay. We want to have some independence of scientific judgment, of judicial judgments of inspector general judgment, and that seems to be well within both historically well within the constitutional purview of Congress to make such decisions.
Is Trump different in this respect, or have other presidents wanted the power to fire people in these positions.
He has expanded this power greatly. President Biden also remove some agency officials and say that they should not be protected from at will removal, but nothing in comparison to President Trump's executive order explaining that he's against all the sort of exercises of the independent judgment removed from presidential control.
And we're seeing this played out in the discharges of these agency officials and most recently in his refusal to defend the constitutionality unconstitutionality of protections of the suborted administry of law judges from at will removal as well. So we've seen evidence of this from President Reagan on in terms of the last generation and a half, but it's really taken a new sort of level of activism by President Trumck.
And I don't know if I've ever heard of a court appointing a US attorney.
I do think that the statute allowing inter appointment of US attorneys by the courts is odd. And even though the Supreme Court upheld court appointment of the Special Council under the Independent Council Act in the Morrison versus Olsen case, it's always struck me that these cross branch appointments are quite sketchy, and they seem to undercut the notion of
autonomy of one branch as opposed to the other. So, in terms of one potential issue that underlies this recent appointment Judine Perrot to be US Attorney of the DC Circuit is whether if a court would actually try to appoint an interim US attorney, whether the Trump administration would attack that as on constitutional under employments plause of the
Article two. Because I think it's a plausible argument that says that the head prosecutors and executive function and why should the court be appointing someone with such kind of executive authority.
Well, we'll have to see if anyone even challenges the interim following interim appointments. Thanks so much, Hal. That's Professor Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law. 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 Podcast. 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 hen pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg m