1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,240
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:21,920
Speaker 2: Days.

3
00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:32,360
Speaker 1: Whether you're buying tickets for the upcoming concerts of VTS, Bruno,

4
00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:37,440
Speaker 1: Mars or Shakira, you probably purchased them on Ticketmaster and

5
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:41,800
Speaker 1: may have experienced sticker shock, especially when looking at the

6
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:46,880
Speaker 1: added service fees. Music lovers who've been complaining for years

7
00:00:46,920 --> 00:00:51,640
Speaker 1: about Ticketmaster's fees are surely reveling in a jury verdict

8
00:00:51,720 --> 00:00:56,120
Speaker 1: that found that its parent company, Live Nation illegally monopolized

9
00:00:56,160 --> 00:01:00,200
Speaker 1: the live events industry and overcharged fans for tickets to

10
00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:04,040
Speaker 1: music performances. The verdict is a major win for a

11
00:01:04,080 --> 00:01:08,280
Speaker 1: coalition of thirty four states in DC that pursued the

12
00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:12,280
Speaker 1: case after the Justice Department walked away from it. Here's

13
00:01:12,319 --> 00:01:14,160
Speaker 1: their attorney, Jeffrey Kessler.

14
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:17,800
Speaker 3: It's a great day for consumers and fans, and it's.

15
00:01:17,600 --> 00:01:21,280
Speaker 1: A great day for the thirty four States District of Columbia,

16
00:01:21,560 --> 00:01:24,280
Speaker 1: wife and honored to work for on this matter. But

17
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:27,920
Speaker 1: it will take quite a while, perhaps through years of appeals,

18
00:01:28,240 --> 00:01:31,560
Speaker 1: for those fans to see if the verdict really leads

19
00:01:31,600 --> 00:01:35,480
Speaker 1: to changes that make concerts more affordable. Even though the

20
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:39,399
Speaker 1: stage is set for a possible breakup of Live Nation

21
00:01:39,640 --> 00:01:44,240
Speaker 1: and Ticketmaster. Live Nation continues to insist it's not a

22
00:01:44,319 --> 00:01:48,480
Speaker 1: monopoly and says the jury verdict is not the last word.

23
00:01:49,000 --> 00:01:52,520
Speaker 1: My guest is an expert in anti trust law, Harry First,

24
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:55,800
Speaker 1: a professor at NYU Law School. Harry, would you call

25
00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:58,840
Speaker 1: this a landmark verdict? How would you characterize it?

26
00:01:59,240 --> 00:02:02,320
Speaker 3: Yes, I think it is. It's landmarky in a number

27
00:02:02,320 --> 00:02:08,600
Speaker 3: of ways. So monopolization cases historically are pretty infrequent. I

28
00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:11,560
Speaker 3: say historically because you know recently there have been a

29
00:02:11,600 --> 00:02:15,600
Speaker 3: couple of high profile monopoly cases. But you know, these

30
00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:18,880
Speaker 3: kinds of cases, not a tech case in a direct sense,

31
00:02:19,160 --> 00:02:24,160
Speaker 3: pretty unusual. So that's first landmark part. Second, a jury

32
00:02:24,200 --> 00:02:29,000
Speaker 3: trial in a government case really unusual. The federal government

33
00:02:29,040 --> 00:02:32,960
Speaker 3: hasn't paid attention to juries in any trust cases particularly,

34
00:02:33,440 --> 00:02:37,160
Speaker 3: and I think during the Biden administration some good lawyers

35
00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:39,960
Speaker 3: there said, you know, juries can be on our side.

36
00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:44,240
Speaker 3: They understand when consumers are abused, So you have to

37
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:48,600
Speaker 3: be asking for money. Normally the Justice Department asks for

38
00:02:48,680 --> 00:02:51,360
Speaker 3: an injunction, don't do this, or do this, so you

39
00:02:51,400 --> 00:02:53,440
Speaker 3: have to ask for money to get a jury, and

40
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:55,799
Speaker 3: that's what they did. So they joined with the states

41
00:02:55,840 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 3: who can ask for money on behalf of their citizens.

42
00:02:59,040 --> 00:03:02,160
Speaker 3: So that's the second thing. It's a jury trial for money.

43
00:03:02,760 --> 00:03:07,440
Speaker 3: Third thing is the government often settles cases saying, you know,

44
00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:10,560
Speaker 3: it's really risky to go to trial. We can get

45
00:03:10,560 --> 00:03:14,880
Speaker 3: a darn good, even better settlement. Makes no sense, of course,

46
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:17,600
Speaker 3: if you settle, you get less, but they often say this,

47
00:03:17,840 --> 00:03:21,080
Speaker 3: and this has been true historically. So what happened here

48
00:03:21,200 --> 00:03:24,000
Speaker 3: They got a worse settlement, They didn't go to trial,

49
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:27,560
Speaker 3: and there were the States sitting there, you know, messy

50
00:03:28,320 --> 00:03:32,320
Speaker 3: plaintiffs saying no, you can settle for you, but you

51
00:03:32,360 --> 00:03:35,760
Speaker 3: can't settle our claims, and so they didn't. So third

52
00:03:35,840 --> 00:03:39,800
Speaker 3: landmark aspect. And usually when the States litigate and the

53
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:44,200
Speaker 3: Justice Department doesn't necessarily go so well for the States.

54
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:46,840
Speaker 3: So fourth landmark aspect.

55
00:03:47,440 --> 00:03:50,200
Speaker 1: So let me backtrack a little and explain what happened.

56
00:03:50,440 --> 00:03:53,680
Speaker 1: Days into the trial. The Justice Department dropped out and

57
00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:57,000
Speaker 1: reached this eleventh hour deal which was reached in DC

58
00:03:57,440 --> 00:03:59,760
Speaker 1: and was so secretive it even caught the government's own

59
00:03:59,760 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 1: trial team by surprise, and the judge called the way

60
00:04:03,000 --> 00:04:05,920
Speaker 1: he was informed about it mind boggling. But then more

61
00:04:05,960 --> 00:04:08,720
Speaker 1: than thirty States said no, as you explain, we're not

62
00:04:08,760 --> 00:04:11,440
Speaker 1: going to take that settlement and pressed ahead with the trial.

63
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:14,520
Speaker 1: Is this a black guy for the Justice Department? Should

64
00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:15,400
Speaker 1: they be embarrassed?

65
00:04:16,040 --> 00:04:20,839
Speaker 3: This Justice Department doesn't embarrass easily, so you know, in

66
00:04:20,920 --> 00:04:24,760
Speaker 3: normal times, yes, but this was clearly something I had

67
00:04:24,839 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 3: normal going on, which we still don't really know the

68
00:04:27,920 --> 00:04:33,280
Speaker 3: backstory on. Frankly, and yes, they should be embarrassed is

69
00:04:33,320 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 3: a nice word for saying it.

70
00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:37,280
Speaker 1: Yes, you have to give it to the States. They

71
00:04:37,279 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: had to scramble to take over the case because the

72
00:04:41,080 --> 00:04:44,320
Speaker 1: Justice Department had been leading it. They had like thirty

73
00:04:44,520 --> 00:04:47,039
Speaker 1: people on the trial team, and then the States come

74
00:04:47,080 --> 00:04:49,920
Speaker 1: in and have to pick up just a week later

75
00:04:50,120 --> 00:04:54,200
Speaker 1: where the Justice Department left off. It's amazing to me

76
00:04:54,320 --> 00:04:56,480
Speaker 1: that they were able to do it as well as

77
00:04:56,520 --> 00:04:57,479
Speaker 1: they apparently did.

78
00:04:58,040 --> 00:05:00,760
Speaker 3: So I agree with that. I know this they you know,

79
00:05:00,839 --> 00:05:04,120
Speaker 3: they weren't just sitting around, and I'm sure that they

80
00:05:04,160 --> 00:05:08,080
Speaker 3: were familiar with the economist testimony and who was going

81
00:05:08,120 --> 00:05:11,919
Speaker 3: to testify. But but yes, the leading war had been

82
00:05:12,320 --> 00:05:15,760
Speaker 3: taken by the Justice Department, and it was a challenge.

83
00:05:15,760 --> 00:05:17,920
Speaker 3: I mean, at first, they wanted to delay, they wanted

84
00:05:17,960 --> 00:05:21,360
Speaker 3: to put it off by a month to prepare. So yeah,

85
00:05:21,400 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 3: it's quite a challenge to step into the shoes, particularly

86
00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:28,480
Speaker 3: when you're worried that the jury is looking and saying

87
00:05:29,520 --> 00:05:30,680
Speaker 3: where are those other guys?

88
00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:30,919
Speaker 4: You know?

89
00:05:32,120 --> 00:05:35,320
Speaker 1: The jury four person said the verdict was influenced by

90
00:05:35,360 --> 00:05:39,839
Speaker 1: those Live Nation internal documents. And we've talked before about

91
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:44,760
Speaker 1: those emails where Live Nations ticketing directors bragged about the

92
00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:50,280
Speaker 1: outrageous prices, called customers so stupid, and boasted that the

93
00:05:50,320 --> 00:05:54,800
Speaker 1: company was quote robbing them blind baby. And there was

94
00:05:54,880 --> 00:05:59,120
Speaker 1: also a recording of an expletive filled phone call where

95
00:05:59,160 --> 00:06:02,479
Speaker 1: Michael Rapina, the CEO of Live Nation, threatened the head

96
00:06:02,480 --> 00:06:06,480
Speaker 1: of Barkley Center that he would withhold concerts after Barkley

97
00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:11,320
Speaker 1: switched to a rival Ticketer, and followed through on those threats,

98
00:06:11,360 --> 00:06:14,719
Speaker 1: according to testimony, And that's the kind of evidence that's

99
00:06:15,040 --> 00:06:16,680
Speaker 1: made for jury trials.

100
00:06:17,000 --> 00:06:19,719
Speaker 3: It sure is. Yeah, here you sort of have to

101
00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:22,520
Speaker 3: pity counsel for Live Nation. They said, you know, please

102
00:06:22,560 --> 00:06:25,120
Speaker 3: don't look over there at the car wreck. Really are

103
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:29,279
Speaker 3: we condemn bad driving? We really don't like it, and

104
00:06:29,360 --> 00:06:32,080
Speaker 3: we're gonna deal with those bad drivers. Look over here,

105
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:36,680
Speaker 3: look at how much people like ticket Master they think

106
00:06:36,720 --> 00:06:39,520
Speaker 3: our prices are great. I mean, maybe they had the

107
00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:42,520
Speaker 3: real challenge and that's what makes the case a jury

108
00:06:42,600 --> 00:06:46,400
Speaker 3: triable case. You know, Jeffrey Kessler said, who talks like this?

109
00:06:46,960 --> 00:06:49,360
Speaker 3: I mean, really, it sounds like the mafia.

110
00:06:50,120 --> 00:06:53,720
Speaker 1: The jury found that Ticketmaster had overcharged customers a dollar

111
00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:57,440
Speaker 1: seventy two per ticket in twenty two states. That may

112
00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:00,640
Speaker 1: sound like not much, but it adds up. The judge

113
00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:04,600
Speaker 1: will calculate the damages, but that could amount to hundreds

114
00:07:04,600 --> 00:07:05,680
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars.

115
00:07:06,120 --> 00:07:08,159
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know the number of tickets sold, so

116
00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:10,560
Speaker 3: it could be a lot of money. Yes, I mean

117
00:07:10,640 --> 00:07:13,640
Speaker 3: how much each person will get is you know, it's

118
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:16,200
Speaker 3: not going to be huge for each person, but they're

119
00:07:16,200 --> 00:07:18,440
Speaker 3: going to have to give back a fair amount of money.

120
00:07:18,840 --> 00:07:23,120
Speaker 1: So the original goal of this complain from the Justice

121
00:07:23,160 --> 00:07:26,280
Speaker 1: Department in twenty twenty four was to separate ticket Master

122
00:07:26,360 --> 00:07:29,960
Speaker 1: from Live Nation. In your opinion, is that the only

123
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:31,800
Speaker 1: way to fix this market?

124
00:07:32,120 --> 00:07:35,480
Speaker 3: That that is the remedy and that is the only way.

125
00:07:35,920 --> 00:07:39,920
Speaker 3: I mean, this has been going on since twenty ten,

126
00:07:40,760 --> 00:07:45,080
Speaker 3: so we're now in twenty twenty six and they've gone

127
00:07:45,120 --> 00:07:49,120
Speaker 3: through two consent decrees where they say, oh, we promised

128
00:07:49,120 --> 00:07:52,000
Speaker 3: we'll never do this again, and then they do it again,

129
00:07:52,120 --> 00:07:55,400
Speaker 3: and you know why not. They make money out of it.

130
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:59,480
Speaker 3: And in truth, the only thing surprising to me is

131
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:02,760
Speaker 3: that we're Pino has to actually say what he said,

132
00:08:03,000 --> 00:08:06,000
Speaker 3: and the guy from Barclays was too stupid to understand

133
00:08:06,200 --> 00:08:08,760
Speaker 3: what he had to do, which was to use Live

134
00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:12,160
Speaker 3: Nation and Ticketmaster. He thought he could do this scott free,

135
00:08:12,440 --> 00:08:16,040
Speaker 3: when you know, there was testimony and Senate hearings that, well,

136
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:18,280
Speaker 3: we don't pressure them, but of course we do what's

137
00:08:18,280 --> 00:08:20,840
Speaker 3: best for our business. What's best for our businesses. If

138
00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:24,160
Speaker 3: a venue uses Ticketmaster and if they don't, well we've

139
00:08:24,200 --> 00:08:27,160
Speaker 3: got the talent. Maybe we'll move them someplace else. Everybody

140
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:31,440
Speaker 3: knows that you can't unring that bell. So there really

141
00:08:31,520 --> 00:08:35,520
Speaker 3: is no to my mind, effective way of ending this

142
00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:39,079
Speaker 3: and getting some competition in ticketing. I mean, in the end,

143
00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:42,319
Speaker 3: that's what you want. He won competition with Ticketmaster.

144
00:08:42,640 --> 00:08:45,439
Speaker 1: Breaking up a company is a big ask. Do you

145
00:08:45,480 --> 00:08:48,640
Speaker 1: think the judge will have enough nerve that's the only

146
00:08:48,640 --> 00:08:51,520
Speaker 1: word I can think of to order Live Nation to

147
00:08:51,559 --> 00:08:52,280
Speaker 1: be split up.

148
00:08:52,600 --> 00:08:56,240
Speaker 3: I don't know. It's funny. The Justice Department had said

149
00:08:56,320 --> 00:08:59,600
Speaker 3: before the trial this is the only effective remedy. And

150
00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:02,720
Speaker 3: then when they settled, oh, the judge will never order it. Great,

151
00:09:03,160 --> 00:09:05,400
Speaker 3: thank you very much. I don't know. I think it

152
00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:09,120
Speaker 3: depends in part on how forcefully the case is argued.

153
00:09:09,360 --> 00:09:12,320
Speaker 3: This is a very unusual case in the sense that

154
00:09:12,720 --> 00:09:17,720
Speaker 3: you have an experiment. They tried a lesser remedy than

155
00:09:17,840 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 3: keeping the two companies apart. We've tried this, We've seen

156
00:09:21,760 --> 00:09:24,679
Speaker 3: how it works. It doesn't. The world is not going

157
00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:28,200
Speaker 3: to look different. There's an old Supreme Court case that

158
00:09:28,280 --> 00:09:31,080
Speaker 3: had the same sort of fact pattern. Government wanted to

159
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:34,880
Speaker 3: break up a company. The judge said, no, no, I

160
00:09:34,880 --> 00:09:39,280
Speaker 3: don't want to do that. We'll issue some specific requirements

161
00:09:39,320 --> 00:09:41,959
Speaker 3: they've got to go through. Ten years later, Justice Department

162
00:09:42,000 --> 00:09:45,079
Speaker 3: comes back and says, we still enough competition. Supreme Court

163
00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:49,520
Speaker 3: said ten years is enough break them up, And.

164
00:09:49,440 --> 00:09:53,520
Speaker 1: With Live Nation it's sixteen years. So we'll see. There

165
00:09:53,600 --> 00:09:57,640
Speaker 1: are other sanctions the judge could impose, right For example,

166
00:09:58,040 --> 00:10:00,000
Speaker 1: he could force them to sell off some venue.

167
00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:02,680
Speaker 3: I mean there is the venue side. I mean, over

168
00:10:02,720 --> 00:10:06,560
Speaker 3: the time, Live Nation, which was not a monopoly originally,

169
00:10:06,760 --> 00:10:11,760
Speaker 3: but because of the interconnection with Ticketmaster and controlling tickets

170
00:10:11,800 --> 00:10:15,440
Speaker 3: and then controlling a lot of talent and then buying

171
00:10:15,480 --> 00:10:18,320
Speaker 3: up venues. Yes, he could do that, but the heart

172
00:10:18,360 --> 00:10:22,600
Speaker 3: of this thing is controlling the tickets, the ticketing. You know,

173
00:10:23,080 --> 00:10:26,320
Speaker 3: the venues have to have a ticketing service. The system

174
00:10:26,360 --> 00:10:29,120
Speaker 3: doesn't work if you can't sell a ticket to a

175
00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:30,480
Speaker 3: concert live.

176
00:10:30,600 --> 00:10:33,440
Speaker 1: Nation of course denies it an illegal monopoly and says

177
00:10:33,480 --> 00:10:36,880
Speaker 1: the jury verdict is not the last word. It also

178
00:10:36,960 --> 00:10:40,199
Speaker 1: predicted that once the remedies phase of the case plays

179
00:10:40,200 --> 00:10:43,360
Speaker 1: out and appeals are resolved, the outcome likely won't be

180
00:10:43,480 --> 00:10:47,200
Speaker 1: much different from the deal it reached with the federal government.

181
00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:50,439
Speaker 3: Well, so there is a good question of how this

182
00:10:50,480 --> 00:10:53,920
Speaker 3: is going to work. Now you have an effect dueling remedies.

183
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:58,840
Speaker 3: This is another unusual part where the federal government says

184
00:10:59,520 --> 00:11:02,679
Speaker 3: xx is and the states may or may not. I mean,

185
00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:05,400
Speaker 3: the States might join that, I doubt it, but the

186
00:11:05,440 --> 00:11:08,640
Speaker 3: States could ask for more, and then the judge is

187
00:11:08,640 --> 00:11:11,720
Speaker 3: going to have to try to see if he can

188
00:11:11,800 --> 00:11:15,720
Speaker 3: mesh those two remedies, or maybe he'll, you know, grant

189
00:11:15,760 --> 00:11:18,800
Speaker 3: the remedies in a Justice Department case and then grant

190
00:11:18,800 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 3: what the States asked for. I don't know. This will

191
00:11:21,280 --> 00:11:25,120
Speaker 3: be interesting to watch. It's not unprecedented, but it's pretty rare,

192
00:11:25,679 --> 00:11:27,679
Speaker 3: so that'll be interesting to see.

193
00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:31,000
Speaker 1: The judge has to approve the settlement that the federal

194
00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:34,520
Speaker 1: government and some states made with Live Nation. Group of

195
00:11:34,559 --> 00:11:39,280
Speaker 1: Democratic Senaters wrote to the judge after the verdict Wednesday,

196
00:11:39,920 --> 00:11:44,600
Speaker 1: urging him to closely scrutinize the proposed settlement before he

197
00:11:44,640 --> 00:11:49,559
Speaker 1: considers granting approval, saying the deal was negotiated under suspicious circumstances,

198
00:11:49,600 --> 00:11:53,079
Speaker 1: which we've discussed, and doesn't go far enough in restoring

199
00:11:53,120 --> 00:11:58,760
Speaker 1: competition or protecting customers, artists and independent venues. How unusual

200
00:11:59,000 --> 00:12:02,280
Speaker 1: is it for a judge to reject a settlement that

201
00:12:02,360 --> 00:12:04,400
Speaker 1: the Justice Department has reached.

202
00:12:05,120 --> 00:12:09,800
Speaker 3: It's pretty unusual. A judge has to approve any trust settlements.

203
00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:13,440
Speaker 3: There's a specific statute has to be approved as in

204
00:12:13,480 --> 00:12:17,040
Speaker 3: the public interest. Courts of appeals have sort of kept

205
00:12:17,520 --> 00:12:21,640
Speaker 3: the discretion of trial judges pretty narrow in this area.

206
00:12:22,240 --> 00:12:25,440
Speaker 3: They can create, you know, a lot of smoke. It's

207
00:12:25,480 --> 00:12:28,200
Speaker 3: hard for them to make really big changes in it.

208
00:12:28,440 --> 00:12:31,280
Speaker 3: This is not the only case now being litigated like this.

209
00:12:31,400 --> 00:12:37,480
Speaker 3: There's another merger case that was settled under well, suspicious

210
00:12:37,520 --> 00:12:40,520
Speaker 3: would be even too polite a word, I mean the

211
00:12:40,600 --> 00:12:44,400
Speaker 3: people involved have said there, you know, was just outright

212
00:12:44,640 --> 00:12:48,720
Speaker 3: lobbying and no relation to the public interests. So this

213
00:12:48,760 --> 00:12:52,160
Speaker 3: is a theme and it's unusual. You know, we've had

214
00:12:52,240 --> 00:12:57,040
Speaker 3: concerns about settlements historically, but this is just a little different.

215
00:12:57,080 --> 00:13:01,360
Speaker 3: It's not political value, it's just lobb issues. I think

216
00:13:01,400 --> 00:13:04,760
Speaker 3: that's what this letter meant. It meant something smells in this,

217
00:13:05,559 --> 00:13:07,319
Speaker 3: and judge you find.

218
00:13:07,080 --> 00:13:10,800
Speaker 1: Out, Harry. I think most concert goers look at this

219
00:13:10,960 --> 00:13:13,560
Speaker 1: verdict and ask, does this mean I'm going to be

220
00:13:13,600 --> 00:13:17,680
Speaker 1: paying less for concert tickets? Is that happening anytime soon?

221
00:13:18,200 --> 00:13:19,240
Speaker 1: Or is it ever happening.

222
00:13:19,760 --> 00:13:22,240
Speaker 3: Here's my guess. Taylor Swift is going to look at

223
00:13:22,240 --> 00:13:25,920
Speaker 3: this and say, great, I'll drop my ticket price in half,

224
00:13:26,120 --> 00:13:28,560
Speaker 3: you know, and all the other big talents say, you know,

225
00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:30,720
Speaker 3: enough of that high prices.

226
00:13:31,080 --> 00:13:31,160
Speaker 4: No.

227
00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:35,160
Speaker 3: So I think there may be a little disappointment in

228
00:13:35,280 --> 00:13:39,880
Speaker 3: what the result will be immediately. If we're lucky, there'll

229
00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:43,840
Speaker 3: be more competition and we'll have different kinds of ticketing

230
00:13:43,920 --> 00:13:49,400
Speaker 3: services with different options, and maybe lower prices for the

231
00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:54,440
Speaker 3: ticketing service itself, and maybe if there's some divestiture of

232
00:13:54,640 --> 00:13:59,120
Speaker 3: the arenas, maybe lower prices on the talent. I don't know.

233
00:13:59,480 --> 00:14:01,679
Speaker 3: Hard to see say how that'll all come out. But

234
00:14:01,840 --> 00:14:06,520
Speaker 3: my guess is, you know, tomorrow the tickets for these

235
00:14:06,559 --> 00:14:10,320
Speaker 3: big ticket concerts are not going to change, at least

236
00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:11,000
Speaker 3: not very much.

237
00:14:11,600 --> 00:14:15,520
Speaker 1: The Trump administration appears to be a lax enforcer of

238
00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:18,280
Speaker 1: the anti trust laws. Do you think this verdict gives

239
00:14:18,280 --> 00:14:21,840
Speaker 1: an impetus to the states and private parties to bring

240
00:14:21,880 --> 00:14:23,280
Speaker 1: more anti trust actions.

241
00:14:23,720 --> 00:14:25,840
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that that impetus has been there.

242
00:14:26,200 --> 00:14:29,760
Speaker 3: The problems are there as well. Anti trust litigation is expensive,

243
00:14:30,040 --> 00:14:34,200
Speaker 3: has to be highly resourced. Private parties have to have

244
00:14:34,360 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 3: some confidence that they can collect because they usually bring

245
00:14:37,680 --> 00:14:40,800
Speaker 3: these class actions where they get awarded a part of

246
00:14:40,840 --> 00:14:43,680
Speaker 3: the recovery. So I don't know whether it gives them

247
00:14:43,680 --> 00:14:47,160
Speaker 3: more incentive or it just makes it more important that

248
00:14:47,440 --> 00:14:50,360
Speaker 3: they stay in the game. And this has been the

249
00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:53,600
Speaker 3: game for a while, and it often heats up when

250
00:14:53,960 --> 00:15:00,120
Speaker 3: the federal government's efforts seem misdirected, lack a daisical and so,

251
00:15:00,760 --> 00:15:04,000
Speaker 3: but it's also something the federal governments to keep in mind.

252
00:15:04,080 --> 00:15:07,080
Speaker 3: They don't have a monopoly on enforcement. You know, they

253
00:15:07,120 --> 00:15:10,200
Speaker 3: may prefer all this stuff to go away, but the

254
00:15:10,280 --> 00:15:13,000
Speaker 3: states may have other ideas.

255
00:15:12,440 --> 00:15:16,200
Speaker 1: And perhaps winning ideas like continuing this trial. So he's

256
00:15:16,240 --> 00:15:19,280
Speaker 1: great to get your insights, Harry, thanks so much. That's

257
00:15:19,280 --> 00:15:23,160
Speaker 1: Professor Harry First of NYU Law School. Coming up next

258
00:15:23,200 --> 00:15:27,080
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Law. A rare apology from a justice. I'm

259
00:15:27,160 --> 00:15:31,640
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Justice Sonya so

260
00:15:31,800 --> 00:15:34,360
Speaker 1: to Mayor was on the road about a week ago

261
00:15:34,600 --> 00:15:38,560
Speaker 1: speaking about her latest children's book and her experiences as

262
00:15:38,600 --> 00:15:41,400
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court justice during a Q and A at

263
00:15:41,440 --> 00:15:45,040
Speaker 1: the University of Alabama Law School on April ninth, when

264
00:15:45,080 --> 00:15:50,120
Speaker 1: Sotomayor was asked how she builds bridges across ideological lines

265
00:15:50,160 --> 00:15:52,800
Speaker 1: with her colleagues, her answer was blunt.

266
00:15:53,160 --> 00:15:58,520
Speaker 2: If you mean bridges by bridges, convince them that they're wrong.

267
00:16:04,400 --> 00:16:06,600
Speaker 2: I just sent so much. I'm not very successful.

268
00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:10,400
Speaker 1: Two days earlier, during an appearance at the University of

269
00:16:10,520 --> 00:16:14,800
Speaker 1: Kansas Law School, the liberal justice had taken a personal

270
00:16:14,920 --> 00:16:19,320
Speaker 1: swipe at one of those colleagues from across the ideological divide.

271
00:16:19,680 --> 00:16:24,440
Speaker 1: She criticized Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh for a concurrence where

272
00:16:24,440 --> 00:16:28,800
Speaker 1: he wrote that legal residence detained in ice immigration stops

273
00:16:29,280 --> 00:16:34,160
Speaker 1: promptly go free after a typically brief encounter so Tomyor said,

274
00:16:34,680 --> 00:16:38,080
Speaker 1: this is from a man whose parents were professionals and

275
00:16:38,240 --> 00:16:42,000
Speaker 1: probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour.

276
00:16:42,480 --> 00:16:45,800
Speaker 1: That rare personal criticism of a colleague led to an

277
00:16:45,880 --> 00:16:50,240
Speaker 1: equally rare apology from Soda Mayor. Joining me is David Super,

278
00:16:50,400 --> 00:16:54,800
Speaker 1: a professor at Georgetown Law. David on Wednesday, so eight

279
00:16:54,880 --> 00:16:58,720
Speaker 1: days after those remarks, Soda Mayor said in a statement

280
00:16:58,760 --> 00:17:01,560
Speaker 1: that her remarks were in a appropriate I regret my

281
00:17:01,640 --> 00:17:05,720
Speaker 1: hurtful comments. I have apologized to my colleague. Do you

282
00:17:05,720 --> 00:17:10,600
Speaker 1: think a public apology was really necessary morally necessary?

283
00:17:10,880 --> 00:17:15,080
Speaker 4: No, because what she said was true, both in its

284
00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:20,399
Speaker 4: specifics and in its generality. But practically, I'm very glad

285
00:17:20,480 --> 00:17:25,119
Speaker 4: she did it because she has an unusual role that

286
00:17:25,200 --> 00:17:27,920
Speaker 4: you and I don't. She has to work with six

287
00:17:27,960 --> 00:17:32,640
Speaker 4: people who don't agree with her much, and letting personalized

288
00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:35,480
Speaker 4: comments get into that is going to make it harder

289
00:17:35,520 --> 00:17:39,240
Speaker 4: for her to put together the votes for a majority opinion,

290
00:17:39,640 --> 00:17:42,520
Speaker 4: or when she does put together the vote's going to

291
00:17:42,560 --> 00:17:46,480
Speaker 4: make it harder for her to negotiate a good majority opinion.

292
00:17:46,680 --> 00:17:51,520
Speaker 4: So the kind of comments she made are appealing to

293
00:17:51,640 --> 00:17:54,040
Speaker 4: many of us that are frustrated with the court. In

294
00:17:54,119 --> 00:17:57,680
Speaker 4: general and that justice in particular. But I don't think

295
00:17:57,720 --> 00:18:00,160
Speaker 4: it was wise, and I think she made the right choice.

296
00:18:00,480 --> 00:18:05,840
Speaker 1: And you rarely hear justices criticizing each other, especially personal criticism.

297
00:18:06,040 --> 00:18:07,639
Speaker 1: Actually I can't think of another time.

298
00:18:08,080 --> 00:18:11,199
Speaker 4: You don't usually hear that, and I think the reason

299
00:18:11,240 --> 00:18:15,960
Speaker 4: you don't is because they're afraid that it will interfere

300
00:18:16,000 --> 00:18:18,520
Speaker 4: with their ability to work with one another in the future.

301
00:18:18,800 --> 00:18:24,520
Speaker 4: But when justices believe that there already is no ability

302
00:18:24,600 --> 00:18:29,119
Speaker 4: to work together, frustration can boil over. There are not

303
00:18:29,320 --> 00:18:33,040
Speaker 4: a lot of controversial cases on with Justice Soto my

304
00:18:33,200 --> 00:18:36,520
Speaker 4: Orange Justice Kavanaugh have been on the same side, and

305
00:18:36,880 --> 00:18:39,600
Speaker 4: there have been quite a few where it's been otherwise.

306
00:18:39,880 --> 00:18:43,120
Speaker 4: But I think that the point that she's making, perhaps

307
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:47,399
Speaker 4: more bluntly than some would, is an important point. And

308
00:18:47,520 --> 00:18:53,680
Speaker 4: about the shadow docket, Justice Kavanaugh asserted as a indisputable

309
00:18:53,760 --> 00:18:58,119
Speaker 4: fact that US citizens and legal permanent residence are immediately

310
00:18:58,240 --> 00:19:02,119
Speaker 4: let go. There's overwhelmed. Evan is that's not true? And

311
00:19:02,400 --> 00:19:05,560
Speaker 4: if the Supreme Court was taking cases that were properly

312
00:19:05,640 --> 00:19:08,840
Speaker 4: developed in the lower courts on the facts, it would

313
00:19:08,840 --> 00:19:12,760
Speaker 4: know that's not true, and it could say we don't care,

314
00:19:13,560 --> 00:19:16,919
Speaker 4: or it could say we will allow orders designed to

315
00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:20,760
Speaker 4: make that so or it could say this means these

316
00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:24,840
Speaker 4: stops are inappropriate, but it wouldn't be able to make

317
00:19:25,240 --> 00:19:29,640
Speaker 4: absolute assertions of fact that are simply false. And if

318
00:19:29,680 --> 00:19:32,840
Speaker 4: you want to decide cases on the law, maybe there's

319
00:19:32,880 --> 00:19:37,480
Speaker 4: an argument for an emergency docket, although I don't agree

320
00:19:37,520 --> 00:19:40,159
Speaker 4: with it. But if you want to decide cases on

321
00:19:40,240 --> 00:19:42,840
Speaker 4: the fact, which he's doing there, then you have to

322
00:19:42,920 --> 00:19:44,680
Speaker 4: let the lower courts develop the facts.

323
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:47,240
Speaker 1: And by the way, those are now referred to as

324
00:19:47,400 --> 00:19:52,040
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh stops. And at an appearance two days after those remarks,

325
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:55,119
Speaker 1: so Tomayor seemed to be going out of her way

326
00:19:55,240 --> 00:19:58,320
Speaker 1: to describe the collegiality on the court.

327
00:19:58,800 --> 00:20:01,919
Speaker 2: I look to them as people to have a relationship

328
00:20:01,960 --> 00:20:07,120
Speaker 2: with them, and I dare say that with virtually all

329
00:20:07,200 --> 00:20:12,040
Speaker 2: of them, I certainly have a civil relationship, and with

330
00:20:12,240 --> 00:20:14,560
Speaker 2: many of them, I think I dare say that I

331
00:20:14,600 --> 00:20:15,480
Speaker 2: have a friendship.

332
00:20:15,960 --> 00:20:20,320
Speaker 4: I mean, these are professionals, and I'm always a little

333
00:20:20,359 --> 00:20:24,640
Speaker 4: skeptical about the claims that these people are big friends

334
00:20:24,680 --> 00:20:28,920
Speaker 4: of one another. I know Justice Ginsberg and Justice Clia

335
00:20:29,000 --> 00:20:33,160
Speaker 4: went to the opera together, but I think that in

336
00:20:33,240 --> 00:20:38,199
Speaker 4: many ways, these are nine independent offices, each in the

337
00:20:38,280 --> 00:20:44,040
Speaker 4: same building, that interact mostly through paper and occasionally in

338
00:20:44,080 --> 00:20:48,080
Speaker 4: fairly formal ways, like oral arguments in conference. So I'm

339
00:20:48,119 --> 00:20:51,440
Speaker 4: not sure that this changes a great deal. I don't

340
00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:55,240
Speaker 4: see a lot of outward evidence of much comedy. The

341
00:20:55,280 --> 00:21:00,240
Speaker 4: Court is working very, very fast. I'm sure it is

342
00:21:00,560 --> 00:21:04,400
Speaker 4: jamming that the descending justices to work to all hours

343
00:21:04,440 --> 00:21:07,439
Speaker 4: to get their descents out, rather than holding up and

344
00:21:07,480 --> 00:21:09,560
Speaker 4: giving them a little bit of time, which has been

345
00:21:09,600 --> 00:21:12,320
Speaker 4: done on very very big cases in the past.

346
00:21:12,560 --> 00:21:16,639
Speaker 1: Another liberal justice made some critical remarks this week, but

347
00:21:16,680 --> 00:21:20,760
Speaker 1: about the Court's emergency docket, not about any justice in particular.

348
00:21:21,080 --> 00:21:24,520
Speaker 1: In a lecture at Yale Law School on Wednesday, Justice

349
00:21:24,600 --> 00:21:29,919
Speaker 1: Katanji Brown Jackson expressed concerns that the Court's handling of

350
00:21:29,920 --> 00:21:35,240
Speaker 1: its emergency docket is having an enormously disruptive and potentially

351
00:21:35,480 --> 00:21:38,280
Speaker 1: corrosive effect on the federal judiciary.

352
00:21:39,200 --> 00:21:43,080
Speaker 5: So the Court has left confusion in its wake, and

353
00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:46,560
Speaker 5: it offers little guidance because it ordinarily does not spell

354
00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:51,520
Speaker 5: out the circumstances giving rise to its own equities evaluation,

355
00:21:51,960 --> 00:21:56,240
Speaker 5: making it incredibly difficult for lower courts to understand which

356
00:21:56,400 --> 00:22:00,119
Speaker 5: facts were important to the state determination and thus es

357
00:22:00,560 --> 00:22:02,720
Speaker 5: identify like cases.

358
00:22:03,280 --> 00:22:07,000
Speaker 1: David, will you explain the confusion in the lower courts

359
00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:11,560
Speaker 1: about orders from the emergency docket that Jackson is referring to.

360
00:22:12,200 --> 00:22:16,600
Speaker 4: The lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court's holding.

361
00:22:17,200 --> 00:22:21,720
Speaker 4: But if it's only holding is that an injunction in

362
00:22:21,840 --> 00:22:25,200
Speaker 4: this case or that is stayed, and they don't give

363
00:22:25,280 --> 00:22:30,120
Speaker 4: us any reasoning, then the lower courts are not bound

364
00:22:30,440 --> 00:22:34,159
Speaker 4: by reasoning that they are speculating. They're bound by what

365
00:22:34,200 --> 00:22:36,520
Speaker 4: the Court tells us to decide cases.

366
00:22:37,320 --> 00:22:41,680
Speaker 1: We've seen pushback from federal district court judges, especially after

367
00:22:41,880 --> 00:22:46,639
Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded them for not following shadow docket

368
00:22:46,720 --> 00:22:50,560
Speaker 1: rulings and accuse him of defying the Supreme Court. And

369
00:22:50,600 --> 00:22:54,160
Speaker 1: now that's billed over into the appellate courts. Last week,

370
00:22:54,320 --> 00:22:58,000
Speaker 1: judges on the Fourth Circuit, we're trading insults about how

371
00:22:58,080 --> 00:23:00,960
Speaker 1: much weight to give the Supreme Court. It's rulings from

372
00:23:00,960 --> 00:23:03,919
Speaker 1: the shadow docket. And this was an on bank panel.

373
00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:06,920
Speaker 1: So all the judges on the Fourth Circuit, so tell

374
00:23:07,000 --> 00:23:09,359
Speaker 1: us what the majority decided in that case.

375
00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:16,160
Speaker 4: Yeah, the case was about an injunction limiting Doz's access

376
00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:21,480
Speaker 4: to extremely sensitive social security information on you and me

377
00:23:21,560 --> 00:23:25,120
Speaker 4: and hundreds of millions of other people. And the Supreme

378
00:23:25,200 --> 00:23:30,560
Speaker 4: Court had previously held that an earlier lower court injunction

379
00:23:30,680 --> 00:23:35,240
Speaker 4: in that case could not be enforced until appeables were

380
00:23:35,280 --> 00:23:38,960
Speaker 4: fully exhausted up to the Supreme Court. And so what

381
00:23:39,119 --> 00:23:44,320
Speaker 4: the majority in the Fourth Circuit decided was that it

382
00:23:44,440 --> 00:23:46,879
Speaker 4: was going to send the case back down to the

383
00:23:46,920 --> 00:23:52,000
Speaker 4: district court. It was not going to purport to reinstate

384
00:23:52,160 --> 00:23:55,040
Speaker 4: an injunction because the Supreme Court had pretty clearly said

385
00:23:55,040 --> 00:23:55,920
Speaker 4: it couldn't do that.

386
00:23:56,520 --> 00:24:00,280
Speaker 1: And that prompted a rebuke from Judge James Win, joined

387
00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:03,239
Speaker 1: by four other judges and descent. He wrote that to

388
00:24:03,280 --> 00:24:07,600
Speaker 1: treat interim orders as binding precedent abandons our long held

389
00:24:07,680 --> 00:24:13,280
Speaker 1: jurisprudence of deciding constitutional law through reasoned opinions, not emergency

390
00:24:13,359 --> 00:24:17,160
Speaker 1: motions made under intense time pressure. So basically we don't

391
00:24:17,200 --> 00:24:19,800
Speaker 1: have to follow those Supreme Court orders. Is that just

392
00:24:19,960 --> 00:24:21,560
Speaker 1: utter defiance of the court.

393
00:24:22,400 --> 00:24:26,480
Speaker 4: It's absolutely not defiance. It's actually a very traditionalist and

394
00:24:26,640 --> 00:24:30,359
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court has lectured us often on the importance

395
00:24:30,440 --> 00:24:33,600
Speaker 4: of following the rules that were in place when the

396
00:24:33,640 --> 00:24:36,920
Speaker 4: Constitution was adopted. And this is although it doesn't call

397
00:24:36,960 --> 00:24:41,680
Speaker 4: itself originalists. This is originalist in that courts have two

398
00:24:42,000 --> 00:24:45,480
Speaker 4: entirely different functions that they often perform in the same case.

399
00:24:45,840 --> 00:24:48,399
Speaker 4: They decide the rights of the parties before them, and

400
00:24:48,440 --> 00:24:51,399
Speaker 4: they make precedent for the future. Those are different functions.

401
00:24:52,080 --> 00:24:57,960
Speaker 4: And nobody, not the concurring justices, not Justices Jackson, and

402
00:24:58,000 --> 00:25:02,120
Speaker 4: so to nobody questions that the Supreme Court can decide

403
00:25:02,160 --> 00:25:05,040
Speaker 4: the rights of the parties before it on the shadow docket.

404
00:25:05,359 --> 00:25:08,199
Speaker 4: The question is whether when it issues an order for

405
00:25:08,280 --> 00:25:11,359
Speaker 4: the parties in front of it without an opinion or

406
00:25:11,359 --> 00:25:15,240
Speaker 4: without a meaningful opinion, if that should be also treated

407
00:25:15,280 --> 00:25:22,720
Speaker 4: as president and the history is that court's issue opinions

408
00:25:23,119 --> 00:25:27,520
Speaker 4: to tell us why they're deciding things. Often the parties

409
00:25:27,520 --> 00:25:31,680
Speaker 4: are making half a dozen different arguments and knowing that

410
00:25:31,680 --> 00:25:34,520
Speaker 4: that party one doesn't tell you which of those six

411
00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:38,000
Speaker 4: arguments was persuasive with the court. And if we just

412
00:25:38,240 --> 00:25:40,960
Speaker 4: guess as to why the Court did what it did,

413
00:25:41,400 --> 00:25:44,600
Speaker 4: will often be creating a law out of thin air,

414
00:25:45,040 --> 00:25:48,440
Speaker 4: playing ventriloquist, which is not the lower court's job. It's

415
00:25:48,480 --> 00:25:49,520
Speaker 4: not any of our jobs.

416
00:25:50,040 --> 00:25:52,560
Speaker 1: In a case on the emergency docket where the Supreme

417
00:25:52,600 --> 00:25:56,960
Speaker 1: Court allowed President Trump to remove three democratic members of

418
00:25:57,000 --> 00:26:01,440
Speaker 1: the Consumer Products Safety Commission, so that its interim order

419
00:26:01,560 --> 00:26:05,720
Speaker 1: informs how a lower court should exercise its equitable discretion

420
00:26:06,320 --> 00:26:11,440
Speaker 1: in like cases. In her speech, Jackson criticized that guidance,

421
00:26:11,680 --> 00:26:14,280
Speaker 1: if we can call it guidance, will you explain what

422
00:26:14,320 --> 00:26:16,160
Speaker 1: the court was trying to get across there?

423
00:26:16,680 --> 00:26:20,400
Speaker 4: The question is what kind of precedent is it? And

424
00:26:20,920 --> 00:26:26,280
Speaker 4: the Justice there says that it informs what the lower

425
00:26:26,320 --> 00:26:29,679
Speaker 4: courts can do, but only in like cases. When you

426
00:26:29,760 --> 00:26:33,080
Speaker 4: don't have much of an opinion from the Supreme Court,

427
00:26:33,440 --> 00:26:37,960
Speaker 4: it's very hard to know what like cases are, and

428
00:26:38,720 --> 00:26:42,440
Speaker 4: it can inform only to the extent that it provides information.

429
00:26:43,200 --> 00:26:47,080
Speaker 4: And if they don't tell us what's important, then it's

430
00:26:47,280 --> 00:26:52,000
Speaker 4: very hard for lawyers or judges or voters to know

431
00:26:52,440 --> 00:26:56,640
Speaker 4: how they are to change what they're doing. Also critical

432
00:26:56,720 --> 00:27:01,720
Speaker 4: here that the Justice mentions equitable question. Equity is not

433
00:27:01,920 --> 00:27:05,560
Speaker 4: a system of rigid rules. Equity is a system of

434
00:27:06,040 --> 00:27:11,600
Speaker 4: judges applying judgment, and that judgment should be consistent with

435
00:27:11,760 --> 00:27:14,960
Speaker 4: the general principles of our system. But it's never a

436
00:27:15,080 --> 00:27:19,920
Speaker 4: rigid process, and so asking lower court judges to act

437
00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:24,919
Speaker 4: rigidly in an equitable case is like asking for a

438
00:27:25,400 --> 00:27:28,040
Speaker 4: ocean without any water, it doesn't work that way.

439
00:27:28,359 --> 00:27:33,080
Speaker 1: And continuing that analogy, there's been a stream of criticism

440
00:27:33,320 --> 00:27:36,879
Speaker 1: of the emergency docket, known as the shadow docket, for

441
00:27:36,920 --> 00:27:40,480
Speaker 1: its lack of transparency, and the Court perhaps recognize the

442
00:27:40,520 --> 00:27:45,600
Speaker 1: criticism by taking some of the shadow docket cases and

443
00:27:45,640 --> 00:27:48,159
Speaker 1: putting them on the regular docket so there could be

444
00:27:48,200 --> 00:27:51,400
Speaker 1: full briefings in oral arguments. That was done, for example,

445
00:27:51,440 --> 00:27:55,280
Speaker 1: in the birthright citizenship case. As always, thanks for joining me, David.

446
00:27:55,520 --> 00:27:59,320
Speaker 1: That's Professor David Super of Georgetown Law coming up next

447
00:27:59,359 --> 00:28:03,320
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Law. The errors being made by Justice Department

448
00:28:03,520 --> 00:28:07,920
Speaker 1: lawyers are testing the patience of judges and the credibility

449
00:28:07,920 --> 00:28:11,240
Speaker 1: of the Justice Department. I'm June Grosso and you're listening

450
00:28:11,320 --> 00:28:17,879
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg. Todd Blanche, now the acting Attorney General and

451
00:28:17,960 --> 00:28:22,400
Speaker 1: once President Trump's defense lawyer, recently cheered the fact that

452
00:28:22,560 --> 00:28:25,840
Speaker 1: all the Justice Department lawyers who were involved in the

453
00:28:25,920 --> 00:28:30,520
Speaker 1: past investigations of Trump have either been fired or resigned.

454
00:28:31,000 --> 00:28:34,919
Speaker 6: There is not a single man or woman at the

455
00:28:34,960 --> 00:28:40,360
Speaker 6: Department of Justice who had anything to do with those prosecutions.

456
00:28:41,000 --> 00:28:44,360
Speaker 1: So two hundred experienced lawyers are no longer at the

457
00:28:44,400 --> 00:28:48,680
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. Add that to more than three thousand attorneys,

458
00:28:49,000 --> 00:28:52,920
Speaker 1: many veteran career lawyers in leadership positions, who left the

459
00:28:52,960 --> 00:28:57,840
Speaker 1: department last year. The result is a smaller, less experienced

460
00:28:57,840 --> 00:29:02,400
Speaker 1: group of lawyers handling an eva expanding universe of litigation.

461
00:29:03,000 --> 00:29:06,080
Speaker 1: Could that be connected to the hundreds of instances of

462
00:29:06,400 --> 00:29:11,520
Speaker 1: Justice Department lawyers being scolded by judges for making false, misleading,

463
00:29:11,680 --> 00:29:16,080
Speaker 1: or inaccurate representations in court in defense of Trump policies.

464
00:29:16,720 --> 00:29:20,600
Speaker 1: Last week, a federal judge in Manhattan ordered Justice Department

465
00:29:20,680 --> 00:29:26,000
Speaker 1: lawyers to preserve all internal communications after they disclosed they'd

466
00:29:26,000 --> 00:29:30,200
Speaker 1: been relying on incorrect information in their arguments for months

467
00:29:30,600 --> 00:29:34,960
Speaker 1: in a fight over the administration's migrant arrest tactics. Could

468
00:29:35,080 --> 00:29:38,520
Speaker 1: sanctions be in their future? My guest is former federal

469
00:29:38,560 --> 00:29:43,200
Speaker 1: prosecutor Robert Mintz Apartment macarter in English. So Justice Department

470
00:29:43,320 --> 00:29:47,240
Speaker 1: lawyers are representing government agencies? What are their duties when

471
00:29:47,280 --> 00:29:49,160
Speaker 1: appearing in court for those agencies?

472
00:29:49,640 --> 00:29:53,120
Speaker 6: When you go into court as an assistant US attorney

473
00:29:53,520 --> 00:29:57,080
Speaker 6: or any attorney representing the Department of Justice, you always

474
00:29:57,280 --> 00:30:01,160
Speaker 6: bring with you the credibility of us years and years

475
00:30:01,280 --> 00:30:04,440
Speaker 6: of attorneys who have stood in your shoes before you

476
00:30:04,840 --> 00:30:08,160
Speaker 6: addressing the court, and there's a tremendous responsibility to make

477
00:30:08,200 --> 00:30:10,920
Speaker 6: sure that anything you say to a judge is one

478
00:30:11,040 --> 00:30:13,680
Speaker 6: hundred percent accurate. And if you don't know the answer,

479
00:30:13,880 --> 00:30:15,600
Speaker 6: you tell the judge you don't know the answer, and

480
00:30:15,640 --> 00:30:18,360
Speaker 6: you'll get the correct information back to the judge at

481
00:30:18,360 --> 00:30:21,520
Speaker 6: some point. Because in order for the Department of Justice

482
00:30:21,880 --> 00:30:24,680
Speaker 6: to be able to advocate effectively on behalf of the

483
00:30:24,680 --> 00:30:28,080
Speaker 6: federal government, it's critical that judges can rely on the

484
00:30:28,120 --> 00:30:32,920
Speaker 6: representations of government lawyers. And so it's incumbent on DOJ

485
00:30:33,320 --> 00:30:37,120
Speaker 6: prosecutors and other lawyers representing the government to make sure

486
00:30:37,240 --> 00:30:41,000
Speaker 6: that whatever information they're conveying on behalf of their agency

487
00:30:41,080 --> 00:30:44,800
Speaker 6: clients or on behalf of the Department of Justice is accurate.

488
00:30:45,240 --> 00:30:48,240
Speaker 6: And what we've seen here is a slow but steady

489
00:30:48,320 --> 00:30:53,080
Speaker 6: erosion of that confidence of the federal courts that Department

490
00:30:53,080 --> 00:30:56,920
Speaker 6: of Justice lawyers are giving them information that is accurate.

491
00:30:57,080 --> 00:30:59,320
Speaker 6: And it's come about as a result of a series

492
00:30:59,360 --> 00:31:02,560
Speaker 6: of cases in which Department of Justice lawyers have been

493
00:31:02,640 --> 00:31:06,680
Speaker 6: forced to make embarrassing corrections about information that they frankly

494
00:31:06,920 --> 00:31:08,040
Speaker 6: should have known about.

495
00:31:08,600 --> 00:31:12,040
Speaker 1: The Justice Department lost about a quarter of its attorneys

496
00:31:12,120 --> 00:31:15,200
Speaker 1: last year about thirty four hundred. A lot of them

497
00:31:15,200 --> 00:31:20,200
Speaker 1: were experienced career prosecutors. So can these errors in court

498
00:31:20,320 --> 00:31:24,960
Speaker 1: be explained by the inexperience of the attorneys or are

499
00:31:24,960 --> 00:31:27,600
Speaker 1: they not doing enough preparation or something else.

500
00:31:28,000 --> 00:31:31,680
Speaker 6: I think it's a combination of inexperience and understaffing. The

501
00:31:31,720 --> 00:31:34,720
Speaker 6: experience of the lawyers going into court representing the United

502
00:31:34,760 --> 00:31:39,840
Speaker 6: States government is absolutely critical. US attorney's offices are generally

503
00:31:39,960 --> 00:31:44,640
Speaker 6: around the country considered training grounds for exceptional attorneys.

504
00:31:45,160 --> 00:31:46,040
Speaker 1: The job of a.

505
00:31:45,960 --> 00:31:51,600
Speaker 6: Federal prosecutor has historically been something that is an extremely

506
00:31:51,840 --> 00:31:55,000
Speaker 6: sought after position, and so the Department of Justice really

507
00:31:55,040 --> 00:31:59,360
Speaker 6: has its pick of attorneys in selecting assistant US attorneys

508
00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:01,479
Speaker 6: and offices around on the country. And what they do

509
00:32:01,600 --> 00:32:03,560
Speaker 6: is they try to train those attorneys.

510
00:32:03,720 --> 00:32:04,360
Speaker 1: They do not.

511
00:32:04,520 --> 00:32:08,320
Speaker 6: Select attorneys who necessarily have any criminal experience when they

512
00:32:08,360 --> 00:32:11,200
Speaker 6: pick people who will be representing the Department of Justice

513
00:32:11,240 --> 00:32:14,520
Speaker 6: in criminal cases. Instead, they bring in attorneys that they

514
00:32:14,560 --> 00:32:17,000
Speaker 6: believe are among the best and the brightest, and they

515
00:32:17,080 --> 00:32:22,040
Speaker 6: train those lawyers using the more experienced attorneys in the office. So,

516
00:32:22,160 --> 00:32:24,880
Speaker 6: as an example, when a new attorney comes into the

517
00:32:24,920 --> 00:32:28,240
Speaker 6: office and tries his or her case for the first time,

518
00:32:28,520 --> 00:32:30,520
Speaker 6: they will have a second chair with them. They will

519
00:32:30,560 --> 00:32:33,960
Speaker 6: have a more experienced attorney sitting next to them and

520
00:32:34,040 --> 00:32:37,000
Speaker 6: assisting them throughout that trial. And that's the way these

521
00:32:37,040 --> 00:32:40,360
Speaker 6: attorneys learn. The problem right now is that there has

522
00:32:40,400 --> 00:32:43,880
Speaker 6: been a mass exodus of experienced attorneys from the Department

523
00:32:43,960 --> 00:32:47,120
Speaker 6: of Justice, from US Attorney's offices around the country, and

524
00:32:47,200 --> 00:32:50,720
Speaker 6: so that level of experience and oversight is simply not

525
00:32:50,920 --> 00:32:51,760
Speaker 6: there right now.

526
00:32:51,920 --> 00:32:53,240
Speaker 4: And we've seen case.

527
00:32:53,000 --> 00:32:57,200
Speaker 6: After case where inexperienced attorneys who have not been given

528
00:32:57,480 --> 00:33:00,320
Speaker 6: the guidance that is necessary to make sure that they

529
00:33:00,360 --> 00:33:02,680
Speaker 6: are doing the job they're supposed to be doing, are

530
00:33:02,720 --> 00:33:06,600
Speaker 6: placed in positions in front of judges and can't really

531
00:33:06,640 --> 00:33:09,520
Speaker 6: effectively advocate on behalf of the government. And in the

532
00:33:09,600 --> 00:33:12,360
Speaker 6: course of all of this, they are losing the confidence

533
00:33:12,440 --> 00:33:16,240
Speaker 6: and the trust of the judiciary in the representations that

534
00:33:16,280 --> 00:33:19,560
Speaker 6: they often make to the court during these matters.

535
00:33:20,160 --> 00:33:23,000
Speaker 1: And Bob, you are a federal prosecutor. It used to

536
00:33:23,000 --> 00:33:25,600
Speaker 1: be hard to get into the Justice Department, right, but

537
00:33:25,760 --> 00:33:28,720
Speaker 1: now they're deciding that they're going to take people right

538
00:33:28,760 --> 00:33:29,760
Speaker 1: out of law school.

539
00:33:30,120 --> 00:33:32,560
Speaker 6: Yeah, when I applied to the US Attorney's office, there

540
00:33:32,560 --> 00:33:35,640
Speaker 6: was something like fifty to seventy five applications for every

541
00:33:35,720 --> 00:33:39,080
Speaker 6: single position, and that was generally true around the country,

542
00:33:39,200 --> 00:33:41,520
Speaker 6: whether you're in the Southern District of New York, the

543
00:33:41,560 --> 00:33:45,240
Speaker 6: District of New Jersey, Chicago, Los Angeles, or other offices

544
00:33:45,280 --> 00:33:49,360
Speaker 6: around the country. These jobs are extremely highly sought after

545
00:33:49,640 --> 00:33:53,360
Speaker 6: because it gives a young attorney the opportunity to practice

546
00:33:53,560 --> 00:33:56,320
Speaker 6: at the highest level, to be able to litigate in

547
00:33:56,440 --> 00:33:59,520
Speaker 6: federal court on behalf of the United States government, and

548
00:33:59,600 --> 00:34:02,840
Speaker 6: some of them most complex and interesting cases that you'll

549
00:34:02,840 --> 00:34:06,000
Speaker 6: ever handle as an attorney. And so these are positions

550
00:34:06,360 --> 00:34:10,120
Speaker 6: that typically you find the best and the brightest, coming

551
00:34:10,160 --> 00:34:12,600
Speaker 6: out of the best law schools, coming out of the

552
00:34:12,640 --> 00:34:16,000
Speaker 6: best clerkships. And it's from this pool of applicants that

553
00:34:16,080 --> 00:34:20,480
Speaker 6: they have over many, many years drawn assistant US attorneys

554
00:34:20,560 --> 00:34:23,239
Speaker 6: from around the country, many of whom go on to

555
00:34:23,280 --> 00:34:26,440
Speaker 6: the federal banks or other prestigious jobs in the law.

556
00:34:26,680 --> 00:34:30,359
Speaker 6: And right now they're facing a real exodus of that

557
00:34:30,480 --> 00:34:33,040
Speaker 6: type of talent, and that has created the crisis that

558
00:34:33,080 --> 00:34:35,920
Speaker 6: we're facing right now with the judiciary and with the

559
00:34:35,960 --> 00:34:37,040
Speaker 6: Department of Justice.

560
00:34:37,360 --> 00:34:40,719
Speaker 1: During the past year, many judges have issued opinions with

561
00:34:40,920 --> 00:34:46,920
Speaker 1: strong language calling out violations of court orders. Minnesota's chief

562
00:34:47,160 --> 00:34:50,560
Speaker 1: US district judge threatened to hold Ice in contempt for

563
00:34:50,719 --> 00:34:54,600
Speaker 1: violating orders more than one hundred times in cases brought

564
00:34:54,640 --> 00:34:58,439
Speaker 1: by immigrants in his court. If Ice or any other

565
00:34:58,480 --> 00:35:02,880
Speaker 1: agency doesn't follow a judge's order, is the Justice Department

566
00:35:02,920 --> 00:35:05,160
Speaker 1: attorney responsible for that in any way?

567
00:35:05,560 --> 00:35:08,520
Speaker 6: Well, that's exactly the argument that the Department of Justice

568
00:35:08,560 --> 00:35:12,600
Speaker 6: has made in these cases. Essentially, the DOJ has argued

569
00:35:13,000 --> 00:35:17,160
Speaker 6: that the attorney representing the agency in federal court doesn't

570
00:35:17,200 --> 00:35:19,120
Speaker 6: control the agency, and the.

571
00:35:19,120 --> 00:35:20,560
Speaker 4: Government lawyers do not.

572
00:35:20,760 --> 00:35:24,880
Speaker 6: By representing an agency in a district court personally guaranteed

573
00:35:24,920 --> 00:35:28,000
Speaker 6: the agency's compliance with court orders. So we have these

574
00:35:28,040 --> 00:35:33,120
Speaker 6: circumstances where federal prosecutors and other Department of Justice attorneys

575
00:35:33,440 --> 00:35:37,160
Speaker 6: are being asked to convey messages back to the agency

576
00:35:37,239 --> 00:35:40,160
Speaker 6: to make sure that an agency carries out a judge's order,

577
00:35:40,320 --> 00:35:43,399
Speaker 6: and if the agency fails to do that, the prosecutor

578
00:35:43,480 --> 00:35:46,799
Speaker 6: or attorney is getting essentially caught in the crossfire where

579
00:35:46,840 --> 00:35:51,400
Speaker 6: some judges have entered contempt orders personally against the attorneys

580
00:35:51,719 --> 00:35:54,760
Speaker 6: for the failings of the agencies. The Department of Justice

581
00:35:54,800 --> 00:35:58,279
Speaker 6: has argued that that's unfair because they can't control the agencies,

582
00:35:58,560 --> 00:36:01,480
Speaker 6: But it really is in large measure and failure of

583
00:36:01,480 --> 00:36:05,800
Speaker 6: the entire system, because the agencies should be following the judges'

584
00:36:05,880 --> 00:36:09,720
Speaker 6: orders and the agency's failure to do that really reflect

585
00:36:09,760 --> 00:36:14,160
Speaker 6: a breakdown in the communications between the judiciary and the

586
00:36:14,200 --> 00:36:17,399
Speaker 6: executive branch and is something that is going to take

587
00:36:17,400 --> 00:36:20,399
Speaker 6: a long time to repair given all the damage that's

588
00:36:20,440 --> 00:36:22,040
Speaker 6: been done over the past several years.

589
00:36:22,400 --> 00:36:26,160
Speaker 1: Also, there is an additional factor here, and that's that

590
00:36:26,760 --> 00:36:29,760
Speaker 1: some former employees say that new policies at the Justice

591
00:36:29,800 --> 00:36:34,319
Speaker 1: Department have discouraged attorneys from challenging the accuracy of the

592
00:36:34,360 --> 00:36:38,640
Speaker 1: information they're getting from agencies. And we've seen instances where

593
00:36:38,640 --> 00:36:41,600
Speaker 1: an attorney will admit something in court and then they're

594
00:36:41,640 --> 00:36:45,960
Speaker 1: fired the next day. So there's a different mindset at

595
00:36:45,960 --> 00:36:47,240
Speaker 1: this Justice Department.

596
00:36:47,560 --> 00:36:49,560
Speaker 6: What you're touching on here is really at the heart

597
00:36:49,600 --> 00:36:52,600
Speaker 6: of this issue because it really goes down to something

598
00:36:52,880 --> 00:36:54,719
Speaker 6: that is known in the law as the.

599
00:36:54,640 --> 00:36:56,239
Speaker 4: Presumption of regularity.

600
00:36:56,320 --> 00:37:00,239
Speaker 6: It's a concept where judges rely on this principle that

601
00:37:00,360 --> 00:37:04,400
Speaker 6: essentially means they trust the government to share accurate information

602
00:37:04,520 --> 00:37:07,600
Speaker 6: and they trust that the government is acting in good faith,

603
00:37:07,880 --> 00:37:10,920
Speaker 6: and in order to ensure that that baseline level of

604
00:37:11,000 --> 00:37:16,440
Speaker 6: confidence remains, there has to be this understanding that prosecutors

605
00:37:16,760 --> 00:37:20,960
Speaker 6: will make efforts to fairly inform the court of information,

606
00:37:21,560 --> 00:37:25,800
Speaker 6: information that may not necessarily be helpful to the government's case,

607
00:37:26,040 --> 00:37:29,920
Speaker 6: but information that is nonetheless accurate. And it's more important

608
00:37:30,040 --> 00:37:32,960
Speaker 6: that prosecutors give accurate information to the court than that

609
00:37:33,000 --> 00:37:36,840
Speaker 6: they give information that is necessarily going to further advocate

610
00:37:37,160 --> 00:37:40,560
Speaker 6: on behalf of the government's interests. And so this concept

611
00:37:40,560 --> 00:37:43,560
Speaker 6: of candor to the court is something that all lawyers

612
00:37:43,640 --> 00:37:47,759
Speaker 6: are responsible for. Ethically speaking, all lawyers have an obligation

613
00:37:48,000 --> 00:37:50,160
Speaker 6: to make sure that whatever information is provided to the

614
00:37:50,200 --> 00:37:54,400
Speaker 6: court that it is not knowingly false. But federal prosecutors

615
00:37:54,560 --> 00:37:57,920
Speaker 6: and Department of Justice lawyers have an even higher standard

616
00:37:58,160 --> 00:38:01,360
Speaker 6: because although they're advocating on behalf of a client, in

617
00:38:01,400 --> 00:38:04,680
Speaker 6: this case, the United States government, they also have a

618
00:38:04,800 --> 00:38:08,560
Speaker 6: duty to fairness and justice, and that means that there

619
00:38:08,600 --> 00:38:12,360
Speaker 6: are certain times where federal prosecutors have to provide information

620
00:38:12,560 --> 00:38:15,160
Speaker 6: to a court that may not be helpful to the

621
00:38:15,200 --> 00:38:19,400
Speaker 6: government's case. Prosecutors in criminal cases, as an example, have

622
00:38:19,440 --> 00:38:23,000
Speaker 6: a duty to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense. They

623
00:38:23,000 --> 00:38:26,399
Speaker 6: have to give the defense information that may hurt their

624
00:38:26,480 --> 00:38:27,640
Speaker 6: case and help.

625
00:38:27,480 --> 00:38:28,520
Speaker 4: The defendant's case.

626
00:38:28,800 --> 00:38:31,880
Speaker 6: But that's a duty that's placed upon federal prosecutors, and

627
00:38:31,920 --> 00:38:33,960
Speaker 6: it's an obligation that other lawyers.

628
00:38:33,760 --> 00:38:35,239
Speaker 4: Do not have to comply with.

629
00:38:35,480 --> 00:38:39,239
Speaker 6: But it underscores this point that federal prosecutors have to

630
00:38:39,280 --> 00:38:41,960
Speaker 6: make sure that whatever information they're providing to the court

631
00:38:42,239 --> 00:38:45,480
Speaker 6: is not only advocating on behalf of their client, but

632
00:38:45,600 --> 00:38:48,880
Speaker 6: is also fair and accurate. And I think what's happened

633
00:38:48,880 --> 00:38:52,920
Speaker 6: here is we've seen instances where zealous advocacy on behalf

634
00:38:52,920 --> 00:38:58,160
Speaker 6: of the administration has in some instances overridden the candor

635
00:38:58,239 --> 00:39:02,000
Speaker 6: to the court that all lawyers, and particularly federal lawyers,

636
00:39:02,160 --> 00:39:05,839
Speaker 6: are obligated to provide. And that's why we're seeing instances

637
00:39:05,840 --> 00:39:09,840
Speaker 6: where judges have become skeptical of representations made by government

638
00:39:09,920 --> 00:39:14,400
Speaker 6: lawyers during the course of certain cases, particularly immigration cases.

639
00:39:14,160 --> 00:39:18,000
Speaker 1: And recently in a Fourth Circuit case involving Doge, where

640
00:39:18,000 --> 00:39:22,160
Speaker 1: the government lawyers had made a correction admitting after the

641
00:39:22,200 --> 00:39:26,480
Speaker 1: court issued an injunction that they'd given the court incorrect information,

642
00:39:26,960 --> 00:39:31,400
Speaker 1: and the appellate judges disagreed about how to handle that admission.

643
00:39:31,640 --> 00:39:35,920
Speaker 1: And one judge wrote that this shows that quote, going forward,

644
00:39:36,040 --> 00:39:39,560
Speaker 1: we should not accord the defendants the government any benefit

645
00:39:39,600 --> 00:39:42,880
Speaker 1: of the doubt or readily trust in anything they say.

646
00:39:43,400 --> 00:39:47,239
Speaker 7: That's pretty astonishing, absolutely, I mean, you don't typically see

647
00:39:47,320 --> 00:39:50,319
Speaker 7: those kinds of statements coming from the court, and you're

648
00:39:50,320 --> 00:39:54,440
Speaker 7: absolutely correct that you're seeing judges grappling with this issue

649
00:39:54,480 --> 00:39:55,440
Speaker 7: in different ways.

650
00:39:55,520 --> 00:39:59,040
Speaker 6: Where some judges are being quite direct and quite pointed

651
00:39:59,080 --> 00:40:02,920
Speaker 6: in their criticism of the government's lawyers, others are giving

652
00:40:02,920 --> 00:40:06,120
Speaker 6: the government lawyers the benefit of the doubt somewhat more

653
00:40:06,239 --> 00:40:09,319
Speaker 6: now understanding that some of these mistakes may be the

654
00:40:09,400 --> 00:40:14,319
Speaker 6: result of being understaffed and simply an experience, but nonetheless

655
00:40:14,600 --> 00:40:17,799
Speaker 6: you can tell that the patience of the federal judiciary

656
00:40:18,320 --> 00:40:21,320
Speaker 6: is being frayed as they have to deal with these

657
00:40:21,400 --> 00:40:26,040
Speaker 6: inaccuracies and misrepresentations, whether or not they're done intentionally, but

658
00:40:26,200 --> 00:40:29,200
Speaker 6: it is something that is creating havoc in the federal courts,

659
00:40:29,400 --> 00:40:32,560
Speaker 6: and some judges are simply more fed up with the

660
00:40:32,600 --> 00:40:36,000
Speaker 6: situation than others and are expressing that directly on the

661
00:40:36,080 --> 00:40:39,120
Speaker 6: record during court proceedings, which is something that we've really

662
00:40:39,160 --> 00:40:40,040
Speaker 6: never seen before.

663
00:40:40,200 --> 00:40:43,759
Speaker 1: Well, federal judges are usually dealing with heavy dockets and

664
00:40:43,960 --> 00:40:47,440
Speaker 1: mistakes mean that cases take longer. Thanks so much for

665
00:40:47,560 --> 00:40:51,440
Speaker 1: joining me again, Bob. That's Robert Mints of McCarter and English.

666
00:40:51,800 --> 00:40:54,120
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

667
00:40:54,480 --> 00:40:56,839
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

668
00:40:56,880 --> 00:40:59,760
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple

669
00:40:59,760 --> 00:41:04,400
Speaker 1: pod podcast, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com

670
00:41:04,440 --> 00:41:07,800
Speaker 1: slash podcast slash Law, and remember to tune into The

671
00:41:07,800 --> 00:41:11,799
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.

672
00:41:12,360 --> 00:41:15,080
Speaker 1: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg