Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2: I was astonished when you began your examination by commenting
Speaker 2: on the defendant's post arrest silence.
Speaker 1: That's basic law. It's been basic law in this country
Speaker 1: for forty years, fifty years. We're used to seeing judges
Speaker 1: yelling in court, reprimanding, even berating. What we're not used
Speaker 1: to is judges crying in court, especially when telling the
Speaker 1: defendant the good news that he doesn't have to go
Speaker 1: to prison. But that's what happened when Brooklyn Federal Judge
Speaker 1: Pamela Chen sentenced Alejandro Burzaco, a banker turned sports marketing
Speaker 1: executive turned star witness at two FIFA corruption trials. Joining
Speaker 1: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, who was in
Speaker 1: the courtroom. Patty tell us about Brazaco.
Speaker 2: He has been one of the most prolific and helpful witness,
Speaker 2: says the US government has ever had. I've never covered
Speaker 2: a case where at the sentencing, the federal judge who
Speaker 2: presided over two trials and saw Berzakos on the stand
Speaker 2: for fourteen days as a witness for the government, she
Speaker 2: actually cried and had to stop and grabbed the tears
Speaker 2: away as she told him how proud she was, some
Speaker 2: privilege she was to see and hear his testimony, and
Speaker 2: then she continued, but as you were speaking, mister Brazaco,
Speaker 2: I felt some bit of privilege and pride about being
Speaker 2: able to participate in this role in this system, because
Speaker 2: this is a great justice system, and I think the
Speaker 2: finest in the world, and it does, I hope, always
Speaker 2: reward people for doing the right thing. And it was extraordinary.
Speaker 2: As a reporter for decades of experience, I've never seen that.
Speaker 1: I haven't either. It's stunning what the.
Speaker 2: Government said he did is he helped them basically uncover
Speaker 2: the fraud and rampant bribery that was in international soccer.
Speaker 2: That there always been these rumors but no one had
Speaker 2: ever been willing to come forward, and that Brazaco had
Speaker 2: helped the US government disclose the actual fraud that was
Speaker 2: involved in bribery. And after the trials has happened, there
Speaker 2: was one in twenty seventeen that went on for weeks
Speaker 2: and weeks, and the second trial that just finished was
Speaker 2: like a twelve week trial. Earlier this year, she said
Speaker 2: that now the truth is out that was bribery in soccer.
Speaker 2: People couldn't deny it any longer. After all these witnesses testified.
Speaker 1: What was he accused of.
Speaker 2: Brazoco was accused and pled guilty to paying tens of
Speaker 2: millions of dollars in bribe. Is sports marketing executive. It's
Speaker 2: a very odd world. But basically, if you want to
Speaker 2: get access to events, players, and you want to broadcast
Speaker 2: those rights and endure certain teams, these bribes were paid
Speaker 2: to the soccer bosses that were the heads of these
Speaker 2: different soccer entities. So basically, these soccer bosses were taking
Speaker 2: bribes from these corporations in exchange for are extraordinarily lucrative broadcast. Right.
Speaker 1: So the judge said that by cooperating, he put his
Speaker 1: life in danger.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the first trial actually had all the trappings
Speaker 2: of a mafia case where witnesses, especially Brazaco, who were
Speaker 2: basically escorted to and from court under guard of SBI agents.
Speaker 2: The jurors were anonymous and their identities were not disclosed,
Speaker 2: which is what you see in a mafia trial, you know,
Speaker 2: a terrorism case. And he testified that because he was cooperating,
Speaker 2: he was terrified for his own safety as well as
Speaker 2: the safety of his family. His family was still living
Speaker 2: in Argentina and some of his children still live there.
Speaker 2: So in fact, his sentencing memo and the government's memo
Speaker 2: everything is under steal and the court has refused to
Speaker 2: release it. The allegation was that he and his family
Speaker 2: had actually received death threats. So here's a guy that
Speaker 2: basically can never return home to Argentina.
Speaker 1: So he was on the stand a total of fourteen days,
Speaker 1: two trials. What was he like on the stand?
Speaker 2: He has a phenomenal memory, and because it was a
Speaker 2: former businessman in banker, he knew about all the transactions
Speaker 2: and he could talk about the financing. But then he
Speaker 2: was I thought extraordinarily smart and down to earth guy
Speaker 2: that knew how to communicate two jurors. He remembered people's conversations.
Speaker 2: You remember the nicknames of some of these soccer bosses.
Speaker 2: One of the guys in Argentina ran the empire from
Speaker 2: a gas station and he was called in Spanish the Pope,
Speaker 2: and he wore a big signet ring and people he
Speaker 2: used to come and pay tribute to him and they
Speaker 2: would have to kiss his ring, just like you have
Speaker 2: to go when you see the Pope. So you can
Speaker 2: see that there's all these anecdotes that Burzaco had at
Speaker 2: the tip of his fingertips just off his memory, and
Speaker 2: he could recite whole parts of conversations. He remembered details
Speaker 2: about sitting in a restaurant and where they were sitting
Speaker 2: Seventh Avenue in Manhattan near the News Court building. When
Speaker 2: when were twenty first century Fox executives talked about paying
Speaker 2: bribes to get lucrative broadcast rights, including some of the
Speaker 2: allegations the government alleged was the rights to the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two World Cup.
Speaker 1: How many people were convicted because of his testimony.
Speaker 2: Dozens, more than two dozen were convicted. The soccer bosses
Speaker 2: were convicted three a trial, two were acquitted. So of
Speaker 2: five that went to trial, dozens and dozens pled guilty.
Speaker 2: Sports marketing companies pled guilty. One of them is actually
Speaker 2: trying to get out got convicted at the first trial.
Speaker 2: Some of the biggest guys in the sports were ousted also,
Speaker 2: like step Blatder, who was the boss of FIFA. He
Speaker 2: was president for seventeen years and was kicked out of
Speaker 2: the job. So prosecutors said that without Brazaco's help that
Speaker 2: international soccer the true dirty underbelly would have never been exposed.
Speaker 1: Tell us who he was in the courtroom for his sentencing.
Speaker 2: It was kind of wild because he not only had
Speaker 2: his lawyer, all of his family was there from Argentina,
Speaker 2: his children, I understand, maybe two x wives and his
Speaker 2: fiance and then you know, as reporters who cover courts,
Speaker 2: you always hear these people that suddenly do good deeds
Speaker 2: just ahead of their sentencing, where you know they're working
Speaker 2: in a soup kitchen or working with a homeless or
Speaker 2: something like that. Right, well, Brazaco actually had some of
Speaker 2: the co workers from the food pantry he works with,
Speaker 2: and there was a soup kitchen he works with where
Speaker 2: he's so vigilant about working with him. From the description
Speaker 2: of his lawyer, Jim Walden, it sounded like he had
Speaker 2: felt so responsible after turning rogue as the former City
Speaker 2: Group banker you know, turns bag man paying money millions
Speaker 2: of dollars in Bride. He decided to turn over a
Speaker 2: new leaf and cooperate with the government. But it didn't
Speaker 2: just end there with help being in testifying as a
Speaker 2: government witness. Here he is doing this good work for
Speaker 2: years and years and years. So it's been eight years
Speaker 2: since that raid at the five star hotel in Switzerland
Speaker 2: when all the FIFA bosses got arrested, right he somehow
Speaker 2: was in the dining room, but they didn't get him
Speaker 2: for some reason. I don't know why. But he walked
Speaker 2: out the back door and immediately went to the Swiss
Speaker 2: Italian border and called his lawyers and immediately came in
Speaker 2: and offered to help and then secretly pled guilty and
Speaker 2: has been on Team America right helping the government. But
Speaker 2: here he is for eight years. He's also been working
Speaker 2: in the suit kitchens and food pantries, and he wanted
Speaker 2: to make amends in such a way that when he
Speaker 2: saw another guy at the soup kitchen getting attacked and
Speaker 2: somebody was stealing his motorbike or his bicycle, Brazaco stepped
Speaker 2: in to stop the crime and stopped to protect the
Speaker 2: man it was getting hit by chains and call the cops.
Speaker 2: And then when the DA found out who the witness was,
Speaker 2: she had to tell the Manhattan Die's office who exactly
Speaker 2: they wanted to call as a witness, that they couldn't
Speaker 2: use him because they would interfere with their criminal case.
Speaker 2: So Brazaco found another witness and convinced that guy to
Speaker 2: come forward and testify against the wrongdoer. So his lawyer
Speaker 2: called him the Superman of cooperators, and it really did
Speaker 2: make him sound like Superman of all this good deeds
Speaker 2: that he'd done that weren't just idle. You know, let's
Speaker 2: do it for a weekend on Thanksgiving, and let's get
Speaker 2: done with our public service. This is a guy who's
Speaker 2: been committed for the last eight years to helping people.
Speaker 1: Patty, besides family members and co workers at the food
Speaker 1: kitchens he's worked at. Who else was at the sentencing.
Speaker 2: That was the other extraordinary thing to see Rose and
Speaker 2: rose of former prosecutors who've been on the case for
Speaker 2: eight years and left the US Attorney's office and they're
Speaker 2: sitting there and FBI agents I haven't clapped eyes on
Speaker 2: in years, and they're sitting there, and all of them
Speaker 2: had worked in the case, and they all came and
Speaker 2: show support to him. And everyone said to me afterwards,
Speaker 2: you know that you don't often see a federal judge crying,
Speaker 2: And there she was crying about how proud she was
Speaker 2: to have seen his testimony, and she noted that some
Speaker 2: of the defense lawyers availed his credibility and called into
Speaker 2: question his motives. He was assailed as a liar who
Speaker 2: was fingering these other upstanding members of the community in
Speaker 2: the soccer world just to get even or to hide
Speaker 2: his crime. But you know, the judge said she had
Speaker 2: not seen evidence of that and these guys, I mean,
Speaker 2: it was just I've never seen anything like it. It
Speaker 2: was quite the spectacle.
Speaker 1: So tell us about what he said at the sentencing.
Speaker 2: It was very emotional, you can tell you know that
Speaker 2: this whole aspect of leaving one's country and his family
Speaker 2: behind and trying to do the right thing and make
Speaker 2: up for his crime weighs really heavily on him. He
Speaker 2: seems a man who's very tortured and affected by the
Speaker 2: remorse he feels. It was definitely palpable. He has to pause.
Speaker 2: He reddened in the face at some points in time.
Speaker 2: I mean, he got very emotional and his voice choked
Speaker 2: up with emotion trying to talk about how horrified and
Speaker 2: remorseful he was about the crimes he committed. And you know,
Speaker 2: he had to live alone in the US and facing
Speaker 2: the prospect and then imagine that you're on hold, you
Speaker 2: have everything to put on hold. Well, you wait for
Speaker 2: these two trials to go through the system, and so
Speaker 2: the first one started in May twenty fifteen. The first
Speaker 2: trial started in November twenty seventeen, so we're talking two
Speaker 2: years later, and the second trial didn't happen un till
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three because of the pandemic. So imagine having
Speaker 2: your life and being put on ice like that, and
Speaker 2: then you're having to stand by. He thanked everybody, you know,
Speaker 2: He says, I want to say to all the victims,
Speaker 2: I fully accept to take responsibility for the crimes I've committed.
Speaker 2: I understood it was bad, and no one forced to
Speaker 2: do me to do it, and I know my conduct
Speaker 2: was wrong, it was very wrong. He apologized to the
Speaker 2: soccer world, to the members of the soccer clubs in
Speaker 2: South America, who he called the real shareholders of these clubs,
Speaker 2: and these people who loved the sport, who were basically
Speaker 2: betrayed by this fraud. Talked about how was his motivation,
Speaker 2: why did he engage in this fraud. My conclusion is
Speaker 2: that at the beginning of my career in the soccer
Speaker 2: in industry, I was motivated by a desire to be
Speaker 2: close to the people in the industry and He basically
Speaker 2: wanted to get in where all the decisions were made
Speaker 2: in big soccer. And of course what happens is when
Speaker 2: he joined this company, Torneo Si Comenthensius, the soccer management company,
Speaker 2: the people were paying bribes and it was sort of
Speaker 2: like the way you had to do business to succeed.
Speaker 2: So he saw firsthand what was going on, and then
Speaker 2: he knowingly went along with it. So, you know, he said,
Speaker 2: I was motivated by greed, and I deeply regret my actions,
Speaker 2: and I was selfish, and I am ashamed of it,
Speaker 2: and I'm still ashamed of it, and I want to
Speaker 2: tell the victims. I've dedicated my last eight years to
Speaker 2: repair this. It just was extraordinary. You don't most of
Speaker 2: the time. I call it the Great American Apology. Mistakes
Speaker 2: were made, things happened, but I don't have anything to
Speaker 2: do with it, because that's the way some people act
Speaker 2: after getting caught and pleading guilty. You know, they minimize
Speaker 2: their role. He was definitely not that kind of guy.
Speaker 1: It sounds like it was an extraordinary sentencing. Thanks so much, Patty.
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. The Supreme Court upheld
Speaker 1: California's new humane pork law, rejecting an industry challenge in
Speaker 1: a ruling buttressing the power of states to impose rules
Speaker 1: that have a broad economic impact on other parts of
Speaker 1: the country. The ruling could force pork producers to implement
Speaker 1: costly changes to keep selling in the world rol's most
Speaker 1: populous state. The industry argued, unsuccessfully that California is violating
Speaker 1: the Constitution by regulating commerce outside its borders. Justice Neil
Speaker 1: Gorsuch wrote for the five justice majority, saying the poork
Speaker 1: industry would have us cast aside caution for boldness by
Speaker 1: intervening where Congress had declined to act. The ruling cut
Speaker 1: across the Court's left right divide Justice as Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Gorsuch
Speaker 1: in voting to toss out the lawsuit. Although the majority
Speaker 1: splintered in some of its reasoning, for Justice's Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Katanji Brown
Speaker 1: Jackson said they would have kicked the case back to
Speaker 1: a federal appeals court for more scrutiny. My guest is
Speaker 1: Harold Krant, a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law.
Speaker 1: First of all, tell us about California Proposition twelve, which
Speaker 1: is one of the nation's strongest farm animal welfare laws.
Speaker 3: California's PAS Proposition twelve to ensure sort of humane conditions
Speaker 3: for pigs, and the problem was that pigs are usually
Speaker 3: put in and tends very close to other pigs. There
Speaker 3: can be violence, pigs don't get exercise, and so in
Speaker 3: terms of cruelty, made people think that those kinds of
Speaker 3: conditions should be banned. And California is not alone. There
Speaker 3: are laws against cruelty in terms of raising food in
Speaker 3: Massachusetts and Florida and other states. But this one is
Speaker 3: noteworthy because California is such a large market and so
Speaker 3: it decides that pigs have to be housed in humane conditions.
Speaker 3: That's going to cause a huge ripple effect into the
Speaker 3: pork industry as a whole.
Speaker 1: The argument in this case is about this arcane constitutional
Speaker 1: doctrine called the dormant Commerce clause. Explain what that is.
Speaker 3: So we have a commerce clause in the Constitution which
Speaker 3: gives Congress the ability to regulate amongst the states, and
Speaker 3: that's not at state care and that's not controversial. But
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court later in its history decided to read
Speaker 3: a negative implication into that clause, suggesting that some kinds
Speaker 3: of state regulatory actions, even if they're based upon public policy,
Speaker 3: can't have the impact of interfering with interstate commerce. And
Speaker 3: so the Court on its own will sort of judge
Speaker 3: whether a state regulatory effort is discriminatory against out of
Speaker 3: state commerce and therefore violates the spirit of the Constitution
Speaker 3: by picking and choosing which kind of producers to value
Speaker 3: from which states there should be an accepted commerce in
Speaker 3: the states.
Speaker 1: And what was the argument here by the pork industry.
Speaker 3: The pork industry had two or three different arguments, depending
Speaker 3: upon how one counts. The first might be called an
Speaker 3: extra territorial print, so that any kind of state regulation
Speaker 3: that has the impact that is felt mostly externally should
Speaker 3: as a per se matter be found to be unconstitutional.
Speaker 3: A variant of that is the fact that in this
Speaker 3: case it wasn't just a state regulation, it was a
Speaker 3: moral regulation. And both and Mikai as well as the
Speaker 3: park industry said, look, if you allow California to impose
Speaker 3: a kind of moral principle in terms of humane treatment
Speaker 3: for pigs. What's the stop California from men saying is
Speaker 3: a moral issue. We only want to deal with employers
Speaker 3: who are fair to their employees, or we only want
Speaker 3: to have products from employers that are fair to employees.
Speaker 3: So we only want to deal with products in companies
Speaker 3: which bide by the privacy rights of their female employees.
Speaker 3: So the fear was that this kind of case opened
Speaker 3: up the Pandora's box and giving sort of a green
Speaker 3: like to states to impose all sorts of regulations that
Speaker 3: have ability to do with the morals of the state
Speaker 3: as opposed to any kind of legitimate protection for their citizens,
Speaker 3: such as from poison or pollution or something along those lines.
Speaker 3: So that was one argument, and as probably that's why
Speaker 3: this case got so much attention because of this extraterritoriality
Speaker 3: aspect of it. The second one was just a plain
Speaker 3: balancing test, and in prior cases the court had held
Speaker 3: that when the burdens of a state regulation are excessive
Speaker 3: in comparison to the in state benefits, that that state
Speaker 3: rule also violates the dormant commerce clause of which we've
Speaker 3: been speaking with the second argument, there are some the
Speaker 3: court that want to get rid of it, and this
Speaker 3: balancing test was severely limited by the court. It wasn't
Speaker 3: by a majority of the court, but three members of
Speaker 3: the court or suggested that they'd get rid of this
Speaker 3: balancing test in a proper case, and other members of
Speaker 3: the court enough to get a majority, said that the
Speaker 3: port producers had not demonstrated such a huge excessive burden
Speaker 3: in this case. So that coalition, which led on the
Speaker 3: second point this balancing which is called the pipe test,
Speaker 3: led to the court ruling against the pork industry on
Speaker 3: that one as well.
Speaker 1: This was a weird lineup that cut across ideological divides
Speaker 1: and resulted in five separate opinions. So what was the
Speaker 1: strand in the majority?
Speaker 3: Well, its trand. Majority held that you cannot parse a
Speaker 3: state regulation and say that it's having to do mostly
Speaker 3: with morals as opposed to protection for the citizens of
Speaker 3: the state. So that distinction that was forwarded by the
Speaker 3: port producers was clearly rejected by a majority of the court,
Speaker 3: Which is the controversial aspect of the decision, because then
Speaker 3: it does open up states to enact morals legislation, which
Speaker 3: has an impact upon out of state commerce. Because again,
Speaker 3: on the face this regulation Proposition twelve is neutral because
Speaker 3: it would apply to pork producers in California as well
Speaker 3: as pork producers outside. It's just that there are almost
Speaker 3: zero pork producers in California, so obviously this had a
Speaker 3: great out of state impact. So at least on the
Speaker 3: first question, it's whether, if you have this kind of
Speaker 3: huge impact, is that a per se violation of the
Speaker 3: negative commerce clause. The court clearly came down no. On
Speaker 3: the second issue, it had to do with this balancing
Speaker 3: of in state benefits versus out of state burdens, and
Speaker 3: that's where the court was fractured. On that case. Three
Speaker 3: of the justices said, we get rid of this balancing test.
Speaker 3: It's inappropriate for courts. How can you balance benefits and costs?
Speaker 3: And then two members of the court said, well, we
Speaker 3: need to keep the test, but it's a narrow test
Speaker 3: and the Portunustry did not demonstrate the excessive burden in
Speaker 3: this case, and to dissenting justices, they would have at
Speaker 3: least held that the pro producers did make a facial
Speaker 3: claim as to a substantial burden and that should be
Speaker 3: remanded back to the court to make that kind of
Speaker 3: balancing tests. Though they agreed that the test of balancing
Speaker 3: burdens and benefits was difficult, but they said it wasn't impossible,
Speaker 3: and that's what the lower court should undertake.
Speaker 1: Do you have any inkling as to why this opinion
Speaker 1: was so fractured and cut across ideological lines?
Speaker 3: Well, I think in terms of ideology, what's interesting is
Speaker 3: you have the kind of liberals who you might think
Speaker 3: would be in support of California and this kind of
Speaker 3: moral legislation. But then again you have the traditional stage
Speaker 3: writers who believe that the dormant commerce clause should be
Speaker 3: very limited if it exists at all, and therefore because
Speaker 3: now would give more power to the states as well.
Speaker 3: So you have two different types of movements which would
Speaker 3: suggest that the states should get more power than they
Speaker 3: have in higher commerce clause challenges. And of course the
Speaker 3: line up on the other side cuts across ideological lines
Speaker 3: as well, with Justice and Jackson agreeing with Chief Judges
Speaker 3: Roberts saying that we ought to keep the balancing test.
Speaker 3: That's the proper way to understand limits on state authorities,
Speaker 3: and if the state action does have a disproportionate impact
Speaker 3: outside the state, then that measure runs a follow dormant
Speaker 3: commerce clause, and so again you had both Chief Justice
Speaker 3: Roberts as well as Justice Alito and Justice Jackson, all
Speaker 3: on the same side.
Speaker 1: You don't often have the Supreme Court making decisions in
Speaker 1: the animal welfare area. Is this a victory for the
Speaker 1: animal welfare movement in more ways than one?
Speaker 3: Well, it's absolutely theigory formal welfare sanctioning any kind of
Speaker 3: state efforts to try to ensure that animals are housed
Speaker 3: or slaughtered in a humane manner. You know, there are
Speaker 3: states that ban the stale of horse meat, and obviously
Speaker 3: states if they want to take other kinds of measures
Speaker 3: to protect animals, they can do so. And maybe there's
Speaker 3: true for fish farming too, but who knows.
Speaker 1: Do you buy the pork producers saying that this is
Speaker 1: going to increase prices for consumers and drive small farms
Speaker 1: out of business and increase consolidation in the industry.
Speaker 3: Because California is such a large market, its impact will
Speaker 3: be felt in the industry. And I do think that
Speaker 3: Proposition twelve US will give rise to higher prices because
Speaker 3: you know, once you have to spend more money in
Speaker 3: terms of housing pigs and ensuring exercise and so forth,
Speaker 3: that is going to raise costs on doing business. So
Speaker 3: how big of an effect is unknown, but it is
Speaker 3: logical economically to think that this is going to drive
Speaker 3: court prices up.
Speaker 1: Also, just as Kavanaugh referred to the slippery slope argument
Speaker 1: in his opinion, And there are some concerns that the
Speaker 1: reasoning here, you know, the core issue the ability of
Speaker 1: states to take actions with impacts beyond their borders, could
Speaker 1: also be used by states in their efforts to restrict
Speaker 1: or expand abortion access.
Speaker 3: I'm skeptical that there'll be a direct impact here on
Speaker 3: the question about what states can do in terms of
Speaker 3: either ensuring the delivery of the abortion pill or precluding it.
Speaker 3: That has to do with the Privileges and Immunities clause
Speaker 3: and how that's developed in terms of the rights between
Speaker 3: those in one state and another state. I think the
Speaker 3: commerce issue here is distinct enough that there won't be
Speaker 3: any spillover into the more contentious issue of what kind
Speaker 3: of impact can one state have on citizens of another
Speaker 3: state or prevent their own state from unveiling themselves of
Speaker 3: the options available, whether it be marijuana or abortion services
Speaker 3: in a different state. So I'm skeptical then there will
Speaker 3: be any kind of carryover effect.
Speaker 1: So how much does this buttress the power of states
Speaker 1: to impose rules that have an impact and economic impact
Speaker 1: on other parts of the country.
Speaker 3: It's a huge win for states. States can take the
Speaker 3: signal in the poor producer's case and decide on a
Speaker 3: whole variety of local welfare type of regulation which has
Speaker 3: the practical impact of imposing more costs on out of
Speaker 3: state producers. They can't discriminate. They have to treat in
Speaker 3: state producers the same as out of state producers, but
Speaker 3: with that bare sort of minimum. It gives the states
Speaker 3: rights to do that. Now that always is subject to
Speaker 3: preemption by Congress. Congress under the Commerce power can say
Speaker 3: that those kinds of restrictions are not conducive to free
Speaker 3: flow of commerce from place to place, but subject to preemption,
Speaker 3: that the states can make those decisions and impose as
Speaker 3: long as they don't do so in a discriminatory manner.
Speaker 3: It was interesting because the reason why this was controversial
Speaker 3: is because of the sort of moral extra territoriality effect
Speaker 3: of California's law, and yet all the members of the
Speaker 3: court refuse to strike it down on that ground, seemingly
Speaker 3: inviting the kind of retaliation or tit for tap. That
Speaker 3: may well arise as states begin to regulate more in
Speaker 3: the social area, whether it be an ESD type stuff
Speaker 3: or another kinds of context.
Speaker 1: Does any other red state have the economic power that
Speaker 1: California does.
Speaker 3: No, That's the underlying thing is that this gives big
Speaker 3: states the advantage, particularly when it's talking about environmental pollution
Speaker 3: or other kinds of activities. California can make a difference
Speaker 3: just because of its size. Rhode Island and Arkansas aren't
Speaker 3: going to have that kind of national prominence.
Speaker 1: Well, we'll see if other states make any moves. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much. How that's Professor Harald Krant do the Chicago
Speaker 1: Kent College of Law. And that's it for this edition
Speaker 1: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, And remember
Speaker 1: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at
Speaker 1: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg