1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:10,240
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:11,440 --> 00:00:14,600
Speaker 2: It's one of two Supreme Court cases within a week

3
00:00:14,800 --> 00:00:19,520
Speaker 2: over securities fraud class action lawsuits against giant tech companies.

4
00:00:19,920 --> 00:00:24,279
Speaker 2: Last Wednesday, it was Meta's Facebook. This Wednesday it was

5
00:00:24,320 --> 00:00:28,160
Speaker 2: in Vidia. Investors are suing in Vidia, now the world's

6
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:31,640
Speaker 2: most valuable company, for misleading them about how much its

7
00:00:31,720 --> 00:00:36,080
Speaker 2: profits depended on the volatile cryptomney market. But the tech

8
00:00:36,120 --> 00:00:40,239
Speaker 2: company says the lawsuit relies on an expert opinion and

9
00:00:40,360 --> 00:00:44,680
Speaker 2: doesn't have evidence like company documents to back up its claims.

10
00:00:45,159 --> 00:00:49,000
Speaker 2: Justice Katanji Brown Jackson questioned how the investors could have

11
00:00:49,080 --> 00:00:54,600
Speaker 2: company documents before discovery the information gathering stage of litigation

12
00:00:55,120 --> 00:00:56,400
Speaker 2: has even taken place.

13
00:00:56,880 --> 00:00:59,920
Speaker 3: I guess my concern is that you appeared to be

14
00:01:01,240 --> 00:01:05,840
Speaker 3: requiring for plaintiffs to actually have the evidence in order

15
00:01:05,920 --> 00:01:10,760
Speaker 3: to plead their case. And I didn't understand the pleading standards,

16
00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:14,720
Speaker 3: even with particularity, to require that they have the documents,

17
00:01:14,760 --> 00:01:17,720
Speaker 3: Nor do I understand how they could have the documents

18
00:01:17,760 --> 00:01:20,400
Speaker 3: when discovery hasn't occurred yet.

19
00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:23,479
Speaker 2: And several of the justices seem to have a bit

20
00:01:23,520 --> 00:01:27,680
Speaker 2: of buyer's remorse about granting review in the case, saying

21
00:01:27,720 --> 00:01:31,080
Speaker 2: it was two facts specific and didn't present the kind

22
00:01:31,160 --> 00:01:35,280
Speaker 2: of broad legal issues that normally prompt Supreme Court review.

23
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:40,520
Speaker 2: Here justice is Sonya Sotmayor Elena Kagan and Samuel Alito.

24
00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:46,240
Speaker 4: We often don't grant, sir to error correct? Is this

25
00:01:46,840 --> 00:01:51,200
Speaker 4: entire case just an error correction? Oh, these particular documents

26
00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:54,520
Speaker 4: are not precise enough. I'm not actually sure what rule

27
00:01:55,360 --> 00:02:02,280
Speaker 4: we could articulate that would be clearer than our cases

28
00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:06,600
Speaker 4: already say. It becomes less and less clear why we

29
00:02:06,680 --> 00:02:10,040
Speaker 4: took this case number one as just as Sodama your suggested,

30
00:02:10,080 --> 00:02:12,160
Speaker 4: and number two why you should win it.

31
00:02:12,560 --> 00:02:16,320
Speaker 1: But this is a highly technical subject and I just

32
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:22,200
Speaker 1: don't understand how a court is supposed to evaluate that

33
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:24,160
Speaker 1: at the pleading stage.

34
00:02:24,440 --> 00:02:27,520
Speaker 2: Joining me is Gregory gar a partner at Latham and Watkins,

35
00:02:27,600 --> 00:02:30,800
Speaker 2: and the former Solicitor General of the United States, Greg

36
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:32,880
Speaker 2: tell Us about the issue before the court.

37
00:02:33,040 --> 00:02:37,040
Speaker 5: So, this case involves the pleading requirements under the Private

38
00:02:37,080 --> 00:02:43,359
Speaker 5: Securities Litigation Reform Act, and specifically what a plaintiff has

39
00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:48,480
Speaker 5: to show to plead with the requisite particularity when the

40
00:02:48,560 --> 00:02:53,519
Speaker 5: claim is that a company misled investors based on internal

41
00:02:53,520 --> 00:02:55,920
Speaker 5: information that it knew. And the question is, does a

42
00:02:56,000 --> 00:02:59,480
Speaker 5: planiff in that situation have to actually produce or describe

43
00:02:59,520 --> 00:03:03,680
Speaker 5: in detail the internal company documents that the PLANEFF says

44
00:03:03,760 --> 00:03:08,079
Speaker 5: represents the company's knowledge, or can you prove that knowledge

45
00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:11,680
Speaker 5: through inferences by relying on expert reports and the like.

46
00:03:12,120 --> 00:03:16,440
Speaker 2: And so Justice Kotanji Brown Jackson said that in video

47
00:03:16,720 --> 00:03:21,400
Speaker 2: was basically asking the plaintiffs to have the evidence at

48
00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:24,120
Speaker 2: the pleating stage before they get.

49
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 5: Discovery, right, And that's the pushback that the more liberal

50
00:03:28,160 --> 00:03:32,440
Speaker 5: justices had for the company's lawyer. The reason for these

51
00:03:32,520 --> 00:03:36,040
Speaker 5: lawsuits is you typically get into federal court by passing

52
00:03:36,040 --> 00:03:40,040
Speaker 5: the pleating requirements and then you get discovery and potentially

53
00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:44,240
Speaker 5: access to the company's documents. So Justice Jackson sort of

54
00:03:44,400 --> 00:03:47,600
Speaker 5: said that the company was trying to put the Planets

55
00:03:47,600 --> 00:03:52,040
Speaker 5: in an impossible bind to produce the documents before discovery

56
00:03:52,240 --> 00:03:55,600
Speaker 5: had ensued. And the company's response to that was that

57
00:03:55,640 --> 00:03:59,720
Speaker 5: they weren't actually requiring the documents themselves, or that they

58
00:03:59,760 --> 00:04:04,200
Speaker 5: disc the documents in every detail, but they simply had

59
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:08,800
Speaker 5: to describe the documents with some particularity. But that was

60
00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:12,080
Speaker 5: really the crux of the case that the company put

61
00:04:12,120 --> 00:04:12,760
Speaker 5: before the court.

62
00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:15,000
Speaker 2: What did you see as the concerns of some of

63
00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:16,080
Speaker 2: the other justices.

64
00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:18,520
Speaker 5: Well, I think that there was a frustration on the

65
00:04:18,520 --> 00:04:22,359
Speaker 5: court that they really weren't presented with a clear legal

66
00:04:22,480 --> 00:04:25,680
Speaker 5: rule on either side of the case, and that ultimately

67
00:04:25,760 --> 00:04:29,000
Speaker 5: the case seemed to boil down to the application of

68
00:04:29,080 --> 00:04:32,960
Speaker 5: existing law to a really long complaint, which is something

69
00:04:33,000 --> 00:04:35,599
Speaker 5: that district courts do all the time, but the Supreme

70
00:04:35,640 --> 00:04:39,400
Speaker 5: Court justices don't do, and particularly don't like to do.

71
00:04:39,560 --> 00:04:41,520
Speaker 5: And so you could see throughout the argument that there

72
00:04:41,560 --> 00:04:43,800
Speaker 5: was a frustration on the part of the justices that

73
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:46,600
Speaker 5: they were being asked to undertake a task that they

74
00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:49,839
Speaker 5: typically don't do in engaging in a sort of error

75
00:04:49,839 --> 00:04:52,640
Speaker 5: correction based on their own reading of the complaint.

76
00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:56,880
Speaker 2: Yeah, it seems like justices across the ideological spectrum were

77
00:04:56,960 --> 00:05:00,200
Speaker 2: concerned about that. And did it seem like that of

78
00:05:00,200 --> 00:05:03,839
Speaker 2: buyer's remorse, Because just as Sodomayor said, you know, we

79
00:05:03,880 --> 00:05:08,480
Speaker 2: don't grant sert to error correct and Justice Alitos said

80
00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:11,120
Speaker 2: that I don't understand how a court is supposed to

81
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:16,240
Speaker 2: evaluate this highly technical subject at this preliminary stage. Just

82
00:05:16,320 --> 00:05:19,520
Speaker 2: as Kagan said, it becomes less and less clear why

83
00:05:19,560 --> 00:05:22,360
Speaker 2: we took this case. I mean, were they questioning whether

84
00:05:22,360 --> 00:05:24,360
Speaker 2: they should have granted cert in the first place.

85
00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:27,880
Speaker 5: I think they were. And of course, the Supreme Court

86
00:05:28,200 --> 00:05:32,560
Speaker 5: gets to decide which cases it hears every year, and

87
00:05:32,640 --> 00:05:36,040
Speaker 5: so it can pick the cases it likes. And here

88
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:38,599
Speaker 5: I think you're right that there were some buyer's remorse

89
00:05:38,680 --> 00:05:41,719
Speaker 5: that the case, once it was fully briefed and presented

90
00:05:41,800 --> 00:05:44,080
Speaker 5: to the Court at argument, wasn't necessarily the case that

91
00:05:44,080 --> 00:05:46,840
Speaker 5: they thought they were buying when they agreed to hear it.

92
00:05:46,920 --> 00:05:49,960
Speaker 5: And so one possible outcome is that the Court would

93
00:05:50,000 --> 00:05:53,560
Speaker 5: simply decline to decide the case at all and to

94
00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:56,200
Speaker 5: dig it, which means that they would dismiss the writ

95
00:05:56,240 --> 00:05:59,080
Speaker 5: of Cercherai that thet agreed to hear the case as

96
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:02,000
Speaker 5: improvidently granted, so the case could simply go away.

97
00:06:02,440 --> 00:06:06,680
Speaker 2: Justice Kavanaugh expressed a concern that outside groups and in

98
00:06:06,839 --> 00:06:11,880
Speaker 2: Vidia's lawyer had raised that the Ninth Circuit decision below

99
00:06:12,000 --> 00:06:16,760
Speaker 2: here created a sort of blueprint or roadmap for plaintiffs

100
00:06:16,800 --> 00:06:20,160
Speaker 2: to get around the heightened pleading standard that Congress set

101
00:06:20,200 --> 00:06:23,200
Speaker 2: out in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

102
00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:27,880
Speaker 5: Right, and Just Kavanaugh was probably the most outspoken justice

103
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:30,359
Speaker 5: on the side of the company at the oral argument,

104
00:06:30,480 --> 00:06:33,360
Speaker 5: and his concern was that if the Ninth Circuit decision

105
00:06:33,520 --> 00:06:36,599
Speaker 5: in this case is allowed, then it just creates a

106
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:40,479
Speaker 5: blueprint or recipe for points to file where anytime you

107
00:06:40,560 --> 00:06:43,040
Speaker 5: have a stop drop, you can just go out and

108
00:06:43,120 --> 00:06:46,800
Speaker 5: find an expert that would put together numbers that would

109
00:06:46,800 --> 00:06:50,880
Speaker 5: contradict a company's public statements and then enledge in a

110
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:54,840
Speaker 5: lawsuit that the company keeps records that its executives look

111
00:06:54,880 --> 00:06:57,800
Speaker 5: at and argued that those records would have matched their

112
00:06:57,839 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 5: own experts numbers. So there you have it. Presto a

113
00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:07,239
Speaker 5: securities action that would proceed past the motion to dismiss stage.

114
00:07:07,520 --> 00:07:10,480
Speaker 5: And in these sorts of cases, particularly with class actions,

115
00:07:10,880 --> 00:07:13,400
Speaker 5: that's really the ballgame, because.

116
00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:15,239
Speaker 2: The pressure on the company is then to settle.

117
00:07:15,400 --> 00:07:18,640
Speaker 5: There's enormous pressure on the companies to settle in that

118
00:07:18,760 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 5: context given the potential damages. Although here Justice Kavanaugh actually

119
00:07:24,040 --> 00:07:27,720
Speaker 5: pressed the plaineoff's lawyer on what the magnitude of the

120
00:07:27,800 --> 00:07:31,440
Speaker 5: damages would be, and the planiff's lawyer was a little

121
00:07:31,440 --> 00:07:33,560
Speaker 5: bit coy and ultimately said he did not know the

122
00:07:33,600 --> 00:07:37,320
Speaker 5: answer to that question, perhaps because the amount was potentially

123
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:38,000
Speaker 5: quite large.

124
00:07:38,240 --> 00:07:42,000
Speaker 2: Here's part of that exchange between Justice Kavanaugh and the

125
00:07:42,000 --> 00:07:44,840
Speaker 2: attorney for the shareholders, Deepak Gupta.

126
00:07:45,360 --> 00:07:47,520
Speaker 5: How much money is at stake in this case?

127
00:07:48,120 --> 00:07:52,480
Speaker 6: The words, the fewer to prevail ultimately in the class,

128
00:07:53,080 --> 00:07:57,160
Speaker 6: not as much as it might seem, because I don't

129
00:07:57,160 --> 00:07:59,920
Speaker 6: want the court to get the impression that this enormous

130
00:08:00,080 --> 00:08:03,600
Speaker 6: delta of sales is what's that issue? It would be

131
00:08:03,640 --> 00:08:05,920
Speaker 6: an issue would be you would have to show lost

132
00:08:05,960 --> 00:08:07,240
Speaker 6: causation and materiality.

133
00:08:07,280 --> 00:08:08,080
Speaker 2: What are you seeking?

134
00:08:08,160 --> 00:08:10,520
Speaker 4: Like if you ran the table, what are you seeking?

135
00:08:10,880 --> 00:08:13,680
Speaker 6: Roughly, I don't know what the numbers are. You're on her?

136
00:08:13,920 --> 00:08:16,280
Speaker 2: What did you make of Justice score such? He sort

137
00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:20,280
Speaker 2: of went into what the CEO knew at the.

138
00:08:20,280 --> 00:08:23,920
Speaker 5: Time, right, So he pressed the lawyers on both sides

139
00:08:24,080 --> 00:08:26,920
Speaker 5: really about what inferences could be drawn about what the

140
00:08:26,960 --> 00:08:30,320
Speaker 5: CEO knew and sort of, you know, question whether or

141
00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:33,800
Speaker 5: not it was plausible that a CEO wouldn't know about

142
00:08:34,200 --> 00:08:39,000
Speaker 5: potential downtick in sales and the magnitude alleged here billions

143
00:08:39,040 --> 00:08:42,280
Speaker 5: of dollars, and so he had tough questions and he

144
00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:44,760
Speaker 5: clearly was, you know, I think prepared to get into

145
00:08:44,840 --> 00:08:46,400
Speaker 5: the weeds of this case to resolve it.

146
00:08:46,640 --> 00:08:51,680
Speaker 2: Several of the justices seemed to be saying, too Invidia's lawyer, well,

147
00:08:51,840 --> 00:08:54,480
Speaker 2: you want a bright line test, and we can't give

148
00:08:54,520 --> 00:08:57,240
Speaker 2: you a bright line test. And the Chief Justice didn't

149
00:08:57,240 --> 00:08:59,640
Speaker 2: seem to be happy with either side's position.

150
00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:02,160
Speaker 5: He wasn't, as he put it, I think, you know,

151
00:09:02,280 --> 00:09:04,800
Speaker 5: both sides want to present this in black and white terms,

152
00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:07,400
Speaker 5: but there really wasn't a clear rule on either side

153
00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:09,800
Speaker 5: that the Court was likely to adopt, and so they

154
00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:13,280
Speaker 5: were left in this middle ground that again probably would

155
00:09:13,320 --> 00:09:16,840
Speaker 5: produce a very narrow ruling that would require the justices

156
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:20,920
Speaker 5: to roll up their sleeves and apply the pleading standard

157
00:09:20,920 --> 00:09:25,400
Speaker 5: to the particular allegations here in this extensive complaint, which

158
00:09:25,440 --> 00:09:28,079
Speaker 5: is something that the Supreme Court justices you know, probably

159
00:09:28,120 --> 00:09:29,440
Speaker 5: don't want to spend their time doing.

160
00:09:29,880 --> 00:09:33,400
Speaker 2: Greg. This case is about pleading under the Private Securities

161
00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:37,040
Speaker 2: Litigation Reform Act, which was passed in nineteen ninety five.

162
00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:38,600
Speaker 2: Will you tell us a little about it?

163
00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:39,199
Speaker 1: Sure?

164
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:43,160
Speaker 5: So this Act was passed in response to concerns about

165
00:09:43,240 --> 00:09:47,400
Speaker 5: a flood of potentially frivolous securities actions and the like,

166
00:09:47,440 --> 00:09:51,960
Speaker 5: and so Congress specifically ramped up the pleading requirements for

167
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:55,440
Speaker 5: these types of actions by stating what you know, arguably

168
00:09:55,520 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 5: the law required in some respects before then, but stating

169
00:09:58,960 --> 00:10:02,600
Speaker 5: in a statute that the planiffs must plead with particularity

170
00:10:02,679 --> 00:10:07,120
Speaker 5: the facts constituting securities fraud, and must you know, plead

171
00:10:07,160 --> 00:10:10,360
Speaker 5: facts that create a strong inference that the defendants acted

172
00:10:10,400 --> 00:10:14,240
Speaker 5: knowingly or recklessly. And so in this area, and with

173
00:10:14,320 --> 00:10:17,679
Speaker 5: respect to pleading standards more generally, you know, the slightest

174
00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:22,760
Speaker 5: uptick in the rigorousness of the pleating requirements can screen

175
00:10:22,840 --> 00:10:25,240
Speaker 5: out a number of cases. And you know, I think

176
00:10:25,240 --> 00:10:28,199
Speaker 5: that that was one of Converse's goals here and has

177
00:10:28,280 --> 00:10:30,920
Speaker 5: had that effect. And so the court in this case

178
00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:35,560
Speaker 5: is revisiting the strength of those standards, and in particular

179
00:10:35,880 --> 00:10:39,839
Speaker 5: the requirement of stating with particularity in this context where

180
00:10:39,960 --> 00:10:43,800
Speaker 5: the planiffs don't have access to documents that would show

181
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:46,760
Speaker 5: what the company knew, but have an expert who's willing

182
00:10:46,800 --> 00:10:49,920
Speaker 5: to say, based on his or her own opinion, what

183
00:10:50,080 --> 00:10:54,000
Speaker 5: is likely the company's executives would have had or seen

184
00:10:54,400 --> 00:10:56,360
Speaker 5: prior to this dock drop that issue.

185
00:10:56,559 --> 00:10:59,800
Speaker 2: So in Vidia in twenty twenty two agree to pay

186
00:10:59,840 --> 00:11:04,559
Speaker 2: five point five million to US authorities to settle charges

187
00:11:04,600 --> 00:11:08,280
Speaker 2: that it didn't properly disclose the impact of crypto mining

188
00:11:08,440 --> 00:11:12,160
Speaker 2: on its gaming business without admitting or denying the findings

189
00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:16,400
Speaker 2: as usual. Does that have any impact here that settlement

190
00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:17,480
Speaker 2: not really.

191
00:11:17,559 --> 00:11:21,679
Speaker 5: It came up in oral argument. The government was participating

192
00:11:21,920 --> 00:11:24,760
Speaker 5: in the case, and the Biden administration came in on

193
00:11:24,880 --> 00:11:28,120
Speaker 5: the side of the plaintiffs here and argued that the

194
00:11:28,200 --> 00:11:31,280
Speaker 5: Ninth Circuit had gotten it right. And the Justices did

195
00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:35,200
Speaker 5: ask about that sec action. But this case is really

196
00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:38,800
Speaker 5: going to rise or fall on its own allegations under

197
00:11:38,920 --> 00:11:41,200
Speaker 5: the demands of the PSLRA.

198
00:11:42,040 --> 00:11:45,920
Speaker 2: Just last week, the Justices were considering whether to shut

199
00:11:45,960 --> 00:11:51,040
Speaker 2: down another class action investors lawsuit against Facebook stemming from

200
00:11:51,040 --> 00:11:56,439
Speaker 2: the privacy scandal, involving the Cambridge Analytical Political consulting firm.

201
00:11:56,800 --> 00:11:59,720
Speaker 2: Is there a reason why they have two sort of

202
00:11:59,800 --> 00:12:03,880
Speaker 2: similar cases in this term? Is this a real problem?

203
00:12:04,160 --> 00:12:08,000
Speaker 5: I think it's probably fortuitous that the two cases happened

204
00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:11,200
Speaker 5: to come to the court at the same time. That said,

205
00:12:11,240 --> 00:12:13,800
Speaker 5: both cases came out of the Ninth Circuit, and the

206
00:12:13,880 --> 00:12:15,920
Speaker 5: Ninth Circuit has been sort of a hotbed for this

207
00:12:16,120 --> 00:12:19,600
Speaker 5: kind of litigation, and so it's not surprising in that

208
00:12:19,679 --> 00:12:21,880
Speaker 5: sense that some of these cases has gotten to the

209
00:12:21,920 --> 00:12:24,640
Speaker 5: Supreme Court. But having taken two of these cases and

210
00:12:24,679 --> 00:12:26,600
Speaker 5: heard them in the same week, and I think it's

211
00:12:26,640 --> 00:12:29,440
Speaker 5: there to say that in both cases justices were grappling

212
00:12:29,480 --> 00:12:32,800
Speaker 5: for answers. It may be a while before the justices

213
00:12:32,840 --> 00:12:35,840
Speaker 5: decided to wade back into this area.

214
00:12:37,320 --> 00:12:39,840
Speaker 2: So what's your take. Do you think that there needs

215
00:12:39,840 --> 00:12:44,000
Speaker 2: to be more specificity and pleading in these kinds of cases.

216
00:12:44,360 --> 00:12:47,400
Speaker 5: I think, you know, Congress was wise to pass the

217
00:12:47,440 --> 00:12:51,440
Speaker 5: Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and those pleading standards you

218
00:12:51,480 --> 00:12:55,080
Speaker 5: know have and should have teeth. I think in this

219
00:12:55,240 --> 00:12:58,960
Speaker 5: area usually the pleating standard at the motion to dismiths

220
00:12:58,960 --> 00:13:02,720
Speaker 5: stage is you know, the critical test in the litigation,

221
00:13:02,880 --> 00:13:06,120
Speaker 5: because once you get past that pleading stage, then you

222
00:13:06,160 --> 00:13:10,240
Speaker 5: get discovery. The cost of litigation rise greatly and you

223
00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:13,880
Speaker 5: have a threat of enormous damages that often push defendants

224
00:13:13,920 --> 00:13:17,320
Speaker 5: into settlement even when they strongly believe that there was

225
00:13:17,360 --> 00:13:20,040
Speaker 5: no securities fraud in the first place. So I think

226
00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:23,440
Speaker 5: courts you have to police these requirements carefully. So in

227
00:13:23,440 --> 00:13:26,000
Speaker 5: that sense, it's not surprising that the Supreme Court with

228
00:13:26,240 --> 00:13:29,800
Speaker 5: intervene fears that a court has either veered from the

229
00:13:29,880 --> 00:13:33,560
Speaker 5: law or where courts have taken conflicting positions on what

230
00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:34,720
Speaker 5: these standards require.

231
00:13:35,000 --> 00:13:36,880
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Greg, Always a pleasure to have you

232
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:40,199
Speaker 2: on the show. That's Gregory gar of Latham and Watkins,

233
00:13:40,240 --> 00:13:45,400
Speaker 2: the former US Solicitor General. This bill mandates the display

234
00:13:45,520 --> 00:13:50,240
Speaker 2: of the Ten Commandments in every classroom in public, elementary, secondary.

235
00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:54,480
Speaker 6: And post education schools in the state of Louisiana.

236
00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:58,280
Speaker 2: Louisiana was the first state to require that the Ten

237
00:13:58,360 --> 00:14:03,200
Speaker 2: Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom since nineteen

238
00:14:03,320 --> 00:14:07,199
Speaker 2: eighty when the Supreme Court struck down a similar Kentucky

239
00:14:07,280 --> 00:14:11,200
Speaker 2: law on First Amendment grounds. Governor Jeff Landry signed the

240
00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 2: bill into law, which requires a poster size display or

241
00:14:15,120 --> 00:14:18,600
Speaker 2: framed document of the Ten Commandments to be put up

242
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:20,800
Speaker 2: in every classroom by January.

243
00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:23,080
Speaker 6: Because if you want to respect the rule of law,

244
00:14:23,080 --> 00:14:27,560
Speaker 6: you got to start from the original lawgiver, which was Moses.

245
00:14:28,600 --> 00:14:31,200
Speaker 2: But a federal judge has stepped in to stop that

246
00:14:31,320 --> 00:14:35,360
Speaker 2: from happening, finding that the law is unconstitutional on its face.

247
00:14:35,760 --> 00:14:39,240
Speaker 2: The legal showdown won't end at the district court level, however,

248
00:14:39,520 --> 00:14:42,440
Speaker 2: with the state Attorney General saying she'll ask the Fifth

249
00:14:42,440 --> 00:14:46,080
Speaker 2: Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the judge's ruling while

250
00:14:46,160 --> 00:14:49,720
Speaker 2: she appeals, joining me his first Amendment. Law expert Caroline

251
00:14:49,720 --> 00:14:53,280
Speaker 2: Malak Corbin, a professor at the University of Miami Law School,

252
00:14:53,640 --> 00:14:56,880
Speaker 2: tell us about the judges ruling almost two hundred pages.

253
00:14:57,280 --> 00:15:00,520
Speaker 7: It was indeed very long. It was one hundred seventy

254
00:15:00,560 --> 00:15:08,240
Speaker 7: seven pages. So Louisiana had passed a law mandating the

255
00:15:08,360 --> 00:15:13,880
Speaker 7: posting of a particular version of the Ten Commandments in

256
00:15:14,160 --> 00:15:19,400
Speaker 7: every single classroom in the public schools of Louisiana, both

257
00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:24,080
Speaker 7: K through twelve and the university level, and this was challenged,

258
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:28,880
Speaker 7: not surprisingly on establishment claws grounds, and the district court

259
00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:34,520
Speaker 7: gave sort of two paths of why this was in

260
00:15:34,680 --> 00:15:39,880
Speaker 7: fact in violation of the establishment clause, and his first

261
00:15:40,120 --> 00:15:45,480
Speaker 7: line of discussion was that there is very clear precedent

262
00:15:45,640 --> 00:15:49,360
Speaker 7: on this matter. Kentucky had tried the same thing back

263
00:15:49,400 --> 00:15:53,360
Speaker 7: in nineteen eighty. It too, had passed the law requiring

264
00:15:53,400 --> 00:15:56,720
Speaker 7: the posting of the Ten Commandments in every single classroom,

265
00:15:56,960 --> 00:16:01,560
Speaker 7: and the court said, no, yead to that there is

266
00:16:01,600 --> 00:16:06,560
Speaker 7: no real secular reason for this. You can't impose a

267
00:16:06,640 --> 00:16:11,320
Speaker 7: religion in the walls like that. It is unconstitutional. And

268
00:16:11,640 --> 00:16:17,640
Speaker 7: so there is Supreme Court precedent directly on point, and

269
00:16:17,760 --> 00:16:22,280
Speaker 7: so they said, under this decision, which is still good law,

270
00:16:22,440 --> 00:16:26,600
Speaker 7: because the Supreme Court has not yet explicitly overruled it,

271
00:16:27,000 --> 00:16:30,280
Speaker 7: this law cannot survive. And so that was one approach,

272
00:16:30,640 --> 00:16:35,040
Speaker 7: which is very straightforward. There is a Supreme Court decision

273
00:16:35,200 --> 00:16:37,880
Speaker 7: that considered the same issue, and when it did, it

274
00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:39,280
Speaker 7: found it unconstitutional.

275
00:16:39,560 --> 00:16:40,280
Speaker 4: And then it had.

276
00:16:40,240 --> 00:16:46,240
Speaker 7: Another line of argumentation because there is concern that the

277
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:49,600
Speaker 7: Supreme Court is going to overrule that decision, and in

278
00:16:49,680 --> 00:16:54,640
Speaker 7: fact that's partly what Louisiana is hoping. And so given

279
00:16:54,800 --> 00:17:01,960
Speaker 7: this new Christian friendly Supreme Court, it may well decide

280
00:17:02,000 --> 00:17:05,960
Speaker 7: that that precedent is no longer good, in part because

281
00:17:06,000 --> 00:17:09,680
Speaker 7: it relied on some doctrine that the Supreme Court had rejected,

282
00:17:10,280 --> 00:17:14,480
Speaker 7: so anticipating that that argument, which should be enough, might

283
00:17:14,520 --> 00:17:18,359
Speaker 7: not be enough, it also analyzed the case under the

284
00:17:18,440 --> 00:17:22,720
Speaker 7: Supreme Court's more recent rulings, and the Supreme Court's more

285
00:17:22,840 --> 00:17:27,200
Speaker 7: recent rulings on the matter have said, when you're trying

286
00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:31,080
Speaker 7: to decide whether something violates the Establishment clause or not,

287
00:17:31,720 --> 00:17:35,560
Speaker 7: you must refer to the history and tradition of the

288
00:17:35,600 --> 00:17:38,680
Speaker 7: practice in question. And so that's what the Dissecurt did,

289
00:17:38,880 --> 00:17:41,600
Speaker 7: and in fact, there was even an expert who testified.

290
00:17:42,000 --> 00:17:45,359
Speaker 7: And then the question was is there a history and

291
00:17:45,400 --> 00:17:49,840
Speaker 7: tradition of posting the Ten Commandments on the walls of

292
00:17:49,880 --> 00:17:52,960
Speaker 7: public schools? And the answer was no, there's not.

293
00:17:53,600 --> 00:17:59,080
Speaker 2: The supporters of the bill had specifically referenced religious motivations

294
00:17:59,600 --> 00:18:02,520
Speaker 2: like the importance of children learning what God says is

295
00:18:02,640 --> 00:18:05,720
Speaker 2: right and what he says is wrong. Did that come

296
00:18:05,800 --> 00:18:08,200
Speaker 2: up in the oral arguments or the judge's decision?

297
00:18:08,600 --> 00:18:13,240
Speaker 7: So the bill did not say that. The bill tried

298
00:18:13,280 --> 00:18:18,119
Speaker 7: to claim a more secular purpose, but the sponsors of

299
00:18:18,160 --> 00:18:22,480
Speaker 7: the bill were quite straightforward in their goals, which, as

300
00:18:22,480 --> 00:18:27,399
Speaker 7: you mentioned, was to make sure children understood what God

301
00:18:27,560 --> 00:18:31,560
Speaker 7: thought was right and wrong. And so though the bill

302
00:18:31,800 --> 00:18:36,359
Speaker 7: tried to construct some potential understanding of the Ten Commandments

303
00:18:36,359 --> 00:18:40,959
Speaker 7: as a non religious doctrine, that text was really blied

304
00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:45,199
Speaker 7: by what the sponsors of the bill said when promoting it.

305
00:18:46,480 --> 00:18:50,240
Speaker 2: So now you mentioned the Supreme Court, and Louisiana argued

306
00:18:50,840 --> 00:18:55,359
Speaker 2: that based on the twenty two rulings in a case

307
00:18:55,400 --> 00:18:58,879
Speaker 2: where I think people know it mostly as the football

308
00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:02,879
Speaker 2: coach who wanted to pray at the fifty yard line

309
00:19:02,960 --> 00:19:07,600
Speaker 2: right after the games. So they're saying that since that ruling,

310
00:19:08,080 --> 00:19:12,080
Speaker 2: the courts have to interpret by reference to historical practices

311
00:19:12,080 --> 00:19:15,000
Speaker 2: and understandings. Is that basically their argument.

312
00:19:15,840 --> 00:19:16,119
Speaker 1: Yeah.

313
00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:19,840
Speaker 7: There used to be several different tests the court might

314
00:19:19,920 --> 00:19:24,359
Speaker 7: rely on in evaluating establishment clause challenges, and they have

315
00:19:24,400 --> 00:19:27,640
Speaker 7: different names. There was the lemon test, the endorsement test,

316
00:19:28,040 --> 00:19:32,280
Speaker 7: the history and tradition test, the coercion test. In that decision,

317
00:19:32,640 --> 00:19:36,840
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court essentially killed off two of them, and

318
00:19:36,880 --> 00:19:39,040
Speaker 7: it said, we are no longer going to rely on

319
00:19:39,080 --> 00:19:41,679
Speaker 7: the lemon tests, We're no longer going to rely on

320
00:19:41,840 --> 00:19:45,800
Speaker 7: the endorsement test. So what the court is going to

321
00:19:45,880 --> 00:19:50,760
Speaker 7: consider going forward when faced with an establishment clause challenge

322
00:19:51,240 --> 00:19:55,720
Speaker 7: is a history and tradition analysis, and also it will

323
00:19:55,760 --> 00:20:01,080
Speaker 7: consider whether anyone is being compelled into practice being religion

324
00:20:01,200 --> 00:20:05,199
Speaker 7: against their will. And so those the two frameworks the

325
00:20:05,240 --> 00:20:08,760
Speaker 7: court will use going forward. And the District Court in

326
00:20:08,800 --> 00:20:14,080
Speaker 7: fact used them again in anticipation of its reliance on

327
00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:18,159
Speaker 7: precedent not being enough for the current court and conducted

328
00:20:18,160 --> 00:20:22,399
Speaker 7: a history and tradition analysis and also found them to

329
00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:23,960
Speaker 7: be rather coercive.

330
00:20:24,280 --> 00:20:27,480
Speaker 2: Louisiana is going to appeal and they're in the Fifth Circuit,

331
00:20:27,880 --> 00:20:32,400
Speaker 2: which Indeed, the most conservative circuit in the country has

332
00:20:32,800 --> 00:20:36,440
Speaker 2: handed down some novel rulings lately, some of them even

333
00:20:36,440 --> 00:20:38,600
Speaker 2: too much for the Supreme Court. Do you have any

334
00:20:38,680 --> 00:20:40,879
Speaker 2: confidence in how the Fifth Circuit will rule?

335
00:20:41,280 --> 00:20:44,640
Speaker 7: I do not have any confidence in how they were ruled.

336
00:20:44,680 --> 00:20:48,720
Speaker 7: But it would not surprise me if they pick up

337
00:20:48,800 --> 00:20:54,600
Speaker 7: the baton that the Louisiana Statute laid down and argue

338
00:20:55,080 --> 00:20:57,960
Speaker 7: that there is in fact a history and tradition of

339
00:20:58,040 --> 00:21:03,719
Speaker 7: the Ten Commandments in school and therefore there is nothing

340
00:21:03,800 --> 00:21:07,679
Speaker 7: wrong with having posters. And it would not surprise me

341
00:21:07,920 --> 00:21:10,200
Speaker 7: if they said it was not at all coercives, because

342
00:21:10,240 --> 00:21:14,400
Speaker 7: no one's being forced to pray or do any particular

343
00:21:14,440 --> 00:21:19,720
Speaker 7: religious exercise. So I would not be surprised if again,

344
00:21:19,840 --> 00:21:24,160
Speaker 7: they constructed a history inaccurate history, by the way, because

345
00:21:24,320 --> 00:21:27,800
Speaker 7: the expert did quite a good job of dismantling some

346
00:21:27,920 --> 00:21:31,480
Speaker 7: of the claims that Louisiana made in its text, including

347
00:21:31,520 --> 00:21:37,240
Speaker 7: a completely fabricated quotation from James Madison. But nonetheless, they

348
00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:40,800
Speaker 7: will claim that there is plenty of evidence of having

349
00:21:40,880 --> 00:21:44,399
Speaker 7: the Ten Commandments of schools, and even if there's no

350
00:21:44,480 --> 00:21:48,159
Speaker 7: evidence of Ten Commandment posters in schools, it doesn't matter

351
00:21:48,560 --> 00:21:51,800
Speaker 7: it's enough that there were mention of the ten Commandment

352
00:21:52,080 --> 00:21:55,040
Speaker 7: or reading of the ten Commandment, and therefore there's no

353
00:21:55,160 --> 00:21:58,240
Speaker 7: violation of the Establishment clause. And there were a claim

354
00:21:58,359 --> 00:22:01,000
Speaker 7: that simply looking at the ten command is not going

355
00:22:01,040 --> 00:22:06,360
Speaker 7: to force children into doing anything religious, and therefore there

356
00:22:06,440 --> 00:22:08,080
Speaker 7: is no Establishment cause violation.

357
00:22:08,480 --> 00:22:11,399
Speaker 2: With the football coach, during the oral arguments, there was

358
00:22:11,440 --> 00:22:15,240
Speaker 2: a lot of discussion about whether it was coercive, whether

359
00:22:15,280 --> 00:22:18,400
Speaker 2: the players felt like they had to pray with him,

360
00:22:18,960 --> 00:22:22,720
Speaker 2: and you know, the justice is the conservative justices said, oh, no,

361
00:22:22,840 --> 00:22:23,720
Speaker 2: it's not coercive.

362
00:22:24,320 --> 00:22:29,679
Speaker 7: And there's a really important difference between the coach case

363
00:22:30,280 --> 00:22:35,679
Speaker 7: and this case because a lot of the case about

364
00:22:35,680 --> 00:22:41,919
Speaker 7: the praying coach turned on the court conclusion that he

365
00:22:42,200 --> 00:22:46,480
Speaker 7: was speaking as an individual and not as the government.

366
00:22:46,880 --> 00:22:52,720
Speaker 7: So they really viewed his action as a private person's

367
00:22:53,400 --> 00:22:59,160
Speaker 7: attempt to practice his own space, and consequently they really

368
00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:03,240
Speaker 7: viewed it through a free exercise lens and went out

369
00:23:03,280 --> 00:23:07,639
Speaker 7: of their way to ensure protection of his ability to

370
00:23:07,760 --> 00:23:12,160
Speaker 7: practice his religion, and that this would clearly take precedent

371
00:23:12,280 --> 00:23:17,760
Speaker 7: over any hypothetical Establishment Clause claim of coercion, for which

372
00:23:17,800 --> 00:23:20,960
Speaker 7: there was no proof that that asides. But the very

373
00:23:21,000 --> 00:23:25,680
Speaker 7: big difference here is there is no individual practicing their

374
00:23:25,720 --> 00:23:28,439
Speaker 7: faith in this case, and there is no question that

375
00:23:28,600 --> 00:23:32,760
Speaker 7: is is the government that is posting these Ten Commandments,

376
00:23:32,800 --> 00:23:36,320
Speaker 7: these religious documents on the walls. And so they have

377
00:23:36,480 --> 00:23:40,920
Speaker 7: to confront more directly the fact that the government is

378
00:23:41,160 --> 00:23:46,560
Speaker 7: posting something that's really inherently religious. And they were able

379
00:23:46,560 --> 00:23:49,680
Speaker 7: to dodge that more with a coach by saying, well,

380
00:23:49,720 --> 00:23:54,080
Speaker 7: it was him practicing his religion, not the government trying

381
00:23:54,080 --> 00:23:55,520
Speaker 7: to get the students to do it.

382
00:23:55,960 --> 00:23:59,120
Speaker 2: So you mentioned the Kentucky case. This is a very

383
00:23:59,119 --> 00:24:02,200
Speaker 2: different Supreme Court, and you know, as you're referred to,

384
00:24:03,040 --> 00:24:07,199
Speaker 2: I can't remember the last time religion lost at the

385
00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:10,600
Speaker 2: Supreme Court with the Roberts Court and especially with the

386
00:24:10,640 --> 00:24:15,120
Speaker 2: conservative majority. Do you think that the Kentucky case, if

387
00:24:15,119 --> 00:24:18,280
Speaker 2: this gets to the Supreme Court, that the Kentucky case

388
00:24:18,320 --> 00:24:19,000
Speaker 2: will stand.

389
00:24:19,520 --> 00:24:24,520
Speaker 7: I don't know, because the Supreme Court has traditionally been

390
00:24:25,640 --> 00:24:31,040
Speaker 7: especially mindful of the establishment clause in the school context

391
00:24:31,160 --> 00:24:34,760
Speaker 7: for a couple of reasons. The first is that you know,

392
00:24:34,800 --> 00:24:39,440
Speaker 7: the children in school are considered very young and very impressionable,

393
00:24:39,960 --> 00:24:44,560
Speaker 7: and therefore the government has heightened responsibilities towards them. And

394
00:24:44,880 --> 00:24:50,200
Speaker 7: second is that the students at school are a captive audience.

395
00:24:50,520 --> 00:24:53,000
Speaker 7: They have no choice but to be there. They're sort

396
00:24:53,040 --> 00:24:56,280
Speaker 7: of doubly captives. The government requires that they attend school

397
00:24:56,440 --> 00:25:00,000
Speaker 7: at then as school, they're under the control of the school,

398
00:25:00,960 --> 00:25:07,000
Speaker 7: and therefore, again there are heightened responsibilities when you're dealing

399
00:25:07,040 --> 00:25:12,040
Speaker 7: with the young, impressional students who are also a captive audience.

400
00:25:12,400 --> 00:25:16,720
Speaker 7: Will the Supreme Court continue to honor these considerations. I

401
00:25:16,720 --> 00:25:20,560
Speaker 7: don't know. Possibly not so, Caroline.

402
00:25:20,880 --> 00:25:24,679
Speaker 2: I know that this Louisiana was the first state to

403
00:25:25,560 --> 00:25:29,359
Speaker 2: enact this requirement, but in June and Oklahoma the state

404
00:25:29,520 --> 00:25:36,320
Speaker 2: superintendent ordered that the Bible be incorporated into lessons, and

405
00:25:36,480 --> 00:25:41,560
Speaker 2: Florida recently approved allowing volunteer religious chaplains to serve as

406
00:25:41,600 --> 00:25:46,120
Speaker 2: school counselors. I mean, is there a conservative Christian movement

407
00:25:46,640 --> 00:25:50,119
Speaker 2: to try to sort of move the line and get

408
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:52,720
Speaker 2: religion into public schools.

409
00:25:53,000 --> 00:25:56,359
Speaker 7: Oh, I don't think there's any questions. I think that

410
00:25:56,560 --> 00:26:00,520
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is

411
00:26:01,200 --> 00:26:07,960
Speaker 7: very sympathetic towards lanes of religious exercise. It has also

412
00:26:08,040 --> 00:26:11,800
Speaker 7: made it clear that it does not hold the establishment

413
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:16,359
Speaker 7: clause in highest scheme, and so I think this is

414
00:26:16,440 --> 00:26:20,280
Speaker 7: the vanguard of trying to get religion back into the schools,

415
00:26:20,640 --> 00:26:24,199
Speaker 7: and depending on the outcome of this case, we'll see

416
00:26:24,440 --> 00:26:27,359
Speaker 7: what happens in the rest of the country. I do

417
00:26:27,480 --> 00:26:31,600
Speaker 7: want to add one more point about the District court

418
00:26:31,640 --> 00:26:34,400
Speaker 7: s ruling. It sort of belongs a little bit more

419
00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:38,720
Speaker 7: in the earlier discussion. One of the really interesting things

420
00:26:38,760 --> 00:26:43,960
Speaker 7: about this challenge is it's not just the introduction of

421
00:26:44,680 --> 00:26:50,080
Speaker 7: religion into school, but it's the introduction of only one

422
00:26:50,359 --> 00:26:55,399
Speaker 7: faith tradition into the school. Because the Ten Commandments on

423
00:26:55,440 --> 00:27:01,560
Speaker 7: the wall are the Protestant kingings of versions of the

424
00:27:01,640 --> 00:27:08,639
Speaker 7: Ten Commandments. Different faith traditions have different types of Ten Commandments. So,

425
00:27:08,720 --> 00:27:13,960
Speaker 7: for example, the Catholic version is different because this one

426
00:27:14,119 --> 00:27:18,600
Speaker 7: says thou shalt make to thyself no graven images, whereas

427
00:27:18,760 --> 00:27:22,679
Speaker 7: that particular prohibition is not in the Catholic version of

428
00:27:22,760 --> 00:27:26,600
Speaker 7: the Ten Commandments, Whereas in the Jewish version of the

429
00:27:26,680 --> 00:27:29,879
Speaker 7: Ten Commandments. The first commandment here is I am the

430
00:27:29,920 --> 00:27:33,639
Speaker 7: Lord thy God, and the Jewish Ten Commandments it is

431
00:27:33,760 --> 00:27:36,320
Speaker 7: I Am the Lord thy God that brought you forth

432
00:27:36,359 --> 00:27:41,679
Speaker 7: from Egypt. And these are actually crucial theological differences. And

433
00:27:41,800 --> 00:27:46,399
Speaker 7: I mention this because under existing doctrine, as the District

434
00:27:46,480 --> 00:27:50,400
Speaker 7: Court highlighted, the court made it clear that the state

435
00:27:50,520 --> 00:27:56,200
Speaker 7: cannot discriminate against any other religion. It can't favor one

436
00:27:56,240 --> 00:28:01,480
Speaker 7: religion over others, it can't intentionally discriminate against other religions.

437
00:28:01,960 --> 00:28:06,560
Speaker 7: And the choice of this particular version seems to be

438
00:28:06,640 --> 00:28:11,960
Speaker 7: doing exactly that. And it's particularly problematic because if you

439
00:28:12,160 --> 00:28:16,959
Speaker 7: look at our history and tradition, at one point, to

440
00:28:17,040 --> 00:28:21,120
Speaker 7: the extent there was any religion in the schools, it

441
00:28:21,200 --> 00:28:28,320
Speaker 7: was Protestant religion, and it was explicitly meant to exclude Catholics.

442
00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:31,239
Speaker 7: So I'm taking a long time to say that the

443
00:28:31,400 --> 00:28:37,440
Speaker 7: court has long expressed concern about anti Catholic sentiments in

444
00:28:37,480 --> 00:28:41,800
Speaker 7: our country's history, and this could be seen as the

445
00:28:42,040 --> 00:28:47,440
Speaker 7: remnant of that historical hostility the Catholics that they so

446
00:28:47,840 --> 00:28:53,920
Speaker 7: often complain about and revile. So it might be a

447
00:28:54,040 --> 00:28:58,560
Speaker 7: little more complicated for them than it would otherwise be

448
00:28:58,840 --> 00:29:03,600
Speaker 7: with another particular religious practice in the schools. But the

449
00:29:03,640 --> 00:29:07,160
Speaker 7: fact that this is a Protestant ten commandment before a

450
00:29:07,240 --> 00:29:11,800
Speaker 7: court long characterize much of the history in the United

451
00:29:11,800 --> 00:29:15,560
Speaker 7: States as anti Catholic, maybe you would give them pause.

452
00:29:16,400 --> 00:29:18,520
Speaker 2: Well, the next stop is the fifth circuit. We'll see

453
00:29:18,520 --> 00:29:22,240
Speaker 2: what happens there. Thanks so much, Caroline. That's Professor Caroline

454
00:29:22,280 --> 00:29:26,239
Speaker 2: Mali Corbin of the University of Miami Law School. And

455
00:29:26,280 --> 00:29:28,520
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

456
00:29:28,920 --> 00:29:31,200
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

457
00:29:31,240 --> 00:29:35,000
Speaker 2: subscribing to the Bloomberg Law Podcast or downloading this show

458
00:29:35,040 --> 00:29:38,880
Speaker 2: at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm Drewn

459
00:29:38,920 --> 00:29:40,720
Speaker 2: Bronco and you're listening to Bloomberg