From the New York Times on likeable borrow. This is the daily today federal ports. Keep rejecting president trumps attempts to ask about citizenship on twenty twenty cents. Why? No matter what the court's decide? The president, may already have achieved his cool it's Thursday till I love it

the latest battle between Democrats and the Trump Administration is over a question. Are you a United States, Citizen Commerce Department on Monday, announced the upcoming twenty twenty, since this will include a question for the first time since nineteen fifty YO clinics are saying it's mostly the perfect way for the traveller ministration target immigrants. I had perhaps then lead to less resources and immigrant communities The justice department, as a data is needed to help enforce the voting rights. The New York Times reports, at least twelve states plan to sue the Trump Administration to block it from asking a citizenship question in the twenty twenty

fences- and we start with that- breaking news from the Supreme Court just moments ago, the high court ruling against the Trump administrations bid to add a citizenship question to the twenty twenty senses, despite the Trump administrations attempt to politicized senses and divide our nation we the people prevailed so Adam Attack. The last time we talk to, you told us that you thought it was pretty likely that the Supreme Court would allow the Trump administration to add a question about citizenship presents us

I was quite confident the five conservatives in the majority. The Supreme Court would allow the Trump administration to add this question, which of course, everybody agrees with suppressed participation in the senses, discourage both legal and unauthorized immigrants from answering, and when I came out of that argument, I felt pretty confident about that. That's what I told you and I turned out to be wrong. Get happens you don't you don't like it to happen, but this time there's a pretty plausible explanation of what happened after the argument that may have influenced the justices or one of them, and what was that so? I may thirtieth about a month after the hour meant about a month before the decision. There's a revelation

good I'm by my colleague, Michael Wines, that lawyers for the challenges had gotten hold of some very interesting documents in the way they got hold of them was kind of interesting to a master republican strategies. Thomas wholesaler had died and is a strange daughter going through these materials and his computers in his hard drive discovers these. Interesting documents, contacts, lawyers for the challenges and all of a sudden. Here they are in the corporate. Those documents seemed to show that there is at least reason to think that the administration was offering a false reason for adding the citizenship question to the senses.

It's always been a little puzzling why the Trump Administration has said what it wanted to do. It's reason for adding the question was that it wanted to better enforce the Voting Rights ACT and more fully protect minority voters. That's not something you closely associated with the trumpet ministries, and so there was always a questionable idea, and these documents seemed to give us the real reason. The real reason, according to this strategy, was that if you collect citizenship data, you can allow states to draw voting districts in a way different from other currently grown. Currently, you draw voting this

They have equal numbers of people in a district, and those people can be eligible to vote or they can not be eligible to vote. They can be children, they can be prisoners, they can be unauthorized limits, but one person, one vote under this conception, which is universally used today, is drawn based on equal numbers of people in voting districts. The alternative idea, though, is to draw districts based only on eligible voters, and that would exclude unauthorized immigrants, but you'd need data to do that, and this data would get you there and, if that were to happen, that would almost always across the country benefit Republicans, because urban places with lots of immigrants, some of them on green cards, some of them wholly, are authorized would drop in voting power. So this would be a big move for.

Publicans and this strategist himself said that the effect would be to help Republicans and non hispanic. Whites got it so drawing districts based on just eligible voters, which has thus strategist autumn. A cool allows you to disempower nonsense. Sons who generally happen to live in democratic areas. Yeah exactly right in Second thing, though, in the documents is some sense that the offered reason, the asserted reason, ought to be a different rationale entirely, that the administration was seeking citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights ACT, to protect minority voters and what was the connection between this deceased strategies?

these documents were found by his daughter and the Trump Administration, it's a little bit of dotted line, but what's clear from the documents in its early days, and we only of partial information, but the strategist gives at least some of these documents to an adviser to Wilbur Ross. The commerce secretary will arouse the cabinet secretary, who is in charge of the senses. Yes, and some of the language in the documents shows up in some letters transmitted back and forth within the administration, so cool, leave this guy, who was a big deal to begin with, had his hand in at least some part of the decision process so Adam, this, it seems reveals that the trump administrations we'll motive here was, as many people suspected partisan it was about advancing the cause of the Republican Party, but that it recognised that it couldn't just out and say that it needs

a more sophisticated sounding rationale and that this republican strategist provided one. So then what happens So it's June Twenty seventh, it's the last day of the Supreme Court term. They ass a man court very busy. This morning we start with some breaking news from the nations highest court porters announcing several decisions. The senses decision is the very last decision and there comes a surprise. We have chief justice, John Roberts, writing for the majority and in the beginning of the decision it looks like what I would have predicted that the administration is going to win. He rules for the administration on several points. He says they didn't violate the constitution that this voting rights rationale was not arbitrary and compression

Quite a court ruling that then tromp administrations, explanation for adding a citizenship question to the senses is quote in sufficient than during the last pages of decision and in language that seems kind of thrown together may be evidence of a late in the day switch on whose thinking he says, but you know what the administration lose, because this sounds like a pretext to me. This is contrive then goes on to say that we cannot ignore that disconnect between the decision

and the explanation given again and he rules against the administration at least provisionally, he leaves the door ajar a tiny bit to say. Maybe you can come back with a different reason, but LO and behold, Roberts joint only by the four liberal members of the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration in this very area of CAN Wilbur Ross be trusted. Was he telling the truth? We have now the chief justice of the United States essentially calling a cabinet official, a liar so he's taken into account everything you just described, He is saying essentially that the Trump administration will arouse the calmer secretary is being disingenuous about motivation, yeah he's he says that six different ways all them mild but collectively very damning, but I should say no

where in the decision is there any discussion of these strategy documents as such? Although these documents we ve been talking about, plainly in the background and everyone knew about them. They are not mentioned in the decision, but even if they warrant mentioned it sounds like you, you think that it did at least in part influence Roberts decision. I do think that, because I don't know what else would explain the complete change in tone between the April argument and the June decision, except for the developments in late me. So end of the day. Is Robert saying to the term administration the law was on your side. Here you could have included this question about citizenship, if only you given us a more believable, authentic, sounding consistent justification. Yes, I think that's exactly right and the chief justice, as I say, leaves the door open a little bit. He doesn't dismiss the case. He sends it back down to the

can see and suggests that maybe even now they can come back with a better reason. Adam I'm a little confused by this, because if Roberts really thinks the rationale has been presented to the court is contrived its manufactured. Why see allowing the administration to try to make another case, isn't that almost by definition, gonna produce a contrived rationale, because at this point The administration seems to be invested in kind of reverse engineering, an explanation for doing this. I completely get what you're saying it's pretty hard to say that the new explanation will be twice as contrived as the old one, given that you have to hunt around for something that is different from the one

already presented to the court as the only thing you're, relying on wheelbarrows sitting see, was solely pursuing this in order to enforce the Voting rights ACT. At the same time, its at least conceivable chief Justice Roberts wants to give the administration every chance that there is some lurking authentic reason that, if they'd, only just articulated from the get go may be acceptable, I know it's a long shot, but that was what the chief justice left open the possibility of. Although it s easy- and you know Michael it, it seems to me that, had they said from the start that what they wanted to do was provide information to states that wanted to draw election districts in a different way. I think that would fly. I don't know, that's a problem. The supreme Court is left that question open about how you draw districts as recently as twenty sixteen justice, Ruth Better Ginsburg, says well, you're not required to draw them based on eligible voters, but we're not deciding that you're not allowed to draw them based on

legible voters come back to this later so had they done that from the start, I think you're probably flies, and this interesting and sort of amateurish looking litigation strategy turns out the hurt them all the way back, the distance between Washington and why ST get shorter all the time our finances portfolios and the markets are affected daily by the policies in politics coming out of the nation's capital. Mike Townsend, Charles Schwab's, vice president for legislative and regulatory affairs hosts the original podcast Washington, wise investor, where he takes a non partisan. Look at the stories that matter most to investors download the latest episode in Subscribe,

at swapped, dot, com, Slash Washington, wise or wherever you listen focus, so what does the travel should actually do with this ruling from you, Gordon say we give up. Came over of justice apartment lawyers, told a federal judge on Tuesday. The fight was over last today. It looks like the problem. It is basically had to admit it was all Ruth later is coming to a federal district court and say we give up. Came over of justice apartment lawyers, told a federal judge on Tuesday the fight was over last today it looks like the trouble administration basically had to admit it was all roofs and wave of the white flag. Basically, we Yet, if we accept defeat and wheelbarrows issues a statement to the same effect, I respect the Supreme Court, but strongly disagree with its ruling. Regarding my decision to reinstate citizenship question on the twenty twenty census, Distances Bureau has started the process of printing the descending questionnaires.

Out the question and then the next day, Wednesday July third President, is twice up a storm today, President Trump tweets out did. All of this is fake. We are absolutely moving forward, as we must because of the importance of the answer to this question, and it's not clear what the fake is, because the reporting is perfectly accurate reflection of what people in court and what a cabinet official in a statement said, but nonetheless, the present incentives fake that tweet prompted a scramble at the Justice Department. They are now being instructed to go in an opposite direction and hunt up some kind, rational. Nonetheless, so the sweet comes out. A federal judge in Maryland promptly sets up a telephone conference. Go on the record because he wants to know what Hell is going on here, and the justice of armour lawyers to their credit, are poor.

Weekly candid about how confused they are, one of them. Joshua Gardner, says the judge. What I told the court yesterday was absolutely right. Asked understanding of the state of affairs and apparently also the Commerce Department State of Affairs, because you probably saw Secretary Ross issued a statement very similar to what I told the court. The tweet this morning was the first. I had heard of the presidency's position on this issue Just like the plaintiffs and your honor, I do not have a deeper understanding of what that means at this juncture, other than what the prison has treated, but obviously, as and imagine I am doing my absolute best to figure out what's going on, so these lawyers are just as in the dark as everyone else. They ve made representations to the court trying to do their level best to be candid and honest and good advocates, and they have on their hands a very difficult client, the President, yes, so Have these lawyers done? What the president is ask which is to come

with a new legal justification for including the question these lawyers apparently were not able to do that, and we know that, because on Sunday the Justice Department announces something truly extraordinary. It says its swapping out the lawyers for new lawyers. Now we don't know exists, we what went on, but it's very hard to come to any conclusion, but that they could not ethically pursue this case that they did not feel that there was a legally plausible justification. Rationale to go forward with and perhaps they were fired, although it would be very odd to take off of your team the people who have been living with it. More than a year and where the most sophisticated and knowledgeable people about a very common gaze and put in a bunch of new bees, much more likely, they said. Please take us off the case and justice announces. It's gonna put new lawyers on that.

So you think these lawyers are basically saying we won't sign or name to this anymore. We will not defend the president's pursuit of this question. On the census, we're done that's my reading Eureka, so I've been going for dealers. You know we don't know. Yet what we do know is that judge in New York has said he's not the old lawyers out of the case, at least until they come up with, quotes satisfactory reasons for withdrawing so now, we have another little side show about whether old lawyers are allowed to leave or not in there. There is a local court rule in the federal District Court Manhattan and says you can't just jump off a case. It's very disruptive and in this case in particular, it's more disrupted the most because everybody knows time is of the essence. So it turns out that the department

This is not allowed to switch lawyers in the middle of a case without explaining exactly why and explaining exactly why. I presume would be embarrassing if you're right that they quit in protest because I don't like us- have been handled yup, that's the problem, so this is definitively not proceeding. Well for the administration. Yes, that's right, whatever chief Justice Roberts expected, when at the end of June, he ruled against season inspiration but suggested that may be there's some kind of path forward. I do not think that this is what the chief justice bargain for, and I have to think that the chief justice, who is himself a senior justice Department official and who prized the Justice Department, credibility in court, will have very little

patients for this chaotic scene, we ve seen over the past couple of weeks. So I dont know that the administration had much of a shot in the wake of last month decision, but with each passing day and really becomes quite remote that they could get five votes on the Supreme Court. Stand whatever new rationally come up with wind you can the administration is fighting this so hard at this point. Why keep

pursuing these strategies. That seem very unlikely to actually succeed in putting this question on the census work. There are two reasons I think one of them is political. The president doesn't like to lose, would rather fight and show his base. How community is to these issues even at the expense of an ultimate loss, but the other is let's not to lose sight of Michael. This is a big deal. If this question goes on the senses, it will really alter response rates. It'll alter the allocation of billions of dollars of federal fun.

Will alter the allocation of congressional seats. So we ve been talking about litigation maneuvers and whose telling the truth about what, but the bottom line. The larger point here is that whatever the answer is, it's gonna have a big impact on the way american democracy happens and the way all kinds of federal money is spent. So the stakes are awfully high. So, from the President point of view, this is all worth it if he ultimately gets this question on a census, because that's a huge victory for his party and his party's future and its future power, and if he loses Least he has shown his party in his voters that his passionate about this issue, which is central to so many issues he stands for around citizenship, immigration and power. Think, that's right. I think this may well be a win win for the present

there's, a way in which the president may have already won, because he's drawn so much attention to the senses and jested to people who may be wary of participating in the senses than it could be a dangerous thing for them that the the chances that people will participate with or without a question may well have dropped, so the damage to the integrity of the senses may already be done even if the Trump Administration circle it's a census form without the citizenship question, but people no one answered either way because they were afraid of what will follow. So, even if this question likely does not appear on the actual census form, immigrants might opt not to fill out the form anyway, something that would end up helping Republicans and the President yeah. So it's possible that the president's winds by actually winning in court,

it's possible? The president winds political points by keeping fighting and ultimately losing in court and its possible that he wins his larger battle either way because he's turn the senses into something that some groups think is radioactive, that you don't want to be associated with, because no good will come of it. For you Thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. What right back.

What's the number one sign of a bad whom security system a home security system that so complicated you never use it. This is exactly the type of security system simply save has spent a decade fighting against simply safe as the home security for right now, when feeling safe at home has never been more important head to simply safe dot com, slash the daily and get free shipping and the sixty day any back guarantee. That's simply safe dot com, slash the daily to make sure they know that our show sent you here is what else you need to know. The british ambassador to the Eu S resigned on Wednesday. After his candid observations about President Trump leaked to the news media,

President Trump said he would no longer work with the ambassador. Came there had written a series of diplomatic cables to his superiors in London describing Tromp as inept and insecure and his administration as uniquely dysfunctional speaker. This morning I have spoken to him. I have told

but it is a matter of great regret that he has felt it necessary to leave his position in a speech on Wednesday, british Prime Minister Teresa may defended daring and seemed to prison for his honest assessment of the trumpet and good government depends on public servants being able to give full and frank advice. I want all our public servants to have the confidence to be able to do that, and I am after during a noose conference on Wednesday President trumps Labour Secretary Alexander Acosta offered his most forceful defence, yet of two thousand and eight agreement which he oversaw to not bring federal charges against Jeffrey Epstein. Facts are important and backs are being overlooked, simply put the palm beach.

Chinese office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time. Nothing or cost us said that his office reach the agreement. After determining myths, steep prosecutors were on the verge of allowing Epstein to avoid serving jail time registering as a sex offender. Compensating his alleged victims an account disputed by those products. Prosecutors in my former found this to be completely and accept our prosecutors presented the ultimatum plead guilty to more serious charges. Charges are required, jail time, registration and restitution or withdraw the guys and bring a federal type.

Epstein, eventually serve just thirteen months in prison, during which time he was allowed to leave during the day to walk out of his office. A cost us says that he recognized why people now question the agreement which a judge has found to be illegal but said the agreement had followed the Department of Justice Guidelines and that, given the evidence against Epstein at the time, it was a better option then going to trial, and I know that in two thousand nineteen, looking back on two thousand eight things may look different. But this was the judgment, a prosecutor with dozens of years of experience that if I might have a back seat.