Brandis Friedman. Here's what we're looking at. >> Governor Pritzker will be hitting the campaign trail alone. He named his new running mate today as he seeks another term. >> What can be done about the growing cost of Chicago's police misconduct. Settlements. >> And from birthright citizenship to Planned Parenthood. What to know about recent Supreme Court decision? >> And now to some of today's top stories, a big win for President Donald Trump as the Senate narrowly passes his tax bill despite 3 Republicans voting against it, Vice President JD Vance cast the tie breaking vote in favor of the bill after lawmakers split fifty-fifty on the measure. The bill includes 4.5 trillion dollars in tax cuts will making steep cuts to Medicaid. Food stamps and green energy tax credits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the plan would increase the national debt by more than 3 trillion dollars. Not a done deal, though, as the bill now goes back to the House for a vote which Trump is urging lawmakers to get done by July 4th. Governor JB Pritzker has named his running mate to join him on the campaign trail for 3rd term. >> I'm Christian Mitchell and I am so excited to be your next Lieutenant Governor. I was really lucky. Growing up. I was raised by a wonderful mother who was a nurse for 38 years in the NICU at Rush University Hospital, a grandfather who stepped in and fill the void for me and was sergeant, the U.S. Army and Union Steelworkers. They both taught me what it was like care about your family and worked really hard. And I know we've got in a video released on social media. Pritzker says former deputy Governor Christian Mitchell has the experience needed to serve as Lieutenant Governor Mitchell also served 3 terms in the Illinois House and replaces current Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton on the ticket and she is running for U.S. Senate. >> The Chicago Police Department is under fire today over its involvement in a federal immigration raid last month. Some older people say they witnessed CPD helping ICE agents conduct mass arrests outside a South Loop immigration office on June. 4th, which sparked protests. The city's welcoming city ordinance prohibits city employees from helping federal immigration agents in nearly all cases. The City Council panel today demanded an independent probe be conducted CPD as community Policing director Glenn Brookes says officers didn't know a mass arrest was underway when they arrived and left the the facility. Once that became clear and then provided public safety traffic control, which he says is permitted. The full city council is scheduled to vote on the order July 16. 2 perspectives on the city's costly police misconduct settlements right after this. >> Chicago tonight is made possible in part by the Alexander and John Nichols family, the gym and K maybe family. The Pope Brothers Foundation and the support of these donors. >> The cost of police misconduct is a growing problem in Chicago. Taxpayers have already spent 189 million dollars just this year to resolve misconduct lawsuits. That's compared to 107 million dollars all of last year. Our next 2 guests argue different ways of approaching that problem. One by addressing the staggering clip of lawsuits. The other addressing police misconduct. Here with more on this, our Paul Vallas, senior fellow at the Illinois Policy Institute and former candidate for Chicago mayor and Antonio Romanucci, a civil rights attorney who represented George Floyd's family and other families impacted by police misconduct. Gentlemen, thanks to both for joining us. Thank Paul Vallas, starting with you, please. What do you think are some of the factors that are driving these police misconduct settlements, both volume and settlement about? Well, if you're an early jury says is part of additional limit is no caps. There's no. I mean, there's one. >> I'm in it. Some of these firms, it was a recent settlement for 2 individuals, 120 million dollars. There was another settlement, 50 million dollars for 10 years. For one individual. There's a bottom line is there's just simply no limit on the lawsuits all together. Now there are other states should do have limits who do have structure governing those lawsuits and even the federal government to, you know, permits there to be a cap on my private lawsuits things like that. But the problem with cities municipalities as government becomes a deep pocket. And I think that's what you're seeing it's not a runaway jury. Is the city's settling some of these before they come to a jury weather settling because this perception here that if they don't settle it because there's no limitations, they're going to have to pay more. And, you know, let me point out that that there has I think the city's Pan 1.1 billion 2010 in lawsuits, about 700 million dollars in lawsuits that were paying him police losses particularly did not involve proving that the individuals were in is innocent, rather was associated with police misconduct. I'm not making a value judgment. I'm just pointing that out. That's going tell. Studied at the Sun-Times stunt. But up. But there's I think 200 police cases that the 2 cases in the pipeline right now that could cost the city of past patterns suggest could cost the city anywhere from 1 billion dollars to as much as 2 billion dollars you know, tax payer funded settlements. Tony Romanucci, you argue that legal action and financial cost financial pain. That is how change gets made. >> In many cases, do you think the city of Chicago in the police department are responding by making change? I don't think so. Part of the problem that what we're dealing with this, we're not fixing the problem. >> If we don't fix the policing problem. First, then what? We're going to continue to see our problems that developed over decades. What we're saying right now, if you see a payment be made tomorrow or one being made a month ago, it's not a problem that started even a year or 2 ago. It's been decades long. The city of Chicago has not addressed these problems even under the current consent decree that they're cooperating with. We're not going fast enough for not doing enough. So if we don't fix the problem, we're going to continue to have these results and what we're talking about, what Mister Vallas was saying about 120 million dollars wrongfully convicted people. And to me, it's quite insulting to think that wrongfully convicted individuals should have caps placed on what they receive just because they may have been poor or disenfranchise are marginalized when they went to prison. Doesn't mean that they don't that they are not entitled to full and fair justice. you know, I just had to respond to that that that there are so many You can have a conversation with the city lawyers. >> About the cases where individuals who been really stop and see because of a police misconduct. But between them and the state's attorney, they knew these individuals were guilty. They not only settled for massive settlements but but they remain millionaires. we had we had about 30 minutes. I could go a litany of those type of cases. To point is I believe that if there's police misconduct, people need to be compensated. I believe that if people go to jail, they of unfairly and the police have have committed misconduct. They need to be held accountable. That's not what I'm talking about. But I'm talking about massive lawsuits. Masterson what one law firm made 112 million dollars in a single year in pocket and 42 Million. So it's not like, you know, even all that money going into the hands of those individuals who are victimized. Also, let me point out that many of the individuals who are getting out not be released and are settling for a massive settlement. Also, individuals who have committed crimes in the community. how about the victim, Sonny? Because the overwhelming vast majorities cases where a Russian made the individuals who are the victims of the violent crime or in fact, black and Latino and poor black and Latino. So what about those poor families? So I want to get to some of the and I'm gonna come back to your But I do want to get to some of the reforms that you that you talk about. Paul Vallas. You suggest public education in judicial awareness. >> Federal damages caps reform the state's certificate of innocence Statute pursue legal claim or excuse me. Civil claims against fraudulent lawsuits and establish a special litigation division within the law department. And this is all included in commentary op-ed that you wrote in Chicago Tribune. I don't want to talk about a couple of those because like you said, we don't have 30 minutes on the you say some of these convictions vacated based on a technicality versus actual evidence of innocence. And if that somehow leads to these multimillion dollar settlements has well, I think they just try to maximize the benefits on any settlement so that there's been clase's cases were clearly clearly who the police misconduct occurred. These individuals were innocent. There they They were unjustly up. You know, there unjustly convicted and certainly they're entitled to summons. But but there have been enough cases out there that the city is argue time and time again >> worthy individuals, in fact, to commit a crime. But the police through their investigations committed malpractice. So the question is, should be getting multimillion-dollar settlements in the process. I'm just speaking to these cases that have been made and you can look at the public record and in some cases to the judges have actually, you know, intervened point that out. So at the end of the day, I'm simply talking about reasonable caps because you have to understand while the city has paid over the last 15 years, 1.1 is probably closer to 2 billion because the city has to borrow in order to pay that in the city has to take out insurance and obviously have to rise insurance costing the city is at the point. Now where they can even get insurance for these big mega cases. So you're talking about a city that has a billion dollars to 1.2 billion dollars structural deficit facing maybe another believes a summit in the case of their some federal, federal instances where there is a cap. You know, we're there is a cap and some states have provide, for example, if you're in prison for each year, you're in prison, allocated a certain amount. So there are different ways has got a grant of that significant in sense in exchange for agreeing not to pursue civil civil Santa was talking about talking about is having a reasonable discussion on how we can contain the costs. So instead of you know, so that, you know, the because ultimately property containing the was taxpayers are paying for this time a new G. You say the police department while they are cooperating with the consent decree, they're only at 16% after what, 6. >> Tanya, I forget a lot of Prince in 2017, exactly. What do you propose? How should the police department be making change to avoid the kind of police misconduct settlements that gets the city into the courtroom? So first of all, I just want to say that that a lot of the proposals that Mister Vallas puts on the table >> is a clear denial of due process. That's our 14th Amendment right. What he's saying placing caps rude, amending the certificate of Innocence. By definition, if you're wrongfully convicted and you are exonerated, you did not commit the crime. By definition. What is it that we have to do in order to start? You have to start with training. It has to start with the bare-bones basics. A lot of agencies across the United States do not train like they should and they don't continue the training because it costs money. It's expensive. But guess what is more expensive? The problems that come from lack of training. So if you start with training, you will then resolve many of these litigation issues that are being discussed here today because you're not going to have police misconduct. I would like nothing more then to be then to be able to put myself out of business if I can not prosecute police misconduct cases. If I don't have to represent the mother or the father or or a child who lost a loved one who was killed by police. I would be happy. I would be more than happy to have this discussion and continue this discussion at a round table and make sure that this doesn't happen. Is there any other recourse for people who've been wrongfully convicted or maybe injured after a police chase, whatever it might be? Is there any other recourse beyond a civil well, there are some recourse is. >> But clearly our system of democracy, the 7th Amendment says that you are entitled to a civil jury trial. And let me tell you, it's the juries the hard work here because when there isn't an agreement when there isn't a settlement, there is a trial and then juries decide a juror jury of our peers and they make the decisions, not the lawyers, not the city lawyers, not the private lawyers, but a jury. And a judge oversees the jury to make sure that trial is conducted properly 30 seconds. Look, we can spend an hour going through these cases of individuals who made millionaires in part not because they are proven innocent, but they got off because of police misconduct and technicalities. The bottom line is if you go to your Web site, talk about a billion dollars in settlements. I mean, what percentage of that work about a law firm? This is a cottage industry and are making a tremendous amount of money on simply talking about reasonable caps. >> Nothing I've suggested here is anyway, unconstitutional. In fact, many my proposals had been vetted by attorneys for the city. And these are recommendations that they have made me make one think I'm out of time. You're right. We are at a time where there's been a robust discussion. Gentlemen, I thank you both for joining us. I look forward to continuing this sometime in the future. Paul Vallas into a room you thank so much. Thanks so much A think could Up next, wrapping up a busy term at the U.S. Supreme Court. We look at the impact of some of those major decisions. >> It's a wrap on this year's term for the Supreme Court and they just delivered a slew of decisions on cases ranging from birthright citizenship to funding for Planned Parenthood. But as the justices break for the upcoming holiday, they could be hit with some emergency appeals from a variety of sources. Joining us to discuss more are Carolyn Shapiro, professor at the Chicago can't College of Law where she is founder and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States. And David Applegate in attorney at Williams, Barb or and Thanks to both for joining us. Welcome Carolyn Shapiro, this there's this ruling that says that federal judges cannot make nationwide injunctions or court orders to prevent carrying out decisions like Trump's birthright citizenship order. What does that mean? Because a lot of people think that this one is about birthright citizenship, but it's not part of court did not reach the question of whether the birthright citizenship executive order is constitutional or not. And I'll just bracket that to say it's wildly unconstitutional. >> And that's part of the problem with what they did say. What they did say is that judges lower courts kick and probably even the Supreme Court can't issue an injunction that prevents the defendant in the case from acting with respect to people aren't themselves plaintiffs. It's not actually about nationwide injunctions. It's actually about being able to restrict a defendant from doing something that everybody agrees is illegal. With respect to people who aren't actually in front of the court and that the court did allow for some ways in which some relief might be available, whether through a class action mechanism, which is hard to do in which they've made harder or by providing really say to the states who say, well, we can't actually function if birthright citizenship goes into effect anywhere in the country. So we don't know for sure how what the full implications of this order of this opinion are. But I can say that I would. I predict that in the coming weeks there's going to be a cascade of litigation around the country in cases having nothing to do with the Trump administration cases involving injunctions that may have been in place some cases for years where defendants are going to come in and say, well, wait a minute, we should be able to do things with respect. People were never in front of the court as plaintiffs and it's going to be extraordinarily disruptive. David Applegate, your thoughts, your reaction to this decision? I both agree and disagree with Caroline. >> This case is not about the merits birthright citizenship. It is a procedural case. I see it or is a separation of Powers K's Justice Barrett need plane and her 63 maturity opinion and that this is based on the Judiciary Act of 17, 89 in which Congress gave the court's power to do certain kinds of things and not one of is to grant nationwide injunctions at the trial court level or any other level that include parties not before the court. She traces this back historically, too. Difference between line equity in the English courts and how these power did not sense where I disagree with currently is that it is not clear. the Trump executive order is illegal or unconstitutional on the merits because this case has never been decided. The phrase in the 14th Amendment that relates to birthright citizenship. It is all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof up subject to the jurisdiction not defined in the 14th Amendment for the 14th Amendment explicitly gives Congress the power to pass enabling legislation so Congress, it seems to me and not the court is the proper forum that we the people who elect to legislators who make the laws and what is supposed to be are self-governing Democratic republic. But Congress determine what subject to the jurisdiction as far as the court's own jurisprudence, the the case that's most commonly cited. The Kim one Art King's fund 18. 98 is distinguishable from what the Trump executive order deals with because they're the parents were lawful. Residents of the United States. This order deals only with parents who are not lawful, permanent residents. And that's probably your But that is my view. That's the way I would argue the case if you when it gets to the merits, which it probably 2 or 3 down the road and just to stop and say they actually the order reaches plenty of people whose parents are here legally. They're not here permanently. >> But the order extends to children born to people who are here say on student visas, an H one B visas. They're here perfectly legally. And the order says the date don't they are not entitled to birthright citizenship. And in addition, there is a statute that provides that action that gives more full wait to to the 40 member. That does exactly what the 14 amendment itself does. And there is plenty of research and historical and legal commentary across the political spectrum about what the words within the jurisdiction mean, which I think we probably don't have time Indeed much like the previous segment. We do not have as much time as we would like as I would like to move on to another ruling. The Supreme Court made that Medicaid patients cannot sue states to enforce their right to pick a medical provider. The provider in this case being Planned Parenthood. >> Caroline, start with you again. What is what is the broader impact of this ruling so that the case involves a statute that Congress passes past and said we're going to give money to the states to run Medicaid. >> And when states run Medicaid, they have to do certain things. And and then the question is who gets to enforce when the state says, you know what, we're not going to do that. There's there's been a fair amount of litigation over many decades about exactly when an individual who's going to be getting something from that statute like a Medicaid recipient has the right to bring a lawsuit just 2 years ago, the court held in a in a case involving a health care providers that they could bring a lawsuit against states that were not that we're not living up to their obligations under the statute. But in this case just this last week, the court said, well, individual Medicaid recipients, it planned Planned Parenthood itself can't go to court to say that South Carolina and this case is violating its obligation to make sure that everybody can use health care provider of their choice. same question, what this to me very easy case that the question is not whether South Carolina >> can get Medicaid funds from the federal government and then choose not to allow someone to use them Planned Parenthood any other provider their choice. The question is what the what is the proper remedy? There have been is Caroline case. Carolyn said cases that do find private companies 100 statute. But the Supreme Court decided 63 that this is not one of those cases. There is no private right of action in particular because Medicaid was passed pursuant to the spending clause and that under the court's own jurisprudence does not give rise to a private right of action, meaning that you or I are Caroline or anybody else can don't have the right to sue over what what happens is the federal government says you're not meeting one of the 80 some requirements to get this Medicaid money. We'll cut off federal funding you. The state will now have to pay for this. Medicare on your own. >> In this instance, are there concerns about the ripple effects of Medicaid paying for Planned Parenthood services and access to those services salute Lee. I mean, I'm already Medicaid is not federal Medicaid dollars cannot be spent on abortion. >> Some U.S. late here that we know provides many other services. Exactly. So it does the impact of this, this decision is that South Carolina can decide not to pay panel Planned Parenthood to provide mammograms to provide Pap smears, to provide treatment sexually transmitted diseases, et cetera. And that means that for many people who've been going to Planned Parenthood for their health care, they will not have a place to go and they will not have a provider. We've got one minute left. David Supreme Court also ruling last week that parents in Maryland can pull their children out of classrooms that discuss BT Q themes. Your reaction that ruling this case is most interesting to me because >> Sam Alito wrote it and he is probably the number one proponent on the court and has been when it comes to religious rights case. Religious rights and the chief justice winning votes in jury gets to decide who to assigned to. So I don't think it's a coincidence that Sam, you know, with opinion, I think it is based on sound president, the like with the Amish, you don't have to send their children to school past the 8th grade. With respect to Jehovah's Witnesses who do not have to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag because they regard hire and of course, in the dissenting opinion in this case, there concerns about parents insulating their children from different viewpoints, which are which are going to happen in public schools. That's where we'll have to leave it. I'm sure we'll have more to talk >> Because the Supreme Court is busy. Carolyn Shapiro and David Applegate, thanks to both for joining Thank you for having And that's our show for this Tuesday night. If you're looking for things to do in the Chicago area for the long holiday weekend, we have got you covered with our Chicago Summer Festival guide. It's all at W T Tw Dot com slash festivals and join us tomorrow night at 5, 30 10. We explore how President Trump's so-called big beautiful bill could affect Chicagoans who receive food assistance. Now for all of us here at Chicago Brandis Friedman, thank you for watching. Stay healthy and safe and have a good thing. >> captions made possible by Robert a cliff and Clifford law offices, a Chicago personal injury and wrongful