1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,239
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It's been coming,

6
00:00:22,280 --> 00:00:25,200
Speaker 1: applauded by some, dreaded by others, and today marks the

7
00:00:25,239 --> 00:00:28,520
Speaker 1: official end of the federal government's net neutrality rules. Those

8
00:00:28,520 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 1: are the regulations that required broadband providers to offer equal

9
00:00:31,960 --> 00:00:34,920
Speaker 1: access to all content on the Internet, enacted during the

10
00:00:34,920 --> 00:00:38,559
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Joining me as Brendan Carr, Commissioner at the

11
00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:42,360
Speaker 1: f c C Brendan, if the FCC is notified of

12
00:00:42,479 --> 00:00:46,720
Speaker 1: service providers blocking, throttling, or pay to play deals, what

13
00:00:46,800 --> 00:00:50,080
Speaker 1: will it do? Well? Thanks for trapping me on. You know,

14
00:00:50,120 --> 00:00:53,640
Speaker 1: consumers are passionate about a free and open Internet, and

15
00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:56,440
Speaker 1: that doesn't change today with our decision. If a provider

16
00:00:56,480 --> 00:00:59,320
Speaker 1: does engage in that conduct as you just described, that's

17
00:00:59,360 --> 00:01:03,440
Speaker 1: going to remain unlawful today as it did yesterday before

18
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:06,720
Speaker 1: our decision went into place. What shifts is now the

19
00:01:06,760 --> 00:01:10,960
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission, the nation's premier consumer protection agency, will

20
00:01:10,959 --> 00:01:13,560
Speaker 1: be taking that enforcement action as opposed to the f

21
00:01:13,680 --> 00:01:17,200
Speaker 1: SEC taking the action. Nine states so far have enacted

22
00:01:17,319 --> 00:01:21,440
Speaker 1: net neutrality laws or governors have signed executive orders, and

23
00:01:21,440 --> 00:01:24,959
Speaker 1: there's pending legislation in other states. How does a patchwork

24
00:01:25,120 --> 00:01:31,679
Speaker 1: of rules affect the national picture that the FCC voted for. Well,

25
00:01:31,720 --> 00:01:34,160
Speaker 1: I think one thing it shows is the tremendous amount

26
00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:37,959
Speaker 1: of common ground that there actually is here on net neutrality.

27
00:01:38,000 --> 00:01:40,080
Speaker 1: There's not a lot of disagreeing about what the basic

28
00:01:40,160 --> 00:01:43,679
Speaker 1: rules of the road is. No blocking, no discriminating, no

29
00:01:43,840 --> 00:01:46,759
Speaker 1: broken promises. Your point also goes to those should there

30
00:01:46,760 --> 00:01:49,120
Speaker 1: be a patrick of state laws that do that, or

31
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:51,880
Speaker 1: should we have one national law. For my part, I

32
00:01:51,880 --> 00:01:55,800
Speaker 1: would certainly support Congress stepping in and codifying these basic

33
00:01:55,880 --> 00:01:58,320
Speaker 1: rules of the road that there's really no disagreement about

34
00:01:58,640 --> 00:02:01,200
Speaker 1: what we face. Of the FEC was something very different,

35
00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:04,760
Speaker 1: which is this application of this ninet title to regime

36
00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:07,640
Speaker 1: that was used in service of trying to get to

37
00:02:07,680 --> 00:02:11,720
Speaker 1: those basic rules. So you you mentioned that you you

38
00:02:11,720 --> 00:02:15,200
Speaker 1: know you would support Congress. The Senate has already passed

39
00:02:15,200 --> 00:02:20,880
Speaker 1: a resolution to reinstate the rules with bipartisan support. Democrats

40
00:02:21,000 --> 00:02:23,960
Speaker 1: are less than fifty votes from advancing a resolution in

41
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 1: the House. What's your reaction to that. Yes, that's one

42
00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:32,040
Speaker 1: um effort that we're seeing in Congress that I don't support.

43
00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:36,600
Speaker 1: And here's why. That approach would restore the Title to

44
00:02:36,919 --> 00:02:40,440
Speaker 1: based approach to net neutrality. There's actually other bills that

45
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:44,480
Speaker 1: have been introduced in Congress, in particular by some Republicans

46
00:02:44,520 --> 00:02:46,919
Speaker 1: that would take those rules, those basic rules the road

47
00:02:46,960 --> 00:02:49,519
Speaker 1: that we all agree about and trying those into law.

48
00:02:49,680 --> 00:02:51,760
Speaker 1: I think that's a better way to go. Let's get

49
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:54,839
Speaker 1: those basic consumer protections that there's no real disagreement about

50
00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:57,360
Speaker 1: in place, but let's not go back to this title

51
00:02:57,440 --> 00:03:00,679
Speaker 1: to regulatary regime that opposes a lot of negative consequences

52
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:03,240
Speaker 1: in terms of investment and deployment. Well, if you agree

53
00:03:03,280 --> 00:03:06,760
Speaker 1: about those consumer rules, why didn't the f SEC put

54
00:03:06,800 --> 00:03:12,200
Speaker 1: that into effect when it repealed the law. Yeah, there's

55
00:03:12,200 --> 00:03:14,160
Speaker 1: no real there's not a lot of debate about the rules.

56
00:03:14,160 --> 00:03:16,880
Speaker 1: What we face at the FCC was, again, there was

57
00:03:16,919 --> 00:03:20,680
Speaker 1: this Title two regulatory framework that the f SEC applied

58
00:03:20,720 --> 00:03:23,960
Speaker 1: in the very first time and then use that new

59
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:27,760
Speaker 1: authority to hang those very specific rules off of So

60
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:30,040
Speaker 1: what we did was we reversed that decision to apply

61
00:03:30,120 --> 00:03:33,320
Speaker 1: that broader title to framework. With that, the rules that

62
00:03:33,320 --> 00:03:35,760
Speaker 1: were attached to it also went away. And so now

63
00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:37,640
Speaker 1: there's a question of what's the best way to get

64
00:03:37,680 --> 00:03:40,720
Speaker 1: that back in terms of authority. You can do that

65
00:03:40,760 --> 00:03:42,880
Speaker 1: through the Federal Trade Commission, or you can do that

66
00:03:42,920 --> 00:03:46,280
Speaker 1: through Congress passing standalone legislation. But our view is that

67
00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:49,040
Speaker 1: we didn't have the legal authority to put those rules

68
00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:51,800
Speaker 1: back in place once we return to a Title one framework.

69
00:03:52,240 --> 00:03:55,720
Speaker 1: So the f SEC is facing a court challenge over

70
00:03:55,800 --> 00:03:58,600
Speaker 1: whether it had the legal authority to repeal the net

71
00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:02,360
Speaker 1: neutrality rules that's by that two dozen state attorneys general,

72
00:04:02,520 --> 00:04:06,200
Speaker 1: advocacy groups, and industry groups. Where does that stand and

73
00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:09,720
Speaker 1: what's your position there? Sure, yeah, there's a number of

74
00:04:09,800 --> 00:04:12,800
Speaker 1: legal challenges that decision, as there were legal challenges to

75
00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:17,400
Speaker 1: the decision as well. Our decision to repeal Title two

76
00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:21,479
Speaker 1: stands on very firm legal ground. In fact, returning to

77
00:04:21,520 --> 00:04:24,720
Speaker 1: Title one, that's the only legal framework that the Supreme

78
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:28,200
Speaker 1: Court has weighed in on and blessed. When the Commission

79
00:04:28,279 --> 00:04:30,599
Speaker 1: applied Title one back in the early two thousand's, that

80
00:04:30,680 --> 00:04:32,760
Speaker 1: case went up to the Supreme Court. In the Supreme

81
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:34,360
Speaker 1: Court blessed it. So I don't think there's any real

82
00:04:34,400 --> 00:04:36,560
Speaker 1: issue with our legal authority, but happy to have those

83
00:04:36,560 --> 00:04:39,240
Speaker 1: court cases play out. Were you surprised that there was

84
00:04:39,320 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 1: such a negative reaction by so many people to your

85
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:46,440
Speaker 1: repeal of the net neutrality rules? You know, people are

86
00:04:46,480 --> 00:04:49,240
Speaker 1: really passionate about it, and I support that. I'm I'm

87
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:51,200
Speaker 1: I welcome it. I'm glad to see that people have

88
00:04:51,279 --> 00:04:54,440
Speaker 1: participated so robustly in our process. Again, I think the

89
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 1: differences we were faced with a narrow legal question about

90
00:04:57,680 --> 00:05:00,800
Speaker 1: is title to right or is Title one right? And

91
00:05:01,040 --> 00:05:03,440
Speaker 1: I don't think people are as passionate about that distinction.

92
00:05:03,760 --> 00:05:05,839
Speaker 1: But when it comes to the basic rules of the road,

93
00:05:05,880 --> 00:05:07,840
Speaker 1: as you note, I think that there is a lot

94
00:05:07,839 --> 00:05:09,799
Speaker 1: of common ground on those rules the road. When people

95
00:05:09,920 --> 00:05:13,440
Speaker 1: fear that those basic protections they've come to live by

96
00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:16,320
Speaker 1: are about to go away, that they're pretty fired up

97
00:05:16,360 --> 00:05:18,760
Speaker 1: about it. I think again, that's just the distinction between

98
00:05:18,760 --> 00:05:21,479
Speaker 1: Title two and the basic rules of the road that

99
00:05:21,560 --> 00:05:25,080
Speaker 1: I think are going to continue to stay in place today, tomorrow,

100
00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:29,279
Speaker 1: and the next day. Are you relying on the various

101
00:05:29,360 --> 00:05:34,520
Speaker 1: companies to to follow their pledges of not engaging in

102
00:05:34,560 --> 00:05:38,800
Speaker 1: anything that would hurt consumers that we discussed before. So

103
00:05:38,960 --> 00:05:41,880
Speaker 1: I don't think that we should trust our I s

104
00:05:41,920 --> 00:05:44,560
Speaker 1: p s to dictate our online experience. I don't think

105
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:47,520
Speaker 1: consumers want to be fully subject to the winds of

106
00:05:47,560 --> 00:05:50,159
Speaker 1: the I s P and we're not. We're not going

107
00:05:50,200 --> 00:05:52,560
Speaker 1: to that regime. So if an I s P, for instance,

108
00:05:52,640 --> 00:05:55,719
Speaker 1: enters into an agreement to act an unfairly or a

109
00:05:55,760 --> 00:05:59,840
Speaker 1: non neutral way by discriminating in favor of an affiliated

110
00:05:59,920 --> 00:06:03,680
Speaker 1: or unaffiliated provider, that's gonna be per se a violation

111
00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:06,159
Speaker 1: of Section one of the Sherman Act. So no, we're

112
00:06:06,160 --> 00:06:09,479
Speaker 1: not relying purely on the good graces of an h S.

113
00:06:09,880 --> 00:06:12,560
Speaker 1: And now we're not relying purely on the disclosures. Although

114
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:15,560
Speaker 1: those are enforceable, there's additional consumer protections that are in

115
00:06:15,600 --> 00:06:18,680
Speaker 1: place as well. We have just about fifteen seconds here.

116
00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:22,080
Speaker 1: What would you say to consumers who are worried? I

117
00:06:22,160 --> 00:06:24,440
Speaker 1: hear you. I understand that there's a lot of concern

118
00:06:24,480 --> 00:06:27,520
Speaker 1: out there, and it's really been the fears of flame

119
00:06:27,600 --> 00:06:31,039
Speaker 1: have been flamed fanned by some misinformation. The fact is

120
00:06:31,160 --> 00:06:33,920
Speaker 1: you're going to continue to be protected online. You're not

121
00:06:34,000 --> 00:06:36,360
Speaker 1: at the whim of your I s P. Strong consumer

122
00:06:36,360 --> 00:06:39,760
Speaker 1: protections remain in place. Thank you so much. That's Brendan Carr,

123
00:06:39,839 --> 00:06:47,760
Speaker 1: Commissioner at the f c C. The Supreme Court upheld

124
00:06:47,800 --> 00:06:51,200
Speaker 1: Ohio's aggressive voter purging law today by a narrow five

125
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:54,400
Speaker 1: to four vote along partisan lines. Joining me is Bloomberg,

126
00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:57,320
Speaker 1: new Supreme Court reporter Greg Store, Greg What did the

127
00:06:57,360 --> 00:07:01,200
Speaker 1: court decide? Specifically, Hi do what? What the Court decided

128
00:07:01,320 --> 00:07:05,160
Speaker 1: was that, Uh, this procedure that Ohio uses didn't violate

129
00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:08,840
Speaker 1: a nineteen law that's colloquially known as the Motor Voter Law.

130
00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:12,600
Speaker 1: That law says U states should try to eliminate people

131
00:07:12,720 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 1: off the voter rolls if if they're they've moved, or

132
00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:17,840
Speaker 1: if they shouldn't be on there, but they can't remove

133
00:07:17,880 --> 00:07:21,040
Speaker 1: people just because they didn't vote. And the Supreme Court

134
00:07:21,040 --> 00:07:25,520
Speaker 1: looked at Ohio's procedure, which basically involves, UH, if you

135
00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:28,840
Speaker 1: don't vote one time, they send you a postcard saying, hey,

136
00:07:28,880 --> 00:07:30,640
Speaker 1: do you still live here? And if you don't return

137
00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 1: that postcard and don't then don't vote a couple more times,

138
00:07:34,040 --> 00:07:36,760
Speaker 1: they will remove you. And the Supreme Court said that

139
00:07:36,880 --> 00:07:40,080
Speaker 1: was not um removing somebody from the data from the

140
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:44,280
Speaker 1: voter database just because they didn't vote. So what is

141
00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:48,160
Speaker 1: the history of this. So the history of it is

142
00:07:48,160 --> 00:07:52,920
Speaker 1: is this law was designed to basically make it easier

143
00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:56,600
Speaker 1: for people, uh to to register to vote, but also

144
00:07:56,800 --> 00:08:01,520
Speaker 1: to encourage states to take some steps to clean up

145
00:08:01,560 --> 00:08:04,960
Speaker 1: their databases so that the people who who so people

146
00:08:04,960 --> 00:08:08,400
Speaker 1: who want to vote can vote and and uh, people

147
00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:11,800
Speaker 1: who aren't supposed to vote don't vote. And that that law,

148
00:08:11,880 --> 00:08:14,160
Speaker 1: like a lot of laws, had some provisions that sort

149
00:08:14,160 --> 00:08:16,160
Speaker 1: of cut both ways, and it was trying to it

150
00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:18,720
Speaker 1: was the court trying to figure out how that applied

151
00:08:18,720 --> 00:08:22,880
Speaker 1: to this Ohio procedure. So the liberal justices here voted

152
00:08:23,280 --> 00:08:27,160
Speaker 1: as a block in descent. What was the descent focused on?

153
00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:31,360
Speaker 1: So there were two descents, and Justice Stephen Bryer's descent,

154
00:08:31,400 --> 00:08:33,760
Speaker 1: which which was written for all four of them, was

155
00:08:33,920 --> 00:08:36,120
Speaker 1: was kind of technically focused on the language of the

156
00:08:37,280 --> 00:08:41,240
Speaker 1: three federal law and and whether Ohio violated it. And

157
00:08:41,360 --> 00:08:45,320
Speaker 1: he essentially said, look, when you send somebody this postcard

158
00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:47,360
Speaker 1: and they don't return it, that doesn't mean anything. That

159
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:49,280
Speaker 1: doesn't mean a whole lot. There's all sorts of reasons

160
00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:52,680
Speaker 1: why they might not return that postcard. Um and in fact,

161
00:08:52,679 --> 00:08:55,319
Speaker 1: the statistics show that very few people do the other

162
00:08:55,360 --> 00:08:58,440
Speaker 1: descent was written just by herself by Justice Sonya Soto.

163
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:03,280
Speaker 1: Mayor and um hers looked at the bigger issues about

164
00:09:03,640 --> 00:09:10,080
Speaker 1: voter suppression and essentially said, this procedure UH puts a

165
00:09:10,160 --> 00:09:12,679
Speaker 1: burden on people when they're trying to go vote, and

166
00:09:13,280 --> 00:09:16,400
Speaker 1: UH therefore we should be very skeptical of it. So

167
00:09:16,440 --> 00:09:19,200
Speaker 1: how about this play out in politics and in the

168
00:09:19,240 --> 00:09:23,120
Speaker 1: midterm elections. So there are about six states that have

169
00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:27,120
Speaker 1: fairly similar procedures that might have been at risk had

170
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:30,559
Speaker 1: the court gone the other way. UH. Those states will

171
00:09:30,559 --> 00:09:33,760
Speaker 1: be able to use their procedures. Now, it's not a

172
00:09:33,840 --> 00:09:37,240
Speaker 1: huge number of people that are affected, but in some

173
00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:40,360
Speaker 1: states like Ohio that can be closely divided, it can

174
00:09:40,440 --> 00:09:44,520
Speaker 1: make a difference. So two years ago, UH, a federal

175
00:09:44,520 --> 00:09:48,840
Speaker 1: appeals court UH barred Ohio from using its law and

176
00:09:48,880 --> 00:09:51,400
Speaker 1: in fact counted the ballots or the counting of the

177
00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:55,040
Speaker 1: ballots of people who otherwise would have been barred under

178
00:09:55,080 --> 00:09:58,240
Speaker 1: this procedure. UM. And it's easy to imagine and a

179
00:09:58,280 --> 00:10:00,800
Speaker 1: close election that that could make make a difference in

180
00:10:00,800 --> 00:10:03,640
Speaker 1: in some closely divided states. Greg this was a case

181
00:10:03,640 --> 00:10:06,840
Speaker 1: where the Obama administration had opposed Ohio's law and then

182
00:10:06,880 --> 00:10:10,840
Speaker 1: the Trump administration reversed that position and supported Ohio. It

183
00:10:10,920 --> 00:10:14,319
Speaker 1: was Democrats versus Republicans as far as the Amiguus Briefs

184
00:10:14,360 --> 00:10:17,360
Speaker 1: of the States are concerned. Why was this case a

185
00:10:17,400 --> 00:10:21,480
Speaker 1: proxy for the partisan fight over the country's election rules. Well,

186
00:10:21,800 --> 00:10:24,520
Speaker 1: you know, it was what what I mentioned before the

187
00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:27,400
Speaker 1: Justice so Mayor was talking about that this notion that

188
00:10:27,480 --> 00:10:31,800
Speaker 1: these purging procedures are not there in order to the

189
00:10:32,200 --> 00:10:34,240
Speaker 1: argument that they're not there in order to protect against

190
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:37,080
Speaker 1: voter fraud or anything like that, but to make it

191
00:10:37,160 --> 00:10:41,000
Speaker 1: harder for people, in particular liberals and low income people

192
00:10:41,480 --> 00:10:46,800
Speaker 1: and racial minorities to vote. And uh, it ends up

193
00:10:46,840 --> 00:10:50,000
Speaker 1: sort of fitting into that that battle over whether the

194
00:10:50,000 --> 00:10:52,280
Speaker 1: bigger thing we should be worried about his voter suppression

195
00:10:52,600 --> 00:10:55,720
Speaker 1: or voter fraud. We are in the home stretch of

196
00:10:55,720 --> 00:10:59,800
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court term and we're expecting some cases that

197
00:10:59,840 --> 00:11:02,960
Speaker 1: have really been high profile and controversial. And this is

198
00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:06,000
Speaker 1: the sixth time the Liberals have voted this term as

199
00:11:06,080 --> 00:11:09,040
Speaker 1: a block and have dissented as a block. Rather, does

200
00:11:09,080 --> 00:11:13,600
Speaker 1: that portend future votes in controversial cases coming up? There

201
00:11:13,600 --> 00:11:16,280
Speaker 1: will certainly be some future votes like that. There have

202
00:11:16,360 --> 00:11:19,600
Speaker 1: also been some cases where the Court has managed to

203
00:11:19,800 --> 00:11:23,800
Speaker 1: gloss over a few differences. UH. For example, the masterpiece

204
00:11:23,840 --> 00:11:27,280
Speaker 1: case for the Colorado Baker case from last week, where

205
00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:30,839
Speaker 1: two justices from the Liberals were able to join UH

206
00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:35,640
Speaker 1: with their more conservative colleagues in the majority. Um it.

207
00:11:36,280 --> 00:11:40,480
Speaker 1: There are cases like the travel band, cases like mandatory

208
00:11:40,640 --> 00:11:45,120
Speaker 1: union fees, where in cases like partisan jurymandering where you

209
00:11:45,200 --> 00:11:48,000
Speaker 1: have to imagine there will be some sort of ideological

210
00:11:48,040 --> 00:11:50,240
Speaker 1: divide on the court. Whether the ends up being five

211
00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:53,640
Speaker 1: to four, whether they can come up with a broader coalition,

212
00:11:53,880 --> 00:11:56,360
Speaker 1: that remains to be seen, of course. So we have

213
00:11:56,880 --> 00:12:00,640
Speaker 1: the term where Justice Neil Gorsich has replaced the late

214
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:04,800
Speaker 1: Justice antiin Scalia. Do you see any any change here

215
00:12:04,880 --> 00:12:07,120
Speaker 1: or do you see just the same five four split

216
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:10,080
Speaker 1: that we saw for so many years. It's pretty much

217
00:12:10,120 --> 00:12:14,120
Speaker 1: the same five four split. Um, you know. And if

218
00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:17,880
Speaker 1: if Justice Corsi resembles anybody, it's probably Justice Scale in

219
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:21,440
Speaker 1: terms of his vote patterns. So the one time where

220
00:12:21,480 --> 00:12:26,120
Speaker 1: he did join the Liberals was a case involving a

221
00:12:26,160 --> 00:12:30,480
Speaker 1: deportation provision where he, perhaps as Justice Scalia would have said,

222
00:12:30,520 --> 00:12:35,000
Speaker 1: this provision is not specific enough to UH to apply

223
00:12:35,120 --> 00:12:39,080
Speaker 1: it to somebody. It's too vague um in order to

224
00:12:39,320 --> 00:12:42,559
Speaker 1: it's too vague to be used to justify deporting somebody

225
00:12:42,640 --> 00:12:45,640
Speaker 1: or subjecting them to mandatory deportation. And that's the kind

226
00:12:45,679 --> 00:12:48,360
Speaker 1: of vote Justice Scalia may have taken, may have cast

227
00:12:48,400 --> 00:12:51,160
Speaker 1: as well. But basically, when we're looking at the most

228
00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:54,120
Speaker 1: of the cases that are dividing the Court along ideological lines,

229
00:12:54,440 --> 00:12:57,240
Speaker 1: he is justice course, which is very much joining joining

230
00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:00,120
Speaker 1: his conservative colleagues. All Right, well, Greg, we're gonna be

231
00:13:00,160 --> 00:13:02,840
Speaker 1: hearing from you on Thursday again because the Court announced

232
00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:05,520
Speaker 1: today that it's going to be having sessions have issuing

233
00:13:05,559 --> 00:13:08,280
Speaker 1: different decisions then as well. Thanks so much. That's Bloomberg

234
00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:11,640
Speaker 1: News Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Thanks for listening to

235
00:13:11,640 --> 00:13:14,960
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

236
00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:18,679
Speaker 1: the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

237
00:13:18,760 --> 00:13:23,280
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg