Debate. And this is obviously a law and policy conference. I think well discuss a little more law than we have discussed in other panels and hopefully a little policy as well. So the broad team we picked for this panel, which i think we have detected has been true tore a lot of immigration stuff, since at least this president took over, is that some very important issues have been sort of getting shuttled among three branches of the government. These are you could say these are every each branch of the government is sort of hitting, putting the can in the other persons lap and hoping the can will stop there somewhere. Many of these cans havent stopped. This is our chance to see where the cans are and where they will finally land. So ill begin this by asking questions of our panelists more in a conversational style so we could get to many topics, than sort of one issue only for a long time. So let me start with cecil lia because she represents the aclu which many people regard has been the president s thorn in the side, many than other organizations. They have brought more than 100 cases against this administration. Now, this is a law school. Im sure every single law school will sal vault talking about all those hundred cases, but well stick to only two or three. If you dont mind starting with daca, and i think this is one audience in which i dont have to say what daca stands for. Start with daca. The can has been shuttled by three branches of the government. The president ended the program. Lawsuit was brought almost the very next day to challenge the injunction. President said this is the job of congress to do this. And they will defendant their institution. Congress ended up doing nothing. They could argue that the courts will busy, why they didnt need to intervene because courts will provide the protection. That can has to start somewhere. We passed the bill in the house. I wanted to point that out. There will be ill give you full credit what happened in congress. But it hasnt been revolved. Fair enough. On november 12th, the Supreme Court is going to hear an argument on the daca case. Cec cecilia, tee up for us what is the government doing, how is the court going to rule and when . Thank you. And thank you to mpi and clinic and georgetown for inviting us to this conference. Its always very illuminating. Muz mentioned that i work in the aclu. We have indeed filed over 100 immigration related cases against the Trump Administration. But the daca recision cases are not one of them. I am not actually one of the litigators on that case. I should make that important disclaimer. But i have spoken to many of the attorneys who are doing that, including folks from the National Immigration law center from the state of california, from other states and municipalities, make the road, new york, et cetera, et cetera. The takeaway that i would highlight, both from the daca recision cases that are at the Supreme Court now as well as from every other major Immigration Initiative of the Trump Administration, id include the muslim ban, a whole cluster of policy changes, the public charge rule, recision of daca, and also sanction wary city, the lesson from all of the many Court Battles over all of those are twofold. The first lesson is that litigation in support of immigrant communities has never been more important than it has been under the Trump Administration. So for all of you georgetown and other Law School Students here, youre in the right place, doing the right thing, to get read y o do more of the right thing. Even when we have unfortunately lost as with the muslim ban where we got injunctions from all of the lower federal courts but ultimately the state of hawaii lost in the Supreme Court, we bought time for people. In the case of the muslim ban, countless people were able to get to the death bed of a loved one here in the United States. Attend someones graduation, be there for the birth of a child, be at an important academic conference or business meeting bee. In the case of daca im quite optimistic about the daca case. Dont shake that, please. Im quite optimistic. But even if, even if the Supreme Court were to rule against all of the immigrant groups and states and municipalities who were harmed by the recision of daca, that kind of litigation even when unsuccessful, has so many consequences to protect people, again to buy people a little more time, buy people some more time with documented status, dacamented status. And its been a really important vehicle, i think, to talk about how we think in this country about immigration. Its important to look at the ways that the asylum issue has been framed, mistakes that people in our own movement in the immigrants Rights Movement weve made, mistakes that weve made in talking about path to legal status and citizenship in the past. And dreamers themselves have been in the lead, both as clients in litigation, as litigants, and as advocates in their own right in pointing out some of those mistakes with respect to people who are already in the United States and lack lawful status. So thats lesson one. Lesson two is kind of the flip side. The big lesson of most of these cases, remember most of these cases raise claims under the administrative procedure act. Most of these cases are about the abuse of executive authority, about the Trump Administration taking to an extreme an illegal extreme, laws, the application of laws that are already on the books. And so lesson two is that we cannot rely on the professed good will of the executive branch even when we believe we have friends in the executive branch. We cannot rely on executive Branch Officials to comport with unwritten norms. Enforcement laws that are repeatedly subject to abusive, illegal and immoral, immoral application, must be struck from the books one way or another. And thats the second lesson from the Trump Administration. The way i see it is that with all of these policies ive mentioned, starting with the muslim ban, and the president s exercise of his statory authority under ina section 212 f which was again his basis for the asylum ban proc lamation, hes been picking up loaded guns that are lying around in the immigration and nationality act and in the your Juris Prudence and other power of other old Supreme Court precedence. To be clear, i should be clear about one thing as a lit gator. All of the policies that our movement has challenged in litigation by the Trump Administration are illegal under existing law. Okay . Im not taking the position that statutes need to change or precedents need to be overturned in order to challenge the legality of these Trump Administration policies. But if we no longer want these loaded weapons to be lying around for the next donald trump, the next abusive White Nationalist, i dont say that lightly, okay, but lets face it, these are White Nationalist policies. [ cheers and applause ] then we need to exercise the will of the people to make sure that the loaded guns are disarmed. In addition to 212f, weve seen this Administration Try to abuse expedited removal to the statory maximum, which all previous administrations in both parties have, you know, put out the conventional wisdom exceeds the bounds of due process. The public charge ground for inadd missability that well talk about, mass detention including detention without any individualized hearing, exceptional, exceptional under u. S. Law and civil detention. Immigration detention is the only area in u. S. Law where civil detention can be imposed without an individualized hearing on flight risk and danger. Extraordinary, and yet thats been approved by the Supreme Court so far. And efforts to limit article 3 court orders. Thats something that the Trump Administration like its predecessors have raised in all of the systemic litigation to challenge these policy moves. So i think going forward, and i know david and kate will talk more about this along with muz, we really need to up roroot the frame of law breaking that has infected immigration policy making since 1996, most pertinently, both from the law and from our framing of the policy debate. No more get right with the law. Okay . No more, securing the border so that we can legalize the status of people in the country already. We really need to look at the people as human beings and look at our system as one that should be imbaud with due process and individualized scrutiny of people as individual human beings. Thats my takeaway. Okay. Thank you. So just filled us up. The case is going to be argued in november 12th. You have argued before the Supreme Court very skillfully but youre not arguing this case. But i lost. I hear there was a surprise choice to do this argument. Uhhuh. Could you tell me who it is and why they have their choices made . Sure. Im not one of the lit gapts but i have peripherally involved in discussions about this. You probably all know that ted olson, noted conservative and member of the Supreme Court bar, will be arguing the case in support of daca and against the recision of daca. And it was an interesting and i have to say, somewhat painful discussion. There were what is it, seven separate lawsuits coming out of three different District Courts that are consolidated in the Supreme Court. And states and municipalities, i should add Michael Longin who is the solicitor general of california, will be splitting the argument with ted olson if pending Supreme Court, contingent on Supreme Court approval. Thats the proposal that respondents have made. This is what happens when our issues get to the Supreme Court. Nancy morrow vets is someone whos talked a will tlot about dynamic where we have a very entrenched Supreme Court bar that is not very diverse, that doesnt necessarily represent movements when movement cases make it to the court. And so there was a pretty fraught discussion, i think, among, its no secret, among the various groups of counsel and parties. And ted olson, you know, to give credit where credit is due, is someone who i think is a choice calculated to appeal to as broad a group of justices as possible. Its a decision calculated to win a majority. But i must say that as someone who is an immigrants right movements lawyers, a civil rights lower, an aclu lawyer, there are so many extroard nairly brilliant lawyers in our movement who could argue this case. And i have to just express my personal opinion that, you know, i think ted olson is an interesting and a brilliant choice in many ways, but i also feel some regrets, i guess, not regrets since it wasnt my decision. But a little sad that we dont have a Movement Lawyer up there. So you said that youre optimistic about the daca case. Could you tell me why youre optimistic when three or four years ago in the other case which had essentially same arguments that we now by know that the four conservative judges voted but well probably never know about the vote because it was a tie decision, they probably voted to say that it was unlawful. Why would you think the daca is going to be ruled as lawful when the other was not seen as lawful . Obviously the Supreme Court affirmed the fifth circuit by a 44 tie. I guess twoword answer, legal realism. I think that this case is a political one, like many hot button cases in front of the Supreme Court. And i have to believe that there arent going to be five justices who have the stomach to agree with the Trump Administration on this one. I think we, you know, have seen this court already rule in the census case the right way. And i think this too, daca would be a road too far. To get to the technical reasons why this case is different, you know, there was an argument that as to dapa, the ina already provided a statutory provision for adjustment of the parents of dreamers, which isnt present here. And theres also reliance interest, that here were talking about recision of a program that was in effect for years already and that people have come to rely on that. And then finally, you know, there is a dynamic here, you know, continuing a pattern of the solicitor general of the u. S. Across several jen raigs providing incorrect, lets say, data to the Supreme Court. You know, there was an element here of the government, the Trump Administration, staaying that daca was in the texas case, the dapa case, the Trump Administration took the position that the Obama Administration had applied daca in a boilerplate way. That basically everyone who met the qualifications for daca under the jay johnson memo was getting relief, getting the deferred action. And they went into court and said that. Judge hanin i think relied on that. The fifth circuit i believe also relied on that. The argument here is that evidence since then has demonstrated that in fact the Obama Administration was applying the agency both under obama and the Trump Administration, was applying discretion. It wasnt a rubber stamp. They werent handing out daca to everybody. I think that correction or development of the record in the subsequent litigation will be important. Ill let you off soon. The public charge rule, which a lot of people here are concerned about, was going to go into effect. There were nine lawsuits brought to tell you about how fallout from the Trump Administration. 14 brought an action against public charge. Act of litigation, i heard there was lively argument of the Southern District of new york this morning. Could you tell us what your view on the public charge challenge is and whats the timeline that people should be looking at . Sure. So again, a disclaimer, we are not involved in the public charge litigation. None of the hundredplus cases is the public charge case. But i did speak to nicko spiratu from nilling to get his read out from the Northern District of california hearing which took place last week. I think as to timeline, i think almost all the litigants maybe with the exception of one of the cases has sought a preliminary injunction. The idea is to get the rule enjoined before the october 15th effective date, as you told me since i was on the train this morning and wasnt looking, i was preparing for this. The readout from new york was positive for the challengers. The readout was also positive on the Northern District of california case. I will say that in the Northern District of california, the district judge did express some concern about the request for a nationwide injunction. She has requested additional briefing on the scope of injunction, had urges the parties to try to reach an agreement on the scope of injunction, which i dont think is going to happen based on no inside information. But, you know, its interesting. Weve seen the ninth circuit and the forced return to mexico case, which is an aclu case, limit the preliminary injunction we had gotten from the district court, which was nationwide in scope, to the ninth circuit. And so i think what you may see, if we can read the tea leaves from the argument in front of judge hamilton, is that she may be preemtively trying to narrow the geographical scope of the injunction. Okay. But last on this, because we talked about asylum a lot a good part of this conference, and i think many of us were surprised by the Supreme Court letting go ahead the new rule on the trends of country, need to apply for asylum there. How do you read that affecting the decision of the court on the merits when it comes . Well, you know, the Supreme Court didnt purport to rule on the merits at all. And so i think we have to take them at their word on that and continue to litigate it. You know, the stay, theres no getting around the fact that the stay order is painful. And, you know, weve got a situation where, you know, previous panels went through in greater detail, we had the first asylum ban proc lamation, which funneled everyone through ports of entry. Then the administration was bottlenecking asylum applications there. Then they did return to mexico, which has led to estimates of 20,000 people, including kids, stuck in mexico. Sleeping on the ground, outdoors. And then the third country resettlement proc lamation. And, you know, it hurts, because we are desperate to get relief for people who deserve to have asigh flum our country and who have been turned away in every possible juncture by this administration. So, you know, i think we take the Supreme Court at its word. We keep going with the litigation, keep litigating it and build our record to show the harms to our clients. And thats it. Okay. David, now your turn. You are as you represent the will of the people. You really by now have one of the more interesting plagss in this debate. You have spent a lot of time in the administration. Youve now the last administration, please. On