1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brossel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,640 --> 00:00:14,160
Speaker 1: It's unprecedented. The Trump administration has sued all fifteen federal

3
00:00:14,200 --> 00:00:18,400
Speaker 1: District court judges in Maryland over a standing order that

4
00:00:18,560 --> 00:00:22,360
Speaker 1: prevents the government from deporting a person for two business

5
00:00:22,480 --> 00:00:26,480
Speaker 1: days after a habeast challenge is filed. It's the latest

6
00:00:26,640 --> 00:00:31,000
Speaker 1: escalation in the Trump Administration's battle with the federal judiciary.

7
00:00:31,520 --> 00:00:35,720
Speaker 1: Joining me is Immigration attorney Lena Baudi. Lena tell us

8
00:00:35,760 --> 00:00:40,720
Speaker 1: why the Justice Department is suing every federal District court

9
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:42,160
Speaker 1: judge in Maryland.

10
00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:46,240
Speaker 2: Judge George L. Russell the Third issued a statewide standing

11
00:00:46,360 --> 00:00:50,120
Speaker 2: order on May twenty one, says that any immigrant detainee

12
00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:53,920
Speaker 2: who files a habeas corpus petition would receive a forty

13
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,920
Speaker 2: eight hour automatic stay on the deportation. And the purpose

14
00:00:58,000 --> 00:01:02,080
Speaker 2: of that was to ensure that detained individuals who filed

15
00:01:02,120 --> 00:01:04,679
Speaker 2: for habeasts were able to have a fair hearing and

16
00:01:04,760 --> 00:01:09,440
Speaker 2: access to council, especially since there were so many habeas

17
00:01:09,480 --> 00:01:13,480
Speaker 2: petitions being filed after hours or on weekends, creating an

18
00:01:13,600 --> 00:01:18,840
Speaker 2: urgency where they were facing deportation without judicial review. The

19
00:01:18,920 --> 00:01:23,920
Speaker 2: Department of Justice under Attorney General Bondy labeled the order

20
00:01:24,080 --> 00:01:29,280
Speaker 2: unlawful and democratic judicial overreach, and they basically filed a

21
00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:34,119
Speaker 2: lawsuit arguing that the standing order violates the Supreme Court

22
00:01:34,160 --> 00:01:38,840
Speaker 2: precedent requiring case by case injunctive authority, meaning that the

23
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:42,360
Speaker 2: chief judge of the district court could not just issue

24
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:46,040
Speaker 2: a blanket standing order for every case without considering it

25
00:01:46,520 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 2: case by case. So the legal filing filed by the

26
00:01:49,920 --> 00:01:53,440
Speaker 2: Department of Justice demands of the court and all fifteen

27
00:01:53,440 --> 00:01:57,240
Speaker 2: Maryland federal judges recused themselves from the case, and that

28
00:01:57,320 --> 00:01:59,960
Speaker 2: an out of district judge oversee the liiticuate.

29
00:02:00,920 --> 00:02:05,040
Speaker 1: Have you ever heard of a suit against all the

30
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:07,000
Speaker 1: federal court judges on a bench.

31
00:02:08,120 --> 00:02:11,520
Speaker 2: No, it's unprecedented for the executive branch to sue an

32
00:02:11,720 --> 00:02:16,840
Speaker 2: entire federal bench. Traditionally, the Department's Justice responds to unfavorable

33
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 2: ruling through appeals, not lawsuits targeting individual judges or individual courts.

34
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:27,600
Speaker 2: This is really a direct assault on judicial independence and

35
00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:29,440
Speaker 2: threatens the separation of powers.

36
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:32,600
Speaker 1: But is the rule itself, the rule that the chief

37
00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:35,320
Speaker 1: judge put in place, is that also unusual?

38
00:02:36,040 --> 00:02:41,639
Speaker 2: It's not very unusual for a court to have standing orders.

39
00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:45,359
Speaker 2: In fact, many of the district courts and the Court

40
00:02:45,400 --> 00:02:49,400
Speaker 2: of Appeals have standing orders for all types of various things,

41
00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:52,960
Speaker 2: including stays, in which an immigrant gets an automatic stay

42
00:02:53,000 --> 00:02:56,000
Speaker 2: while the motion for a stay is played out. This

43
00:02:56,120 --> 00:03:02,839
Speaker 2: often happens because in cases where deportation is eminent, when

44
00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:05,920
Speaker 2: a case is filed in the evening or it's filed

45
00:03:05,960 --> 00:03:10,000
Speaker 2: over the weekend, if ICE or DHS is allowed to

46
00:03:10,040 --> 00:03:14,560
Speaker 2: remove a non citizen without them having an opportunity to

47
00:03:14,639 --> 00:03:18,160
Speaker 2: have a federal judge look at their motion for a

48
00:03:18,200 --> 00:03:22,200
Speaker 2: stay or for a habeast, they're deprived of due process

49
00:03:22,240 --> 00:03:24,800
Speaker 2: and that ends up happening just because of the timing

50
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:29,640
Speaker 2: of their filing. So it's not unusual for judges to

51
00:03:29,800 --> 00:03:32,520
Speaker 2: issue orders under the All Rits Act. So the All

52
00:03:32,639 --> 00:03:36,280
Speaker 2: Rits Act basically says federal courts may issue all riats

53
00:03:36,320 --> 00:03:40,400
Speaker 2: necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and

54
00:03:40,520 --> 00:03:43,760
Speaker 2: agreeable to the usages and principles of law. And in fact,

55
00:03:43,840 --> 00:03:47,080
Speaker 2: in this specific case, when the standing order was issued,

56
00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:51,240
Speaker 2: the chief judge cited the All Rits Act and said

57
00:03:51,280 --> 00:03:54,560
Speaker 2: this squarely applies to protect their ability to decide cases.

58
00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:58,600
Speaker 1: Is that argument stronger than what the Justice Department is arguing,

59
00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:02,760
Speaker 1: which is that Supreme Court recedents mean that the judges

60
00:04:02,800 --> 00:04:06,080
Speaker 1: have to rule on each case individually, not in a

61
00:04:06,160 --> 00:04:07,120
Speaker 1: blanket fashion.

62
00:04:07,880 --> 00:04:11,360
Speaker 2: Well, I think the All Risk Act gives the court's

63
00:04:11,360 --> 00:04:15,520
Speaker 2: wide latitude to run the courts how they see fit,

64
00:04:16,200 --> 00:04:20,120
Speaker 2: and the Court has inherent power to issue preemptive orders

65
00:04:20,160 --> 00:04:24,480
Speaker 2: to prevent jurisdictional defeat. For example, they can issue standing

66
00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:27,279
Speaker 2: orders to prevent a deportation before a judge can look

67
00:04:27,320 --> 00:04:31,719
Speaker 2: at it. The Department of Justice's rebuttal is that the

68
00:04:31,800 --> 00:04:36,360
Speaker 2: All Rits Act doesn't authorize blanket automatic injunctions, and federal

69
00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:41,200
Speaker 2: judges can't preemptively enjoin executive action in every case. But

70
00:04:41,279 --> 00:04:44,200
Speaker 2: this could happen in a very different way, which leads

71
00:04:44,200 --> 00:04:46,480
Speaker 2: to the same result, which is a judge, a district

72
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:49,360
Speaker 2: judge can be on call twenty four hours a day

73
00:04:49,440 --> 00:04:52,479
Speaker 2: and issue the same exact standing order for any habeasts.

74
00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:55,440
Speaker 2: And so what the Chief Judge is doing, as for

75
00:04:55,560 --> 00:04:58,599
Speaker 2: lack of a better term, a housekeeping matter, they're saying,

76
00:04:58,640 --> 00:05:00,839
Speaker 2: we're going to do this for every case anyway, So

77
00:05:00,839 --> 00:05:03,880
Speaker 2: we're going to make it a standing order for this court.

78
00:05:04,240 --> 00:05:07,560
Speaker 1: And the Chief Judge explained in the order that there

79
00:05:07,560 --> 00:05:12,080
Speaker 1: has been an increase in habeas petitions filed after court

80
00:05:12,160 --> 00:05:16,159
Speaker 1: hours and on weekends. Is it pretty obvious why there

81
00:05:16,160 --> 00:05:18,160
Speaker 1: has been this increase now.

82
00:05:18,320 --> 00:05:21,040
Speaker 2: There's a lot obviously going on in immigration right now.

83
00:05:21,080 --> 00:05:24,159
Speaker 2: There's a lot of things that the administration is doing

84
00:05:24,240 --> 00:05:28,960
Speaker 2: that are circumventing the legal process that has been set

85
00:05:29,000 --> 00:05:33,280
Speaker 2: out for individuals to apply for relief from removal. As

86
00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:37,039
Speaker 2: we've seen, they are kidnapping people in the street, they

87
00:05:37,120 --> 00:05:42,120
Speaker 2: are dismissing cases of individuals who have sought relief in

88
00:05:42,240 --> 00:05:48,440
Speaker 2: immigration court, and they are moving non citizens around the

89
00:05:48,600 --> 00:05:53,400
Speaker 2: US in order to pick and choose which district courts

90
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:58,480
Speaker 2: we as council file habeas in. So there is absolutely

91
00:05:58,640 --> 00:06:03,000
Speaker 2: an uptick in hey petitions and that's a direct response

92
00:06:03,480 --> 00:06:07,200
Speaker 2: to what the administration has been unlawfully doing in the

93
00:06:07,200 --> 00:06:08,320
Speaker 2: immigration system.

94
00:06:08,880 --> 00:06:12,200
Speaker 1: A lot of high profile cases, immigration cases in particular,

95
00:06:12,240 --> 00:06:16,680
Speaker 1: have been handled in this Maryland Federal District Court, including

96
00:06:16,760 --> 00:06:22,719
Speaker 1: the case of Abrego Garcia, and Maryland judges have put

97
00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:28,560
Speaker 1: some key Trump initiatives on hold in different areas. Maryland's

98
00:06:28,600 --> 00:06:32,839
Speaker 1: Governor Wes Moore has called this a transparent effort to

99
00:06:32,880 --> 00:06:35,560
Speaker 1: intimidate judges. Do you agree?

100
00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:40,200
Speaker 2: I do? I mean the Abrego Garcia case is such

101
00:06:40,520 --> 00:06:45,400
Speaker 2: an alarming situation in immigration law. This is not a

102
00:06:45,440 --> 00:06:48,200
Speaker 2: non citizen who was just in the US without status.

103
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 2: This is someone who had had a hearing before an

104
00:06:50,680 --> 00:06:56,200
Speaker 2: immigration judge, he had been granted protection from removal, and supposedly,

105
00:06:56,320 --> 00:06:59,640
Speaker 2: due to administrative error, he was deported back to the

106
00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:03,440
Speaker 2: very same country that an immigration judge found that he'd

107
00:07:03,480 --> 00:07:06,479
Speaker 2: be persecuted and tortured. I don't believe it was an

108
00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:10,400
Speaker 2: administrative error, and the fact that the Trump administration was

109
00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:13,800
Speaker 2: so hesitant to bring him back tells us a lot.

110
00:07:13,960 --> 00:07:16,559
Speaker 2: It was a test to see how far they could

111
00:07:16,600 --> 00:07:19,480
Speaker 2: push to remove non citizens.

112
00:07:19,960 --> 00:07:23,080
Speaker 1: So, as you mentioned, there's a question of who's going

113
00:07:23,120 --> 00:07:27,640
Speaker 1: to hear this lawsuit, and the Justice Department is asking

114
00:07:27,760 --> 00:07:31,640
Speaker 1: that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals randomly selected judge

115
00:07:31,920 --> 00:07:33,120
Speaker 1: from another district.

116
00:07:33,480 --> 00:07:37,520
Speaker 2: Well, the inter Circuit Assignment Statute empowers the chief judge

117
00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:39,600
Speaker 2: of the circuit here, the fourth Circuit, to request the

118
00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:44,000
Speaker 2: judge from another district within the same circuit by designation.

119
00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:48,760
Speaker 2: So if there's no suitable in circuit judge available because

120
00:07:48,840 --> 00:07:52,960
Speaker 2: all fifteen are recused, the matter goes higher up. So

121
00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:56,600
Speaker 2: here it looks like what's going to happen is that

122
00:07:56,640 --> 00:07:59,520
Speaker 2: the entire district or even the circuit is going to

123
00:07:59,520 --> 00:08:01,720
Speaker 2: be confident it out. So what happened is the Chief

124
00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:05,160
Speaker 2: Justice of the United States, John Roberts, will designate and

125
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:08,720
Speaker 2: assign a judge from another federal district to preside over

126
00:08:08,760 --> 00:08:10,840
Speaker 2: the case. And this is going to be done in

127
00:08:10,880 --> 00:08:13,920
Speaker 2: coordination with the Administrative Office of the US Courts and

128
00:08:13,960 --> 00:08:17,920
Speaker 2: the Judicial Conference. And when they select the judge, Justice

129
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:20,000
Speaker 2: Roberts will be looking for someone who doesn't have a

130
00:08:20,040 --> 00:08:24,640
Speaker 2: conflict of interest, who has judicial experience, especially with constitutional,

131
00:08:24,880 --> 00:08:28,800
Speaker 2: administrative or immigration law, someone who's able to handle public

132
00:08:28,880 --> 00:08:34,520
Speaker 2: scrutiny or politically sensitive issues, and someone who's obviously logistically available.

133
00:08:34,679 --> 00:08:37,520
Speaker 2: And that's often going to be a senior judge or

134
00:08:37,559 --> 00:08:40,640
Speaker 2: a retired Article three judge or a sitting judge from

135
00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:43,000
Speaker 2: a district who has no involvement with similar issues.

136
00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:45,800
Speaker 1: So it sounds like this is sort of getting a

137
00:08:45,840 --> 00:08:49,160
Speaker 1: little complicated. Then do you think that this case will

138
00:08:49,400 --> 00:08:51,920
Speaker 1: take a long time to play out?

139
00:08:52,360 --> 00:08:55,000
Speaker 2: The complaint was just filed yesterday, and normally in these

140
00:08:55,040 --> 00:08:59,760
Speaker 2: types of cases they will file a motion for preliminary injunction.

141
00:09:00,120 --> 00:09:02,920
Speaker 2: They haven't done so as of this morning, So that

142
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:05,160
Speaker 2: is what I expect will be next. And what's happening

143
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,199
Speaker 2: with all these cases with the administration and the federal

144
00:09:08,280 --> 00:09:12,480
Speaker 2: courts is that it's almost like a game of ping pong.

145
00:09:12,960 --> 00:09:15,079
Speaker 2: We are not seeing a lot of aligation go to

146
00:09:15,160 --> 00:09:17,680
Speaker 2: actual merits of the case because a lot of these

147
00:09:17,720 --> 00:09:21,000
Speaker 2: cases are being decided in the form of motions for

148
00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:25,520
Speaker 2: preliminary injunctions and injunctive relief. So if this were to

149
00:09:25,600 --> 00:09:29,440
Speaker 2: play out, what will probably happen is a motion for

150
00:09:29,600 --> 00:09:33,360
Speaker 2: preliminary injunction will be filed, and then the actual merits

151
00:09:33,360 --> 00:09:35,880
Speaker 2: of the case will be ongoing for years. I expect

152
00:09:35,880 --> 00:09:38,360
Speaker 2: this is going to be a long lawsuit because this

153
00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:41,440
Speaker 2: is really a pivotal case in the tension between the

154
00:09:41,520 --> 00:09:43,160
Speaker 2: judicial and executive French.

155
00:09:43,520 --> 00:09:48,360
Speaker 1: The Trump administration has brought so many immigration cases on

156
00:09:48,400 --> 00:09:52,920
Speaker 1: an emergency basis to the Supreme Court, and the court often,

157
00:09:53,160 --> 00:09:58,760
Speaker 1: as it did on Monday, issues orders without explanation. Is

158
00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:02,640
Speaker 1: it confusing to litigants and perhaps even to judges.

159
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:07,200
Speaker 2: Confusing to everyone. It's confusing to lawyers. I mean, we

160
00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:11,240
Speaker 2: are constantly back and forth and asking each other what

161
00:10:11,360 --> 00:10:14,520
Speaker 2: happened with this case? And what about this? And it's

162
00:10:14,559 --> 00:10:18,120
Speaker 2: impossible to keep track of this and imagine people who

163
00:10:18,160 --> 00:10:21,040
Speaker 2: are being held in custody. One day they're going to

164
00:10:21,080 --> 00:10:23,560
Speaker 2: get a credible fear interview. The next day they're being

165
00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:27,880
Speaker 2: deported to South Sudan, the third day they're being removed

166
00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:30,160
Speaker 2: somewhere else. The fourth day they might have a credible

167
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:34,120
Speaker 2: fear interview. It's ridiculous. I mean, not only is it

168
00:10:34,160 --> 00:10:37,400
Speaker 2: a violation of due process and a violation of the

169
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:42,440
Speaker 2: United States obligation under international law, but it also makes

170
00:10:42,480 --> 00:10:46,559
Speaker 2: it impossible for them to be represented by counsel which

171
00:10:46,679 --> 00:10:50,719
Speaker 2: is not acquisident. So it makes it very very impossible

172
00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:54,320
Speaker 2: one for us to communicate with our clients, and two

173
00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:57,000
Speaker 2: for us to properly advise them because so much is

174
00:10:57,200 --> 00:10:58,240
Speaker 2: happening all the time.

175
00:10:58,880 --> 00:11:01,720
Speaker 1: Well, it doesn't look like any confusion is going to

176
00:11:01,760 --> 00:11:06,040
Speaker 1: be cleared up anytime soon, unfortunately. Thanks so much, Lena.

177
00:11:06,520 --> 00:11:10,440
Speaker 1: That's immigration attorney Lena Baruti. I'm June Grosso, and you're

178
00:11:10,520 --> 00:11:17,800
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg. As court orders hem in the Trump agenda,

179
00:11:18,160 --> 00:11:21,480
Speaker 1: there's been a steady drumbeat of rhetoric by the President

180
00:11:21,880 --> 00:11:25,520
Speaker 1: challenging the authority and independence of federal judges.

181
00:11:25,960 --> 00:11:28,880
Speaker 3: You can't stop that with a judge sitting behind the

182
00:11:28,920 --> 00:11:31,200
Speaker 3: bench that has no idea what goes on, who happens

183
00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:34,439
Speaker 3: to be a radical left lunatic. These are judges that

184
00:11:34,640 --> 00:11:37,640
Speaker 3: just want to, you know, show how how big and

185
00:11:37,720 --> 00:11:41,920
Speaker 3: important they are. They hit their local federal judges, and

186
00:11:43,040 --> 00:11:46,040
Speaker 3: they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Judges are trying

187
00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:49,680
Speaker 3: to take away the power given to the president to

188
00:11:49,960 --> 00:11:52,440
Speaker 3: keep our country safe and it's.

189
00:11:52,280 --> 00:11:52,960
Speaker 4: Not a good thing.

190
00:11:53,520 --> 00:11:58,240
Speaker 1: And Trump administration officials have followed suit from borders are

191
00:11:58,400 --> 00:12:01,199
Speaker 1: Tom Holman challenging a judge's authority.

192
00:12:01,800 --> 00:12:04,360
Speaker 5: I don't care what that judges, thanks virus this case.

193
00:12:04,640 --> 00:12:07,400
Speaker 2: We're going to continue to arrest public safety threats and

194
00:12:07,480 --> 00:12:08,480
Speaker 2: national security threats.

195
00:12:08,480 --> 00:12:10,760
Speaker 5: We're going to continue to the Port for the United States.

196
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:14,520
Speaker 1: To the Attorney General of the United States, Pam BONDI

197
00:12:14,920 --> 00:12:19,520
Speaker 1: not only criticizing a judge, but name calling they're deranged.

198
00:12:19,520 --> 00:12:20,600
Speaker 5: It's all I can think of.

199
00:12:20,880 --> 00:12:23,679
Speaker 4: I cannot believe. I think some of these judges think

200
00:12:23,720 --> 00:12:26,760
Speaker 4: they are beyond and above the law, and they are not.

201
00:12:27,200 --> 00:12:30,840
Speaker 1: And we're sending a very strong message today. This rhetoric

202
00:12:31,080 --> 00:12:35,400
Speaker 1: hasn't gone unnoticed by judges, and their reaction has been

203
00:12:35,679 --> 00:12:39,360
Speaker 1: to stay on the bench refusing to retire, and this

204
00:12:39,520 --> 00:12:44,880
Speaker 1: is true of judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.

205
00:12:45,240 --> 00:12:49,079
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Law reporter Tianna Headley Tianna how

206
00:12:49,080 --> 00:12:54,880
Speaker 1: many judges appointed by Republicans are eligible for retirement now?

207
00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:59,320
Speaker 4: So there's roughly seventy Republican appointed judges who are eligible

208
00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:03,200
Speaker 4: to take a fore a partial retirement called senior status,

209
00:13:03,280 --> 00:13:06,160
Speaker 4: or to just completely step down from the bench, and

210
00:13:06,200 --> 00:13:08,480
Speaker 4: that was as of June first of this year.

211
00:13:08,960 --> 00:13:12,800
Speaker 1: And how many are taking retirement very few.

212
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:17,479
Speaker 4: As the numbers tell us, there's been sixteen new opportunities

213
00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:21,760
Speaker 4: that have opened up for the President Trump to fail

214
00:13:22,400 --> 00:13:26,880
Speaker 4: judge ships. Those include folks who are have announced their

215
00:13:26,880 --> 00:13:31,840
Speaker 4: intent to retire, who've already taken retirement or senior status

216
00:13:31,960 --> 00:13:36,320
Speaker 4: or some unfortunate depths this year. But comparatively to those

217
00:13:36,360 --> 00:13:39,440
Speaker 4: first couple of months of other presidencies, this is not

218
00:13:39,559 --> 00:13:40,199
Speaker 4: a big group.

219
00:13:40,600 --> 00:13:45,320
Speaker 1: No, it's not. Nine Republican appointed judges assume partial or

220
00:13:45,360 --> 00:13:51,199
Speaker 1: full retirement since January one, and only one Democratic appointed judge.

221
00:13:51,600 --> 00:13:56,199
Speaker 1: And usually you'll see judges holding out and then retiring

222
00:13:56,520 --> 00:13:59,520
Speaker 1: when there's a president of the same party that appointed them.

223
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:04,640
Speaker 1: So why are Republican appointed judges holding back from retirement.

224
00:14:05,200 --> 00:14:09,960
Speaker 4: You know, there's so many reasons why judges decide, you know,

225
00:14:10,040 --> 00:14:13,440
Speaker 4: even though I am eligible to, you know, take this

226
00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:16,920
Speaker 4: this privilege of taking senior status or just retiring and

227
00:14:17,520 --> 00:14:21,440
Speaker 4: enjoying that. You know, judges love doing their jobs. Judges

228
00:14:21,560 --> 00:14:27,160
Speaker 4: find the work invigorating intellectually. But you know, what we've

229
00:14:27,160 --> 00:14:31,800
Speaker 4: seen under this administration, as former judges than even president

230
00:14:31,840 --> 00:14:36,680
Speaker 4: judges would say, is this sort of unprecedented attack open

231
00:14:36,920 --> 00:14:43,239
Speaker 4: hostility towards the federal judiciary, even specifically from this administration,

232
00:14:43,320 --> 00:14:47,000
Speaker 4: the Trump administration, And I would say this has been

233
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:51,040
Speaker 4: sort of a concern on both sides of the isle,

234
00:14:51,040 --> 00:14:55,800
Speaker 4: if you will, from judges appointed by Republicans presidents and

235
00:14:56,200 --> 00:14:57,600
Speaker 4: Democratic presidents.

236
00:14:58,120 --> 00:14:59,640
Speaker 1: Is there a difference in the people that the Trump

237
00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:04,280
Speaker 1: adminis is appointing the second term as opposed to the

238
00:15:04,360 --> 00:15:07,440
Speaker 1: people you know he was appointing the first term.

239
00:15:07,920 --> 00:15:12,440
Speaker 4: There is a difference in how this administration is thinking

240
00:15:12,520 --> 00:15:16,480
Speaker 4: about the kind of judge they want to appoint to

241
00:15:16,560 --> 00:15:20,600
Speaker 4: the court. You know, the President on several occasions and

242
00:15:20,680 --> 00:15:24,280
Speaker 4: even just very recently, has expressed his disappointment and his

243
00:15:24,560 --> 00:15:29,000
Speaker 4: path appointees that they are not ruling in the ways

244
00:15:29,040 --> 00:15:32,280
Speaker 4: in which he felt that they would be ruling, particularly

245
00:15:32,400 --> 00:15:37,560
Speaker 4: in cases related to himself and his administration's agenda. And

246
00:15:37,640 --> 00:15:41,480
Speaker 4: so this time around, he has been looking to appoint

247
00:15:42,040 --> 00:15:46,200
Speaker 4: more conservative jurists, lawyers who have a track record of

248
00:15:46,440 --> 00:15:52,160
Speaker 4: sort of advancing these conservative legal movement issues, but in

249
00:15:52,200 --> 00:15:58,120
Speaker 4: some respects lawyers who have shown even a personal loyalty

250
00:15:58,880 --> 00:16:01,840
Speaker 4: and commitment to the present and that's what we have

251
00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:06,920
Speaker 4: seen in recent nominee Emil Bozi for the Third Circuit.

252
00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:12,040
Speaker 1: That appointment has been very controversial for a lot of

253
00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:17,800
Speaker 1: different reasons, including ethical concerns. He was Trump's criminal defense attorney,

254
00:16:18,240 --> 00:16:21,880
Speaker 1: and at his hearings he even denied that he was

255
00:16:22,200 --> 00:16:27,320
Speaker 1: Trump's henchman, saying, I'm not an enforcer, but he's seen

256
00:16:27,480 --> 00:16:30,800
Speaker 1: as a loyalist to the president who's been rewarded with

257
00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:35,320
Speaker 1: this lifetime nomination on the Third Circuit. Explain why that

258
00:16:35,520 --> 00:16:38,160
Speaker 1: concerns some sitting judges.

259
00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:43,560
Speaker 4: So many of the judges, the publican appointed judges who

260
00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:46,960
Speaker 4: are on the bench right now and are eligible, were

261
00:16:47,000 --> 00:16:52,240
Speaker 4: appointed by more traditional conservative presidents. We're talking about Ronald Reagan,

262
00:16:52,480 --> 00:16:57,040
Speaker 4: George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, and so as

263
00:16:57,080 --> 00:17:01,720
Speaker 4: I spoke with more traditionalservative lawyers for the story, for

264
00:17:01,760 --> 00:17:05,680
Speaker 4: example Greg Nunciata at the Society for the Rule of Law.

265
00:17:06,960 --> 00:17:10,199
Speaker 4: You know, these are institutionalists as far as the judges go.

266
00:17:10,400 --> 00:17:15,880
Speaker 4: They want to preserve institutions, and preserve president, and preserve

267
00:17:16,160 --> 00:17:20,040
Speaker 4: the ways in which our system currently functions. And you

268
00:17:20,080 --> 00:17:23,240
Speaker 4: know in the sort of allegations that Trump is trying

269
00:17:23,280 --> 00:17:27,560
Speaker 4: to seek out loyalists who will sort of do his bidding. Again,

270
00:17:27,880 --> 00:17:33,480
Speaker 4: those are allegations the idea that an institutionalist conservative judge

271
00:17:34,119 --> 00:17:37,320
Speaker 4: can reflect on his ability to take senior status and

272
00:17:37,920 --> 00:17:42,879
Speaker 4: create a vacancy and potentially be replaced by a judge

273
00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:47,480
Speaker 4: who has sort of expressed more of a loyalty to

274
00:17:47,520 --> 00:17:50,680
Speaker 4: the president than to the rule of law or maintaining

275
00:17:51,040 --> 00:17:55,400
Speaker 4: and conserving our institutions. There is a tension there and

276
00:17:55,440 --> 00:18:00,960
Speaker 4: that is what mister Nunziata was speaking to in conversations

277
00:18:01,000 --> 00:18:01,360
Speaker 4: with him.

278
00:18:01,920 --> 00:18:08,959
Speaker 1: How have people reacted to the Beauvet hearings, because despite

279
00:18:09,000 --> 00:18:12,320
Speaker 1: the fact that there is a lot to question him on,

280
00:18:13,119 --> 00:18:17,520
Speaker 1: it didn't seem like the Republican senators were phased by that.

281
00:18:17,520 --> 00:18:23,280
Speaker 4: That's a bigger question. That's how the Republican Senate Caucus

282
00:18:23,320 --> 00:18:27,159
Speaker 4: sort of follows and answers to the President's agenda and

283
00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:30,760
Speaker 4: what he wants. So that's its own conversation. But what

284
00:18:30,880 --> 00:18:34,720
Speaker 4: I will say about how even the conservatives that we're

285
00:18:34,760 --> 00:18:40,639
Speaker 4: speaking about have responded and reacted to the Bovie nomination.

286
00:18:40,840 --> 00:18:43,720
Speaker 4: It's been extremely mixed, you know. I would say that

287
00:18:44,040 --> 00:18:48,280
Speaker 4: in speaking to conservative lawyers, what they felt was what

288
00:18:48,400 --> 00:18:52,919
Speaker 4: was a unifying force during the first Trump term is

289
00:18:52,960 --> 00:19:00,720
Speaker 4: his track record appointing traditional conservative judges with traditional bonafides,

290
00:19:01,840 --> 00:19:08,040
Speaker 4: and now they're seeing, in their words, straying away from,

291
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:13,080
Speaker 4: you know, just picking textualless judges, originalist judges, conservative judges

292
00:19:13,119 --> 00:19:17,560
Speaker 4: from the bench were seen, in their eyes that the

293
00:19:17,680 --> 00:19:22,440
Speaker 4: highest credential is do you swear your loyalty to this president.

294
00:19:23,440 --> 00:19:28,240
Speaker 1: The Federalist Society was particularly active, to put it mildly,

295
00:19:28,280 --> 00:19:31,680
Speaker 1: in the selection of nominees for the first Trump term.

296
00:19:32,440 --> 00:19:34,520
Speaker 1: Is the Federalist Society involved anymore?

297
00:19:35,760 --> 00:19:40,520
Speaker 4: As far as you know, the Federalist Society is a

298
00:19:40,720 --> 00:19:47,480
Speaker 4: network of right leaning lawyers, right and between that network

299
00:19:47,720 --> 00:19:55,159
Speaker 4: and the organization's former chairman, Leonard Leo, they had a

300
00:19:55,200 --> 00:20:00,400
Speaker 4: pretty influential Mark Odd, who the president previously can bittered

301
00:20:00,640 --> 00:20:05,359
Speaker 4: under his previous administration. This time around for the reasons

302
00:20:05,400 --> 00:20:09,240
Speaker 4: I mentioned, this president has found those appointees that he

303
00:20:09,400 --> 00:20:15,199
Speaker 4: picked through that process as a disappointment. And so the

304
00:20:15,240 --> 00:20:18,840
Speaker 4: sort of short answer for you is no, their membership

305
00:20:18,960 --> 00:20:21,840
Speaker 4: in the society, in the federalist society, but will not

306
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:26,560
Speaker 4: have as big of an impact on how the president

307
00:20:26,640 --> 00:20:30,959
Speaker 4: affects nominees are potential nominees. What he seems to be

308
00:20:31,080 --> 00:20:38,160
Speaker 4: looking for is this deep commitment to having litigated issues

309
00:20:38,280 --> 00:20:42,320
Speaker 4: important to Trump and the Trump administration, as well as

310
00:20:42,520 --> 00:20:45,440
Speaker 4: aligning with Trump's.

311
00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:47,720
Speaker 5: Goals and agenda for his presidency.

312
00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:52,959
Speaker 1: And tell us about this group of former federal judges

313
00:20:54,000 --> 00:20:57,959
Speaker 1: appoint you by both Democratic and Republican presidents who formed

314
00:20:57,960 --> 00:20:58,879
Speaker 1: this coalition.

315
00:21:00,560 --> 00:21:07,000
Speaker 4: Yes, so they are the Article three coalition. They're a group,

316
00:21:07,040 --> 00:21:11,320
Speaker 4: I would say, growing group of retired judges that were

317
00:21:11,320 --> 00:21:16,600
Speaker 4: appointed by pretty much every single president going back to

318
00:21:16,960 --> 00:21:20,800
Speaker 4: Jimmy Carter, I believe, and they have come out in

319
00:21:20,880 --> 00:21:24,600
Speaker 4: recent weeks to say, you know what, in the face

320
00:21:24,800 --> 00:21:27,920
Speaker 4: of the attacks and threats that we have seen against

321
00:21:28,160 --> 00:21:33,359
Speaker 4: the independence of the judiciary, against judges themselves, and really

322
00:21:34,480 --> 00:21:39,360
Speaker 4: what they're seeing as a huge misunderstanding about our system

323
00:21:39,400 --> 00:21:42,040
Speaker 4: of checks and balances and what the courts really do

324
00:21:42,600 --> 00:21:46,000
Speaker 4: and what their role is in our society. They've decided,

325
00:21:46,040 --> 00:21:49,080
Speaker 4: you know what, we're going to advance together and publicly

326
00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:53,959
Speaker 4: speak out in support of judicial independence and to inform

327
00:21:54,080 --> 00:21:57,000
Speaker 4: the public about what the role of the judiciary actually

328
00:21:57,080 --> 00:21:58,600
Speaker 4: is in our democracy.

329
00:21:59,280 --> 00:22:03,960
Speaker 1: It really has been an unprecedented attack on the federal judiciary.

330
00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:08,320
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Tianna. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Tianna Headley.

331
00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:16,520
Speaker 1: The SEC's Consolidated Audit Trail system, which requires broker dealers

332
00:22:16,560 --> 00:22:20,240
Speaker 1: and others to report trade data in real time, is

333
00:22:20,280 --> 00:22:24,040
Speaker 1: at a critical juncture. The Commission is reviewing the market

334
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:28,720
Speaker 1: surveillance tool as some lawsuits push to abolish it entirely.

335
00:22:29,400 --> 00:22:33,399
Speaker 1: SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said last month that the financial

336
00:22:33,480 --> 00:22:37,440
Speaker 1: services industry and Congress have rightly pushed back on the

337
00:22:37,480 --> 00:22:41,840
Speaker 1: seemingly endless cost increases and the risks of storing so

338
00:22:41,960 --> 00:22:46,200
Speaker 1: much sensitive data. Together. Joining me is securities law expert

339
00:22:46,280 --> 00:22:50,320
Speaker 1: James park, A professor at UCLA Law School. Jim tell

340
00:22:50,400 --> 00:22:55,560
Speaker 1: us about this Consolidated Audit Trail system, What it is

341
00:22:55,600 --> 00:22:56,359
Speaker 1: and what it does.

342
00:22:56,800 --> 00:23:04,040
Speaker 5: It's basically a record of trading in stocks on national markets,

343
00:23:04,119 --> 00:23:08,280
Speaker 5: and it basically allows the SEC to track pretty much

344
00:23:08,320 --> 00:23:11,639
Speaker 5: every trade that's happening. And this is a capability that

345
00:23:11,680 --> 00:23:16,240
Speaker 5: the SEC did not have until relatively recently. After the

346
00:23:16,280 --> 00:23:20,040
Speaker 5: flash crash of twenty ten, there was a concern that

347
00:23:20,119 --> 00:23:24,879
Speaker 5: the SEC just didn't have enough information about increasingly complex

348
00:23:25,000 --> 00:23:29,280
Speaker 5: securities markets, and so they passed this rule, which requires

349
00:23:29,400 --> 00:23:34,840
Speaker 5: various self regulatory organizations to report this information basically the

350
00:23:34,880 --> 00:23:36,760
Speaker 5: next day to the SEC.

351
00:23:37,240 --> 00:23:39,400
Speaker 1: I take it that traders don't like this. Does it

352
00:23:39,440 --> 00:23:41,080
Speaker 1: cost them a lot to do this?

353
00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:45,000
Speaker 5: You know, it does cost them something. I mean, certainly

354
00:23:45,359 --> 00:23:49,160
Speaker 5: record keeping is not free, and you know, I think

355
00:23:49,440 --> 00:23:52,360
Speaker 5: you know, we're in a time of deregulation. And so

356
00:23:52,640 --> 00:23:56,200
Speaker 5: to the extent that various broken dealers and other parties

357
00:23:56,520 --> 00:24:00,400
Speaker 5: responsible for providing this information to the extent that they can,

358
00:24:00,960 --> 00:24:03,760
Speaker 5: you know, argue to the SEC that this is costly.

359
00:24:03,880 --> 00:24:06,439
Speaker 5: We don't want to pay these costs. This is the

360
00:24:06,480 --> 00:24:08,840
Speaker 5: time to make that argument. On the other hand, you

361
00:24:08,840 --> 00:24:11,560
Speaker 5: could say, well, you know, the two hundred and fifty

362
00:24:11,560 --> 00:24:15,040
Speaker 5: million dollars are spending on this is the nice investment

363
00:24:15,160 --> 00:24:18,040
Speaker 5: in the integrity of markets, and that you actually benefit

364
00:24:18,240 --> 00:24:22,200
Speaker 5: when the SEC knows what's going on, because investors will

365
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:27,040
Speaker 5: be more confident in the stock markets and more likely

366
00:24:27,119 --> 00:24:31,040
Speaker 5: to invest, and so there's an argument there about cost

367
00:24:31,160 --> 00:24:33,800
Speaker 5: that is going on, whether it's in the benefit of

368
00:24:33,920 --> 00:24:38,639
Speaker 5: the various self regulatory organizations to report this information. Another

369
00:24:38,720 --> 00:24:42,480
Speaker 5: concern may be that they may be worried about, you know,

370
00:24:42,560 --> 00:24:47,640
Speaker 5: this data being stolen, and they may not want there

371
00:24:47,680 --> 00:24:49,959
Speaker 5: to be a risk that somebody will be able to

372
00:24:50,000 --> 00:24:54,480
Speaker 5: look at this data and somehow profit in trading against

373
00:24:54,600 --> 00:24:58,040
Speaker 5: various firms. And that's not as far se possibility as

374
00:24:58,080 --> 00:25:02,320
Speaker 5: beyond those cyber attacks are pretty constant and a threat.

375
00:25:02,400 --> 00:25:04,240
Speaker 5: But I think there are a couple of reasons why

376
00:25:04,359 --> 00:25:08,639
Speaker 5: the industry would like to see the consolidated audit trail

377
00:25:09,200 --> 00:25:10,600
Speaker 5: reduced or even repealed.

378
00:25:11,240 --> 00:25:16,359
Speaker 1: Conservative think tank and investor plaintiffs are suing in Texas

379
00:25:16,440 --> 00:25:22,600
Speaker 1: federal court arguing that quote the dystopian surveillance scheme was

380
00:25:22,720 --> 00:25:26,719
Speaker 1: never endorsed by Congress and that it amounts to spying

381
00:25:26,840 --> 00:25:30,600
Speaker 1: on US traders. Do they have a strong case?

382
00:25:30,680 --> 00:25:35,240
Speaker 5: You think they're raising privacy concerns, and you know, I

383
00:25:35,280 --> 00:25:38,520
Speaker 5: think you know, it's the similar arguments that we're seeing

384
00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:40,920
Speaker 5: in a lot of different contexts. You know, we are

385
00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:44,080
Speaker 5: being tracked and our data is being collected, you know,

386
00:25:44,160 --> 00:25:47,280
Speaker 5: something that some of us may be uncomfortable with. And

387
00:25:48,040 --> 00:25:52,119
Speaker 5: you know, there was until recently, personal identification for a

388
00:25:52,119 --> 00:25:55,679
Speaker 5: lot of the investors was included in this information and

389
00:25:55,720 --> 00:26:00,560
Speaker 5: that could potentially be sensitive if it's stolen, knowing what

390
00:26:00,640 --> 00:26:04,359
Speaker 5: every individual investor is doing, you know, is there some

391
00:26:04,440 --> 00:26:08,399
Speaker 5: privacy concerns there, you know, possibly, and just sort of

392
00:26:08,440 --> 00:26:11,480
Speaker 5: the question of do we want you know, cameras recording

393
00:26:11,920 --> 00:26:15,600
Speaker 5: things that are happening on the street traffic because they're

394
00:26:15,600 --> 00:26:18,440
Speaker 5: more likely to catch people who violate the laws, right,

395
00:26:18,520 --> 00:26:21,040
Speaker 5: And there may be an argument that I should have

396
00:26:21,080 --> 00:26:24,280
Speaker 5: the privacy too, you know, to trade in the way

397
00:26:24,280 --> 00:26:28,280
Speaker 5: that I want to without being investigated for insider trading,

398
00:26:28,320 --> 00:26:30,000
Speaker 5: and that is I think one of the uses the

399
00:26:30,080 --> 00:26:33,840
Speaker 5: SEC has made of the consolidated audit trail is tracking

400
00:26:33,920 --> 00:26:38,560
Speaker 5: unusual training and so there may be a privacy interest there.

401
00:26:38,920 --> 00:26:43,280
Speaker 5: You know, whether the rule is authorized. Congress did pass

402
00:26:43,320 --> 00:26:47,600
Speaker 5: a statute about the SEC regulating national markets generally, and

403
00:26:48,200 --> 00:26:50,600
Speaker 5: I think there's a complex legal issue there as to

404
00:26:50,680 --> 00:26:53,160
Speaker 5: whether that rule is within that authority.

405
00:26:53,840 --> 00:26:59,120
Speaker 1: So Jim the SEC chairman, Paul Atkins, what's his take

406
00:26:59,280 --> 00:27:02,280
Speaker 1: so far on and as you mentioned, they're all into

407
00:27:02,440 --> 00:27:03,600
Speaker 1: you know, deregulation.

408
00:27:03,800 --> 00:27:07,479
Speaker 5: Now, I imagine this is one of many issues on

409
00:27:07,520 --> 00:27:11,080
Speaker 5: his plate, and I think that you know, certainly to

410
00:27:11,119 --> 00:27:13,200
Speaker 5: the extent that he could find a way to reduce

411
00:27:13,320 --> 00:27:16,840
Speaker 5: the costs, I think that is something that he might

412
00:27:16,880 --> 00:27:19,280
Speaker 5: be sympathetic too. On the other hand, it's a pretty

413
00:27:19,320 --> 00:27:22,960
Speaker 5: powerful tool that can be used to diagnose what are

414
00:27:23,000 --> 00:27:27,840
Speaker 5: increasingly complex markets. You know, we have high frequency training,

415
00:27:28,359 --> 00:27:31,840
Speaker 5: algorithmic training, you know, and AI I'm sure is going

416
00:27:31,880 --> 00:27:35,760
Speaker 5: to get involved as well. And stock markets are not

417
00:27:35,840 --> 00:27:38,640
Speaker 5: always as robust and stable as we'd like to think

418
00:27:38,680 --> 00:27:42,239
Speaker 5: they are, and markets can break down and you know,

419
00:27:42,359 --> 00:27:45,760
Speaker 5: fall for various reasons and be manipulated. And this allows

420
00:27:46,359 --> 00:27:49,720
Speaker 5: the SEC the tools to diagnose exactly what happened. And

421
00:27:49,800 --> 00:27:52,480
Speaker 5: so I think it would be something that the SEC

422
00:27:53,119 --> 00:27:56,320
Speaker 5: would be reluctant to totally do away with. You know,

423
00:27:56,440 --> 00:27:58,600
Speaker 5: we used to live in a much simpler world where

424
00:27:59,080 --> 00:28:02,040
Speaker 5: the New York stocking it's just a physical person taking

425
00:28:02,080 --> 00:28:04,679
Speaker 5: the orders, and you know, it's it's just you know,

426
00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:07,399
Speaker 5: more centralized. But now we just have all sorts of

427
00:28:07,440 --> 00:28:11,480
Speaker 5: different factors and considerations that you know, people are using

428
00:28:11,560 --> 00:28:15,480
Speaker 5: to gain the market and manipulate it in various ways. So,

429
00:28:16,320 --> 00:28:18,680
Speaker 5: you know, if you think of a cost benefit analysis,

430
00:28:18,720 --> 00:28:22,000
Speaker 5: which I imagined that would be an approach that would be

431
00:28:22,160 --> 00:28:24,879
Speaker 5: used by the SPC, I would hope that, you know,

432
00:28:24,920 --> 00:28:26,800
Speaker 5: it would it would survive in some form. Are there

433
00:28:26,840 --> 00:28:29,040
Speaker 5: ways we can reduce some of the burdens? I'm sure

434
00:28:29,040 --> 00:28:31,040
Speaker 5: that's something they will take a very close look at.

435
00:28:31,560 --> 00:28:35,679
Speaker 1: Yeah, And because the SEC is generally understaffed, isn't it

436
00:28:35,720 --> 00:28:40,120
Speaker 1: so if it doesn't have tools like this, it's very understaffed.

437
00:28:40,240 --> 00:28:45,360
Speaker 5: And you know, everyone's using technology, everyone's using technology, why

438
00:28:45,360 --> 00:28:50,520
Speaker 5: shouldn't the government also utilize technology in certain ways in

439
00:28:50,640 --> 00:28:54,000
Speaker 5: order to perform its basic regulatory function. I think that's

440
00:28:54,040 --> 00:28:56,760
Speaker 5: the argument. Now, on the other end, you could say, well,

441
00:28:56,920 --> 00:29:00,560
Speaker 5: you know, it's the government. We are maybe more concerned

442
00:29:00,640 --> 00:29:03,960
Speaker 5: because of the power of the government as opposed to

443
00:29:04,000 --> 00:29:07,760
Speaker 5: private parties. But you know, I think you know, some

444
00:29:07,800 --> 00:29:10,520
Speaker 5: would say that, well, I'm just as concerned of big

445
00:29:10,560 --> 00:29:13,360
Speaker 5: tech companies having all this data about me as well,

446
00:29:13,440 --> 00:29:19,000
Speaker 5: And maybe in order to regulate significant corporate interests on

447
00:29:19,200 --> 00:29:21,880
Speaker 5: Wall Street, we do have to give the government the

448
00:29:21,920 --> 00:29:24,920
Speaker 5: tools so that they can keep up this.

449
00:29:25,040 --> 00:29:29,400
Speaker 1: Month, the SEC withdrew a proposal from Trump's first term

450
00:29:29,920 --> 00:29:33,880
Speaker 1: that would have boosted the security of this What does

451
00:29:33,920 --> 00:29:34,840
Speaker 1: that tell you.

452
00:29:35,960 --> 00:29:39,080
Speaker 5: It probably means that they want to take another look

453
00:29:39,360 --> 00:29:41,520
Speaker 5: at what they want to do. They want to start

454
00:29:41,640 --> 00:29:45,920
Speaker 5: kind of fresh. Maybe it means that they'll go further.

455
00:29:46,320 --> 00:29:49,240
Speaker 5: It doesn't necessarily mean, though, that they will go further.

456
00:29:49,400 --> 00:29:51,160
Speaker 5: But I think they want to at least leave open

457
00:29:51,200 --> 00:29:55,240
Speaker 5: the possibility that they do more than increase the security

458
00:29:55,280 --> 00:29:59,040
Speaker 5: of the trail and implement other reforms. And you know,

459
00:29:59,080 --> 00:30:02,760
Speaker 5: they've they've already done some things with you know, creating

460
00:30:02,800 --> 00:30:08,040
Speaker 5: an exemption for personally identifiable information with an order. You know,

461
00:30:08,120 --> 00:30:10,320
Speaker 5: maybe that would be put into a rule. Maybe there's

462
00:30:10,360 --> 00:30:14,480
Speaker 5: some other things that they're working on as well. It's

463
00:30:14,480 --> 00:30:16,880
Speaker 5: hard to tell what that means. It may may not

464
00:30:16,960 --> 00:30:21,120
Speaker 5: necessarily be a sign that there's something drastically different about

465
00:30:21,120 --> 00:30:21,760
Speaker 5: what they'll do.

466
00:30:22,040 --> 00:30:25,240
Speaker 1: You know, there's been a lot of news about different

467
00:30:25,600 --> 00:30:29,560
Speaker 1: departments and agencies, not so much about the SEC. So

468
00:30:29,800 --> 00:30:33,920
Speaker 1: have there been any major changes since Trump took office.

469
00:30:34,400 --> 00:30:37,880
Speaker 5: It's a very good question. I think they've moved slowly

470
00:30:38,080 --> 00:30:39,880
Speaker 5: from what I understand. One of the things, you know,

471
00:30:39,920 --> 00:30:43,080
Speaker 5: I'm always interested in is an enforcement my understanding, they

472
00:30:43,080 --> 00:30:46,800
Speaker 5: have not yet appointed a director of the Enforcement Division,

473
00:30:47,880 --> 00:30:50,720
Speaker 5: although I think they have done a bit of reorganization

474
00:30:51,280 --> 00:30:55,760
Speaker 5: of the various regions, and you know, I don't think

475
00:30:55,760 --> 00:30:59,640
Speaker 5: it's necessarily a major set of reorganizations on the enforcement front.

476
00:30:59,640 --> 00:31:03,520
Speaker 5: They've all so basically made it a little bit more

477
00:31:03,640 --> 00:31:08,320
Speaker 5: difficult to open investigations of corporations. They passed a rule

478
00:31:09,040 --> 00:31:13,000
Speaker 5: basically saying that if the enforcement staff wants to open investigation,

479
00:31:13,160 --> 00:31:16,160
Speaker 5: they have to get a majority vote of the commission.

480
00:31:16,240 --> 00:31:20,960
Speaker 5: The five commissioners who sit in in Washington, they have

481
00:31:21,080 --> 00:31:24,320
Speaker 5: to review their requests and that would allow them to

482
00:31:24,360 --> 00:31:29,600
Speaker 5: open an investigation. That's a change back. You know, starting

483
00:31:29,680 --> 00:31:34,120
Speaker 5: in two thousand and nine, after the Madoff scandal, enforcement

484
00:31:34,720 --> 00:31:37,640
Speaker 5: was streamlined a bit so that you can open investigations

485
00:31:37,680 --> 00:31:41,200
Speaker 5: without going to this five person commission. So that that is,

486
00:31:41,240 --> 00:31:44,680
Speaker 5: you know, significant change I swot at singles on enforcement

487
00:31:44,720 --> 00:31:47,480
Speaker 5: at the FEAT. You know, the SEC wants to centralize

488
00:31:47,600 --> 00:31:52,680
Speaker 5: enforcement decision making to a greater degree than the prior administration.

489
00:31:53,440 --> 00:31:53,640
Speaker 3: You know.

490
00:31:53,680 --> 00:31:56,040
Speaker 5: The risk of that, though, is that the investigations will

491
00:31:56,080 --> 00:31:58,240
Speaker 5: be slow. Those are the things that I've noticed.

492
00:31:58,360 --> 00:32:01,560
Speaker 1: It's great to have you on Jim As. That's Professor

493
00:32:01,640 --> 00:32:05,120
Speaker 1: James Park of UCLA Law School. And that's it for

494
00:32:05,160 --> 00:32:07,760
Speaker 1: this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

495
00:32:07,800 --> 00:32:11,080
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts.

496
00:32:11,320 --> 00:32:14,360
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

497
00:32:14,520 --> 00:32:19,560
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And

498
00:32:19,600 --> 00:32:22,680
Speaker 1: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

499
00:32:22,760 --> 00:32:26,200
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

500
00:32:26,280 --> 00:32:27,760
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg