Afghan Reprieve & Democrats Storm Out

0:00Some people treat ChatGPT like some kind of smart search engine, and some use it to get work done. ChatGPT Work is a new way of working in ChatGPT that can take action across your apps and files, stay with a project for hours if needed, and turn a goal into finished work. It's designed to help you move from a chaotic starting point to a reviewable first version. So all the source materials, briefs, and scattered information that you have to grind through to turn into something useful can just become something useful. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at ChatGPT.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

0:42Never bet against American grit or American energy. Through innovation, Venture Global is not only building some of the largest energy facilities in the world right here in the United States, but delivering American energy at a fraction of the cost and a fraction of the time. So while others are busy talking, we're busy building. That's Venture Global. That's unstoppable energy.

1:12Healthcare doesn't always work great. If you've ever waited on a refill or couldn't schedule an appointment, you get it. That's the kind of stuff Optum is changing. They're using data and technology to integrate patient care, pharmacy, and everything else. So healthcare is connected, not complicated. What's that look like? Cheaper prescriptions that are easier to get and care that looks at the whole person. How you need it. Optum is helping make healthcare work as one for everyone. Learn more at business.optum.com. This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. A reprieve for nearly 12 ,000 Afghans.

1:53An appeals court stepped in to keep protections in place that have prevented the Trump administration from deporting them. That's at least until Monday, while both sides file legal briefs and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals makes a decision. The Trump administration has moved aggressively to remove temporary protected status from Afghans and hundreds of thousands of people from six other countries as part of the administration's effort to ramp up deportations. Joining me is Samuel Siegel, Senior Counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law. Along with the Washington Lawyers Committee, it's representing CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy group that sued the administration over the TPS revocation for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon.

2:45So before the appeals court stepped in, the Trump administration had planned to end temporary protected status for Afghans. Tell us about that. So the Trump administration had announced that it was ending temporary protective status for Afghanistan this week. It announced that the conditions that initially led to the designation of that country, the ongoing conflict between Taliban and other insurgent groups and the extraordinary humanitarian conditions were essentially no longer so severe that it merited that designation. I guess to take a step back and talk a little bit about TPS, TPS is a status that the Secretary of Homeland Security can designate a particular country for based on certain conditions in those countries, particularly if the country is experiencing an ongoing armed conflict, if there's a natural disaster, or if there's another extraordinary condition in the country.

3:40If the secretary makes that conclusion, then he or she will designate the country for TPS, which allows individuals from those countries to live and work in this country for a particular set period of time. Secretary Mayorkas concluded that Afghanistan merited that determination back in 2022 and extended in 2023 based on those conflicts and the conditions in Afghanistan. And Secretary Norm at least purported to say that those conditions no longer existed. Now, of course, our challenge, one of our arguments is, in fact, that that purported rationale for the decision is not the one that's actually motivating the actions here.

4:21Our argument is that this is a preordained decision as part of the Trump administration's broader effort to reduce the number of non-white immigrants in this country. And that's the basis on which we have asked the Fourth Circuit to pause the DPS termination while the appeal plays out. Are you also arguing in this that what the Homeland Security Secretary determined, that, you know, there are improvements in security and economic situations and that Afghan nationals can return, are you arguing that that's factually incorrect? We're not making that specific argument in part because of some jurisdictional bars on what the courts are allowed to consider.

5:01I think what we are is pointing to that the conditions in the country are not good. And this further supports the argument that the purported rationales that things have improved are not the actual ones. So it's that mismatch between what's actually going on in Afghanistan and the actions here that support our argument that even if things might have improved a little bit, that's not really the reason that she's doing that. And I will just note to this effect, you know, as part of the litigation here, the administration had to produce an administrative record, which is all the things that were in front of the secretary when she made her decision.

5:39And in November of 2024, the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, which is one of these that typically consults on these, concluded that, and I'm going to quote here, quote, Afghanistan's civilian population faces dire challenges, including a collapsing economy and health care system, ubiquitous food insecurity exacerbated by drought, and widespread insecurity due to decades of armed conflict and insurgency that is entering a new danger phase. It also stated that the Taliban authorities violently target citizens and foster continued armed conflict and inter-ethnic strife, and that it imposed restrictions on education, employment, and other areas on women that foreclosed their ability to meaningful participate in their country.

6:25So, again, we're not necessarily challenging the underlying factual conclusion of what's going on here, but we're saying that these kinds of statements from the federal government itself demonstrate that there's really something else going on here. So, Maryland Federal Judge Theodore, so Federal Judge Schwung allowed your challenge to TPS to go forward, but he declined to halt the administration's policy and, you know, preserve TPS protections. He found that your group hadn't established sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. Will you explain why he thought that you wouldn't succeed on the merits here?

7:03I think Judge Schwung issued a well-considered and balanced opinion. He concluded, as you said, that our challenge can go ahead, notwithstanding a couple of jurisdictional arguments that the defendants had raised. And he also concluded by pointing to things like the U.S. Custom and Immigration Service report that I just quoted, that we had plausibly alleged that the action taken with respect to Afghanistan is part of a broader policy to reduce the number of non-white immigrants in this country and to effectively terminate almost all TPS designations. But then he said we had not yet introduced enough evidence to sort of get over that likelihood of the success on the merits hump.

7:43And so there's some delta there in his mind that we hadn't yet demonstrated that we could get there. And he said, look, I'm going to allow this claim to go forward. You all can go into discovery and try and identify additional evidence that will support your claim here, but at this point, I'm not going to enter relief. So we respectfully disagree with that part of Judge Chuang's ruling. We think that the allegations that we made here and the evidence before the court was sufficient to, at minimum, temporarily pause the termination of Afghanistan's TPS designation while we get that discovery, while things play out.

8:22And that's sort of the similar request that we've made of the Fourth Circuit, is just to postpone this agency action while the appeal plays out. And one thing I'll just note here, you know, Judge Chuang noted that other courts have entered preliminary relief of some sort in response to similar claims and similar amounts of evidence in the past in the first Trump administration and said, well, we hadn't produced enough evidence here. I think it's important to note that in those cases, the time between when the end of the TPS designation was announced and when it took effect was, in most cases, more than a year.

8:58So those parties had much more time to produce the kind of evidence that Judge Chuang is asking for. When we're asking for just this sort of temporary relief while things are playing out to the merits, we think that, first of all, the evidence that we have produced and the things that we've pointed to, like the thing from USCIS that I pointed you to, like some other statements from President Trump and Secretary Noem, demonstrate that this is part of a preordained effort and demonstrate that we will likely succeed on the merits when we get there, especially as we get into discovery and produce more evidence in support of our argument.

9:32So the Fourth Circuit gave you an administrative stay for a week. What's happening in that week? Right. So for right now, as you mentioned at the outset, the Afghan TPS designation was set to expire on Monday. By virtue of the Fourth Circuit's decision, it postpones that action for at least that week, which means that Afghans who are facing the possibility of either having to leave this country or exist in some legal limbo and not be able to work are able to do so for at least this week. In the interim, the court has asked us to brief our request, formally called a postponement of agency action pending appeal.

10:08The federal government's brief is due by 11.59 p.m. Eastern tonight, and then we have 24 hours to return around a reply. And then we'll get a decision, presumably at some point before next week, Monday, at 11.59 p.m. Is this a losing battle in the end because if and when it reaches the Supreme Court, you're not likely to find a receptive audience, at least among the conservative justices? At the end of May, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to immediately strip the legal right to temporarily live and work in the U.S. from as many as half a million people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

10:49And that followed another order in May that allowed the administration to end TPS protections for 350 ,000 Venezuelans. So is the Supreme Court likely to end TPS protections for Afghans as well? Right, so I don't wanna make too many predictions about exactly what the Supreme Court is gonna do here. I will say that we're very confident in our case, and I'd just like to parse out those prior grants of, I think, stays of lower courts orders. So with respect to the Cubans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans, that was actually with respect to a parole program that had been adopted by the Biden administration.

11:24So it didn't involve temporary protected status. And I think, you know, sort of trying to extrapolate what the court said there and apply it here, I think, is a very difficult thing. Similarly, with respect to the Venezuelan program, that was with respect to the temporary protected status. But in that case, the arguments that were being made were different from the ones that are being made here. There, for example, the plaintiffs argued that Secretary Mayorkas, who had extended the TPS designation for Venezuela for about 18 months at the end of the Biden administration, and then Secretary Noem had revoked that extension.

11:59The plaintiffs there argued that Secretary Noem doesn't have that sort of authority. We, by contrast here, are arguing that the reasons that were given were pretextual, that this was a preordained effort. Also, I think there are extremely strong equities here, as Judge Chuang recognized in his decision. I mean, with Afghans in particular, we're talking about individuals who served our country. One of the members of CASA, who's our client here, is a person named BS who faced death threats due to her work as an interpreter for international and United States agencies. And she's fearful that if she's returned, she's going to be targeted by the Taliban if she goes back to Afghanistan.

12:39So, again, I think it's always a little bit of a hazardous proposition of guessing what the Supreme Court might do if we get there. But we think that we've got a very strong case and that what the court did with respect to Venezuela and with respect to the parole program doesn't shed all that much light on what it might do here. So can some of the Afghans that you're representing apply for special immigrant visas or asylum? Some may be able to, you know, but I think it's important to emphasize here that TPS is, you know, the bird in the hand. It guarantees them the ability to be in this country.

13:15It guarantees them the ability to work in this country. It guarantees them under the statute they cannot be put in detention on the basis of their immigration status. Things that may not apply to everyone that is securing or in the process, at least, of securing relief through other means. So there might be other things that are available, whether or not they will ever be able to take advantage of those status. You know, who knows, especially as this administration has assiduously worked to make those kinds of relief further out of reach. One of the things the White House press secretary said was that temporary protected status was never intended to be a de facto asylum program and that it's not supposed to be renewed over and over again.

13:59I think that's certainly right. I mean, it's baked into the name temporary protected status. But there are specific criteria that the secretary is supposed to analyze in good faith in determining whether or not to designate a country in the first place and to extend, including, for example, whether or not there's an ongoing armed conflict there. And when the secretary offers reasons that are contrary to one or offers reasons that are pretextual, we just don't think that that's a basis for being able to terminate a TPS protection. If she makes a good faith assessment, then this can be terminated and TPS designations have been terminated in the past.

14:38She just hasn't done what the statute requires in this instance. Thanks so much for joining me. That's Samuel Siegel, Senior Counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law. The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across HR, IT, and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business.

15:18Let's create smarter business IBM This is Matt Rogers from Las Culturistas With Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang This is Bowen Yang from Las Culturistas With Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang You know when people try a new food And suddenly it's like Okay, hold on I got a new favorite food That's the reaction a lot of people are having When they first try Kewpie mayo Yeah, it's the one with the red cap And the little baby on the bottle You've probably seen it at the grocery store And this mayo is different Most mayonnaise uses whole eggs Kewpie only uses egg yolks, which gives it this rich umami flavor. It's smoother, deeper, almost buttery.

15:52Once people try it, they start putting it on everything. Egg sandwiches, fries, burgers. Chefs use it. Restaurants use it. People who really care about flavor use it. Put it on just about anything. Then you'll understand. Kewpie, the original Japanese mayonnaise. You already know how AI is changing how everyday work gets done, how much ground you can cover, and how fast a team can scale. To stay ahead, you need the tools that give you a competitive advantage. built for this new era. Welcome to Agentic Revenue. Adio is the CRM for this world. It meets you where you work, compounds every customer signal into context, then acts on it across your pipeline to let you move in on match speed and scale.

16:30With agents and automations for every job in revenue, Adio orchestrates your work around the clock. Built to handle the scale of your workloads, extensible with API and MCP, and with the infrastructure to keep up with your most ambitious agents. Loved by high-growth startups like Granola, modal and etched adio runs the work behind everyone that's adio the agentic crm the intelligent system that never sleeps picks up leads at 2 a.m catches renewals before they slip hands you the answer before you ask try adio free at adio.com slash iheart that's adio.com slash iheart

17:08i will now go to voting because we have competing markups and other committees and and people have to leave here soon. We'll go to Bovey's nomination. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. Mr. Chairman, according to Rule 4 of the committee, we have the right to continue to debate this nomination. I'm invoking Rule 4 of the committee. We have the right to debate this nomination. You're out of order. I'm seconding Senator Booker's demand for a vote on his request to hear from the whistleblower. Mr. Chairman, you should at least acknowledge my Rule 4 point of order.

17:48You're out of order. I don't understand this. What are you afraid of about even debating this? Putting things on the record, hearing from every senator, dear God, that's what our obligations are. It was an unusual scene in the Senate Judiciary Committee today, as Republican Chair Chuck Grassley called the roll over the protests of Democratic Senator Cory Booker that Grassley was violating the rules of the committee by cutting off debate on the controversial nomination of Emile Beauvais, President Trump's former criminal lawyer, to a lifetime appointment on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Democratic senators stormed out of the room as the Republicans unanimously voted to advance Beauvais' nomination to the full Senate.

18:35Since January, Beauvais has been serving as the principal deputy attorney general, overseeing dozens of firings of prosecutors who worked on January 6th connected cases and the dismissal of bribery charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, which prompted the resignation of seven veteran prosecutors in New York. Democrats had wanted to hear from a whistleblower, a former Justice Department lawyer who alleged that Beauvais encouraged lawyers to defy court orders using foul language, something Beauvais denied when asked by Democratic Senator Adam Schiff during his confirmation hearings. Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind.

19:18Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bovee, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers that maybe they should consider telling the court, f*** you, it seems to me, that would be something you'd remember unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently. Joining me is Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney. Dave, the Democrats just wanted to hear from this whistleblower who's backed up his allegations with text messages. Why did the Republicans even refuse to call him, leading to this showdown, which is probably getting more attention than his testimony would have?

19:52Elections have consequences is what's going on. Donald Trump ran to be everyone's retribution, the people who want to get back at other people in government, to go after the deep state, to fire people at the DOJ. And Emile Beauvais has been his henchman. And now he's going to get a lifetime appointment to a prominent appellate court. And there's been some buzz that Trump ultimately wants him to be on the Supreme Court. But first things first, you shouldn't be surprised that the process is not up to snuff, because when it comes to doing favors for the boss, the Republicans will roll over. If you're going to bet on Republicans to stand up to President Trump or to follow the traditional rules and norms like they do, like it's been done for hundreds of years in the Senate, you'll be waiting a long time and you'll be disappointed.

20:41There's been a lot of opposition from different camps to Beauvais. Yesterday, more than 900 former Justice Department lawyers signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee urging the Senate to reject his nomination. Do you think this means that Republicans will advance every judicial nomination that Trump makes? Well, Beauvais is different than the others because Beauvais was Trump's personal lawyer and he's Trump's personal pick. This is not someone that was recommended to him by the Federalist Society or some outside group. This is someone Trump wanted because Trump believes he will give Trump loyalty.

21:17And he resents, meaning Trump resents the Federalist Society and the old school conservatives who promised him that these judges would be constitutionalists and good judges. Trump interpreted that to mean loyal to him. And so that's why Trump says, all right, he doesn't like Leonard Leo anymore, the Federalist Society. He's just going to nominate people who will be loyal to him and do his bidding and help him weaponize not just the DOJ but also the bench. And this is the reason why judges, even Republican judges, are not retiring recently because it was one thing when Trump was appointing judges in the classic mold of conservative judges.

21:59But now he's appointing loyalists. Well, because Trump's not a traditional Republican. Trump only became a Republican later in life. He's a Trumpian. He's MAGA. It's different. And you're seeing the split within the Republican Party now based on Jeffrey Epstein when it comes to MAGA turning on Donald Trump. MAGA is not loyal to the Republican Party. If Trump tells MAGA to start its own party, they will. And so he doesn't care about judges who are there as strict constructionalists or are going to be good for traditional Republican and business interests. No, he wants people who are loyal to him, and that's why he wants Emil Bovet in the court, and that's why he's slow in nominating judges this time around.

22:43Remember in the first term, he was like a house on fire. He nominated a ton of judges early on with the help of Mitch McConnell, but now he doesn't want those judges. He wants people who are loyal to him, and that's why it's harder to find folks who are qualified who meet that standard. Let's turn to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who's been in the news a lot lately. And a case that I find startling, stunning. There's a plastic surgeon who was accused of conspiracy to defraud the government, among other things, selling about 1 ,900 fake COVID vaccination cards for nearly$97 ,000, destroying more than$28 ,000 of government-provided COVID vaccines.

23:27So he's on trial. In Utah, the prosecution is presenting its witnesses. Five days into the prosecution's case, Bondi decides to drop the case. So she orders the prosecutors to drop the case and dismiss the charges. Have you ever heard of an instance where an attorney general in mid-trial dismissed charges? I can't think of one instance other than this. This was a cause celeb on the far right, the MAGA world. Marjorie Taylor Greene was lobbying for him and someone got the attorney general's ear and made her believe this was a political prosecution that this guy is targeted because he was helping parents have a choice of whether or not to vaccinate their kids.

24:13Instead, he was injecting them with saline. He was deceiving authorities and helping parents in that way who wanted to buck the rules at the time. So on the far right, this guy is seen as a hero. And since he is being prosecuted, not others like this, I don't think there's any other case we know of like this. That was used to say, see, he's being singled out, even though others did the same thing. That's questionable. But being singled out and with all the pressure from the Marjorie Taylor Greene's of the world, especially when you have everything going on, when Marjorie Taylor Greene and others in the MAGA world are turning on the Trump administration because of Epstein.

24:49well, this was perhaps the right time to do them a solid. What's also stunning is that Bondi credited Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and Senator Mike Lee on social media. So the attorney general giving credit to political leaders for dropping a case, does this show that the Justice Department is not maintaining a division between politics and its prosecutorial decisions? Remember what I said at the beginning of this interview? Elections have consequences. The voters chose a person who said that I will be a retribution, and they made it clear that he was going to turn the DOJ into an agency that did his will, his bidding.

25:35And so we shouldn't be surprised now that if he wants to help a political supporter, especially one that's starting to turn on him because of Epstein, that he's going to do it. And ultimately, he makes the decisions. and it shouldn't be a surprise. This is what they campaigned on. Whenever someone says we're going to stop the weaponization of the Department of Justice, generally that means we're going to weaponize the Department of Justice. By the way, that case, the Utah Surgeon case, had gone through the weaponization group and passed the weaponization group. Right. They had this whole group that's designed to root out cases motivated by politics.

26:11And that group, that committee said, no, this is OK. This is legit. And then the decision was made to undo this case anyway. So this was the type of thing that Trump ran on. And it wasn't something that was out of totally out of the ordinary. I mean, we have seen presidents be very close to their attorneys general in the past. JFK appointed his brother to be attorney general. Barack Obama had his so-called wingman, Eric Holder, as his attorney general. It happens. But what we haven't seen are decisions that are at least obviously made because of politics. Now, does it happen anyways? Yes. But this is just like saying the quiet part out loud.