You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grusso from Bloomberg Radio.

You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grusso from Bloomberg Radio.

Today, I'm announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving astylum.

Today, I'm announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our southern border unlawfully from receiving astylum.

President Joe Biden unveiled plans to head off a surgeon border crossings this summer by executive action, his most significant action to address the migrant crisis that has threatened his reelection. Biden said Republicans left him no choice but to act alone. The long anticipated presidential proclamation would bar migrants from being granted asylum when illegal border crossings reach high levels.

President Joe Biden unveiled plans to head off a surgeon border crossings this summer by executive action, his most significant action to address the migrant crisis that has threatened his reelection. Biden said Republicans left him no choice but to act alone. The long anticipated presidential proclamation would bar migrants from being granted asylum when illegal border crossings reach high levels.

To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now. The simple truth is there is a worldwide migrant crisis, and if the United States doesn't see QR border, there's no limit to the number of people may try to come here, because there's no better place than the planet than the United States of America.

To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we must first secure the border and secure it now. The simple truth is there is a worldwide migrant crisis, and if the United States doesn't see QR border, there's no limit to the number of people may try to come here, because there's no better place than the planet than the United States of America.

The ACLU has already said it will challenge Biden's action in court, much as it did Trump's actions on the border. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. He was the head of the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Justice Department during the Obama administration. Leon tell us about this new policy.

The ACLU has already said it will challenge Biden's action in court, much as it did Trump's actions on the border. Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. He was the head of the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Justice Department during the Obama administration. Leon tell us about this new policy.

The policy is that starting now, if anyone tries to cross the border illegally in between the ports of injury and ask for asylum, they will be banned from doing it unless they were a victim of human trafficking or had some sort of urgent medical or humanitarian issue that was immediately evident to the border patrol officials who apprehended the person. There is a trigger that's being put in by executive order that's using the travel ban authority under Section two twelve f of the Immigration Code, which President Trump used many times during his presidency, And what they're saying is that if there's ever a situation where more than twenty five hundred people per day on average are crossing over any given week, that gives them the authority to trigger this ban procedure until such time as the daily crossings go down to fifteen hundred people a week, which the last time that's happened was during COVID where nobody was traveling anywhere, and at the moment, because we have something around thirty five hundred to four thousand crossings per day that exceeds the twenty five hundred person threshold, which is why at midnight on June fifth, the border will shut down and essentially people asking for asylum who are crossing the border will not be allowed to do that any longer.

The policy is that starting now, if anyone tries to cross the border illegally in between the ports of injury and ask for asylum, they will be banned from doing it unless they were a victim of human trafficking or had some sort of urgent medical or humanitarian issue that was immediately evident to the border patrol officials who apprehended the person. There is a trigger that's being put in by executive order that's using the travel ban authority under Section two twelve f of the Immigration Code, which President Trump used many times during his presidency, And what they're saying is that if there's ever a situation where more than twenty five hundred people per day on average are crossing over any given week, that gives them the authority to trigger this ban procedure until such time as the daily crossings go down to fifteen hundred people a week, which the last time that's happened was during COVID where nobody was traveling anywhere, and at the moment, because we have something around thirty five hundred to four thousand crossings per day that exceeds the twenty five hundred person threshold, which is why at midnight on June fifth, the border will shut down and essentially people asking for asylum who are crossing the border will not be allowed to do that any longer.

Are they allowed to apply for asylum at the port of entry.

Are they allowed to apply for asylum at the port of entry.

So here is how this works with regard to the ports of entry. There are appointments on an app on your phone called CBP one, and there are about fifteen hundred of those appointments every day, and so if you look at that, that you know six hundred thousand or five hundred thousand appointments a year. And what that does is if you want to get one of those appointments and apply for asylum, those will still be available and people will still be allowed to do that because that's an orderly process and one people can use without creating chaos on the border. As opposed to they will not be able to take matters into their own hands and cross in between the ports of entry and ask for asylum. They will be, according to this executive order, returned back, which was the same thing that was being done with COVID under the title forty two COVID authority.

So here is how this works with regard to the ports of entry. There are appointments on an app on your phone called CBP one, and there are about fifteen hundred of those appointments every day, and so if you look at that, that you know six hundred thousand or five hundred thousand appointments a year. And what that does is if you want to get one of those appointments and apply for asylum, those will still be available and people will still be allowed to do that because that's an orderly process and one people can use without creating chaos on the border. As opposed to they will not be able to take matters into their own hands and cross in between the ports of entry and ask for asylum. They will be, according to this executive order, returned back, which was the same thing that was being done with COVID under the title forty two COVID authority.

He's tapping executive powers outlined in section two twelve F of the Immigration and National Act. And that's the same law that former President Trump used in the Muslim ban of twenty seventeen and the twenty eighteen suspension of entry of migrants between the ports of entry. Explain what that law does so.

He's tapping executive powers outlined in section two twelve F of the Immigration and National Act. And that's the same law that former President Trump used in the Muslim ban of twenty seventeen and the twenty eighteen suspension of entry of migrants between the ports of entry. Explain what that law does so.

Years where this is going to get a little complicated, June, and I want you and your listener to try to stay with me here because it will all make sense in a second. The statute, all it says is that the President, if the President thinks it's not in the national interests of the United States, may ban the entry of any category of non citizens that the President deans is not in the national interests of the United States to let them enter. So that is simple when the foreign national is outside the United States. So suppose you're at a US embassy in India and you're applying for a visa. If there's a ban on Indian immigration that the President put in onna section two twelve F, simple no visa can be issued. Or if you're at an airport in Canada you're trying to fly to the United States and there's a ban on flying from Canada to the United States because we've banned Canadian from coming in. That's a very easy band to enact too. Where it gets complicated is when someone has already crossed the border, the southern border, and has already entered the United States. Because then this is a very important word entry. This becomes a complicated issue because when you enter the United States illegally, that's what makes you subject to prosecution for illegal entry. Or if you get supported and you come back in, that's what makes you subject to prosecution for illegal re entry. You have to have an entry. It's an element of the crime in order to be subject to the crime. Here's where this is problematic. Biden is saying that this power to restrict entry all also apply to people who've already entered. And that's what's going to be the debate in the courts is whether that's true or not, because there's a very strong argument that if Congress had meant that, it would have said that. But it's said. What Congress provided was for the expedited Removal Authority, which is where someone can come in and the government can deport them immediately unless they apply for asylum and in that case, when they apply for asylum, they get to stay. And so that's the complication here is will the Supreme Court ultimately give leeway to the Biden administration to say that, yes, for this purpose, an entry doesn't count as an entry. If we taught you ten minutes after you entered, we will pretend that you still didn't enter. But if that's true, then does that eliminate, by the same token, the federal government's ability to ever prosecute anyone again for illegal entry or illegal re entry? Because that's why we prosecute people, because we got them ten minutes after entering. And so this is quite a very interesting thread that I don't know how courts can thread that needle and try to have both sides of both of these arguments.

Years where this is going to get a little complicated, June, and I want you and your listener to try to stay with me here because it will all make sense in a second. The statute, all it says is that the President, if the President thinks it's not in the national interests of the United States, may ban the entry of any category of non citizens that the President deans is not in the national interests of the United States to let them enter. So that is simple when the foreign national is outside the United States. So suppose you're at a US embassy in India and you're applying for a visa. If there's a ban on Indian immigration that the President put in onna section two twelve F, simple no visa can be issued. Or if you're at an airport in Canada you're trying to fly to the United States and there's a ban on flying from Canada to the United States because we've banned Canadian from coming in. That's a very easy band to enact too. Where it gets complicated is when someone has already crossed the border, the southern border, and has already entered the United States. Because then this is a very important word entry. This becomes a complicated issue because when you enter the United States illegally, that's what makes you subject to prosecution for illegal entry. Or if you get supported and you come back in, that's what makes you subject to prosecution for illegal re entry. You have to have an entry. It's an element of the crime in order to be subject to the crime. Here's where this is problematic. Biden is saying that this power to restrict entry all also apply to people who've already entered. And that's what's going to be the debate in the courts is whether that's true or not, because there's a very strong argument that if Congress had meant that, it would have said that. But it's said. What Congress provided was for the expedited Removal Authority, which is where someone can come in and the government can deport them immediately unless they apply for asylum and in that case, when they apply for asylum, they get to stay. And so that's the complication here is will the Supreme Court ultimately give leeway to the Biden administration to say that, yes, for this purpose, an entry doesn't count as an entry. If we taught you ten minutes after you entered, we will pretend that you still didn't enter. But if that's true, then does that eliminate, by the same token, the federal government's ability to ever prosecute anyone again for illegal entry or illegal re entry? Because that's why we prosecute people, because we got them ten minutes after entering. And so this is quite a very interesting thread that I don't know how courts can thread that needle and try to have both sides of both of these arguments.

I knew there was some kind of a complication here when the ACLU successfully led the charge against the Trump administration's attempt to block asylum in twenty eighteen. Was that the.

I knew there was some kind of a complication here when the ACLU successfully led the charge against the Trump administration's attempt to block asylum in twenty eighteen. Was that the.

Argument, Yes, that was the exact argument, which is that the asylum statues specifically says it doesn't matter how you enter legally, illegally, anything else, it doesn't matter.

Argument, Yes, that was the exact argument, which is that the asylum statues specifically says it doesn't matter how you enter legally, illegally, anything else, it doesn't matter.

You can still apply for asylum. Now that is in conflict with another statue, which says that the government can add regulatory reasons why you don't get asylum, and so they can add this one. Presumably you know that the border crossings are too high, and so this is a regulatory reason why you don't get a asylum. But the problem is that only operates for not giving you asylum. There are still two other reliefs that still allow you to stay, because the thing with the asylum is that gives you a path to citizenship. But there's two other kinds of relief you can apply for which still come up to work and prevent deportation. One is withholding of removal, which just lets you stay while whatever problem in your country exists, but doesn't let you stay permanently. And another one is relief under the Convention against Torture, which says, even if you're not being persecuted, if you're going to get tortured, we won't let you go back against tortured. So, for instance, a lot of Russian immigrants get this kind of relief because if they show that they're going to be imprisoned in Russia, the prison conditions in Russia are our tent amounts to torture, as has been documented in the the Bounty case, the Britney Grinder case than others. And so what ends up happening is people can apply for those reliefs and gum up the works. And so what Biden is trying to say is no, no, no, this executive order means you can't apply for anything. We're trying to do exactly what COVID did. That lets you pick people out. And the question is will this entry be considered a fiction or not? And if it's considered a fiction, then maybe the Supreme Court let's Biden get away with this, But most probably if entry is treated like the way it's treated in plain English, then the people have already entered. It's too late to ban them from coming in once they've already entered.

You can still apply for asylum. Now that is in conflict with another statue, which says that the government can add regulatory reasons why you don't get asylum, and so they can add this one. Presumably you know that the border crossings are too high, and so this is a regulatory reason why you don't get a asylum. But the problem is that only operates for not giving you asylum. There are still two other reliefs that still allow you to stay, because the thing with the asylum is that gives you a path to citizenship. But there's two other kinds of relief you can apply for which still come up to work and prevent deportation. One is withholding of removal, which just lets you stay while whatever problem in your country exists, but doesn't let you stay permanently. And another one is relief under the Convention against Torture, which says, even if you're not being persecuted, if you're going to get tortured, we won't let you go back against tortured. So, for instance, a lot of Russian immigrants get this kind of relief because if they show that they're going to be imprisoned in Russia, the prison conditions in Russia are our tent amounts to torture, as has been documented in the the Bounty case, the Britney Grinder case than others. And so what ends up happening is people can apply for those reliefs and gum up the works. And so what Biden is trying to say is no, no, no, this executive order means you can't apply for anything. We're trying to do exactly what COVID did. That lets you pick people out. And the question is will this entry be considered a fiction or not? And if it's considered a fiction, then maybe the Supreme Court let's Biden get away with this, But most probably if entry is treated like the way it's treated in plain English, then the people have already entered. It's too late to ban them from coming in once they've already entered.

To affirm Biden's policy, would the Supreme Court have to reverse how it ruled with Trump's policy.

To affirm Biden's policy, would the Supreme Court have to reverse how it ruled with Trump's policy.

Well, no, because Trump's policy with regard to the travel ban was about who could be given travel bans. Could you discriminate quote unquote on the basis of religion, or was religion of prefects or all of that, And there the Supreme Court said, look, as long as the reason on his face is legitimate and bonified. We're not gonna second guess and go behind that and say what did the president really mean, etc. Now, there was an actual travel band that said all Muslims are banned from the United States. Come back to us with that case. We're not deciding that case today because this case is about objective factors of safety insecurity, and so the president gets broad discretion to do that. That's going to be different than this case, which will be about whether an entry is involved in a case where a person is already inside the United States. So Trump was about can you ban people outside the United States? This is now going to be about can you pretend that someone who just entered minutes ago didn't really enter such that you can kick them out like if they were applying in India for a visa.

Well, no, because Trump's policy with regard to the travel ban was about who could be given travel bans. Could you discriminate quote unquote on the basis of religion, or was religion of prefects or all of that, And there the Supreme Court said, look, as long as the reason on his face is legitimate and bonified. We're not gonna second guess and go behind that and say what did the president really mean, etc. Now, there was an actual travel band that said all Muslims are banned from the United States. Come back to us with that case. We're not deciding that case today because this case is about objective factors of safety insecurity, and so the president gets broad discretion to do that. That's going to be different than this case, which will be about whether an entry is involved in a case where a person is already inside the United States. So Trump was about can you ban people outside the United States? This is now going to be about can you pretend that someone who just entered minutes ago didn't really enter such that you can kick them out like if they were applying in India for a visa.

Did the Trump case where he suspended the entry of migrants between the ports of entry, did that go to the court?

Did the Trump case where he suspended the entry of migrants between the ports of entry, did that go to the court?

That did not because by the time what happened was, first the Northern District of California struck that down and said you can't have this kind of ban. Then the Ninth Circuit agreed, Then COVID happened, and then by the time this would have gotten around to any kind of Supreme Court review the administration's change and the policy change, and that was the end of it. So we never got to see the actual final work. We know the Ninth Circuit as finding president on this, So the Ninth Circuit would actually have to go unbond and reverse itself, which is very unlikely if they're going to overrule this precedent on the issue of entry and asylum. So the only hope that the Biden administration is going to have is to go to the Supreme Court.

That did not because by the time what happened was, first the Northern District of California struck that down and said you can't have this kind of ban. Then the Ninth Circuit agreed, Then COVID happened, and then by the time this would have gotten around to any kind of Supreme Court review the administration's change and the policy change, and that was the end of it. So we never got to see the actual final work. We know the Ninth Circuit as finding president on this, So the Ninth Circuit would actually have to go unbond and reverse itself, which is very unlikely if they're going to overrule this precedent on the issue of entry and asylum. So the only hope that the Biden administration is going to have is to go to the Supreme Court.

Stay with me Leon coming up, we're going to discuss what happens next in the courts and why there may be an injunction against this action before the weekend. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomber. Today, President Joe Biden unveiled plans to enact immediate, significant restrictions on migrants seeking asylum at the US Mexico border as he tries to neutralize immigration as a political liability ahead of the November elections. But the ACLU has already said it intends to sue to stop Biden's order, much as it argued similar legal challenges against former President Donald Trump. I've been talking to immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollanda Knight Lee on before the break. We were discussing the word entry and how that will be important in the legal arguments to come. So this is going to be a very technical argument for Biden to win. Is it going to be the Supreme Court justices or at least five of them saying wink, wink, nod, nod, it's okay.

Stay with me Leon coming up, we're going to discuss what happens next in the courts and why there may be an injunction against this action before the weekend. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomber. Today, President Joe Biden unveiled plans to enact immediate, significant restrictions on migrants seeking asylum at the US Mexico border as he tries to neutralize immigration as a political liability ahead of the November elections. But the ACLU has already said it intends to sue to stop Biden's order, much as it argued similar legal challenges against former President Donald Trump. I've been talking to immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollanda Knight Lee on before the break. We were discussing the word entry and how that will be important in the legal arguments to come. So this is going to be a very technical argument for Biden to win. Is it going to be the Supreme Court justices or at least five of them saying wink, wink, nod, nod, it's okay.

Correct, He's gonna need that. And then there's a second rinkle we haven't even talked about yet. Then going to need the cooperation of the Mexican government to repatriate people who are not Mexicans into Mexico, which the Mexican government has no obligation to do. They're doing it right now as a favor to Americans at a rate of thirty thousand per month, But this would require much more than that. Remember we're talking about at the moment four thousand people per day. So we do some amateur mathematics here, we're talking about one hundred and twenty thousand people per month. Is the Mexican government, especially after this election, likely to do that? So we have two big issues. Number one that there's going to be an immediate injunction that is a one hundred percent thirty on this Biden policy. I mean that injunction might be issued by the end of this week. And then the second question is after that injunction is issued, if it ever gets listed by the Supreme Court, Well, does the Mexican government allow you to actually implement this?

Correct, He's gonna need that. And then there's a second rinkle we haven't even talked about yet. Then going to need the cooperation of the Mexican government to repatriate people who are not Mexicans into Mexico, which the Mexican government has no obligation to do. They're doing it right now as a favor to Americans at a rate of thirty thousand per month, But this would require much more than that. Remember we're talking about at the moment four thousand people per day. So we do some amateur mathematics here, we're talking about one hundred and twenty thousand people per month. Is the Mexican government, especially after this election, likely to do that? So we have two big issues. Number one that there's going to be an immediate injunction that is a one hundred percent thirty on this Biden policy. I mean that injunction might be issued by the end of this week. And then the second question is after that injunction is issued, if it ever gets listed by the Supreme Court, Well, does the Mexican government allow you to actually implement this?

Yeah, Biden mentioned the Mexican government in his in his statement indicating that they will cooperate, but who knows. You have a new president now. Administration officials said that individuals will be removed to their country of origin in a matter of days, if not hours. Does the Biden administration have enough resources to quickly expel them?

Yeah, Biden mentioned the Mexican government in his in his statement indicating that they will cooperate, but who knows. You have a new president now. Administration officials said that individuals will be removed to their country of origin in a matter of days, if not hours. Does the Biden administration have enough resources to quickly expel them?

So the answer to that question is going to be it depends what country the person is from. For instance, if they're from Venezuela, Venezuela is not accepting people who're trying to deport, and Cuba is not really accepting people we're trying to deport, and eighty has some very difficult conditions right now, so it's difficult to support people in large scale and so you start adding all of those up, and you start getting significant chunks of people that you cannot deport very quickly. China is another one. You can't really deport people to China. What are you going to be doing with all of those people who are crossing the border. Nothing really is going to be changing there other than unless Mexico lets you bring them back into Mexico. But then they become Mexico's problem, and then the question is, well, how long is Mexico willing to deal with such a surge of people inside of Mexico. So that's the complication here. But at the end of the day, that's where we're at.

So the answer to that question is going to be it depends what country the person is from. For instance, if they're from Venezuela, Venezuela is not accepting people who're trying to deport, and Cuba is not really accepting people we're trying to deport, and eighty has some very difficult conditions right now, so it's difficult to support people in large scale and so you start adding all of those up, and you start getting significant chunks of people that you cannot deport very quickly. China is another one. You can't really deport people to China. What are you going to be doing with all of those people who are crossing the border. Nothing really is going to be changing there other than unless Mexico lets you bring them back into Mexico. But then they become Mexico's problem, and then the question is, well, how long is Mexico willing to deal with such a surge of people inside of Mexico. So that's the complication here. But at the end of the day, that's where we're at.

Lea take us through what actually will happen when these migrants are stopped. I mean, it's not just turn them around and have them go back. They'll have to be processed.

Lea take us through what actually will happen when these migrants are stopped. I mean, it's not just turn them around and have them go back. They'll have to be processed.

Right, So it will depend what happens. Is if it'll be a Mexican person, that will be very simple. The Mexican person will come, they will be immediately banned, they will be sent back into Mexico. That one's very simple. Perhaps for some of the Central American migrants, that also will happen. They will be immediately apprehended, they will be detained, and they will be sent back into Mexico. They probably won't be flown back to Central America, but sometimes that's possible too, And so in those scenarios, if a flight can be arranged and it's quick enough, they would also be flown into Central America. For the others, this gets more complicated because if Mexico doesn't let you bring them into Mexico, then they will have to be detained. Because if they're not detained, you'll never get them back. It'll be impossible because they'll just be released for some future immigration hearing. So you'll have to keep them detained. And the question is do you have the sufficient detention resources to be able to keep them detained while you're trying to arrange for sometimes they don't have passports, and if they don't have passports, you need their home country to issue it in order to get them flown back or for whatever arrangements are needed to get them to be able to be flown back. But again, in cases where you know you're not going to be able to deport people, which are Chinese, Cuban, Venezuelan cases, some Haitian cases, some Nicaraguan cases, those are going to be very tough. I don't see what an executive order can change unless Mexico is willing to let you remove those people into Mexico, or as Trump starts doing, which the Bidens administration hasn't announced yet. Trump was starting to get deals with certain countries in Central America to actually deport people into those countries.

Right, So it will depend what happens. Is if it'll be a Mexican person, that will be very simple. The Mexican person will come, they will be immediately banned, they will be sent back into Mexico. That one's very simple. Perhaps for some of the Central American migrants, that also will happen. They will be immediately apprehended, they will be detained, and they will be sent back into Mexico. They probably won't be flown back to Central America, but sometimes that's possible too, And so in those scenarios, if a flight can be arranged and it's quick enough, they would also be flown into Central America. For the others, this gets more complicated because if Mexico doesn't let you bring them into Mexico, then they will have to be detained. Because if they're not detained, you'll never get them back. It'll be impossible because they'll just be released for some future immigration hearing. So you'll have to keep them detained. And the question is do you have the sufficient detention resources to be able to keep them detained while you're trying to arrange for sometimes they don't have passports, and if they don't have passports, you need their home country to issue it in order to get them flown back or for whatever arrangements are needed to get them to be able to be flown back. But again, in cases where you know you're not going to be able to deport people, which are Chinese, Cuban, Venezuelan cases, some Haitian cases, some Nicaraguan cases, those are going to be very tough. I don't see what an executive order can change unless Mexico is willing to let you remove those people into Mexico, or as Trump starts doing, which the Bidens administration hasn't announced yet. Trump was starting to get deals with certain countries in Central America to actually deport people into those countries.

The initial criticism from immigration advocates and progressives is that this is just what Trump did, But the administration has said this is not comparable to Trump's system wide crackdowns. What do you think It sounds a lot like it.

The initial criticism from immigration advocates and progressives is that this is just what Trump did, But the administration has said this is not comparable to Trump's system wide crackdowns. What do you think It sounds a lot like it.

It is almost identical to what Trump did, with the exception that they made some carveouts for unaccompanied children, which is required under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and also they made exceptions for people with urgent medical and humanitarian claims and victims of human trafficking, whatever that may appear. Because at the end of the day, all of those screenings are going to be done very quickly by someone who's a border patrol officer who may not necessarily that might not be their top priority at the moment. They may have a security agenda that they're trying to fulfill, and so asking if someone's been human traffic may not be at the moment's top of mind, and so what ends up happening is in its implementation, it ends up being almost identical to the Trump band.

It is almost identical to what Trump did, with the exception that they made some carveouts for unaccompanied children, which is required under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and also they made exceptions for people with urgent medical and humanitarian claims and victims of human trafficking, whatever that may appear. Because at the end of the day, all of those screenings are going to be done very quickly by someone who's a border patrol officer who may not necessarily that might not be their top priority at the moment. They may have a security agenda that they're trying to fulfill, and so asking if someone's been human traffic may not be at the moment's top of mind, and so what ends up happening is in its implementation, it ends up being almost identical to the Trump band.

The numbers of unauthorized crossings have continued to go down in recent months from a high in December.

The numbers of unauthorized crossings have continued to go down in recent months from a high in December.

Correct there were days that we were at twelve thousand people crossing per day, and now we're down to around four thousand. And if you recall what they were talking about the bill in Congress, they were actually talking about five thousand crossings per day. So interestingly enough, now the crossings are under four thousand, they're between thirty five hundred and four thousand, and so the question is why has the Biden administration decided that twenty five hundred is actually the unacceptable number? Because in the legislation that was being talked about before, it was actually sci fi, and now we're talking about twenty five hundred. And what seems to be happening is this number appears to be moving in order to be able to justify an executive order, so that what ends up happening is you can at least implement it for now. But I do think the Night administration understands because they have very smart lawyers that are there that the actual sequence of events of the way this is going to play out is they've written the executive order. Now it's going to be implemented tonight. It will be immediately sued. There will be an immediate injunction, so the order goes away, and then they try to appeal to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court will be very interesting to see if they try to take a fast track or if they try to take a slow track. That will be very indicative of whether this was meant to be a political gambit or whether this was meant to be a legitimate border operation and procedure. If they take the slow road, then we know this is all because nothing's gonna happen until the election. If they take the fast road, I suppose the Supreme Court pen within the next thirty days or so decide whether they want to stay an injunction and allow this to go into effect. But if that does go into effect, then the question is going to be will you be able to get those numbers down to the actual twenty five hundred level that they're talking about. And we'll have to wait and see how that ends up getting implemented.

Correct there were days that we were at twelve thousand people crossing per day, and now we're down to around four thousand. And if you recall what they were talking about the bill in Congress, they were actually talking about five thousand crossings per day. So interestingly enough, now the crossings are under four thousand, they're between thirty five hundred and four thousand, and so the question is why has the Biden administration decided that twenty five hundred is actually the unacceptable number? Because in the legislation that was being talked about before, it was actually sci fi, and now we're talking about twenty five hundred. And what seems to be happening is this number appears to be moving in order to be able to justify an executive order, so that what ends up happening is you can at least implement it for now. But I do think the Night administration understands because they have very smart lawyers that are there that the actual sequence of events of the way this is going to play out is they've written the executive order. Now it's going to be implemented tonight. It will be immediately sued. There will be an immediate injunction, so the order goes away, and then they try to appeal to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court will be very interesting to see if they try to take a fast track or if they try to take a slow track. That will be very indicative of whether this was meant to be a political gambit or whether this was meant to be a legitimate border operation and procedure. If they take the slow road, then we know this is all because nothing's gonna happen until the election. If they take the fast road, I suppose the Supreme Court pen within the next thirty days or so decide whether they want to stay an injunction and allow this to go into effect. But if that does go into effect, then the question is going to be will you be able to get those numbers down to the actual twenty five hundred level that they're talking about. And we'll have to wait and see how that ends up getting implemented.

And you seem pretty sure that this order won't to even make it to the weekend.

And you seem pretty sure that this order won't to even make it to the weekend.

Yeah, definitely, by the end of this week, this thing is going to be enjoying just because it's binding Ninth Circuit presidents already and we.

Yeah, definitely, by the end of this week, this thing is going to be enjoying just because it's binding Ninth Circuit presidents already and we.

May be a long way away from that. But I mean, what do you think the chances are at the Supreme Court? It sounds like a technicality.

May be a long way away from that. But I mean, what do you think the chances are at the Supreme Court? It sounds like a technicality.

I think it would be very difficult. It's going to depend, I think on how the advocates would argue this. But the way I would argue it is this, be very careful what you wish for by an administration or or Trump administration or anyone else who thinks that you can ban people on the border using this statute, Because if what you're gonna say is we will not treat people whose bodies are inside the United States as people who have entered the United States, then you will have lost your ability to prosecute people for illegal entry. That's gone. You can't have it both ways, And so which one do you prefer. Do you prefer to have a statute to let you prosecute people for illegal entry or do you prefer to have this travel band situation? And that's what it's gonna come down to but entry either means entry or it doesn't mean it. If you're gonna say entry means, oh, you have to be here a certain amount of time, well that would have had to have been written in the executive order, and that's not written in the executive order. So I don't know how they're going to distinguish these two things, but I think that's going to be where the Court gets hung up and says, wait a second, I don't think we can do this.

I think it would be very difficult. It's going to depend, I think on how the advocates would argue this. But the way I would argue it is this, be very careful what you wish for by an administration or or Trump administration or anyone else who thinks that you can ban people on the border using this statute, Because if what you're gonna say is we will not treat people whose bodies are inside the United States as people who have entered the United States, then you will have lost your ability to prosecute people for illegal entry. That's gone. You can't have it both ways, And so which one do you prefer. Do you prefer to have a statute to let you prosecute people for illegal entry or do you prefer to have this travel band situation? And that's what it's gonna come down to but entry either means entry or it doesn't mean it. If you're gonna say entry means, oh, you have to be here a certain amount of time, well that would have had to have been written in the executive order, and that's not written in the executive order. So I don't know how they're going to distinguish these two things, but I think that's going to be where the Court gets hung up and says, wait a second, I don't think we can do this.

Considering all that, it sounds more like Biden did this for political reasons.

Considering all that, it sounds more like Biden did this for political reasons.

Well. I think the timing of it, obviously right after the Mexican election, shows they were cognizant of that, and I think they did feel they needed to have something to speak about because they were being asked every day in the press room, in the White House news conference as well. I understand you keep blaming the Congress, but what has the Biden administration done? And they said, we can't do anything more? It's illegal, and that people say, well, why don't you try prove it? And so they have now succumbed to this argument and they're saying, okay, well you claim that we haven't tried. Well, now, we've tried, let's see what happened, and I think this is what's happened here.

Well. I think the timing of it, obviously right after the Mexican election, shows they were cognizant of that, and I think they did feel they needed to have something to speak about because they were being asked every day in the press room, in the White House news conference as well. I understand you keep blaming the Congress, but what has the Biden administration done? And they said, we can't do anything more? It's illegal, and that people say, well, why don't you try prove it? And so they have now succumbed to this argument and they're saying, okay, well you claim that we haven't tried. Well, now, we've tried, let's see what happened, and I think this is what's happened here.

During his statement, Biden mentioned something that we've discussed before, which is the hope that migrants will start to know that they're going to be removed quickly and not be able to stay in the US for years through their immigration court process, and they perhaps just won't.

During his statement, Biden mentioned something that we've discussed before, which is the hope that migrants will start to know that they're going to be removed quickly and not be able to stay in the US for years through their immigration court process, and they perhaps just won't.

Make the trip, right.

Make the trip, right.

I mean, that's the deterrent effect you're trying to instill. And that does work, but it only works when people are getting real time information that it's not working to come across the border. So if there's a stream of that kind of real time information, people will stop coming. But the communication networks the smugglers, it's all way too sophisticated now to simply say don't come. That doesn't work anymore. So now the next step is can the Biden administration actually build a resume of real time information that deters people from coming. It's going to be difficult at the beginning, because at the beginning this is going to be enjoyed, So they will need the Supreme Court to help them in order to have any hope of being implemented.

I mean, that's the deterrent effect you're trying to instill. And that does work, but it only works when people are getting real time information that it's not working to come across the border. So if there's a stream of that kind of real time information, people will stop coming. But the communication networks the smugglers, it's all way too sophisticated now to simply say don't come. That doesn't work anymore. So now the next step is can the Biden administration actually build a resume of real time information that deters people from coming. It's going to be difficult at the beginning, because at the beginning this is going to be enjoyed, So they will need the Supreme Court to help them in order to have any hope of being implemented.

Does this rule still comply with our obligations under international treaties.

Does this rule still comply with our obligations under international treaties.

Well, this gets very complicated.

Well, this gets very complicated.

Again, complicated, yes.

Again, complicated, yes.

Because at the end of the day. Number one, are they going to let people who are saying they're going to be tortured have a screening for that or are they just going to ban people even if they are in fear of torture. If they do ban those people, that is indeed in violation of the Convention against Torture. And that was happening during COVID. But that's because at the end of the day, we had a statute that when there's an international obligation, if you have a statute that is intension with that, the statute actually wins in one of those supremacy battles, and so Final forty two wins. But here that wouldn't take into effects, and so that would be one. And then secondly, with regard to what's called non refuel ma, which just means you can't return people without doing anything, without trying to actually screen them, that's going to be another one. And so obviously the bind administration will say say, well, we're doing this because we have the CVP APP, we have a refugee program, we have a bunch of other ways for people to do it. But in the end, if you're pushing people out, you are technically violating the rules. Now, you don't have a duty to give people asylum, which is the past the citizenship, but you do have a duty not to push people out who might face persecution unless and until you've given them due process, at least if you're going to meet your international obligations. And so this is going to be a very tough argument because there were no exceptions to that based on quote unquote twenty five hundred people coming across the border. That would be a new thing.

Because at the end of the day. Number one, are they going to let people who are saying they're going to be tortured have a screening for that or are they just going to ban people even if they are in fear of torture. If they do ban those people, that is indeed in violation of the Convention against Torture. And that was happening during COVID. But that's because at the end of the day, we had a statute that when there's an international obligation, if you have a statute that is intension with that, the statute actually wins in one of those supremacy battles, and so Final forty two wins. But here that wouldn't take into effects, and so that would be one. And then secondly, with regard to what's called non refuel ma, which just means you can't return people without doing anything, without trying to actually screen them, that's going to be another one. And so obviously the bind administration will say say, well, we're doing this because we have the CVP APP, we have a refugee program, we have a bunch of other ways for people to do it. But in the end, if you're pushing people out, you are technically violating the rules. Now, you don't have a duty to give people asylum, which is the past the citizenship, but you do have a duty not to push people out who might face persecution unless and until you've given them due process, at least if you're going to meet your international obligations. And so this is going to be a very tough argument because there were no exceptions to that based on quote unquote twenty five hundred people coming across the border. That would be a new thing.

So many complications, which seems to be a constant in immigration law. Thanks so much, Leon for taking us through it. That's Leon Fresco, a partner Hollanden Knight. Coming up next. Hunter Biden goes on trial. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

So many complications, which seems to be a constant in immigration law. Thanks so much, Leon for taking us through it. That's Leon Fresco, a partner Hollanden Knight. Coming up next. Hunter Biden goes on trial. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

In opening statements today, federal prosecutors painted President Joe Biden's son Hunter as deceptive and driven by addiction, a man whose dark habits ensnared loved ones and who knew what he was doing when he lied on federal forms to purchase a gun in twenty eighteen. But Biden's defense attorney said he didn't knowingly lie when he filled out the form and checked the box saying he wasn't using drugs. A jury of six men and six women will decide whether Biden is guilty of three felonies stemming from the purchase of the cult Revolver. Joining me is criminal defense attorney Michael Huff. So, looking at the jury broadly, you have a substitute teacher, a secret service for tiree, several gun owners, a man whose father was killed by a gun, and a number of jurors whose family and friends have suffered from addiction. Does it sound like a better jury for the defense or the prosecution.

In opening statements today, federal prosecutors painted President Joe Biden's son Hunter as deceptive and driven by addiction, a man whose dark habits ensnared loved ones and who knew what he was doing when he lied on federal forms to purchase a gun in twenty eighteen. But Biden's defense attorney said he didn't knowingly lie when he filled out the form and checked the box saying he wasn't using drugs. A jury of six men and six women will decide whether Biden is guilty of three felonies stemming from the purchase of the cult Revolver. Joining me is criminal defense attorney Michael Huff. So, looking at the jury broadly, you have a substitute teacher, a secret service for tiree, several gun owners, a man whose father was killed by a gun, and a number of jurors whose family and friends have suffered from addiction. Does it sound like a better jury for the defense or the prosecution.

It sounds like a fair jury and a reasonably seated jury, to the extent that in order for one to be judged by a jury of their peers, you have to sort of look at other substantive issues, such as do they have an understanding of, let's say, substance abuse, or do they have an aversion or preference towards possession of firearms and things of that nature. What's surprising is the former Secret Service member. I'm a former member of law enforcement, police officer and patrol supervisor from Houston, Texas. And as much as I would love to serve on a jury, I've never had the pleasure of being selected. So I'm surprised about that selection, not so much on the others. And I think it does give the defense. I wouldn't say an upper hand necessarily, but I do think they'll get a fair bite at the apple. And I would say if I had to choose on you know who, it benefits more. It leans towards the defense rather than the prosecution.

It sounds like a fair jury and a reasonably seated jury, to the extent that in order for one to be judged by a jury of their peers, you have to sort of look at other substantive issues, such as do they have an understanding of, let's say, substance abuse, or do they have an aversion or preference towards possession of firearms and things of that nature. What's surprising is the former Secret Service member. I'm a former member of law enforcement, police officer and patrol supervisor from Houston, Texas. And as much as I would love to serve on a jury, I've never had the pleasure of being selected. So I'm surprised about that selection, not so much on the others. And I think it does give the defense. I wouldn't say an upper hand necessarily, but I do think they'll get a fair bite at the apple. And I would say if I had to choose on you know who, it benefits more. It leans towards the defense rather than the prosecution.

So let's talk about the charges he faces three felony charges related to a gun he purchased in twenty eighteen. Is this overcharging to charge three felonies based on one transaction?

So let's talk about the charges he faces three felony charges related to a gun he purchased in twenty eighteen. Is this overcharging to charge three felonies based on one transaction?

Not necessarily? You know the nexus of the occurrence, meaning the factors that go into each offense just have to be satisfied for the prima facial case, so you can have, as we saw recently with President Trump, one interaction resulting in thirty four So any charges right, so three, I wouldn't say that that's overcharging. I think that there are some issues with respect to his mental culpability. He had to knowingly possess the firearm while understanding that he was violating the prohibition, which means that he had to know that misrepresenting that he was a drug use was a violation of the prohibition, not just that he was a drug user and possessed the weapon, but rather he knew that he was not supposed to because he was a drug user. And also there's the issue of whether or not he actually considered himself to be a drug user at the time that he completed that document. So I went a couple steps ahead there, but.

Not necessarily? You know the nexus of the occurrence, meaning the factors that go into each offense just have to be satisfied for the prima facial case, so you can have, as we saw recently with President Trump, one interaction resulting in thirty four So any charges right, so three, I wouldn't say that that's overcharging. I think that there are some issues with respect to his mental culpability. He had to knowingly possess the firearm while understanding that he was violating the prohibition, which means that he had to know that misrepresenting that he was a drug use was a violation of the prohibition, not just that he was a drug user and possessed the weapon, but rather he knew that he was not supposed to because he was a drug user. And also there's the issue of whether or not he actually considered himself to be a drug user at the time that he completed that document. So I went a couple steps ahead there, but.

No, it's okay, because that brings up the question if he was a drug user, can you hold him responsible for knowingly filling out a form?

No, it's okay, because that brings up the question if he was a drug user, can you hold him responsible for knowingly filling out a form?

Right, So that's where I started doing a little bit more digging, and I came up with a case, and that's out of the Eleventh Circuit. It went up to the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court last term held that knowingly here means that you knew both that you possessed the firearm and that your actions violated the elements of the prohibition. So how do you prove what he knew or didn't know beyond a reasonable doubt? And to your point, particularly if he is a drug user. So the construct of this law may be found to be too ambiguous and that might be an out for the dissent.

Right, So that's where I started doing a little bit more digging, and I came up with a case, and that's out of the Eleventh Circuit. It went up to the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court last term held that knowingly here means that you knew both that you possessed the firearm and that your actions violated the elements of the prohibition. So how do you prove what he knew or didn't know beyond a reasonable doubt? And to your point, particularly if he is a drug user. So the construct of this law may be found to be too ambiguous and that might be an out for the dissent.

Today, the prosecutors spent hours on Biden's drug problem, and they used his own words to show the depth of his addiction from his memoir from messages. How far does that get the prosecution.

Today, the prosecutors spent hours on Biden's drug problem, and they used his own words to show the depth of his addiction from his memoir from messages. How far does that get the prosecution.

They definitely need to put facts into evidence that demonstrates that he satisfies the element of the prima facia case. He has to be unlawfully using a substance controlled substance Layman's terms of drug user basically, so they definitely have to get that into evidence. As I understand that there are also photos of him with known drug dealers, and I don't know whether he was actually smoking using a controlled substance believed to be crack cocaine, or it was in the photo. So those are things that will be very damaging if they in fact are entered into evidence. But nailing down the timeline is what's going to be hard. How close to the application was his drug use and are they able through data mining or other sources able to nail down the date of his usage. But again you're still going to end up back at the knowingly violating the prohibition, and most of us aren't, you know, most of us out in the world aren't until now aware of the fact that there are various prohibitions on the application right and knowing that being a drug user and buying a gun equal to felony. That's where the law comes into the knowingly piece. And I just don't know that the prosecution will be able to get there at.

They definitely need to put facts into evidence that demonstrates that he satisfies the element of the prima facia case. He has to be unlawfully using a substance controlled substance Layman's terms of drug user basically, so they definitely have to get that into evidence. As I understand that there are also photos of him with known drug dealers, and I don't know whether he was actually smoking using a controlled substance believed to be crack cocaine, or it was in the photo. So those are things that will be very damaging if they in fact are entered into evidence. But nailing down the timeline is what's going to be hard. How close to the application was his drug use and are they able through data mining or other sources able to nail down the date of his usage. But again you're still going to end up back at the knowingly violating the prohibition, and most of us aren't, you know, most of us out in the world aren't until now aware of the fact that there are various prohibitions on the application right and knowing that being a drug user and buying a gun equal to felony. That's where the law comes into the knowingly piece. And I just don't know that the prosecution will be able to get there at.

The end, And that was the main thrust of the defense opening statement. Hunter Biden didn't knowingly violate these laws.

The end, And that was the main thrust of the defense opening statement. Hunter Biden didn't knowingly violate these laws.

And so that's where it turns. And this does not look like it's a strict liability crime, meaning that you know, if you run a red light but you didn't know that you had to only go on green, that strict liability, no one cares. You're getting the citation and that's a done deal. But in this they're looking at a subjective intent, not an objective intent. Well, it may be objective subjective, but it's not strict liability, meaning that they have to actually show that he knowingly did though, and there's so much room to defend him on that because it ends with a subjective analysis. And that's why they're looking at potentially, which I've never done in my career, put my own client on the stand, But in this instance, I can see why they're considering it.

And so that's where it turns. And this does not look like it's a strict liability crime, meaning that you know, if you run a red light but you didn't know that you had to only go on green, that strict liability, no one cares. You're getting the citation and that's a done deal. But in this they're looking at a subjective intent, not an objective intent. Well, it may be objective subjective, but it's not strict liability, meaning that they have to actually show that he knowingly did though, and there's so much room to defend him on that because it ends with a subjective analysis. And that's why they're looking at potentially, which I've never done in my career, put my own client on the stand, But in this instance, I can see why they're considering it.

His attorneys are arguing, well, you had to be a drug user at the time you're filling out the form, and the prosecution is saying, no, you're just a drug user. It doesn't have to be at the very moment you're filling out the form.

His attorneys are arguing, well, you had to be a drug user at the time you're filling out the form, and the prosecution is saying, no, you're just a drug user. It doesn't have to be at the very moment you're filling out the form.

That argument's going to fail June. That would be void for overbreadth, meaning that in that case, anyone ever, whoever used drugs could never own a weapon. And I don't think that that was the framer's intent when they enacted that statue. And I think that one's going to be a tough hurdle. I don't think they get anywhere with that argument, and folks in their own camp, like the NRA, would have a field day lobbying against that. I don't think they're going to get very far down that line.

That argument's going to fail June. That would be void for overbreadth, meaning that in that case, anyone ever, whoever used drugs could never own a weapon. And I don't think that that was the framer's intent when they enacted that statue. And I think that one's going to be a tough hurdle. I don't think they get anywhere with that argument, and folks in their own camp, like the NRA, would have a field day lobbying against that. I don't think they're going to get very far down that line.

So there's going to be some difficult evidence for the defense. In Hunter Biden's own words in texts and emails. In one text at the time, he wrote that he was sleeping on a car smoking crack on Fourth Street, and Rodney, and the defense.

So there's going to be some difficult evidence for the defense. In Hunter Biden's own words in texts and emails. In one text at the time, he wrote that he was sleeping on a car smoking crack on Fourth Street, and Rodney, and the defense.

Will have a tough time with that one, particularly if they're having him testify that evidence gets in and can be considered can get in as a state of then state of mind admission, so that one the defense will have a very tough time getting around. Now the question then will become does drug use after the fact satisfy the elements of the prima facia case? I think on count one then it gets them there, but still not on count three if I have them correct, which is the knowingly violating the prohibition, if at the time he filled out the application, they don't get one of the counts. Now, that goes back to your question did they overcharge? They've charged him with everything that they think could be viable in the event that they have to dismiss one or they lose on one, rather then they still have the other two remaining fight with.

Will have a tough time with that one, particularly if they're having him testify that evidence gets in and can be considered can get in as a state of then state of mind admission, so that one the defense will have a very tough time getting around. Now the question then will become does drug use after the fact satisfy the elements of the prima facia case? I think on count one then it gets them there, but still not on count three if I have them correct, which is the knowingly violating the prohibition, if at the time he filled out the application, they don't get one of the counts. Now, that goes back to your question did they overcharge? They've charged him with everything that they think could be viable in the event that they have to dismiss one or they lose on one, rather then they still have the other two remaining fight with.

How often do you see someone being tried over statements that they made when purchasing a gun when it's not in connection with any other crime.

How often do you see someone being tried over statements that they made when purchasing a gun when it's not in connection with any other crime.

I think there's some four hundred or five hundred central charges a year, and only I think it was two hundred and ninety eight of those cases approximately are picked up for these same types of charges, you know. So then of course it lends to the question of is he being singled out because of who his parents are and because of his position in the public domain, or under similarly situated circumstances, would another individual be facing three felony.

I think there's some four hundred or five hundred central charges a year, and only I think it was two hundred and ninety eight of those cases approximately are picked up for these same types of charges, you know. So then of course it lends to the question of is he being singled out because of who his parents are and because of his position in the public domain, or under similarly situated circumstances, would another individual be facing three felony.

This is going forward because the plea deal that he had reached with prosecutors collapsed.

This is going forward because the plea deal that he had reached with prosecutors collapsed.

Right.

Right.

Does that have any effect at all on the trial?

Does that have any effect at all on the trial?

Well, it may have effect on the trial because up until the verdict, he can accept a plea, and so they may re enter into negotiations. If the prosecution determines that their evidence is not as strong and on one or all of the counts, they may offer a plea. If the defense feels that they don't have as much as they need to defend him on all three counts, they may look to negotiate again. It'll be interesting to see how the judge handles that, because, as I understand it, the plea was reasonable to those who evaluated that, but the judge shot it down.

Well, it may have effect on the trial because up until the verdict, he can accept a plea, and so they may re enter into negotiations. If the prosecution determines that their evidence is not as strong and on one or all of the counts, they may offer a plea. If the defense feels that they don't have as much as they need to defend him on all three counts, they may look to negotiate again. It'll be interesting to see how the judge handles that, because, as I understand it, the plea was reasonable to those who evaluated that, but the judge shot it down.

There's going to be a lot of salacious evidence drugs and guns and affairs. Is there any way to keep this trial from being sort of sensational?

There's going to be a lot of salacious evidence drugs and guns and affairs. Is there any way to keep this trial from being sort of sensational?

You know? From my journey from law enforcement to lawyering, I've seen a lot in twenty seven years, and this has all the ingredients to cook up a salacious, sensational life story. And you know, and you're you're in the business in terms of journalism, you know how things get spun and take on a life of their own. And so we ride on the coattails of our first president in history being convicted of thirty four felonies but still going on to be on the ballot, to now the first first son facing felony. So it seems to be a parade of felony is going on, and I think it's going to be a free for all for bere for.

You know? From my journey from law enforcement to lawyering, I've seen a lot in twenty seven years, and this has all the ingredients to cook up a salacious, sensational life story. And you know, and you're you're in the business in terms of journalism, you know how things get spun and take on a life of their own. And so we ride on the coattails of our first president in history being convicted of thirty four felonies but still going on to be on the ballot, to now the first first son facing felony. So it seems to be a parade of felony is going on, and I think it's going to be a free for all for bere for.

Worth hearing about these trials. The average person must think every trial is equally exciting, and we know that that is not the case at all. Thanks so much, Michael. That's criminal defense attorney Michael Huff and that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest lead news by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg,

Worth hearing about these trials. The average person must think every trial is equally exciting, and we know that that is not the case at all. Thanks so much, Michael. That's criminal defense attorney Michael Huff and that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest lead news by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com Slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg,