This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

My fellow New Yorkists. As you may have heard, the Department of Justice has directed that the case against me be dismissed, finally ending in months long saga.

My fellow New Yorkists. As you may have heard, the Department of Justice has directed that the case against me be dismissed, finally ending in months long saga.

Not so fast, The saga over the criminal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams is not over. In fact, it's turning into a remarkable showdown between Trump's top Justice Department officials in DC and the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. In a stunning memo on Monday, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Beauvey told federal prosecutors in Manhattan to dismiss the case against Adams. Even more stunning, the reasons given were political and had nothing to do with the evidence against Adams, the law, or the merits of the case. But the interim Manhattan US Attorney, Danielle Sassoon, resigned rather than carry out the order to dismiss the Adams case, and that set off a string of resignations, with five high ranking Justice Department officials in DC and the lead prosecutor in the Adams case in Manhattan all refusing to dismiss the case and resigning. Joining me is former federal Prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter in English, Bob. Some are comparing the events of this week to the Saturday Night massacre during the Nixon administration. Let's put this into context. How unusual is the order from the acting Deputy ag to dismiss the Adams case so that the mayor could help with Trump's immigration crackdown with no consideration of the facts or the law.

Not so fast, The saga over the criminal corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams is not over. In fact, it's turning into a remarkable showdown between Trump's top Justice Department officials in DC and the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. In a stunning memo on Monday, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Beauvey told federal prosecutors in Manhattan to dismiss the case against Adams. Even more stunning, the reasons given were political and had nothing to do with the evidence against Adams, the law, or the merits of the case. But the interim Manhattan US Attorney, Danielle Sassoon, resigned rather than carry out the order to dismiss the Adams case, and that set off a string of resignations, with five high ranking Justice Department officials in DC and the lead prosecutor in the Adams case in Manhattan all refusing to dismiss the case and resigning. Joining me is former federal Prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter in English, Bob. Some are comparing the events of this week to the Saturday Night massacre during the Nixon administration. Let's put this into context. How unusual is the order from the acting Deputy ag to dismiss the Adams case so that the mayor could help with Trump's immigration crackdown with no consideration of the facts or the law.

It's extremely unusual for the Department of Justice to be ordering the dismissal of appending criminal case when that decision was not based on the merits of the case itself. Mister Beauvet's directive to the Southern District made clear that the decision to dismiss the case without prejudice at this time was not based on the strength of the evidence or the legal theory behind the case. So it raises the question what then drove this decision to dismiss the case, and mister Beauvet was straightforward in saying that it was driven by the fact that the investigation and the pending criminal trial would interfere with Mayor Adam's ability to carry out his duties as the mayor of the City of New York and to enforce the immigration policies at the Trump administration was seeking to carry out. So it really is something that does seem to be more tied to politics than it does to the legal strength of the case.

It's extremely unusual for the Department of Justice to be ordering the dismissal of appending criminal case when that decision was not based on the merits of the case itself. Mister Beauvet's directive to the Southern District made clear that the decision to dismiss the case without prejudice at this time was not based on the strength of the evidence or the legal theory behind the case. So it raises the question what then drove this decision to dismiss the case, and mister Beauvet was straightforward in saying that it was driven by the fact that the investigation and the pending criminal trial would interfere with Mayor Adam's ability to carry out his duties as the mayor of the City of New York and to enforce the immigration policies at the Trump administration was seeking to carry out. So it really is something that does seem to be more tied to politics than it does to the legal strength of the case.

Then we have this extraordinary series of events where the interim Manhattan US Attorney, Danielle Sassoon, resigns rather than dismissing the case, and she wrote an eight page letter to the acting Attorney General Beauvet laying out why she thought the case had been properly charged, saying she had no good faith reason to drop the charges, and raising concerns that Adams and the Trump administration had engaged in an improper quid pro quo. How troubling is.

Then we have this extraordinary series of events where the interim Manhattan US Attorney, Danielle Sassoon, resigns rather than dismissing the case, and she wrote an eight page letter to the acting Attorney General Beauvet laying out why she thought the case had been properly charged, saying she had no good faith reason to drop the charges, and raising concerns that Adams and the Trump administration had engaged in an improper quid pro quo. How troubling is.

That Let's take a step back here to focus on the fact that in any political corruption case, when a public official is indicted, the fact that they have to then defend themselves, prepare a defense, perhaps go through a trial will always interfere with their ability to carry out their duties as an elected official. If you were to not pursue cases on the basis that the indictment and subsequent criminal trials would then impair the public officials' ability to carry out their public duties. Then you would never indict any sitting elected officials. So the fact that it is even being discussed in connection with the dismissal of the case is highly unusual, and based upon the letter that Miss Deston wrote to the Department of Justice, where she explicitly alleged that there was a quid pro quo discussion that Mayor Adams would not be in a position to assist the Department of Justices immigration enforcement priorities if the case goes forward is troubling because that's really not a topic that should enter into this decision. The decision whether or not to pursue this case should be focused exclusively on the merits of the case and should not really have anything to do with whether or not the case going forward with imperive public officials ability to carry out their duties as a public official.

That Let's take a step back here to focus on the fact that in any political corruption case, when a public official is indicted, the fact that they have to then defend themselves, prepare a defense, perhaps go through a trial will always interfere with their ability to carry out their duties as an elected official. If you were to not pursue cases on the basis that the indictment and subsequent criminal trials would then impair the public officials' ability to carry out their public duties. Then you would never indict any sitting elected officials. So the fact that it is even being discussed in connection with the dismissal of the case is highly unusual, and based upon the letter that Miss Deston wrote to the Department of Justice, where she explicitly alleged that there was a quid pro quo discussion that Mayor Adams would not be in a position to assist the Department of Justices immigration enforcement priorities if the case goes forward is troubling because that's really not a topic that should enter into this decision. The decision whether or not to pursue this case should be focused exclusively on the merits of the case and should not really have anything to do with whether or not the case going forward with imperive public officials ability to carry out their duties as a public official.

She also makes this remarkable statement, the law does not support a dismissal, and I am confident that Adams has committed the crime with which he is charged. It's not often you hear federal prosecutors make those kinds of claims about the evidence. Usually they'll say it's up to the jury to decide something like that. Here she's saying, I'm confident that he's guilty.

She also makes this remarkable statement, the law does not support a dismissal, and I am confident that Adams has committed the crime with which he is charged. It's not often you hear federal prosecutors make those kinds of claims about the evidence. Usually they'll say it's up to the jury to decide something like that. Here she's saying, I'm confident that he's guilty.

There is so much that is unprecedented about this standoff between the Southern District of New York and the Department of Justice that it's really almost impossible to list it. In every respect, We've never really seen a case where a US attorney's office has simply rejected the directive by the Attorney General's office to dismiss a case and have it play out so openly and so publicly and ultimately lead to the resignation of so many Department of Justice and US attorneys simply on the basis that they are refusing to carry out this directive.

There is so much that is unprecedented about this standoff between the Southern District of New York and the Department of Justice that it's really almost impossible to list it. In every respect, We've never really seen a case where a US attorney's office has simply rejected the directive by the Attorney General's office to dismiss a case and have it play out so openly and so publicly and ultimately lead to the resignation of so many Department of Justice and US attorneys simply on the basis that they are refusing to carry out this directive.

And Sassoon has conservative credentials. She's a Republican who clerk for Justice antonin Scalia, and she's a member of the Federalist Society.

And Sassoon has conservative credentials. She's a Republican who clerk for Justice antonin Scalia, and she's a member of the Federalist Society.

Now.

Now.

Beauvet, who by the way, was Trump's personal attorney, wrote his own eight page letter back accusing Sassoon of insubordination, and he sort of doubled down on the reason for dropping the prosecution being that it's interfering with Adam's ability to govern and he.

Beauvet, who by the way, was Trump's personal attorney, wrote his own eight page letter back accusing Sassoon of insubordination, and he sort of doubled down on the reason for dropping the prosecution being that it's interfering with Adam's ability to govern and he.

Fires back with language that is as accusatory as hers was to him. He basically says that she is not following her oath to uphold the Constitution, and she's disobeying direct orders to implement the policy of a duly elected president. The question is not really whether she is failing to follow those orders.

Fires back with language that is as accusatory as hers was to him. He basically says that she is not following her oath to uphold the Constitution, and she's disobeying direct orders to implement the policy of a duly elected president. The question is not really whether she is failing to follow those orders.

But why.

But why.

And she challenges the directive by saying that the considerations that Mlbauve cites as the reasons for dismissing the case are inappropriate and not something that a prosecutor has a duty to follow. That's really what this standoff is all about.

And she challenges the directive by saying that the considerations that Mlbauve cites as the reasons for dismissing the case are inappropriate and not something that a prosecutor has a duty to follow. That's really what this standoff is all about.

The next event, the Department's Public Integrity Section in DC is asked to take over the case, and the five senior level officials overseeing the unit resign rather than dismissing the case. Now back to Manhattan, where the lead prosecutor on the Adams case, Hagen Scotten, also resigned, writing a fiery letter saying that most assistant US attorneys would know it was wrong to use prosecutorial powers to influence an elected official. Quote, I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me. Scotton is a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts and a decorated war veteran. This is all so unusual coming from federal prosecutors.

The next event, the Department's Public Integrity Section in DC is asked to take over the case, and the five senior level officials overseeing the unit resign rather than dismissing the case. Now back to Manhattan, where the lead prosecutor on the Adams case, Hagen Scotten, also resigned, writing a fiery letter saying that most assistant US attorneys would know it was wrong to use prosecutorial powers to influence an elected official. Quote, I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or enough of a coward to file your motion, but it was never going to be me. Scotton is a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts and a decorated war veteran. This is all so unusual coming from federal prosecutors.

Sure, now, that's exactly right. Federal prosecutors generally do not comment about tending criminal cases, nor do they comment publicly about disputes going on between a US Attorney's office and main Justice, which does happen from time to time. But this has exploded into the public and we really have a situation here where this dispute and this standoff between prosecutors are resigning one after another, refusing to carry out this directive. This has really overtaken almost the decision to dismiss the case and to become a story unto itself.

Sure, now, that's exactly right. Federal prosecutors generally do not comment about tending criminal cases, nor do they comment publicly about disputes going on between a US Attorney's office and main Justice, which does happen from time to time. But this has exploded into the public and we really have a situation here where this dispute and this standoff between prosecutors are resigning one after another, refusing to carry out this directive. This has really overtaken almost the decision to dismiss the case and to become a story unto itself.

So Bovey and Justice Department officials finally got their way on Friday evening. They filed a motion to dismiss the Adams case with the judge. It was hand signed by Beauvay and electronically signed by the acting chief of the Justice Department's Criminal Division and also a veteran public corruption prosecutor. So the next move will be from Judge dale Ho, who's overseeing the case.

So Bovey and Justice Department officials finally got their way on Friday evening. They filed a motion to dismiss the Adams case with the judge. It was hand signed by Beauvay and electronically signed by the acting chief of the Justice Department's Criminal Division and also a veteran public corruption prosecutor. So the next move will be from Judge dale Ho, who's overseeing the case.

What do you think he'll do well? That's really the the next interesting question here, because you have the judge sitting back and watching all of this play out in the news media, and the trial judge may well want to hold a hearing to get into the reasons for the Department of Justice wanting to dismiss this pending criminal case, and that could play out in a very embarrassing way for the Department of Justice, as Department of Justice officials will have to provide reasons for this that don't appear to be political, particularly in a case where the decision is expressly not made based on the merits of the case. Ultimately, the judge will likely have to grant the motion because he can't really force the Department of Justice to prosecute the case against their will. But the hearing itself could prove to be something that is embarrassing for the Department of Justice and could have longer term ramifications in terms of any other decisions made by the Department of Justice with regard to other pending cases.

What do you think he'll do well? That's really the the next interesting question here, because you have the judge sitting back and watching all of this play out in the news media, and the trial judge may well want to hold a hearing to get into the reasons for the Department of Justice wanting to dismiss this pending criminal case, and that could play out in a very embarrassing way for the Department of Justice, as Department of Justice officials will have to provide reasons for this that don't appear to be political, particularly in a case where the decision is expressly not made based on the merits of the case. Ultimately, the judge will likely have to grant the motion because he can't really force the Department of Justice to prosecute the case against their will. But the hearing itself could prove to be something that is embarrassing for the Department of Justice and could have longer term ramifications in terms of any other decisions made by the Department of Justice with regard to other pending cases.

This dismissal would be without prejudice, meaning the Justice Department can bring it again, and Adams is going to be required to sign basically a waiver saying that he understands that, and that's led some New York Democrats to express concerns and calls for Adam's resignation, saying that he'll now be beholden to the Trump administration.

This dismissal would be without prejudice, meaning the Justice Department can bring it again, and Adams is going to be required to sign basically a waiver saying that he understands that, and that's led some New York Democrats to express concerns and calls for Adam's resignation, saying that he'll now be beholden to the Trump administration.

Sometimes prosecutors will dismiss the case without prejudice, and it gives them the right to resume the case again. But often that is based on questions about the strength of the evidence. Maybe it has to do with whether or not certain witnesses are available now for trial, that sort of thing. It's not based upon whether or not the public official can carry out his duties as a public official. And it does give the inference that because this case is still hanging over the Mayor's head, he has some incentive to curry favor with the trumpet medministration in order to try to convince them not to reinstitute the case.

Sometimes prosecutors will dismiss the case without prejudice, and it gives them the right to resume the case again. But often that is based on questions about the strength of the evidence. Maybe it has to do with whether or not certain witnesses are available now for trial, that sort of thing. It's not based upon whether or not the public official can carry out his duties as a public official. And it does give the inference that because this case is still hanging over the Mayor's head, he has some incentive to curry favor with the trumpet medministration in order to try to convince them not to reinstitute the case.

And after the election, of.

And after the election, of.

Course, Mayor Adams has denied that there was any quid pro quo. Thanks so much for joining me, Bob. That's Robert Mintz of McCarter and English, coming up next on The Bloomberg Law Show. Federal judges have provided the only resistance to Trump's aggressive agenda, blocking executive orders, freezing funding, doing away with birthright citizenship, and putting thousands of USAID workers on leave, just to name a few. We'll take a look at what's ahead as the Justice Department is revamped by the new Attorney General. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. The judiciary has been the only restraint on President Donald Trump's aggressive agenda. Federal judges have blocked Trump's executive orders, freezing federal funding, doing away with birthright citizenship, putting thousands of us AID employees on lee, and threatening the funding of hospitals that provide gender affirming care for minors. As Trump's agenda faces widespread pushback from the federal courts, top administration officials are openly questioning the judiciary's authority to serve as a check on the president. From Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who said that judges should just back off.

Course, Mayor Adams has denied that there was any quid pro quo. Thanks so much for joining me, Bob. That's Robert Mintz of McCarter and English, coming up next on The Bloomberg Law Show. Federal judges have provided the only resistance to Trump's aggressive agenda, blocking executive orders, freezing funding, doing away with birthright citizenship, and putting thousands of USAID workers on leave, just to name a few. We'll take a look at what's ahead as the Justice Department is revamped by the new Attorney General. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. The judiciary has been the only restraint on President Donald Trump's aggressive agenda. Federal judges have blocked Trump's executive orders, freezing federal funding, doing away with birthright citizenship, putting thousands of us AID employees on lee, and threatening the funding of hospitals that provide gender affirming care for minors. As Trump's agenda faces widespread pushback from the federal courts, top administration officials are openly questioning the judiciary's authority to serve as a check on the president. From Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who said that judges should just back off.

I think that the courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out.

I think that the courts should take a step back and allow these processes to play out.

What we're doing is good and right for the American people.

What we're doing is good and right for the American people.

To Vice President jd Vance, who's advocated ignoring court orders. Here he is on the podcast Jack Murphy Live in twenty twenty one.

To Vice President jd Vance, who's advocated ignoring court orders. Here he is on the podcast Jack Murphy Live in twenty twenty one.

And when the courts stop, you stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say the Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.

And when the courts stop, you stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say the Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.

Trump himself has a history of attacking judges who rule against him, and he's blaming them for slowing down his agenda.

Trump himself has a history of attacking judges who rule against him, and he's blaming them for slowing down his agenda.

And today you're not allowed to look for theft and fraud, etc. Then we don't have much of a country. So no judge should be no judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision.

And today you're not allowed to look for theft and fraud, etc. Then we don't have much of a country. So no judge should be no judge should frankly be allowed to make that kind of a decision.

Is a disgrace.

Is a disgrace.

Joining me is constitutional law. Professor David Souper of Georgetown Law JD Vance said judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power fair enough, but he's argued that presidents can and should ignore court orders that infringe on their rightful executive powers. Quoting Andrew Jackson, is it concerning when the vice president a lawyer? By the way, advocates like that.

Joining me is constitutional law. Professor David Souper of Georgetown Law JD Vance said judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power fair enough, but he's argued that presidents can and should ignore court orders that infringe on their rightful executive powers. Quoting Andrew Jackson, is it concerning when the vice president a lawyer? By the way, advocates like that.

It certainly is worrying, and presidents and other high officials who have been engaged in illegal conduct have been saying that for over two hundred years. But it's no less disturbing when it happened. Of course, courts can't issue illegitimate orders, but the solution when they do that is to appeal them.

It certainly is worrying, and presidents and other high officials who have been engaged in illegal conduct have been saying that for over two hundred years. But it's no less disturbing when it happened. Of course, courts can't issue illegitimate orders, but the solution when they do that is to appeal them.

One theory is that Trump is doing this to test the limits of law so that these cases will go to the Supreme Court, which will expand his presidential authority. I mean, do you think it goes that far?

One theory is that Trump is doing this to test the limits of law so that these cases will go to the Supreme Court, which will expand his presidential authority. I mean, do you think it goes that far?

Oh?

Oh?

I think it does go that far. There's a few of these issues that are arguably separate, such as the birthright citizenship, where he's violating not a statute but the Constitution itself. But for the most part, he's going out of his way to violate statutes that say how the federal government should operate, and in doing that, he's setting up a test case about whether any of these statutes find him at all. Some things he's trying to do, they are legal ways to do it, and he hasn't tried to do it legally. He's deliberately violated the statute to set up a fight.

I think it does go that far. There's a few of these issues that are arguably separate, such as the birthright citizenship, where he's violating not a statute but the Constitution itself. But for the most part, he's going out of his way to violate statutes that say how the federal government should operate, and in doing that, he's setting up a test case about whether any of these statutes find him at all. Some things he's trying to do, they are legal ways to do it, and he hasn't tried to do it legally. He's deliberately violated the statute to set up a fight.

What are some of the things he's done that he could have done legally?

What are some of the things he's done that he could have done legally?

He could have done a buyout under existing BIOT authority that requires an agency specific examination of how many people they want to leave and in what positions but he didn't bother to use that authority. He did this mass email. It's likely to cause us to lose precisely the federal workers. We can't afford to lose.

He could have done a buyout under existing BIOT authority that requires an agency specific examination of how many people they want to leave and in what positions but he didn't bother to use that authority. He did this mass email. It's likely to cause us to lose precisely the federal workers. We can't afford to lose.

You mentioned that a lot of these orders seem to fly in the face of the law. Who do you think is writing these and are they getting legal advice?

You mentioned that a lot of these orders seem to fly in the face of the law. Who do you think is writing these and are they getting legal advice?

I think piece are written by the people behind Project twenty twenty five, and those people have an extremely ambitious, radical agenda of overturning the separation of powers and the systems checks and balances has guided this country since its founding. That's the legal advice is behind all of this. The rest of what they're doing is hard to take seriously. You read references to cases in their memos. You go look up to the case and it says the opposite. So I don't think this is a serious effort to think about what the law is. This is a radical effort to change.

I think piece are written by the people behind Project twenty twenty five, and those people have an extremely ambitious, radical agenda of overturning the separation of powers and the systems checks and balances has guided this country since its founding. That's the legal advice is behind all of this. The rest of what they're doing is hard to take seriously. You read references to cases in their memos. You go look up to the case and it says the opposite. So I don't think this is a serious effort to think about what the law is. This is a radical effort to change.

With the law is well. The Supreme Court has been known to ignore president and lest July came out with a controversial decision on presidential authority, granting immunity from prosecution when presidents are acting within their official duties. So do you think the Supreme Court justices will be receptive to Trump's challenges to the law.

With the law is well. The Supreme Court has been known to ignore president and lest July came out with a controversial decision on presidential authority, granting immunity from prosecution when presidents are acting within their official duties. So do you think the Supreme Court justices will be receptive to Trump's challenges to the law.

I don't the implication of this is that he's not governed by the law and that the courts have no power over him. That earns Supreme Court justice into a very modest, relatively insignificant figure. And I don't think that these justices are willing to give up their constitutional role and become figureheads. I think they want to decide cases based on the law, and President Trump's theories here are so radical that they would greatly limit the rule of law in this country.

I don't the implication of this is that he's not governed by the law and that the courts have no power over him. That earns Supreme Court justice into a very modest, relatively insignificant figure. And I don't think that these justices are willing to give up their constitutional role and become figureheads. I think they want to decide cases based on the law, and President Trump's theories here are so radical that they would greatly limit the rule of law in this country.

I want to discuss the Justice Department under new Attorney General Pam Bondi. There's been this remarkable string of resignations at Justice by lawyers who refuse to follow the order to dismiss the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. One of Bondi's first memos warn Justice Department attorneys about refusing to advance legal arguments they disagree with. Is that the way the Justice Department normally works. You know, you get an assignment as a lawyer, and you argue the side that the Justice Department is taken.

I want to discuss the Justice Department under new Attorney General Pam Bondi. There's been this remarkable string of resignations at Justice by lawyers who refuse to follow the order to dismiss the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. One of Bondi's first memos warn Justice Department attorneys about refusing to advance legal arguments they disagree with. Is that the way the Justice Department normally works. You know, you get an assignment as a lawyer, and you argue the side that the Justice Department is taken.

Well.

Well.

Lawyers are always required to act in the best interests that they're client to the extent permitted by law and legal ethics. So it's not surprising that a lawyer might make an argument that if they were a judge, they would fou against. That's ordinary. But the implication here is that lawyers might be required to make arguments that they regard as frivolous, and that is generally not allowed in legal ethics. We expect lawyers to make good faith arguments to courts, not silly ones, and this could be read as requiring the latter.

Lawyers are always required to act in the best interests that they're client to the extent permitted by law and legal ethics. So it's not surprising that a lawyer might make an argument that if they were a judge, they would fou against. That's ordinary. But the implication here is that lawyers might be required to make arguments that they regard as frivolous, and that is generally not allowed in legal ethics. We expect lawyers to make good faith arguments to courts, not silly ones, and this could be read as requiring the latter.

In some of these cases challenging Trump's executive orders, the arguments by Justice Department lawyers have been novel, to say the least. I'm thinking of the many cases filed challenging the ending of birthright citizenship, four out of four judges found that unconstitutional, and a few of them were highly critical, saying that it was an attempt to rewrite the Constitution. Here's Seattle judge John Kunauer.

In some of these cases challenging Trump's executive orders, the arguments by Justice Department lawyers have been novel, to say the least. I'm thinking of the many cases filed challenging the ending of birthright citizenship, four out of four judges found that unconstitutional, and a few of them were highly critical, saying that it was an attempt to rewrite the Constitution. Here's Seattle judge John Kunauer.

It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. There are moments in the world's history when people look back and ask where were the lawyers, Where were the judges. In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that be can go dark today.

It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals. There are moments in the world's history when people look back and ask where were the lawyers, Where were the judges. In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that be can go dark today.

So does the Justice Department risk losing credibility with the federal judiciary.

So does the Justice Department risk losing credibility with the federal judiciary.

Yes, and I think that's already starting to happen. Some of the arguments that have been put forward, not just in the birthright citizenship case, but in the funding freeze cases have been very strange, and the judges have commented on them. A judge in one of the funding freeze cases said that the government lawyers were claiming that the executive agencies must follow the president's priorities. Now, executive agencies must follow the law because even the president is consciously required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Yes, and I think that's already starting to happen. Some of the arguments that have been put forward, not just in the birthright citizenship case, but in the funding freeze cases have been very strange, and the judges have commented on them. A judge in one of the funding freeze cases said that the government lawyers were claiming that the executive agencies must follow the president's priorities. Now, executive agencies must follow the law because even the president is consciously required to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Speaking of losing credibility, during her confirmation hearings, Pam Bondi promis that there would be no enemies list at the Justice Department. But then on her first day, she created a weaponization working group and she's targeting for investigation Special Counsel Jack Smith, New York ag Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Justice Department personnel who worked on January sixth, etc. Accusing them of improper investigative tactics and unethical behavior. I mean, what's your take on the ag going after, for example, the elected district attorney in Manhattan.

Speaking of losing credibility, during her confirmation hearings, Pam Bondi promis that there would be no enemies list at the Justice Department. But then on her first day, she created a weaponization working group and she's targeting for investigation Special Counsel Jack Smith, New York ag Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Justice Department personnel who worked on January sixth, etc. Accusing them of improper investigative tactics and unethical behavior. I mean, what's your take on the ag going after, for example, the elected district attorney in Manhattan.

In principle, there can be violations taken by district attorneys. Some of the actions in the Civil Rights era were against people using government powers to perpetuate illegal racist subjugation. So the fact that someone is a state attorney general or a district attorney doesn't make them waterproof. But in this case, the strong implication is is that this is payback for prosecuting or investigating her boss, President Trump. And if the Justice Department is seen as making decisions based on the personal interests of officials. Mister Bragg normally prosecuted mister Trump, but persuade that a jury of his peers to convict them all accounts, then the Justice Department becomes the political tool and will have very little respect.

In principle, there can be violations taken by district attorneys. Some of the actions in the Civil Rights era were against people using government powers to perpetuate illegal racist subjugation. So the fact that someone is a state attorney general or a district attorney doesn't make them waterproof. But in this case, the strong implication is is that this is payback for prosecuting or investigating her boss, President Trump. And if the Justice Department is seen as making decisions based on the personal interests of officials. Mister Bragg normally prosecuted mister Trump, but persuade that a jury of his peers to convict them all accounts, then the Justice Department becomes the political tool and will have very little respect.

Something that I think came as a surprise to many is that Bondy intends to use criminal investigations to root out DEI practices in the private sector. That's according to one of the executive orders that Trump issued, and then the DOJ memo calls for specific steps to take within weeks. I don't even know what to say about that. I mean, criminal investigations for DEI policies.

Something that I think came as a surprise to many is that Bondy intends to use criminal investigations to root out DEI practices in the private sector. That's according to one of the executive orders that Trump issued, and then the DOJ memo calls for specific steps to take within weeks. I don't even know what to say about that. I mean, criminal investigations for DEI policies.

Well, it's quite remarkable. I can see why they keep using the initials, because that's saying, we're criminally investing you for inclusion. We're criminally investing in you for equity. Inclusion and equity tend to be the things that the law supports, So they're using DEI as a cartoon villain rather than looking at what's actually involved. EI programs are enormously varied, and it's hard to imagine many of them engaging in any criminal activity any more than any other program.

Well, it's quite remarkable. I can see why they keep using the initials, because that's saying, we're criminally investing you for inclusion. We're criminally investing in you for equity. Inclusion and equity tend to be the things that the law supports, So they're using DEI as a cartoon villain rather than looking at what's actually involved. EI programs are enormously varied, and it's hard to imagine many of them engaging in any criminal activity any more than any other program.

To do that.

To do that.

The notion that they're going to bring these cases suggests that they're contemplating using the law for harassment.

The notion that they're going to bring these cases suggests that they're contemplating using the law for harassment.

So if these kinds of cases are brought, do you think that a judge would dismiss them right away, perhaps even before discovery starts.

So if these kinds of cases are brought, do you think that a judge would dismiss them right away, perhaps even before discovery starts.

Judges generally like to give the prosecution a chance to be heard. In a situation like this, when there's so much evidence that the criminal law will be misused. The President and other senior officials essentially admitting that I think judges may feel that the fairest thing to do is dismiss these cases immediately and not force people who are following legitimate orders to go through this sort of burden.

Judges generally like to give the prosecution a chance to be heard. In a situation like this, when there's so much evidence that the criminal law will be misused. The President and other senior officials essentially admitting that I think judges may feel that the fairest thing to do is dismiss these cases immediately and not force people who are following legitimate orders to go through this sort of burden.

People talk about the independence of the Justice Department being threatened, but in our history didn't a lot of justice departments work closely with the White House. I mean, just how independent is it?

People talk about the independence of the Justice Department being threatened, but in our history didn't a lot of justice departments work closely with the White House. I mean, just how independent is it?

Well, the Justice Department is part of the executive branch, and it is supposed to serve the nation's interests under the general guidance of the President. But it's always been understood that because they're dealing with law, and because the role of lawyers, particularly government lawyers, is very sensitive, that the Justice Department has to be flee to honor them law and to honor its obligations to only make legitlemen arguments in court.

Well, the Justice Department is part of the executive branch, and it is supposed to serve the nation's interests under the general guidance of the President. But it's always been understood that because they're dealing with law, and because the role of lawyers, particularly government lawyers, is very sensitive, that the Justice Department has to be flee to honor them law and to honor its obligations to only make legitlemen arguments in court.

Thanks so much for joining me, David. That's Professor David super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next? Will non citizens be able to vote in New York City elections? I'm June Grosse. When you're listening to Bloomberg, there.

Thanks so much for joining me, David. That's Professor David super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next? Will non citizens be able to vote in New York City elections? I'm June Grosse. When you're listening to Bloomberg, there.

Is something exceptional about this particular law, right, I mean, this is the argument in the briefs that this is going to expand on both sides. This is going to expand the franchise to a very large number of individuals may indeed change the political representation in particular districts. Yes, this is not like some other little process.

Is something exceptional about this particular law, right, I mean, this is the argument in the briefs that this is going to expand on both sides. This is going to expand the franchise to a very large number of individuals may indeed change the political representation in particular districts. Yes, this is not like some other little process.

And that exceptional law made New York City the first major US city to grant non citizens the right to vote in municipal elections in January of twenty twenty two. But the law, which was approved by the Democratic led City Council, has never been implemented due to court challenges my Republicans, and both a trial judge and a state depelled court found that the law violated the state constitution. This week, the seven judges on New York's highest court heard arguments about whether to uphold the law. The focus was on how to interpret specific constitutional language. For example, what does the word citizen mean?

And that exceptional law made New York City the first major US city to grant non citizens the right to vote in municipal elections in January of twenty twenty two. But the law, which was approved by the Democratic led City Council, has never been implemented due to court challenges my Republicans, and both a trial judge and a state depelled court found that the law violated the state constitution. This week, the seven judges on New York's highest court heard arguments about whether to uphold the law. The focus was on how to interpret specific constitutional language. For example, what does the word citizen mean?

How do you define citizen under the Constitutionistics Now, could the state allow my thirteen year old daughter and other thirteen year olds to vote for governor in the next election.

How do you define citizen under the Constitutionistics Now, could the state allow my thirteen year old daughter and other thirteen year olds to vote for governor in the next election.

Yes.

Yes.

Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at hollanden Knight. He was the head of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration. Lee and I just want to start with some basics because we heard Trump claim over and over and over again that non citizens were voting in elections. So it is clearly illegal for non citizens to vote in federal elections.

Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at hollanden Knight. He was the head of the Office of Immigration Litigation in the Obama administration. Lee and I just want to start with some basics because we heard Trump claim over and over and over again that non citizens were voting in elections. So it is clearly illegal for non citizens to vote in federal elections.

The RUL federal elections, it is illegal for a non citizen to vote, and not only is that a crime and a crime that gets prosecuted every now and then, but it's also a ground for deportation. It's a question that's asked in every immigration form and in every immigration interview that somebody has for an immigration benefit, have you ever unlawfully voted in a federal election. So it's actually quite a serious thing that a person who's not a citizen cannot vote in a federal election.

The RUL federal elections, it is illegal for a non citizen to vote, and not only is that a crime and a crime that gets prosecuted every now and then, but it's also a ground for deportation. It's a question that's asked in every immigration form and in every immigration interview that somebody has for an immigration benefit, have you ever unlawfully voted in a federal election. So it's actually quite a serious thing that a person who's not a citizen cannot vote in a federal election.

But cities and municipalities can allow non citizens to vote in local elections, and eleven towns in Maryland and Vermont do allow that.

But cities and municipalities can allow non citizens to vote in local elections, and eleven towns in Maryland and Vermont do allow that.

They have theoretically the authority because elections are a state run thing other than for federal election purposes, and so a state or a locality, if a locality is permitted to do so by a state, can theoretically allow a person who is here who is not a US citizen to vote in their own election, And it would just be up to that state or that locality to do so.

They have theoretically the authority because elections are a state run thing other than for federal election purposes, and so a state or a locality, if a locality is permitted to do so by a state, can theoretically allow a person who is here who is not a US citizen to vote in their own election, And it would just be up to that state or that locality to do so.

So Leon tell us about this New York City law that was passed back in twenty twenty two but never went into effect.

So Leon tell us about this New York City law that was passed back in twenty twenty two but never went into effect.

So the New York City law says that if you are a lawful permanent resident or even someone with a lawful ability to work in the United States, meaning that you actually have a work permit from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is interesting because there are some statuses which are very sort of tenuous statuses, like deferred action and temporary Protected status, and so the idea of the New York law is any of those people with work permits, even with such TENUS statuses, would be allowed to vote. Now, a purely undocumented person that is here illegally and has no right to work of any kind would not be allowed to vote under that law.

So the New York City law says that if you are a lawful permanent resident or even someone with a lawful ability to work in the United States, meaning that you actually have a work permit from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is interesting because there are some statuses which are very sort of tenuous statuses, like deferred action and temporary Protected status, and so the idea of the New York law is any of those people with work permits, even with such TENUS statuses, would be allowed to vote. Now, a purely undocumented person that is here illegally and has no right to work of any kind would not be allowed to vote under that law.

And you just have to be a lawful permanent resident of the city for thirty days. So Republicans filed the lawsuit to stop the law from going into effect.

And you just have to be a lawful permanent resident of the city for thirty days. So Republicans filed the lawsuit to stop the law from going into effect.

So essentially what they're trying to say is that there are a few problems with the law. First, that the law violates the New York State Constitution, which actually says that citizens are the individuals who are permitted to vote in elections. Now there's fight about whether that meant New York citizens or US citizens, and whether that's a floor or a ceiling. But their argument is that if you look at the New York State Constitution, that meant that only US citizens are allowed to vote and nobody else. That's their first argument, and then their second argument is that allowing eight hundred thousand potential more people to vote in the New York City election would actually dilute the right to vote that the US citizens have in New York, which would then violate the municipal home rule laws in New York City.

So essentially what they're trying to say is that there are a few problems with the law. First, that the law violates the New York State Constitution, which actually says that citizens are the individuals who are permitted to vote in elections. Now there's fight about whether that meant New York citizens or US citizens, and whether that's a floor or a ceiling. But their argument is that if you look at the New York State Constitution, that meant that only US citizens are allowed to vote and nobody else. That's their first argument, and then their second argument is that allowing eight hundred thousand potential more people to vote in the New York City election would actually dilute the right to vote that the US citizens have in New York, which would then violate the municipal home rule laws in New York City.

I just want to note the specific language in the state constitution that a lot of the Republican arguments are focused on. It says, quote, every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people, and upon all questions submitted to the vote of the people. That seems pretty clear every citizen right.

I just want to note the specific language in the state constitution that a lot of the Republican arguments are focused on. It says, quote, every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election for all officers elected by the people, and upon all questions submitted to the vote of the people. That seems pretty clear every citizen right.

So the first argument is that is a floor of rights, meaning that what the constitution is saying is, hey state legislator, hey local legislators, you are not allowed to do anything to diminish the right of a citizen to vote. In an election, but it's not a ceiling, meaning that you can add other people to this from that perspective, so you could add non citizens to that. That's one argument, and so the court in this oral argument was really trying to ask the lawyers, hey, does that mean a twelve year old or a thirteen year old can vote? Here? Where does this thing go? I mean, does this really mean what you're saying it means? And the Council for New York City had to say yes, because if you're arguing that this is a floor, then that means that for a local election, the localities can add people and there's no limit basically to what they could add in that situation. So that's one side. Now the argument for the people opposing that is to say no, no, no, no no. If they wanted other kinds of people to vote, they would have added them within this protection. So this is not a floor. This is actually both the floor and the ceiling, because it's just enumerting the people who could vote. The other argument is because it says citizens and not United States citizens, that this refers to a amorphous set of New York citizens, who would basically be people who are just in New York for thirty days. But I don't think the court was willing to accept that argument, and a very strong argument by the opponents of this New York law said, look, if this really had meant New York citizen and not US citizens, and for the last one hundred or so years, there's been people who have been disenfranchised, who we've not allowed to vote, who were constitutionally permitted to vote.

So the first argument is that is a floor of rights, meaning that what the constitution is saying is, hey state legislator, hey local legislators, you are not allowed to do anything to diminish the right of a citizen to vote. In an election, but it's not a ceiling, meaning that you can add other people to this from that perspective, so you could add non citizens to that. That's one argument, and so the court in this oral argument was really trying to ask the lawyers, hey, does that mean a twelve year old or a thirteen year old can vote? Here? Where does this thing go? I mean, does this really mean what you're saying it means? And the Council for New York City had to say yes, because if you're arguing that this is a floor, then that means that for a local election, the localities can add people and there's no limit basically to what they could add in that situation. So that's one side. Now the argument for the people opposing that is to say no, no, no, no no. If they wanted other kinds of people to vote, they would have added them within this protection. So this is not a floor. This is actually both the floor and the ceiling, because it's just enumerting the people who could vote. The other argument is because it says citizens and not United States citizens, that this refers to a amorphous set of New York citizens, who would basically be people who are just in New York for thirty days. But I don't think the court was willing to accept that argument, and a very strong argument by the opponents of this New York law said, look, if this really had meant New York citizen and not US citizens, and for the last one hundred or so years, there's been people who have been disenfranchised, who we've not allowed to vote, who were constitutionally permitted to vote.

And for anyone who thought this was going to be kind of a raw, raw argument about why non citizens should be allowed to vote, it was nothing like that. It was so technical. I mean, they were parsing words talking about the meaning of, for example, method correct.

And for anyone who thought this was going to be kind of a raw, raw argument about why non citizens should be allowed to vote, it was nothing like that. It was so technical. I mean, they were parsing words talking about the meaning of, for example, method correct.

I think one they really wanted to avoid the sense that there was any political agenda behind their decision making process. So they really tried to approach this everybody, to their credit, from all the arguments and from all of the justices, to the real of the dictionary and of the interpretation, rather than in the realm of the political and as you know, making equitable arguments about why this is right. You know, why immigrants paid taxes, they should be allowed to vote. None of that really was part of this. And so from that perspective, it's really going to come down to, well, what did the drafters of the New York Constitution actually intend? Which is really what it should come down to at the end of the day, because that's the job of the court is, here's a New York Constitution, here are the words. What did the people who wrote those words intended to mean when they wrote those words?

I think one they really wanted to avoid the sense that there was any political agenda behind their decision making process. So they really tried to approach this everybody, to their credit, from all the arguments and from all of the justices, to the real of the dictionary and of the interpretation, rather than in the realm of the political and as you know, making equitable arguments about why this is right. You know, why immigrants paid taxes, they should be allowed to vote. None of that really was part of this. And so from that perspective, it's really going to come down to, well, what did the drafters of the New York Constitution actually intend? Which is really what it should come down to at the end of the day, because that's the job of the court is, here's a New York Constitution, here are the words. What did the people who wrote those words intended to mean when they wrote those words?

And leon, we agree that's for the court to decide, right whereas one of the lawyers arguing in favor of the law seem to want to take that decision away from the judges.

And leon, we agree that's for the court to decide, right whereas one of the lawyers arguing in favor of the law seem to want to take that decision away from the judges.

This is a problem that the people defending the New York City law were having in this argument was they kept saying, who gets to decide what the word citizen means? And they were saying that either the state legislature could decide it or the city could decide it. And the court was saying, well, can't we decided? And aren't we the court? Aren't we the one who are supposed to make the actual decision about what the words of the constitution mean? And so then there was this debate about, well, maybe it should be put up for the voters.

This is a problem that the people defending the New York City law were having in this argument was they kept saying, who gets to decide what the word citizen means? And they were saying that either the state legislature could decide it or the city could decide it. And the court was saying, well, can't we decided? And aren't we the court? Aren't we the one who are supposed to make the actual decision about what the words of the constitution mean? And so then there was this debate about, well, maybe it should be put up for the voters.

Yeah, I just want to play that interchange because it was kind of amusing where the judges were saying, but that's our role, isn't it.

Yeah, I just want to play that interchange because it was kind of amusing where the judges were saying, but that's our role, isn't it.

What definition would you ask this court to give? I would say that the legislature is in the best position to define a citizen because it is ambiguous. And the reasons why are because.

What definition would you ask this court to give? I would say that the legislature is in the best position to define a citizen because it is ambiguous. And the reasons why are because.

The state how can the legislation legislature do that?

The state how can the legislation legislature do that?

This is a constitutional provision.

This is a constitutional provision.

So there's a constitutional provision with an ambiguous term, and there's not enough evidence before this court to support a more restrictive or a broader reading.

So there's a constitutional provision with an ambiguous term, and there's not enough evidence before this court to support a more restrictive or a broader reading.

Isn't that our role to determine what this language is.

Isn't that our role to determine what this language is.

Where there is sufficient evidence to support one reading.

Where there is sufficient evidence to support one reading.

On Otherwise it just goes to the legislature to determine what the state constitution means.

On Otherwise it just goes to the legislature to determine what the state constitution means.

I think where the court is going to decide here is look, unless the constitution is amended, which it can always be amended, we are going to decide what the constitution means. And while it is unclear whether they will decide that the constitution sets the floor or whether they will decide that the constitution actually sets a floor and a ceiling, they're not going to say that this needs to be decided by a referendum, except to the extent that they are saying, look, if you want to change our ruling, have a referendum and decide to change the constitution.

I think where the court is going to decide here is look, unless the constitution is amended, which it can always be amended, we are going to decide what the constitution means. And while it is unclear whether they will decide that the constitution sets the floor or whether they will decide that the constitution actually sets a floor and a ceiling, they're not going to say that this needs to be decided by a referendum, except to the extent that they are saying, look, if you want to change our ruling, have a referendum and decide to change the constitution.

So after listening to the oral arguments, do you have a feel for which way the court might go?

So after listening to the oral arguments, do you have a feel for which way the court might go?

It seems very difficult to try to pin the court down as to where they were headed here. I mean, at the end of the day, there seemed to be at least one judge on each side where it was clear that they had at least one judge that was going to vote in favor of the New York law, and there was one judge who seemed particularly hostile to the New York law, But that leaves five other judges. I don't think given the potential implications of this, which is that if you vote for this, then you're basically leaving the localities to again let twelve year olds vote and let you know, all kinds of other people vote that wouldn't necessarily be allowed to vote normally in an election, that I don't think they're going to want to open up the floodgates in this manner, But we'll have to wait and see.

It seems very difficult to try to pin the court down as to where they were headed here. I mean, at the end of the day, there seemed to be at least one judge on each side where it was clear that they had at least one judge that was going to vote in favor of the New York law, and there was one judge who seemed particularly hostile to the New York law, But that leaves five other judges. I don't think given the potential implications of this, which is that if you vote for this, then you're basically leaving the localities to again let twelve year olds vote and let you know, all kinds of other people vote that wouldn't necessarily be allowed to vote normally in an election, that I don't think they're going to want to open up the floodgates in this manner, But we'll have to wait and see.

Would you say that it would be more of a novel ruling and they would have to go sort of outside the box to uphol this law. In other words, it would be easier to strike it down.

Would you say that it would be more of a novel ruling and they would have to go sort of outside the box to uphol this law. In other words, it would be easier to strike it down.

Correct, you'd have to do much more verbal gymnastics in order to say that the non US citizens could vote in the New York City elections, that you would just to affirm the principle that the New York Constitution meant that only US citizens could vote. You would have to make the machination that all of these qualifications that were put in were meant to be a floor, but that localities could add more people. And then the question would be, well, why why would the constitution of the State of New York wanted to have had an ability for state election to only be US citizens but somehow incorporate this principle that localities could add more kinds of voters that can't voted the state elections. But there is where I think there really wasn't a good job of trying to explain why would that be? Was that even contemplated, And if it was, why would it have been that they would have wanted different pools of people voting in the local elections than in the state election.

Correct, you'd have to do much more verbal gymnastics in order to say that the non US citizens could vote in the New York City elections, that you would just to affirm the principle that the New York Constitution meant that only US citizens could vote. You would have to make the machination that all of these qualifications that were put in were meant to be a floor, but that localities could add more people. And then the question would be, well, why why would the constitution of the State of New York wanted to have had an ability for state election to only be US citizens but somehow incorporate this principle that localities could add more kinds of voters that can't voted the state elections. But there is where I think there really wasn't a good job of trying to explain why would that be? Was that even contemplated, And if it was, why would it have been that they would have wanted different pools of people voting in the local elections than in the state election.

Yeah, it seems like the law faces and uphill battle Thanks so much Leon for being on the show. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. 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 ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Jim Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg

Yeah, it seems like the law faces and uphill battle Thanks so much Leon for being on the show. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. 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 ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Jim Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg