Center, live coverage here on cspan. And President Biden on the remain in Mexico Program to name a few. Just yesterday, the Biden Administration issued a final rule meant to fortify the program against current litigation. Most experts believe it is unlikely to go into effect. Certain currently suing the government over the legality of the program. Those of us who have been in the immigration policy world for a while found the new generation of litigation different from the kinds of court cases that have dominated policy in the 21st century. One aspect of the changes who is suing the federal government. Namely states with and their attorneys general, often with a partisan angle. Republican states are suing democratic president s, and vice versa. And the use of injunctions by judges who can halt or restart a program overnight across the country. All of this has come at the same time that Congress Seems to be unable to have anything with the word immigration to pass anything with the word immigration in it. What does this mean for federal immigration policy . Who is really in charge of deciding what immigration policy is anyway . To address those and other questions, we have a wonderful panel of legal experts and an excellent moderator i will introduce now. Ellen is a Senior Reporter at bloomberg, covering Homeland Security and its agencies as well as covering federal policy on immigration. She has spent much of her journalism career covering regulatory issues and litigation which makes her the perfect person to moderate our Panel Discussion today. I will let ellen introduce her panelists and kick off the conversation, but first, just a note. You can participate in todays event by using the comments section on the youtube page are on twitter. Our team will pass on your questions to our host. So i turn it over to ellen to start our conversation. Ellen thanks so much, teresa, and thanks everybody for joining us today. Its kind of a wild time tracking immigration policy, there is a lot going on. There is very active Court Dockets in the state and we are very lucky to have our guests here to give their insights. For me it is so helpful to learn from all these people, either following their feeds on twitter , they have their finger on the pulse of what is going on in the immigration policy space. Our panelists include an immigration attorney who is a former was formerly the Deputy Assistant attorney general for the office of immigration litigation. He provided litigation Risk Assessment to cabinet members in that role and also also oversaw litigation on immigration in that role, so he has some great perspective for us on that, and in his private practice. Elliott is a professor Whose Research is really diverse. He is an expert in constitutional law, property law, democratic theory, and migration. He has a book on Political Freedom which is in interesting read. Then we have karen, the director and founder who is a nationally recognized impact litigator who is focused on immigrants rights. She has a very good sense of what is happening in the court and within the immigrants rights movement. She has litigated on some high profile movements including the daca program and the travel ban. So thanks to everybody for joining us today and offering your expertise. Again, for the audience, we will grab your questions and share them with the panelists. To get things started, i wanted to take a step back and look at how the immigration landscape has evolved and where it is. The professor has a good sense of where the courts are on this, we are also busy all the time and it seems really insane with all the action coming from the courts. Can you give us some context for how the courts are doing in this space are not. As teresa said, there has definitely been more litigation in federal courts over immigration policies issues the sat left the last several years than earlier. Courts have become more active, and some of the other panelists will talk about some of the ways in which that is the case. I would like to start out by noting there is an important sense in which the courts are very weak and relatively permissive in this area toward the government and that has not changed over the last several years and indeed may become worse in that in a wide range of issues, the court to a large extent has exempted government immigration restrictions from constitutional restraints that apply to all other exercise of government powers. Most famous in recent years with the travel ban case where there was overwhelming evidence that the motivations for trumps action and policy was antimuslim bigotry. But the Supreme Court explicitly said they werent doing it, primarily because there is such great deference to government because it is immigration policy and that is a striking contrast with the way discrimination is treated elsewhere. This is just one of many examples. Similarly we also allow racial this cremation in immigration policy that we would not allow elsewhere. For example, under both the biden and Trump Administration and obama before them, we have a rule where racial profiling is permitted integration Immigration Enforcement in any socalled border area, which turns out to be anywhere within 100 miles of the sea or within a land border. They are submitted to habitually permitted racial profiling. That would not be officially sanctioned in virtually any other area of Law Enforcement, and in the same way, courts have allowed the use of methods in immigration attention and also deportation where there is far less due process than would be permitted for almost any other serious deprivation of liberty, to the extent that we would have a situation where clients represent themselves because theyre not entitled to representation of counsel as it would be in most other contacts when there is something serious at stake. The last thing i would like to fly for peoples attention, in its not clear whether this pattern of deference will persist or not, is whether the court will apply the doctrine to immigration nondelegation is the idea that there are limits to how much power and Decisions Congress can transfer or delegate to the executive, and the major question in the doctrine says that if congress is going to give the executive control over some sort of major policy decision, that at very least they have to state they are doing that. Major questions and nondelegation is at the heart of several recent highprofile decisions and there are a number of areas of immigration policy were passed Court Decisions and certainly the executive position has had the incredible has incredible, enormous discretion over keeping people out if he or she wants to, and in the lower courts, there has been some action applying nondelegation constraints to that. In 2020 federal court struck down trumps nonvisa band. What is not clear is whether the Supreme Court will apply nondelegation in this area for another ad hoc exemption like they have created for a lot of other constitutional principles. I hope they will not, because i do not believe this double standard is justified. There is nothing in the text of the constitution that says it. There is nothing in the original meaning, and it dates back to the early 19th century to a lot of decisions that were poorly reasoned in many cases were motivated by racism but but which i mean there was actual racial president s prejudice expressed and not just in the background of society at the time. Much more to be said, but i look forward to the rest of the discussion. Thank you. Ellen there is so much to watch there, major questions like you said. So thank you for all of that great context. Leon, i want to turn to you. With all the recent cases, a lot of the highprofile ones, the courts have tended to answer some of the Big Questions that are been lying in wait for a long time. Can you tell us [indiscernible] leon basically there were a lot of unanswered questions, it began in 1986 with the passage of the Immigration Enforcement bill that was passed in 1996 that basically centers around to different conflict. The first conflict was, when congress basically wrote that it wanted people mandatorily detained in a bunch of different circumstances, the the question was did it actually mean that, even though that detention could go on for many years and without significant judicial review at any time, or did it need to have some sort of bond hearing or some sort of check on the executive to keep people detained. The second question was, when it came to extradite and removal you arrive at the border or at an airport and you dont have documents that allow you to enter the United States, you dont actually have to go through a long process of removal, you can be removed immediately, except if you have certain the question is what are the Due Process Rights of those people in that expedited removal process . So for about 20 years, the court danced around these questions, i think deliberately, because they didnt really want to start dealing with these questions. Now what youre starting to see in the last couple of years, in part from a decision by Justice Alito [indiscernible] where in that case the court basically takes the standpoint of, even if you enter the United States, because weve always known that if you are outside the United States, your judicial review rights were basically nonexistent. But if your entry is recent enough you dont have any Due Process Rights, so the question is, where does that point manifest itself Going Forward . We know in one specific case it says you dont have a due process right to go to the court to challenge and determination if you dont have a credible fear of persecution. But is that going to be applied in many other contexts . In terms of your right to be free of abuse while you are in and immigration detention. Is it going to be taken away so you cant challenge if someone needs an abortion, or things of this nature. There are a lot of contexts for that people who recently arrived at the border dont have any constitutional rights. There are a lot of questions that opens up and we dont know the answer to the questions. The same thing with detention, there was a movement right at the end of the Obama Administration that were quite broad in limiting the executives ability to detain people for immigration purposes, and the court has basically rolled all of that back, saying no two immigrants are the same. We are not going to apply any rules that are universally applicable to foreign nationals in immigration detention. You are going to have to come in individually and say that your detention is unconstitutional as applied. Meaning ive been in the states 10 years ive been detained 10 years or seven years. Its going to be a much longer process now to develop the constraints and contours of what is constitutionally unacceptable detention period. One thing i did want to say is the reason youre seeing many more of these cases is because President Trump actually did something, whether you agree with him or not, that was nonexistent with other administrations, which was he opened up the regulation at dhs. Before, it was something that was unheard of. They didnt do it because it required administrative effort of many different branches of dhs to come together. But one set process was streamlined, the regulations started flowing, and then that led to a pot of litigation. Now i think were going to be seeing this for time immemorial to come as the administrations go back and forth. Now the policy that is administratively coming which was not the case in the past. Ellen [indiscernible] you are right. I want to turn to karen. Regardless of how this legislation is going to turn out , what lessons can we take from the previous Supreme Court term . Thanks so much for asking this. We have of course a changing court and we will have a new justice as we start the new term. One of the cases i was most closely acquainted with was the remain in mexico challenge. We all know the president can undo a nonstatutory program of a past president. The question is, did President Bidens administration do that in the correct way. This case becomes a standalone progressive win of the Supreme Court term. Of course not because the Supreme Court is really fixated with immigrants or the race for asylum, but because of how the case comes out through the system. There are a couple of important lessons to be gleaned from this. The first is, is really narrow and my office the remain in mexico case, im motivated to participate in that case because for our legal and moral obligation to welcome asylumseekers regardless of their country of origin or color of their skin. When the case makes itself to the Supreme Court, that is not the only issue at play. The outcome is not where does that leave our asylum policy, but you have to think about what the justices are deciding as the question of Administrative Law that has impact on prosecutorial discretion thin the criminal context, as a question of Administrative Law that really goes to the core scope of executive powers. The question of Administrative Law that goes to the executives role in foreignpolicy negotiations. And when you approach the case in that way, the likelihood of your vote outcome completely changes. What we saw is, what was motivating the justices in part to say this is nuts, we have to reverse the lower Court Decisions here and allow the termination memo from the secretary to go into place. What made invaded them was what motivated them was the notion that a District Court judge in the state of texas could force this administration to negotiate with the sovereign government, the government of mexico, on one data point, on the remain in Mexico Program. Not the panoply of issues that we regularly negotiate with the government. So you see that in the outcome. The last thing that is important to note in this case is the Supreme Court is willing to step in when they see what they think is gross overreach by the lower court. The remain in mexico depending on how you look at it. If you dig a little deeper to see it is a decision, with every single justice saying the judge lacked the ability to make that decision. When they think they need to stop, what is gross overreach by the lower circuit and District Courts. Ellen thank you for all that insight, karen. You mentioned texas. I want to talk about [indiscernible] better at organizing positions, recruiting topnotch talent in their offices [indiscernible] they have definitely been proactive. How has that played out in the immigration context . And in the most recent phase of immigration legislation, have they been more or less successful than we thought they would be . I will start, which is to say that yes, i think it was a dramatic change that started with the daca case in 2014 when president obama tried to expand the daca program to give preferred status to the parents, if they worked in the United States while they have this status. Texas was successful in that litigation to shut down that program and it shut it down for the entire Obama Administration. President trump immediately put the travel ban in basically in the first week of his presidency and we saw the state of Washington Spring into washington to violate these travel bans and from there it just became four years of that, which now by texas and louisiana and missouri now taking the place of california and illinois and washington and others. So i think that will be the state of play. I do think it is easier for the courts to make it easier for states to have standing thats one reason you see states doing a lot, where as other groups its interesting to see, with the courts limitation on getting relieved now, will states be able to continue doing this or will they not be able to continue doing this . I think that is a question that will be decided relatively soon. Ellen i love that. Karen, i think you have something to say on that too. Karen if folks are interested in looking at the landscape of state challenges to the Biden Administration immigration policy, you can visit our website, justice action center. Org and click on litigation tracker, a new can take a look at the large, large number of lawsuits that are essentially seeking to block any move that President Biden is making to undo trump policies on immigration or to create more immigration policies. Lightly on said, states suing on immigration is not new. I was part of those groups we were just talking about. It was in fact an intentional strategy to say it is important that immigrant communities have their state governor or attorney general and solicitor general stand up for them in court and say, this hurts our communities, we are bringing it to court. I think it is not just the sheer number and not something you can kind of count, but the coordination and the severity of the results. On coordination, it isnt just the state of texas suing. It is the Trump Administration in exile working for the state of texas. We have stephen miller, jean hamilton, highranking Trump Officials with very clear views on immigration that form a new legal entity that literally goes on the table for this council in texas. That is not what happened in Washington State or hawaii. The next is the remedy that courts are willing to do them, that is radically different, because President Trump, whether you like it or not, is ruthlessly effective at nominating judges and justices to all levels of the judiciary. And we have seen the traditional remedy when you win one of these lawsuits is, they see the agency memo and thats it, go back and start again. We have seen these incredibly expensive injunctions forcing negotiations with the government of mexico, standing in back of a program that has been closed for months and months, totally altering the agencys priorities. We seem very aggressive judge orders, not even requested by the parties Data Collection on the inner workings of the department of Homeland Security. Ellen very interesting. Im interested too in the operational impact, you mentioned [indiscernible] saying we set up this program are Something Like that. What does that mean for a few different communities, what does it mean for immigrants, and for government players. Think you have good insight on that. And those having to respond to government mandates on their policies. For the government, heres the interesting thing. People think of the government courts as expansive source of resources who can do anything. The truth is, the government, even with all of its resources, has scarce and limited resources. The government in the immigration sphere can really only focus on one or two big things at a time. So when these injunctions happen, they divert everything the government is trying to do with the normal operation of immigration policy to this issue of, how do we resolve this . . Court injustice what do we tell the court . What do we do . What do we do about just normal operations, they can focus on any of that now because courts are telling them you have 48 hours to write a new treaty with mexico, on appropriating people into mexico. You have 48 hours to get rid of your prosecutorial discretion policy. Prosecutorial discretion is like the easiest thing the executive branch is currently enjoying. The implementation that makes it impossible to actually run the agency. So if that is your goal, you are succeeding at that, but that it if that is not your goal, your diverting the most important resource from doing the work the agency actually needs doing to serve the american people. Ellen you follow a lot of different areas of litigation beyond immigration. What is being described about these pretty dramatic decision from the court, is this happening in other departments as well as immigration . Ilya to some extent. The trend of ags trying to stop federal policies that they dont like is not limited to the immigration contracts that have been escalating for 10 or 15 years, probably longer than that, under obama and trump and obviously now under this president. Ags on both sides, have become more active and more coordinated in the way they do things. It is not they might hire outside experts and lawyers to work with him on these cases, that has become a more common practice and the staff at their own offices to have more inhouse expertise in different areas. The issue of how broad the injunction should be or how broad remedies to something that occurred in other areas as well, and there is a broader slate of weather nationwide injunctions are appropriate. I think they are, at least in some cases, but there are people who think theyre virtually never appropriate. That is an issue the Supreme Court is interested in. Its not clear what they are going to rule on this. In terms of restricting the government on the ground, i think it depends on the injunction and what it does, and there are theres many more on documented immigrants its easier say there strapped for resources to support hundreds of thousands of people every year. If they were just preventing it from doing his normal function, in some cases i might say that is a good, they may not be able to retain as many people as they otherwise could, but in reality, there is a very large apparatus out there and it does function even if the lawyers are busy doing other things. Obviously it cannot get to more than a fraction of all the undocumented immigrants, but that is not much different from how we have a massive war on drugs domestically to which the war on immigration can be analogized. While there is a big Law Enforcement apparatus, it obviously still cannot catch more than a small fraction of all the people who might use or acquire illegal drugs. The same thing is true in this area, and some of our litigation weve had both under recent president s is precisely given that the executive cannot support or detain more than a small fraction of people at issue. There is tremendous discretion the executive tries to exercise, and people are not happy about the way that discretion is being exercised will try to follow also File Lawsuits and argue that it has gone too far. Ellen talk about particularly for your clients [indiscernible] karen maybe i will do that in the context of talking about daca and what happened yesterday. Daca is a wildly popular policy across all sides of the aisle, and in the United States, has been for years. Yesterday was a big nothing in the world of daca, but not if youre one of the one moving people who are Daca Recipients are waiting to become daca. Yesterday, after over a year, the Biden Administration finalized a regulation on daca. Then announced that two great attention by the one million folks, and then we had to explain to them that the regulation essentially does makes the daca possible. It keeps in place completely, the eligibility and guidance for the program. We are rapidly approaching the time when no new people can age in or qualify into that program. It completely doesnt fit the moment. Its a 10yearold program, and it is transformative in the lives of my clients. It means they are free of the toxic and chronic stress from worrying about being deported and ripped apart from their families. It means they can pursue higher education, see their children, work with dignity, live to their potential. Secure advance permission to go to the funeral of their parent or grandparent in the country of birth. It is simply transformative. But it is dated. Leon knows this, the eligibility of the program literally says you had to have been in the United States the day the program was announced, it was a Beautiful Day can june, 2012. You have to have been here five years before that. But if you are the same person who was brought to this country as a child and knows no other place as home than the United States and you came in the next day, you are out of luck. Or if you were 30 years old and the day it was announced, you are out of luck. Our immigration policy is supposed to be rational at a minimum. All of our policy should be, and it isnt. To have to explain to some of my clients yesterday that after all of this work, and as ive said im here to preserve and fortify daca, that not only has nothing changed, but if this rule is to ever take effect, it is dependent on the red state laws in texas and what the circuit does. And yes, in the comment process we had 16,000 comments presented. 3 of those were opposed to daca. So my clients wonder how could that be the case . Why this with a before me or not for me . It is no way to live. Would they be for me or not for me. Ilya i just wanted to briefly talk about what happened yesterday with daca and how it fits into the broader picture of whats going on with daca. As karen said, daca has broad support and strong moral and policy justifications, but it also has been legally controversial almost from its conception. There are several different kinds of arguments made against daca, one is particularly relevant to what the Biden Administration completed yesterday, which is the argument that it violates the administrative futures act which says that for certain kinds of changes of policy, before you can make them, you have to go through a complex process where you give notice youre going to issue a new rule or regulation, then interested parties, members of Public Interest groups and so on can file comments and the like in the agency is required to consider various issues. One of the organs made in previous litigation about daca and the earlier program was that it was illegal because they did not go through this notice and comment process. Am not certain, but i think what the Biden Administration did yesterday will insulate them against this particular argument, or at least will greatly strengthen their position. People can still say you didnt do the comment process perfectly but they have fortify themselves against this argument. On the other hand, there is this other set of arguments which is not about the ata which say that the Administration Just did not have the authority to do this under immigration laws at all. Or did not have the authority to do particular things like ban people from permission to work. I think here the weakest link in the administrations position is the part of daca that says if people have a lawful presence. All it does is accrue years in case the immigrant stays in the United States long enough to someday be eligible for Social Security and other similar benefits, and if they do become eligible, then they have more years that count in their favor. However, lawful presence is the argument that red states and others have for saying this is not justin exercise of executive discretion but rather is trying to change the legal status of people. So i advise friends in the administration, maybe they should drop the lawful presence part and keep the rest. It enables people to stay and live and work in the United States and go to school. Whether they are accruing lawful presence is pretty insignificant compared to that but this is the thing that people always fasten on because it is legally more vulnerable and also it sounds like we are changing the law, even if we are really not. So if some of you listening or some of the other panels have influence over this, to make it more likely to preserve the program if they drop this one vulnerable element, but ultimately to really preserve it in the long run, including against future potentially hostile administrations, it would require congressional legislation, i think. I think most other legal experts would say that as well. If biden really wanted to unwind daca, if the Administration One to do it badly enough it probably could do it. Ellen for any of our viewers who are not up to speed on the daca legislation, a decision will be issued in the next few months that will focus on the legality of the program. [indiscernible] i want to talk about what is happening in the federal District Court, the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court. Are the judges who are presiding over these cases exhibiting understanding of how immigration works, how Border Security deterrence work . And if not, what is the Legal Community doing to educate judges on this . I want to go to the litigators first on this. Karen, if you want to start. Karen its a great question and i will have to say it is a mixed bag. He comes off and on the feet of the litigation. The big change in terms of whether injunctions will be at issue on a temporary restraining order basis. Heres a couple of examples of of what we see gets missed in the District Court cases. It is hugely important because the District Court is the factfinder. If the facts are not laid out then, the conditions are likely to be less valid. First what i see is that gets missed, it is horribly complex to understand the just statistics in categories of people, the potentially in the covid area when weve had this dual policy of remain in mexico, we have seen an incredible number of repeat entrants in a short time period. With what the Government Data means and what can be extrapolated from it, that is a mistake we see time and time again. The second issue we see in a lot of these cases is the square off, its the preemption battle. The state versus the federal government. What gets lost in that, that is hugely important. Both factors have important interest at stake. There is no one passed in that equation, talking about human impact of what is being asked of the court. It isnt the role of the United States department of justice to talk about what will happen to the individual. What the community is trying to do is keep abreast of the changes, thats why we created this litigation tracker. The courts have to be accessible. If the courts are changing our rights, which we have seen so profoundly in the last month, it isnt just an issue for loggers. We cant understand what is happening in the courts and how quickly we can advocate, you will see immigration advocates, Research Experts trying to fix those data hours that i was talking about originally. And also ensuring that it is brought to the judge so that as they weigh what is happening, they have some sense of what their decision will mean for many years to come. Just building off what karen is saying, when youre in this litigation, i would say, a lot of times the litigation is between the department of justice and all they do is immigration. They are highly specialized. At the same time, the judges are not coneheads. What you start from the District Court, the court of appeals, or the Supreme Court. It is a huge disconnect, what is done in the oral argument, the opinions are immersed in the cone. Sometimes they get there but that is not what the oral arguments look like. A lot of times you are in a very delicate situation, whichever side you are on, trying to make sure it gets grounded. A lot of these decisions have nothing to do with it. You really see it depending on where litigation is. That it doesnt harmonize and make thems make them consistent. An interesting point that karen makes about statistics, it only took like six months, we have to go back to the court and say they were wrong. Dont give any statistics, but if the ask, say we should focus on the code. Some people think there is something sinister out there, but its not. Statistics keeping, the judges are so intent on why what is going on. Everyone wants to know. The fact that we have these statistics that people rely on, they are always wrong. And it is not on purpose. It really makes it complicated because we dont know how far along we are. Ilya ive written a little in my Academic Work on the role of expertise in government policy and how it should operate. Most federal judges are not experts in immigration, it is not the issue they most follow. That is also probably true of most State Government officials as well, state attorney generals and so on. On the other hand we see people are, its often the same estateags that file right of center cases and other repeat players who file cases under a republican administration. They often have their go to judges, they know which district to file in, where they hope to get a judge that is sympathetic to them. The litigators on one side try to follow a case that will get into court during the Trump Administration, sort of the proimmigrant side had their own go to locations. So there are downsides to this but there also does mean there are more key players, and to the extent of more these cases getting to the Supreme Court, they become more repeat players as well. So what is notable in the remaining mexico case, if you look at what chief Justice Roberts and others said, there was a discussion about the practicalities and how it is not actually possible to detain everybody, no matter how much some people might want to. And also the issue of negotiating with mexico came up as well. Knowledge will increase over time. It has already increased with all these repeat players, but whether that would improve the quality of legal decisions in this area remains to be seen. You think part of the repeat players, they are not simply weighing the evidence in an objective way, but they are repeat players because they already have very strong commitments. So it just gives them additional ways to argue for the things they already believe as a as opposed to improving decisionmaking. Ellen that makes sense. I want to move suit to some audience questions now. As a reminder, you can ask a question on the chat function on youtube or on twitter. We have already got a lot great questions. Thanks for sending in this question. He asked how feasible would it be for the federal government to guarantee getting people representation in immigration proceedings . This is moving into a little different area of the immigration law, but i wonder if you think that is something that is really possible. Karen here is what i think, of course i think it is possible, and it would be a game changer. We dont have arbitrary outcomes for the difference between whether you are able to stay in this country or not is review able with access, because of where you are in the country, because of your families ability to secure an attorney. Where in the same case you may win one time and be denied another time. The government is able to rise to the occasion when they want to. The immigration space we saw this same administration figure out how to humanely and quickly lock up 26,000 ukrainians within a few months period. While at the same time we have seen this administration expel 26,000 patient immigrants over their entire time in office. Where there is the will and motivation to get it done, it can be done, can be built. This is a moral and compassionate administration. I think there are slices that you should really start with. Obviously there is a money situation there, but i think you can divert funds that are spent on other aspects of immigration machinery. One of the biggest misconceptions is that this is somehow going to make the system function in a chop gear or link your way. In fact, we spent so much time with continuances and reopening cases because of bad judges, etc. Even if it takes a little longer , because you have a lawyer and the lawyer prepares the case and Everything Else right at the beginning, you end up getting more they went through the decision, and that is the one thing i would hope that argument that ive tried to prevail upon for years is that this will make the system go faster. It will make the system go faster. That is where i think if we can get that argument to more people and they would understand that, i think we could see that Going Forward. Leon obviously some of the other participants know much more about what happens on the ground than i do. One of these is initially if you greatly expand access to counsel, it would cost some resources, there is no way around that. You are going to get enough lawyers to work for free to make this happen private on the other hand, in the medium to long term, there would be some real savings. One is if the department knows they would face an actual counsel with serious legal representation, they can take account of that in their decision on what to do in the first place and it would be less likely to face detention or deportation, and we could save money on those operations. If as a result more people are able to stay in the country and work, they could productively contribute to the economy over time. I think the additional tax revenue could easily outweigh the expense of additional representation. In the short run, there would be some expenses and some issues that arise from it. I think that happens any time historically when some set of rights has been neglected and then there is change to try to and or diminish the neglect. When racial segregation was legally ended, there was an upsurge in issues related to racial discrimination. But the government and private parties have a better sense of what their rights are and we can resource it to that directly, but also indirectly, by having more productive people come in and stay. That way the economy can offset litigation costs. So that is important to keep in mind here. Ellen another audience question, its going to be a bit of a lightning round. We have about four questions left. This question is, what do we need to see in the Supreme Court in terms of immigration questions that come next . The court has taken on some Big Questions recently. We should know in a few months if we will get daca in the future, and about Immigration Enforcement priorities. What else should we be keeping an eye on . Ilya the one where kids that are undocumented cannot go to Public School anymore, be on the lookout for that one. There are two big ones that people are looking at. If those are overturned, then that changes everything on immigration law. Karen why are those cases at issue . Leon is talking about settled, old Supreme Court cases. As soon daca came down, not very shocking, do i want to change the rule that discriminates in our Elementary School . And i want to change the rule, and it really is on Immigration Enforcement and whether states can stand at issue with the federal government. The last thing i think people should keep their eyes on, [indiscernible] parole is letting someone into the United States because of a significant public but it hasd as our asylum system was shut down under President Trump. What happens there is a big question. If you are concerned about tha t, the memo will be tested first, before daca gets back to the Supreme Court. Do you have a request . Obviously, the daca exchange is significant. Also any case that might bring up the issue of major questions in this area. Also the enforcement priorities case. There is litigation making its way through the courts on whether their Biden Administration can change enforcement priorities for deportation relative to trump. There already has been a strong ruling on this by the sixth circuit. I think the legal fight over that issue continues. Obviously there are plenty of other issues as well that probably we dont have time to go over in the two seconds left. Thanks, everybody, for participating in this conversation. Tarp analysts and the Bipartisan Policy Center for putting on this great conversation. And to our audience listening and, sending questions, you can find us all on twitter. Please stay in touch. We look forward to cspan now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of whats happening in washington live and on demand. Keep up with todays used events with live streams from the, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics all at your fingertips. Stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for cspans tv network and cspan radio plus a variety of compelling podcasts. Cspan now is available on the apple store and google play. Download it today. Cspan now your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. In Congress Returns from its recess in september, the january 6 Committee Plans to continue meetings on the u. S. Capitol attack. The senate will work on the defense programs bill and more on President Bidens judicial nominations. House and senate nominate house and Senate Members will vote on a deadline to prevent a government shutdown. Watch live coverage in september on cspan, the senate on cspan two, also on our free video app, cspan now. Up next, experts on afghanistan share their thoughts on u. S. Troop withdrawal from the country and talk about the lasting effects of the 20 year military engagement. Atlantic council is the host of this event. Host of this event. Last about an hour. Frederick good afternoon, everyone. Im fred kempe. Im president and ceo of the atlantic council, and im pleased to welcome you all to this event, hosted by the Atlantic CouncilsScowcroft Center for strategy and security, reflecting o