1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,400 --> 00:00:13,640
Speaker 2: These guns were being purchased and used in crime. They

3
00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:15,960
Speaker 2: were sold to be crime guns. There was a one

4
00:00:16,079 --> 00:00:19,560
Speaker 2: thousand percent increase between twenty seventeen and twenty twenty one

5
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:21,640
Speaker 2: in the number of these guns that were recovered as

6
00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:25,239
Speaker 2: part of criminal investigations. And it makes perfect sense because

7
00:00:25,280 --> 00:00:26,960
Speaker 2: the whole reason why you would want to get your

8
00:00:27,000 --> 00:00:31,040
Speaker 2: hands on one of these unseerialized, untraceable firearms is if

9
00:00:31,080 --> 00:00:33,599
Speaker 2: you are a prohibited person or you want to use

10
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:34,600
Speaker 2: that gun in a crime.

11
00:00:35,120 --> 00:00:39,560
Speaker 3: US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelager argued that the Supreme Court

12
00:00:39,600 --> 00:00:44,960
Speaker 3: should uphold the Biden administration's regulation of ghost guns, nearly

13
00:00:45,120 --> 00:00:48,720
Speaker 3: untraceable firearms that can be assembled at home in as

14
00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:53,279
Speaker 3: little as twenty minutes. During oral arguments today, the justices

15
00:00:53,440 --> 00:00:56,960
Speaker 3: grapple with the question of whether ghost guns meet the

16
00:00:56,960 --> 00:01:01,040
Speaker 3: definition of firearm under the Federal Gun Case Act that

17
00:01:01,080 --> 00:01:04,120
Speaker 3: would allow the government to regulate ghost guns in the

18
00:01:04,160 --> 00:01:09,080
Speaker 3: same way it regulates other firearms. The analogies were plentiful.

19
00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:13,840
Speaker 3: Justice Samuel Alito, who seemed skeptical of the government's argument,

20
00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:17,080
Speaker 3: like in gun kits, to cooking ingredients.

21
00:01:18,080 --> 00:01:22,600
Speaker 1: I show you I put out on a counter some eggs,

22
00:01:22,760 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: some chopped up ham, some chopped up pepper, and onions.

23
00:01:29,160 --> 00:01:30,360
Speaker 1: Is that a Western omelet?

24
00:01:31,160 --> 00:01:34,520
Speaker 2: No, because again those items have well known other uses

25
00:01:34,560 --> 00:01:37,360
Speaker 2: to become something other than an omelet. The key difference

26
00:01:37,400 --> 00:01:40,280
Speaker 2: here is that these weapon parts kits are designed and

27
00:01:40,319 --> 00:01:42,600
Speaker 2: intended to be used as instruments of combat, and they

28
00:01:42,640 --> 00:01:44,440
Speaker 2: have no other conceivable use.

29
00:01:44,880 --> 00:01:48,840
Speaker 3: But Justice amy Cony Barrett jumped in comparing gun kits

30
00:01:49,160 --> 00:01:50,040
Speaker 3: to meal kits.

31
00:01:50,360 --> 00:01:52,480
Speaker 2: I know, preloger, I just want to follow up on

32
00:01:52,760 --> 00:01:56,120
Speaker 2: Justice Alito's question about the omelet. Would your answer change

33
00:01:56,280 --> 00:01:58,800
Speaker 2: if you ordered it from Hello Fresh and you've got

34
00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:01,520
Speaker 2: a kit and it was it's like turkey chili.

35
00:02:01,360 --> 00:02:03,400
Speaker 1: But all of the ingredient answer in the kit?

36
00:02:03,680 --> 00:02:03,920
Speaker 2: Yes.

37
00:02:04,240 --> 00:02:07,680
Speaker 3: Joining me is Kevin Tobia, a professor at Georgetown Law.

38
00:02:08,000 --> 00:02:10,880
Speaker 3: Many people might expect that this is a Second Amendment

39
00:02:10,919 --> 00:02:14,360
Speaker 3: case since it concerns guns, But tell us what the

40
00:02:14,480 --> 00:02:15,840
Speaker 3: question before the court.

41
00:02:15,800 --> 00:02:19,400
Speaker 4: Was here, right, So it's not a secondmendent case. It's

42
00:02:19,440 --> 00:02:23,000
Speaker 4: a statutory case. So it concerns the Gun Control Act

43
00:02:23,000 --> 00:02:26,640
Speaker 4: of nineteen sixty eight, And there's two questions in the case.

44
00:02:26,680 --> 00:02:29,600
Speaker 4: And so both of them involve the meaning of different

45
00:02:29,720 --> 00:02:32,680
Speaker 4: language in this statute. So the first one is about

46
00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:36,720
Speaker 4: a provision of the statute that defines firearm to include

47
00:02:37,040 --> 00:02:39,840
Speaker 4: any weapon which will or is designed to or may

48
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:42,959
Speaker 4: readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action

49
00:02:43,040 --> 00:02:45,560
Speaker 4: and explosive And so the first question is whether that

50
00:02:45,639 --> 00:02:50,120
Speaker 4: definition encompasses gun parts kits. The second question is about

51
00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:53,040
Speaker 4: another part of the STETSUL definition, which includes firearm to

52
00:02:53,120 --> 00:02:57,200
Speaker 4: also include a frame or receiver of any such weapon.

53
00:02:57,320 --> 00:02:59,760
Speaker 4: So those are the two interpretive questions. And as you say,

54
00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:01,680
Speaker 4: it's second a medic case. So it's in many ways

55
00:03:01,720 --> 00:03:04,840
Speaker 4: it's like last terms case Garland versus Cargol, that bump

56
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:08,120
Speaker 4: stock case. That was another statutory case that involved questions

57
00:03:08,160 --> 00:03:09,359
Speaker 4: related to firearms law.

58
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:13,480
Speaker 3: So a lot of the oral argument seemed like sort

59
00:03:13,520 --> 00:03:17,040
Speaker 3: of mind numbing, with the justices discussing, you know, the

60
00:03:17,120 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 3: partially assembled guns and the pieces tell us what was

61
00:03:20,840 --> 00:03:23,760
Speaker 3: going on there? Is they you know, tried to explore

62
00:03:23,960 --> 00:03:25,079
Speaker 3: the parts of the gun.

63
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:27,560
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a great question, and in some ways it

64
00:03:27,880 --> 00:03:30,440
Speaker 4: may also be reminiscent of again that kind of Cargole

65
00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:33,160
Speaker 4: case about the bump stocks. The opinion in Cargol had

66
00:03:33,200 --> 00:03:35,480
Speaker 4: a lot of technicalities about different parts of the gun.

67
00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:37,600
Speaker 4: So the question that in some ways is actually kind

68
00:03:37,600 --> 00:03:38,960
Speaker 4: of simple, right before you get to like all the

69
00:03:39,040 --> 00:03:40,920
Speaker 4: kind of complexity that they were working through, which is

70
00:03:41,080 --> 00:03:43,760
Speaker 4: what counts as a firearm for this law, right, And

71
00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:46,400
Speaker 4: so these gun parts kits are kits that are sold,

72
00:03:46,640 --> 00:03:49,920
Speaker 4: they're marketed and sold as kits that you couldn't buy

73
00:03:50,320 --> 00:03:54,240
Speaker 4: and assemble and construct into a functional firearm. And so

74
00:03:54,360 --> 00:03:56,840
Speaker 4: you know, a lot of the conversation was drawing analogies

75
00:03:56,880 --> 00:03:59,400
Speaker 4: to different sorts of goods, playing you know, kind of

76
00:03:59,440 --> 00:04:02,120
Speaker 4: with language and trying to understand you know, what counts

77
00:04:02,120 --> 00:04:04,160
Speaker 4: as an omelet or what counts as a table. Right,

78
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:06,560
Speaker 4: So you know, even before getting to the technicolity's guns, right,

79
00:04:06,600 --> 00:04:09,160
Speaker 4: some of these examples, like Justice Alito offered this example

80
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:11,600
Speaker 4: kind of hostile to the government's position that if we

81
00:04:11,720 --> 00:04:14,560
Speaker 4: just have you know, peppers and mushrooms and eggs, that's

82
00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:16,920
Speaker 4: not an omelet yet. So in the same way, right,

83
00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:19,440
Speaker 4: like a collection of gun parts is not is not

84
00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:22,440
Speaker 4: a firearm yet. And just as Barrett, actually you're sort

85
00:04:22,480 --> 00:04:24,200
Speaker 4: of responded and said, well, what if those come in

86
00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:26,960
Speaker 4: a in a Hello, fresh kit. We actually might understand

87
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:29,560
Speaker 4: that as an omelet even though it's not completely assembled yet.

88
00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:31,680
Speaker 4: And you know, the example of Nikia table came up

89
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:33,240
Speaker 4: as well. So, as you say, right, some of the

90
00:04:33,279 --> 00:04:35,760
Speaker 4: argument got into the technicalities of like what exactly is

91
00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:37,960
Speaker 4: included in these parts kits? What's a frame and receiver.

92
00:04:38,240 --> 00:04:40,160
Speaker 4: It was also interesting that more broadly, a lot of

93
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:43,400
Speaker 4: the justices were drawing these analogies to other sorts of

94
00:04:43,400 --> 00:04:46,640
Speaker 4: items that were pretty comfortable to call tables even though

95
00:04:46,640 --> 00:04:48,960
Speaker 4: they're unassembled, or omelets even though they're unassembled.

96
00:04:49,600 --> 00:04:54,200
Speaker 3: And it was interesting when the attorney representing the manufacturers

97
00:04:54,200 --> 00:04:59,200
Speaker 3: and gun rights advocates, Peter Patterson, tried to compare these

98
00:04:59,320 --> 00:05:03,040
Speaker 3: ghost gun kits to a hobby quote, just like some

99
00:05:03,120 --> 00:05:07,440
Speaker 3: individuals enjoy working on their car every weekend, some individuals

100
00:05:07,480 --> 00:05:12,200
Speaker 3: want to construct their own firearms. Chief Justice John Roberts said,

101
00:05:12,520 --> 00:05:15,480
Speaker 3: drilling a hole or two, I would think doesn't give

102
00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:18,160
Speaker 3: you the same reward that you get from working on

103
00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:21,920
Speaker 3: your car on the weekends, And then more pointedly said,

104
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:25,520
Speaker 3: what is the purpose of selling a receiver without the

105
00:05:25,560 --> 00:05:26,520
Speaker 3: holes drilled in?

106
00:05:26,920 --> 00:05:29,599
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I thought that that line of questioning from

107
00:05:29,680 --> 00:05:32,720
Speaker 4: Justice Roberts was really interesting, I think, especially if you're

108
00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:34,480
Speaker 4: trying to read the tea leaves and sort of think

109
00:05:34,520 --> 00:05:36,440
Speaker 4: about where some of these justices will vote. And I

110
00:05:36,440 --> 00:05:38,799
Speaker 4: think Roberts is a kind of important one in this case.

111
00:05:38,920 --> 00:05:40,920
Speaker 4: He asked, if you say, straight up right, like, what's

112
00:05:40,960 --> 00:05:43,680
Speaker 4: the purpose of selling a receiver without the holes drilled

113
00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:45,599
Speaker 4: in it? Interesting question also because it refers to that

114
00:05:45,640 --> 00:05:48,360
Speaker 4: thing as a receiver, right, which arguably it is. And

115
00:05:48,600 --> 00:05:51,360
Speaker 4: you know, one answer from Patterson, representing Vendorstock is you

116
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:53,400
Speaker 4: know people buy this as a hobbyist, right, in the

117
00:05:53,400 --> 00:05:57,000
Speaker 4: same way you might buy like a collection of unassembled

118
00:05:57,440 --> 00:05:59,320
Speaker 4: parts to make a ship or like a little toy

119
00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:01,559
Speaker 4: ship or model or something, or working on a car

120
00:06:01,920 --> 00:06:04,120
Speaker 4: and you enjoy it. And Justice Roberts really did not

121
00:06:04,160 --> 00:06:05,960
Speaker 4: seem to be buying that answer, right. He said, you know,

122
00:06:06,120 --> 00:06:08,440
Speaker 4: drilling a hole or two like doesn't really give you

123
00:06:08,480 --> 00:06:10,120
Speaker 4: the kind of reward you get from working on your

124
00:06:10,120 --> 00:06:13,400
Speaker 4: car over the weekend. And I think he's exactly right there, right, So,

125
00:06:13,440 --> 00:06:15,160
Speaker 4: like when you look at how these guns are marketed

126
00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:17,920
Speaker 4: as well, these parts kits are not marketed for hobbyists,

127
00:06:17,960 --> 00:06:20,279
Speaker 4: like they're not described by language like this is a

128
00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:23,320
Speaker 4: really leisurely, enjoyable, difficult build.

129
00:06:23,400 --> 00:06:23,520
Speaker 2: Right.

130
00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:26,400
Speaker 4: They're marketed in terms like this is extremely fast and easy,

131
00:06:26,440 --> 00:06:29,479
Speaker 4: this is ridiculously easy, like this is dummy proof, like

132
00:06:29,520 --> 00:06:32,080
Speaker 4: you can do this really fast with no expertise. And

133
00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:35,400
Speaker 4: so I think that analogy that Patterson was trying to

134
00:06:35,480 --> 00:06:38,080
Speaker 4: draw between buyers of these kits and buyers like hobbyists

135
00:06:38,120 --> 00:06:39,880
Speaker 4: just really fell apart. And I think there's a great

136
00:06:39,960 --> 00:06:42,680
Speaker 4: question from Justice Roberts and also give some insight into

137
00:06:42,680 --> 00:06:44,039
Speaker 4: where he might stand on this case.

138
00:06:44,320 --> 00:06:49,240
Speaker 3: Even the justices that you might consider as sort of

139
00:06:49,320 --> 00:06:53,200
Speaker 3: antagonistic to the government's argument, some of the more conservative justices,

140
00:06:53,320 --> 00:06:57,080
Speaker 3: does anyone believe that this is not a kit to

141
00:06:57,160 --> 00:06:59,920
Speaker 3: assemble a gun? I mean, it just seems so op

142
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:02,240
Speaker 3: VI is what's going on here? Are they just trying

143
00:07:02,279 --> 00:07:04,160
Speaker 3: to look for a loophole to get out of it?

144
00:07:04,480 --> 00:07:07,080
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I think everyone agrees that these are kids

145
00:07:07,160 --> 00:07:09,200
Speaker 4: to be assembled into a gun. You know what kind

146
00:07:09,200 --> 00:07:11,800
Speaker 4: of Vanderstock's argument is that just because of the kid

147
00:07:11,840 --> 00:07:13,560
Speaker 4: that you could assemble into a gun does not in

148
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:16,320
Speaker 4: fact make it a firearm within the meaning of the statute.

149
00:07:16,360 --> 00:07:18,640
Speaker 4: And so the sort of question, you know is, and

150
00:07:18,640 --> 00:07:21,640
Speaker 4: the government sees the statutory meeting a firearm to include

151
00:07:21,680 --> 00:07:23,440
Speaker 4: these kits, and so you know, one of the kind

152
00:07:23,440 --> 00:07:24,920
Speaker 4: of like interesting thing that kind of came out today

153
00:07:24,920 --> 00:07:27,080
Speaker 4: to your question is like there was some discussion. There

154
00:07:27,160 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 4: was a lot of discussion actually about kind of like

155
00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:30,800
Speaker 4: where to draw the line. And I think even Patterson

156
00:07:31,120 --> 00:07:34,920
Speaker 4: conceded that a firearm that's disassembled as a firearm, and

157
00:07:34,960 --> 00:07:37,000
Speaker 4: so the sort of question about like how close does

158
00:07:37,000 --> 00:07:38,600
Speaker 4: it have to be. And so you know, the government's

159
00:07:38,680 --> 00:07:41,720
Speaker 4: argument the ats and with a general plugger, their argument is,

160
00:07:41,920 --> 00:07:44,560
Speaker 4: you know, once it's readily convertible, which these kids they

161
00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:47,520
Speaker 4: think are, or more precisely the sort of APS standard,

162
00:07:47,760 --> 00:07:49,920
Speaker 4: you know, that's good enough. And so the term firearms

163
00:07:49,920 --> 00:07:53,280
Speaker 4: shooting compass these kids which could be readily converted to

164
00:07:53,360 --> 00:07:55,160
Speaker 4: function as firearms very quickly.

165
00:07:56,040 --> 00:08:02,040
Speaker 3: Justice Gorsuch asked questions of a textualist nature. Where do

166
00:08:02,080 --> 00:08:05,960
Speaker 3: you think the textualist analysis gets you here?

167
00:08:06,840 --> 00:08:09,400
Speaker 4: So there's two questions in the case, right, So the

168
00:08:09,400 --> 00:08:11,880
Speaker 4: first one is about whether a parts kit falls under

169
00:08:11,920 --> 00:08:12,760
Speaker 4: the Part.

170
00:08:12,600 --> 00:08:13,880
Speaker 1: A of this statute.

171
00:08:13,920 --> 00:08:16,000
Speaker 4: So any weapon which will is designed to or may

172
00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:19,400
Speaker 4: readily be perverted to expel a projectile by the action explosive.

173
00:08:19,600 --> 00:08:21,680
Speaker 4: As a matter of textualism, I think that question in

174
00:08:21,720 --> 00:08:24,680
Speaker 4: this case is extremely straightforward, that these parts kits fall

175
00:08:24,760 --> 00:08:27,560
Speaker 4: under that language just as part of the ordinary meaning

176
00:08:27,560 --> 00:08:30,480
Speaker 4: of firearm. And then you underscored by the statutory language.

177
00:08:30,520 --> 00:08:34,400
Speaker 4: The statue explicitly contemplates things that could be readily converted

178
00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:37,079
Speaker 4: to expel a projectile, which just seems to be explicitly

179
00:08:37,080 --> 00:08:39,880
Speaker 4: describing things like these parts kits. And in question, the

180
00:08:40,440 --> 00:08:42,440
Speaker 4: sort of second question in the case is about the

181
00:08:42,480 --> 00:08:45,160
Speaker 4: meaning of the frame or receiver of any such weapons

182
00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:47,640
Speaker 4: the statue, and many of Justice Gorsug's questions had to

183
00:08:47,640 --> 00:08:51,040
Speaker 4: do with that second question. So there the question is,

184
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:53,960
Speaker 4: if these companies sell an eighty percent receiver, which, as

185
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:56,040
Speaker 4: the government says, you have to drill a few holes

186
00:08:56,080 --> 00:08:59,000
Speaker 4: in to convert this to a one hundred percent functional receiver,

187
00:08:59,480 --> 00:09:02,200
Speaker 4: does that count as a frame or receiver within the

188
00:09:02,200 --> 00:09:04,920
Speaker 4: meaning of the statute? And so, you know, one kind

189
00:09:04,920 --> 00:09:07,080
Speaker 4: of notable fact about the statute is it does not

190
00:09:07,320 --> 00:09:09,920
Speaker 4: have the same sort of readily convertible language when it

191
00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:13,360
Speaker 4: describes frame or receiver. And so Justice Gorsuch was asking

192
00:09:13,400 --> 00:09:16,280
Speaker 4: a number of interesting questions about that, and you know,

193
00:09:16,280 --> 00:09:17,920
Speaker 4: it's kind of going in I think, especially kind of

194
00:09:17,920 --> 00:09:20,079
Speaker 4: post Garland versus Cargill. I would not have kind of

195
00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:23,040
Speaker 4: as a matter of politics, expected Justice Gorsage to be

196
00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:25,920
Speaker 4: favorable to the government in this case, but his questions

197
00:09:26,240 --> 00:09:28,960
Speaker 4: sort of suggested some openness to following the text in

198
00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:30,880
Speaker 4: this case to a place that might not lead to

199
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:34,040
Speaker 4: the sort of conservative politics. So he was asking, you know,

200
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:36,520
Speaker 4: when you look at this statue and look at the context,

201
00:09:36,800 --> 00:09:40,520
Speaker 4: every other part of the statute is contemplating convertible parts

202
00:09:40,559 --> 00:09:43,880
Speaker 4: in addition to fully functional parts, and so in that context,

203
00:09:43,920 --> 00:09:46,400
Speaker 4: might we understand frame and receiver kind of just giving

204
00:09:46,440 --> 00:09:48,920
Speaker 4: them the ordinary meaning in that context to also include

205
00:09:48,920 --> 00:09:52,080
Speaker 4: things that are extremely close to functional and frame and receivers.

206
00:09:52,280 --> 00:09:54,280
Speaker 4: I thought it was a really interesting kind of exchange

207
00:09:54,320 --> 00:09:56,280
Speaker 4: between Gorsuch and this was the general from that point.

208
00:09:56,720 --> 00:10:00,040
Speaker 3: So you think that Gorsich might come out on the

209
00:10:00,120 --> 00:10:01,040
Speaker 3: government side here.

210
00:10:01,160 --> 00:10:02,920
Speaker 4: You know, these predictions are always kind of tricky.

211
00:10:03,160 --> 00:10:04,640
Speaker 3: I know I'll make some though, too, So.

212
00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:07,360
Speaker 4: I would say, going into the case, you know, I

213
00:10:07,360 --> 00:10:09,560
Speaker 4: think kind of politics tells you a lot about how

214
00:10:09,600 --> 00:10:11,240
Speaker 4: these cases are going to come out. But after the

215
00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:16,040
Speaker 4: oral argument, I think Justices Robert Barrett Kavanaugh, and Gorsich

216
00:10:16,080 --> 00:10:18,960
Speaker 4: all asked questions that I think were indicating that they

217
00:10:18,960 --> 00:10:21,559
Speaker 4: were taking the text really seriously, and we're I think

218
00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:25,160
Speaker 4: seriously contemplating the persuasive arguments from the government about the

219
00:10:25,160 --> 00:10:27,400
Speaker 4: straightforward textual meaning of the statue. So yes, I think

220
00:10:27,440 --> 00:10:29,800
Speaker 4: all four of them are sort of conceivably votes for

221
00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:31,559
Speaker 4: the government here, as are the.

222
00:10:31,520 --> 00:10:35,880
Speaker 3: Three liberal justices. Of course, before the oral argument, the

223
00:10:35,920 --> 00:10:39,560
Speaker 3: Court intervened twice to allow the regulation to remain in

224
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:42,760
Speaker 3: place until it issues a decision here, and one time

225
00:10:42,800 --> 00:10:47,400
Speaker 3: it was over the descents of Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito,

226
00:10:47,600 --> 00:10:50,679
Speaker 3: Neil Gorsich, and Brett Kavanaugh. So a lot of people

227
00:10:50,679 --> 00:10:54,640
Speaker 3: were looking at this and sort of predicting that the

228
00:10:54,720 --> 00:10:58,520
Speaker 3: Chief Justice and Justice Barrett might be the ones to

229
00:10:58,600 --> 00:11:01,240
Speaker 3: side with the liberals here, and that certainly seemed to

230
00:11:01,240 --> 00:11:03,000
Speaker 3: be the case from the oral arguments.

231
00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:05,480
Speaker 4: I think that's right. So I think Justice Barrett as

232
00:11:05,520 --> 00:11:08,800
Speaker 4: always asked them really kind of insightful questions. So when

233
00:11:08,880 --> 00:11:11,240
Speaker 4: Justice Alito was giving these examples about you know, well,

234
00:11:11,280 --> 00:11:13,400
Speaker 4: like if you have like eggs and ham and pepper,

235
00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:15,560
Speaker 4: like is that an omelet, right, Barrett says, well, you know,

236
00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:17,840
Speaker 4: she essentially says, is that the right analogy, right, like

237
00:11:17,840 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 4: to a gun parts kit, like if these things are

238
00:11:19,800 --> 00:11:21,600
Speaker 4: all sold together in a Hello Fresh kit, like that

239
00:11:21,600 --> 00:11:23,679
Speaker 4: actually is more like an omelet. And so it's sort

240
00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:26,640
Speaker 4: of an interesting response that seems, you know, again kind

241
00:11:26,640 --> 00:11:28,880
Speaker 4: of as a textual matter, favorable to the government's reading.

242
00:11:29,040 --> 00:11:31,400
Speaker 4: In response to the first question presented Roberts, who I

243
00:11:31,480 --> 00:11:33,960
Speaker 4: mentioned before, right, you know, ask this kind of pointed

244
00:11:34,040 --> 00:11:36,200
Speaker 4: question about what's the purpose of even selling these eighty

245
00:11:36,240 --> 00:11:38,560
Speaker 4: percent receivers, And he did not seem to be buying

246
00:11:38,600 --> 00:11:40,720
Speaker 4: the idea that they were sold for hobbyists, but rather

247
00:11:41,280 --> 00:11:44,240
Speaker 4: the arguments that these are sold, you know, basically for

248
00:11:44,360 --> 00:11:47,199
Speaker 4: teenagers or other people who cannot purchase a normal firearm

249
00:11:47,600 --> 00:11:50,080
Speaker 4: to you know, also potentially commit crimes. So I think

250
00:11:50,080 --> 00:11:53,640
Speaker 4: both Roberts and Barrett their questioning suggests sort of favorability

251
00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:56,240
Speaker 4: with the government's reading. And then surprisingly, I think, you know,

252
00:11:56,280 --> 00:11:58,920
Speaker 4: in light of the stay decision, Justice Kavanaugh right said

253
00:11:58,960 --> 00:12:02,040
Speaker 4: today to the government, your statutory interpretation has forced So

254
00:12:02,120 --> 00:12:05,800
Speaker 4: Justice Kavanaugh seemed also pretty persuaded by a lot of

255
00:12:05,800 --> 00:12:07,520
Speaker 4: what the government had to say. And as I was

256
00:12:07,520 --> 00:12:10,319
Speaker 4: discussing previously, Justice Gorsich was asking a number of questions

257
00:12:10,360 --> 00:12:12,679
Speaker 4: that suggested that his reading of the text seemed to

258
00:12:12,720 --> 00:12:15,080
Speaker 4: overlap quite a bit with the government. So I was

259
00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:17,240
Speaker 4: surprised by those latter two given the vote.

260
00:12:17,040 --> 00:12:17,480
Speaker 1: On this day.

261
00:12:17,679 --> 00:12:19,560
Speaker 4: But it was interesting to see all four of those

262
00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:22,320
Speaker 4: justices asking questions at least kind of suggested that they're

263
00:12:22,320 --> 00:12:23,600
Speaker 4: reading the text in that way as well.

264
00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:26,720
Speaker 3: Coming up, but what about the Supreme Court's recent decision

265
00:12:26,920 --> 00:12:29,760
Speaker 3: tossing out a ban on bump stock. This is bloomberg.

266
00:12:32,040 --> 00:12:35,719
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a Biden administration

267
00:12:36,000 --> 00:12:40,520
Speaker 3: regulation on ghost guns, the difficult to trace weapons found

268
00:12:40,559 --> 00:12:44,160
Speaker 3: in increasing numbers at crime scenes. I've been talking to

269
00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:48,800
Speaker 3: Professor Kevin Tobia of Georgetown Law. So the Solicitor General

270
00:12:48,920 --> 00:12:54,160
Speaker 3: mentioned several times the explosion in crimes committed using ghost

271
00:12:54,280 --> 00:12:58,360
Speaker 3: guns and that the new regulations are crucial for solving

272
00:12:58,400 --> 00:13:01,400
Speaker 3: gun crimes. And also you had a group of twenty

273
00:13:01,480 --> 00:13:05,120
Speaker 3: major cities filing with the Supreme Court saying that the

274
00:13:05,160 --> 00:13:08,880
Speaker 3: regulation appears to have been effective at reducing the use

275
00:13:08,920 --> 00:13:12,240
Speaker 3: of ghost guns. Where does that fit into the Supreme

276
00:13:12,280 --> 00:13:16,800
Speaker 3: Court's analysis, especially if it's a textualist analysis.

277
00:13:17,200 --> 00:13:19,320
Speaker 4: So that's interesting so right. So, you know, if you

278
00:13:19,360 --> 00:13:23,120
Speaker 4: think about textualism sort of as stated, with the idea

279
00:13:23,160 --> 00:13:25,480
Speaker 4: that the court will resolve this question just by looking

280
00:13:25,520 --> 00:13:28,640
Speaker 4: at the statutory text and giving that language the meaning

281
00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:31,000
Speaker 4: it would have in the eyes of an ordinary reader,

282
00:13:31,640 --> 00:13:35,079
Speaker 4: you might think those conserations about the practical consequences are irrelevant.

283
00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:37,920
Speaker 4: Like that's exactly the sort of political, you know, consequential

284
00:13:37,960 --> 00:13:40,720
Speaker 4: decisions that they're trying to screen off with textualism. So

285
00:13:40,920 --> 00:13:43,520
Speaker 4: what's interesting is if that's right after today, it looks

286
00:13:43,559 --> 00:13:45,760
Speaker 4: like actually a majority of the justices are inclined to

287
00:13:45,760 --> 00:13:48,040
Speaker 4: read the text in line with the government. That would

288
00:13:48,040 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 4: be the three Democratic appointees and then potentially Roberts, Kavanaugh,

289
00:13:51,800 --> 00:13:57,200
Speaker 4: Barrett Gorsich. I think Roberts in particular was responsive to

290
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:00,840
Speaker 4: some of the government's arguments about the practical consequences kind

291
00:14:00,840 --> 00:14:02,920
Speaker 4: of over and above the text, right to this idea

292
00:14:02,960 --> 00:14:05,240
Speaker 4: that and there's a kind of relationship between the consequences

293
00:14:05,280 --> 00:14:05,600
Speaker 4: and the text.

294
00:14:05,679 --> 00:14:05,800
Speaker 2: Right.

295
00:14:05,840 --> 00:14:08,679
Speaker 4: So, currently, federal law prohibits selling firearms to twenty one

296
00:14:08,720 --> 00:14:11,840
Speaker 4: year olds. It requires backgrounds, text serialization, all these requirements,

297
00:14:12,280 --> 00:14:16,280
Speaker 4: and if the court decides that these kits are not firearms, right,

298
00:14:16,280 --> 00:14:18,680
Speaker 4: those requirements will not apply at the federal level. And

299
00:14:18,760 --> 00:14:21,080
Speaker 4: so there's a real concern right that, again, if people

300
00:14:21,120 --> 00:14:23,080
Speaker 4: who are buying these kits are not hobbyists but rather

301
00:14:23,120 --> 00:14:26,080
Speaker 4: people who just want a firearm, there's a real circumvention

302
00:14:26,200 --> 00:14:28,880
Speaker 4: concern that, you know, basically all of the law that

303
00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:33,440
Speaker 4: would apply to firearm regulation, you know, effectively is meaningless

304
00:14:33,880 --> 00:14:35,960
Speaker 4: because someone could just get a ghost gun and build

305
00:14:35,960 --> 00:14:38,360
Speaker 4: their own kit in twenty minutes or however long it takes.

306
00:14:38,560 --> 00:14:40,320
Speaker 4: And so, you know, some of Robert's questions, I think

307
00:14:40,520 --> 00:14:43,120
Speaker 4: we're very much kind of responsive to that set of

308
00:14:43,480 --> 00:14:46,840
Speaker 4: concerns and the principle that if you read the statute

309
00:14:46,880 --> 00:14:48,400
Speaker 4: and in sort of that way the way van Astock

310
00:14:48,440 --> 00:14:51,560
Speaker 4: wants it to, you'll render you a big chunk of

311
00:14:51,760 --> 00:14:54,680
Speaker 4: federal law meaningless. And so I think that that was

312
00:14:54,720 --> 00:14:56,440
Speaker 4: also a point that was un besides but both of

313
00:14:56,480 --> 00:14:59,200
Speaker 4: us those are general but then also by Justice Roberts

314
00:14:59,240 --> 00:15:01,680
Speaker 4: in some of his his questions, was.

315
00:15:01,640 --> 00:15:06,280
Speaker 3: There any argument about agency power and whether Congress gave

316
00:15:06,320 --> 00:15:10,560
Speaker 3: the ATF the power to change the definition of firearms

317
00:15:10,600 --> 00:15:11,760
Speaker 3: to cover these kits?

318
00:15:12,120 --> 00:15:14,680
Speaker 4: There was like sort of scattered discussion of that question

319
00:15:14,760 --> 00:15:18,120
Speaker 4: throughout the oral argument. You know, just just as Jackson

320
00:15:18,160 --> 00:15:21,960
Speaker 4: and I think in particular with asking an intriguing series

321
00:15:21,960 --> 00:15:24,360
Speaker 4: of questions that are you sort of think of as

322
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:26,640
Speaker 4: like in a Postloper Bright world. She was asking questions

323
00:15:26,680 --> 00:15:29,440
Speaker 4: about like what's the court's role, what's Congress role, what's

324
00:15:29,480 --> 00:15:32,359
Speaker 4: agency's role. I'm not really sure how much those considerations

325
00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:35,000
Speaker 4: are going to sort of ultimately make a difference here.

326
00:15:35,000 --> 00:15:36,680
Speaker 4: I have a feeling that, you know, the court is

327
00:15:36,720 --> 00:15:38,400
Speaker 4: just going to kind of proceed and treat this as

328
00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:41,120
Speaker 4: a sort of stastal interpretation case. There's no invocation of

329
00:15:41,520 --> 00:15:44,000
Speaker 4: major questions, doctrine and those sorts of concerns at least

330
00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:46,600
Speaker 4: explicitly with all those questions, right, I'm sort of waiting,

331
00:15:46,640 --> 00:15:49,480
Speaker 4: as with everyone else, kind of what interpretation and what

332
00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:51,200
Speaker 4: will look like in a post Looper world. I mean,

333
00:15:51,200 --> 00:15:53,840
Speaker 4: there's some emphasis from the vander Stock side as well.

334
00:15:53,880 --> 00:15:56,800
Speaker 4: There's some dispute about like did the ATF change their

335
00:15:56,840 --> 00:15:59,960
Speaker 4: interpretation over time? So solicars and our player Leger describe

336
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:03,600
Speaker 4: the ATFS approach as very much consistent. Right, So there's

337
00:16:03,600 --> 00:16:07,920
Speaker 4: actually nothing dramatically new about the ATF. They've always been

338
00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:12,400
Speaker 4: attempting to categorize as firearms weapons that are extremely close

339
00:16:12,440 --> 00:16:14,360
Speaker 4: and what's changed is just the state of the world. Right,

340
00:16:14,360 --> 00:16:16,960
Speaker 4: there's now these parts kits that are readily convertible to

341
00:16:17,040 --> 00:16:20,520
Speaker 4: functional firearms that didn't exist, you know, at that scale

342
00:16:20,520 --> 00:16:22,600
Speaker 4: in nineteen sixty eight. So there's a little bit of

343
00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:24,200
Speaker 4: back and forth about that question. Some of the most

344
00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:26,720
Speaker 4: interesting discussions was Justice Jacksonville, though I'm not sure we

345
00:16:26,800 --> 00:16:28,520
Speaker 4: got a kind of complete answer and certainly not that a

346
00:16:28,520 --> 00:16:31,640
Speaker 4: complete answer from the CORD about yet, what interpretation is

347
00:16:31,640 --> 00:16:34,240
Speaker 4: going to look like in the in the post Sloper world.

348
00:16:34,640 --> 00:16:37,360
Speaker 3: So tell me, I know you wrote a brief in

349
00:16:37,360 --> 00:16:38,880
Speaker 3: the case in Amicus priest.

350
00:16:38,920 --> 00:16:40,560
Speaker 4: In this case and some others. I've been working with

351
00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:43,520
Speaker 4: linguists to you know, one way Ton't kind of think

352
00:16:43,520 --> 00:16:46,200
Speaker 4: about what we're doing is, you know, mirroring what historians

353
00:16:46,200 --> 00:16:51,320
Speaker 4: are doing for originalism with linguistics intextualism. Right, So the

354
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:53,560
Speaker 4: CORD is going to approach this case. I think today's

355
00:16:53,600 --> 00:16:55,520
Speaker 4: oral argument clarifies they're going to purchase the case as

356
00:16:55,520 --> 00:16:58,920
Speaker 4: textualists trying to give the language its ordinary meaning. And

357
00:16:59,480 --> 00:17:02,600
Speaker 4: there's you know, decades of work in linguistics that would

358
00:17:02,640 --> 00:17:05,000
Speaker 4: be relevant to that sort of linguistic question. Right, like,

359
00:17:05,240 --> 00:17:07,440
Speaker 4: what does the mean? What's the ordinary meaning of firearm?

360
00:17:07,520 --> 00:17:09,359
Speaker 4: You know, how do we use that and understand that

361
00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:12,200
Speaker 4: in ordinary context? And so in this case, I worked

362
00:17:12,240 --> 00:17:14,560
Speaker 4: with a group of linguists to do a couple of things.

363
00:17:14,760 --> 00:17:17,679
Speaker 4: I'll just kind of mention two. One is, you know,

364
00:17:17,680 --> 00:17:19,920
Speaker 4: we just looked at just in kind of in context,

365
00:17:19,920 --> 00:17:22,199
Speaker 4: like how do people use the term firearm and especially

366
00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:25,840
Speaker 4: how do the buyers and sellers of these terms describe them?

367
00:17:26,280 --> 00:17:27,720
Speaker 4: And one thing that's you know, might be sort of

368
00:17:27,720 --> 00:17:30,000
Speaker 4: surprising is that at least some of the marketers and

369
00:17:30,040 --> 00:17:33,840
Speaker 4: sellers of these gun parts kids just explicitly describes on

370
00:17:33,880 --> 00:17:36,199
Speaker 4: this firearms. They don't say like these these are just

371
00:17:36,240 --> 00:17:38,040
Speaker 4: these are mere parts that could be a firearm. They

372
00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:39,679
Speaker 4: say this, you know, this is a firearm. This is

373
00:17:39,680 --> 00:17:41,879
Speaker 4: a gun, This is a rifle. And so, you know,

374
00:17:41,960 --> 00:17:43,399
Speaker 4: part of the point that we make in the brief

375
00:17:43,480 --> 00:17:47,080
Speaker 4: is it just seems like even the sellers and also

376
00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:50,720
Speaker 4: buyers of these kids in their customer reviews, understand these

377
00:17:50,800 --> 00:17:53,680
Speaker 4: to be firearms, even though they're like technically not assembled

378
00:17:53,960 --> 00:17:56,240
Speaker 4: or technically not finish. You got an eighty percent receiver

379
00:17:56,359 --> 00:17:58,439
Speaker 4: that's you know, requires a little bit of drilling. The

380
00:17:58,440 --> 00:18:00,719
Speaker 4: second thing we did is we ran a survey of

381
00:18:00,800 --> 00:18:03,960
Speaker 4: ordinary Americans. So we presented participants in a survey study

382
00:18:04,000 --> 00:18:06,360
Speaker 4: with a description of gun parts kits and ask them

383
00:18:06,359 --> 00:18:08,399
Speaker 4: whether they thought it's a firearm, and we found them

384
00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:11,040
Speaker 4: that the majority of participants said yes. And so you know,

385
00:18:11,119 --> 00:18:13,119
Speaker 4: this and some other kind of work in linguistics, I

386
00:18:13,119 --> 00:18:14,760
Speaker 4: think just kind of like fills in I think the

387
00:18:14,760 --> 00:18:17,119
Speaker 4: background for the quarter. That's what we're hoping to do

388
00:18:17,200 --> 00:18:19,600
Speaker 4: anyway with our brief that you know, to interpret the

389
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:22,000
Speaker 4: statue here, the term firearm to include these parts kit

390
00:18:22,480 --> 00:18:25,520
Speaker 4: is completely consistent with how we ordinarily understand terms like that,

391
00:18:25,840 --> 00:18:28,600
Speaker 4: and it's also nothing special about firearms. So in lots

392
00:18:28,600 --> 00:18:32,480
Speaker 4: of different contexts we understand categories like these artifact nouns

393
00:18:32,520 --> 00:18:36,280
Speaker 4: like firearm, table, bicycle to include members that are like

394
00:18:36,400 --> 00:18:39,359
Speaker 4: not perfectly complete. And so you know, if you buy

395
00:18:39,920 --> 00:18:42,160
Speaker 4: a table from Ikia, as an example, the government has

396
00:18:42,520 --> 00:18:44,359
Speaker 4: kind of invoked, I think effectively, if you buy a

397
00:18:44,359 --> 00:18:46,760
Speaker 4: table from Ikia that's not assembled, but it's still a

398
00:18:46,760 --> 00:18:48,920
Speaker 4: table even though you have to put it together. If

399
00:18:48,920 --> 00:18:51,920
Speaker 4: you buy a customizable belt and you have to punch

400
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:54,040
Speaker 4: holes in it, you got to buy the extra tool

401
00:18:54,080 --> 00:18:56,000
Speaker 4: and actually like drill kind of punch the hole in

402
00:18:56,040 --> 00:18:58,520
Speaker 4: the belt yourself. We still understand that you bought a belt,

403
00:18:59,080 --> 00:19:00,760
Speaker 4: and so you know, that's all part of the point

404
00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:02,560
Speaker 4: that for the Court to give this the such of

405
00:19:02,600 --> 00:19:05,200
Speaker 4: this interpretation, it's not like there's something sort of special

406
00:19:05,280 --> 00:19:09,880
Speaker 4: or dispointive about firearm, although there are also clear signs

407
00:19:09,920 --> 00:19:12,520
Speaker 4: in this statute that that's the meaning that Congress was

408
00:19:12,560 --> 00:19:13,399
Speaker 4: really underscoring.

409
00:19:13,960 --> 00:19:18,040
Speaker 3: You mentioned the Cargol case, where just a few months ago,

410
00:19:18,800 --> 00:19:22,800
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court, in a six to three decision, tossed

411
00:19:22,800 --> 00:19:26,720
Speaker 3: out a ban on bump stocks, the device that lets

412
00:19:26,720 --> 00:19:31,080
Speaker 3: semi automatic weapons fire as rapidly as a machine gun.

413
00:19:31,840 --> 00:19:37,800
Speaker 3: Does that case have implications for this ghost guns case?

414
00:19:38,359 --> 00:19:41,800
Speaker 4: So, going into the oral argument, I think, especially if

415
00:19:41,840 --> 00:19:45,199
Speaker 4: you think that the Court's decision is primarily driven by

416
00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:47,800
Speaker 4: politics and not actually by textualism, which is a view

417
00:19:47,840 --> 00:19:50,679
Speaker 4: that many people have, then it's very plausible that this

418
00:19:50,760 --> 00:19:53,200
Speaker 4: case comes out in this six to three way Garland

419
00:19:53,240 --> 00:19:56,359
Speaker 4: versus Cargol did with the six conservative justices together in

420
00:19:56,359 --> 00:19:59,600
Speaker 4: the three liberals dissent, And so that case it actually

421
00:19:59,640 --> 00:20:03,320
Speaker 4: considered different firearm statue. So it concerns the definition of

422
00:20:03,359 --> 00:20:06,919
Speaker 4: machine gun and these bumpstock devices. So that's the device

423
00:20:06,960 --> 00:20:09,320
Speaker 4: that was used in the twenty seventeen Laus Veig is shooting,

424
00:20:09,720 --> 00:20:12,359
Speaker 4: most deadly shooting in the US history. And so the

425
00:20:12,640 --> 00:20:15,320
Speaker 4: kind of technical definition of machine gun is any weapon

426
00:20:15,520 --> 00:20:18,239
Speaker 4: in the statue, any weapon which shoots automatically more than

427
00:20:18,280 --> 00:20:21,399
Speaker 4: one shot without manually reloading by a single function of

428
00:20:21,400 --> 00:20:23,399
Speaker 4: the trigger. And so basically the bump stock is a

429
00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:25,880
Speaker 4: device that you could attach to semi automatic that will

430
00:20:25,960 --> 00:20:28,080
Speaker 4: basically make the gun fire at the rate of a

431
00:20:28,119 --> 00:20:30,640
Speaker 4: machine gun. And so the whole debate in that case,

432
00:20:30,680 --> 00:20:32,120
Speaker 4: and this is kind of getting back to your first

433
00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:34,639
Speaker 4: question about like all the technicalities of a gun, Like

434
00:20:34,760 --> 00:20:37,879
Speaker 4: that opinion actually included diagrams of guns and the trigger

435
00:20:37,920 --> 00:20:40,159
Speaker 4: and like how it functions, and so basically the conservatives

436
00:20:40,240 --> 00:20:42,960
Speaker 4: read that definition single function of the trigger to mean

437
00:20:42,960 --> 00:20:45,439
Speaker 4: that the trigger kind of presses and depress, and the

438
00:20:45,440 --> 00:20:47,440
Speaker 4: way the bump stock works, like the trigger actually presses

439
00:20:47,480 --> 00:20:50,800
Speaker 4: and depresses every single time. The liberals read single function

440
00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:53,320
Speaker 4: of the trigger to mean, you know, one initial pull,

441
00:20:53,320 --> 00:20:55,399
Speaker 4: like what's the function of the trigger, Someone the user

442
00:20:55,400 --> 00:20:57,960
Speaker 4: of the gun pulls the trigger, and then everything you know,

443
00:20:58,000 --> 00:21:01,399
Speaker 4: and then it fires essentially automatic. You know, it's an

444
00:21:01,400 --> 00:21:03,760
Speaker 4: interesting and kind of complicated case. I mean, I think

445
00:21:04,080 --> 00:21:06,199
Speaker 4: the simplest thing to say about it is, wherever you

446
00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:08,399
Speaker 4: come out on Garland versus Cargo, whether it's sort of

447
00:21:08,400 --> 00:21:11,520
Speaker 4: easy or difficult case. Textually, the case that they heard today,

448
00:21:11,600 --> 00:21:14,200
Speaker 4: Vanderstock as a matter of language is like just much

449
00:21:14,240 --> 00:21:17,800
Speaker 4: more straightforward, And you know, I think it's reassuring actually

450
00:21:17,880 --> 00:21:20,800
Speaker 4: that the court's oral argument, many of the questions, especially

451
00:21:20,840 --> 00:21:23,760
Speaker 4: from Barrett and Roberts and Corsach in Kavandah, really seem

452
00:21:23,800 --> 00:21:26,240
Speaker 4: to recognize that fact, right, you know, especially the first

453
00:21:26,320 --> 00:21:29,160
Speaker 4: question and also the second. These gun part kits are

454
00:21:29,200 --> 00:21:32,440
Speaker 4: firearms in ordinary English, and then the statute explicitly talks

455
00:21:32,480 --> 00:21:35,919
Speaker 4: about weapons that could be readily converted to expel a projectile,

456
00:21:36,119 --> 00:21:38,520
Speaker 4: which you know also really underscores that these sort of

457
00:21:38,600 --> 00:21:41,280
Speaker 4: kits are included. And the context indicates the same with

458
00:21:41,320 --> 00:21:43,840
Speaker 4: the frame of receivers. And so, you know, sorry, long answer,

459
00:21:43,840 --> 00:21:45,800
Speaker 4: but I guess just to say for this oral argument,

460
00:21:45,840 --> 00:21:47,520
Speaker 4: I think if you think the core is a primarily

461
00:21:47,520 --> 00:21:50,600
Speaker 4: a political actor, you see the Bumpstock case, you think

462
00:21:50,600 --> 00:21:51,840
Speaker 4: this is going to come out the same way. Six

463
00:21:51,920 --> 00:21:54,160
Speaker 4: y three after the oral argument, I've got a little

464
00:21:54,200 --> 00:21:56,080
Speaker 4: more hope that the Court's going to follow the text,

465
00:21:56,160 --> 00:21:58,840
Speaker 4: although time will tell. We'll find out sometime next year.

466
00:21:59,000 --> 00:22:02,520
Speaker 3: It'll be an interesting decision to read. Thank you so much, Kevin.

467
00:22:02,800 --> 00:22:07,080
Speaker 3: That's Kevin Tobia of Georgetown Law. A note. Michael Bloomberg,

468
00:22:07,200 --> 00:22:10,639
Speaker 3: the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent

469
00:22:10,720 --> 00:22:13,959
Speaker 3: company of Bloomberg Radio, is a donor to groups that

470
00:22:14,040 --> 00:22:19,160
Speaker 3: support gun control, including Every Town for Gun Safety. Coming

471
00:22:19,240 --> 00:22:23,359
Speaker 3: up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. The NCAA's two

472
00:22:23,400 --> 00:22:28,080
Speaker 3: point seventy eight billion dollar settlement with colleges over student

473
00:22:28,160 --> 00:22:34,080
Speaker 3: athletes gets a judge's preliminary approval. A judge has granted

474
00:22:34,160 --> 00:22:37,960
Speaker 3: preliminary approval to the two point seventy eight billion dollar

475
00:22:38,080 --> 00:22:42,879
Speaker 3: legal settlement that would transform college sports by allowing schools

476
00:22:42,920 --> 00:22:48,040
Speaker 3: to pay players. For decades, student athletes played for scholarships,

477
00:22:48,080 --> 00:22:51,880
Speaker 3: a few expenses, and little else, while coaches and athletic

478
00:22:51,920 --> 00:22:55,439
Speaker 3: departments brought in millions. This settlement would set up a

479
00:22:55,520 --> 00:22:59,840
Speaker 3: revenue sharing arrangement between schools and athletes, putting millions of

480
00:23:00,200 --> 00:23:04,480
Speaker 3: dollars into the pockets of college athletes. Joining me is

481
00:23:04,560 --> 00:23:08,600
Speaker 3: James Nusbaum a partner at Church Church Hill and Antrim

482
00:23:08,600 --> 00:23:12,320
Speaker 3: with a practice in sports and higher education law. He's

483
00:23:12,480 --> 00:23:16,720
Speaker 3: also a former college athlete who played football at Northwestern.

484
00:23:17,200 --> 00:23:21,080
Speaker 3: James explain how this settlement will work, and perhaps you

485
00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:26,800
Speaker 3: should start with an explanation of name, image and likeness

486
00:23:27,400 --> 00:23:30,760
Speaker 3: just in case someone hasn't been paying attention closely to

487
00:23:30,800 --> 00:23:31,359
Speaker 3: this area.

488
00:23:31,960 --> 00:23:34,879
Speaker 1: Name, image and likeness is a unique term that was

489
00:23:34,960 --> 00:23:39,440
Speaker 1: crafted by the NCAA. I think what it's normally known

490
00:23:39,480 --> 00:23:43,840
Speaker 1: as for attorneys, particularly those that work with intellectual property

491
00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:48,000
Speaker 1: as rights of publicity. So the idea that any person

492
00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:52,840
Speaker 1: has the right to control how their name, how their image,

493
00:23:52,840 --> 00:23:56,399
Speaker 1: how their likeness is used to endorse products or in

494
00:23:56,400 --> 00:24:00,320
Speaker 1: this case, endorse athletic departments and promote the team teams

495
00:24:00,320 --> 00:24:04,120
Speaker 1: and the schedules and the games, which leads to revenue

496
00:24:04,160 --> 00:24:10,160
Speaker 1: that the schools and even the NCAAA through its championships receive.

497
00:24:10,800 --> 00:24:13,560
Speaker 1: The schools and the NCAA were able to profit off

498
00:24:13,600 --> 00:24:16,560
Speaker 1: of the students rights of publicity, but the students weren't,

499
00:24:16,680 --> 00:24:19,520
Speaker 1: and so a couple of years ago, the NCAA changed

500
00:24:19,560 --> 00:24:23,200
Speaker 1: their rules regarding whether or not students could profit off

501
00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:25,119
Speaker 1: their name images like that, So you might hear it

502
00:24:25,160 --> 00:24:28,720
Speaker 1: called their nil. So now these lawsuits, many of them,

503
00:24:28,760 --> 00:24:32,440
Speaker 1: have popped up alleging that students before the rule change

504
00:24:32,440 --> 00:24:35,080
Speaker 1: should have also been able to profit from their name,

505
00:24:35,119 --> 00:24:39,040
Speaker 1: image and likeness. And so this lawsuit ultimately tries to

506
00:24:39,080 --> 00:24:43,560
Speaker 1: resolve three different lawsuits. One of them is related to

507
00:24:43,640 --> 00:24:46,400
Speaker 1: those name, image, and likeness payments, and the other two

508
00:24:46,400 --> 00:24:49,680
Speaker 1: are related to student athletes alleging that they should have

509
00:24:49,720 --> 00:24:53,480
Speaker 1: been compensated generally for their participation in athletics, and the

510
00:24:53,520 --> 00:24:57,359
Speaker 1: other one for Alston back payments. So that's the case

511
00:24:57,400 --> 00:24:59,879
Speaker 1: that went to the Supreme Court and said that student

512
00:25:00,000 --> 00:25:04,840
Speaker 1: athletes could receive up to approximately six thousand dollars for

513
00:25:05,119 --> 00:25:07,760
Speaker 1: other educational related expenses.

514
00:25:08,520 --> 00:25:12,720
Speaker 3: So let's say a school as a star football team.

515
00:25:13,480 --> 00:25:18,080
Speaker 3: Which athletes on the football team get to partake in this?

516
00:25:18,160 --> 00:25:21,199
Speaker 3: I mean, suppose you have some who are famous and

517
00:25:21,280 --> 00:25:22,880
Speaker 3: some who are sitting on the bench.

518
00:25:23,440 --> 00:25:27,119
Speaker 1: It's a great question. So there's three primary components of

519
00:25:27,200 --> 00:25:30,280
Speaker 1: the settlement. The first ones the BACKPAI damages to former

520
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:34,760
Speaker 1: student athletes for their lost name, image, and likeness opportunities

521
00:25:34,800 --> 00:25:38,359
Speaker 1: that student athletes weren't able to be compensated for during

522
00:25:38,359 --> 00:25:42,160
Speaker 1: their time as student athletes. The other two or forward looking.

523
00:25:42,800 --> 00:25:46,600
Speaker 1: One of those is an expansion of benefits that can

524
00:25:46,640 --> 00:25:51,040
Speaker 1: be paid to student athletes. So there's an increased benefits

525
00:25:51,080 --> 00:25:55,600
Speaker 1: pool where colleges that choose to opt into the settlement.

526
00:25:55,640 --> 00:25:57,959
Speaker 1: They don't have to opt in, but those that choose

527
00:25:58,000 --> 00:26:01,320
Speaker 1: to participate in the provisions of the settlement are able

528
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:06,080
Speaker 1: to give expanded financial and other benefits to their student athletes.

529
00:26:06,119 --> 00:26:11,080
Speaker 1: So those amounts are capped at twenty two percent of

530
00:26:11,240 --> 00:26:17,120
Speaker 1: the average revenue of the autonomy five conferences and Notre Dame.

531
00:26:17,640 --> 00:26:22,280
Speaker 1: Your question was which students are given those benefits. Really,

532
00:26:22,320 --> 00:26:25,960
Speaker 1: there's no rules in the settlement. There's no guidance in

533
00:26:26,000 --> 00:26:30,240
Speaker 1: the settlement about which student athletes receive those benefits. As

534
00:26:30,240 --> 00:26:34,240
Speaker 1: you can imagine, the sports that generate the most revenue

535
00:26:34,520 --> 00:26:37,800
Speaker 1: tend to be the sports where the vast majority of

536
00:26:37,840 --> 00:26:41,720
Speaker 1: the quote, name, image and likeness money is currently going,

537
00:26:42,040 --> 00:26:46,960
Speaker 1: so football, men's basketball, some women's basketball. There are definitely

538
00:26:47,000 --> 00:26:51,760
Speaker 1: student athletes that are influencers on social media or otherwise

539
00:26:51,800 --> 00:26:56,479
Speaker 1: cultivated a brand that has monetary value associated with it

540
00:26:56,560 --> 00:27:00,080
Speaker 1: that are not necessarily in those three primary sports. The

541
00:27:00,160 --> 00:27:04,240
Speaker 1: vast majority of nil money has been going to football,

542
00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:07,480
Speaker 1: players and men's basketball players, so those are likely to

543
00:27:07,560 --> 00:27:11,399
Speaker 1: be the students that received the highest proportion of the

544
00:27:11,480 --> 00:27:14,200
Speaker 1: increased benefits that schools were able to give their athletes

545
00:27:14,240 --> 00:27:17,480
Speaker 1: as they opted, but it's definitely not required. So what

546
00:27:17,560 --> 00:27:22,000
Speaker 1: has happened is after the NCAA loosened their name, image

547
00:27:22,000 --> 00:27:26,200
Speaker 1: and likeness rules, these entities that were kind of colloquially

548
00:27:26,400 --> 00:27:32,600
Speaker 1: called collectives started popping up businesses that were sometimes not

549
00:27:32,640 --> 00:27:37,960
Speaker 1: for profits, sometimes for profit that would accept payments from boosters,

550
00:27:38,000 --> 00:27:41,359
Speaker 1: payments from fans, and then turn around and pay the

551
00:27:41,400 --> 00:27:44,639
Speaker 1: student athletes in exchange for their name, image and likeness rights.

552
00:27:44,680 --> 00:27:47,560
Speaker 1: And the reason these collectives were doing this was because

553
00:27:47,560 --> 00:27:51,960
Speaker 1: there was still a prohibition on schools directly paying their

554
00:27:52,000 --> 00:27:54,560
Speaker 1: student athletes for their name, image and likeness right. So

555
00:27:54,600 --> 00:27:58,160
Speaker 1: you have these collectives that for all intents and purposes,

556
00:27:58,480 --> 00:28:03,439
Speaker 1: were affiliated with very specific schools, using these payments to

557
00:28:03,560 --> 00:28:07,800
Speaker 1: induce student athletes to attend those schools, which is expressly

558
00:28:07,880 --> 00:28:11,800
Speaker 1: against NCAA rules. But there is an injunction in a

559
00:28:11,840 --> 00:28:15,840
Speaker 1: case in Tennessee preventing the NCAA from enforcing its rules

560
00:28:15,880 --> 00:28:18,960
Speaker 1: against these collectives. So all of these pieces are coming

561
00:28:19,000 --> 00:28:22,399
Speaker 1: together in this settlement, and now the settlement allows that

562
00:28:22,520 --> 00:28:26,800
Speaker 1: the schools can enter directly into payments with these student

563
00:28:26,800 --> 00:28:29,359
Speaker 1: athletes in exchange for their name, image, and likeness, and

564
00:28:29,400 --> 00:28:32,560
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have to do that through these collectives. Again,

565
00:28:32,840 --> 00:28:36,600
Speaker 1: back to your previous question of who who gets the payments.

566
00:28:36,640 --> 00:28:38,720
Speaker 1: One of the things I think schools are grappling with

567
00:28:38,960 --> 00:28:42,280
Speaker 1: right now is they're trying to remain competitive in football,

568
00:28:42,400 --> 00:28:45,200
Speaker 1: and they're trying to remain competitive and men's basketball because

569
00:28:45,320 --> 00:28:48,840
Speaker 1: those sports generate television revenue and they generate ticket revenue.

570
00:28:49,120 --> 00:28:51,760
Speaker 1: But at the same time, they have other legal requirements

571
00:28:51,800 --> 00:28:54,080
Speaker 1: like Title nine, and they're trying to figure out one,

572
00:28:54,160 --> 00:28:58,280
Speaker 1: how does Title nine apply to this expanded benefits pool?

573
00:28:58,480 --> 00:29:00,800
Speaker 1: And once we know how it does apply, how are

574
00:29:00,840 --> 00:29:03,880
Speaker 1: we going to allocate our money for these new benefits?

575
00:29:04,080 --> 00:29:08,760
Speaker 3: Accordingly, speaking about Title nine, plaintiff's lawyers have estimated, as

576
00:29:08,800 --> 00:29:11,480
Speaker 3: you refer to, that around ninety percent of the money

577
00:29:11,560 --> 00:29:15,000
Speaker 3: is going to go to football and men's basketball players.

578
00:29:15,360 --> 00:29:19,160
Speaker 3: Those sports bring in the lion's share of the revenue. Now,

579
00:29:19,320 --> 00:29:22,040
Speaker 3: many groups have told the judge that that's going to

580
00:29:22,080 --> 00:29:26,040
Speaker 3: be unfair to women athletes and be a violation of

581
00:29:26,160 --> 00:29:29,040
Speaker 3: Title nine. Explain the Title nine argument.

582
00:29:29,600 --> 00:29:32,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the argument that it's a violation of Title

583
00:29:32,200 --> 00:29:36,400
Speaker 1: nine will depend on how Title nine ultimately applies to

584
00:29:36,400 --> 00:29:39,520
Speaker 1: the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights has already

585
00:29:39,560 --> 00:29:43,760
Speaker 1: indicated Title nine will apply to new payments under these benefits,

586
00:29:43,880 --> 00:29:46,320
Speaker 1: but they haven't given guidance on how they will apply.

587
00:29:46,480 --> 00:29:49,760
Speaker 1: And so there's two primary ways that they could apply.

588
00:29:49,920 --> 00:29:53,520
Speaker 1: The first is through the financial assistance analysis, and depending

589
00:29:53,560 --> 00:29:57,760
Speaker 1: on whether or not the expanded benefits are included in

590
00:29:57,800 --> 00:30:03,880
Speaker 1: the scholarship analysis, to require that the dollars be assigned

591
00:30:03,920 --> 00:30:08,360
Speaker 1: proportionally between the sexes based on the proportion of student

592
00:30:08,400 --> 00:30:10,480
Speaker 1: athletes that are mail and the proportion that there are

593
00:30:10,520 --> 00:30:13,560
Speaker 1: student athletes that are female, or if it's determined that

594
00:30:13,640 --> 00:30:17,520
Speaker 1: it's non scholarship financial assistance in a way that it

595
00:30:17,560 --> 00:30:21,400
Speaker 1: needs to be equitably available to the two sexes. I

596
00:30:21,400 --> 00:30:24,360
Speaker 1: think that's one way Title nine could apply. The second

597
00:30:24,400 --> 00:30:28,840
Speaker 1: way is through what's called the laundry list of treatment areas.

598
00:30:28,920 --> 00:30:34,600
Speaker 1: So essentially Title nine requires that athletic experiences student athletes

599
00:30:34,600 --> 00:30:38,040
Speaker 1: are receiving is equitable, and they have a list of

600
00:30:38,080 --> 00:30:42,760
Speaker 1: treatment areas that they use to determine qualitatively are these

601
00:30:43,040 --> 00:30:48,040
Speaker 1: experiences equal in effect. Two of those are recruiting services

602
00:30:48,360 --> 00:30:52,640
Speaker 1: and publicity. And so since student athletes are being given

603
00:30:52,720 --> 00:30:58,280
Speaker 1: this money or they're negotiating these NIL agreements in part

604
00:30:58,520 --> 00:31:01,200
Speaker 1: as they determine which to go to, I mean that's

605
00:31:01,240 --> 00:31:04,840
Speaker 1: been part of Judge Wilkins analysis. So the students need

606
00:31:04,920 --> 00:31:09,200
Speaker 1: to know what their options are as they're making these determinations.

607
00:31:09,240 --> 00:31:11,520
Speaker 1: I think there's a chance that OCR says, well, that's

608
00:31:11,600 --> 00:31:15,640
Speaker 1: part of recruiting services. How much you're budgeting in NIL

609
00:31:15,760 --> 00:31:18,000
Speaker 1: payments is going to affect recruiting, and that's going to

610
00:31:18,040 --> 00:31:21,680
Speaker 1: affect what kind of student athletes you're attracting to your schools,

611
00:31:21,720 --> 00:31:24,760
Speaker 1: and how you're treating your male and female student athletes differently.

612
00:31:24,800 --> 00:31:27,400
Speaker 1: The second treatment area that I think could be considered

613
00:31:27,440 --> 00:31:32,640
Speaker 1: as publicity. This area talks about how you're publicizing your

614
00:31:33,000 --> 00:31:36,360
Speaker 1: men's and women's sports. And so if your school gives

615
00:31:36,520 --> 00:31:40,200
Speaker 1: a lot more resources or many more publicity opportunities to

616
00:31:40,240 --> 00:31:43,120
Speaker 1: your male student athletes over your female student athletes, I

617
00:31:43,120 --> 00:31:46,800
Speaker 1: think that would potentially implicate that treatment area as well. Generally,

618
00:31:46,840 --> 00:31:50,880
Speaker 1: that's the framework I think the arguments. If you do

619
00:31:51,040 --> 00:31:55,600
Speaker 1: pay ninety percent of your expanded benefits to your football

620
00:31:55,600 --> 00:31:58,800
Speaker 1: players and your men's basketball players. I think it's very

621
00:31:59,000 --> 00:32:02,040
Speaker 1: likely that you will receive Title nine challenges. I think

622
00:32:02,080 --> 00:32:06,360
Speaker 1: those are very strong arguments. The ration now, or where

623
00:32:06,400 --> 00:32:10,000
Speaker 1: the ninety percent number comes from, is from an expert's

624
00:32:10,040 --> 00:32:14,080
Speaker 1: opinion in the proposed settlement, where they've a portion of

625
00:32:14,120 --> 00:32:17,040
Speaker 1: the back pay damages are going to be paid seventy

626
00:32:17,080 --> 00:32:21,080
Speaker 1: five percent to football student athletes in fifteen percent to

627
00:32:21,200 --> 00:32:24,640
Speaker 1: men's basketball student athletes. And you might hear people say,

628
00:32:24,800 --> 00:32:27,680
Speaker 1: if we're able to pay back pay damages according to

629
00:32:27,760 --> 00:32:31,600
Speaker 1: their proportions, why can't we pay the forward looking benefits

630
00:32:31,640 --> 00:32:35,000
Speaker 1: according to those same proportions. And the answer is essentially

631
00:32:35,040 --> 00:32:38,520
Speaker 1: that Title nine isn't in front of Judge Wilkins. She

632
00:32:38,640 --> 00:32:42,320
Speaker 1: isn't considering that as she approves these settlements. She's been

633
00:32:42,400 --> 00:32:45,160
Speaker 1: very clear that she hasn't been considering that. So I

634
00:32:45,160 --> 00:32:48,680
Speaker 1: don't think it's a strong argument that you can use

635
00:32:49,080 --> 00:32:54,040
Speaker 1: this experts analysis to justify the discrepancy going forward. If

636
00:32:54,080 --> 00:32:58,360
Speaker 1: there is a discrepancy and any of the Title nine analysis,

637
00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:02,680
Speaker 1: schools do have the ability to give a non discriminatory

638
00:33:02,800 --> 00:33:08,280
Speaker 1: justification for that discrepancy. The revenue generation of fair market value,

639
00:33:08,360 --> 00:33:12,320
Speaker 1: those sort of business type arguments haven't been found to

640
00:33:12,360 --> 00:33:15,480
Speaker 1: be non discriminatory in the past, so I think schools

641
00:33:15,480 --> 00:33:18,760
Speaker 1: that intend to rely on that could could be taking

642
00:33:18,800 --> 00:33:19,440
Speaker 1: on some risk.

643
00:33:20,320 --> 00:33:23,840
Speaker 3: You played football at Northwestern. Do you think that this

644
00:33:24,000 --> 00:33:27,840
Speaker 3: kind of deal where some athletes will be paid and

645
00:33:28,000 --> 00:33:32,600
Speaker 3: others will not, will have a negative effect on sort

646
00:33:32,640 --> 00:33:35,680
Speaker 3: of the environment for other students at the university.

647
00:33:36,200 --> 00:33:38,480
Speaker 1: It's a good question that I'll give a couple of

648
00:33:38,520 --> 00:33:41,480
Speaker 1: different answers that I don't think it would have changed

649
00:33:41,600 --> 00:33:45,400
Speaker 1: my athletics experience all that much. I was a walk

650
00:33:45,440 --> 00:33:48,120
Speaker 1: on student athlete. It was very clear that some of

651
00:33:48,160 --> 00:33:51,880
Speaker 1: the student athletes were more likely to play, they were

652
00:33:51,880 --> 00:33:55,520
Speaker 1: more likely to go on to professional careers. I was

653
00:33:55,520 --> 00:33:57,520
Speaker 1: there because I really liked playing football, but I also

654
00:33:57,720 --> 00:34:01,280
Speaker 1: was excited about the academics, and I wasn't expecting to

655
00:34:01,320 --> 00:34:05,280
Speaker 1: get paid even through scholarship. It was fortunate enough to

656
00:34:05,360 --> 00:34:07,000
Speaker 1: earn one at the end of my career, but that

657
00:34:07,120 --> 00:34:09,879
Speaker 1: was sort of a bonus, and even at that time.

658
00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:11,799
Speaker 1: It's longer than I want to admit, but it wasn't

659
00:34:11,800 --> 00:34:14,120
Speaker 1: that long ago. Like you could tell the sports that

660
00:34:14,160 --> 00:34:17,880
Speaker 1: were favored on campus, and football and basketball were popular,

661
00:34:17,960 --> 00:34:21,480
Speaker 1: So I think there was already some divide between those

662
00:34:21,520 --> 00:34:24,799
Speaker 1: sports and the other sports on the campus. I think

663
00:34:24,800 --> 00:34:29,040
Speaker 1: this will likely make that divide much wider. I don't

664
00:34:29,080 --> 00:34:32,439
Speaker 1: think that's necessarily great for the athletic department at the whole,

665
00:34:32,520 --> 00:34:34,719
Speaker 1: but I do think there are arguments that this is

666
00:34:34,760 --> 00:34:39,880
Speaker 1: a money making operation and if we can generate more money,

667
00:34:40,160 --> 00:34:42,440
Speaker 1: high tide raises all ship. I don't think that's a

668
00:34:42,440 --> 00:34:45,160
Speaker 1: strong argument, but you'll hear it a lot. You'll see

669
00:34:45,239 --> 00:34:48,160
Speaker 1: schools that are trying to figure out how to come

670
00:34:48,239 --> 00:34:51,440
Speaker 1: up with this additional revenue. I think there were news

671
00:34:51,520 --> 00:34:54,839
Speaker 1: reports today and yesterday that Ohio State is going to

672
00:34:55,160 --> 00:34:59,759
Speaker 1: restrict or eliminate scholarships for men's gymnastics. Ohio State's a

673
00:34:59,840 --> 00:35:03,360
Speaker 1: huge athletic department. Their football program makes a lot of money.

674
00:35:03,480 --> 00:35:05,960
Speaker 1: But these schools are going to face tough decisions on

675
00:35:06,000 --> 00:35:08,440
Speaker 1: how do we find money for these additional benefits that

676
00:35:08,480 --> 00:35:10,839
Speaker 1: we want to provide to our student athletes. And I

677
00:35:10,880 --> 00:35:14,160
Speaker 1: don't think it's a coincidence that an announcement regarding men's

678
00:35:14,440 --> 00:35:18,319
Speaker 1: gymnastics scholarships being cut happens around the same time that

679
00:35:18,360 --> 00:35:21,399
Speaker 1: the settlement was preliminary approved. I don't think you should

680
00:35:21,440 --> 00:35:24,200
Speaker 1: be surprised if that continues to happen. So I have

681
00:35:24,200 --> 00:35:26,799
Speaker 1: to answer your question more directly. I think it's unfortunate

682
00:35:26,840 --> 00:35:28,719
Speaker 1: that that will happen. I think that's a trend that

683
00:35:28,760 --> 00:35:33,439
Speaker 1: will probably increase for Olympic sports. I think it's more

684
00:35:33,640 --> 00:35:37,720
Speaker 1: likely to affect male Olympic sports than female Olympic sports

685
00:35:37,719 --> 00:35:40,840
Speaker 1: for some of the title nine reasons we discussed earlier.

686
00:35:41,000 --> 00:35:44,200
Speaker 1: But I think this is the end of a long process,

687
00:35:44,280 --> 00:35:47,080
Speaker 1: Like there's been a lot of momentum leading towards this,

688
00:35:47,239 --> 00:35:49,359
Speaker 1: and I think we're finally getting to the point where

689
00:35:49,360 --> 00:35:51,920
Speaker 1: a lot of schools are going to make these tough decisions.

690
00:35:51,920 --> 00:35:54,440
Speaker 3: Certainly a lot more to come. Thanks so much, James.

691
00:35:54,960 --> 00:35:58,799
Speaker 3: That's James Nusbaum of Church, Church, Hittle and Antrim. And

692
00:35:58,840 --> 00:36:01,319
Speaker 3: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

693
00:36:01,680 --> 00:36:04,040
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

694
00:36:04,080 --> 00:36:07,920
Speaker 3: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

695
00:36:08,200 --> 00:36:12,040
Speaker 3: and at Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm

696
00:36:12,120 --> 00:36:14,560
Speaker 3: June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg