WEBVTT - Supreme Denys Cases for Greenberg, NFL (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:03.040
<v Speaker 1>The Supreme Court began the week by turning away several

0:00:03.120 --> 0:00:06.960
<v Speaker 1>high profile cases, from an Internet sales tax clash, to

0:00:07.040 --> 0:00:10.920
<v Speaker 1>an appeal challenging the NFL seven sixty five million dollar

0:00:11.000 --> 0:00:14.400
<v Speaker 1>concussion settlement to an appeal by Hank Greenberg over his

0:00:14.440 --> 0:00:17.840
<v Speaker 1>fraud lawsuit. You need four justices to agree to take

0:00:17.880 --> 0:00:19.880
<v Speaker 1>a case, and none of these could get the votes.

0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:23.079
<v Speaker 1>Our co host Greg store Bloomberg, Supreme Court reporter, was

0:00:23.120 --> 0:00:25.480
<v Speaker 1>at the court this morning and also joining us is

0:00:25.520 --> 0:00:30.280
<v Speaker 1>Steven Sanders, professor at Indiana University's Morris School of Law. Greg,

0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:32.919
<v Speaker 1>let's start with the Court turning away an appeal by

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:36.920
<v Speaker 1>a retail industry trade group over a Colorado law that

0:00:37.000 --> 0:00:41.839
<v Speaker 1>imposes reporting requirements on Internet retailers. What was the basis

0:00:41.880 --> 0:00:45.479
<v Speaker 1>of the trade group's challenge, June. This is does potentially

0:00:45.479 --> 0:00:47.959
<v Speaker 1>a really big issue that probably the Court will take up.

0:00:48.320 --> 0:00:51.600
<v Speaker 1>It goes back to this ruling where the Supreme Court

0:00:51.680 --> 0:00:55.600
<v Speaker 1>said a state can't require a mail order seller, and

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:58.640
<v Speaker 1>it's since been applied to internet sellers to collect tax

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:01.760
<v Speaker 1>unless that that read tailor has a physical presence in

0:01:01.800 --> 0:01:04.559
<v Speaker 1>the state. So what Colorado did was it said, okay,

0:01:04.560 --> 0:01:07.440
<v Speaker 1>if we can't do that, what will at least do

0:01:07.520 --> 0:01:12.240
<v Speaker 1>is put some um UH notification requirements and reporting requirements

0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 1>on anybody who doesn't collect tax. So you have to

0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:17.920
<v Speaker 1>send us a name of your purchasers. You have to

0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:21.080
<v Speaker 1>tell UH customers that they have an obligation to buy

0:01:21.160 --> 0:01:22.880
<v Speaker 1>tax and send them a report at the end of

0:01:22.880 --> 0:01:26.160
<v Speaker 1>the year. The trade group challenge that, and the Supreme

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:29.320
<v Speaker 1>Court said, no, we don't want to hear your challenge. Steve.

0:01:29.400 --> 0:01:32.360
<v Speaker 1>This is based this denial you know, happens in the

0:01:32.400 --> 0:01:37.080
<v Speaker 1>wake well much later, but the wake of decision um

0:01:37.200 --> 0:01:39.399
<v Speaker 1>that seems like it's out of touch with the way

0:01:39.440 --> 0:01:42.040
<v Speaker 1>that the world actually works. In the world now with

0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 1>the Internet. Do you think there's any chance at some

0:01:44.040 --> 0:01:46.280
<v Speaker 1>point the Court is going to be revisiting this issue

0:01:46.280 --> 0:01:49.120
<v Speaker 1>in regards to the internet. Well, if it decides to

0:01:49.200 --> 0:01:52.080
<v Speaker 1>accept this case, I think it'll at and if it

0:01:52.600 --> 0:01:58.520
<v Speaker 1>upholds the if it upholds the Colorado law, it will

0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:02.160
<v Speaker 1>at least be chipping away at the foundations of that

0:02:02.240 --> 0:02:07.120
<v Speaker 1>earlier decision. Know, the Constitution's Commerce Clause has been held

0:02:07.160 --> 0:02:11.440
<v Speaker 1>to mean that states cannot burden the flow of commerce

0:02:11.480 --> 0:02:14.320
<v Speaker 1>across state lines, and specifically they can't do things that

0:02:14.400 --> 0:02:17.880
<v Speaker 1>advantage their own in state companies and disadvantage out of

0:02:17.919 --> 0:02:21.400
<v Speaker 1>state companies. So the court back in this case upheld

0:02:21.440 --> 0:02:23.880
<v Speaker 1>the principle that we need a bright line rule. We

0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:28.560
<v Speaker 1>don't want states imposing taxes on out of state corporations

0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 1>because if they do, they might misuse that power to

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:36.400
<v Speaker 1>advantage their own state interests and disadvantage out of state interests.

0:02:36.400 --> 0:02:40.520
<v Speaker 1>But clearly the internet commerce is a multi trillion dollar industry.

0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:43.120
<v Speaker 1>We're talking about something like twenty three billion dollars and

0:02:43.320 --> 0:02:46.679
<v Speaker 1>uncollected sales taxes. So I think the reality is that

0:02:46.760 --> 0:02:50.200
<v Speaker 1>will force the Supreme Court to at least rethink some

0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:54.920
<v Speaker 1>of that earlier decision and greg the Justice is also

0:02:55.040 --> 0:02:58.000
<v Speaker 1>turned away a challenge from former players in the National

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:03.000
<v Speaker 1>Football League seven sixty five million dollar concussion settlement, which

0:03:03.000 --> 0:03:05.280
<v Speaker 1>has been in the works for so long. What were

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:08.359
<v Speaker 1>the former players contending, Yes, So this is a small

0:03:08.400 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 1>group of former players who said the settlement is not adequate.

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:16.560
<v Speaker 1>In particular, it doesn't do enough for people who may

0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>have brain damage already but they haven't seen any signs

0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:23.120
<v Speaker 1>of it yet. They don't yet have a diagnosis of

0:03:23.160 --> 0:03:27.800
<v Speaker 1>what's known as CTE chronic traumatic and cephalopathy, which right

0:03:27.880 --> 0:03:31.480
<v Speaker 1>now can be diagnosed only after somebody dies. They said

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:36.000
<v Speaker 1>the settlement doesn't take care of those those people well enough.

0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:39.640
<v Speaker 1>And they tried to leverage some Supreme Court rulings from

0:03:39.640 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 1>the late ninety nineties where the court said, um that

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:47.560
<v Speaker 1>that big settlements involving people exposed to asbestos were too

0:03:47.600 --> 0:03:53.960
<v Speaker 1>sprawling and uh violated the federal rules government class actions. Well, Greg,

0:03:54.200 --> 0:03:57.040
<v Speaker 1>just to follow up on this, was there is this

0:03:57.080 --> 0:04:00.320
<v Speaker 1>is a surprise. I's gotten so much media attention this setlement.

0:04:00.320 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 1>It's such a big deal given the importance of the

0:04:02.800 --> 0:04:05.640
<v Speaker 1>NFL to people. Is it a surprise the court didn't

0:04:05.680 --> 0:04:08.920
<v Speaker 1>hear this case? Not? Not really a surprise. Again, it

0:04:08.960 --> 0:04:12.320
<v Speaker 1>was a very small group of of of players and

0:04:12.400 --> 0:04:15.800
<v Speaker 1>the league and the settling players made the argument um

0:04:15.840 --> 0:04:18.359
<v Speaker 1>that these are people who had a right to opt

0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:20.320
<v Speaker 1>out of the settlement. This is not a case where

0:04:20.320 --> 0:04:23.279
<v Speaker 1>somebody's rights are being taken away. They argued they could

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:25.960
<v Speaker 1>have if they thought the deal didn't do enough for them,

0:04:26.320 --> 0:04:27.840
<v Speaker 1>they could have said, no, I don't want to be

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:31.120
<v Speaker 1>a part of it. I'll file my own lawsuit. Steve.

0:04:31.200 --> 0:04:34.880
<v Speaker 1>In another case that's been around even longer, trial has

0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:38.320
<v Speaker 1>begun against former A I. G. Chairman Hank Greenberg for

0:04:38.360 --> 0:04:42.400
<v Speaker 1>allegedly using to sham transactions to hide the insurers true

0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:46.240
<v Speaker 1>financial condition that started in New York in September, more

0:04:46.279 --> 0:04:49.599
<v Speaker 1>than eleven years after former New York Attorney General Elliot

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:54.159
<v Speaker 1>Spitzer file suit. The justices refused to derail it. What

0:04:54.320 --> 0:04:57.919
<v Speaker 1>was Greenberg's argument for stopping it? So Greenberg, so, the

0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:00.520
<v Speaker 1>trading of securities is something that's regular. They did under

0:05:00.600 --> 0:05:03.960
<v Speaker 1>both state and federal law. And because the constitutions as

0:05:04.000 --> 0:05:09.000
<v Speaker 1>federal laws supreme, federal law can preempt state law where

0:05:09.040 --> 0:05:11.520
<v Speaker 1>the two conflict, or where they attempt to regulate the

0:05:11.520 --> 0:05:15.320
<v Speaker 1>same matter in different ways. So here, federal law expressly

0:05:15.360 --> 0:05:20.400
<v Speaker 1>allows state enforcement actions that allege fraud or deceit, which

0:05:20.440 --> 0:05:23.120
<v Speaker 1>is what the New York Attorney General has alleged against

0:05:23.120 --> 0:05:26.600
<v Speaker 1>Hank Greenberg in this case. But New York state law

0:05:26.640 --> 0:05:31.560
<v Speaker 1>has a lower threshold for proving fraud than does federal law.

0:05:31.600 --> 0:05:34.839
<v Speaker 1>The state law doesn't require something called si enter, that

0:05:34.960 --> 0:05:37.600
<v Speaker 1>is that the offending party actually knew that their action

0:05:37.720 --> 0:05:41.159
<v Speaker 1>was wrongful before committing it. So Greenberg's lawyers argued that

0:05:41.160 --> 0:05:44.360
<v Speaker 1>the enforcement action by Eric Schneiderman, the New York Attorney

0:05:44.400 --> 0:05:49.200
<v Speaker 1>General didn't fit within the exception to preemption that federal

0:05:49.320 --> 0:05:53.960
<v Speaker 1>law creates. UM New York's highest appellate court rejected that argument,

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:57.839
<v Speaker 1>and today the Supreme Court simply indicated without comment that

0:05:58.160 --> 0:06:01.479
<v Speaker 1>it was content to left that new work State appellate

0:06:01.520 --> 0:06:04.840
<v Speaker 1>court decision stand and let the trial go forward. This,

0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 1>of course, expresses no view about whether Greenberg actually committed

0:06:08.640 --> 0:06:11.359
<v Speaker 1>the sham transactions that the State of New York says

0:06:11.400 --> 0:06:15.400
<v Speaker 1>he did, simply that state law may be used in

0:06:15.440 --> 0:06:19.160
<v Speaker 1>this case to attempt to prosecute him. Michael greg and

0:06:19.279 --> 0:06:24.760
<v Speaker 1>I are talking with Professor UM Professor Steven Sanders of

0:06:24.880 --> 0:06:28.839
<v Speaker 1>Indiana University's Morris School of Law about the Supreme Courts

0:06:28.960 --> 0:06:33.680
<v Speaker 1>turning down several high profile cases. Today. Greg, let's turn

0:06:33.760 --> 0:06:37.200
<v Speaker 1>to the two death penalty t cases that the Court

0:06:37.279 --> 0:06:42.160
<v Speaker 1>turned down over the objection both of Justice Stephen Brier

0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:46.920
<v Speaker 1>and one of Justice Stephen Brier and Justice Elena Kagan. Right.

0:06:47.000 --> 0:06:50.920
<v Speaker 1>These are both appealed by death row inmates. One is

0:06:51.279 --> 0:06:53.960
<v Speaker 1>a man who has sentenced to death forty years ago,

0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 1>a man from Florida. Another is a man who the

0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:00.680
<v Speaker 1>state of Ohio tried to execute into ales and nine

0:07:00.720 --> 0:07:04.080
<v Speaker 1>and they botched that execution, and both of them argued

0:07:04.200 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 1>that executing them now would be a violation of the Constitution.

0:07:09.400 --> 0:07:12.000
<v Speaker 1>The Court did not agree to hear those claims, and

0:07:12.080 --> 0:07:14.640
<v Speaker 1>as he said, Justice Briar and in one case Justice

0:07:14.720 --> 0:07:17.640
<v Speaker 1>Kagan said they would have taken up the case. Justice Briar,

0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 1>of course, is one of two justices who has said

0:07:19.920 --> 0:07:22.560
<v Speaker 1>he wants the Court to reconsider whether the death penalty

0:07:22.720 --> 0:07:27.320
<v Speaker 1>is constitutional at all, given given all the things that

0:07:27.360 --> 0:07:30.120
<v Speaker 1>are going on with it right now. Well, Steve, obviously

0:07:30.200 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 1>the Court does not explain why it turns down cases,

0:07:34.120 --> 0:07:36.720
<v Speaker 1>But can we read the tea leaves at all about

0:07:36.840 --> 0:07:39.040
<v Speaker 1>whether Justice Briar is going to be able to get

0:07:39.080 --> 0:07:43.040
<v Speaker 1>any traction on his beliefs about the death penalty given

0:07:43.080 --> 0:07:46.160
<v Speaker 1>the fact that the Court refused both these cases. Well,

0:07:46.360 --> 0:07:49.040
<v Speaker 1>I think this is one of those things you sometimes

0:07:49.040 --> 0:07:52.800
<v Speaker 1>see in constitutional law and Supreme Court litigation. Justice Brier

0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:56.200
<v Speaker 1>has to understand that he's playing for the long game here.

0:07:56.520 --> 0:08:00.280
<v Speaker 1>I mean, to some extent he's succeeded um simply because

0:08:00.280 --> 0:08:03.000
<v Speaker 1>we're here talking about it, and people will talk about

0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:06.840
<v Speaker 1>these cases. And the larger argument that Justice Brier has

0:08:06.880 --> 0:08:08.960
<v Speaker 1>been making for a number of years now that the

0:08:09.000 --> 0:08:13.960
<v Speaker 1>death penalty has become so unpredictable and arbitrary in its

0:08:14.000 --> 0:08:19.680
<v Speaker 1>actual implementation that those problems um suffice to make it

0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:23.920
<v Speaker 1>cool and unusual and therefore unconstitutional. I think, you know,

0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:26.880
<v Speaker 1>given the Court as it's currently constituted and likely to

0:08:26.960 --> 0:08:30.560
<v Speaker 1>continue under the next administration, with the appointments that Donald

0:08:30.560 --> 0:08:34.160
<v Speaker 1>Trump will get, we're not likely to see an outline

0:08:34.200 --> 0:08:38.640
<v Speaker 1>of the federal death penalty is unconstitutional anytime very soon. Um.

0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:40.720
<v Speaker 1>As I say, this is part of I think a

0:08:40.800 --> 0:08:44.760
<v Speaker 1>longer term dialogue that Justice Brier and sometimes we've an

0:08:44.800 --> 0:08:48.200
<v Speaker 1>assist from Justice Ginsburg is trying to create so that

0:08:48.320 --> 0:08:53.160
<v Speaker 1>legal academics, journalists, and the public will at least have

0:08:53.360 --> 0:08:55.520
<v Speaker 1>more of a conversation. This will be on the national

0:08:55.640 --> 0:08:59.559
<v Speaker 1>radar screen. Is this is the death penalty something we want?

0:09:00.120 --> 0:09:05.080
<v Speaker 1>Is it currently carried out in a way that is conscionable? Gregg,

0:09:05.360 --> 0:09:09.200
<v Speaker 1>there is an Alabama death penalty case that the Court

0:09:09.280 --> 0:09:12.320
<v Speaker 1>has yet to decide about. Tell us about that. Yeah,

0:09:12.360 --> 0:09:14.880
<v Speaker 1>this is another bid for Supreme Court review. The Court

0:09:14.960 --> 0:09:17.120
<v Speaker 1>did not act on it this morning. It's possible the

0:09:17.120 --> 0:09:20.240
<v Speaker 1>Court will act on it later today or tomorrow. Uh.

0:09:20.280 --> 0:09:22.400
<v Speaker 1>This is the case out of Alabama and it's noteworthy

0:09:22.480 --> 0:09:25.600
<v Speaker 1>because if you recalled. Just before the election, just a

0:09:25.640 --> 0:09:29.480
<v Speaker 1>few days, UH, there was this man's case. His name

0:09:29.520 --> 0:09:31.960
<v Speaker 1>is Thomas Arthur. He asked the court to stop his

0:09:32.040 --> 0:09:35.680
<v Speaker 1>execution and four justices said they would, but but you

0:09:35.720 --> 0:09:39.199
<v Speaker 1>need five to to stay in execution. And the Chief Justice,

0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:43.120
<v Speaker 1>John Roberts said he would extend be the fifth vote

0:09:43.120 --> 0:09:45.160
<v Speaker 1>as a courtesy to the four who wanted to hear

0:09:45.280 --> 0:09:47.520
<v Speaker 1>his case. So now we have the question of whether

0:09:47.559 --> 0:09:49.920
<v Speaker 1>the court will actually agree to hear arguments in the

0:09:49.960 --> 0:09:54.680
<v Speaker 1>case um and um, we may get more clues about

0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:57.000
<v Speaker 1>how the court will deal with the death penalty. UH.

0:09:57.160 --> 0:09:59.360
<v Speaker 1>It raises a couple of different issues. One has to

0:09:59.400 --> 0:10:02.720
<v Speaker 1>do with UH lethal injection and what you have to

0:10:02.840 --> 0:10:05.360
<v Speaker 1>show to to show that a method of of lethal

0:10:05.400 --> 0:10:08.600
<v Speaker 1>injection is unconstitutional. The other has to do with some

0:10:09.240 --> 0:10:14.080
<v Speaker 1>particular aspects of Alabama's death death penalty scheme that is

0:10:14.120 --> 0:10:16.640
<v Speaker 1>going to be coming up at one of these conferences.

0:10:16.679 --> 0:10:19.160
<v Speaker 1>And so today we certainly heard a lot from the

0:10:19.160 --> 0:10:21.840
<v Speaker 1>court as far as what they are not going to

0:10:21.960 --> 0:10:24.000
<v Speaker 1>hear and UH, what do you think, Greg, By the

0:10:24.080 --> 0:10:25.640
<v Speaker 1>end of the week we might hear some of the

0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:28.680
<v Speaker 1>cases they will hear. We might It is not entirely

0:10:28.720 --> 0:10:33.080
<v Speaker 1>clear right now. The court uh needs to act quickly

0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:35.960
<v Speaker 1>before they're about to have a four week recess, but

0:10:36.559 --> 0:10:38.720
<v Speaker 1>UH they might want to add some more cases so

0:10:38.760 --> 0:10:41.040
<v Speaker 1>that they can hear them when they come back, so

0:10:41.120 --> 0:10:42.880
<v Speaker 1>they can hear them in their March calendar, which right

0:10:42.880 --> 0:10:45.480
<v Speaker 1>now is pretty sparse. So there's reason I think they

0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:47.320
<v Speaker 1>will act on a few of these cases and agree

0:10:47.320 --> 0:10:50.000
<v Speaker 1>to hear them before they leave for their four week break.

0:10:50.120 --> 0:10:52.199
<v Speaker 1>And we will get that first word from Greg Store,

0:10:52.320 --> 0:10:55.240
<v Speaker 1>our Supreme Court reporter and co host here on Bloomberg Law.

0:10:55.280 --> 0:10:58.760
<v Speaker 1>And thank you Stephen Sanders, professor at Indiana University's Morris

0:10:58.800 --> 0:11:02.480
<v Speaker 1>School of Law, for joining us on Bloomberg Law. Coming

0:11:02.559 --> 0:11:05.840
<v Speaker 1>up on Bloomberg Law, the future of healthcare under the

0:11:05.920 --> 0:11:08.720
<v Speaker 1>new Trump administration, and we're also going to be talking

0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:13.719
<v Speaker 1>about Washington, the first state to sue agro giant Monsanto

0:11:13.920 --> 0:11:18.560
<v Speaker 1>over environmental pollution from PCBs. This is Bloomberg