GOV310 – In The News: A look at national politics through the eyes of Texas, June 26, 2018

[0:00:00 Speaker 0] in the news.

[0:00:08 Speaker 2] Good morning. I’m Professor Saw,

[0:00:09 Speaker 3] and I Professor McDaniel. Welcome to in the news. We’re introduction to American Government week number four. That’s right. Week for eso. You

[0:00:17 Speaker 2] thought there’s nothing happening in the news where you would be wrong,

[0:00:19 Speaker 3] its consulates constantly going on.

[0:00:22 Speaker 2] So, uh, four topics this week we got four. You know, some people say three is the magic number. We like three, but we have four. First thing we want to talk about today is actually a little bit of mop up and clarification. We spoke about the immigrant illegal immigrants, their Children at the border. I should be clear here. I don’t mean disrespect might say illegal immigrant. I’m referring to this in a very technical sense. Um, I’m I think the preferred term is undocumented workers. But in this case, we’re using just the common for an actor. So it’s really don’t mean any fenced anybody on that, But we wanted to finish up with We left you last time. We described the crisis that was down there and the political backlash. President Trump did issue an executive order, I believe last Wednesday, and I wanted to go over that reel briefly just to kind of give you a sense of what it waas because it’s, you know, one of most important news stories of the summer and also to try to give it a lot more contact. So Professor Daniel, I want talk about in the context of the court of the course and really talk about executive power versus legislative power versus court power. So what did the executive order actually say what it President Trump do? Ah, well, he ended this policy of separating Children miners from their parents when they had been, uh, nabbed crossing the border. And he said, his administration is there. Some quotes was put quote in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law because of quote Congress’s failure to act unquote and then and also court orders. All right, So, in other words, Trump said he’s blaming Congress and the courts. He said, That’s why I had to issue an executive order ending or amending this policy. Now it’s briefly worth covering here. Now what’s he talking about? Respect to court policies. Well, three administration has consistently maintained that it was forced to separate families. So, um migrants. Potential immigrants crossing the border were caught by border authorities, and then Children and parents were separated because three administration had concluded. This isn’t just a Trump administration is. Also the Obama administration were interpreting what was called the Flores settlement, which is from a case, the settlement, which was reached in 1997. I’m reading here because I want to make sure I get it right. Required the government that is the federal government toe limit, the time that it keeps unaccompanied minors in detention and to keep them in the least restrictive setting possible. So that’s the Flores settlement that was reached in 1997 sort of a resolution of immigration federal immigration policy. The settlement was later modified to say the Children should not be held longer than 20 days. So that’s the policy is talking about separating Children so you know their their parents or whoever is bring them across. The board is accused of a crime, so they’re treated any criminal capacity the Children are were then separate. This is part of this floor and settlement. So what is it that Trump ordered? Trump directed Homeland Security Secretary Kirsten Nielsen to maintain custody of the detained families during criminal proceedings and as their asylum claims are adjudicated. So what you’re seeing guys and girls in a lot of these cases is that you have migrants crossing the border there caught by border security. And a lot of times they immediately claim asylum. They said they are fleeing from some sort of government oppression or, um, you know, political persecution in the host country, and therefore they’re entitled. They’re not actually engaging in a criminal act. They’re entitled to cross the border and achieve asylum in the United States. So while these claims are adjudicated, keep these families together. Also, Secretary Defense Jim Mattis and heads of the other agencies are order to find or construct facilities to house the detained families. That’s another part of the executive order. Finally, the attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was directed to prioritize the adjudication of cases involving detained families. Right, So the executive order involves Homeland security, defense and the Attorney General. All of this obviously within the rubric of the executive branch in the United States. So that’s the change of policy. Now, um, what’s interesting here is that, um, this case, you know, this case. Actually, Trump can’t do this unilaterally. He actually has to file ah, claim or a case with the relevant district Court judge in this case, uh, executive word directs the attorney general to file a request with the U. S. District Judge Dolly G. I hope I’m doing that right. G e in the central district of California to modify the florist settlement and to allow these detained migrant families to be held together. So prior to this point, President Trump had claimed I can’t do this because I’m bound by this court case. This decision, this Flores settlement What changed with all these pictures of these families being separated Children in these facilities was the politics of it. So Trump, initially, according to reports, said, I just want to do something. I am going to change the policy, and his attorney said, You can’t I mean, this is a matter of, you know, of court. Uh, you know, the courts ordered these things. You don’t have the authority to do that. And you’re not the Congress. You can’t simply make up a law. So Trump said, All right, if I can’t do that, I’m at least issuing this executive order. And you know, I’m gonna essentially notify the district Court Judge about this modification. The district Court judge could say no. You could say, in fact, that’s not allowed. But we haven’t had any ruling on them. Probably won’t for a little while. So the question now is whether the executive order is in fact legal. Meanwhile, Congress is

[0:06:06 Speaker 3] doing what and so Congress eso, while President Trump in in the interim administration has discussed, um, this issue one of things and really the ways and forcing it and again, the key thing about his decisions made 20 years ago. Uh, but this is the first time it’s been enforced this in this manner, and Congress is trying to find a way to basically fix this loophole. This problem eso Currently, you are having a number of meetings in the Senate to try to rectify the situation so that in the future, families will not be separated again. We have that we during the Obama administration, you have the issue of where you had a number of Children coming to the border, and this was what do we do with all of these Children? Um, they’re just they’re just commenting. They’re coming unaccompanied. Now you have a problem of Children coming a company with their parents, and how do you process them? But another problem running into on this is outside of the hands of Congress. Is that because many of these Children been moved to different sites, how do you basically allow for the family reunification? So people have talked about that splitting up The families have been more expensive, but then also you run to the problem of reunification. And so this is something that’s going Teoh linger for a while. Eso it’s it’s not over yet. And there is a pressure shop pointed out. There’s still some legal challenges that need to be dealt with, but then there are also a number of logistical issues regarding family reunification. But then also, how do we process this family’s in in a way that is fair and just, but also in a swift manner.

[0:07:42 Speaker 2] Yeah, I think it is. Ah, nice quote. Um, you know, from Raina Torres. Men de Ville, Mexico’s council general in San Antonio, told NPR’s Audie Cornish that the process will be hampered by US separation process, which keeps parents in federal custody while moving Children into facilities controlled by DHS. The U. S This is a quote. US. Authorities create different files for the Children than for the parents, and it’s very difficult to follow up on those cases. So again, you know this. This is obviously an interesting case for public policy and humanitarian reasons. It’s something that, you know we’re really fascinated with as political scientists. But for purposes of the class, it’s also just kind of an exemplar of the triangulation between court and executive and Congress. And, you know, the president, as presidents often do, feels hemmed in. You know, the court says one thing. Congress is sort of at loggerheads and can’t really act to produce immigration reform. So the president wants to act and doesn’t like the pictures that are on television and thinks there’s a humanitarian crisis and basically did something he didn’t think he could do a week and 1/2 ago, which is to issue an executive order and then hope the court doesn’t overturn it. So that’s kind of where we are on that. All right, let’s see. A second topic we wanted to cover is are the upcoming 2018 elections, especially in the state of Texas. So the University of Texas, as you may or may not know, does its own poll, along with the Texas Tribune, which is a terrific news organization nonprofit news organization that was start up about 10 years ago. So it’s the University of Texas Texas Tribune poll. Does a lot of survey work on attitudes in public opinion throughout the state of Texas. Ah, and they just came out with a poll earlier this week and in the interest of full disclosure on one of the co directors of the pole. The poll had Ah lot of information on the upcoming election, and I wanted to go if we could, to the tablet here and in the tablet. We’re going to show you some numbers from the pole. So, uh, hope. Hopefully you guys know this, but if you don’t in 2018 midterm election, right, not a presidential presidential. In 2016 and 2018 2020 20 rather 2018 midterm election in the state of Texas, we have all of the statewide offices as well as a Senate race. This year. Ted Cruz’s seat

[0:09:58 Speaker 3] is up, and I know you see the numbers there, but let me go down. All right. So, as

[0:10:03 Speaker 2] you see on the tablet here, you’ve got a graphic that shows the current state of the race. They’ve got Ted Cruz there, marked by the red bar. Currently, Cruises is calling about 41% of the vote. Beto O’Rourke, the Democrat. The challenger here, 36. So right now about a five point spread between Cruz and O’Rourke, which is a pretty close race in the state of Texas. The Democrats have not won a statewide race in Texas since 1994. Republicans want every office in every year since then, You see the Libertarian there, Neil Dyckman at 2% 3% say someone else, and then 17% say no opinion. So it’s quite a sizable chunk of people who don’t quite know who they’re voting for you now, by contrast, so that’s the Senate race. If you move down to the governor’s race, you see that Abbott, the Republican the incumbent, is at 44 with Valadez at 32 so six point race on the Senate. But a 12 point race in the governor’s and they see again Libertarian is on the ballot mark tip. It’s drawing 4% someone else, 4% and 16%. No opinion. A lot of these races you’ll see high numbers of undecideds. Part of that is because it’s early and people haven’t really focused on the race. Part of it is because the in the Texas Tribune they don’t ask what we call a push question. Most surveys, when they asked what they called a ballot question, will follow it up by saying they’ll ask people who say I don’t have an opinion yet They’ll say, Well, if you had to choose, who would you vote for? That’s called a push question. It’s not a push poll. Don’t be confused. It’s a push question, and it’s simply Teoh. We find, by the way, that people when they when they say they lean a certain way or if they had to vote they vote that way actually end up doing that in the election. So push questions air okay, but that tends to produce. Since they didn’t have a push in the Trib poll, Dut triple you get a high number of undecideds, right? So you’ll notice that you know 16 and 17% undecided, and as you move to the down ballot races, you’ll find even higher levels of undecideds. Okay, so but I think the difference between the better or cruise matchup and the veld as avid matchup kind of shows you the the parameters of races in Texas. Right now, Abbott is a pretty strong incumbent. Valdez hasn’t Wazed a very robust campaign, and so you see a 12 point spread. Cruz has some baggage from his presidential run in previous campaigns, Beto O’Rourke has run a very energetic campaign, and that’s a six point race. So if you’re interested, kind of in, you know, what are the what of the magnitude of candidate effects or campaign effects in a statewide election? That’s not a bad way to think of it, right? The difference between maybe Rourke being six points down in Valdez being 12 points down, let me Let’s go back to the, uh, to the tablet for two sec. I just want to show you the lower races here. Here’s the lieutenant governor’s race. Dan Patrick, 37 31 over my Collier. Carrie McKinnon, the Libertarian with four. There you got 23% undecided, and if you cursor down the last ballot got here is the attorney general’s race on. And this is where Ken Paxton, who’s had ethics problems and some questions involving campaign finance, is a 32% and Justin Nelson, the Democrat 31. So that race is essentially a dead heat. And you see there, the libertarian Michael Ray Harris is drawing 6%. So two or three points more than Libertarian and the other races, and you got a full 26% undecided. So this is an indication of what happens when you have. It’s a Republican incumbent, Paxton, with all sorts of allegations and issues. And that’s the best the Democrats are doing is in that Aggies race right now. So just wanted to give you guys a sense of where those races are, Um, and you know, is we’re moving forward. Democrats are hoping that O. Rourke at the top of the ticket can turn out Democrats. They’re hoping that the Trump serves as the issue to mobilize Democrats and get them fired up. And, you know, we actually, the polls suggest that Trump’s doing okay. In Texas, I think he’s 47% approved, 44% disapprove in the state of Texas. It’s pretty conservative state. He’s only plus three. But he doesn’t seem to be a huge albatross in Texas, which is, I think, what Democrats are hoping for. Professor Daniel. We think these numbers any any rays of light for the

[0:14:28 Speaker 3] Democrats here. I would say Don’t catch chickens before they hatch. I mean, the problem with the undecideds is in order for work to be successful, he would have to capture 2/3 of those. No opinion. I think the packs and race is close, but I think in the end he will pull it out. I think again, I think when the problems is, if we knew the partisan breakdown of the no opinion, people would probably find there. Probably most of Republicans are gonna vote the party line on, and I think in the governor’s race What’s important note here is that the Democratic candidate put forward is, uh, is former share if you believe in Dallas and openly gay. And she actually does have some baggage regarding some things that happened when she was sheriff over the Dallas County jails, but also her stance on immigration. And so she wants to use the party’s nominee. They are not necessarily warming up to her. And so there are some hiccups there. So this may be pulling back from some of the support you would get from the Democrats for making a slightly closer race, not one where she would win, but I think, slightly closer. But one thing it’s also important to note is that even if, um, let’s say the Democrat does not win the election, a very close election can change the way in which people govern. And so if you see the feelings you’re not in a safe seat, you will change the way in which you governed. And so, yes, you may not win. You may not win the election, but if it is a very close race, it does change the way in which people govern. I think primary example. That would be, um, the Democrat out of Alabama who just won barely. And so he’s gonna be much more conservative than his other Democratic A counterparts because he won any predominately red state.

[0:16:21 Speaker 2] A special special election in Alabama last year to fill Jeff Sessions seat sessions was the Republican senator from Alabama, who become attorney general, and they had to have an election to fill his seat. And the Republican ended up getting dumped largely because he was dating. You know, 14 year olds and stuff

[0:16:38 Speaker 3] like you had a reward more, had a lot of controversy, and that’s what helped Doug Jones out to the point where you’ve been president Trump turned his back on rhyme, or it has become too much baggage. That’s how you see Doug Jones getting in. But Doug Jones has taking a very kind of, ah, fairly relatively hardline compared to other Democrats on immigration issues on a number of conservative issue, because he realizes he barely won that seat. And so if he wants to win reelection, he has to be, ah, Holly, attuned to what’s going on

[0:17:08 Speaker 2] interesting this week while the immigration I guess. Maybe last week, while the immigration crisis was unfolding and then into this week, Ted Cruz was actually out generating doing some candidate appearances, generating money out West appeared on a couple of late night talk shows. Meanwhile, Beto O Rourke went down to the border. I think, very smartly to capture some pictures and to seem engaged on the immigration crisis and you know it. It will be interesting to see the extent to which immigration plays out is an issue in 2018 I heard some, you know, talking heads this weekend, saying that the Republicans, they just want to get immigration off the front burner. They want to return to issues like trade, and I I just think that’s probably not right. I think one of the things I’ve noticed in the national press is that they conflict, border security and immigration. And to me, I would break these two things apart on border security. Republicans were really want to talk about border security, and then they may not necessarily want to talk about the wall of those. Many of them do. But they want to talk about border. Security is an issue. Then there’s what to do with, you know, the 12 million immigrants who are here, undocumented people who are here right now. And you know this is largely kind of comes under the heading of pathway to citizenship or or now no pathway to citizenship. But what do you do to solve that undocumented worker crisis? And Democrats prefer talking about that aspect of immigration because most people support a pathway to citizenship and Republicans air kind of thorn on that, right? So So Democrats want to talk about that. And Republicans want talk about border security. The notion that Republicans don’t want to talk about border security because of you know, the migrant crisis that you have right now migrants and their Children strikes me as being incorrect. I think they want to reframe that issue, but they they want to talk about one of Trump’s core issues. This is purely political, by the way, not moving from policy into politics here and talking about the elections. Speaking of which, there’s another aspect of electoral politics. It was in the news this last week, and that was the resolution of the Texas redistricting case on. Before we talk about that specific case, I’d like to run a kind of an informative video from CNN about the issue of Jerry Mandarin, which will come up. I believe, in the third set of modules for the course, so let’s take a look at that CNN Info video

[0:19:31 Speaker 0] Jerry Mandir ing is why election maps across the country can look so crazy. Politicians manipulate boundaries to favor one party over another. Gerrymandering

[0:19:41 Speaker 6] creates job security for elected officials at the expense, critics say. A fair representation.

[0:19:47 Speaker 0] But even though politicians say they hate it, gerrymandering has been used for over 200 years. The question is, Have things gone too far? The history of gerrymandering goes way back. The

[0:20:00 Speaker 6] Constitution says that every 10 years there should be a census to determine the number of representatives each state gets. Soon after this salamander shaped district was drawn during the 18 10 term of

[0:20:12 Speaker 0] Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, Gerry Mander get it? Basically, Jerry

[0:20:19 Speaker 6] and his successors were drawing maps to group like minded

[0:20:22 Speaker 0] supporters together. The

[0:20:24 Speaker 6] idea is to make the incumbent nearly invincible and dilute your opponents votes. Districting happens at the state level, usually in state legislatures. Some states have adopted nonpartisan mat makers, and their maps make sense. Look at Colorado. But for every Colorado

[0:20:42 Speaker 0] there was a North Carolina or a Maryland or a Pennsylvania look at this district. What is that? Supreme Court stepped in in 1986 to toss out redistricting done on the basis of race. They affirm that ruling in 1993 and again in early 2017. But partisan gerrymandering continues, even with some restrictions in place. The Supreme Court has recognized that politics will always be involved in drawing district maps. But critics say there are no national standards, which means the process varies wildly state by state. And they say that’s unfair to voters, which is why you can expect the issue to be challenged in the courts for many years to come.

[0:21:28 Speaker 2] Okay, a couple of small points corrections on that video as far as I’m concerned, first of all, very small point. But Seth mask it. Who is it? Denver. I think, since the Denver points out that Elbridge Gerry is proper, pronunciation is actually Gary. And so we’ve been seeing Jerry Mander for years and it should be Gary. He’s on a one person crusade to change the pronunciation back, So shout out to Seth for that. A more substantive point, though, is in the video. It suggests that the point of ah Gerry Mander will continue to use that nomenclature is to make incumbents unbeatable. That’s not actually write. The point of Jerry Mander is to maximize the seats for one side over another side, so racial gerrymander would minimize Hispanic African American seats in favor of whites. Ah, political Jerry Mander is to maximize the number of Republican seats as opposed to Democrats or vice versa. Right? So So I think it’s I just wanna make that small correction. All right, So what are we talking about in with respect to Texas? Well, the key case here that came out this last Monday was Abbott vs Paris, and in this case, what the case decided was was basically a revisiting of lines that were drawn initially in 2011. So after the census in 2011 the Texas state Legislature drew maps, legislative House districts, congressional districts and state Senate districts for the state of Texas. And the congressional maps that were drawn up were ruled unconstitutional, violation of the voting rights of minority citizens by a court. The court then drew the lines itself right. This is a three person panel in San Antonio, and, uh, they threw it back to the state Legislature and the state ledges and said, You know, you need to do something like this. Well, the state Legislature simply adopted the maps drawn by the court. Okay, so they drew the maps in 2011 they got thrown out, the court said. You know, here’s what we would recommend The state Legislature just said Great. Those are the new maps. So those maps instead were actually the subject. They were sued again. Andi claim is kind of interesting, it said. Even though the state legislatures simply adopted the court drawn maps, the lower court once again said that the maps were a violation of constitutional rights. They said that the the Legislature had failed to cure the discriminatory taint remaining from the Legislature’s initial maps. Right? Texas appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided 54 that, in fact, it was not the burden of the Texas Legislature to remove the taint. In fact, the burden of proof is on the on the not appellant but plaintiff, in this case, the plaintiff to prove discriminatory tent intent. So it is an interesting case now, by the way. So therefore, District’s really involved three of the district’s. They said, you know, we’re not going to rule on these. They did say that the fourth District, which is a district up in Fort Worth, still didn’t pass constitutional muster So it’s an interesting ruling. They did see that one. You know, whatever the court did with its map still doesn’t get out the problem there. But in the other three districts, it’s not the It’s not the burden of the state to have to show that by adopting the court drawn maps, they removed the discriminatory taint. So in that sense, you could argue that it’s it’s a narrow decision, right? They didn’t really rule on anything other than again like we were talking about last week where they said, You know, it’s the plaintiff’s burden to establish something’s wrong here They basically said, You know, look, State of Texas, you know, whatever the court said about the first set of rulings in 2011 having discriminatory intent by adopting the courts map at this point, you know the state of Texas doesn’t have to prove that it didn’t have discriminatory intent in the first place, right? So at any rate, that means that only one district is kind of needs to be reconfigured or redone in advance of the 2018 election. And you know, I guess at this point since its 2018 will have to wait until the 2020 cents us in Texas. Takes another whack it redistricting to have. I’m quite sure another set of issues involving Jerry Mandarin apportionment. So what was your take on the on the maps on the I mean talks decision here. And this is

[0:26:07 Speaker 3] the problem of Texas run into for a long time. Eso with the voting right now 65 Voting Rights Act There are several states that had to gain pre clearance. They had a history of discriminatory practices when it came to voting. So any change in the voting laws and changing the district’s, they had to receive approval from the federal government. Now the Supreme Court ruled, it shall be beholder that the calculation are the formula that Congress was using what that was used to say, which states should have preclearance, which states should not with outdated and that you could no longer use preclearance unless that former was updated. It was put in the hands of Congress to update that formula. But because Congress is not acted, pre clearance is not there. And so states now can change these laws. However, people can bring suit, and this has happened quite a bit where there have been instances where the courts have actually drawn the districts to say no, this is the way it should look. And this issue of redistricting or the shape of the district’s is extremely important. Because again, as pressure Shop pointed out, the weather districts were drawn is really to help certain groups or individuals maintain power Now we would think the districts were drawn in such a way that they maintain some type of cohesion where the B geographic cultural things of that nature. But we’re seeing more and more time is being taken to draw districts in a way that provide certain individuals or certain groups with a continued amount of power. Because the way the districts drawn you’ve seen this fight. We started by this last week with Wisconsin in Maryland. You see, despite going on a Pennsylvania, and so again there are these major concerns about Are we really getting the will of the people if we draw the districts in such a way that one group is favored over another? Yeah, I want

[0:27:56 Speaker 2] toe correct. Why said that second guy indicated that of the the district’s under consideration that the court had ruled the one House district. Let me clarify State House district. So the Congressional District, they said. Or fine, the state Senate district has said Refined. There was one State House district. I think it’s District 90 and Fort Worth. That Justice Alito, writing for the majority said, was an impermissible racial. Jerry Mander. All right, so there was one they got knocked out, but basically, you know, they said, I guess the court’s own words quote. It was the challengers burden to show that the 2013 legislator active Legislature acted with discriminatory intent intent when it enacted plans that the court itself had produced the 2013 Legislature was not obligated to show that it had cured the unlawful intent that the court attributed to the 2011 legislatures. So, you know, we’re talking last week about you know, whether people had standing and that the court wasn’t going to rule on a case if they believe that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, that if they didn’t have, they weren’t harmed. This is kind of a similar argument here. It is not a question necessarily upstanding, but it’s a question about what the burdens of proof are, and in this case they basically in some sense sidestepped the issue of gerrymandering by saying, and the court likes to do this, the court likes to defer to state legislatures on political questions. This is a sort of not just the separation of powers issue. In fact, it’s more properly, I think, understood as a federalism issue, right? The state legislatures elected the Supreme Court is not the state ledges. The Supreme Court tends to be deferential to what the state legislatures air doing within the state’s not always but but certainly on these political questions. So, um, we want to move away. So we talked about immigration policy, talked about the elections, talked about thes Jerry Mandarin court cases. Last topic will next last. I got a bonus round for you. The Supreme Court also weighed in. June is just a wonderful month for us here because the Supreme Court every couple days, comes up with these decisions. They waited on a case. I think you guys will be very interested in Professor Daniel. I picked this out because we think it’s not only an interesting case, but one that would be relevant. Hopefully not in a criminal context for you all. But on Friday, the Supreme Court decided a case called Carpenter versus United States. And this is very closely watched case involving how federal law enforcement agents, um act, and in particular, what was at issue here was that there was a question about whether the federal law enforcement agents could legally obtain four months worth of cell phone location records as part of an investigation into a series of bank robberies in Michigan. Not exactly sure where in Michigan, But, you know, we could probably guess the government. All right, so what are we talking about here? Well, we would draw your attention to the fourth, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which is search and seizure. So the question is whether you know, in the search and seizure provision says, you know, you shall not be subject to illegal search and seizure. So what does that mean? You know, as a practical matter. And what the courts have decided throughout the years is that well, you know, if a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the government or government agents are not allowed to search you or seize property or you know things from your personage right now. This is an interesting case, though. On what circumstances can there be a reasonable expectation of privacy? So in this particular case, a couple specific says, want to make sure we get the background? The government was not arguing that it could simply demand location records from AH, cellular provider. In fact, what it argued was that there’s a particular statute, the statute called the Stored Communications Act. They said that that statute gives it or gives the government authority to get records by showing a federal magistrate so they have to go to a federal judge that there were quote reasonable grounds to believe that they were relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. So they said, You know, we can get these phone records so long as we get a judge to say there’s a reasonable grounds forgetting the records in response what the court said here, the court didn’t say the government couldn’t get cell phone location records. Right, so you’re not off the hook in that regard. What it said is that the government can do this or federal agents Candace, provided they get a search warrant So you may be asking, What’s the difference between what the judge said in a search warrant? A warrant requires probable cause, not a reasonable expectation but probable cause. Right? So So this is and you know, so that’s where we are right now. The government can get cell phone records for criminal investigations to find out where somebody is, but they have to get a warrant in that Warren is contingent upon demonstration of probable cause. All right, now, how does this fit in the Fourth Amendment stuff? Well, really, there was There had never been anything like this. You know, previously, you know what had happened previously. So there’s a couple of competing cases here. They’re involved. I want to mention real quickly. There’s one precedent. What kind of relevant line of reasoning in a case called Cats versus the United States? And that says, um, talks about whether an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given location or doing a certain thing right. So it’s it’s kind of decision to whether you’re inside your home versus outside your home, right, whereas outside your home there’s a less acute or obvious expectation of privacy. But If you’re inside your home clearly what you’re doing, you’re expecting that people are watching you. OK, so that’s one that’s kind of in your person, right? Reasonable expectation of privacy in your person. Then there’s this other case and six several cases, and they involve what the courts referred to as third party doctrine in that states. That and rather than whether a person has a reasonable expectation of right of privacy in their person, do you have an expectation that records associated with you are going to be private? So in the famous case actually involves bank statements right? Where if the government can get your bank statements, they can kind of locate where you were, where you were, kind of putting money into your account, taking money out. And do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to those records? Okay, so the question then is, well, what is what

[0:34:22 Speaker 6] is a

[0:34:22 Speaker 2] cell phone? Is it something on your personage where the reasonable expectation of privacy is kind of the same as where you are as a person, right? If I’m in my home, I have an expectation. Where is it from the public or are there is the phone kind of closer to your bank statements in which case is kind of a different line of reason. So these, these two relevant lines of raising the cats vs United States and then these other cases that involve kind of records. So personage and records and, you know, here court basically treated it. This is a little. It’s an interesting case because the four liberals joined with John Roberts, the conservative chief justice. That’s the majority of the five that defeats the four. The four more conservative judges, Roberts notwithstanding. They dissented. And the Liberals plus Roberts, ruled that basically the government has to get a warrant. It can get the records. But these records, these phone records or closer to, uh, the idea of expectation of privacy in your person, then they are to records. Okay, But, you know, it’s kind of fascinating idea, and the search and seizure and privacy issues you are getting dragged into the 21st century, right? I mean, what is your phone and is information on your phone? Private is it’s sort of like you, Or is it like the paper record you have you in the old days, bills and banks. So,

[0:35:45 Speaker 3] yeah, I mean, it’s almost like episode of Black Mirror. How do we reconcile our relationship with technology? But what’s also pointed out And this along with this decision, there was a decision that the court made last year dealing with so Jin’s certain Caesar in Utah vs Sharif, where the court ruled that any evidence obtained, I guess from the illegal certain seizure would be admitted if there is a warrant for your arrest. And so, in this case, individuals pulled over on the car was searched, he was arrested. Any challenge? Well, this is a legal search and seizure. Um, there wasn’t probable cause on the court ruled, but because he already had a warrant for his arrest that he could. But any evidence could be admitted. And so what we’re finding here is that when it comes to search and seizure that we may beginning more liberal in Psoras. We’re keeping the government putting the government obey and all the areas we are giving a little more leeway. And so it’s one, these very interesting things. We talk about civil liberties and civil rights because their abstract and even more so they change with society. And so the idea of you know, 20 years ago, nobody imagined a cell phone. And so how do we How do we reconcile a cell phone from home phone things of that nature? And so again, as society changes, really the way we understand our rights and our liberties changes as well? Um, and so this will be very interesting to see that how much civil liberties and civil rights are minimal social constructions and are constantly being updated as we progress is, as a society,

[0:37:17 Speaker 2] it’s, you know, the case itself. If you read the decision, I recommend reading some of these decisions. If if you’re interested, this stuff Scotus Blog’s Supreme Court of the United States Scotusblog is pretty cool. It doesn’t really good breakdown on these things. And there was actually kind of a lot of speculation in this case about you. Yes, its 21st secretary technology. But could you put yourself in the minds of the framers? Write it you’re talking about. You know, phones essentially are, for, you know, conversations there for a lot of other things, too. But we’re really talking about a conversations and with the framers, think that these conversations had an expectation of privacy and was the government allowed to do? I would point out also that the Professor Dennis hinting at the coalition’s here on the quarter, kind of kind of odd. I mean, you think maybe that the liberals would, you know, see their way towards a more expansive conception of the federal government, and therefore they would be in favor this. But that’s not where the liberals were on this. The liberals were very much for the sort of civil libertarian side. The Conservatives, I think picking up on the law enforcement aspect of it, said, You know, well, the government has a you know can do this. They went to a federal magistrate, you know? And so for the Conservatives, they thought this was okay because of the process that was involved in probably because they thought that, um, you know, for the most part, we’re talking about people who are cute. Well, from hopefully for the entire part, people were accused of a crime. So, you know, I wouldn’t have been I wouldn’t have been able to guess what the coalition was here. And it ends up being, you know, four liberals process a pretty conservative chief justice and John Roberts. So they This is an interesting question, and we’re hoping you guys kind of pick up on these things we want to do with the class is take these constitutional concepts and federalism and things like that and kind of bring them up today because, you know, a ZC with the Supreme Court of the last couple of weeks. These things are constant. Were still navigating this stuff. We’re still trying to figure out what these guarantees and civil rights and civil liberties mean in the context of 21st century America. So with that, we want to end with one last thing before we sign off and send you guys off with weak and to take the second exam. And that is, uh, sharks. We’re very well. I’m pro Shark. I’m not sure Professor McDaniels position is on sharks on. Got to say I I found the most recent tweet from our president a little disappointing on this. Can we put that tweet up? Okay. Sorry, folks. I’m just not a fan of sharks. And don’t worry, though. They’ll be around long after we are gone. I

[0:39:42 Speaker 0] don’t know I

[0:39:43 Speaker 2] think about the president’s tweeting. Generally, I find this were the funniest things I’ve read the past six points. Sorry. So he’s apologized. You got break this down. He’s apologizing, I guess toe to people like me, the pro shark community. He’s just not a fan. But then he reassures us, Don’t worry, they’ll be around long after we’re gone. So there’s the apology. There’s the explanation. But then there’s the you know it’s OK because we’re going to be dead and they’re going to be around for a long time. Uh,

[0:40:15 Speaker 3] this’ll five years ago, so he may have updated his beliefs about sharks.

[0:40:20 Speaker 2] I see this is being, you know, I said recent quote, but I don’t know, maybe he’s flip flopped on sharks. You know, if he’s looking for reelection, I don’t know. But I say this to all because summer is here. We’ve actually had a couple of shark incidents in Alabama. What’s going on Alabama? But more importantly, Shark Week is coming up soon, so I would asses

[0:40:42 Speaker 3] all the short NATO 29 is coming out.

[0:40:45 Speaker 2] I left off the Sharknado four. Have we gone beyond that?

[0:40:48 Speaker 3] I think a Sharknado six is coming out.

[0:40:51 Speaker 2] All right. So if you can tie shark NATO or Shark Week into any kind of government assessment interpretation very much in prison, I think

[0:40:59 Speaker 3] Sharknado four they actually go after the capital.

[0:41:01 Speaker 2] I think you’re right. I think that’s right. Alright, so with that, were out for the week. Ah, Professor Shaw McDaniel. We’ll see you next time.

[0:41:17 Speaker 1] Government 3 10 And the news podcast is hosted by doctors Darren Shaw and Eric McDaniel and is produced by the liberal Arts TS Development studio and the Department of Government in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin