1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,799 Speaker 2: John Adams took a tankard of Hardsider with his breakfast 3 00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:17,400 Speaker 2: every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey 4 00:00:17,560 --> 00:00:21,120 Speaker 2: every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of an 5 00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:23,600 Speaker 2: user of alcohol. He only had three or four glasses 6 00:00:23,640 --> 00:00:27,600 Speaker 2: of wine a nite. Okay, are they all habitual drunkards 7 00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:30,320 Speaker 2: who would be properly disarmed for life? 8 00:00:30,640 --> 00:00:34,600 Speaker 3: You may ask why Justice Neil Gorsuch was questioning whether 9 00:00:34,640 --> 00:00:39,080 Speaker 3: some of the Founding fathers would have been considered habitual drunkards, 10 00:00:39,560 --> 00:00:42,400 Speaker 3: After all, the case before the Jauntices was about a 11 00:00:42,479 --> 00:00:47,519 Speaker 3: federal law banning gun ownership by marijuana users. The answer 12 00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:51,559 Speaker 3: is that the Supreme Court's recent analysis of gun control 13 00:00:51,680 --> 00:00:56,240 Speaker 3: laws relies on the government showing analogous restrictions in our 14 00:00:56,320 --> 00:01:00,200 Speaker 3: nation's history, and in this case, the government pointed to 15 00:01:00,320 --> 00:01:04,720 Speaker 3: Founding error laws that provided for the imprisonment of habitual 16 00:01:04,800 --> 00:01:09,119 Speaker 3: drunkards as a class that threatened public safety and justice. 17 00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:12,800 Speaker 3: Clarence Thomas also pointed to the vagrancy laws of the 18 00:01:12,880 --> 00:01:14,000 Speaker 3: eighteenth century. 19 00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:18,480 Speaker 4: Drunkards weren't the only one included in these sorts of statutes. 20 00:01:18,959 --> 00:01:27,199 Speaker 4: What was the public safety concern about those who using 21 00:01:27,520 --> 00:01:34,319 Speaker 4: subtle crafts, juggling unlawful games or plays, feigning themselves to 22 00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:39,600 Speaker 4: have knowledge of physiognomy, palmistry, or pretending that they could 23 00:01:39,640 --> 00:01:40,520 Speaker 4: tell fortunes. 24 00:01:41,000 --> 00:01:44,160 Speaker 3: But in the end, the justices weren't convinced by the 25 00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:49,400 Speaker 3: government's arguments, and the Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that 26 00:01:49,440 --> 00:01:54,960 Speaker 3: the government can't categorically bar marijuana users from possessing firearms 27 00:01:55,200 --> 00:01:59,520 Speaker 3: and can't prosecute a Texas marijuana smoker for having a gun. 28 00:02:00,200 --> 00:02:04,000 Speaker 3: Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the majority, finding that 29 00:02:04,040 --> 00:02:08,000 Speaker 3: the federal ban lacked the type of historical pedigree the 30 00:02:08,040 --> 00:02:11,560 Speaker 3: Court has demanded in recent years for restrictions on Second 31 00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:15,680 Speaker 3: Amendment rights. This decision, narrowing the reach of the federal 32 00:02:15,720 --> 00:02:18,880 Speaker 3: gun control law is just the latest in a series 33 00:02:18,960 --> 00:02:23,880 Speaker 3: of firearms cases where the Court's conservative majority has expanded 34 00:02:23,960 --> 00:02:28,400 Speaker 3: gun rights after upending the way courts decide whether gun 35 00:02:28,480 --> 00:02:33,040 Speaker 3: restrictions are constitutional. In a landmark ruling in twenty twenty two, 36 00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:37,600 Speaker 3: my guest is constitutional law expert Louis Michael Sideman, a 37 00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:41,360 Speaker 3: professor at Georgetown Law. His new book is entitled The 38 00:02:41,400 --> 00:02:45,320 Speaker 3: Constitution Cannot Save Us? Why we can no longer rely 39 00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:50,400 Speaker 3: on our founding document. This was about the constitutionality of 40 00:02:50,720 --> 00:02:54,320 Speaker 3: one part of the Gun Control Act. So explain what 41 00:02:54,440 --> 00:02:56,320 Speaker 3: the justices decided here. 42 00:02:56,760 --> 00:03:00,360 Speaker 1: So the court was unanimous and they held that the 43 00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:04,480 Speaker 1: Second Amendment to the Constitution did not permit depriving somebody 44 00:03:04,480 --> 00:03:09,160 Speaker 1: of a gun just because of marijuana use. I think 45 00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:13,639 Speaker 1: that court in this case reached results that most Americans 46 00:03:13,639 --> 00:03:16,519 Speaker 1: would think make logical sense. In a case a couple 47 00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:20,079 Speaker 1: of years ago, the court rejected a claim by a 48 00:03:20,200 --> 00:03:24,400 Speaker 1: violent domestic abuser that he had a constitutional right to 49 00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:27,400 Speaker 1: have a gun. But the court says an occasional or 50 00:03:27,400 --> 00:03:30,360 Speaker 1: even a regular marijuana user does have a right to 51 00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:33,240 Speaker 1: a gun. And I think most people can understand that. 52 00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,320 Speaker 1: The think the problem with what the Court's done is 53 00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:40,440 Speaker 1: not with the particular results it's reached. The problem is 54 00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:44,080 Speaker 1: with the test it's used. So what the Court has 55 00:03:44,080 --> 00:03:48,640 Speaker 1: said is that the way you decide these cases is 56 00:03:48,800 --> 00:03:53,520 Speaker 1: by looking to the eighteenth century to the seventeen hundreds 57 00:03:53,720 --> 00:03:57,400 Speaker 1: and seeing if there was some practice that was analogous 58 00:03:57,600 --> 00:04:00,560 Speaker 1: to the regulation that's being upheld now. That leads to 59 00:04:00,680 --> 00:04:04,680 Speaker 1: really bizarre sorts of historical inquiries. So a lot of 60 00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:08,960 Speaker 1: the court's opinion in this case was devoted to whether 61 00:04:09,080 --> 00:04:15,240 Speaker 1: or not laws that restricted the activity of habitual drunkards 62 00:04:15,560 --> 00:04:19,080 Speaker 1: in the eighteenth century were the same or different from 63 00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:23,320 Speaker 1: laws that prohibit marijuana users in the twenty first century 64 00:04:23,360 --> 00:04:26,800 Speaker 1: from having a gun. And that kind of analysis is 65 00:04:27,000 --> 00:04:30,520 Speaker 1: kind of silly because of course, when you compare any 66 00:04:30,600 --> 00:04:34,320 Speaker 1: two statutes, they're going to be alike and different in 67 00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:37,920 Speaker 1: an infinite number of respects. So it largely depends on 68 00:04:38,040 --> 00:04:41,320 Speaker 1: whether you seize on the likeness of the difference. And 69 00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:45,400 Speaker 1: when you're comparing the eighteenth century to the twenty first century, 70 00:04:45,720 --> 00:04:51,280 Speaker 1: almost everything is really different because the country was really 71 00:04:51,320 --> 00:04:55,080 Speaker 1: different than the eighteenth century. There were no automatic weapons, 72 00:04:55,279 --> 00:04:59,640 Speaker 1: no drive by shootings, no terrorism. It was just a 73 00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:03,960 Speaker 1: complet different place. So what you end up with, I think, 74 00:05:04,440 --> 00:05:08,320 Speaker 1: is the justices having more or less free range to 75 00:05:08,520 --> 00:05:12,640 Speaker 1: strite down laws that they think firely common sense uphold 76 00:05:12,760 --> 00:05:16,719 Speaker 1: laws that they don't think firely common sense. And if 77 00:05:16,720 --> 00:05:19,000 Speaker 1: that's all that the justices are going to do, then 78 00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:23,200 Speaker 1: that raises really serious questions about whether they ought to 79 00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:27,599 Speaker 1: be substituting their judgment were democratically elected institutions. 80 00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:31,160 Speaker 3: Well, isn't that always the problem with the originalism or 81 00:05:31,240 --> 00:05:36,120 Speaker 3: textualism analysis that the court now uses. They're looking back 82 00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:36,880 Speaker 3: in time. 83 00:05:37,080 --> 00:05:41,720 Speaker 1: The problem with the originalism. They're really two separate problems, 84 00:05:41,880 --> 00:05:44,640 Speaker 1: and they're both really serious. You might put it this way. 85 00:05:44,680 --> 00:05:47,640 Speaker 1: One problem is how would we ever know? And the 86 00:05:47,680 --> 00:05:49,480 Speaker 1: other is why would we ever care? 87 00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:50,520 Speaker 5: Right? 88 00:05:51,000 --> 00:05:54,159 Speaker 1: So, how would we ever know? I have no idea 89 00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:58,880 Speaker 1: what James Madison would think about gun control legislation in 90 00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:02,040 Speaker 1: twenty first century America. He didn't know anything about it. 91 00:06:02,160 --> 00:06:05,560 Speaker 1: Neither did his contemporaries. We're not going to kind of 92 00:06:05,600 --> 00:06:08,200 Speaker 1: digg him out of his grave and say, Jimmy, what 93 00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:11,440 Speaker 1: do you think about twenty first century America. That's just 94 00:06:11,600 --> 00:06:15,279 Speaker 1: not going to happen. So we really don't know the answer. 95 00:06:15,680 --> 00:06:19,040 Speaker 1: Suppose we did know the answer, why should anybody care? 96 00:06:19,520 --> 00:06:23,400 Speaker 1: The people who wrote the Second Amendment died a very 97 00:06:23,440 --> 00:06:26,760 Speaker 1: long time ago. What we do with guns today doesn't 98 00:06:26,800 --> 00:06:30,800 Speaker 1: affect them, but it does affect us, and people who 99 00:06:30,800 --> 00:06:33,680 Speaker 1: are alive now, I would have thought have some right 100 00:06:33,720 --> 00:06:35,600 Speaker 1: to be in control of their own country. 101 00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:39,600 Speaker 3: The outcome was unanimous, but the justices were divided on 102 00:06:39,640 --> 00:06:43,440 Speaker 3: some of the reasoning, and I think underlying that unanimity 103 00:06:44,040 --> 00:06:47,680 Speaker 3: was the fact that, as Justice Gorsuch acknowledged, millions of 104 00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:53,520 Speaker 3: Americans now regularly use marijuana. And the decision is very narrow. 105 00:06:53,920 --> 00:06:58,560 Speaker 1: The Court's ruling is quite narrow. I think Justice gorse 106 00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:03,760 Speaker 1: It's made it narrow, admirable attempt to get unanimity, and 107 00:07:03,800 --> 00:07:06,640 Speaker 1: that's something very rare on this court, and he achieved 108 00:07:06,640 --> 00:07:10,280 Speaker 1: that all nine justices agreed with him, And I think 109 00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:13,000 Speaker 1: a big part of the reason is because the opinion 110 00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:16,920 Speaker 1: makes sense. It makes common sense to say just because 111 00:07:17,160 --> 00:07:21,680 Speaker 1: somebody uses marijuana, a drug that, according to Justice Gorsage, 112 00:07:21,760 --> 00:07:25,080 Speaker 1: there's some evidence it's more widely used than alcohol today. 113 00:07:25,360 --> 00:07:28,440 Speaker 1: So the notion that just because of that, somebody should 114 00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:31,640 Speaker 1: be prohibited from owning a gun does seem just silly. 115 00:07:32,040 --> 00:07:35,400 Speaker 1: I think the problem is going to arise when the 116 00:07:35,640 --> 00:07:40,800 Speaker 1: intuitions of five of the justices are not intuitions widely 117 00:07:40,840 --> 00:07:44,240 Speaker 1: shared by most Americans, and then you do face the 118 00:07:44,280 --> 00:07:48,360 Speaker 1: difficulty of why they should control these decisions rather than 119 00:07:48,680 --> 00:07:52,400 Speaker 1: people who are actually responsible to the American people. 120 00:07:52,760 --> 00:07:56,440 Speaker 3: And there was an unusual, maybe even shocking pairing in 121 00:07:56,520 --> 00:08:00,440 Speaker 3: one of the concurrences. One of the most conservative justice 122 00:08:00,520 --> 00:08:05,800 Speaker 3: is Samuel Alito, and liberal Justice Elaina Kagan joined together 123 00:08:05,840 --> 00:08:08,880 Speaker 3: to say they would have written an even narrower opinion 124 00:08:08,920 --> 00:08:09,840 Speaker 3: than Gorsuch did. 125 00:08:10,320 --> 00:08:14,400 Speaker 1: I think that is almost certainly the only case this term, 126 00:08:14,440 --> 00:08:17,640 Speaker 1: and maybe the only case ever where the two of 127 00:08:17,680 --> 00:08:20,600 Speaker 1: them have joined in an opinion joined by nobody else. 128 00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:24,280 Speaker 1: So the opinion is written by Justice Alito, it's joined 129 00:08:24,280 --> 00:08:29,200 Speaker 1: by Justice Kagan. Justice Kagan is a very savvy operator, 130 00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:34,800 Speaker 1: and it's just become increasingly obvious that there is lots 131 00:08:34,840 --> 00:08:38,280 Speaker 1: and lots of tension between the justices. I think what 132 00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:41,080 Speaker 1: we're likely to see over the next couple of weeks 133 00:08:41,480 --> 00:08:46,000 Speaker 1: are a series of split decisions and very angry decisions. 134 00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:50,320 Speaker 1: And so Justice Kagan this was an opportunity for her. 135 00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:55,000 Speaker 1: It's important to the Court's public image that they try 136 00:08:55,040 --> 00:08:59,520 Speaker 1: to maintain some impression that they're not at each other's 137 00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:02,000 Speaker 1: throats and that they can agree about things and that 138 00:09:02,080 --> 00:09:07,400 Speaker 1: it's not just politics. So Justice Kagan seized an opportunity 139 00:09:07,480 --> 00:09:10,840 Speaker 1: both to demonstrate that and maybe to ingratiate herself some 140 00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:14,760 Speaker 1: with Justice Alito. But I wouldn't read too much into it. 141 00:09:14,880 --> 00:09:18,600 Speaker 1: The fact is the Court is very sharply divided for 142 00:09:18,640 --> 00:09:23,680 Speaker 1: the first time in generations. The division exactly mirrors the 143 00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:28,400 Speaker 1: political parties of the presidents who appointed the justices, and 144 00:09:28,480 --> 00:09:33,599 Speaker 1: that has led to a dramatic decline in public acceptance 145 00:09:33,880 --> 00:09:36,559 Speaker 1: and regard for the Supreme Court. 146 00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:42,679 Speaker 3: The Court's conservative majority has expanded Second Amendment rights since 147 00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:45,680 Speaker 3: twenty twenty two. Do you see this case as a 148 00:09:45,760 --> 00:09:48,280 Speaker 3: continuation of that or something different? 149 00:09:49,080 --> 00:09:53,640 Speaker 1: I think that having established some right to gun ownership, 150 00:09:53,880 --> 00:09:57,400 Speaker 1: it was inevitable that the Court was going to have 151 00:09:57,480 --> 00:10:01,680 Speaker 1: to decide a series of cases about reach of that right, 152 00:10:02,160 --> 00:10:05,120 Speaker 1: and so this is one of a continuing line of 153 00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:09,199 Speaker 1: cases that tries to bound the right in some way, 154 00:10:09,400 --> 00:10:14,120 Speaker 1: saying this is okay, this is not okay. Unfortunately, as 155 00:10:14,160 --> 00:10:17,960 Speaker 1: this progresses, I think it's becoming more and more apparent 156 00:10:18,640 --> 00:10:21,480 Speaker 1: that the test the Court is using to reach those 157 00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:26,080 Speaker 1: judgments doesn't really solve the problem, and it's going to 158 00:10:26,120 --> 00:10:29,320 Speaker 1: be very difficult for the Court to convince people that 159 00:10:29,400 --> 00:10:32,720 Speaker 1: it's actually acting in a principled way and not just 160 00:10:33,120 --> 00:10:37,160 Speaker 1: responding to the intuition that justices have about various. 161 00:10:36,840 --> 00:10:42,199 Speaker 3: Measures DC in sixteen states prohibit gun possession by habitual 162 00:10:42,320 --> 00:10:46,040 Speaker 3: drug users, and another twenty two restrict the rights of 163 00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:49,280 Speaker 3: those people to carry a weapon in public. Does this 164 00:10:49,360 --> 00:10:51,040 Speaker 3: affect the state laws? 165 00:10:51,920 --> 00:10:54,640 Speaker 1: Well, the Court is held at the Second Amendment right 166 00:10:55,280 --> 00:10:58,720 Speaker 1: applies not just to the federal government, but to the 167 00:10:58,800 --> 00:11:02,560 Speaker 1: states as well. On the other hand, this decision is 168 00:11:02,640 --> 00:11:06,360 Speaker 1: so narrowly written that it's not at all clear that 169 00:11:06,440 --> 00:11:09,600 Speaker 1: it would invalidate the state laws. You're talking about it, 170 00:11:09,360 --> 00:11:12,199 Speaker 1: And in particular, the court did not address the question 171 00:11:12,320 --> 00:11:16,600 Speaker 1: of whether it was constitutional for the government to preibit 172 00:11:16,679 --> 00:11:19,760 Speaker 1: gun ownership on the part of people addicted. 173 00:11:19,320 --> 00:11:20,720 Speaker 4: To illegal drugs. 174 00:11:21,200 --> 00:11:23,240 Speaker 3: Yeah, that was the part of the statute used to 175 00:11:23,320 --> 00:11:26,800 Speaker 3: convict Hunter Biden in twenty twenty four. Thanks so much 176 00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:31,000 Speaker 3: for your insights. That's Georgetown law professor Lewis Michael Sideman. 177 00:11:31,559 --> 00:11:35,320 Speaker 3: His book is entitled The Constitution Cannot Save Us Why 178 00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:39,000 Speaker 3: we can no longer rely on our founding document. A note. 179 00:11:39,320 --> 00:11:42,920 Speaker 3: Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, 180 00:11:43,440 --> 00:11:46,600 Speaker 3: the parent company of Bloomberg Radio, is a donor to 181 00:11:46,679 --> 00:11:51,240 Speaker 3: groups that support gun control, including every Town for Gun Safety. 182 00:11:51,559 --> 00:11:54,360 Speaker 3: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, a judge 183 00:11:54,400 --> 00:11:59,680 Speaker 3: blocks trump so called Anti Weaponization Fund indefinitely. But that's 184 00:11:59,760 --> 00:12:02,480 Speaker 3: not the end of the matter. I'm June Grosso and 185 00:12:02,520 --> 00:12:08,400 Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg. Is President Trump's one point eight 186 00:12:08,520 --> 00:12:13,560 Speaker 3: billion dollar fund for alleged victims of political weaponization dead 187 00:12:13,800 --> 00:12:18,079 Speaker 3: or not? That's the question Federal Judge Leoni Brinkhema has 188 00:12:18,120 --> 00:12:22,679 Speaker 3: been grappling with, and the administration has flatly refused to 189 00:12:22,679 --> 00:12:26,440 Speaker 3: give her the assurances she required, despite the fact that 190 00:12:26,720 --> 00:12:31,480 Speaker 3: Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified on Capitol Hill a 191 00:12:31,520 --> 00:12:34,760 Speaker 3: little over two weeks ago that the fund would not 192 00:12:34,960 --> 00:12:39,640 Speaker 3: go forward, although at the same time describing its importance. 193 00:12:40,360 --> 00:12:42,800 Speaker 6: The reasons for the fund is something that President Trump 194 00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:45,480 Speaker 6: talked about for a long time, which is the fact 195 00:12:45,480 --> 00:12:47,160 Speaker 6: that there were a lot of people in this country 196 00:12:47,200 --> 00:12:50,680 Speaker 6: who had their government weaponized against them. The reasons for 197 00:12:50,720 --> 00:12:54,880 Speaker 6: the fund, I think it remain as important as they 198 00:12:54,920 --> 00:12:58,160 Speaker 6: were before. But we are not moving forward with the fund. 199 00:12:58,559 --> 00:13:02,560 Speaker 3: And President Trump continued to express support for the fund 200 00:13:02,840 --> 00:13:05,040 Speaker 3: while claiming he didn't know its status. 201 00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:08,440 Speaker 1: It's uh, I'd have to ask the lawyers. I don't know. 202 00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:09,560 Speaker 5: I know one thing. 203 00:13:09,920 --> 00:13:14,400 Speaker 1: The weaponization are you about wesition? Yeah, what's the weaponization fund? 204 00:13:15,600 --> 00:13:18,320 Speaker 5: As far as I'm concerned, was a beautiful thing. 205 00:13:18,800 --> 00:13:22,840 Speaker 3: Judge Brinkham appointed to Trump shifting statements about the fund 206 00:13:23,160 --> 00:13:27,400 Speaker 3: in issuing an injunction last Friday in definitely blocking the 207 00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:31,480 Speaker 3: administration from creating the fund. But the judge gave the 208 00:13:31,520 --> 00:13:35,440 Speaker 3: government one week to submit a sworn statement signed by 209 00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:40,360 Speaker 3: Blanche and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant, confirming that the fund 210 00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:44,040 Speaker 3: would not proceed in any manner, and this Friday, the 211 00:13:44,320 --> 00:13:49,839 Speaker 3: Justice Department refused to submit those sworn statements, citing separation 212 00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:54,320 Speaker 3: of powers concerns. My guest is Amy Powell, the litigation 213 00:13:54,480 --> 00:13:57,880 Speaker 3: director at Lawyers for Good Government and a former senior 214 00:13:57,920 --> 00:14:01,880 Speaker 3: Trial Council at the Justice Department, and he explain why 215 00:14:01,960 --> 00:14:07,480 Speaker 3: Judge Brinkhama issued a preliminary injunction and wouldn't accept the 216 00:14:07,520 --> 00:14:10,360 Speaker 3: government's assurances that the fund is dead. 217 00:14:10,880 --> 00:14:13,760 Speaker 7: She needed evidence. She needed the government to develop a 218 00:14:13,840 --> 00:14:16,959 Speaker 7: record as to the fact the fund isn't going forward. 219 00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:19,880 Speaker 7: If it's really not going forward in any way, shape 220 00:14:19,960 --> 00:14:24,800 Speaker 7: or form, it's frankly bizarre that the government filed insisting 221 00:14:24,840 --> 00:14:28,040 Speaker 7: that the case was moved based on the Acting Attorney 222 00:14:28,160 --> 00:14:31,400 Speaker 7: General's unsworn and equivocal statements on the subject. 223 00:14:31,840 --> 00:14:35,440 Speaker 3: There are five different lawsuits challenging the fund. I believe 224 00:14:35,920 --> 00:14:41,800 Speaker 3: who's bringing this particular lawsuit before Judge Brinkama in Virginia. 225 00:14:41,880 --> 00:14:45,880 Speaker 7: Former federal prosecutors, nonprofits who feel like they might be targeted. 226 00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:48,560 Speaker 7: They are people who feel like they would be harmed 227 00:14:48,600 --> 00:14:51,320 Speaker 7: by the operation of the fund. Now, it's going to 228 00:14:51,320 --> 00:14:53,680 Speaker 7: be an uphill battle for any of these plaintiffs to 229 00:14:53,720 --> 00:14:56,840 Speaker 7: prove that they individually would be injured by the operation 230 00:14:56,960 --> 00:14:59,160 Speaker 7: of the fund if it went forward. But they made 231 00:14:59,200 --> 00:15:01,960 Speaker 7: it compelling the case as possible when the government came 232 00:15:02,000 --> 00:15:04,800 Speaker 7: in and insisted it's all moot that the weaponization Fund 233 00:15:04,880 --> 00:15:09,440 Speaker 7: isn't going forward, despite the existence of an unrescinded apparently 234 00:15:09,640 --> 00:15:13,440 Speaker 7: Attorney General order creating the fund and a settlement agreement that, 235 00:15:13,520 --> 00:15:16,040 Speaker 7: as far as I know, the government still insists is ballot. 236 00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:19,680 Speaker 3: I mean, the standards for getting a preliminary injunction are 237 00:15:19,720 --> 00:15:23,640 Speaker 3: pretty high. Did the judge find that the plaintiffs or 238 00:15:23,680 --> 00:15:25,400 Speaker 3: some of the plaintiffs head standing. 239 00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:28,320 Speaker 7: No, As far as I know, the court has not 240 00:15:28,520 --> 00:15:31,640 Speaker 7: ruled on that. Decided to turn first to this question 241 00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:35,120 Speaker 7: of mootness. She hasn't rules on the merits of the 242 00:15:35,160 --> 00:15:39,400 Speaker 7: underlying claim, but she's strongly suggested that if the government 243 00:15:39,480 --> 00:15:43,040 Speaker 7: could produce this declaration that says more or less what 244 00:15:43,080 --> 00:15:45,440 Speaker 7: she suggested, it needs to say that the case would 245 00:15:45,480 --> 00:15:49,080 Speaker 7: be candidly. I think that is a bit of a stretching. 246 00:15:49,080 --> 00:15:51,680 Speaker 7: And if the government does produce the declaration that says 247 00:15:51,720 --> 00:15:54,360 Speaker 7: the weaponization fund does not going forward in any way, 248 00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:57,240 Speaker 7: shape or form unless the government gives a reason as 249 00:15:57,240 --> 00:15:59,880 Speaker 7: to why. The reason for that is that if these 250 00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:03,680 Speaker 7: hept standing, which she seemed to assume, and her order 251 00:16:04,120 --> 00:16:06,760 Speaker 7: proving mootness is an uphill battle for the government, they 252 00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:10,240 Speaker 7: have to do more than just change their conduct. It's 253 00:16:10,240 --> 00:16:12,680 Speaker 7: a settled matter of laws what we call the voluntary 254 00:16:12,720 --> 00:16:16,680 Speaker 7: cessation doctrine that when one party voluntarily changes its conduct, 255 00:16:16,760 --> 00:16:19,440 Speaker 7: that's not enough to get rid of a lawsuit as 256 00:16:19,520 --> 00:16:22,480 Speaker 7: moot because they can change their conduct back. So a 257 00:16:22,520 --> 00:16:25,160 Speaker 7: declaration that says we changed our conduct might not be 258 00:16:25,200 --> 00:16:28,080 Speaker 7: pottened up unless it explains why and offers some sort 259 00:16:28,120 --> 00:16:28,680 Speaker 7: of commitment. 260 00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:32,280 Speaker 3: And of course, the Justice Department refused to even submit 261 00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:37,320 Speaker 3: those sworn declarations. So this fund is supposedly in settlement 262 00:16:37,520 --> 00:16:42,240 Speaker 3: of President Trump's ten billion dollar lawsuit against the irs. 263 00:16:42,520 --> 00:16:46,520 Speaker 3: Explain why most legal experts say the fund is illegal. 264 00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:48,920 Speaker 7: Well, there's a lot going to find that the weaponization 265 00:16:49,160 --> 00:16:53,160 Speaker 7: find right. So the lawsuit that it purported to settle 266 00:16:53,720 --> 00:16:56,560 Speaker 7: was a lawsuit brought by Donald Trump some of his 267 00:16:56,600 --> 00:17:00,320 Speaker 7: family members and associates against the IRS for leaking his textures. 268 00:17:00,560 --> 00:17:03,680 Speaker 7: And it also purported to settle to other matters which 269 00:17:03,720 --> 00:17:06,960 Speaker 7: were pending as administrative claim So someone had gone to 270 00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:09,320 Speaker 7: the agency and said, you wronged me. Those claims were 271 00:17:09,359 --> 00:17:12,359 Speaker 7: brought by Donald Trump personally against the US government for 272 00:17:13,119 --> 00:17:18,159 Speaker 7: alleged misconducts related to the classified documents kiss and related 273 00:17:18,200 --> 00:17:22,000 Speaker 7: to the Russia investigation. Now, those underlying administrative claims, first 274 00:17:22,000 --> 00:17:24,880 Speaker 7: of all, are merriglists near frivolous. I know less about 275 00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:27,080 Speaker 7: the leak of the tax returns is possible, there is 276 00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:29,919 Speaker 7: some someulting there. But what you don't do is settle 277 00:17:29,960 --> 00:17:33,600 Speaker 7: a case, even if it were of some marginal validity, 278 00:17:33,880 --> 00:17:37,200 Speaker 7: you don't settle it by signing over that huge amount 279 00:17:37,240 --> 00:17:40,560 Speaker 7: of money to third parties. The weaponization sign seemed like 280 00:17:40,600 --> 00:17:46,320 Speaker 7: a fairly transparent attempt to reward the president's supporters, even if, 281 00:17:46,520 --> 00:17:50,760 Speaker 7: in fact, because of their engagement in misconduct to illegal activity. 282 00:17:51,280 --> 00:17:53,760 Speaker 3: And let's talk about the part of the settlement that 283 00:17:53,880 --> 00:17:58,960 Speaker 3: barred the IRS forever from auditing Trump, his family, and 284 00:17:59,040 --> 00:18:03,119 Speaker 3: his businesses. Blanche testified that that part of the agreement 285 00:18:03,280 --> 00:18:07,200 Speaker 3: was still in place, although he referred to it as ordinary. 286 00:18:07,640 --> 00:18:11,880 Speaker 3: Here he is being questioned by Democratic Congresswoman Rosa Deloro. 287 00:18:12,320 --> 00:18:16,800 Speaker 6: Part of the settlement included the second order that you 288 00:18:16,960 --> 00:18:20,080 Speaker 6: just held up, and that is still nothing has changed 289 00:18:20,080 --> 00:18:21,960 Speaker 6: with that. What I said today, what I've said a 290 00:18:21,960 --> 00:18:24,520 Speaker 6: couple of times today, is what we talked about yesterday, 291 00:18:24,600 --> 00:18:28,080 Speaker 6: is we're not moving forward with the Anti Weaponization Fund. 292 00:18:28,880 --> 00:18:33,320 Speaker 3: Okay, but you are moving forward with this second oil. 293 00:18:33,440 --> 00:18:36,240 Speaker 6: It's not moving forward. There's a settlement. There's a settlement 294 00:18:36,320 --> 00:18:40,159 Speaker 6: that the IRS centered into with President Trump and others, 295 00:18:40,480 --> 00:18:41,760 Speaker 6: his family and his companies. 296 00:18:42,440 --> 00:18:46,000 Speaker 7: And I find that particular document to be a puzzle. 297 00:18:46,200 --> 00:18:49,080 Speaker 7: It's not shocking. First, it's an initial matter. It's not 298 00:18:49,240 --> 00:18:51,200 Speaker 7: entirely clear to me that it is part of the 299 00:18:51,240 --> 00:18:55,919 Speaker 7: settlement agreement when DOJ announced the settlement agreement included the 300 00:18:55,960 --> 00:19:00,399 Speaker 7: agreement itself and the Attorney General order that creates the 301 00:19:00,440 --> 00:19:04,480 Speaker 7: Weaponization Fund. Nothing in the agreement itself mentions a waiver 302 00:19:04,800 --> 00:19:07,720 Speaker 7: for Trump and his family of tax returns or anything else. 303 00:19:07,760 --> 00:19:11,000 Speaker 7: In fact, it only purports to resolve the pending Trump lawsuit. 304 00:19:11,160 --> 00:19:14,800 Speaker 7: But don't actually think that waiver document is legitimately considered 305 00:19:14,840 --> 00:19:17,159 Speaker 7: part of the settlement because it's not actually mentioned in 306 00:19:17,240 --> 00:19:21,119 Speaker 7: the settlement itself, was published as a separate document a 307 00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:24,359 Speaker 7: day later, signed by someone else, not signed by the 308 00:19:24,400 --> 00:19:28,600 Speaker 7: Treasury Department. It is wildly inconsistent with certainly normal DOJ 309 00:19:28,800 --> 00:19:30,760 Speaker 7: policy or practice in this area. 310 00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:35,040 Speaker 3: And does the suit before Judge Brinkhma include that immunity 311 00:19:35,119 --> 00:19:36,600 Speaker 3: deal for Trump and his family. 312 00:19:37,240 --> 00:19:39,840 Speaker 7: I don't think it does, because it was focused on 313 00:19:39,920 --> 00:19:43,480 Speaker 7: the Weaponization Fund and the creation of that fund how 314 00:19:43,520 --> 00:19:46,600 Speaker 7: it harms this particular group of plaintiffs. I don't think 315 00:19:46,600 --> 00:19:51,320 Speaker 7: they asserted any claims related to the waiver language itself. 316 00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:54,080 Speaker 3: And it seems like the immunity piece of this is 317 00:19:54,160 --> 00:19:58,439 Speaker 3: being lost or forgotten in all the controversy over the 318 00:19:58,440 --> 00:19:59,840 Speaker 3: anti Weaponization Fund. 319 00:20:00,280 --> 00:20:04,040 Speaker 7: And it's egregiously overbroad. Right, it's not just tax on 320 00:20:04,119 --> 00:20:08,040 Speaker 7: It says any matter currently pendinger that could be brought 321 00:20:08,080 --> 00:20:12,360 Speaker 7: by any federal agency, like if some Trump grandchild has 322 00:20:12,400 --> 00:20:15,960 Speaker 7: a pending pucking ticket from a National Park ranger like 323 00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:20,480 Speaker 7: that is wiped out by this. I cannot imagine that 324 00:20:20,600 --> 00:20:23,800 Speaker 7: they followed any proper procedures or got consent from the 325 00:20:23,800 --> 00:20:26,560 Speaker 7: relevant agencies, or that such a settlement could ever be 326 00:20:26,680 --> 00:20:27,119 Speaker 7: dug by. 327 00:20:27,560 --> 00:20:32,080 Speaker 3: So now another judge, a DC federal judge Richard leon 328 00:20:32,520 --> 00:20:36,280 Speaker 3: denied a request for an order blocking the fund, saying 329 00:20:36,320 --> 00:20:40,240 Speaker 3: he wasn't persuaded that there was a live controversy based 330 00:20:40,280 --> 00:20:44,199 Speaker 3: on the government's representations. But he also issued a warning 331 00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:48,320 Speaker 3: to the Justice Department during the proceedings, quote, don't play 332 00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:49,760 Speaker 3: possum with this court. 333 00:20:50,040 --> 00:20:52,440 Speaker 7: I don't necessarily agree with Judge Leone's decision, but I 334 00:20:52,440 --> 00:20:56,520 Speaker 7: imagine the skepticism you just quoted, you know, based on experience, 335 00:20:56,720 --> 00:21:00,199 Speaker 7: and also just based on the somewhat bizarre posture here 336 00:21:00,240 --> 00:21:02,920 Speaker 7: where the government is insisting its moot but has refused 337 00:21:02,920 --> 00:21:05,239 Speaker 7: to put in any competent evidence to show it. 338 00:21:05,600 --> 00:21:10,040 Speaker 3: And yet another federal judge in Miami is taking another 339 00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:13,960 Speaker 3: look at the fund after nearly three dozen retired federal 340 00:21:14,080 --> 00:21:16,919 Speaker 3: judges called it a fraud on the court. 341 00:21:17,200 --> 00:21:21,960 Speaker 7: Yes, that's fascinating. That is the original case, right, that 342 00:21:22,200 --> 00:21:26,280 Speaker 7: was brought by the Trumps against the government. The Trumps 343 00:21:26,280 --> 00:21:30,199 Speaker 7: dismissed it with prejudice upon reaching the settlement agreement with 344 00:21:30,240 --> 00:21:33,680 Speaker 7: the federal government. The court dismissed it. Well, I don't 345 00:21:33,720 --> 00:21:35,440 Speaker 7: even know that she had an option at that point, 346 00:21:35,480 --> 00:21:38,960 Speaker 7: but assumed the dismissal was valid. She was not asked 347 00:21:39,000 --> 00:21:42,360 Speaker 7: to evaluate any settlement, but a group of federal judges 348 00:21:42,400 --> 00:21:44,800 Speaker 7: filed I think they felt it as an amicust motion 349 00:21:45,280 --> 00:21:48,639 Speaker 7: to reopen the caiss because the dismissal was part of 350 00:21:48,640 --> 00:21:51,040 Speaker 7: a fraud and that the court was being used in 351 00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:54,720 Speaker 7: perpetrating a fraud, which we are in uncharted territory here. 352 00:21:54,760 --> 00:21:58,920 Speaker 7: I'm reluctant to opine on the merits of the motion 353 00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:01,280 Speaker 7: or what the court should do the situation, but I 354 00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:03,680 Speaker 7: think what the court has done in reopening the case 355 00:22:03,720 --> 00:22:06,880 Speaker 7: and asking for briefing is indicative. But she's very troubled. 356 00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:11,720 Speaker 3: There are indications that people in the Trump administration are 357 00:22:12,000 --> 00:22:16,480 Speaker 3: looking for other ways to compensate these people they claim 358 00:22:16,640 --> 00:22:21,920 Speaker 3: were victimized by the Biden administration. Republican Senator Lindsay Graham 359 00:22:22,280 --> 00:22:25,160 Speaker 3: in a social media post, backed the idea of pursuing 360 00:22:25,200 --> 00:22:30,119 Speaker 3: payouts through the Federal tourte Claims Act, and then Stanley Woodward, 361 00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:34,760 Speaker 3: the third top official at the Justice Department, responded with quote, 362 00:22:34,920 --> 00:22:38,720 Speaker 3: We're working on it. That post was deleted. But that's 363 00:22:38,760 --> 00:22:41,080 Speaker 3: another way for them to compensate these people. 364 00:22:41,160 --> 00:22:44,160 Speaker 7: Right, Yes, that it clearly appears to be their strategy, 365 00:22:44,200 --> 00:22:45,280 Speaker 7: and they've done it before. 366 00:22:45,440 --> 00:22:45,640 Speaker 4: Right. 367 00:22:45,760 --> 00:22:49,399 Speaker 7: They made giant payouts under Federal Court Claim Act and 368 00:22:49,520 --> 00:22:53,960 Speaker 7: similarly styled cases Mike Flynn and Carter Paige or assume 369 00:22:54,080 --> 00:22:56,560 Speaker 7: are others as well. Those were just the headline ones, 370 00:22:56,680 --> 00:22:59,679 Speaker 7: But people who clearly weren't entitled to any payout from 371 00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:02,600 Speaker 7: the federal government under the Federal Turque Claim fact received 372 00:23:03,040 --> 00:23:06,159 Speaker 7: enormously out and I as similar imagining they can do 373 00:23:06,200 --> 00:23:10,359 Speaker 7: something based on individualized administrative claims by others as well. 374 00:23:10,640 --> 00:23:13,879 Speaker 7: It's possible that the weaponization pund was an attempt to 375 00:23:14,000 --> 00:23:17,919 Speaker 7: bypass the normal Department of Justice machinery that would have 376 00:23:18,160 --> 00:23:21,400 Speaker 7: attorneys look at and opine on such claims. It didn't 377 00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:23,840 Speaker 7: stop the payouts to Mike Flynn as far as I know, 378 00:23:24,119 --> 00:23:26,600 Speaker 7: so it is possible it will be a viable avenue 379 00:23:26,760 --> 00:23:28,520 Speaker 7: for them for other claimants as well. 380 00:23:28,760 --> 00:23:33,160 Speaker 3: So you mentioned Michael Flynn and Carter Page. The Justice 381 00:23:33,160 --> 00:23:37,480 Speaker 3: Department made separate one point twenty five million dollars settlements 382 00:23:37,480 --> 00:23:42,560 Speaker 3: in two lawsuits they filed. Other agreements included four million 383 00:23:42,640 --> 00:23:48,040 Speaker 3: to FBI employees who claimed political retaliation under Biden. The 384 00:23:48,119 --> 00:23:50,960 Speaker 3: DOJ agreed to pay half a million dollars to cover 385 00:23:51,000 --> 00:23:55,160 Speaker 3: the attorney's fees for a litigation against the Biden administration 386 00:23:55,640 --> 00:23:59,920 Speaker 3: for allegedly coercing social media companies and Amy, the Justice 387 00:24:00,000 --> 00:24:04,040 Speaker 3: Department decides itself whether to pay these off. There's no 388 00:24:04,720 --> 00:24:07,960 Speaker 3: second opinion, there's no approval from a judge. 389 00:24:08,359 --> 00:24:08,919 Speaker 2: That's correct. 390 00:24:08,920 --> 00:24:11,880 Speaker 7: That's how they work. And you know, the Justice Department 391 00:24:12,160 --> 00:24:15,040 Speaker 7: has had in the past a pretty robust process for 392 00:24:15,160 --> 00:24:18,840 Speaker 7: evaluating those The agency looks at the Department of Justice 393 00:24:18,840 --> 00:24:21,840 Speaker 7: looks at them as all enshrined in regulation. If anything, 394 00:24:22,040 --> 00:24:25,400 Speaker 7: they historically have been very protective of the taxpayer fisk. 395 00:24:25,560 --> 00:24:29,320 Speaker 7: So even when somebody has a valid claim, frequently the 396 00:24:29,440 --> 00:24:33,679 Speaker 7: Justice Department will push back against overpayments and evaluate the 397 00:24:33,760 --> 00:24:37,359 Speaker 7: litigation risk. It's a pretty serious process, or has been historically. 398 00:24:37,640 --> 00:24:40,240 Speaker 7: I don't know whether it's being bypassed or ignored or 399 00:24:40,320 --> 00:24:42,560 Speaker 7: is just controlled by political official business point. 400 00:24:42,680 --> 00:24:46,000 Speaker 3: Thanks for joining me. Amy. That's Amy Powell, litigation director 401 00:24:46,040 --> 00:24:49,320 Speaker 3: at Lawyers for Good Government, coming up big law with 402 00:24:49,440 --> 00:24:52,720 Speaker 3: big tickets to sporting events. I'm June Grasso and this 403 00:24:52,920 --> 00:24:54,200 Speaker 3: is Bloomberg. 404 00:24:58,880 --> 00:25:05,160 Speaker 1: Well so spring Up starting line up shoot. 405 00:25:07,720 --> 00:25:11,240 Speaker 3: The most envied ticket holders in New York City were 406 00:25:11,280 --> 00:25:14,160 Speaker 3: those with tickets to watch the Knicks play in the 407 00:25:14,280 --> 00:25:18,679 Speaker 3: NBA Finals at Madison Square Garden. Prices soared into the 408 00:25:18,760 --> 00:25:22,280 Speaker 3: six figures for some seats, and so the audience was 409 00:25:22,320 --> 00:25:27,359 Speaker 3: a who's who of celebrities, power players, and big law partners. 410 00:25:27,840 --> 00:25:31,280 Speaker 3: Many Wall Street firms had suites for the games and 411 00:25:31,440 --> 00:25:36,200 Speaker 3: an avalanche of requests from clients for tickets. In fact, 412 00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:39,320 Speaker 3: this summer, New York City is playing host to several 413 00:25:39,400 --> 00:25:43,920 Speaker 3: hot sporting events, leaving big law partners walking a corporate 414 00:25:44,040 --> 00:25:49,560 Speaker 3: tinged tightrope deciding which clients get those tickets. Joining me 415 00:25:49,640 --> 00:25:53,919 Speaker 3: is Roy Strom, Bloomberg Law senior correspondent, so Roy. The 416 00:25:54,000 --> 00:25:58,000 Speaker 3: law firms were swamped with requests from clients for Knicks tickets. 417 00:25:58,480 --> 00:26:02,200 Speaker 5: That's right, I think big law were inundated with requests 418 00:26:02,240 --> 00:26:05,359 Speaker 5: from clients to get into Madison Square Garden to see 419 00:26:05,400 --> 00:26:08,840 Speaker 5: the New York Knicks Finals game. Of course, a lot 420 00:26:08,960 --> 00:26:12,359 Speaker 5: of big law firms are well known for their hospitality 421 00:26:12,440 --> 00:26:15,120 Speaker 5: bringing clients to big events, and a lot of them 422 00:26:15,359 --> 00:26:19,240 Speaker 5: have suites or box seats at Madison Square Garden. For 423 00:26:19,280 --> 00:26:22,200 Speaker 5: the finals, which clients of course know, and they were 424 00:26:22,400 --> 00:26:25,240 Speaker 5: all sort of rushing to get into see the biggest 425 00:26:25,240 --> 00:26:28,400 Speaker 5: sporting event in New York City and a long long time. 426 00:26:28,640 --> 00:26:31,240 Speaker 3: Do the law firms have the suites year long for 427 00:26:31,480 --> 00:26:33,000 Speaker 3: every event at MSG. 428 00:26:33,280 --> 00:26:34,920 Speaker 5: I don't know about every event. I just don't know 429 00:26:34,960 --> 00:26:37,720 Speaker 5: the way Madison Square Garden operates if you have the 430 00:26:37,800 --> 00:26:40,639 Speaker 5: suite for every event that goes there. But certainly a 431 00:26:40,760 --> 00:26:45,400 Speaker 5: long list of firms had suites for the Knicks playoffs games. 432 00:26:45,440 --> 00:26:50,600 Speaker 5: They included Davis Polk, Kirkland and Ellis, Prascauer, Rose, Paul White, Siddeley, 433 00:26:50,680 --> 00:26:55,120 Speaker 5: Austin Vincent and Alkins Scent, Thatcher's Gadden. Plenty of firms 434 00:26:55,320 --> 00:26:57,120 Speaker 5: had great seat for the big Games. 435 00:26:57,320 --> 00:27:00,280 Speaker 3: I read that some seats were going for up wards 436 00:27:00,320 --> 00:27:02,840 Speaker 3: of one hundred grand. Do you know how much the 437 00:27:02,920 --> 00:27:05,040 Speaker 3: law firms pay for these suites. 438 00:27:05,640 --> 00:27:07,879 Speaker 5: I don't know what the suites go for, but we 439 00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:11,560 Speaker 5: do know that one law firm, Gibson Donne, and one 440 00:27:11,560 --> 00:27:15,480 Speaker 5: of its clients, private equity firm Veritas Capital, won a 441 00:27:15,640 --> 00:27:19,480 Speaker 5: charity raffle for two court side seats sitting right near 442 00:27:19,520 --> 00:27:22,720 Speaker 5: all the celebrities that everybody saw. You know, Timothy Chalomee 443 00:27:22,720 --> 00:27:24,680 Speaker 5: and the ben Stillers of the world, and the law 444 00:27:24,680 --> 00:27:27,639 Speaker 5: firm and it's private equity client paid a million dollars 445 00:27:27,680 --> 00:27:30,800 Speaker 5: to get those seats, which was donated to a charity. 446 00:27:31,000 --> 00:27:34,240 Speaker 5: So certainly a lot of money for those seats at least. 447 00:27:34,560 --> 00:27:37,520 Speaker 3: So the law firms are getting all these requests for 448 00:27:37,600 --> 00:27:41,520 Speaker 3: a limited amount of tickets, how do they decide which 449 00:27:41,680 --> 00:27:43,760 Speaker 3: clients to give the tickets to. 450 00:27:44,320 --> 00:27:47,119 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's really funny because we were reporting about, you know, 451 00:27:47,240 --> 00:27:49,720 Speaker 5: just the access that the firms had, and that was 452 00:27:49,720 --> 00:27:51,720 Speaker 5: a question that I was really wanting to get at. 453 00:27:51,720 --> 00:27:55,120 Speaker 5: You could imagine a scenario where you've got ten tickets, 454 00:27:55,160 --> 00:27:57,119 Speaker 5: but you've got one hundred clients, and you have to 455 00:27:57,160 --> 00:27:59,199 Speaker 5: figure out, my goodness, how are we going to do 456 00:27:59,320 --> 00:28:03,320 Speaker 5: this without upsetting people? And even in the reporting process, 457 00:28:03,320 --> 00:28:05,400 Speaker 5: you could get the sense that the firms were very 458 00:28:05,680 --> 00:28:09,440 Speaker 5: wary of having any clients feel left out. And from 459 00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:14,200 Speaker 5: the partners I spoke with, they described basically two types 460 00:28:14,240 --> 00:28:18,800 Speaker 5: of clients. One would be sort of asking without asking, 461 00:28:19,000 --> 00:28:21,480 Speaker 5: sort of a soft pitch to get into the games. 462 00:28:21,480 --> 00:28:24,000 Speaker 5: You know, calls would be wrapping up and they'd say, hey, 463 00:28:24,240 --> 00:28:26,280 Speaker 5: if you have any tickets, you know, keep me in mind, 464 00:28:26,320 --> 00:28:28,359 Speaker 5: I'd love to go. And then the other group of 465 00:28:28,400 --> 00:28:31,359 Speaker 5: clients were just very direct, I need see what do 466 00:28:31,359 --> 00:28:34,520 Speaker 5: you have? You know, they were much more comfortable asking 467 00:28:34,640 --> 00:28:37,920 Speaker 5: for things from their lawyer, and I think the lawyers 468 00:28:37,920 --> 00:28:40,240 Speaker 5: were all navigating that, and I think the one sort 469 00:28:40,280 --> 00:28:44,480 Speaker 5: of unspoken thing is they kind of know which clients 470 00:28:44,760 --> 00:28:48,120 Speaker 5: expect to be asked even without raising it. You know, 471 00:28:48,200 --> 00:28:50,280 Speaker 5: the most important clients would be the ones that the 472 00:28:50,360 --> 00:28:52,600 Speaker 5: law firm said, I got to get this ticket. I 473 00:28:52,640 --> 00:28:55,200 Speaker 5: got to get them this ticket because I know it'll 474 00:28:55,240 --> 00:28:57,200 Speaker 5: mean a lot to them, and they're the ones that 475 00:28:57,240 --> 00:29:00,240 Speaker 5: we really need to take care of. But certainly big 476 00:29:00,280 --> 00:29:02,640 Speaker 5: event like this. The head of the sports practice that 477 00:29:02,720 --> 00:29:05,200 Speaker 5: Davis Polk, told me that the client interest in the 478 00:29:05,280 --> 00:29:10,719 Speaker 5: Knicks was just absolutely unprecedented. The demand significantly exceed supply. 479 00:29:11,120 --> 00:29:13,560 Speaker 5: Part of that was just because it's so rare to 480 00:29:13,600 --> 00:29:16,200 Speaker 5: see everyone in New York focused on the same thing. 481 00:29:16,920 --> 00:29:18,480 Speaker 5: I'm not in New York, but from what I gather, 482 00:29:18,760 --> 00:29:20,000 Speaker 5: really brought the city together. 483 00:29:20,360 --> 00:29:24,720 Speaker 3: Oh, it did, absolutely so. Obviously clients are grateful to 484 00:29:24,840 --> 00:29:28,760 Speaker 3: lawyers when they get these sought after tickets. Are there 485 00:29:28,800 --> 00:29:33,000 Speaker 3: other benefits that lawyers see in having their clients attend 486 00:29:33,040 --> 00:29:34,680 Speaker 3: these sporting events with them. 487 00:29:35,320 --> 00:29:38,240 Speaker 5: Yeah, it's really interesting. I spoke to a handful of 488 00:29:38,280 --> 00:29:41,280 Speaker 5: partners about that, what is being at a sporting event 489 00:29:41,280 --> 00:29:44,720 Speaker 5: with a client do that a client dinner or a 490 00:29:44,880 --> 00:29:47,920 Speaker 5: lunch or grabbing a drink doesn't do you know. One 491 00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:51,560 Speaker 5: of them was even mentioning this sort of psychology of 492 00:29:51,960 --> 00:29:57,120 Speaker 5: shoulder to shoulder conversations being much more sort of vulnerable 493 00:29:57,560 --> 00:30:01,680 Speaker 5: or handed than face to face interactions. You know, you're 494 00:30:01,720 --> 00:30:04,720 Speaker 5: sitting next to somebody, you're focusing on the same thing, 495 00:30:04,800 --> 00:30:07,959 Speaker 5: but you're also engaging with the person. A partner at 496 00:30:08,000 --> 00:30:10,760 Speaker 5: Simpson Thatcher Michael ko as the co head of their 497 00:30:10,800 --> 00:30:13,400 Speaker 5: sports group, who has plenty of experience being at these 498 00:30:13,440 --> 00:30:15,840 Speaker 5: sporting events. Many of his clients are even the owners 499 00:30:15,840 --> 00:30:19,600 Speaker 5: of these sporting teams, and he says that the conversations 500 00:30:19,880 --> 00:30:22,959 Speaker 5: that he has with clients that these games are often 501 00:30:23,680 --> 00:30:27,520 Speaker 5: just very deep. They're about their families, their children, people 502 00:30:27,520 --> 00:30:29,920 Speaker 5: who are at the top of their careers, talking about 503 00:30:29,920 --> 00:30:32,760 Speaker 5: whether they are satisfied in their jobs. He says, it's 504 00:30:32,840 --> 00:30:36,560 Speaker 5: conversations he just would never have otherwise. Something about you know, 505 00:30:36,600 --> 00:30:39,880 Speaker 5: being at these games in a setting where you're experiencing, 506 00:30:40,000 --> 00:30:42,840 Speaker 5: you know, the highs and the lows of this competitive 507 00:30:42,880 --> 00:30:46,760 Speaker 5: event really opens people up. People just thought it was priceless. 508 00:30:47,040 --> 00:30:50,160 Speaker 3: What are some of the other events that clients are 509 00:30:50,520 --> 00:30:52,040 Speaker 3: clamoring for tickets too. 510 00:30:52,640 --> 00:30:55,280 Speaker 5: Yeah, well, what's interesting is that New York City is 511 00:30:55,480 --> 00:30:58,520 Speaker 5: having just a huge sports summer. We had the Nick 512 00:30:58,760 --> 00:31:03,840 Speaker 5: Games obviously. This week there's the US Open at Shinnikok 513 00:31:04,040 --> 00:31:07,160 Speaker 5: Hills out in the Hampton. Golf in New York is 514 00:31:07,240 --> 00:31:10,240 Speaker 5: popular for the corporate crowd, the big lock crowd included, 515 00:31:10,520 --> 00:31:14,680 Speaker 5: because it's scheduled in advance, it's a week long event 516 00:31:14,960 --> 00:31:17,920 Speaker 5: and there's plenty of space on the golf course to 517 00:31:18,840 --> 00:31:23,120 Speaker 5: have tens, have people enjoy an entire day and kind 518 00:31:23,160 --> 00:31:26,400 Speaker 5: of go out and mingle. So golf is a popular one, 519 00:31:26,640 --> 00:31:28,400 Speaker 5: or at least it will be this week with the 520 00:31:28,480 --> 00:31:32,040 Speaker 5: US Open. There's the US Open Tennis, which courses in 521 00:31:32,080 --> 00:31:35,000 Speaker 5: New York every year. Then there's the World Cup, and 522 00:31:35,040 --> 00:31:37,920 Speaker 5: the lawyers told me that's the World Cup Final, which 523 00:31:38,000 --> 00:31:42,040 Speaker 5: will be played at what football fans know as MetLife Stadium, 524 00:31:42,080 --> 00:31:45,120 Speaker 5: where the Giants and the Jets play the next month. 525 00:31:45,360 --> 00:31:47,800 Speaker 5: The lawyers told me that's the hardest ticket to get 526 00:31:47,960 --> 00:31:51,920 Speaker 5: in part because it's really only one entity that has tickets, 527 00:31:51,920 --> 00:31:54,360 Speaker 5: which is FIFA, the governing body of the sport that 528 00:31:54,480 --> 00:31:57,920 Speaker 5: puts on the World Cup tournament, whereas other events, big 529 00:31:57,960 --> 00:32:00,760 Speaker 5: lists of people have tickets, like the firms themselves have 530 00:32:01,000 --> 00:32:02,160 Speaker 5: tickets that are getting them out. 531 00:32:02,600 --> 00:32:04,800 Speaker 3: So is it that the tickets to the World Cup 532 00:32:04,960 --> 00:32:09,840 Speaker 3: Finals are the most expensive or they're the hardest to get? 533 00:32:10,280 --> 00:32:13,440 Speaker 3: I mean harder to get than a ticket to the 534 00:32:13,560 --> 00:32:14,800 Speaker 3: NBA finals. 535 00:32:14,840 --> 00:32:17,760 Speaker 5: That MSG was what I was told is that the 536 00:32:17,800 --> 00:32:20,760 Speaker 5: FIFA ticket is harder to get. The World Cup final 537 00:32:20,840 --> 00:32:24,120 Speaker 5: game is almost an impossible ticket to get. The big 538 00:32:24,200 --> 00:32:28,080 Speaker 5: laws sports lawyers that I spoke with they basically they 539 00:32:28,400 --> 00:32:31,720 Speaker 5: typically always have a way of getting to a game 540 00:32:31,760 --> 00:32:33,840 Speaker 5: that they want to get to or that somebody they 541 00:32:34,160 --> 00:32:37,720 Speaker 5: know is trying to attend. But this just different for 542 00:32:37,840 --> 00:32:42,880 Speaker 5: the World Cup Final because it is an international event. 543 00:32:43,240 --> 00:32:46,680 Speaker 5: People traveled here to go there, so the demand is 544 00:32:46,760 --> 00:32:51,240 Speaker 5: just huge. And also the entity they controlled the tickets 545 00:32:51,360 --> 00:32:54,000 Speaker 5: is FIFA, whereas if you were trying to go to 546 00:32:54,160 --> 00:32:57,040 Speaker 5: stay the Super Bowl, for instance, the NFL gives tickets 547 00:32:57,040 --> 00:33:00,280 Speaker 5: to the teams. The teams then distribute those tickets. Some 548 00:33:00,360 --> 00:33:03,920 Speaker 5: advertisers likely get tickets so there's like a myriad group 549 00:33:03,960 --> 00:33:06,680 Speaker 5: of people or entities that are giving out tickets. It 550 00:33:06,760 --> 00:33:09,400 Speaker 5: seems like for the World Cup final, it's just a 551 00:33:09,480 --> 00:33:13,680 Speaker 5: much stronger grip that FIFA wields on the tickets and 552 00:33:13,720 --> 00:33:16,320 Speaker 5: so they're harder to get. But apart from that, it 553 00:33:16,440 --> 00:33:20,280 Speaker 5: sounded like sporting events are branching out. One firm was 554 00:33:20,400 --> 00:33:25,000 Speaker 5: planning an F one event in Miami, and so it 555 00:33:25,080 --> 00:33:28,680 Speaker 5: seems like sports they're kind of the last thing in 556 00:33:28,800 --> 00:33:31,160 Speaker 5: culture or one of the remaining things in culture that 557 00:33:31,360 --> 00:33:35,440 Speaker 5: spans across all kinds of demographic groups that we participate 558 00:33:35,480 --> 00:33:39,000 Speaker 5: in collectively that people know about, you know, so much 559 00:33:39,040 --> 00:33:42,080 Speaker 5: of entertainment. I think it's split up now nobody watches 560 00:33:42,120 --> 00:33:45,320 Speaker 5: the same TV shows the way they did decades ago. 561 00:33:45,520 --> 00:33:48,400 Speaker 5: Sports are still sort of the one common denominator for 562 00:33:48,480 --> 00:33:51,920 Speaker 5: culture that even the law firms are realizing getting their 563 00:33:51,960 --> 00:33:54,520 Speaker 5: clients out of these events can be, you know, worth 564 00:33:54,560 --> 00:33:54,960 Speaker 5: the price. 565 00:33:55,480 --> 00:34:00,120 Speaker 3: And are the law firms staging events at the events 566 00:34:00,360 --> 00:34:03,320 Speaker 3: or is it just they're giving clients the tickets. 567 00:34:04,120 --> 00:34:07,480 Speaker 5: It's certainly more than the tickets. They are planning corporate 568 00:34:07,480 --> 00:34:12,919 Speaker 5: hospitality events around these big sporting games, and they plan 569 00:34:13,040 --> 00:34:16,239 Speaker 5: dinners around them. They get people out there, they spend 570 00:34:16,280 --> 00:34:19,120 Speaker 5: the day there. They'll have tents or things that are 571 00:34:19,160 --> 00:34:22,600 Speaker 5: golf outing, for instance. The other two good examples was 572 00:34:22,760 --> 00:34:26,440 Speaker 5: the NFL's Super Bowl and the NBA's All Star Games. 573 00:34:26,840 --> 00:34:29,879 Speaker 5: Those are sort of two marquee events that everybody knows 574 00:34:29,960 --> 00:34:32,480 Speaker 5: what city they're going to be in every year. They 575 00:34:32,600 --> 00:34:35,759 Speaker 5: last for a week or close to a week, and 576 00:34:35,880 --> 00:34:39,480 Speaker 5: so you have the opportunity to bring clients to these cities, 577 00:34:39,719 --> 00:34:43,359 Speaker 5: to have dinners, have other events, and stay in touch 578 00:34:43,400 --> 00:34:46,560 Speaker 5: for longer than just the duration of a sports game. 579 00:34:47,040 --> 00:34:49,960 Speaker 3: This is all tax deductible too for the law firms, right, 580 00:34:50,040 --> 00:34:50,960 Speaker 3: is a business expense. 581 00:34:51,520 --> 00:34:54,919 Speaker 5: I suppose that probably could be true. We didn't dive 582 00:34:55,000 --> 00:34:57,480 Speaker 5: into that part of it in our reporting, but it 583 00:34:57,560 --> 00:34:58,120 Speaker 5: sounds right. 584 00:34:58,320 --> 00:35:01,640 Speaker 3: I'm assuming that we were ta about World Cup Finals 585 00:35:01,680 --> 00:35:05,400 Speaker 3: tickets being the hardest to get, but there are tickets 586 00:35:05,480 --> 00:35:09,720 Speaker 3: that some lawyers and law firms can't get at all, 587 00:35:09,840 --> 00:35:13,080 Speaker 3: no matter how much they're willing to pay. Lawyers who 588 00:35:13,120 --> 00:35:18,160 Speaker 3: are suing Madison Square Garden Entertainment are barred from attending 589 00:35:18,360 --> 00:35:21,960 Speaker 3: any event at Madison Square Garden because of a band 590 00:35:22,200 --> 00:35:26,560 Speaker 3: by owner James Dolan tell us about that that's correct. 591 00:35:26,800 --> 00:35:30,040 Speaker 5: MSG Sports, which is of course owned by the Nicked 592 00:35:30,080 --> 00:35:34,920 Speaker 5: owner James Dolan, has a policy that forbids attorneys adverse 593 00:35:35,040 --> 00:35:38,560 Speaker 5: to the companies from going to the venue. Supposedly, the 594 00:35:38,600 --> 00:35:42,760 Speaker 5: companies use facial recognition technology and their own in house 595 00:35:42,800 --> 00:35:46,960 Speaker 5: counsel to enforce the bands. I think ESPN reported last 596 00:35:47,000 --> 00:35:50,400 Speaker 5: year that this attorney exclusion list runs more than the 597 00:35:50,640 --> 00:35:54,480 Speaker 5: thousand lawyers at ninety law firms since it came into 598 00:35:54,520 --> 00:35:57,200 Speaker 5: being in twenty twenty two. I think one of the 599 00:35:57,200 --> 00:36:00,360 Speaker 5: more prominent attorneys who's found himself on that list is 600 00:36:00,480 --> 00:36:04,719 Speaker 5: John Morgan, the personal injury lawyer behind the Morgan and 601 00:36:04,760 --> 00:36:08,480 Speaker 5: Morgan firm, which people have probably seen. John Morgan, in 602 00:36:08,520 --> 00:36:11,400 Speaker 5: a statement to us during our reporting, was really not 603 00:36:11,680 --> 00:36:15,480 Speaker 5: kind to James Dolan, and so he of course wouldn't 604 00:36:15,520 --> 00:36:18,160 Speaker 5: be at the game, but he did wish Knicks fans 605 00:36:18,200 --> 00:36:20,680 Speaker 5: the best of luck. He was at least gracious towards 606 00:36:20,680 --> 00:36:21,760 Speaker 5: the fans. 607 00:36:21,480 --> 00:36:25,440 Speaker 3: And surprisingly, at least surprising to me, a New York 608 00:36:25,440 --> 00:36:30,160 Speaker 3: appeals court ruled that Dolan can ban these lawyers. I'm 609 00:36:30,200 --> 00:36:32,880 Speaker 3: going to have to read that decision to find out 610 00:36:33,280 --> 00:36:36,880 Speaker 3: how the court came to that conclusion. When the lower 611 00:36:36,920 --> 00:36:40,959 Speaker 3: Court had issued an injunction against the ban big law 612 00:36:41,080 --> 00:36:45,080 Speaker 3: and big tickets. It was such an interesting conversation. Thanks 613 00:36:45,080 --> 00:36:49,320 Speaker 3: so much, Roy. That's Bloomberg Law Senior correspondent Roy Strom, 614 00:36:49,840 --> 00:36:52,160 Speaker 3: and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. 615 00:36:52,480 --> 00:36:54,840 Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 616 00:36:54,920 --> 00:36:59,160 Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 617 00:36:59,360 --> 00:37:04,880 Speaker 3: andw dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and 618 00:37:04,960 --> 00:37:08,000 Speaker 3: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight 619 00:37:08,080 --> 00:37:11,560 Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and 620 00:37:11,600 --> 00:37:13,080 Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg