Trump Can Deploy Troops to Portland But Not to Chicago | Bloomberg Law
Summary
Federal Deployment in Chicago: The podcast discusses the deployment of federal troops, including ICE and National Guard, in Chicago under Operation Midway Blitz to manage protests and immigration enforcement, leading to legal challenges and court orders for accountability measures like body cameras.
Judicial Oversight: Federal Judge Sarah Ellis issued orders requiring federal agents to use body cameras and banned tear gas against non-threatening protesters, highlighting judicial intervention in federal enforcement actions.
Seventh Circuit Ruling: The Seventh Circuit Court blocked the Trump administration from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago, ruling that the protests did not constitute a rebellion or inability to enforce federal laws, thus protecting Illinois's constitutional rights.
Ninth Circuit Decision: In contrast, the Ninth Circuit allowed troop deployment in Portland, citing a colorable assessment standard that defers to presidential judgment in national security matters, reflecting differing judicial interpretations.
Immigration Policy Impacts: The podcast highlights concerns over immigration enforcement policies potentially reducing the U.S. workforce by 15 million over the next decade, amidst debates on labor needs and demographic changes.
ICE Detention Conditions: The discussion includes reports of increased deaths in ICE detention under the Trump administration, attributed to overcrowding and inadequate healthcare staffing, raising human rights concerns.
Supreme Court Case: The podcast previews a Supreme Court case on police warrantless entry during emergencies, exploring the balance between Fourth Amendment rights and law enforcement's duty to prevent harm.
Transcript
This is Bloomberg Law with June Graasso from Bloomberg Radio. Chicago residents are now documenting violent encounters with federal agents. From the use of tear gas on protesters to vehicle crashes to forceful takedowns, all on video. >> He's a citizen. >> He's a citizen. >> You don't know what's going on, so get the back. Federal Judge Sarah Ellis said the images she's seen indicate her order restricting ICE agents use of force was being ignored. The judge issued a new order on Friday that federal agents have to turn their body cameras on when making arrests or interacting with the public. Here's Illinois Governor JB Pritsker. I think the judge reacted to that properly by ordering that now they're the federal agents are required to have body cameras on them because they clearly lie about what goes on. >> Judge Ellis also ordered immigration officials to testify in her courtroom today and answer questions about the aggressive tactics. My guest is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland Knight and an expert in immigration law. Leon, explain what's been happening in Chicago with ICE. >> So, what's been happening in Chicago is all based on an operation called Operation Midway Blitz. And that operation started early in October where there was a deployment of all kinds of federal troops. There was ICE, there was CBP, there was National Guard troops into the Chicago area to try to offensively stop violent protest, help immigration enforcement do their job, stop crying. There's a lot of different justifications that were given for this, but in any case, there was immediate lawsuits by the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago. And there's multiple findings. One that had to do with the use of force and how people were operating. And so there were orders that were given by the judge with regard to having to use body cameras so that the agents wouldn't just be operating without any accountability there. And the judge was hearing arguments today about the fact that body camera usage wasn't happening and was basically saying, "Look, you're going to be held in contempt of court if you don't use these body cameras." And then there's also some debate about tear gas being used and whether that's proper to be used during the protests. And so the judge also had ordered the agents to stop dispersing peaceful crowds and ban the use of tear gas on people who are in a threat. And so both of those are part of this overall litigation that involves also limitations on the use of the National Guard. But specifically with regard to the use of force by federal agents, this is the immediate concern is the use of body cameras, especially when there's use of force and also the use of tear gas and and chemical agents without proper justification for it. >> Yeah. So last Friday, the judge issued the additional order about the body cams because she was concerned that ICE wasn't obeying her first order that banned the use of tear gas and other munitions against protesters who are not posing an immediate threat. And then she sees all this video of the use of of tear gas that the ICE agents didn't listen to her. >> Correct. That was the concern is she was telling the government attorneys in court, hey, are you following my order? And she said she was quote a little startled after seeing, as you said, these TV images of street confrontations that involve tear gas. And so they had witnesses from ICE and from CBP saying that they are all going to be wearing body cameras now and that this isn't going to be something that's going to happen any longer that they will respect her order. But we'll see again if there's just another injunction that's issued or if there's actually contempt order that's issued or where where this judge is going to go here. But certainly I think no matter what side you stand on this, there's certainly been an escalation in detention in Chicago and we will have to see how this all plays out, whether the courts will be able to resolve this escalation on their own or how it will end up getting resolved. >> The ICE agents are camouflaged with with masks. You can't tell who's who. Could she issue individual contempt citations against specific ICE officers? >> Absolutely. I mean, at the end of the day, there's multiple remedies here in terms of yes, one, contempt of court against the ICE leadership, first of all, if she can't identify the individual people, but also against the individual ICE agents. And then there are certainly claims that individuals can file under the federal court claims act or bivven which is the remedy that's created when federal officers personally violate constitutional rights. And so from that perspective there are multiple claims that can be made both individually in separate lawsuits. But even in this area contempt orders can be issued. And the thing with these contempt orders is those can either have a financial component to it or they can actually have in a very unlikely but theoretically possible scenario a prison component to it. And so from that perspective, it does benefit people to follow these orders because unless they get those orders overturned by an appellet court, the judge has that kind of contempt authority. Is the Trump administration ICE are they contending that the judge doesn't have the authority to tell them how to carry out their actions? Well, I think this is all going to be part and parcel of the litigation as it goes to the Supreme Court is they're going to say that the judge certainly has authority in terms of issuing an injunction and enforcing their injunction, but they're going to say that at the end of the day, the judge's injunction was wrongly issued, that there isn't this constitutional right to have body cameras. That's going to be the argument the Trump administration makes. is that may be something that Congress can put as a requirement or that may be something that the agencies themselves can put as a requirement, but whether the judge actually has an enforcable manner in which to enforce this body camera obligation or even the tear gas obligation. They may say, "Look, the judge exceeded her legal mandate under either bivvens or under the federal tor claims act to come in and say, here are my specific remedies for these issues." A judge can perhaps say, "Here is a specific violation that occurred and punish that specific violation. But to issue an injunction with regard to how one can use force or with regard to how one has to document that use of force, that may be considered an overstepping of the bounds. But we'll have to wait and see. I mean, judges have issued those kinds of orders in the past. And we'll just have to see, not so much the seventh circuit, but if the Supreme Court actually wants to weigh in and limit the abilities that the judges have to issue these prospective enforcement orders that limit the enforcement authorities of the federal government. >> As of today, we have conflicting decisions from the Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. So, let's start with the Seventh Circuit's decision from last Thursday extending the order that blocks Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago. And the three judge panel consisted of a Trump appointee, an Obama appointee, and a George HW Bush appointee. Well, again, this was the case that involved both the federalization of deployment and the National Guard deployment in the area of Chicago or of the state of Illinois. And the issue was first of all, was this subject to judicial review? Because the Trump administration has been arguing that this isn't subject to judicial review and that this should be an unreable discretion. The court said, "No, we actually when the president wants to operationalize a state guard in contravention of the wishes of the state, that that is a reviewable situation that has specific factual predicates that the courts can review and that the president's discretion is not absolute there. And so then it starts asking the questions about the statute which talk about when a president can operationalize the state national guard in contravention of the wishes of the state. So it asks is there a rebellion or is there danger of rebellion? And the court rules here that no there was protest but those protests aren't rebellion. There may be, you know, some political opposition, but that's not designed to actually overturn the government of the United States or to have a coup or some kind of insurrection. So, that's not going to be enough to do that. And then it asks, okay, well, is there an inability to execute federal laws? And here the courts basically took the language of DHS against it where DHS has been saying, hey, we're having record immigration enforcement. were having a lot of success in arrests and deportations. And so the court says, well, if you have all of that record success, then this must mean you don't have an inability to execute the federal laws. And so then you don't need this. ICE can operate without the need for guard to protect it. And then also the court ruled that the local and state law enforcement was able to manage their protests without this federal military aid. So you took all of those factors and the court ultimately ruled that the seventh circuit ultimately ruled that the district court judge was correct that there was a harm to Illinois's constitutional right by taking the guard and operationalizing it against Illinois's wishes and that that harm outweighs the federal interest in deploying the guard. And so they said yes, you can federalize the guard, but you can't deploy the guard in Illinois pending further proceedings. And so now the Supreme Court is looking at it and briefing is scheduled to be finalized by the end of Monday the 20th. And then the Supreme Court will decide what it's going to do. Is it going to issue a temporary stay that allows the guard to keep operating or is it going to issue an order saying we're going to consider this on an expedited basis and not issue a stay? So it'll be very interesting to see this week what happens. >> Could they just ignore it? >> They could ignore it. not taking any action at all. >> They could just take no action at all. And you know, hey, we are in a government shutdown. So, you never know. They may say, "Hey, look, we're not we're not getting paid. We're not doing any cases." Well, we're not getting paid. But I I doubt that will happen. I if I had to make a prediction, I do think they will probably, as they've been very differential to the president, at least conduct expedited briefings to come up with a decision, if not even more likely potentially just allow uh the president to continue with this deployment without any explanation, subject to a better briefing in the meantime. Because I think what worries them is what if things really did get out of hand and there was an injunction and now you couldn't do anything. And so I think the Supreme Court might have this practical concern and they'll say, "Look, at the moment, let's not place any limitations on deployment and then let's have some very detailed briefing where we can figure this out long term." That's where I think this is most likely to go if I had to make a prediction, but I couldn't say for sure. And coming up next, we're going to talk about the Ninth Circuit's decision, which is the opposite of the Seventh Circuit's decision, meaning that Trump can send federal troops into Portland, Oregon, but not into Chicago, Illinois, at least at this point. That's coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grao, and you're listening to Bloomberg. It's a major boost for the administration's effort to send the military into Democratic le cities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a divided opinion is allowing President Trump to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon to counter protests against his immigration crackdown. The 2 to1 appellet decision focused on a series of violent acts by protesters starting in early June at a single ICE facility outside downtown Portland. The city and state argued those incidents were isolated and had been handled effectively by local law enforcement, but the appeals court agreed with the administration. Now, last week on Thursday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration could not send troops into Chicago, Illinois. I've been talking to immigration attorney Leon Fresco. Leon, tell us about this Ninth Circuit decision. The same basic facts, different city, different court. >> Correct. So, the Ninth Circuit actually ruled differently than the seventh circuit. And even though it's the same statute 10 USC 12406, which is the federalization of National Guard statute, the difference here is that two out of the three judges, they were judges appointed by Trump on the Ninth Circuit ruled that the president's actions were likely lawful under this section 12406, which permits federalization when the president is quote unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. And what the court ruled here is they basically created the standard and we were talking about this with the seventh circuit and the supreme court. What standard would be created in terms of difference? And they've decided to use a standard called colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment. And so if the president has a colorful assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment, which is a highly differential standard, then the president's assessment that there is violence that needs to be dealt with is going to be deferred to. And so that executive judgment in national security matters was deferred to here. And the court issued a stay saying that the National Guard can continue in the Oregon case. So did they just make up that standard to apply that standard here? >> Basically basically obviously there wasn't a case like this before and so the court took a standard by the way it's very similar standard in the visa adjudication front when you try to sue for visas. It's this sort of uh facially legitimate and bonafideed standard and even that standard has been taken away almost to where there's no depending on the context there's basically no judicial review. Here they've taken a very similar differential standard colorable assessment of facts and law within a range of honest judgments. similar concept basically saying unless the president is telling you they're acting illegally if they basically have any facts to support it then you defer to the president and here the court said look there were facts there were months of riots in Portland you didn't just have to look at the minutes before the judgment you could look at the months before and because of that the court said there there was sufficient evidence here to permit deference and to permit the national guard to be deployed So is it because of a difference in the facts in the two cases or a difference in the standard that the >> it's a different it's a difference in the standard of difference being given to the president. So in the seventh circuit, they just analyzed the facts under basically a clearly erroneous standpoint and they said the district judge wasn't clearly erroneous in deciding that there were no reasons that that the federal law couldn't be enforced in the Chicago area. Here the court added difference and said you can't just look at it that way. You actually have to start with a standard that the president wins unless you show that the president wasn't within this highly differential standard of colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment. And so so the court did look at the facts of Oregon and said look here in Oregon there was a situation where there were months of of assaults and arson attempts and doxing of federal agents. And so because of that, that was enough to trigger this and they're not going to disturb the president's determination there. That was 2 to1. There was a descent where the descent said that at the end of the day, there isn't any difference that's permitted in this. There wasn't a present emergency. The protests were small and peaceful and the states have sovereignty and there's constitutional limits. Just all the stuff the seventh circuit said. And so we'll see on an onbunk or what happens with the Supreme Court now. Anyway, probably this case just sits there as persuasive until the Supreme Court decides something, but we'll have to wait and see. >> The judge who dissented a Clinton appointee, Susan Greyber, suggested a swift on bankank review. Quote, "Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer." very unusual. >> It definitely doesn't hurt to ask for the unbank panel for the lawyers for Oregon, but the problem is we're going to get some guidance pretty soon from the Supreme Court in the Chicago case, and that's going to figuratively and literally trump anything that happened from the Ninth Circuit standpoint, but I think you have to just play out the string and the way the schedule works. And so here, you would normally ask for on bunk review, you'd ask for it here in this case. >> Okay. So, Leon, so do you think that the Trump administration will now jump to the Supreme Court and say, "Hey, we have two conflicting opinions." >> Well, they're already there. The briefing was already required of Chicago as of the end of today. So, I do think they'll do a notice of supplemental authority that says, "Hey, here's this great ninth circuit decision for us, so please let us know what's going on." >> Let's talk about some other immigration issues. There's a new report that nearly as many migrants have died in detention so far this year than over the four years of the Biden administration. So you've had ICE reporting 20 detainee deaths in custody since Trump took office compared to 24 deaths in the Biden administration. There are lots of complaints about the conditions in ICE custody. >> I would say there's multiple factors going on. So the first and most important is when you have more people in custody, more people will perish in custody because that's just an actuarial table situation. And so you have more people in custody than ever before. You have over 60,000 people in custody right now. And that was never anywhere close to that in the Biden administration. You have to remember that during the first two years of the Biden administration, you were dealing with COVID. And so there was very few people in immigration detention at all during the COVID eras. So that's one issue. And then the second issue is during the last two years, the detention centers were much more shortterm in terms of what they were doing is taking people who had come across the border, detaining them for some period of time, and then either immediately removing them or letting them into the United States, which was called catch and release. And so from that perspective, you're going to have a lot fewer deaths just because the amount of time in detention is much lower per person. So even if you have a lot of people, that the amount of time matters. But now you have more people for more time. You have people being detained until they either win their case or they are deported. You have more people in detention. You have more people in detention in facilities that perhaps cannot hold that many people. And you have a shortage of health professionals. ICE admits that. So they're hiring uh over 40 new health professionals including doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, and pharmacists to try to meet this shortage of care. And so that's what's causing the deaths as you have more people detained for a longer period of time with fewer health professionals. This is unfortunately going to lead to more deaths of people in detention. >> A terrible situation. A terrible situation. all around. Let's talk about another report. Also bad news. A new study released Friday said the immigration enforcement policies will decrease the country's workforce by 15 million people over the next decade. I mean, is this being considered at all in Trump's immigration crackdown, the need for workers? So this is kind of a tricky subject I would say amongst everybody in in the in this space because there are so many subtexts to this. You have first of all some groups of people who say that's great. We want fewer people. And we want fewer people because we think that fewer people means that there will be a higher demand for the workers that are here, which will raise the wages of workers that are here. And yes, there's certainly some truth to that. But remember that the economy is not static. Meaning there's not just a set number of jobs. Because if that was true, then whatever the population was in, 1800, we would have unemployment that is equal to the amount of people we have now in 2025 minus the amount of people in 1,800. So it obviously doesn't work that way. It's not that that when there's more people, there's more unemployment because those people create jobs. They need things. They need haircuts. They need mechanics. They need plumbers, etc. So it create it's a cyclical thing. But having said all of this, there are some long-term tensions in terms of mechanization, AI, automation, other things of that nature, which I think no one is talking about. And so we don't actually know are we going to need more or less workers moving forward. This is a big tension that neither the left nor the right talks about when they talk about this immigration issue. And then another tension that I think the right deals with sometimes is they'll say we need more Americans to have babies. We don't want more immigrants coming in. And so that's a separate sort of social argument that has all kinds of undercurrents that I don't like to deal with in a legal show. So those are the debates. Where are the people? I mean, should we have more or less people period? If we should, should they be American-born people or people who are supplemented through immigration? And then third, do we have anybody who actually has any idea what a labor force will look like 10 years from now? So, does it even matter if we have more or less people? And I think that's where really the thought needs to be given at all. There's no thought being given to this by any leaders because this is really the issue that should then be driving what you're doing with immigration policy. >> It seems doubtful that any of those considerations were behind Trump's immigration policy. Thanks so much, Leon. As always, that's Leon Fresco of Honda night. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, the Supreme Court will decide when police officers can enter a home to respond to an emergency. I'm June Graasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. [Music] Police didn't have a warrant when they entered the home of an Army veteran in Montana. But they weren't there to arrest William Trevor Casease. They were there to render emergency aid. His ex-girlfriend had called police saying he had a loaded handgun and had threatened to commit suicide. The police knocked, they yelled, they waited 40 minutes and then they went in. The question before the Supreme Court was, "What's the standard for police entering to help people in an emergency?" Justices from across the ideological spectrum seem to think that the officers were right to go in on these facts. It's not a question of whether they could dispense with a warrant requirement. If there's no probable cause, then they can't get a warrant. But it seems to me that if uh the police could not enter this house based on the facts that they knew, then I don't know when the police are ever going to be able to enter a house to prevent somebody from committing suicide. What more would they need here? They need to be able to look through the window and see him with a gun pointed to his head or they need to see a dead body on the floor. What What more did they need? >> And Justice Brett Kavanaaugh questioned the defense attorney about a possible tragic outcome if police chose not to enter the home. >> What if they after deliberations walk away and he commits suicide? I mean, what are you thinking then if the officers >> That would be that would be unfortunate and and tragic. But we are trying to strike a balance between >> and the officers need some clarity I would think in circumstances like this about what they can do and what they can't do and it seems like they thought about it carefully and and decided that the risk was sufficiently high to Justice Jackson's point uh and that harm that would occur was sufficiently substantial that they should go in and by the way they're going in at great risk themselves >> of course >> and um you know this is not as Justice Gorsuch just pretextually looking for a crime or going in for some other pretextual reason or going in to you know for it's going in really to to help someone. >> My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz a partner McCarter and English Bob. So police normally need a warrant to enter home but there are some emergency situations that are exceptions. Tell us about that. So, there is a so-called emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows police officers to conduct a warrantless search if they have reasonable suspicion that there is an emergency and an immediate need to protect others or themselves from harm. >> And tell us about the facts in this case. >> The defendant in this case, William Trevor Casease, was an Army veteran who had a girlfriend who contacted police suggesting that Mr. case might be suicidal. Officers arrived at Mr. Casease's house around 900 p.m. and they were familiar with his history of alcohol abuse and certain mental health issues. The ex-girlfriend had told police that Mr. Casease had a loaded gun. He had threatened to harm police if she tried to send officers to his home. And she claimed before she hung up with the police that she had heard a pop and then silence and was concerned that Mr. Casease had actually pulled the trigger. The officers arrived at Mr. Case's door. They yelled. They shine flashlights through the windows. They could see empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad with handwriting, which the officers believed at the time was a possible suicide note. After about 40 minutes, they entered through the unlocked front door, and when they went upstairs, they saw a closet curtain open. Mr. Casease lunged forward, his armed outstretched with what officers believed was a handgun. The officer fired one shot, striking Mr. case in the abdomen. It turned out the handgun was found in a nearby laundry basket. The issue at trial then was when the defense tried to exclude the gun and other evidence of the confrontation from the trial. The trial judge overruled that defense and allowed the prosecution to present it to the jury and he was convicted after a trial. >> It seemed like the police had a lot of reasons to go in. How much more did the defense think they should have before they entered the house? To put this in context, the fourth amendment of the constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and provides protections for a person's home by generally prohibiting law enforcement from entering without a warrant. That is really set up in order to allow people to have privacy in their home in the context of a possible criminal case. The question that was facing justices in this case is what level of certainty must police have that an emergency is underway before entering a home without a warrant? Mr. Case's lawyers argued that it should be a high bar. They argued that it should be something called probable cause, which is what police officers need in order to get a warrant to search your home in the case of a criminal investigation. But here, this was not a criminal investigation. And this was a circumstance in which they believed that there was an emergency and there was someone's life at risk inside the house. So the question is what is the level of certainty that police officers need to have in order to enter the home without a warrant? And the defense argued that that level of certainty in order to avoid needless and dangerous confrontations and to prevent police officers from circumventing the concept of probable cause that there has to be probable cause that they believe that there is an emergency and that somebody is in imminent danger. >> And what's the government arguing here? What's the standard they want? The government argued that the justices should rely on a Supreme Court case from 2006 was a unanimous opinion in a case called Bringham City versus Stewart in which the Supreme Court held that police may enter a building without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an occupant is seriously injured or threatened with such injury. So in that case they took it completely out of the context of probable cause which really has an entire body of case law that talks about when police may enter a home with or without a warrant in the context of a criminal investigation and said that here we're talking about imminent risk to somebody. It's not a criminal investigation. It's really a circumstance where police officers may come into a home in order to arguably save the life of somebody or save the life of somebody who may be with somebody who's in danger of hurting them. And in that case, the standard is objectively reasonable basis to believe that the occupant is seriously injured or threatened with such injury. >> It seemed like justices across the ideological spectrum thought that the police had good reason to enter here. >> Yeah. Well, what's interesting here is that the Montana Supreme Court, which is the court that had just heard the case before going to the US Supreme Court, sided with the state, but it was a 4-3 decision. And there were actually three judges on the Montana Supreme Court who dissented and said that for a warrantless search to be reasonable, the higher bar of probable cause must apply. And then they went further and added that there was no probable cause to believe Mr. Case was in imminent danger or in need of immediate assistance. that would have justified the warrantless entry into the home. When the case went to the Supreme Court and was argued before the justices there, there was virtual unonymity that the standard that had been applied by the state was the correct one. First, for example, Justice Thomas noted that the issue of probable cause is a standard that is normally limited to the criminal context. This was not a criminal investigation. And Justice Robert joined in on that to say when we talk about probable cause, we talk about probable cause that a crime is occurring. What standard would be used here when we're not talking about a crime but about a risk of injury to somebody? And Justice Kagan also jumped in saying that there is a full body of case law out there describing what probable cause is. It's not a self-defining term. It has been raised in many cases and there is a full explanation in the criminal context of what constitutes probable cause. But this is something entirely different. And the justices all seemed to go back to the Brigham City versus Stewart case from 2006 to say that the standard of objectively reasonable basis for believing that somebody needs emergency help is the standard that should apply here. and Justice Alto and Justice Brown agreed, which doesn't happen very often. They both push back on the contention here of the defense lawyer that this was an unreasonable act by police. Justice Alto went so far as to say, "If the police could not enter the house based on the facts that they knew in this case, then I don't know when police are ever able to go into a house to prevent somebody from committing suicide." The concern here is that if there is a legal standard of probable cause in order to go in under these emergency situations that police officers may hesitate to go into a house when somebody's life is at risk. And they seem to weigh more in favor of protecting the life of an individual and allowing police officers more latitude to go in under these circumstances than they were about the privacy concerns of entering a house without a warrant. whether police have met this standard. Is that going to turn out to be a jury question or a question for the judge about whether evidence even gets into trial? >> If the Supreme Court decides to uphold the lower court, then there was some discussion about what comes next. In other words, there were some justices who said that they should simply rule that the lower court was correct and that the standard of objectively reasonable was properly applied and that in this case clearly the facts warranted the police entering the home. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Thomas on the other hand argued that it's the normal practice of the court if they're not certain about a standard and we state a new standard that it should be sent back to the Montana Supreme Court to determine whether based on these facts that objectively reasonable standard had in fact been satisfied. Justice Alo expressed some concern that in doing that it might suggest to the lower court that this was in some way a close call and could, he argued, have some kind of a killing effect on police when they're trying to determine whether to enter a house to prevent somebody from committing suicide. >> And we should point out that here some civil rights groups did line up behind the defendant. >> In Mr. case's defense, his attorney argued to the Supreme Court that the reasonleness standard that the state was suggesting was so vague as to invite abuse and confusion by law enforcement. He reminded the justices that police had entered Mr. Case's home without permission, without a warrant, or without even probable cause, and ended up shooting him in his own home. That was essentially the civil rights argument that Mr. cases lawyers was arguing and a number of prominent civil rights organizations came out in favor of the defense arguing that the warrantless search here was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And they were more comfortable with the probable cause standard to allow police to enter a home even in a case where there was an emergency and there was some concern for the safety of an individual inside the home. This is one case this term where it appears, you never know, but it appears that we know how it's going to turn out. We shall see. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mintz of Marter and English. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law. And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg Law Show every week night at 1000 p.m. Wall Street time. I'm June Graasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. [Music]
Trump Can Deploy Troops to Portland But Not to Chicago | Bloomberg Law
Summary
Transcript
This is Bloomberg Law with June Graasso from Bloomberg Radio. Chicago residents are now documenting violent encounters with federal agents. From the use of tear gas on protesters to vehicle crashes to forceful takedowns, all on video. >> He's a citizen. >> He's a citizen. >> You don't know what's going on, so get the back. Federal Judge Sarah Ellis said the images she's seen indicate her order restricting ICE agents use of force was being ignored. The judge issued a new order on Friday that federal agents have to turn their body cameras on when making arrests or interacting with the public. Here's Illinois Governor JB Pritsker. I think the judge reacted to that properly by ordering that now they're the federal agents are required to have body cameras on them because they clearly lie about what goes on. >> Judge Ellis also ordered immigration officials to testify in her courtroom today and answer questions about the aggressive tactics. My guest is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland Knight and an expert in immigration law. Leon, explain what's been happening in Chicago with ICE. >> So, what's been happening in Chicago is all based on an operation called Operation Midway Blitz. And that operation started early in October where there was a deployment of all kinds of federal troops. There was ICE, there was CBP, there was National Guard troops into the Chicago area to try to offensively stop violent protest, help immigration enforcement do their job, stop crying. There's a lot of different justifications that were given for this, but in any case, there was immediate lawsuits by the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago. And there's multiple findings. One that had to do with the use of force and how people were operating. And so there were orders that were given by the judge with regard to having to use body cameras so that the agents wouldn't just be operating without any accountability there. And the judge was hearing arguments today about the fact that body camera usage wasn't happening and was basically saying, "Look, you're going to be held in contempt of court if you don't use these body cameras." And then there's also some debate about tear gas being used and whether that's proper to be used during the protests. And so the judge also had ordered the agents to stop dispersing peaceful crowds and ban the use of tear gas on people who are in a threat. And so both of those are part of this overall litigation that involves also limitations on the use of the National Guard. But specifically with regard to the use of force by federal agents, this is the immediate concern is the use of body cameras, especially when there's use of force and also the use of tear gas and and chemical agents without proper justification for it. >> Yeah. So last Friday, the judge issued the additional order about the body cams because she was concerned that ICE wasn't obeying her first order that banned the use of tear gas and other munitions against protesters who are not posing an immediate threat. And then she sees all this video of the use of of tear gas that the ICE agents didn't listen to her. >> Correct. That was the concern is she was telling the government attorneys in court, hey, are you following my order? And she said she was quote a little startled after seeing, as you said, these TV images of street confrontations that involve tear gas. And so they had witnesses from ICE and from CBP saying that they are all going to be wearing body cameras now and that this isn't going to be something that's going to happen any longer that they will respect her order. But we'll see again if there's just another injunction that's issued or if there's actually contempt order that's issued or where where this judge is going to go here. But certainly I think no matter what side you stand on this, there's certainly been an escalation in detention in Chicago and we will have to see how this all plays out, whether the courts will be able to resolve this escalation on their own or how it will end up getting resolved. >> The ICE agents are camouflaged with with masks. You can't tell who's who. Could she issue individual contempt citations against specific ICE officers? >> Absolutely. I mean, at the end of the day, there's multiple remedies here in terms of yes, one, contempt of court against the ICE leadership, first of all, if she can't identify the individual people, but also against the individual ICE agents. And then there are certainly claims that individuals can file under the federal court claims act or bivven which is the remedy that's created when federal officers personally violate constitutional rights. And so from that perspective there are multiple claims that can be made both individually in separate lawsuits. But even in this area contempt orders can be issued. And the thing with these contempt orders is those can either have a financial component to it or they can actually have in a very unlikely but theoretically possible scenario a prison component to it. And so from that perspective, it does benefit people to follow these orders because unless they get those orders overturned by an appellet court, the judge has that kind of contempt authority. Is the Trump administration ICE are they contending that the judge doesn't have the authority to tell them how to carry out their actions? Well, I think this is all going to be part and parcel of the litigation as it goes to the Supreme Court is they're going to say that the judge certainly has authority in terms of issuing an injunction and enforcing their injunction, but they're going to say that at the end of the day, the judge's injunction was wrongly issued, that there isn't this constitutional right to have body cameras. That's going to be the argument the Trump administration makes. is that may be something that Congress can put as a requirement or that may be something that the agencies themselves can put as a requirement, but whether the judge actually has an enforcable manner in which to enforce this body camera obligation or even the tear gas obligation. They may say, "Look, the judge exceeded her legal mandate under either bivvens or under the federal tor claims act to come in and say, here are my specific remedies for these issues." A judge can perhaps say, "Here is a specific violation that occurred and punish that specific violation. But to issue an injunction with regard to how one can use force or with regard to how one has to document that use of force, that may be considered an overstepping of the bounds. But we'll have to wait and see. I mean, judges have issued those kinds of orders in the past. And we'll just have to see, not so much the seventh circuit, but if the Supreme Court actually wants to weigh in and limit the abilities that the judges have to issue these prospective enforcement orders that limit the enforcement authorities of the federal government. >> As of today, we have conflicting decisions from the Seventh Circuit and the Ninth Circuit. So, let's start with the Seventh Circuit's decision from last Thursday extending the order that blocks Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago. And the three judge panel consisted of a Trump appointee, an Obama appointee, and a George HW Bush appointee. Well, again, this was the case that involved both the federalization of deployment and the National Guard deployment in the area of Chicago or of the state of Illinois. And the issue was first of all, was this subject to judicial review? Because the Trump administration has been arguing that this isn't subject to judicial review and that this should be an unreable discretion. The court said, "No, we actually when the president wants to operationalize a state guard in contravention of the wishes of the state, that that is a reviewable situation that has specific factual predicates that the courts can review and that the president's discretion is not absolute there. And so then it starts asking the questions about the statute which talk about when a president can operationalize the state national guard in contravention of the wishes of the state. So it asks is there a rebellion or is there danger of rebellion? And the court rules here that no there was protest but those protests aren't rebellion. There may be, you know, some political opposition, but that's not designed to actually overturn the government of the United States or to have a coup or some kind of insurrection. So, that's not going to be enough to do that. And then it asks, okay, well, is there an inability to execute federal laws? And here the courts basically took the language of DHS against it where DHS has been saying, hey, we're having record immigration enforcement. were having a lot of success in arrests and deportations. And so the court says, well, if you have all of that record success, then this must mean you don't have an inability to execute the federal laws. And so then you don't need this. ICE can operate without the need for guard to protect it. And then also the court ruled that the local and state law enforcement was able to manage their protests without this federal military aid. So you took all of those factors and the court ultimately ruled that the seventh circuit ultimately ruled that the district court judge was correct that there was a harm to Illinois's constitutional right by taking the guard and operationalizing it against Illinois's wishes and that that harm outweighs the federal interest in deploying the guard. And so they said yes, you can federalize the guard, but you can't deploy the guard in Illinois pending further proceedings. And so now the Supreme Court is looking at it and briefing is scheduled to be finalized by the end of Monday the 20th. And then the Supreme Court will decide what it's going to do. Is it going to issue a temporary stay that allows the guard to keep operating or is it going to issue an order saying we're going to consider this on an expedited basis and not issue a stay? So it'll be very interesting to see this week what happens. >> Could they just ignore it? >> They could ignore it. not taking any action at all. >> They could just take no action at all. And you know, hey, we are in a government shutdown. So, you never know. They may say, "Hey, look, we're not we're not getting paid. We're not doing any cases." Well, we're not getting paid. But I I doubt that will happen. I if I had to make a prediction, I do think they will probably, as they've been very differential to the president, at least conduct expedited briefings to come up with a decision, if not even more likely potentially just allow uh the president to continue with this deployment without any explanation, subject to a better briefing in the meantime. Because I think what worries them is what if things really did get out of hand and there was an injunction and now you couldn't do anything. And so I think the Supreme Court might have this practical concern and they'll say, "Look, at the moment, let's not place any limitations on deployment and then let's have some very detailed briefing where we can figure this out long term." That's where I think this is most likely to go if I had to make a prediction, but I couldn't say for sure. And coming up next, we're going to talk about the Ninth Circuit's decision, which is the opposite of the Seventh Circuit's decision, meaning that Trump can send federal troops into Portland, Oregon, but not into Chicago, Illinois, at least at this point. That's coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grao, and you're listening to Bloomberg. It's a major boost for the administration's effort to send the military into Democratic le cities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a divided opinion is allowing President Trump to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon to counter protests against his immigration crackdown. The 2 to1 appellet decision focused on a series of violent acts by protesters starting in early June at a single ICE facility outside downtown Portland. The city and state argued those incidents were isolated and had been handled effectively by local law enforcement, but the appeals court agreed with the administration. Now, last week on Thursday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration could not send troops into Chicago, Illinois. I've been talking to immigration attorney Leon Fresco. Leon, tell us about this Ninth Circuit decision. The same basic facts, different city, different court. >> Correct. So, the Ninth Circuit actually ruled differently than the seventh circuit. And even though it's the same statute 10 USC 12406, which is the federalization of National Guard statute, the difference here is that two out of the three judges, they were judges appointed by Trump on the Ninth Circuit ruled that the president's actions were likely lawful under this section 12406, which permits federalization when the president is quote unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. And what the court ruled here is they basically created the standard and we were talking about this with the seventh circuit and the supreme court. What standard would be created in terms of difference? And they've decided to use a standard called colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment. And so if the president has a colorful assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment, which is a highly differential standard, then the president's assessment that there is violence that needs to be dealt with is going to be deferred to. And so that executive judgment in national security matters was deferred to here. And the court issued a stay saying that the National Guard can continue in the Oregon case. So did they just make up that standard to apply that standard here? >> Basically basically obviously there wasn't a case like this before and so the court took a standard by the way it's very similar standard in the visa adjudication front when you try to sue for visas. It's this sort of uh facially legitimate and bonafideed standard and even that standard has been taken away almost to where there's no depending on the context there's basically no judicial review. Here they've taken a very similar differential standard colorable assessment of facts and law within a range of honest judgments. similar concept basically saying unless the president is telling you they're acting illegally if they basically have any facts to support it then you defer to the president and here the court said look there were facts there were months of riots in Portland you didn't just have to look at the minutes before the judgment you could look at the months before and because of that the court said there there was sufficient evidence here to permit deference and to permit the national guard to be deployed So is it because of a difference in the facts in the two cases or a difference in the standard that the >> it's a different it's a difference in the standard of difference being given to the president. So in the seventh circuit, they just analyzed the facts under basically a clearly erroneous standpoint and they said the district judge wasn't clearly erroneous in deciding that there were no reasons that that the federal law couldn't be enforced in the Chicago area. Here the court added difference and said you can't just look at it that way. You actually have to start with a standard that the president wins unless you show that the president wasn't within this highly differential standard of colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment. And so so the court did look at the facts of Oregon and said look here in Oregon there was a situation where there were months of of assaults and arson attempts and doxing of federal agents. And so because of that, that was enough to trigger this and they're not going to disturb the president's determination there. That was 2 to1. There was a descent where the descent said that at the end of the day, there isn't any difference that's permitted in this. There wasn't a present emergency. The protests were small and peaceful and the states have sovereignty and there's constitutional limits. Just all the stuff the seventh circuit said. And so we'll see on an onbunk or what happens with the Supreme Court now. Anyway, probably this case just sits there as persuasive until the Supreme Court decides something, but we'll have to wait and see. >> The judge who dissented a Clinton appointee, Susan Greyber, suggested a swift on bankank review. Quote, "Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer." very unusual. >> It definitely doesn't hurt to ask for the unbank panel for the lawyers for Oregon, but the problem is we're going to get some guidance pretty soon from the Supreme Court in the Chicago case, and that's going to figuratively and literally trump anything that happened from the Ninth Circuit standpoint, but I think you have to just play out the string and the way the schedule works. And so here, you would normally ask for on bunk review, you'd ask for it here in this case. >> Okay. So, Leon, so do you think that the Trump administration will now jump to the Supreme Court and say, "Hey, we have two conflicting opinions." >> Well, they're already there. The briefing was already required of Chicago as of the end of today. So, I do think they'll do a notice of supplemental authority that says, "Hey, here's this great ninth circuit decision for us, so please let us know what's going on." >> Let's talk about some other immigration issues. There's a new report that nearly as many migrants have died in detention so far this year than over the four years of the Biden administration. So you've had ICE reporting 20 detainee deaths in custody since Trump took office compared to 24 deaths in the Biden administration. There are lots of complaints about the conditions in ICE custody. >> I would say there's multiple factors going on. So the first and most important is when you have more people in custody, more people will perish in custody because that's just an actuarial table situation. And so you have more people in custody than ever before. You have over 60,000 people in custody right now. And that was never anywhere close to that in the Biden administration. You have to remember that during the first two years of the Biden administration, you were dealing with COVID. And so there was very few people in immigration detention at all during the COVID eras. So that's one issue. And then the second issue is during the last two years, the detention centers were much more shortterm in terms of what they were doing is taking people who had come across the border, detaining them for some period of time, and then either immediately removing them or letting them into the United States, which was called catch and release. And so from that perspective, you're going to have a lot fewer deaths just because the amount of time in detention is much lower per person. So even if you have a lot of people, that the amount of time matters. But now you have more people for more time. You have people being detained until they either win their case or they are deported. You have more people in detention. You have more people in detention in facilities that perhaps cannot hold that many people. And you have a shortage of health professionals. ICE admits that. So they're hiring uh over 40 new health professionals including doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, and pharmacists to try to meet this shortage of care. And so that's what's causing the deaths as you have more people detained for a longer period of time with fewer health professionals. This is unfortunately going to lead to more deaths of people in detention. >> A terrible situation. A terrible situation. all around. Let's talk about another report. Also bad news. A new study released Friday said the immigration enforcement policies will decrease the country's workforce by 15 million people over the next decade. I mean, is this being considered at all in Trump's immigration crackdown, the need for workers? So this is kind of a tricky subject I would say amongst everybody in in the in this space because there are so many subtexts to this. You have first of all some groups of people who say that's great. We want fewer people. And we want fewer people because we think that fewer people means that there will be a higher demand for the workers that are here, which will raise the wages of workers that are here. And yes, there's certainly some truth to that. But remember that the economy is not static. Meaning there's not just a set number of jobs. Because if that was true, then whatever the population was in, 1800, we would have unemployment that is equal to the amount of people we have now in 2025 minus the amount of people in 1,800. So it obviously doesn't work that way. It's not that that when there's more people, there's more unemployment because those people create jobs. They need things. They need haircuts. They need mechanics. They need plumbers, etc. So it create it's a cyclical thing. But having said all of this, there are some long-term tensions in terms of mechanization, AI, automation, other things of that nature, which I think no one is talking about. And so we don't actually know are we going to need more or less workers moving forward. This is a big tension that neither the left nor the right talks about when they talk about this immigration issue. And then another tension that I think the right deals with sometimes is they'll say we need more Americans to have babies. We don't want more immigrants coming in. And so that's a separate sort of social argument that has all kinds of undercurrents that I don't like to deal with in a legal show. So those are the debates. Where are the people? I mean, should we have more or less people period? If we should, should they be American-born people or people who are supplemented through immigration? And then third, do we have anybody who actually has any idea what a labor force will look like 10 years from now? So, does it even matter if we have more or less people? And I think that's where really the thought needs to be given at all. There's no thought being given to this by any leaders because this is really the issue that should then be driving what you're doing with immigration policy. >> It seems doubtful that any of those considerations were behind Trump's immigration policy. Thanks so much, Leon. As always, that's Leon Fresco of Honda night. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, the Supreme Court will decide when police officers can enter a home to respond to an emergency. I'm June Graasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. [Music] Police didn't have a warrant when they entered the home of an Army veteran in Montana. But they weren't there to arrest William Trevor Casease. They were there to render emergency aid. His ex-girlfriend had called police saying he had a loaded handgun and had threatened to commit suicide. The police knocked, they yelled, they waited 40 minutes and then they went in. The question before the Supreme Court was, "What's the standard for police entering to help people in an emergency?" Justices from across the ideological spectrum seem to think that the officers were right to go in on these facts. It's not a question of whether they could dispense with a warrant requirement. If there's no probable cause, then they can't get a warrant. But it seems to me that if uh the police could not enter this house based on the facts that they knew, then I don't know when the police are ever going to be able to enter a house to prevent somebody from committing suicide. What more would they need here? They need to be able to look through the window and see him with a gun pointed to his head or they need to see a dead body on the floor. What What more did they need? >> And Justice Brett Kavanaaugh questioned the defense attorney about a possible tragic outcome if police chose not to enter the home. >> What if they after deliberations walk away and he commits suicide? I mean, what are you thinking then if the officers >> That would be that would be unfortunate and and tragic. But we are trying to strike a balance between >> and the officers need some clarity I would think in circumstances like this about what they can do and what they can't do and it seems like they thought about it carefully and and decided that the risk was sufficiently high to Justice Jackson's point uh and that harm that would occur was sufficiently substantial that they should go in and by the way they're going in at great risk themselves >> of course >> and um you know this is not as Justice Gorsuch just pretextually looking for a crime or going in for some other pretextual reason or going in to you know for it's going in really to to help someone. >> My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz a partner McCarter and English Bob. So police normally need a warrant to enter home but there are some emergency situations that are exceptions. Tell us about that. So, there is a so-called emergency aid exception to the Fourth Amendment, which allows police officers to conduct a warrantless search if they have reasonable suspicion that there is an emergency and an immediate need to protect others or themselves from harm. >> And tell us about the facts in this case. >> The defendant in this case, William Trevor Casease, was an Army veteran who had a girlfriend who contacted police suggesting that Mr. case might be suicidal. Officers arrived at Mr. Casease's house around 900 p.m. and they were familiar with his history of alcohol abuse and certain mental health issues. The ex-girlfriend had told police that Mr. Casease had a loaded gun. He had threatened to harm police if she tried to send officers to his home. And she claimed before she hung up with the police that she had heard a pop and then silence and was concerned that Mr. Casease had actually pulled the trigger. The officers arrived at Mr. Case's door. They yelled. They shine flashlights through the windows. They could see empty beer cans, an empty handgun holster, and a notepad with handwriting, which the officers believed at the time was a possible suicide note. After about 40 minutes, they entered through the unlocked front door, and when they went upstairs, they saw a closet curtain open. Mr. Casease lunged forward, his armed outstretched with what officers believed was a handgun. The officer fired one shot, striking Mr. case in the abdomen. It turned out the handgun was found in a nearby laundry basket. The issue at trial then was when the defense tried to exclude the gun and other evidence of the confrontation from the trial. The trial judge overruled that defense and allowed the prosecution to present it to the jury and he was convicted after a trial. >> It seemed like the police had a lot of reasons to go in. How much more did the defense think they should have before they entered the house? To put this in context, the fourth amendment of the constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and provides protections for a person's home by generally prohibiting law enforcement from entering without a warrant. That is really set up in order to allow people to have privacy in their home in the context of a possible criminal case. The question that was facing justices in this case is what level of certainty must police have that an emergency is underway before entering a home without a warrant? Mr. Case's lawyers argued that it should be a high bar. They argued that it should be something called probable cause, which is what police officers need in order to get a warrant to search your home in the case of a criminal investigation. But here, this was not a criminal investigation. And this was a circumstance in which they believed that there was an emergency and there was someone's life at risk inside the house. So the question is what is the level of certainty that police officers need to have in order to enter the home without a warrant? And the defense argued that that level of certainty in order to avoid needless and dangerous confrontations and to prevent police officers from circumventing the concept of probable cause that there has to be probable cause that they believe that there is an emergency and that somebody is in imminent danger. >> And what's the government arguing here? What's the standard they want? The government argued that the justices should rely on a Supreme Court case from 2006 was a unanimous opinion in a case called Bringham City versus Stewart in which the Supreme Court held that police may enter a building without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis to believe that an occupant is seriously injured or threatened with such injury. So in that case they took it completely out of the context of probable cause which really has an entire body of case law that talks about when police may enter a home with or without a warrant in the context of a criminal investigation and said that here we're talking about imminent risk to somebody. It's not a criminal investigation. It's really a circumstance where police officers may come into a home in order to arguably save the life of somebody or save the life of somebody who may be with somebody who's in danger of hurting them. And in that case, the standard is objectively reasonable basis to believe that the occupant is seriously injured or threatened with such injury. >> It seemed like justices across the ideological spectrum thought that the police had good reason to enter here. >> Yeah. Well, what's interesting here is that the Montana Supreme Court, which is the court that had just heard the case before going to the US Supreme Court, sided with the state, but it was a 4-3 decision. And there were actually three judges on the Montana Supreme Court who dissented and said that for a warrantless search to be reasonable, the higher bar of probable cause must apply. And then they went further and added that there was no probable cause to believe Mr. Case was in imminent danger or in need of immediate assistance. that would have justified the warrantless entry into the home. When the case went to the Supreme Court and was argued before the justices there, there was virtual unonymity that the standard that had been applied by the state was the correct one. First, for example, Justice Thomas noted that the issue of probable cause is a standard that is normally limited to the criminal context. This was not a criminal investigation. And Justice Robert joined in on that to say when we talk about probable cause, we talk about probable cause that a crime is occurring. What standard would be used here when we're not talking about a crime but about a risk of injury to somebody? And Justice Kagan also jumped in saying that there is a full body of case law out there describing what probable cause is. It's not a self-defining term. It has been raised in many cases and there is a full explanation in the criminal context of what constitutes probable cause. But this is something entirely different. And the justices all seemed to go back to the Brigham City versus Stewart case from 2006 to say that the standard of objectively reasonable basis for believing that somebody needs emergency help is the standard that should apply here. and Justice Alto and Justice Brown agreed, which doesn't happen very often. They both push back on the contention here of the defense lawyer that this was an unreasonable act by police. Justice Alto went so far as to say, "If the police could not enter the house based on the facts that they knew in this case, then I don't know when police are ever able to go into a house to prevent somebody from committing suicide." The concern here is that if there is a legal standard of probable cause in order to go in under these emergency situations that police officers may hesitate to go into a house when somebody's life is at risk. And they seem to weigh more in favor of protecting the life of an individual and allowing police officers more latitude to go in under these circumstances than they were about the privacy concerns of entering a house without a warrant. whether police have met this standard. Is that going to turn out to be a jury question or a question for the judge about whether evidence even gets into trial? >> If the Supreme Court decides to uphold the lower court, then there was some discussion about what comes next. In other words, there were some justices who said that they should simply rule that the lower court was correct and that the standard of objectively reasonable was properly applied and that in this case clearly the facts warranted the police entering the home. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Thomas on the other hand argued that it's the normal practice of the court if they're not certain about a standard and we state a new standard that it should be sent back to the Montana Supreme Court to determine whether based on these facts that objectively reasonable standard had in fact been satisfied. Justice Alo expressed some concern that in doing that it might suggest to the lower court that this was in some way a close call and could, he argued, have some kind of a killing effect on police when they're trying to determine whether to enter a house to prevent somebody from committing suicide. >> And we should point out that here some civil rights groups did line up behind the defendant. >> In Mr. case's defense, his attorney argued to the Supreme Court that the reasonleness standard that the state was suggesting was so vague as to invite abuse and confusion by law enforcement. He reminded the justices that police had entered Mr. Case's home without permission, without a warrant, or without even probable cause, and ended up shooting him in his own home. That was essentially the civil rights argument that Mr. cases lawyers was arguing and a number of prominent civil rights organizations came out in favor of the defense arguing that the warrantless search here was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And they were more comfortable with the probable cause standard to allow police to enter a home even in a case where there was an emergency and there was some concern for the safety of an individual inside the home. This is one case this term where it appears, you never know, but it appears that we know how it's going to turn out. We shall see. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mintz of Marter and English. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and at www.bloomberg.com/mpodcast/law. And remember to tune in to the Bloomberg Law Show every week night at 1000 p.m. Wall Street time. I'm June Graasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. [Music]