1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,080 --> 00:00:13,720
Speaker 2: For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump

3
00:00:13,760 --> 00:00:17,720
Speaker 2: has become citizen Trump. That's what the DC's Circuit Court

4
00:00:17,760 --> 00:00:21,439
Speaker 2: of Appeals wrote as it moved Donald Trump one step

5
00:00:21,520 --> 00:00:24,880
Speaker 2: closer to standing trial for trying to overturn the twenty

6
00:00:24,960 --> 00:00:29,720
Speaker 2: twenty election. In a decisive, unanimous ruling, the three judge

7
00:00:29,760 --> 00:00:33,040
Speaker 2: panel found that Trump can't claim that the office of

8
00:00:33,080 --> 00:00:38,159
Speaker 2: the presidency protects him from criminal prosecution. The judges wrote,

9
00:00:38,360 --> 00:00:42,040
Speaker 2: we cannot accept that the Office of the Presidency places

10
00:00:42,080 --> 00:00:46,200
Speaker 2: its former occupants above the law for all time. Thereafter,

11
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:50,479
Speaker 2: the judges had made their skepticism of Trump's immunity claims

12
00:00:50,640 --> 00:00:54,280
Speaker 2: clear during the oral arguments last month. Here's Judge Karen

13
00:00:54,360 --> 00:00:55,480
Speaker 2: Lacraft Henderson.

14
00:00:56,200 --> 00:01:02,080
Speaker 1: I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty

15
00:01:02,520 --> 00:01:07,040
Speaker 1: to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows

16
00:01:07,120 --> 00:01:11,880
Speaker 1: him to violate criminal laws.

17
00:01:12,160 --> 00:01:15,720
Speaker 2: And in the opinion, the judges repeatedly used Trump's words

18
00:01:15,720 --> 00:01:19,440
Speaker 2: and positions against him, for example, pointing to Trump's position

19
00:01:19,600 --> 00:01:23,360
Speaker 2: during his impeachment that he could still be criminally charged,

20
00:01:23,880 --> 00:01:27,200
Speaker 2: something Judge Florence panpointed out during the arguments.

21
00:01:27,680 --> 00:01:31,160
Speaker 3: You took the position or your client did during the

22
00:01:31,160 --> 00:01:35,600
Speaker 3: impeachment proceedings that there would be an option for criminal

23
00:01:35,640 --> 00:01:38,920
Speaker 3: prosecution later, and it's in the congressional record, and I

24
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:41,600
Speaker 3: guess the question is what has changed or why have

25
00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:42,520
Speaker 3: you changed your position.

26
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:45,039
Speaker 2: The court put the ruling on hold for Trump to

27
00:01:45,080 --> 00:01:49,480
Speaker 2: appeal to the Supreme Court, but only until Monday. Joining

28
00:01:49,480 --> 00:01:53,280
Speaker 2: me is former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth, a professor at

29
00:01:53,280 --> 00:01:57,080
Speaker 2: Cardozo Law School. The court said, our analysis is guided

30
00:01:57,120 --> 00:02:00,880
Speaker 2: by the Constitution, federal statutes, and his as well as

31
00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:06,280
Speaker 2: concerns of public policy. What's your impression broadly of the opinion?

32
00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:10,799
Speaker 4: My opinion broadly is that it is a resounding rejection

33
00:02:10,960 --> 00:02:14,480
Speaker 4: of Trump's claim of immunity from criminal prosecution, and that

34
00:02:14,560 --> 00:02:18,120
Speaker 4: it's an extremely thorough well written and well reasoned opinion

35
00:02:18,560 --> 00:02:21,520
Speaker 4: that is unanimous issued on behalf of a panel that

36
00:02:21,560 --> 00:02:25,720
Speaker 4: included one judge appointed by a Republican president, all speaking

37
00:02:25,760 --> 00:02:28,960
Speaker 4: in one calm but clear voice, holding that a former

38
00:02:29,000 --> 00:02:30,640
Speaker 4: president is not above the law.

39
00:02:31,320 --> 00:02:35,959
Speaker 2: They address all of Trump's arguments for immunity and shoot

40
00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 2: them down one by one, starting with his argument that

41
00:02:39,840 --> 00:02:42,919
Speaker 2: separation of power's doctrine immunizes him.

42
00:02:43,600 --> 00:02:47,359
Speaker 4: The Court took that argument seriously and addressed it thoroughly,

43
00:02:47,720 --> 00:02:51,840
Speaker 4: but found that there was no problem in separation of

44
00:02:51,880 --> 00:02:57,359
Speaker 4: powers concerns with a former president being held criminally responsible

45
00:02:57,639 --> 00:03:00,600
Speaker 4: for actions taken while in office that were in violation

46
00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:05,399
Speaker 4: of federal criminal laws passed by the United States Congress.

47
00:03:05,720 --> 00:03:09,120
Speaker 4: And it cited precedents in which presidential actions had been

48
00:03:09,160 --> 00:03:13,840
Speaker 4: subject to judicial review, including former President truman seizure of

49
00:03:13,880 --> 00:03:16,120
Speaker 4: the steel mills, and the Court said it did not

50
00:03:16,400 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 4: find that separation of powers concerns prevented the Court from

51
00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:24,760
Speaker 4: exercising oversight through the adjudication of the criminal laws over

52
00:03:24,919 --> 00:03:28,160
Speaker 4: acts committed by a former president while in office that

53
00:03:28,280 --> 00:03:30,160
Speaker 4: in fact were violations of criminal law.

54
00:03:30,720 --> 00:03:33,600
Speaker 2: As you mentioned, there was a measured tone, but I

55
00:03:33,639 --> 00:03:36,880
Speaker 2: thought that the tone was a little less measured when

56
00:03:36,880 --> 00:03:41,160
Speaker 2: they had concerns about quote at bottom, former President Trump's

57
00:03:41,200 --> 00:03:45,200
Speaker 2: stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing

58
00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:49,080
Speaker 2: the president beyond the reach of all three branches. At

59
00:03:49,080 --> 00:03:53,320
Speaker 2: different points, I just thought that they raised some heightened concerns.

60
00:03:53,920 --> 00:03:57,000
Speaker 4: They certainly raised concerns, and there were a number of

61
00:03:57,120 --> 00:04:01,040
Speaker 4: really striking portions of the opinion that in a sense

62
00:04:01,280 --> 00:04:04,480
Speaker 4: in a very measured way, I thought, expressed a sense

63
00:04:04,560 --> 00:04:08,400
Speaker 4: of outrage over the implications of the former president's arguments.

64
00:04:08,520 --> 00:04:10,760
Speaker 4: So you just read one portion of it. There's another

65
00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:13,360
Speaker 4: portion where the court said, it would be a striking

66
00:04:13,440 --> 00:04:16,240
Speaker 4: paradox if the president, who alone is vested with the

67
00:04:16,279 --> 00:04:20,720
Speaker 4: constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,

68
00:04:21,040 --> 00:04:24,880
Speaker 4: were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity.

69
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:27,159
Speaker 4: So there are a number of statements like that that

70
00:04:27,200 --> 00:04:32,000
Speaker 4: are just really strong rejections of the notion that a

71
00:04:32,080 --> 00:04:36,839
Speaker 4: former president would be immune from prosecution and from his

72
00:04:36,920 --> 00:04:38,520
Speaker 4: actions being reviewed by the court.

73
00:04:39,720 --> 00:04:44,480
Speaker 2: They also took on policy considerations that he'd raised. Trump's

74
00:04:44,520 --> 00:04:47,400
Speaker 2: lawyer had said, and Trump himself has said this on

75
00:04:47,440 --> 00:04:51,560
Speaker 2: the road, that if presidents didn't have immunity, it would

76
00:04:51,640 --> 00:04:56,200
Speaker 2: risk chilling their actions, and that presidence would be routinely

77
00:04:56,240 --> 00:04:58,160
Speaker 2: indicted after they left office.

78
00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:03,440
Speaker 4: Yes, the court did into account those policy considerations and

79
00:05:03,600 --> 00:05:08,279
Speaker 4: said that not only was there no historical precedent for

80
00:05:09,040 --> 00:05:13,239
Speaker 4: immunity from criminal prosecution of the kind that former President

81
00:05:13,240 --> 00:05:18,640
Speaker 4: Trump thought, but that these policy considerations did not weigh

82
00:05:18,680 --> 00:05:22,600
Speaker 4: in favor of recognizing such immunity. For the first time.

83
00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:26,039
Speaker 4: In this case, they said that it has always been

84
00:05:26,240 --> 00:05:30,560
Speaker 4: understood that former presidents could be subject to criminal prosecution

85
00:05:30,640 --> 00:05:34,120
Speaker 4: when they left office. For example, that's why former President

86
00:05:34,200 --> 00:05:38,359
Speaker 4: Ford pardoned former President Nixon. They cited the example of

87
00:05:38,520 --> 00:05:41,039
Speaker 4: former President Bill Clinton, who entered into an agreement with

88
00:05:41,080 --> 00:05:44,640
Speaker 4: the special counsel who had been investigating him with various sanctions,

89
00:05:44,640 --> 00:05:48,960
Speaker 4: including forfeiting his law license, in part to settle the

90
00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:52,520
Speaker 4: prospect of a future criminal prosecution. And then, most importantly,

91
00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:57,200
Speaker 4: they cited statements by attorneys for former President Trump during

92
00:05:57,279 --> 00:06:01,159
Speaker 4: his impeachment trial his second impeachment trial, they argued that

93
00:06:01,279 --> 00:06:05,560
Speaker 4: impeachment was not the proper remedy, but rather the possibility

94
00:06:05,560 --> 00:06:08,840
Speaker 4: of a criminal prosecution would be the proper remedy. And

95
00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:12,640
Speaker 4: so they said these examples that point toward an understanding

96
00:06:12,720 --> 00:06:16,920
Speaker 4: that former presidents could be subject to criminal prosecution when

97
00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:20,840
Speaker 4: they left office for acts taken while president, and that

98
00:06:20,880 --> 00:06:24,480
Speaker 4: there was no suggestion in the historical record that that

99
00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:29,000
Speaker 4: prospect had chilled presidents while they were in office from

100
00:06:29,200 --> 00:06:33,559
Speaker 4: exercising their duties without too much concern. And in fact,

101
00:06:33,680 --> 00:06:35,800
Speaker 4: there was a quote from the district court opinion that

102
00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:38,440
Speaker 4: they reiterated in the appellate opinion that I just thought

103
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:41,880
Speaker 4: was very telling. The District Court had said, every president

104
00:06:41,920 --> 00:06:45,560
Speaker 4: will face difficult decisions, whether to intentionally commit a federal

105
00:06:45,600 --> 00:06:48,560
Speaker 4: crime should not be one of them. And the DC

106
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:52,200
Speaker 4: Circuit quoted that language, saying, basically, they don't think that

107
00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:55,560
Speaker 4: they're holding that there is no immunity from criminal prosecution

108
00:06:56,080 --> 00:06:59,479
Speaker 4: is going to actually chill presidents in the exercise.

109
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:02,000
Speaker 2: Of their duties. They sort of turned the argument around

110
00:07:02,160 --> 00:07:07,800
Speaker 2: against Trump. During the oral arguments, Trump's lawyer spent seemed

111
00:07:07,839 --> 00:07:11,320
Speaker 2: like most of the time on the impeachment clause and

112
00:07:11,400 --> 00:07:15,240
Speaker 2: this argument that Donald Trump would first have to have

113
00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:20,680
Speaker 2: been convicted by the Senate in order to then be

114
00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:23,920
Speaker 2: tried criminally after he left office.

115
00:07:24,400 --> 00:07:28,440
Speaker 5: So, as the Lascimenta points out very clearly, then the founders,

116
00:07:28,440 --> 00:07:32,280
Speaker 5: the framers actually in the Constitution Convention clearly contemplated that

117
00:07:32,280 --> 00:07:35,080
Speaker 5: that sequence that I've described would be mandatory. He would

118
00:07:35,080 --> 00:07:36,880
Speaker 5: have to be impeached and convicted first of them.

119
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:40,400
Speaker 2: And they took that on and they said, the strongest

120
00:07:40,440 --> 00:07:43,800
Speaker 2: evidence against Trump's claim of immunity is found in the

121
00:07:43,800 --> 00:07:46,320
Speaker 2: words of the Constitution's impeachment clause.

122
00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:50,880
Speaker 4: They did treat thoroughly this argument that he could not

123
00:07:51,080 --> 00:07:54,920
Speaker 4: be prosecuted criminally because he had not been convicted in

124
00:07:54,960 --> 00:07:58,240
Speaker 4: the Senate relying on the impeachment clause. They addressed it

125
00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:01,840
Speaker 4: thoroughly and said that they rejected it, that they thought

126
00:08:01,880 --> 00:08:05,160
Speaker 4: it was a strained reading of the clause that he offered,

127
00:08:05,560 --> 00:08:09,600
Speaker 4: and that although the clause makes clear that a president

128
00:08:09,760 --> 00:08:14,800
Speaker 4: can be criminally prosecuted after being impeached and convicted, that

129
00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:18,080
Speaker 4: the negative implication that Trump was arguing from that clause

130
00:08:18,080 --> 00:08:20,840
Speaker 4: that he could only be criminally prosecuted if he had

131
00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 4: been convicted in the Senate following impeachment simply did not follow.

132
00:08:25,760 --> 00:08:30,120
Speaker 2: So in the opinion, you had the legal arguments based

133
00:08:30,160 --> 00:08:34,880
Speaker 2: on precedent and history and the Constitution, and then there

134
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:39,320
Speaker 2: were the sort of logical, sensible arguments, and one here

135
00:08:39,480 --> 00:08:42,280
Speaker 2: was that, you know, the founders knew how to grant

136
00:08:42,320 --> 00:08:46,160
Speaker 2: immunity if they wanted to, and they didn't want to hear.

137
00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:47,439
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely.

138
00:08:47,480 --> 00:08:49,960
Speaker 4: They cited to other portions of the Constitution that were

139
00:08:50,000 --> 00:08:53,120
Speaker 4: explicit about granted immunity, for example, with respect to the

140
00:08:53,160 --> 00:08:55,800
Speaker 4: speaking debate clause and making clear that there would be

141
00:08:55,840 --> 00:08:59,240
Speaker 4: immunity there for actions in the course of speech and debate.

142
00:08:59,280 --> 00:09:03,200
Speaker 4: By members of Congress, And so if the framers knew

143
00:09:03,200 --> 00:09:05,880
Speaker 4: how to be explicit about grants of immunity, it follows

144
00:09:05,880 --> 00:09:08,640
Speaker 4: that if they didn't explicitly grant it to presidents in

145
00:09:08,679 --> 00:09:10,400
Speaker 4: this context, that it doesn't exist.

146
00:09:10,720 --> 00:09:13,720
Speaker 2: Is there any part of this opinion that you think

147
00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:18,199
Speaker 2: is weak or subject to attack on appeal?

148
00:09:19,600 --> 00:09:24,160
Speaker 4: It is a really sorrow opinion, and I think that

149
00:09:25,480 --> 00:09:28,160
Speaker 4: the fact that the Court took its time to write

150
00:09:28,160 --> 00:09:31,959
Speaker 4: this and to speak in one voice clearly was time

151
00:09:32,000 --> 00:09:35,679
Speaker 4: well used to write such a sorrow opinion. I do

152
00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:39,000
Speaker 4: not see any weak points in this opinion. I thought

153
00:09:39,040 --> 00:09:42,000
Speaker 4: it was interesting that the court wrote in a footnote

154
00:09:42,160 --> 00:09:45,760
Speaker 4: that it was not addressing the situation of a criminal

155
00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:50,720
Speaker 4: prosecution by a state prosecutor for ax undertaken in office,

156
00:09:50,720 --> 00:09:54,320
Speaker 4: and nor was it addressing the prospect of immunity of

157
00:09:54,360 --> 00:09:58,720
Speaker 4: a sitting president from criminal prosecution. So in a sense,

158
00:09:58,720 --> 00:10:03,200
Speaker 4: it's very much narrowly tailored to the situation before the court.

159
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:06,480
Speaker 2: And where did Trump's arguments about official acts go?

160
00:10:07,160 --> 00:10:10,120
Speaker 4: I thought it was really interesting that the DC Circuit

161
00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:15,880
Speaker 4: held categorically that there was no immunity from criminal prosecution

162
00:10:16,400 --> 00:10:20,840
Speaker 4: for a former president, even for official acts at the

163
00:10:20,960 --> 00:10:23,880
Speaker 4: oral argument, and given the briefing, much of which was

164
00:10:23,920 --> 00:10:27,240
Speaker 4: dedicated to whether these were official acts of the president,

165
00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:31,080
Speaker 4: I thought it was possible that the court would say,

166
00:10:31,520 --> 00:10:34,760
Speaker 4: we're not going to deal with the categorical question because

167
00:10:34,760 --> 00:10:37,840
Speaker 4: we're going to find that there is no immunity here

168
00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:40,680
Speaker 4: because these were not official acts. In other words, they

169
00:10:40,760 --> 00:10:43,760
Speaker 4: might have said, arguendos, we're going to apply the framework

170
00:10:44,240 --> 00:10:49,120
Speaker 4: for immunity from the civil context to the criminal context,

171
00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:51,960
Speaker 4: which is what Trump invited them to do, that we

172
00:10:52,000 --> 00:10:55,600
Speaker 4: would find that even within that framework, these actions by

173
00:10:56,080 --> 00:11:00,600
Speaker 4: Trump fall outside of his official acts. Have written an

174
00:11:00,640 --> 00:11:04,280
Speaker 4: opinion along those lines, but they didn't, and I think

175
00:11:04,320 --> 00:11:07,280
Speaker 4: that that is significant. It's a really sort of resounding

176
00:11:07,400 --> 00:11:11,800
Speaker 4: rejection of the idea that there could be immunity from

177
00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:16,720
Speaker 4: criminal prosecution even for official acts. The Court didn't really

178
00:11:16,760 --> 00:11:19,360
Speaker 4: discuss whether or not these were official acts in the

179
00:11:19,360 --> 00:11:22,959
Speaker 4: body of its opinion. They dropped a footnote where they said,

180
00:11:23,520 --> 00:11:27,160
Speaker 4: even if we were to apply that framework, which asks

181
00:11:27,200 --> 00:11:31,320
Speaker 4: whether the actions were within the outer perimeter of the

182
00:11:31,360 --> 00:11:36,440
Speaker 4: presence responsibilities, which is the civil suit immunity framework, they said,

183
00:11:36,480 --> 00:11:39,880
Speaker 4: we are doubtful that these most of these acts is

184
00:11:39,880 --> 00:11:43,200
Speaker 4: alleged to the indictment would constitute official acts, and they

185
00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:46,120
Speaker 4: cited to their recent's opinion in the Blastingham case, which

186
00:11:46,160 --> 00:11:49,680
Speaker 4: was the civil suit against Trump and others involved in

187
00:11:49,679 --> 00:11:52,920
Speaker 4: the January sixth riot, where the court did apply the

188
00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:56,760
Speaker 4: civil immunity framework and found that most of the actions

189
00:11:56,760 --> 00:12:02,000
Speaker 4: as alleged in those civil complaints outside the outer perimeter

190
00:12:02,160 --> 00:12:05,480
Speaker 4: of official actions. And so although the court didn't squarely

191
00:12:05,480 --> 00:12:08,600
Speaker 4: address that question in this opinion, because it didn't need to,

192
00:12:09,040 --> 00:12:12,800
Speaker 4: given that it said categorically there is no immunity from

193
00:12:12,880 --> 00:12:16,160
Speaker 4: criminal prosecution, I thought it was interesting that it did

194
00:12:16,240 --> 00:12:20,400
Speaker 4: drop that footnote essentially expressing doubt that these would be

195
00:12:20,440 --> 00:12:21,800
Speaker 4: deemed to be official acts.

196
00:12:22,120 --> 00:12:25,959
Speaker 2: Didn't the judges also throw cold water on any claims

197
00:12:26,040 --> 00:12:28,880
Speaker 2: that the counting of the ballots, that part of the

198
00:12:28,880 --> 00:12:32,280
Speaker 2: electoral process has anything to do with the president.

199
00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:33,040
Speaker 6: They did.

200
00:12:33,080 --> 00:12:37,200
Speaker 7: They talked about how these were not actually acts that

201
00:12:37,280 --> 00:12:41,960
Speaker 7: were within the president's duty, that these were not matters

202
00:12:42,080 --> 00:12:46,120
Speaker 7: entrusted to him, and to the extented he claims that

203
00:12:46,240 --> 00:12:49,439
Speaker 7: his actions were an effort to see that the laws

204
00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:53,880
Speaker 7: were faithfully executed, that that essentially was a disingenuous argument

205
00:12:53,960 --> 00:12:57,640
Speaker 7: here because he had no role to play with respect

206
00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:02,640
Speaker 7: to the administration of the state elections and the county

207
00:13:02,679 --> 00:13:05,160
Speaker 7: of the electoral votes, and that, in fact, what he

208
00:13:05,200 --> 00:13:09,000
Speaker 7: did was an effort, as alleged, it's an effort to

209
00:13:09,600 --> 00:13:13,360
Speaker 7: actually undermine the working of the laws that do govern

210
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:18,319
Speaker 7: the election of the president. It's a one other sort

211
00:13:18,360 --> 00:13:21,560
Speaker 7: of notable quote from the opinion in that regard is

212
00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:25,000
Speaker 7: the court said former President Trump's alleged efforts to remain

213
00:13:25,080 --> 00:13:29,360
Speaker 7: in power despite losing the twenty twenty election were, if proven,

214
00:13:29,720 --> 00:13:33,400
Speaker 7: an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He

215
00:13:33,440 --> 00:13:37,160
Speaker 7: allegedly injected himself into a process in which the president

216
00:13:37,240 --> 00:13:40,400
Speaker 7: has no role the counting and certifying of the Electoral

217
00:13:40,400 --> 00:13:45,760
Speaker 7: College votes, thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will.

218
00:13:45,559 --> 00:13:46,280
Speaker 4: Of the Congress.

219
00:13:46,440 --> 00:13:48,679
Speaker 2: Jessica, you're going to stay with me. Coming up, we're

220
00:13:48,720 --> 00:13:51,880
Speaker 2: going to discuss whether the Supreme Court will take this

221
00:13:52,040 --> 00:13:55,400
Speaker 2: case on appeal. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

222
00:13:56,360 --> 00:13:59,200
Speaker 2: In a unanimous ruling, the DC Court of Appeals has

223
00:13:59,280 --> 00:14:02,680
Speaker 2: found that Donald Trump cannot claim that the office of

224
00:14:02,720 --> 00:14:07,920
Speaker 2: the presidency protects him from prosecution. Quote. Former President Trump

225
00:14:07,960 --> 00:14:11,480
Speaker 2: has become citizen Trump with all the defenses of any

226
00:14:11,520 --> 00:14:15,720
Speaker 2: other criminal defendant, but any executive immunity that may have

227
00:14:15,840 --> 00:14:19,640
Speaker 2: protected him while he served as president no longer protects

228
00:14:19,720 --> 00:14:24,560
Speaker 2: him against this prosecution. This decision moves Trump closer to

229
00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:28,360
Speaker 2: standing trial for trying to overturn the twenty twenty election,

230
00:14:28,880 --> 00:14:31,720
Speaker 2: but it may not be the last word. The court

231
00:14:31,720 --> 00:14:35,440
Speaker 2: put the ruling against Trump on hold until February twelfth

232
00:14:35,640 --> 00:14:38,200
Speaker 2: for him to appeal to the U. S. Supreme Court.

233
00:14:38,640 --> 00:14:41,200
Speaker 2: He might also ask the full d C. Circuit to

234
00:14:41,280 --> 00:14:44,720
Speaker 2: rehear the case. Neither court is required to take up

235
00:14:44,760 --> 00:14:48,720
Speaker 2: his appeal. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Jessica Roth,

236
00:14:49,120 --> 00:14:53,560
Speaker 2: a professor at Cardozo Law School. The court gave Trump

237
00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:58,320
Speaker 2: until Monday only to appeal to the Supreme Court to

238
00:14:58,360 --> 00:15:00,800
Speaker 2: have this case on hold. Do you think they were

239
00:15:00,960 --> 00:15:04,120
Speaker 2: looking at his strategy of delayed delay delay.

240
00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:07,960
Speaker 4: I can't speak to what was in the judge's vines

241
00:15:08,800 --> 00:15:11,960
Speaker 4: in their decision about the timing here. It is notable

242
00:15:12,000 --> 00:15:14,600
Speaker 4: that they gave him a short time frame in which

243
00:15:14,640 --> 00:15:18,040
Speaker 4: to appeal to the US Supreme Court before they would

244
00:15:18,080 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 4: issue the mandate. I think it speaks to the urgency

245
00:15:21,480 --> 00:15:24,760
Speaker 4: of the matters involved in this case, and you see

246
00:15:24,800 --> 00:15:28,920
Speaker 4: that sense of the significance of this case throughout the

247
00:15:28,960 --> 00:15:33,560
Speaker 4: Court's opinion when it talks about how the alleged conduct

248
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:37,760
Speaker 4: was an effort to overturn the results of a democratic

249
00:15:38,120 --> 00:15:42,720
Speaker 4: election and the public's interest in the enforcement of criminal laws.

250
00:15:42,920 --> 00:15:46,800
Speaker 4: So I think that those substantive aspects of the case

251
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:49,520
Speaker 4: may carry over to the court sense of what is

252
00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:53,760
Speaker 4: an appropriate time frame in which to allow resort to

253
00:15:53,800 --> 00:15:57,320
Speaker 4: further appellate review before the case goes forward in the

254
00:15:57,360 --> 00:15:58,280
Speaker 4: district Court.

255
00:15:58,440 --> 00:16:01,200
Speaker 2: Does that order the way it's it's raised mean that

256
00:16:01,560 --> 00:16:05,800
Speaker 2: if Trump decides to appeal on Bank to the DC

257
00:16:06,080 --> 00:16:09,440
Speaker 2: Circuit that the order won't be stayed.

258
00:16:10,560 --> 00:16:10,880
Speaker 1: Yes.

259
00:16:11,200 --> 00:16:15,680
Speaker 4: So the order makes clear that although Trump could file

260
00:16:15,720 --> 00:16:19,080
Speaker 4: a petition for rehearing in Bank from the full DC Circuit,

261
00:16:19,760 --> 00:16:24,200
Speaker 4: that motion would not stay the mandate. The only thing

262
00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:27,560
Speaker 4: that will stay the mandate beyond Monday would be Trump

263
00:16:27,640 --> 00:16:31,840
Speaker 4: filing an application for a stay from the United States

264
00:16:31,920 --> 00:16:35,360
Speaker 4: Supreme Court. And as I read the DC Circuit order,

265
00:16:35,800 --> 00:16:39,000
Speaker 4: its mandate will be stayed tending the US Supreme Court's

266
00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:43,120
Speaker 4: resolution of a motion by Trump for a stay. So,

267
00:16:43,280 --> 00:16:47,240
Speaker 4: if the Supreme Court considers an application by Trump for

268
00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:50,840
Speaker 4: a stay and rejects it. Then the case goes back

269
00:16:50,880 --> 00:16:54,880
Speaker 4: to the trial court, even if the US Supreme Court

270
00:16:54,920 --> 00:16:56,880
Speaker 4: subsequently grants circiora.

271
00:16:57,800 --> 00:16:59,800
Speaker 2: No one knows whether the Supreme Court will take the

272
00:16:59,840 --> 00:17:03,000
Speaker 2: case or not, but they already have a couple of

273
00:17:03,280 --> 00:17:07,720
Speaker 2: Trump cases on the docket, including this Thursday, the case

274
00:17:07,760 --> 00:17:11,159
Speaker 2: over Colorado barring him from the ballot. What would be

275
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:13,679
Speaker 2: your guess as to whether they'll take the case or not.

276
00:17:14,400 --> 00:17:18,800
Speaker 4: This is such a well reasoned and thoughtful opinion that

277
00:17:18,920 --> 00:17:22,280
Speaker 4: I think they are very compelling reasons why the Court

278
00:17:22,359 --> 00:17:26,320
Speaker 4: wouldn't take this case. There's no circuit split on this issue,

279
00:17:26,840 --> 00:17:31,200
Speaker 4: and they certainly have their plateful with other really important

280
00:17:31,400 --> 00:17:35,159
Speaker 4: cases that they need to decide, including the ballot access question.

281
00:17:35,640 --> 00:17:40,000
Speaker 4: On the other hand, this is an enormously significant issue

282
00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:43,800
Speaker 4: whether a former president is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution.

283
00:17:44,160 --> 00:17:46,439
Speaker 4: One could imagine the Justice is saying this is an

284
00:17:46,440 --> 00:17:49,359
Speaker 4: issue on which we should open. But on the other hand,

285
00:17:49,520 --> 00:17:52,800
Speaker 4: unless there are enough justices who think that the DC's

286
00:17:52,800 --> 00:17:55,760
Speaker 4: circuit opinion is wrong, then I could also see them

287
00:17:55,960 --> 00:17:58,920
Speaker 4: letting the DC opinion be the final word on this subject.

288
00:17:59,440 --> 00:18:04,600
Speaker 2: So is everything here because the federal election case was

289
00:18:04,920 --> 00:18:07,520
Speaker 2: on for March fourth, but then the judge had to

290
00:18:07,600 --> 00:18:11,520
Speaker 2: take it off the calendar. If the Supreme Court decides

291
00:18:11,560 --> 00:18:14,040
Speaker 2: not to take the case, how fast could the trial

292
00:18:14,119 --> 00:18:17,600
Speaker 2: be put back on the calendar and move forward.

293
00:18:18,359 --> 00:18:21,680
Speaker 4: Well, the Trial court has indicated that she will give

294
00:18:21,840 --> 00:18:26,240
Speaker 4: the former president additional time to respond to motions that

295
00:18:26,280 --> 00:18:29,560
Speaker 4: were filed by the special counsel to file any additional

296
00:18:29,600 --> 00:18:33,919
Speaker 4: motions on his own behalf time that but for the

297
00:18:34,000 --> 00:18:37,800
Speaker 4: stay of the trial court proceedings, he would have had

298
00:18:37,840 --> 00:18:40,840
Speaker 4: to work on these motions in this last month or so.

299
00:18:40,840 --> 00:18:43,760
Speaker 4: So she's going to give him that time. That means

300
00:18:43,800 --> 00:18:47,399
Speaker 4: we're probably looking at some time at the earliest in

301
00:18:47,560 --> 00:18:51,880
Speaker 4: late summer, perhaps late July, early August, for a trial date.

302
00:18:52,320 --> 00:18:55,119
Speaker 4: But we really don't know what's going to happen. I mean,

303
00:18:55,160 --> 00:18:57,320
Speaker 4: if the US Supreme Court were to take the case

304
00:18:57,400 --> 00:19:00,280
Speaker 4: in grant to stay, that would mean that things would

305
00:19:00,280 --> 00:19:03,920
Speaker 4: remain frozen. We really don't know, But we do see

306
00:19:03,960 --> 00:19:07,080
Speaker 4: coming from the Trial Court in DC, Judge Chutkin every

307
00:19:07,080 --> 00:19:10,240
Speaker 4: effort to move the case along as expeditiously as possible.

308
00:19:10,560 --> 00:19:12,320
Speaker 4: So I think we may have a better sense by

309
00:19:12,359 --> 00:19:15,919
Speaker 4: next week, by Monday, when and if Trump files an

310
00:19:15,920 --> 00:19:18,639
Speaker 4: application in the US Supreme Court for a stay. Whether

311
00:19:18,680 --> 00:19:20,960
Speaker 4: that's going to happen, I expect it will, and then

312
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:23,400
Speaker 4: I would imagine within a week or so after that,

313
00:19:23,560 --> 00:19:25,919
Speaker 4: perhaps we would have some indication from the US Supreme

314
00:19:25,920 --> 00:19:28,200
Speaker 4: Court about how quickly they're going to move, and if

315
00:19:28,200 --> 00:19:30,040
Speaker 4: they're not going to take the case at all, then

316
00:19:30,480 --> 00:19:32,919
Speaker 4: these things may start proceeding even more quickly in the

317
00:19:32,920 --> 00:19:33,400
Speaker 4: trial court.

318
00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:36,920
Speaker 2: So I know that what they say here, or as

319
00:19:36,960 --> 00:19:41,120
Speaker 2: they said it has no application to what's happening in Georgia.

320
00:19:41,720 --> 00:19:46,000
Speaker 2: But Trump did make a similar argument in Georgia, and

321
00:19:46,080 --> 00:19:49,480
Speaker 2: I'm wondering if the courts there might look to what

322
00:19:49,520 --> 00:19:50,520
Speaker 2: this court has said.

323
00:19:50,920 --> 00:19:53,080
Speaker 4: I think the courts there will look to what this

324
00:19:53,160 --> 00:19:58,080
Speaker 4: court has said as persuasive authority. Certainly, the analysis about

325
00:19:58,200 --> 00:20:03,280
Speaker 4: the functional considerations about what impact would a holding that

326
00:20:03,320 --> 00:20:05,679
Speaker 4: a case, a criminal case could go forward have on

327
00:20:06,520 --> 00:20:10,480
Speaker 4: a president's ability to conduct their official duties without too

328
00:20:10,560 --> 00:20:13,840
Speaker 4: much concern. I think that would be persuasive to state

329
00:20:13,840 --> 00:20:18,240
Speaker 4: courts considering whether immunity should apply from a state prosecution.

330
00:20:18,960 --> 00:20:22,080
Speaker 4: But I do think that some of the language might

331
00:20:22,119 --> 00:20:25,000
Speaker 4: cut the other way, in the sense that one of

332
00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:28,720
Speaker 4: the things that the Court says about why federal criminal

333
00:20:28,800 --> 00:20:32,359
Speaker 4: prosecutions don't pose as great a concern as the prospect

334
00:20:32,400 --> 00:20:35,919
Speaker 4: of civil lawsuits is. They said, well, essentially, there are

335
00:20:35,960 --> 00:20:39,359
Speaker 4: so many private parties who might file civil lawsuits against

336
00:20:39,359 --> 00:20:43,520
Speaker 4: a former president, and that prospect is significant enough for

337
00:20:43,640 --> 00:20:46,959
Speaker 4: us to be concerned about not granting immunity. Those are

338
00:20:46,960 --> 00:20:50,000
Speaker 4: statements that the US Supreme Court had made in the

339
00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:54,840
Speaker 4: Fitzgerald's case, where it did recognize immunity from civil lawsuits

340
00:20:54,920 --> 00:20:57,760
Speaker 4: for presidents for actions taken in the course of their

341
00:20:58,160 --> 00:21:01,960
Speaker 4: official duties. DC Circuit said, well, we don't think those

342
00:21:01,960 --> 00:21:06,240
Speaker 4: considerations apply with the same force with respect to federal

343
00:21:06,280 --> 00:21:11,280
Speaker 4: criminal prosecutions, because prosecutors are subject to a number of

344
00:21:11,320 --> 00:21:15,000
Speaker 4: constraints before they can bring criminal charges, including a code

345
00:21:15,040 --> 00:21:18,520
Speaker 4: of ethics and also having to present their cases to

346
00:21:18,800 --> 00:21:21,680
Speaker 4: a grand jury composed of ordinary citizens before the case

347
00:21:21,720 --> 00:21:25,520
Speaker 4: can proceed. So much of that language I think works

348
00:21:25,880 --> 00:21:30,040
Speaker 4: in the same way with respect to date criminal prosecutions.

349
00:21:30,080 --> 00:21:33,040
Speaker 4: Prosecutors in the States also are subject to codes of

350
00:21:33,040 --> 00:21:36,320
Speaker 4: ethics before they can bring charges. They also generally have

351
00:21:36,400 --> 00:21:39,080
Speaker 4: to present them before a grand jury. But on the

352
00:21:39,080 --> 00:21:42,320
Speaker 4: other hand, there are many more state prosecutors in a

353
00:21:42,400 --> 00:21:45,560
Speaker 4: sense than there are federal prosecutors who are all encompassed

354
00:21:45,560 --> 00:21:47,879
Speaker 4: within the Department of Justice. So I could see that

355
00:21:48,080 --> 00:21:52,199
Speaker 4: discussion parts of it being used to help establish immunity

356
00:21:52,280 --> 00:21:55,119
Speaker 4: from state prosecution, and parts of it being used to

357
00:21:55,160 --> 00:21:58,959
Speaker 4: establish it there is no immunity from state prosecutions. And

358
00:21:59,000 --> 00:22:01,280
Speaker 4: then of course there's a whole issue of the supremacy

359
00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:03,639
Speaker 4: clause on how that would work in the context of

360
00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:07,159
Speaker 4: state prosecutions of a former president. That wasn't a consideration

361
00:22:07,240 --> 00:22:10,119
Speaker 4: in this case because it is a federal prosecution of

362
00:22:10,119 --> 00:22:10,919
Speaker 4: a former president.

363
00:22:11,520 --> 00:22:13,400
Speaker 2: So now we'll be keeping our eye on the calendar

364
00:22:13,480 --> 00:22:17,320
Speaker 2: until Monday to see what happens with the appeal. Thanks

365
00:22:17,400 --> 00:22:22,399
Speaker 2: so much, Jessica. That's Professor Jessica Roth of Cardozo Law School,

366
00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:26,280
Speaker 2: coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show. The Pennsylvania

367
00:22:26,359 --> 00:22:28,960
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has made a ruling in a case over

368
00:22:29,000 --> 00:22:32,760
Speaker 2: the use of Medicaid dollars to cover the cost of abortions,

369
00:22:33,280 --> 00:22:36,680
Speaker 2: and the reasoning in that ruling signals a possible new

370
00:22:36,760 --> 00:22:40,760
Speaker 2: path for reasserting abortion rights. I'm June Gross when you're

371
00:22:40,800 --> 00:22:44,879
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a

372
00:22:44,920 --> 00:22:48,720
Speaker 2: lower court to reconsider a challenge to the states decades

373
00:22:48,760 --> 00:22:52,600
Speaker 2: old ban on using medicaid funds for abortions except in

374
00:22:52,680 --> 00:22:56,280
Speaker 2: cases of rape or incest. But the State Supreme Court's

375
00:22:56,359 --> 00:23:01,600
Speaker 2: reasoning has far wider implications. A law school professor Jessica

376
00:23:01,680 --> 00:23:05,840
Speaker 2: Levinson has written in a column for MSNBC, the majority

377
00:23:05,880 --> 00:23:10,320
Speaker 2: opinion signals a possible new path for reasserting abortion rights,

378
00:23:10,560 --> 00:23:14,360
Speaker 2: as well as thoroughly rebutting the Supreme Court's Dobb's decision,

379
00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:19,680
Speaker 2: which overturned Roe v. Wade, and Professor Levinson joins me, Now, Jessica,

380
00:23:19,720 --> 00:23:22,320
Speaker 2: in order to put this in context, where you have

381
00:23:22,400 --> 00:23:24,719
Speaker 2: to go back to the Roe v. Wade decision in

382
00:23:24,800 --> 00:23:30,359
Speaker 2: nineteen seventy three, explain how the court used the Fourteenth Amendment. There. Rov.

383
00:23:30,560 --> 00:23:34,879
Speaker 6: Wade is the Supreme Court deciding what is included in

384
00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:39,480
Speaker 6: the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment, what is constitutionally protected,

385
00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:42,880
Speaker 6: And leading up to Roe v. Wade, what the Supreme

386
00:23:42,880 --> 00:23:46,720
Speaker 6: Court had concluded is that broadly, there is this right

387
00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:50,760
Speaker 6: to privacy that's included in that word liberty. That broadly

388
00:23:50,880 --> 00:23:55,040
Speaker 6: that includes, for instance, the right to obtain contraception. But

389
00:23:55,080 --> 00:23:58,320
Speaker 6: the question in Roe v. Wade was does the word

390
00:23:58,440 --> 00:24:03,359
Speaker 6: liberty include the right to obtain an abortion? And back

391
00:24:03,400 --> 00:24:06,840
Speaker 6: in that case, the court answered in the affirmative, they said, yes,

392
00:24:06,960 --> 00:24:11,240
Speaker 6: it's not written anywhere in the Constitution, but we find

393
00:24:11,280 --> 00:24:16,520
Speaker 6: these unwritten rights and we conclude that they are included

394
00:24:16,600 --> 00:24:19,360
Speaker 6: in this word liberty. That the drafters of the fourteenth

395
00:24:19,359 --> 00:24:21,960
Speaker 6: Amendment knew that we were going to have to fill

396
00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:24,720
Speaker 6: in meaning to that word. And one of the things

397
00:24:24,720 --> 00:24:28,200
Speaker 6: that must mean is the right not just to contraception,

398
00:24:28,480 --> 00:24:29,959
Speaker 6: but also to an abortion.

399
00:24:30,720 --> 00:24:34,480
Speaker 2: And you right that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the attorney Ruth

400
00:24:34,520 --> 00:24:38,840
Speaker 2: Bader Ginsburg, would have chosen a different legal theory.

401
00:24:39,520 --> 00:24:43,440
Speaker 6: That's right, in part because I think Justice Ginsberg knew

402
00:24:43,480 --> 00:24:47,000
Speaker 6: that a decision like Dobbs could come down, and I

403
00:24:47,000 --> 00:24:50,520
Speaker 6: think her feeling was instead of locating the right to

404
00:24:50,560 --> 00:24:54,359
Speaker 6: obtain an abortion in the due process clause of the

405
00:24:54,400 --> 00:24:58,120
Speaker 6: fourteenth Amendment, instead of saying it's an unwritten right that's

406
00:24:58,119 --> 00:25:01,480
Speaker 6: included in the word liberty, let's instead look to a

407
00:25:01,560 --> 00:25:04,280
Speaker 6: different part of the fourteenth Amendment. Let's list to the

408
00:25:04,320 --> 00:25:10,800
Speaker 6: equal Protection clause, and let's look at how abortions obviously

409
00:25:10,880 --> 00:25:14,879
Speaker 6: and the right to obtain an abortion disproportionately falls along

410
00:25:15,200 --> 00:25:20,160
Speaker 6: gender lines. It is women and now trans men who

411
00:25:20,359 --> 00:25:25,040
Speaker 6: can obtain abortions, And what she thought is that it's

412
00:25:25,119 --> 00:25:28,360
Speaker 6: much cleaner to look at this as an equal protection

413
00:25:28,600 --> 00:25:33,600
Speaker 6: clause analysis. Obviously, if you limit abortions, that is something

414
00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:36,200
Speaker 6: that will have an impact on women in a very

415
00:25:36,240 --> 00:25:39,520
Speaker 6: different way than it will impact men. And I think

416
00:25:39,560 --> 00:25:44,320
Speaker 6: she was worried about writing rights into the Constitution that

417
00:25:44,520 --> 00:25:49,399
Speaker 6: weren't written and therefore could potentially be overturned by a

418
00:25:49,440 --> 00:25:50,080
Speaker 6: future court.

419
00:25:50,680 --> 00:25:53,240
Speaker 2: Is that why she was a critic of Roe.

420
00:25:53,720 --> 00:25:56,800
Speaker 6: I think that Jessice Ginsberg was a critic of Roe

421
00:25:56,880 --> 00:25:59,879
Speaker 6: in part because she thought that this was cleaner and

422
00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:04,120
Speaker 6: more legally elegant not to ever put words in her

423
00:26:04,160 --> 00:26:07,439
Speaker 6: mouth as an equal protection cause analysis saying this is

424
00:26:07,520 --> 00:26:11,600
Speaker 6: really amounts to gender discrimination when you limit or ban abortions.

425
00:26:11,720 --> 00:26:15,240
Speaker 6: I think part of it was that Justice Ginsberg was

426
00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:18,679
Speaker 6: somebody who, when she looked at women's rights, understood that

427
00:26:18,720 --> 00:26:22,000
Speaker 6: we needed to move incrementally. And I think some of

428
00:26:22,040 --> 00:26:25,399
Speaker 6: her writing and some of her speeches indicate that she

429
00:26:25,600 --> 00:26:29,280
Speaker 6: thought maybe we needed to move more slowly when it

430
00:26:29,320 --> 00:26:32,320
Speaker 6: comes to finding a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

431
00:26:32,880 --> 00:26:36,160
Speaker 6: Not because she personally didn't believe in that or didn't

432
00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:39,159
Speaker 6: believe that it was legally correct, but that she worried

433
00:26:39,200 --> 00:26:42,639
Speaker 6: about the court and a gap between the court and

434
00:26:42,680 --> 00:26:43,400
Speaker 6: public opinion.

435
00:26:44,280 --> 00:26:48,040
Speaker 2: And now we have the Pennsylvania Supreme Court tell us

436
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:52,400
Speaker 2: about the decision on the state law banning the use

437
00:26:52,600 --> 00:26:54,760
Speaker 2: of medicaid funds for abortions.

438
00:26:55,760 --> 00:26:59,280
Speaker 6: So this is a case that's fascinating where we see

439
00:26:59,400 --> 00:27:03,919
Speaker 6: now the question largely about abortion rights is going back

440
00:27:04,080 --> 00:27:07,080
Speaker 6: to states, and in this case, the state Supreme Court.

441
00:27:07,560 --> 00:27:11,120
Speaker 6: And this is a state Supreme Court that isn't looking

442
00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:15,800
Speaker 6: directly at that state's equal protection clause, but is instead

443
00:27:15,880 --> 00:27:19,720
Speaker 6: looking at that state's equal rights amendments. Now, I think

444
00:27:19,760 --> 00:27:23,480
Speaker 6: that's worth noting, but it's also worth noting that the court,

445
00:27:23,520 --> 00:27:26,880
Speaker 6: in my view, kind of got very close to talking

446
00:27:27,000 --> 00:27:31,840
Speaker 6: directly about that state constitution in the equal protection clause.

447
00:27:32,359 --> 00:27:38,159
Speaker 6: But essentially, I read that State Supreme Court decision as saying,

448
00:27:38,560 --> 00:27:42,680
Speaker 6: when we look at restrictions on abortions in this case,

449
00:27:42,720 --> 00:27:46,560
Speaker 6: you cannot use government funds to obtain an abortion, we

450
00:27:46,680 --> 00:27:50,440
Speaker 6: have to acknowledge that the impact is falling on gender lines.

451
00:27:51,000 --> 00:27:55,480
Speaker 6: The court also acknowledge that you are treating certain women

452
00:27:55,880 --> 00:27:59,200
Speaker 6: women who want to end a pregnancy as different from

453
00:27:59,240 --> 00:28:01,840
Speaker 6: those who want to care continue a pregnancy, where the

454
00:28:01,880 --> 00:28:05,040
Speaker 6: women who want an end of pregnancy get no funding

455
00:28:05,080 --> 00:28:07,679
Speaker 6: from the government, but those who want to continue and

456
00:28:07,880 --> 00:28:11,560
Speaker 6: carry a child to term do get funding from the government.

457
00:28:11,680 --> 00:28:16,960
Speaker 6: So they saw different places where the government is treating

458
00:28:17,240 --> 00:28:21,560
Speaker 6: arguably similarly situated people differently, and that is what gives

459
00:28:21,680 --> 00:28:24,000
Speaker 6: rise to this the quality question.

460
00:28:24,440 --> 00:28:28,720
Speaker 2: And you think it's a much cleaner argument, Well, I think.

461
00:28:28,640 --> 00:28:32,680
Speaker 6: The argument when it comes to substance who due process

462
00:28:32,800 --> 00:28:35,840
Speaker 6: on the federal level is obviously done for now. The

463
00:28:35,920 --> 00:28:40,920
Speaker 6: Supreme Court said indabbs in no uncertain terms that there

464
00:28:41,000 --> 00:28:44,240
Speaker 6: is no constitutionally protected rights to an abortion under the

465
00:28:44,240 --> 00:28:48,360
Speaker 6: federal constitution. Now, there are some states that could look

466
00:28:48,480 --> 00:28:53,920
Speaker 6: at their states to process clauses and decide that abortion

467
00:28:54,120 --> 00:28:59,200
Speaker 6: is protected. But I think the equality argument does have

468
00:28:59,280 --> 00:29:01,920
Speaker 6: a lot of a peace you'll legally speaking, now there's

469
00:29:01,960 --> 00:29:04,240
Speaker 6: still questions that you need to look at. You still

470
00:29:04,280 --> 00:29:07,120
Speaker 6: need to look at how different state if and when

471
00:29:07,160 --> 00:29:11,360
Speaker 6: they have equal rights amendments the specific wording. You still

472
00:29:11,400 --> 00:29:14,000
Speaker 6: have to look at the equal protection clause state by

473
00:29:14,080 --> 00:29:19,360
Speaker 6: state in those states constitutions and figure out if in fact,

474
00:29:19,920 --> 00:29:23,960
Speaker 6: we're going to say a restriction on abortion amount to

475
00:29:24,680 --> 00:29:29,320
Speaker 6: gender based discrimination. So it's not that we're absolutely there,

476
00:29:29,600 --> 00:29:32,760
Speaker 6: it's that there's a new framework that at least the

477
00:29:32,760 --> 00:29:36,480
Speaker 6: Pennsylvania Supreme Court is looking at. And then I think

478
00:29:36,520 --> 00:29:40,600
Speaker 6: offers hope for those who do want legal protections for

479
00:29:40,880 --> 00:29:43,080
Speaker 6: women in their ability to obtain abortions.

480
00:29:43,520 --> 00:29:46,160
Speaker 2: This could work in some of the states. Could it

481
00:29:46,240 --> 00:29:47,560
Speaker 2: work federally as well?

482
00:29:48,040 --> 00:29:51,160
Speaker 6: So I believe it could work federally if we want

483
00:29:51,240 --> 00:29:54,680
Speaker 6: to change our paradigm. And again, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

484
00:29:54,680 --> 00:29:56,840
Speaker 6: looking at the state Equal Rights Amendment, But if we

485
00:29:56,880 --> 00:29:59,840
Speaker 6: want to make this conversation broader, and if we want

486
00:29:59,880 --> 00:30:05,120
Speaker 6: to look at restrictions on abortions as discrimination based on gender,

487
00:30:05,360 --> 00:30:08,160
Speaker 6: then that is a conversation that we can have under

488
00:30:08,160 --> 00:30:11,760
Speaker 6: the Equal Rights Amendment. Now, it would take the Supreme

489
00:30:11,840 --> 00:30:16,600
Speaker 6: Court using a different strategy and espousing a different task

490
00:30:16,680 --> 00:30:20,080
Speaker 6: than it otherwise has. This is not a theory that

491
00:30:20,120 --> 00:30:24,240
Speaker 6: the Supreme Court has ever previously espoused. But I think

492
00:30:24,320 --> 00:30:28,920
Speaker 6: that you could say, again, because the vast majority of

493
00:30:28,960 --> 00:30:32,960
Speaker 6: people who speak an abortion are women. There are some transmen,

494
00:30:33,400 --> 00:30:37,800
Speaker 6: but we're talking about disparate impact here. Then if you're

495
00:30:37,840 --> 00:30:41,160
Speaker 6: looking at the Court's current jurisprudence. What you need to

496
00:30:41,360 --> 00:30:46,080
Speaker 6: ask is about discriminatory intent. That's a difficult threshold, But

497
00:30:46,160 --> 00:30:49,800
Speaker 6: I think that this is a legal framework that could

498
00:30:49,840 --> 00:30:51,440
Speaker 6: be employed on the federal level.

499
00:30:52,120 --> 00:30:53,920
Speaker 2: How would that work on the ground. You'd have to

500
00:30:53,960 --> 00:30:59,240
Speaker 2: have a case where someone challenges an abortion restriction based

501
00:30:59,280 --> 00:31:02,000
Speaker 2: on the equal protection.

502
00:31:01,760 --> 00:31:06,840
Speaker 6: Argument exactly, and then that case has to move up

503
00:31:06,880 --> 00:31:09,720
Speaker 6: the system. The Supreme Court has to decide to take

504
00:31:09,760 --> 00:31:13,360
Speaker 6: that case, which I frankly think is not likely. The

505
00:31:13,400 --> 00:31:17,280
Speaker 6: Supreme Court in Dobbs already said basically, now we're done,

506
00:31:17,360 --> 00:31:20,320
Speaker 6: We're not deciding more abortion cases, and of course that

507
00:31:20,600 --> 00:31:23,800
Speaker 6: is not true at all. The Court is looking at

508
00:31:24,000 --> 00:31:26,040
Speaker 6: midf for Priston, but they're also looking at a case

509
00:31:26,200 --> 00:31:29,000
Speaker 6: dealing with whether or not there's a federal statute that

510
00:31:29,240 --> 00:31:33,960
Speaker 6: requires people to obtain be able to obtain free emergency

511
00:31:34,040 --> 00:31:37,520
Speaker 6: treatment in emergency rooms, whether or not that applies to

512
00:31:37,640 --> 00:31:41,200
Speaker 6: women seeking abortions. So they're certainly not out of this question.

513
00:31:41,520 --> 00:31:46,480
Speaker 2: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court also attacked Justice Alito's reasoning in

514
00:31:46,720 --> 00:31:47,800
Speaker 2: the Dobbs decision.

515
00:31:48,400 --> 00:31:51,680
Speaker 6: Yes, what we saw from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was

516
00:31:51,800 --> 00:31:57,640
Speaker 6: a strong rebuke of the US Supreme Court's majority opinion

517
00:31:57,720 --> 00:32:03,440
Speaker 6: in Dobbs, and what they really reminded us of, and

518
00:32:03,480 --> 00:32:06,200
Speaker 6: this was specifically in a concurrence as well, is that

519
00:32:06,240 --> 00:32:10,880
Speaker 6: when you're looking at history, there are often different lenses

520
00:32:10,920 --> 00:32:13,800
Speaker 6: through which you can look at history. And part of

521
00:32:13,880 --> 00:32:18,440
Speaker 6: the problem I think in grounding constitutional rights based on

522
00:32:18,880 --> 00:32:22,560
Speaker 6: the time that either the Constitution was ratified or an

523
00:32:22,560 --> 00:32:26,000
Speaker 6: amendment was ratified, is that that was often a time

524
00:32:26,320 --> 00:32:32,400
Speaker 6: in society where we had gross inequality. So looking at,

525
00:32:32,680 --> 00:32:35,680
Speaker 6: for instance, the fourteenth Amendment and when that was added

526
00:32:35,720 --> 00:32:40,560
Speaker 6: to the Constitution and asking at that moment whether or

527
00:32:40,600 --> 00:32:45,640
Speaker 6: not abortions were legal, I think is problematic because it

528
00:32:46,160 --> 00:32:51,640
Speaker 6: has the effect of kind entrenching inequality. It has the

529
00:32:51,680 --> 00:32:54,560
Speaker 6: effect of saying, let's locate this right at a time

530
00:32:54,680 --> 00:32:59,400
Speaker 6: when women, frankly were second class citizens, women couldn't vote.

531
00:32:59,640 --> 00:33:04,280
Speaker 6: I believe at the time spousal rape laws were rare,

532
00:33:04,560 --> 00:33:07,320
Speaker 6: or at the very least not the majority. I think

533
00:33:07,360 --> 00:33:10,360
Speaker 6: the answer is quite rare. But women were not full

534
00:33:10,400 --> 00:33:14,080
Speaker 6: participants in society, And so there's a problem when you

535
00:33:14,240 --> 00:33:18,320
Speaker 6: locate rights at a time when our society looked very different.

536
00:33:18,960 --> 00:33:22,040
Speaker 2: How do we get to this point where constitutional interpretation

537
00:33:22,320 --> 00:33:26,160
Speaker 2: means relying on tradition and history, going back to a

538
00:33:26,200 --> 00:33:28,920
Speaker 2: time when society was so different. I mean, look at

539
00:33:28,920 --> 00:33:33,120
Speaker 2: the Second Amendment cases where they're comparing modern weapons to weapons,

540
00:33:33,120 --> 00:33:34,800
Speaker 2: you know, back in the eighteen hundreds.

541
00:33:35,160 --> 00:33:39,760
Speaker 6: Well, I think people who are originalists or constructionists, what

542
00:33:39,960 --> 00:33:43,600
Speaker 6: they would say is I'm a judge, not a lawmaker,

543
00:33:43,880 --> 00:33:48,280
Speaker 6: and I'm interpreting what provisions of the Constitution mean, and

544
00:33:48,400 --> 00:33:51,280
Speaker 6: it's not up to me to say what I think

545
00:33:51,360 --> 00:33:55,479
Speaker 6: is wise or unwise. I don't make policy. I just

546
00:33:55,680 --> 00:33:59,280
Speaker 6: apply the facts of cases to existing laws, and I

547
00:33:59,360 --> 00:34:03,400
Speaker 6: helped to inter for those laws. And I think proponents

548
00:34:03,440 --> 00:34:05,920
Speaker 6: of originalism would say it's the only way to make

549
00:34:06,000 --> 00:34:10,040
Speaker 6: sure that we don't have judicial activism, that we just

550
00:34:10,160 --> 00:34:13,240
Speaker 6: need to look at the time that the Second Amendment

551
00:34:13,280 --> 00:34:16,520
Speaker 6: was ratified or the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and figure

552
00:34:16,560 --> 00:34:22,920
Speaker 6: out what was allowed and or prohibited at that time. Now,

553
00:34:23,400 --> 00:34:26,560
Speaker 6: obviously those who are proponents of originalism, I'm sure would

554
00:34:26,560 --> 00:34:30,200
Speaker 6: say much more than I just said, But it is

555
00:34:30,239 --> 00:34:34,239
Speaker 6: certainly a judicial philosophy that I think has now been

556
00:34:34,360 --> 00:34:37,440
Speaker 6: espoused by a majority of the Supreme Court. And again,

557
00:34:37,520 --> 00:34:40,560
Speaker 6: what people what supporters would say is I'm not somebody

558
00:34:40,600 --> 00:34:44,520
Speaker 6: who's elected. I'm the furthest away as a judge from

559
00:34:44,600 --> 00:34:47,920
Speaker 6: we the people, and so I shouldn't be acting as

560
00:34:47,960 --> 00:34:51,920
Speaker 6: a super legislator. I should be acting as somebody in chief,

561
00:34:52,080 --> 00:34:55,080
Speaker 6: Justice Roberts Words, who just calls balls and strikes. And

562
00:34:55,120 --> 00:34:57,600
Speaker 6: the only way I can do that is just looking

563
00:34:57,760 --> 00:35:01,759
Speaker 6: at the plain language of these when they were adopted.

564
00:35:02,520 --> 00:35:06,600
Speaker 2: I remember when the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice

565
00:35:06,640 --> 00:35:11,759
Speaker 2: Stephen Breyer used to debate Originalism versus the living Constitution,

566
00:35:12,440 --> 00:35:16,560
Speaker 2: and it appears the living Constitution has lost. Thanks so much, Jessica.

567
00:35:16,960 --> 00:35:20,919
Speaker 2: That's Professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School. And that's

568
00:35:20,960 --> 00:35:23,399
Speaker 2: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm

569
00:35:23,480 --> 00:35:26,640
Speaker 2: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. And that's it

570
00:35:26,680 --> 00:35:29,640
Speaker 2: for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you

571
00:35:29,640 --> 00:35:32,360
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news by subscribing and

572
00:35:32,440 --> 00:35:36,000
Speaker 2: listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

573
00:35:36,000 --> 00:35:40,320
Speaker 2: Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso,

574
00:35:40,520 --> 00:35:42,000
Speaker 2: and this is Bloomberg