1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:11,720
Speaker 1: What happens when a high school student gets kicked off

3
00:00:11,760 --> 00:00:16,119
Speaker 1: the cheerleading squad over a profane snapchat post. Well, in

4
00:00:16,160 --> 00:00:18,639
Speaker 1: the case of the teenager known as b L, the

5
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:22,000
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will disside whether the school violated her First

6
00:00:22,040 --> 00:00:25,439
Speaker 1: Amendment rights. B L and her father, Larry Levy, told

7
00:00:25,560 --> 00:00:28,320
Speaker 1: CNN that the school had no right to punish her

8
00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:31,800
Speaker 1: for expressing her anger at not making the varsity squad

9
00:00:32,159 --> 00:00:35,400
Speaker 1: by cursing at the school in a Snapchat post, along

10
00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:37,519
Speaker 1: with a picture of her and a friend with their

11
00:00:37,560 --> 00:00:41,360
Speaker 1: middle fingers raised. In the rules, it did not have

12
00:00:41,440 --> 00:00:43,760
Speaker 1: anything about what I can and can't stay out of

13
00:00:43,800 --> 00:00:48,400
Speaker 1: school and out of my uniform. I wasn't proud of

14
00:00:48,400 --> 00:00:52,199
Speaker 1: her expression. However, I felt that at that situation that

15
00:00:52,360 --> 00:00:55,720
Speaker 1: the the school overstepped their boundaries and it was my

16
00:00:55,920 --> 00:00:58,520
Speaker 1: decision to punish her, at which time I did take

17
00:00:58,600 --> 00:01:01,880
Speaker 1: the appropriate steps that I felt necessary for the what

18
00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:04,840
Speaker 1: she had done. The Jeice Department has filed a brief

19
00:01:04,959 --> 00:01:07,720
Speaker 1: telling the Justice is that the Federal Appeals Court got

20
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:10,520
Speaker 1: it wrong when it ruled for the student. Joining me

21
00:01:10,640 --> 00:01:13,959
Speaker 1: is noted First Amendment expert Eugene fall A, professor at

22
00:01:14,080 --> 00:01:16,680
Speaker 1: u c l A Law School. Eugene tell us about

23
00:01:16,680 --> 00:01:19,959
Speaker 1: the Third Circuit's opinion, So let's just step back a

24
00:01:19,959 --> 00:01:22,840
Speaker 1: little bit. The Supreme Court in the Tinker case said

25
00:01:23,000 --> 00:01:26,720
Speaker 1: that students free speech rights don't stop at the schoolhouse gate.

26
00:01:27,120 --> 00:01:29,800
Speaker 1: But what if the students speaking outside the schoolhouse gate

27
00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:32,360
Speaker 1: and outside any school programs. That's not to be a

28
00:01:32,480 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 1: zoomed to school or anything like that. She's just speaking

29
00:01:35,920 --> 00:01:39,440
Speaker 1: by herself on her social media page, or maybe writing

30
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:41,840
Speaker 1: a letter to the editor of a newspaper, or talking

31
00:01:41,880 --> 00:01:45,200
Speaker 1: at church, or talking at the political rally. Can the

32
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:47,760
Speaker 1: student be disciplined, she says to say, Can the students

33
00:01:47,840 --> 00:01:50,920
Speaker 1: be kicked off the team or expelled from school or

34
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:54,160
Speaker 1: suspended from school on the grounds that the effects of

35
00:01:54,200 --> 00:01:59,279
Speaker 1: her speech are disruptive at the school? And lower courts

36
00:01:59,280 --> 00:02:02,880
Speaker 1: have split on the subject. The Third Circuit says, no

37
00:02:03,840 --> 00:02:08,200
Speaker 1: student speech outside school is generally speaking protected from school

38
00:02:08,240 --> 00:02:12,000
Speaker 1: retaliation and others. I could say, well, no, if the

39
00:02:12,080 --> 00:02:16,440
Speaker 1: speech seems likely to be seen at school, or be

40
00:02:16,560 --> 00:02:20,440
Speaker 1: seen by students and others, then it may have effects

41
00:02:20,440 --> 00:02:22,600
Speaker 1: that are disruptive at school, and that could be just

42
00:02:22,720 --> 00:02:26,560
Speaker 1: as bad as disruptive speech at school. And that's the

43
00:02:27,000 --> 00:02:28,920
Speaker 1: question that the Supreme Court is going to have to

44
00:02:28,919 --> 00:02:32,919
Speaker 1: be resolving to what extent can off campus speech leads

45
00:02:33,000 --> 00:02:36,680
Speaker 1: to discipline because of it's on campuses. The Justice Department

46
00:02:36,840 --> 00:02:41,280
Speaker 1: says the Third Circuit, this red tinker. Is the Justice

47
00:02:41,280 --> 00:02:46,800
Speaker 1: Department taking that position because of the categorical rule that

48
00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:50,919
Speaker 1: the Third Circuit took. Well, so the Justice Department is

49
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:54,440
Speaker 1: trying to chart something of a middle course. On one hand,

50
00:02:55,000 --> 00:02:59,320
Speaker 1: it acknowledges that off campus speech should generally be protected

51
00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 1: for retaliation by the school, and I think that's I

52
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:06,200
Speaker 1: think that's got to be right. I mean, imagine somebody

53
00:03:06,280 --> 00:03:09,440
Speaker 1: is involved in some political movement outside school, or some

54
00:03:09,560 --> 00:03:12,720
Speaker 1: religious campaign or something like that, and it's very offensive

55
00:03:12,760 --> 00:03:15,280
Speaker 1: to other people at schools. They may view it as blasphems,

56
00:03:15,280 --> 00:03:17,760
Speaker 1: and they may view it as racists on patriotic or

57
00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: whatever else. You can't have the school have twenty four

58
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:24,360
Speaker 1: seven control essentially of a student speech and threatened to

59
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:27,280
Speaker 1: expel the student because of what he's saying in the

60
00:03:27,320 --> 00:03:29,880
Speaker 1: context of this political movement. It doesn't have to be

61
00:03:29,960 --> 00:03:31,840
Speaker 1: a big picture political movement. It could just be this

62
00:03:31,960 --> 00:03:35,840
Speaker 1: person expressing his views on his Instagram account or on

63
00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:38,560
Speaker 1: a Twitter feed or something like that. So I think

64
00:03:38,600 --> 00:03:42,800
Speaker 1: the Justice Department acknowledges that indeed, allowing the school to

65
00:03:42,840 --> 00:03:45,440
Speaker 1: punish this wide range of out of school speech just

66
00:03:45,520 --> 00:03:48,520
Speaker 1: because it may be disruptive at school would be going

67
00:03:48,560 --> 00:03:52,600
Speaker 1: too far. But the Justice Department says there are three

68
00:03:52,680 --> 00:03:56,880
Speaker 1: situations in which that school authorities do have to have

69
00:03:57,120 --> 00:04:00,240
Speaker 1: some authority to punish off school speech. Why is that

70
00:04:00,320 --> 00:04:04,240
Speaker 1: the speech threatens the school community. That's talk of bombing

71
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:07,080
Speaker 1: the school or shooting up the school or something like that. Now,

72
00:04:07,120 --> 00:04:09,120
Speaker 1: of course, if that's a true threat of violence, it

73
00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:11,480
Speaker 1: could be punished, even if it's not a student saying

74
00:04:11,480 --> 00:04:13,840
Speaker 1: If that anybody saying it, they could go to jail

75
00:04:13,880 --> 00:04:16,400
Speaker 1: for it. But there are some borderline things which are

76
00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:20,160
Speaker 1: kind of menacing, maybe implicitly threatening, maybe not enough to

77
00:04:20,200 --> 00:04:23,000
Speaker 1: be criminally punishable, but the school has to be able

78
00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:25,560
Speaker 1: to maybe expel a students, suspend a student, just to

79
00:04:25,640 --> 00:04:28,240
Speaker 1: get them out of the place where other people think

80
00:04:28,360 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 1: they might be trying to mount an attack. A second

81
00:04:31,520 --> 00:04:35,719
Speaker 1: category that the government points to is speech that intentionally

82
00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:40,080
Speaker 1: targets specific individuals or groups in the school community, so

83
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:43,720
Speaker 1: that might be personal insults of classmates and maybe a

84
00:04:43,839 --> 00:04:47,359
Speaker 1: teachers or administrators, and that the school needs to be

85
00:04:47,440 --> 00:04:50,400
Speaker 1: able to restrict that in order to prevent kind of

86
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:53,200
Speaker 1: undue distraction and her feelings at school. But at the

87
00:04:53,240 --> 00:04:56,360
Speaker 1: same time, such a restriction would leave students free to

88
00:04:56,400 --> 00:05:00,000
Speaker 1: express whatever views they want in a broader sense political

89
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:02,640
Speaker 1: cold views, religious views, moral views in the life. And

90
00:05:02,680 --> 00:05:05,719
Speaker 1: then the third category is the one that the Justice

91
00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:08,920
Speaker 1: Department suggests applies here, but it's actually hardest to figure

92
00:05:08,920 --> 00:05:14,120
Speaker 1: out if it intentionally targets specific school functions or programs

93
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:18,599
Speaker 1: regardings matters essential to or inherent in the functions or

94
00:05:18,640 --> 00:05:23,240
Speaker 1: programs themselves. As the government and it suggests to hear

95
00:05:23,279 --> 00:05:27,280
Speaker 1: what was happening is she was intentionally targeting her cheerleading

96
00:05:27,320 --> 00:05:32,120
Speaker 1: team by essentially expressing contempt for the project. And that

97
00:05:32,839 --> 00:05:37,200
Speaker 1: is this intentional targeting regarding matters essential to the function,

98
00:05:37,279 --> 00:05:39,080
Speaker 1: which may have to do with kind of moral and

99
00:05:39,120 --> 00:05:43,279
Speaker 1: its creative. So the government is trying to chart this

100
00:05:43,360 --> 00:05:47,600
Speaker 1: middle course protect students rights to talk broadly about kind

101
00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:52,159
Speaker 1: of big picture social, moral, political, religious issues, but allow

102
00:05:52,279 --> 00:05:55,719
Speaker 1: restrictions for various kinds of speech. And I think the

103
00:05:55,839 --> 00:05:58,120
Speaker 1: third one, the one that they view is applicable here

104
00:05:58,160 --> 00:06:00,279
Speaker 1: is probably the most troublesome one, just to it's so

105
00:06:00,400 --> 00:06:04,160
Speaker 1: hard to figure out what kant is intentionally targeting school

106
00:06:04,160 --> 00:06:06,760
Speaker 1: functions or programs. What if somebody were to say, you know,

107
00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:09,800
Speaker 1: I think our history program has become too woke and

108
00:06:09,920 --> 00:06:14,200
Speaker 1: become too critical race theory, and I think it's awful. Well,

109
00:06:14,279 --> 00:06:18,160
Speaker 1: is that intentional targeting regarding matters essential to or inherent

110
00:06:18,160 --> 00:06:20,279
Speaker 1: in the functions or programs that a student can be

111
00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:23,320
Speaker 1: disciplined in school for that? I don't think that can

112
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:27,159
Speaker 1: be right. But again, the boundaries of what the what

113
00:06:27,240 --> 00:06:29,280
Speaker 1: the government is trying to do especialist to this third

114
00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:32,320
Speaker 1: category are hard to figure out. It also seems like

115
00:06:32,360 --> 00:06:35,960
Speaker 1: that third category covers a lot of comment that the

116
00:06:36,040 --> 00:06:41,240
Speaker 1: students may make about school programs right exactly, and not

117
00:06:41,440 --> 00:06:44,880
Speaker 1: just comments by students who are on a team, because

118
00:06:44,880 --> 00:06:48,280
Speaker 1: in principle, it could apply to somebody else condemning the

119
00:06:48,360 --> 00:06:52,200
Speaker 1: cheerleading UH program, because it would still be targeting specific

120
00:06:52,240 --> 00:06:57,240
Speaker 1: school functions or programs regarding matters essential to the programs themselves.

121
00:06:57,440 --> 00:07:03,120
Speaker 1: Now you can imagine the a court saying, look um,

122
00:07:03,240 --> 00:07:06,520
Speaker 1: there needs to be a different rule for removal from

123
00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:11,240
Speaker 1: an optional program, especially one that is not fundamentally academic,

124
00:07:11,760 --> 00:07:15,800
Speaker 1: from expulsion or suspension. So you may say, look, cheerleading

125
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:19,360
Speaker 1: or even being on a basketball team, um might be

126
00:07:19,440 --> 00:07:22,000
Speaker 1: seen as almost a kind of job. It's a combination

127
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:27,160
Speaker 1: of being a student but also doing a particular task

128
00:07:27,320 --> 00:07:31,120
Speaker 1: for the school or presenting the school in some sports.

129
00:07:31,240 --> 00:07:34,400
Speaker 1: And maybe if you say something that undermines your ability

130
00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:37,000
Speaker 1: to do that job, you could be in this inspired

131
00:07:37,040 --> 00:07:40,560
Speaker 1: from that job, removed from the team. But you're still

132
00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:43,040
Speaker 1: a student in good standing and still graduate. You're not

133
00:07:43,280 --> 00:07:47,000
Speaker 1: being suspended from academics or anything like that. You're just

134
00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:50,680
Speaker 1: just being removed from the place that you've been undermining

135
00:07:50,720 --> 00:07:54,880
Speaker 1: with that place, removed from the particular program that you're

136
00:07:54,960 --> 00:08:00,080
Speaker 1: undermining with with your speech. So you can imagine a

137
00:08:00,120 --> 00:08:03,440
Speaker 1: court saying that. So it's not a matter of whether

138
00:08:03,560 --> 00:08:08,480
Speaker 1: it is somehow targeted at a school function. It's a

139
00:08:08,520 --> 00:08:12,680
Speaker 1: matter of whether the whether the school is just removing

140
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:16,320
Speaker 1: you from some such team, as opposed to expelling you

141
00:08:16,440 --> 00:08:20,760
Speaker 1: or suspending you from school at large. So, however, the

142
00:08:20,880 --> 00:08:24,040
Speaker 1: question presented before the Supreme Court, at least officially, if

143
00:08:24,040 --> 00:08:26,800
Speaker 1: you look at the petition and the question presented there

144
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:34,160
Speaker 1: is whether, um, the Tinker test for restricting disruptive speech

145
00:08:34,360 --> 00:08:38,480
Speaker 1: applies to out of school speech. So that so maybe

146
00:08:38,480 --> 00:08:41,000
Speaker 1: that a court says, look, we agreed to hear this

147
00:08:41,080 --> 00:08:45,080
Speaker 1: case about out of school speech at large, but especially

148
00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:47,240
Speaker 1: this question about whether it should be a special rule

149
00:08:47,400 --> 00:08:51,760
Speaker 1: for athletic teams in similar similar programs. That's something that

150
00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,320
Speaker 1: we can leave for lower courts to reconsider. How have

151
00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:59,000
Speaker 1: the other circuits come out on this? Do they have

152
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:03,600
Speaker 1: a categorical rule when we or the other They generally say,

153
00:09:03,679 --> 00:09:07,400
Speaker 1: and I oversimplify here, but they generally say that even

154
00:09:07,400 --> 00:09:09,720
Speaker 1: off campus speech can lead to discipline, and again not

155
00:09:09,800 --> 00:09:13,040
Speaker 1: just removal from a team, but suspension from school, even

156
00:09:13,040 --> 00:09:19,240
Speaker 1: expulsion from school if the speech kind of foreseeably causes

157
00:09:20,400 --> 00:09:24,280
Speaker 1: disruption on campus. So they say, well, it needs to

158
00:09:24,320 --> 00:09:26,959
Speaker 1: be speech that can be perhaps seen on campus or

159
00:09:27,160 --> 00:09:29,440
Speaker 1: will be paid attention to on campus. But of course,

160
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:34,000
Speaker 1: if that's anything right, anything that you say off campus

161
00:09:34,440 --> 00:09:37,320
Speaker 1: on Twitter or Instagram or whatever else can be read

162
00:09:37,360 --> 00:09:40,680
Speaker 1: on campus, can be read by classmates with then remember

163
00:09:40,720 --> 00:09:43,079
Speaker 1: it and talk about it on campus. But even if

164
00:09:43,080 --> 00:09:45,000
Speaker 1: you write a letter to the editor, it's going to

165
00:09:45,040 --> 00:09:47,520
Speaker 1: be posted online. It can be read on campus. If

166
00:09:47,559 --> 00:09:50,439
Speaker 1: you give us speech at our political rally, chances are

167
00:09:50,640 --> 00:09:53,440
Speaker 1: that it's going to be live streamed or recorded and

168
00:09:53,679 --> 00:09:56,839
Speaker 1: put on YouTube and can be seen on campus. Or again,

169
00:09:57,040 --> 00:09:59,640
Speaker 1: even if it's not right on campus or viewed on campus,

170
00:10:00,400 --> 00:10:03,640
Speaker 1: other students will see it at home and then come

171
00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:06,520
Speaker 1: to campus and may be upset by it on campus.

172
00:10:06,559 --> 00:10:11,200
Speaker 1: So in practice, the other circuits basically say, if something

173
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:15,280
Speaker 1: you say, even if it's off campus, causes disruption, causes

174
00:10:15,320 --> 00:10:19,640
Speaker 1: possible fights on campus, or distraction or really grave upset,

175
00:10:19,880 --> 00:10:21,480
Speaker 1: then in that case you can be punished for. And

176
00:10:21,480 --> 00:10:25,720
Speaker 1: that's what I'm referring to. This seven control over everything

177
00:10:25,800 --> 00:10:29,520
Speaker 1: that a student may say, including against political speech, religious

178
00:10:29,520 --> 00:10:32,120
Speaker 1: speech which had moral issues. And the luck how the

179
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:38,440
Speaker 1: Supreme Court cut back on students First Amendment rights, Well,

180
00:10:38,679 --> 00:10:42,320
Speaker 1: it all depends compared to what inscre to win. So

181
00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:46,559
Speaker 1: in the Tinker case in nine, I think it's generally

182
00:10:46,559 --> 00:10:50,240
Speaker 1: thought of the court really broad students right. It used

183
00:10:50,240 --> 00:10:53,280
Speaker 1: to be that the schools had very broad authority, but

184
00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:56,640
Speaker 1: then starting with Tinker, the theory was that schools could

185
00:10:56,640 --> 00:11:00,680
Speaker 1: only restrict speech if it is disruptive or not. And

186
00:11:00,720 --> 00:11:03,880
Speaker 1: then in a few cases after that the court did.

187
00:11:04,920 --> 00:11:06,880
Speaker 1: You could say cut back on that, or you could

188
00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:09,680
Speaker 1: say kind of established the limits of that principle. So,

189
00:11:09,760 --> 00:11:12,360
Speaker 1: for example, in the Bessel School District case, the court said, look,

190
00:11:13,160 --> 00:11:17,840
Speaker 1: vulgar speech, whether it's vulgarities or just kind of sexual innuendo,

191
00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:22,079
Speaker 1: can be punished once at at school because unlike in Tinker,

192
00:11:22,080 --> 00:11:25,840
Speaker 1: whereas involved anti war protests, here nobody was going after

193
00:11:25,920 --> 00:11:29,280
Speaker 1: the viewpoint of the speech. It wasn't political speech. It

194
00:11:29,440 --> 00:11:32,480
Speaker 1: was just the school teaching kids how to behave including

195
00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:35,840
Speaker 1: how to speak in kind of polite way. So that

196
00:11:35,960 --> 00:11:38,319
Speaker 1: might be seen as cutting back on the Tinker principle

197
00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:42,000
Speaker 1: or maybe establishing the boundaries. Another case called the Morseley

198
00:11:42,040 --> 00:11:47,000
Speaker 1: Frederick said that speech non political speech that can be

199
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:51,240
Speaker 1: reasonably seen as promoting drugs or advocating in favor of

200
00:11:51,280 --> 00:11:55,240
Speaker 1: drug use can be restricted again at school functions. That

201
00:11:55,320 --> 00:11:57,360
Speaker 1: could also be seen as cutting back in Tinker or

202
00:11:57,400 --> 00:12:01,360
Speaker 1: again establishing the boundaries of it. The Tinker applies only

203
00:12:01,400 --> 00:12:05,680
Speaker 1: to political adficacy and not just that the general talk

204
00:12:05,760 --> 00:12:07,920
Speaker 1: about drugs ben good or something like that. That was

205
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:11,040
Speaker 1: sort of the courts theory in some measures there. And

206
00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:15,280
Speaker 1: then one other case called Hazelwood School District versus kill

207
00:12:15,360 --> 00:12:19,760
Speaker 1: Meyer involved a speech in a student newspaper and made

208
00:12:19,800 --> 00:12:23,839
Speaker 1: clear that the principle or the administration could restrict speech

209
00:12:23,840 --> 00:12:25,880
Speaker 1: and student newspaper. So I think that has less to

210
00:12:25,880 --> 00:12:28,000
Speaker 1: do with students and more to do with the fact

211
00:12:28,000 --> 00:12:32,160
Speaker 1: that a government entity can control its own publications. So

212
00:12:32,240 --> 00:12:36,800
Speaker 1: for example, um government employer might have an internal newsletter

213
00:12:36,880 --> 00:12:41,079
Speaker 1: for for its emplees, but the editorial control would be

214
00:12:41,240 --> 00:12:43,440
Speaker 1: in the hands of the management and not whoever happens

215
00:12:43,480 --> 00:12:46,040
Speaker 1: to be the writer. So there have been these cases

216
00:12:46,080 --> 00:12:49,560
Speaker 1: that there might be seen as cutting back on students protection.

217
00:12:49,920 --> 00:12:52,040
Speaker 1: But interestingly, I don't think they've cut back as much

218
00:12:52,080 --> 00:12:56,160
Speaker 1: as lower courts have. Interpreting Tinker in saying that yes,

219
00:12:56,280 --> 00:12:59,640
Speaker 1: out of school speech can be can be restricted. That

220
00:12:59,840 --> 00:13:04,559
Speaker 1: is really very substantial restraint on student speech. And the

221
00:13:04,640 --> 00:13:07,200
Speaker 1: question is whether the court will at least walk at

222
00:13:07,240 --> 00:13:11,920
Speaker 1: that and say that no, generally speaking with whatever exceptions,

223
00:13:11,920 --> 00:13:14,520
Speaker 1: but generally speaking out of school speech has to be

224
00:13:14,559 --> 00:13:18,680
Speaker 1: protective against the school retaliation. Is that what you think

225
00:13:18,720 --> 00:13:21,160
Speaker 1: the court will do, well, I'm not sure what it

226
00:13:21,200 --> 00:13:23,640
Speaker 1: will do. I'm going to be filing an amicus brief

227
00:13:23,720 --> 00:13:28,160
Speaker 1: quite likely underhaling, some law professors arguing that that's what

228
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:30,839
Speaker 1: the court should do, that the court should make clear

229
00:13:30,840 --> 00:13:34,080
Speaker 1: that at least generally speaking, with some exceptions off campus

230
00:13:34,120 --> 00:13:38,760
Speaker 1: students speech can't lead to UH school discipline. But what

231
00:13:38,880 --> 00:13:42,319
Speaker 1: the court will do I can't really tell. Just generally

232
00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:47,199
Speaker 1: have free speech issues become more difficult in the light

233
00:13:47,280 --> 00:13:52,640
Speaker 1: of social media? Well, I'm not sure more difficult. Uh.

234
00:13:52,679 --> 00:13:55,840
Speaker 1: There's certainly have been some controversies that before would likely

235
00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:59,920
Speaker 1: not have been as controversial. So UH, this issue could

236
00:14:00,040 --> 00:14:03,360
Speaker 1: coolly come up when if she were saying that at

237
00:14:03,400 --> 00:14:06,800
Speaker 1: a restaurant where teammates would over could overhear, or if

238
00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:09,920
Speaker 1: she were saying that at some political event where it

239
00:14:10,000 --> 00:14:12,880
Speaker 1: was captured on a on a hot mic or something

240
00:14:12,960 --> 00:14:17,400
Speaker 1: like that. But but in practice it would be much

241
00:14:17,480 --> 00:14:20,960
Speaker 1: less likely that it would that it would be noticed

242
00:14:21,040 --> 00:14:24,480
Speaker 1: by the school authorities. So one thing about social media

243
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:27,440
Speaker 1: is it takes what otherwise would have been just kind

244
00:14:27,440 --> 00:14:31,800
Speaker 1: of casual chatter that is largely ignored and quickly forgotten,

245
00:14:32,240 --> 00:14:35,400
Speaker 1: and makes it much more noticeable and much more likely

246
00:14:35,480 --> 00:14:39,320
Speaker 1: to lead to UH two disciplinary measures and then from

247
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:41,800
Speaker 1: there likely to lead to a lawsuit. Thanks for being

248
00:14:41,840 --> 00:14:45,120
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Law Show, Eugene That's Professor Eugene Polic

249
00:14:45,280 --> 00:14:49,240
Speaker 1: of u c l A Law School. The Supreme Court

250
00:14:49,280 --> 00:14:53,080
Speaker 1: considered two cases exploring the power of administrative agencies this

251
00:14:53,160 --> 00:14:56,520
Speaker 1: week alone, a topic of renewed interest among the expanded

252
00:14:56,560 --> 00:15:00,640
Speaker 1: majority of conservative justices. The cases this week involved a

253
00:15:00,680 --> 00:15:04,440
Speaker 1: federal Patent Appeals Board and the Social Security Administration, the

254
00:15:04,520 --> 00:15:08,280
Speaker 1: latest in a string of separation of powers challenges questioning

255
00:15:08,320 --> 00:15:11,920
Speaker 1: how much authority agencies can wield independent from the president.

256
00:15:12,400 --> 00:15:14,600
Speaker 1: Joining me is Harold Crant, a professor with the Chicago

257
00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:17,880
Speaker 1: Kent College of Law. Is it unusual that there have

258
00:15:18,000 --> 00:15:23,880
Speaker 1: been this string of disputes with constitutional challenges to agency structure?

259
00:15:24,040 --> 00:15:26,720
Speaker 1: Is that unusual? Or is that happened all the time?

260
00:15:27,680 --> 00:15:30,560
Speaker 1: The spring pays ushered in a new series of challenges

261
00:15:30,640 --> 00:15:34,880
Speaker 1: to agency structures because the Court is rethinking questions about

262
00:15:35,160 --> 00:15:39,240
Speaker 1: presidential control over agencies. So at stake are both the

263
00:15:39,240 --> 00:15:44,640
Speaker 1: appointment mechanisms for agency's heads and adjudicators, as well as

264
00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:49,640
Speaker 1: removal provisions. So, because the Court has inserted uncertainty into

265
00:15:49,640 --> 00:15:55,360
Speaker 1: this area, individuals who be representing clients before mystery of law,

266
00:15:55,440 --> 00:16:01,280
Speaker 1: judges and agencies are inserting claims about appointment removal. So

267
00:16:01,320 --> 00:16:03,560
Speaker 1: in case they lose on the merits, they may be

268
00:16:03,680 --> 00:16:08,040
Speaker 1: able to still protect their clients by throwing out the

269
00:16:08,160 --> 00:16:12,800
Speaker 1: decision on the constitutional grounds. Tell us what happened here.

270
00:16:12,840 --> 00:16:16,680
Speaker 1: It was a challenge to a social security judge. So

271
00:16:16,800 --> 00:16:21,320
Speaker 1: here there is a typical social security distability dispute. There

272
00:16:21,320 --> 00:16:24,800
Speaker 1: are eight hundred thousand hearings before a l J is

273
00:16:24,920 --> 00:16:28,160
Speaker 1: a year, and after losing before the a LJ and

274
00:16:28,200 --> 00:16:35,520
Speaker 1: then losing before the agency itself, the individual presented the

275
00:16:35,680 --> 00:16:40,240
Speaker 1: constitutional claim before the district court for the first time.

276
00:16:40,640 --> 00:16:44,440
Speaker 1: And so the Supreme Court took several cases to determine

277
00:16:44,880 --> 00:16:48,800
Speaker 1: whether or not there is what's called issue exhaustion. You

278
00:16:48,840 --> 00:16:53,640
Speaker 1: have to exhaust all issues, raise all issues before the

279
00:16:53,640 --> 00:16:57,000
Speaker 1: the Ministry of Law judge, otherwise that the court will

280
00:16:57,080 --> 00:16:59,280
Speaker 1: hear it if it's raised for the first time in

281
00:16:59,280 --> 00:17:02,320
Speaker 1: the court. So, in other words, so the issue that

282
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:07,440
Speaker 1: they did not raise until the Supreme Court was the

283
00:17:07,480 --> 00:17:11,160
Speaker 1: issue of whether or not the social security judge was

284
00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:16,600
Speaker 1: properly appointed. That's correct. So at the Supreme Point decided

285
00:17:16,640 --> 00:17:20,320
Speaker 1: several years ago that at least the mission of law

286
00:17:20,400 --> 00:17:25,360
Speaker 1: judges within the securities and exchanged Commission were inferior officers

287
00:17:25,400 --> 00:17:30,760
Speaker 1: and therefore had historically been appointed unconstitutionally um and therefore

288
00:17:30,840 --> 00:17:33,320
Speaker 1: had to be appointed by the head of the agency itself.

289
00:17:33,640 --> 00:17:38,720
Speaker 1: So there are many cases that preserved this claim before

290
00:17:39,400 --> 00:17:42,760
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court made that decision, and therefore they now

291
00:17:42,840 --> 00:17:46,320
Speaker 1: want to say, look, we were our case was cited

292
00:17:46,320 --> 00:17:50,080
Speaker 1: by somebody who was appointed unconstitutionally. Therefore we get a

293
00:17:50,160 --> 00:17:55,479
Speaker 1: chance to have an hearing before a properly constituted, properly

294
00:17:55,520 --> 00:18:00,200
Speaker 1: appointed administrative law judge. So there are cases pending still

295
00:18:00,240 --> 00:18:02,159
Speaker 1: from that to the case, and now there are a

296
00:18:02,200 --> 00:18:05,760
Speaker 1: whole school of new cases that are saying, not only

297
00:18:05,920 --> 00:18:08,439
Speaker 1: do we have a right to be adjud have an

298
00:18:08,440 --> 00:18:11,480
Speaker 1: adjudication before someone who has been properly pointed, but also

299
00:18:11,560 --> 00:18:16,240
Speaker 1: someone who is removable um at will by the agency

300
00:18:16,320 --> 00:18:19,840
Speaker 1: head to ensure sort of a line of accountability to

301
00:18:19,880 --> 00:18:23,320
Speaker 1: the president itself. So lots of cases are penning, but

302
00:18:23,359 --> 00:18:26,479
Speaker 1: the ones that the Supreme Court has looked at so

303
00:18:26,520 --> 00:18:31,040
Speaker 1: far are ones lingering on from the prior to the

304
00:18:31,040 --> 00:18:35,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision which said that themistered law judges have

305
00:18:35,920 --> 00:18:39,240
Speaker 1: to be are luck be considered inferior officers and therefore

306
00:18:39,280 --> 00:18:42,200
Speaker 1: have to be pointing in conformance with the appointments clause

307
00:18:42,560 --> 00:18:46,200
Speaker 1: and non historically happened. So why isn't this case moot?

308
00:18:46,280 --> 00:18:50,600
Speaker 1: Then if the court has already decided the question about

309
00:18:50,640 --> 00:18:55,040
Speaker 1: administrative law judges, because they want a new trial or

310
00:18:55,119 --> 00:18:57,720
Speaker 1: new hearing before the a l J. So, in other words,

311
00:18:58,000 --> 00:19:00,840
Speaker 1: there are probably hundreds of cases that are still in

312
00:19:00,920 --> 00:19:06,639
Speaker 1: the system which claim that because they had a hearing

313
00:19:06,640 --> 00:19:10,600
Speaker 1: before and improperly constituted or improperly appointed administrat of law judge,

314
00:19:11,119 --> 00:19:14,480
Speaker 1: they need a new hearing before a different administra of

315
00:19:14,520 --> 00:19:17,760
Speaker 1: law judge. They are hoping that if they have a

316
00:19:17,800 --> 00:19:20,080
Speaker 1: new administive of law judge, maybe the result will be

317
00:19:20,080 --> 00:19:23,520
Speaker 1: different and then favor their client. And is that what

318
00:19:23,720 --> 00:19:27,080
Speaker 1: Justice Alito was concerned about when he said it would

319
00:19:27,080 --> 00:19:31,040
Speaker 1: flood the agency with cases? Yeah? I mean the question

320
00:19:31,119 --> 00:19:35,760
Speaker 1: is how much you know we've already had full resolution

321
00:19:36,040 --> 00:19:40,439
Speaker 1: of these social security disability cases and we already have

322
00:19:40,600 --> 00:19:43,399
Speaker 1: eight hundred thousand hearings a year. Do we need to

323
00:19:43,440 --> 00:19:47,880
Speaker 1: have more? Particularly when there's no fact that that changes.

324
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:50,359
Speaker 1: All it is is the replacement of one a l

325
00:19:50,440 --> 00:19:54,320
Speaker 1: J for another. So from an efficiency perspective, certainly the

326
00:19:54,440 --> 00:19:58,080
Speaker 1: claim doesn't have merit. But the claim does have some

327
00:19:58,840 --> 00:20:01,600
Speaker 1: traction with the Court for a couple of reasons. You know,

328
00:20:01,720 --> 00:20:05,720
Speaker 1: first of all, including that constitutional claim before the agency

329
00:20:05,880 --> 00:20:08,480
Speaker 1: is futile. The agency or the Minister of Law judge

330
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:10,760
Speaker 1: is never going to hold that he or she has

331
00:20:10,800 --> 00:20:15,879
Speaker 1: been appointed unconstitutionally and there is an informal process before

332
00:20:15,880 --> 00:20:18,280
Speaker 1: it a l J. And in a prior case, the

333
00:20:18,320 --> 00:20:20,760
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has held that it doesn't want to be

334
00:20:20,800 --> 00:20:24,760
Speaker 1: as exacting in terms of exhaustion of the administrative remedies

335
00:20:25,080 --> 00:20:28,919
Speaker 1: when there is an informal adversary process that takes place.

336
00:20:29,480 --> 00:20:31,639
Speaker 1: So I think that the quote is going to wrestle

337
00:20:31,640 --> 00:20:34,800
Speaker 1: with this from an efficiency perspective. It's going to want

338
00:20:34,840 --> 00:20:38,119
Speaker 1: to say, you lost the claim. You no longer can

339
00:20:38,320 --> 00:20:39,879
Speaker 1: can raise it if you didn't raise it before the

340
00:20:39,880 --> 00:20:42,640
Speaker 1: ad Minister of Law judge. But because of that precedent,

341
00:20:42,680 --> 00:20:47,160
Speaker 1: and because of just the idea that there is such

342
00:20:47,160 --> 00:20:50,240
Speaker 1: an informal process before the Minister of Law judge, so

343
00:20:50,359 --> 00:20:52,119
Speaker 1: members of the court are shouldn't going to vote in

344
00:20:52,200 --> 00:20:55,480
Speaker 1: favor of the claimants here. Some of the justices, I

345
00:20:55,520 --> 00:20:59,160
Speaker 1: believe Justice Atlanta Kagan said, well, if the agency had

346
00:20:59,200 --> 00:21:03,080
Speaker 1: wanted to add up to different rule. It could have yea.

347
00:21:03,200 --> 00:21:07,080
Speaker 1: So here the the agent. In a prior case, the

348
00:21:07,119 --> 00:21:11,480
Speaker 1: Supreme Court had held that there was an exception for uh,

349
00:21:11,600 --> 00:21:16,840
Speaker 1: this exhaustion of issues before the agency itself. Do again

350
00:21:16,880 --> 00:21:20,720
Speaker 1: to the informality in which the agency acts in these

351
00:21:20,760 --> 00:21:24,600
Speaker 1: social security disability cases. Particularly you know, if the claim

352
00:21:25,119 --> 00:21:28,119
Speaker 1: is not closely connected to the merits of the disability case.

353
00:21:28,720 --> 00:21:32,479
Speaker 1: And so Justice Kagan said, the agency you unnoticed, if

354
00:21:32,520 --> 00:21:36,080
Speaker 1: you really cared about this, you should have adopted a regulation.

355
00:21:36,600 --> 00:21:41,080
Speaker 1: They clearly stated that individuals will forfeit all issues they

356
00:21:41,080 --> 00:21:43,760
Speaker 1: are not raised before the agency. You had noticed, you

357
00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:45,720
Speaker 1: had time to do it, and yet you set on

358
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:49,080
Speaker 1: your hands. And therefore you shouldn't complain to us now.

359
00:21:49,359 --> 00:21:52,000
Speaker 1: And there's some logic and Nephew as well, because the

360
00:21:52,080 --> 00:21:55,960
Speaker 1: quote is said that these idea of exhaustion is really

361
00:21:56,440 --> 00:22:01,840
Speaker 1: the turns largely on what Congress or what agency requires.

362
00:22:01,880 --> 00:22:05,120
Speaker 1: So their discretion, meaning the Court's discretion, is only triggered

363
00:22:05,520 --> 00:22:10,720
Speaker 1: if it's unclear what the statute or regulation requires. Chief

364
00:22:10,760 --> 00:22:15,320
Speaker 1: Justice John Roberts seemed to be concerned about giving the

365
00:22:15,359 --> 00:22:18,679
Speaker 1: claimants ad over what would prevent claimants from bringing up

366
00:22:18,720 --> 00:22:21,439
Speaker 1: new claims in federal district courts to get a second

367
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:24,520
Speaker 1: bye to the Apple. It's a limited do over issue.

368
00:22:24,600 --> 00:22:27,159
Speaker 1: But I think what Chief Justice Roberts is saying is,

369
00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:30,679
Speaker 1: at least with respect to these hundreds of cases that

370
00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:34,640
Speaker 1: are still alive from before the Supreme Court decision holding

371
00:22:34,640 --> 00:22:38,680
Speaker 1: that a lj's were improperly appointed, they'll get ado over

372
00:22:39,000 --> 00:22:42,960
Speaker 1: because of a technicality. And is that an appropriate result

373
00:22:43,000 --> 00:22:46,320
Speaker 1: that the Court should endorse. Maybe it's inevitable, but at

374
00:22:46,359 --> 00:22:48,560
Speaker 1: least the Chief Justice, who was worried that there really

375
00:22:48,560 --> 00:22:53,000
Speaker 1: no reason equity because of this prior decision, that these

376
00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:56,000
Speaker 1: claimants we'll get a do over and not any other

377
00:22:56,080 --> 00:23:00,240
Speaker 1: claimants merely because their case was not final at the

378
00:23:00,280 --> 00:23:03,960
Speaker 1: time the Supreme Court issued the decision. So there is

379
00:23:04,000 --> 00:23:08,640
Speaker 1: some force. And what the Chief Justice said, certainly individuals

380
00:23:08,640 --> 00:23:11,600
Speaker 1: wouldn't get a do over for any other kind of

381
00:23:11,640 --> 00:23:14,520
Speaker 1: claim that they would bring in court that they didn't

382
00:23:14,640 --> 00:23:17,240
Speaker 1: present to the agency or the a l J first,

383
00:23:17,560 --> 00:23:20,480
Speaker 1: But because of the Supreme Court's earlier decision, they would

384
00:23:20,480 --> 00:23:23,160
Speaker 1: get a chance at a do over if the court

385
00:23:23,280 --> 00:23:27,359
Speaker 1: rules in favor of the claimates. Here Justice Brett Kavanaugh,

386
00:23:27,800 --> 00:23:31,600
Speaker 1: and some say he's foreshadowing the Justice Department's defeat in

387
00:23:31,640 --> 00:23:34,879
Speaker 1: this case, he asked the Justice Department attorney, if you

388
00:23:34,920 --> 00:23:38,679
Speaker 1: were to lose, what's your preferred approach. It may have

389
00:23:38,760 --> 00:23:40,720
Speaker 1: been tongue in cheek because I think it followed a

390
00:23:40,880 --> 00:23:44,640
Speaker 1: question about on which ground would you think they're most

391
00:23:44,680 --> 00:23:47,240
Speaker 1: likely to prevail upon. So it's it's hard to know

392
00:23:47,280 --> 00:23:51,040
Speaker 1: whether it was forced shadowing or Justice Kavanaugh was being

393
00:23:51,080 --> 00:23:53,200
Speaker 1: tongue in cheek, but they may have been serious, and

394
00:23:53,280 --> 00:23:55,560
Speaker 1: it may suggest which way he's leading as well. And

395
00:23:55,600 --> 00:24:00,040
Speaker 1: oftentimes it's important for an individual to lose on a

396
00:24:00,160 --> 00:24:03,760
Speaker 1: least bad way for kids or her client. So again,

397
00:24:04,000 --> 00:24:06,399
Speaker 1: which way do you think the court is leaning? I

398
00:24:06,440 --> 00:24:09,920
Speaker 1: think on the grounds of precedent, the court would rule

399
00:24:10,119 --> 00:24:13,840
Speaker 1: for the claimants. And you know, my guess is Justice

400
00:24:13,880 --> 00:24:17,200
Speaker 1: Thomas wrote the prior decision um he's still on the court,

401
00:24:17,480 --> 00:24:20,320
Speaker 1: and so I would predict with not great confidence that

402
00:24:20,400 --> 00:24:24,160
Speaker 1: he will be able to martial or coalition. That would

403
00:24:24,200 --> 00:24:28,000
Speaker 1: suggest that the same result should apply when someone fails

404
00:24:28,040 --> 00:24:30,800
Speaker 1: to raise a claim before a miser of law judge.

405
00:24:31,040 --> 00:24:35,080
Speaker 1: Just as he ruled that there was no failure if

406
00:24:35,280 --> 00:24:38,879
Speaker 1: if a claimant failed to present a case before the

407
00:24:38,920 --> 00:24:43,119
Speaker 1: agency itself, is the issue settled now or are we

408
00:24:43,200 --> 00:24:46,359
Speaker 1: going to have more of these cases? So the issue

409
00:24:46,400 --> 00:24:50,920
Speaker 1: is settled with respect to the appointment of the mystery

410
00:24:50,920 --> 00:24:54,720
Speaker 1: of law judges. And and I think that there are

411
00:24:54,800 --> 00:24:58,119
Speaker 1: several hundreds of cases that are still pending based upon

412
00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:03,080
Speaker 1: but that have that question alive. However, there is a

413
00:25:03,160 --> 00:25:07,040
Speaker 1: new series of cases which are almost identical, which have

414
00:25:07,320 --> 00:25:11,840
Speaker 1: challenged the constitutionality of a l j's because of their

415
00:25:11,920 --> 00:25:16,200
Speaker 1: removal provisions, and those are now pending in the courts

416
00:25:16,200 --> 00:25:20,640
Speaker 1: of appeals and distrecourse. And indeed, the UH just ten

417
00:25:20,720 --> 00:25:24,359
Speaker 1: days ago or so the d C Circuits had a

418
00:25:24,480 --> 00:25:29,199
Speaker 1: very similar case and refused to address the merits of

419
00:25:29,200 --> 00:25:33,160
Speaker 1: the removal issue and said that the claim is forfeited

420
00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:38,720
Speaker 1: its claim because it wasn't raised before the agency itself.

421
00:25:38,760 --> 00:25:42,000
Speaker 1: So it was the same identical issue of issue exhaustion,

422
00:25:42,480 --> 00:25:46,800
Speaker 1: but in the different guys of challenging and removal provisions

423
00:25:46,840 --> 00:25:49,199
Speaker 1: as opposed to the appointment provision. Which means that the

424
00:25:49,240 --> 00:25:52,239
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision here will have impact not only on

425
00:25:52,280 --> 00:25:56,119
Speaker 1: the hundreds of cases that are still left over challenging

426
00:25:56,440 --> 00:25:58,680
Speaker 1: the proper appointment of the a l j's, but it's

427
00:25:58,680 --> 00:26:01,199
Speaker 1: still going to be important or all the cases now

428
00:26:01,240 --> 00:26:05,120
Speaker 1: that they're challenging removal provisions as well. So the best

429
00:26:05,160 --> 00:26:08,040
Speaker 1: thing to do then when you're appearing before an agency

430
00:26:08,400 --> 00:26:13,359
Speaker 1: is to bring up every possible issue, certainly claim it

431
00:26:13,400 --> 00:26:17,720
Speaker 1: would be well advised to include all conceivable issues before

432
00:26:17,760 --> 00:26:21,200
Speaker 1: the agency. In fact, that is the norm in our system.

433
00:26:21,440 --> 00:26:25,040
Speaker 1: There is a generally there's an exhaustion of available remedies,

434
00:26:25,040 --> 00:26:26,280
Speaker 1: and not only do you have to go to the

435
00:26:26,280 --> 00:26:28,600
Speaker 1: agency first, you have to raise all your claims for

436
00:26:28,760 --> 00:26:33,200
Speaker 1: the agency. That promotes efficiency, that gives respect to agency,

437
00:26:33,280 --> 00:26:36,160
Speaker 1: and allows the agency to use his expertise in developing

438
00:26:36,200 --> 00:26:39,800
Speaker 1: the record in answering the claims. Um. So that is

439
00:26:40,040 --> 00:26:44,000
Speaker 1: definitely the practice. And the question here is is should

440
00:26:44,040 --> 00:26:47,639
Speaker 1: we have exceptions because of the informality of these procedures

441
00:26:47,800 --> 00:26:51,240
Speaker 1: or because of the nature of this constitutional claim which

442
00:26:51,400 --> 00:26:55,159
Speaker 1: no agency ever would agree with. I would think the

443
00:26:55,200 --> 00:27:01,000
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is exhausted with these with these agency questions.

444
00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:03,760
Speaker 1: So I guess the question would be whether the Supreme

445
00:27:03,760 --> 00:27:07,080
Speaker 1: Court is exhausted dealing with the exhaustion doctrine. It doesn't

446
00:27:07,080 --> 00:27:11,159
Speaker 1: seem to be because they've taken these cases and um,

447
00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:14,520
Speaker 1: they think it's important to clean up and know whether

448
00:27:14,640 --> 00:27:18,640
Speaker 1: or not the courts are should entertain these claims when

449
00:27:18,680 --> 00:27:21,359
Speaker 1: the claims have not been presented to the agency first.

450
00:27:21,520 --> 00:27:25,080
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, there's still a lot of cases where these

451
00:27:25,119 --> 00:27:27,959
Speaker 1: claims have been presented to the agency first, and so

452
00:27:28,040 --> 00:27:30,160
Speaker 1: the court will have to take some of the questions

453
00:27:30,160 --> 00:27:33,640
Speaker 1: about the removable provision, for instance, on the merits down

454
00:27:33,640 --> 00:27:36,280
Speaker 1: the road. Why do you think the court keeps taking

455
00:27:36,320 --> 00:27:39,000
Speaker 1: these kinds of cases? But it's not the most important

456
00:27:39,000 --> 00:27:41,639
Speaker 1: issue in the world, and there's a lot of disagreement

457
00:27:41,640 --> 00:27:44,800
Speaker 1: there is. Certainly they split in the circuits on the

458
00:27:44,880 --> 00:27:48,119
Speaker 1: on the question, uh, but you know they decided to

459
00:27:48,160 --> 00:27:50,960
Speaker 1: clean it up even though it's not the most important

460
00:27:50,960 --> 00:27:53,840
Speaker 1: issue in the world. Where does the patent case earlier

461
00:27:53,880 --> 00:27:57,679
Speaker 1: this week fit in. It was about the administrative patent judges,

462
00:27:57,880 --> 00:28:00,919
Speaker 1: but this issue was involved in that case because the

463
00:28:01,160 --> 00:28:05,800
Speaker 1: challenge to the appointment of the patent judges also arose

464
00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:10,359
Speaker 1: not before the patent judges themselves, but only in court.

465
00:28:10,800 --> 00:28:14,880
Speaker 1: And so it's possible that the court wanted to entertain

466
00:28:14,960 --> 00:28:18,679
Speaker 1: this case because it's sort of a similar issue was

467
00:28:18,800 --> 00:28:21,080
Speaker 1: pending in the state patent judges cases, and so the

468
00:28:21,080 --> 00:28:23,840
Speaker 1: court thought that it might have to address them altogether.

469
00:28:24,280 --> 00:28:27,080
Speaker 1: Thanks Hal. That's Harold Grant to the Chicago Kent College

470
00:28:27,080 --> 00:28:29,399
Speaker 1: of Law. And that's it for this edition of The

471
00:28:29,400 --> 00:28:32,359
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

472
00:28:32,440 --> 00:28:35,280
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

473
00:28:35,320 --> 00:28:39,840
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg

474
00:28:39,880 --> 00:28:44,040
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grasso. Thanks

475
00:28:44,040 --> 00:28:46,520
Speaker 1: so much for listening, and please turn into The Bloomberg

476
00:28:46,600 --> 00:28:49,360
Speaker 1: Law Show every weeknight attend the m Eastern right here

477
00:28:49,400 --> 00:28:50,440
Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio