This is Bloomberg Law with June Graasso

from Bloomberg Radio.

The Supreme Court is nearing the end of

its term and the number of cases decided

along ideological lines is mounting.

Today the court decided four cases and

three were by six to three votes with

the conservative justices in the

majority and the liberal justices in

descent. That makes eight such

ideological splits out of 10 cases

announced this week. The court

strengthened the constitutional right to

carry a gun in one of those cases. A

Hawaii law that bars people from

bringing guns onto private property open

to the public, like stores and hotels,

without the owner's permission, is known

as the vampire rule. That's because

vampires, as every horror fan knows,

need an invitation to enter a home.

Well, the court's six conservatives just

drove a stake into the Hawaii law,

saying it violates the Second Amendment.

The majority opinion was written by

Justice Samuel Alito, who had a what's

the big deal attitude during the oral

arguments. Why does it matter if store

owners and owners of private property

that is that are generally open to the

public don't like guns? Why is it a big

deal to say they want people carrying

guns to stay out? Just put up a sign.

>> But the court's three liberals thought

it was a big deal and dissented. My

guest is Second Amendment expert Andrew

Willinger, a professor at the Georgia

State University College of Law. Andrew,

tell us about these so-called vampire

laws

>> in terms of like this specific type of

of law. It's a pretty recent innovation

in the sense that we've only really seen

this since the Breuan decision. A group

of five states including Hawaii in the

wake of of Breuan, which you'll recall

required states to be more lenient in

granting concealed carry permits as a as

a general matter. These states that had

uh previously had very restrictive

permitting laws changed their laws but

also enacted new restrictions uh

sensitive place bans and again in the

case of this group of five states. What

they said is that you want to carry your

firearm onto private property that's

open to the public. So something like a

shopping mall, another type of business

establishment, whatever it might be. The

default is that you cannot do that

unless you have express consent from the

property owner. And this was a change

from the way things tended to work

before. Right before it was you could

bring your gun onto private property

open to the public unless the property

owner posted a sign saying no guns

allowed. And since we're going to be

talking about brewin a lot, it

established a second amendment right to

carry a handgun in public and a new

legal test that restrictions on Second

Amendment rights are permissible only if

the government can show a history of

similar or analogous restrictions. Okay,

turning back to the Hawaii case now. So,

it's private property. The property

owner has a right to decide who's going

to come on his or her property. So why

did the six justices strike down the

law?

>> Yeah, exactly. So you're right. It deals

with a subset of private property, but I

think you're asking goes goes really to

this this issue that the court I think

gave short shrift to. We maybe got a

taste of that in the oral argument. I

think there's actually a very difficult

question that Justice Jackson spent a

fair amount of time on in her in her

descent about how this as a potential

second amendment issue interacts with

property law and the wellestablished

right to exclude that a property owner

has. And that would basically be a

question that you would put at the

threshold step one sort of part of this

brewin test, right? you first need to to

make sure that the law you're dealing

with actually implicates the Second

Amendment, actually regulates conduct

protected by the Second Amendment. Only

then do you go into the historical

analog part of the test, the the part

that has gotten, I think, the most

attention. And here, I think one of the

big takeaways is that the majority, six

justice majority here really doesn't

give a lot of analysis. Justice Alto

writing for the court sort of says,

"Look, it's it's anything that hampers

the ability of a gun owner to bring

their gun wherever they might want to."

And then that's enough. There you have a

law that implicates the Second Amendment

and then you move on to the second step.

And critically, the majority seems to

say there's no historical analysis, no

historical materials that really come to

bear on that threshold question. It's

just sort of a judicial interpretation

of the text, which I should note is is

pretty subjective, right? According to

the judge, you're going to have

different judges thinking, you know, oh,

this does or does not implicate the

right to keep and bear arms. But that's

that's what we seem to get from the

court here.

>> I mean, property owners can still put up

a sign, right, and say no guns allowed.

>> They can do that in Hawaii. They can do

that in any state. And uh it's also

worth noting that this decision doesn't

talk about private property not open to

the public. So a a private house for

example, there seems to be no debate

that a homeowner has the right to

prohibit firearms, prohibit, you know, a

visitor from bringing firearms into that

house. And I should also say like there

there are potential ways that states

like Hawaii could maybe get to a similar

place with a law that's drafted a little

bit differently. You know, one way

that's sometimes talked about is to sort

of force the choice. So, force the

business owner to actually make a choice

about whether gun carrying is permitted

or banned when the business applies for

or has to renew their business license.

So, they actually have to make a choice

on that form. And the court doesn't

really seem to say that that's a problem

at all. just the the fact here that the

state is legislating a default for those

business owners that haven't made a

choice and then criminalizing on the

back end is the problem.

>> So then how important is this decision

if property owners can still put up a

sign and say no guns allowed? I think in

in one sense it's narrow and that's the

way we've been talking about right we're

talking about five states now to be sure

those are populist states I think I

think it's about 20% of the population

but but five states and laws that are

not just recent but basically haven't

been enforced because they've all been

challenged in court and there've been

legal proceedings right so in that sense

it's a pretty narrow decision that then

maybe doesn't have a huge impact and

there may be some workarounds I think

the bigger impacts are sort of doctrinal

in how the court's applying this test

that we got in the Breuan case now four

years ago and there I think the signs

are that this is a pretty strict test

some of the decision you know the United

States versus Raheem we saw some signs

like maybe it's going to be a more

flexible test right justice Barrett

seems to be maybe on on the fence about

you know how strict of an approach this

is how many gun laws are actually going

to fall when you know these cases get up

to the Supreme Court and I think this is

sort of a step in the other direction of

a pretty strict test. Because if you

have this very very broad, you know,

textual definition at step one of the

people, of arms, of of what types of

restrictions implicate the second

amendment and then you have at step two

a requirement of a pretty close

historical analog, which I think is what

the court's doing here, which again,

that's the second step, which the court

does get to. That's a difficult test for

the government to meet. And so I think

this casts some doubt on any legislative

effort to innovate in this space because

again we're seeing these laws that were

passed in the wake of the Breuin

decision. This sort of new approach that

does draw on some maybe historical

parallels. At least the state thought

so, but the court says that doesn't

work. And there are probably many other

legislative efforts that may not work if

this is the version of Breuan that that

is going to stand. The state did bring

up laws that they thought were

analogous, but the conservatives weren't

convinced. And with this brewin test,

it's so much a matter of judgment calls.

>> You know, it's interesting. Justice

Hagen is by herself. She doesn't join

the Jackson descent. And she writes a

very short descent basically saying,

look, I'm putting aside this question.

You know, she thinks Bruin is wrong, but

she doesn't talk about that. She doesn't

talk about step one. and she just says,

"Look, you know, there's this set of

historical laws from around the time of

the founding that did something similar,

and it's not exactly the same, and they

may have been directed towards different

legislative concerns, but I think

they're close enough." Now again, the

fact that that's only one justice tells

you something, but I think the analysis

by by Justice Alo and then Justice

Barrett as well, it's a bit of a a shift

to a more restrictive version of Breuan

at that second step because they really

are parsing pretty closely, at least

when you talk about these anti-poaching

laws that I think sort of the primary

analog. The state also has this

Louisiana law, which there's a whole

another discussion about, but the

anti-poaching laws, there's a pretty

close dissection of kind of what's

what's driving those, what exact type of

property was this historically, and

that's that's a more restrictive

version, I think, than we saw in Raheem.

There were other parts of this Hawaii

law that weren't an issue at the Supreme

Court that banned carrying of firearms

in 15 sensitive locations, including

government buildings, public parks and

beaches, and bars and restaurants that

serve alcohol. Now, that's being

challenged in lower courts. Do you think

that even that is, you know, a step too

far for this court that they would

outlaw even that? I think you're right

to identify that as as probably one of

the next big cases and I don't know

exactly when we'll see this get up to to

the Supreme Court or or which case

they'll take but I think they have to

decide some of these sensitive places

bans. I think what's interesting about

Justice Alo's opinion here is that it

does seem to lean pretty heavily into

this idea that you look at the

collective burden of the state's gun

regulations on gun owners. Right? So

he's he's emphasizing this point that

Judge Van Djk made below that, you know,

there's 90 plus% of property that's sort

of off limits if you take into account

the private property default, right? And

you add up all these sensitive places.

So I'm not quite sure what the court's

going to do with that or how it fits

into Bruin, right? Because you would

think under Bruin you would just go play

location by location and say, is there a

historical analog for this type of a ban

in this type of place? But what if the

answer is yes and then you add up all

those bans and the court is sort of

still worried that it's too inconvenient

for gun owners? I'm not sure. But

reading a little bit into Alto's

opinion, I I think there's at least some

justices in that sixth justice majority

that may be willing to strike down some

of these sensitive place laws. I mean,

not I would think not all of them, but

some of them on the basis that you add

them up together and this is just too

inconvenient for somebody who wants to

carry their gun around. It's been a

remarkable expansion of gun rights in

just a few years. Thanks so much,

Andrew. That's Professor Andrew

Willinger of the Georgia State

University College of Law. A note,

Michael Bloomberg, the founder and

majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the

parent company of Bloomberg Radio, is a

donor to groups that support gun

control, including Every Town for Gun

Safety. Coming up, the court gives Trump

two immigration wins. This is Bloomberg.

The Supreme Court handed two immigration

wins to the Trump administration today.

By a 6-3 vote down ideological lines,

the justices said that President Trump

has the power to end legal protections

called temporary protected status for

people from crisis ridden countries. The

decision means the administration can

deport 350,000 Haitians and 7,000

Syrians who've been living here legally

with TPS status. The ruling will

buttress the administration's efforts to

terminate TPS for 11 other countries.

And in the same 6 to3 lineup, the court

ruled that migrants must actually set

foot in the United States before

applying for asylum. Joining me is

immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a

partner at Holland Knight and the former

head of the Office of Immigration

Litigation during the Obama

administration. Leon, we've talked about

TPS before, but remind us about it and

what the pros and cons are in this case.

Temporary protected status is a statute

that the Congress passed and that the

president signed that says that when

there's things like wars or famines or

natural disasters

and it wouldn't make any sense for the

United States to deport people to a

specific country anyway and no one would

be expected to go home, then the

government can temporarily protect them

from being undocumented

and thus having to be deported to that

location. And those determinations are

made every 18 months. And there had been

a criticism prior to President Trump's

first term because this was attempted in

the first term, but now in the second

term, too, that whenever a country was

appointed for temporary protected

status, they were never unappointed. So

whatever the temporary emergency was

never ceased to exist. it to be fair

there were some people in the United

States who had temporary protected

status since 1996 in various natural

disasters that occurred. So people

thought hey you know we need to get this

under some order and then the flip side

was well people had already developed

roots and had US citizen children and

this was extremely cruel in order to

make them suddenly go home after all

these years. So you could see the

problem on both sides of this equation.

There are good arguments on both sides.

>> And what's the issue in this case

involving TPS status for Haitians and

Syrians.

>> The problem in this particular case is

that the cases involving Haiti and

Syria. The idea was that the plaintiffs

were suing saying that there wasn't an

analysis done as to whether it was

actually dangerous to send people back

to Haiti or Syria. And as your listeners

know, Haiti and Syria are not exactly

like some of the other countries with

TPS. These are countries that continue

to have significant problems and

deportation to both of these countries

is quite complicated and quite

difficult. So the plaintiff said that

there was no way that a determination

was actually made because what's

supposed to happen is when the 18 months

are coming up to be expired, then the

administration is supposed to consult

with the Department of Homeland

Security, the Department of State, get

the country conditions and make a

determination as to whether those

conditions justify an extension of

temporary protected status. And what the

plaintiff said was, "No, that wasn't

done. This was a racially animousbased

decision." Meaning the the president

didn't like immigrants from Syria and

from Haiti. And so that's the reason why

temporary protected status was not

extended. And so the problem is the

question in this case was there's an

actual judicial review bar. There's a

statute called title 8 section 1254A B5A

which precludes judicial review of

claims challenging the termination of

temporary protected status designations.

And so the question the Supreme Court

was trying to figure out was does that

mean just the analysis

about whether a country is dangerous or

not or does it mean everything? Meaning

that if the president had just said,

"Here's how we're going to decide Haiti.

I'm going to blindfold myself and throw

a dart and if the dart hits one

location, it will be extended and if the

dart hits another location, it won't be

extended." And so the question is, could

you go to court and challenge even that?

And in a 6-3 decision, essentially what

the court said is this means everything.

You can't even challenge that.

essentially, except, you know, to the

extent that there's a racial claim, you

could theoretically maybe get into court

if you actually had some very overt

evidence cuz there is evidence in this

case. The plaintiffs have introduced

evidence of racial animist and that

evidence was credited by the district

court and by the court of appeals. But

here the court said that that evidence

of racial discrimination was not enough

that it actually had to be a motivating

factor and that these were just sort of

policy views and that they weren't

sufficiently racist enough to actually

allow a case like this to go forward.

And so that meant that the Haitian and

Syrian plaintiffs are out of luck and

the Trump administration will be able to

end temporary protected status and start

deporting people from Haiti and Syria.

The three liberal justices were in

descent and Justice Elena Kagan quoted

extensively from Trump's derogatory

comments about Haitian immigrants and we

know he talked about countries.

She said the evidence is there plain to

see in the president's statements which

the majority and for that matter his own

lawyers cannot even bear to repeat. The

statements fairly shout in their racial

undertones and overtones alike that race

entered into the president's resolve to

remove Haitians from this country.

>> Yes. I mean certainly that's what the

descent showed. They said first of all

they don't need to show that race was

the only motivating factor for the

decision just that it was one motivating

factor. And like you said, they pointed

to these extensive public statements by

the president about Haitians, which they

termed racially charged and reflective

of discriminatory attempt. And they

said, "Look, here's the point really at

the end of the day, which is that the

plaintiffs have not had the trial yet.

This is just the preliminary injunction

stage. And so how could you at this

early stage not say that this is

sufficient to meet an initial threshold

that would allow you to move forward,

you know, just to at least stop it for

now while we get to the bottom of what

was the true situation here that that

influenced the TPS termination. But at

the end, and this seems to be consistent

with what's been going on this entire

term, it seems like the Supreme Court

patience has worn thin or there's a

fatigue by the Supreme Court for a lot

of these immigration challenges now. And

they seem to want to let the president

have some very broad leeway to be able

to implement an immigration enforcement

restrictive agenda. And so this is one

where the court has said, look, at the

end of the day, if you can open and give

TPS to millions of people, you should be

equally able to shut it down. And I

guess I understand that from sort of a

if you were to pick the policy argument

and then get the law to justify whatever

policy argument you were going to make,

it sort of does make sense that why

should it be harder to end TPS than it

is to give TPS since the statute does

say temporary and the idea is all of

this was discretionary. But you are

overcoming some serious trip wires here

in terms of saying really could you

really not review if the president

decided to do this by shooting at a dart

board? Is there really not a way to say

hey that's not the way to do TPS? We're

not having a debate here that you said

in Haiti there's an 8% murder rate and

there's really a 9% murder rate and so

nine is over a threshold that's

acceptable and eight is under. We're not

having that debate. Of course, Congress

shielded that from judicial review, but

we're having a debate that you didn't

actually even pretend to do the analysis

that was necessary in order to actually

make a considered decision on TPS. Is

that really not reviewable? And that's

where this court seems to think, yes,

that's really not reviewable here,

unless there's some dramatic extreme

case that would be very hard in theory

to actually ever find. And so that's

where this case ends up.

>> So does that mean that the Trump

administration now has the go-ahad? It

tried to eliminate protection for 13 of

the 17 countries, I believe, who had

temporary protected status. So now it

can just go ahead and eliminate TPS for

all those other countries.

>> Correct. At this point now, if you are

from one of the countries where TPS has

been eliminated, there's probably no

hope for you. Or I mean, even probably

is not the right word. There is really

no hope for you to get back the TPS

unless the president wanted to try to

create some other program to not deport

people in that sphere, but that's highly

unlikely. And so, yes, all of those

individuals will be subject to

deportability now.

>> So, on the ground, how does it work? I

mean, you know, okay, we're just going

to pick up all the Haitians who had TPS

and put them on a plane.

>> Well, here's what happened. So, all of

the people with TPS have it until a

certain date that it expires. If it

already expired, then as of this

decision, it's expired. If it's going to

expire in a week or a month or whenever

they got their approval date to, the

Department of Homeland Security lets

that continue until that date. And then

the day after that expiration date, they

are now just like anybody else who the

government doesn't really know is here

but they know is here sort of kind of

thing. And so each of them will have to

be given a piece of paper called a

notice to appear. It's like an

indictment. This is the immigration

quote unquote indictment starting the

removal process and then they get to

make any defenses. So like if they want

to apply for asylum or if they want to

say that in the subsequent time they

were parrolled into the country and they

married a US citizen so they should be

allowed to stay for that or who knows

there's not really a lot more defenses

there but asylum would be the main one.

Then they can try to stay and ask for

asylum but that's going to be it. But

other than that, if the government gives

them a notice to appear and places them

in deportation proceedings, at some

point soon thereafter, they are going to

be deported.

>> Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law

Show, I'll continue this conversation

with Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight.

We'll look at the second immigration

decision today where the Supreme Court

gave the Trump administration a second

win once again in a six-3 vote. I'm June

Grao and you're listening to Bloomberg.

In a second immigration win for the

Trump administration today, the Supreme

Court ruled that immigration agents can

stop asylum seekers before they reach

the US border. It was another 6 to3

decision down ideological lines. I've

been talking to immigration law expert

Leon Fresco of Honda Knight. So Leon,

does this decision mean that migrants

have to actually be standing on US soil

in order to apply for asylum?

>> Yes, the answer is yes to that question.

And here's what happened. So this is not

really a relevant issue so much in Trump

term number two. But what happened was

in Trump term number one, there hadn't

yet been this epiphany, which by the

way, this epiphany is going to be

something that will be decided by the

Supreme Court next term. So, it hasn't

fully been decided yet, but there was

this epiphany at the end of the Biden

administration, and it's happened during

the entirety of this Trump 2 term, that

you could just block people from

applying for asylum at all. It doesn't

matter where they come from. And so,

since the end of the Biden

administration and this entire Trump

administration, everybody who's come

across the border asking for asylum has

been blocked. So, that's why this isn't

exactly relevant right now. But if that

ends up being overturned and the Supreme

Court ends up saying next year, you

can't do that. You can't just close down

America for people coming to apply

asylum, then they will ask the following

question, which is, okay, well, how are

you supposed to apply for asylum? And

that's where we used to have, you know,

you could you could hear quotes from Tom

Hman and from from Christine Gnome and

from others saying, no, you got to go to

a port of entry and that's where you

lawfully apply for asylum. So there's 50

of these across the border between

Mexico and the United States. There's

one in San Diego. There's one in Ngalas.

There's one in Brownsville, in Macallen,

El Paso. And so what happens is you

cross one of these bridges and if you

can make it to the US side of the

bridge, there's literally a line. If you

can get your foot across the line,

there's no dispute that at that point if

you see some US Customs and Border

Protection official, you can immediately

declare that you want to apply for

asylum and the government has to begin

the process of accepting your asylum

claim in terms of adjudicating it. Not

saying it's approved, but starting the

process of trying to determine is this a

asylum claim that has merit or isn't

this an asylum claim that has merit.

Now, the problem is during the first

Trump administration, so many people

were coming across the border. They

said, "No, no, no, no, no. We can't just

close the port of entries down to all

the other visitors and traffic that's

normal and legitimate because we're

trying to do all these asylum claims at

the port of entry." So, they created

this thing called metering where they

said, "We're only going to allow 50

people a day to cross the border and ask

for asylum. we're not going to let

everybody through. And so if you're

stuck on the Mexican side, too bad for

you. You don't get to do this. So what

happened is there was a organization

called Alo, which means the on the other

side. So it's quite, you know,

literally, this is one of the rare good

uses of the word literally, literally

relevant here because it's people

standing on the other side on on the

Mexican border who sued and said, "What

about the people standing on the Mexican

border who the US government knows about

but is physically preventing them from

letting their bodies into America?

Haven't they done enough to be able to

apply for asylum?" And so what the

statute says is you have to quote

unquote arrive in the United States in

order to be able to apply for asylum.

And so that question was decided by the

Supreme Court. What does arrive in the

United States mean? Does it mean if you

attempt to and you fail to set foot

because a government person stops you,

you've arrived? or does it mean you

actually have to have one of your feet

across the yellow line in order to

actually apply for asylum? And here, as

you said, the 63 decision again with all

the Republicanapp appointed justices on

one side, all the Democratically

appointed justices on the other side

says that arrives in the United States

means you got to have one of your feet

across the yellow line. So, you've got

to arrive in the geographic location

when you enter it. And that means to

reach the destination. So they said like

a running back doesn't arrive in the end

zone when they get to the one yard line

in a football game. They have to get in

the end zone. And it's the same concept

here.

>> So now to the disscent. The justices

generally read out summaries of their

decisions from the bench. And it's very

rare for a dissenting justice to read

out his or her disscent. It means that

they're strongly opposed to the

majority's ruling. And today, Justice

Sodtoayor read her descent, parts of her

descent, saying the majority had gotten

the law egregiously wrong and it would

lead to more asylum seekers dying while

attempting to traverse the desert or

drowning in the Rio Grand. And really

odd, Justice Alo, who wrote the

majority, apparently wasn't aware that

she was going to read it out loud. and

he said, "There is much I would have

added to my bench statement had I known

there would be a dissenting bench

statement." I mean, possibly showing

that the justices are not communicating

well at this stage of the term. I think

that it's one of these things where

there's very few ways to sort of let off

steam and I think Justice Sotomayor may

have decided that she just needed to let

off steam here and did coordinate this

in the way where Justice Alo would have

known about it. But I also think Justice

Alo probably, you know, when you have to

hear allegations that you made a

decision that's going to lead to people

dying who are in in horrific

circumstances, obviously it's very hard.

I think if you're any sort of person

with emotions and so that's why he

expressed his frustration there and look

at the end of the day there's a decent

argument on the side of the three

justices who dissented which is that

they said there is some surplusage in

the statute where the statute uses two

different phrases not just arrive in the

United States but also physically

present in the United States. So they

say physically present in the United

States covers the people whose foot got

across the line. So arrive in the United

States must mean something different

because why would they use both phrases

that either person could apply for

asylum? A person who arrived in the

United States and also a person who was

physically present in the United States.

So they say why why would the statute

have both of those phrases? It must mean

someone like this who's caught 3 in from

the border. Now the question obviously

if you take this argument is how far

away like can they cut you in Mexico

City? Can you still apply for asylum if

they cut you in Bolivia? You know how

far does it mean to be you know arriving

in the United States? What does that

really mean? That that's a tough

question and I think that's the sort of

weakness of the descent. But

nevertheless, they do have that argument

about the surplusage. And then they they

have the common sense policy argument

that look, if you can't go anywhere, so

you can't go through the border because

now you're shut down. They say don't go

through the border. That's illegal. We

don't want people doing that. Fair

enough. Nobody who's within the law

enforcement community, which includes

the Supreme Court justices because

they're the ultimate law enforcement,

should sanction a regime where you can

ask for asylum to go through the border

without, you know, telling anyone. But

then if you can't go through the port of

entry, if you can't do that either, what

are you supposed to do? And so that's

what Justice Stomayor is saying is well

your only alternative then if you are

really someone seeking asylum that

you're going to die is to sneak in the

country and try to not get detected by

doing dangerous things like using a

tunnel or going in some sort of uh large

truck that has no air conditioning with

50 people in it. And we see those all

the time, people dying in those trucks.

And so that's the point she's making and

it really is an argument that is tough

on both sides. But for now the law is 6

to3 that a administration can say you

didn't make it across the yellow line so

you don't get to apply for asylum.

>> The Trump administration is not using

this now but they're stopping asylum in

other ways.

>> Right. What they've done is they've used

the authority from the travel ban

authority which is INA2F

which is the the famous thing where it

started first as a ban in 2017 from

countries that you know had populations

that had either sort of large terrorist

populations or whatever that that was

the original ban and it's been extended

in various circumstances COVID and now

it's extended to countries that that

have high poverty rates where people

collect welfare in the US etc. So Trump

created another ban and the ban was I'm

banning people who are going to enter

the United States in between the ports

of entry. Meaning you're sneaking

across. He says I'm banning you. Well,

that doesn't finish it because once

you've entered, you're the ban on entry

doesn't work. So then the next thing he

did is he did a regulation because

asylum is what's called discretionary

relief. You don't have to give asylum.

So there's a so he he did a regulation

which said if you are a banned person

then that's one of the reasons in the

discretion that you can't get asylum and

so that's what's going to be adjudicated

next year at the Supreme Court is is

that true? Can you do it that way? Which

is add that as a discretionary thing or

does the statute which literally says

anyone physically present in the US can

apply for asylum. Does it mean once you

get across the yellow line you get

across and you can and there's no ban

that applies? But at least in 2026 and

2025 and a late part of 2024 because the

Biden administration was doing this also

to be fair. Uh there's been 2 years of a

complete ban on asylum for people who've

been coming through sneaking trying to

sneak across the border not presenting

themselves at the port of entry. But the

point is if that goes away then you're

going to see the Trump administration

try to steer people back toward the

ports of entry if you can't ban people

anymore. And they're going to want to

use this metering as a way to do it. So

there's not thousands of people at the

ports every day disrupting the

activities at the ports of entry.

>> One big immigration case left on

birthright citizenship. Thanks so much,

Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland

night. 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 Podcast, Spotify, and at

www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law.

And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg

Law Show every week night at 1000 p.m.

Wall Street time. I'm June Graasso and

you're listening to Bloomberg.