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

2
00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,400
Speaker 1: The saga of the Justice Department's attempt to dismiss the

3
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:17,200
Speaker 1: corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams continued

4
00:00:17,200 --> 00:00:22,160
Speaker 1: in Manhattan courtroom today. Federal Judge Dale Hoe heard arguments

5
00:00:22,200 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 1: from adams lawyer and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove,

6
00:00:26,920 --> 00:00:30,159
Speaker 1: whose order to the Manhattan US Attorney to drop the

7
00:00:30,320 --> 00:00:33,879
Speaker 1: charges against Adams led to the stunning resignation of that

8
00:00:34,080 --> 00:00:38,280
Speaker 1: US attorney and seven other career prosecutors joining me as

9
00:00:38,320 --> 00:00:43,200
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz a partner maccarter in English, Bob,

10
00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:47,160
Speaker 1: it was an atypical scene in the courtroom. On one side,

11
00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:51,320
Speaker 1: you had the Justice Department, represented by the acting Deputy

12
00:00:51,360 --> 00:00:54,640
Speaker 1: Attorney General, and on the other you had Adams and

13
00:00:54,720 --> 00:00:58,600
Speaker 1: his lawyers. Nowhere was there a representative from the Manhattan

14
00:00:58,720 --> 00:01:01,400
Speaker 1: US Attorney's office that brought the case.

15
00:01:02,200 --> 00:01:05,839
Speaker 2: In terms of a courtroom proceeding, it was quite unusual

16
00:01:06,240 --> 00:01:09,760
Speaker 2: because you didn't have any of the prosecutors who actually

17
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:12,680
Speaker 2: worked on the case, who worked on the investigation over

18
00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:16,560
Speaker 2: the past two or three years before the judge. Instead,

19
00:01:16,640 --> 00:01:21,640
Speaker 2: you had this situation where Embo Beauveay, the acting Deputy

20
00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:27,280
Speaker 2: Attorney General, was really the loan Justice Department official defending

21
00:01:27,319 --> 00:01:30,440
Speaker 2: the actions of the Justice Department, and it created really

22
00:01:30,520 --> 00:01:32,160
Speaker 2: quite a remarkable situation.

23
00:01:32,600 --> 00:01:36,320
Speaker 1: The judge questioned Adams to find out whether he understood

24
00:01:36,880 --> 00:01:41,840
Speaker 1: that the charges could be brought against him again, and

25
00:01:41,920 --> 00:01:44,679
Speaker 1: Adams said, I have not committed a crime. I do

26
00:01:44,800 --> 00:01:47,880
Speaker 1: not see them bringing it back. I'm not afraid of that.

27
00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:52,080
Speaker 2: Well, the Justice Department was requesting what's called the dismissal

28
00:01:52,080 --> 00:01:55,320
Speaker 2: without prejudice, which means that the government has the ability

29
00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:58,480
Speaker 2: to refile these charges at any point in the future,

30
00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:01,640
Speaker 2: subject to the statute of limitation, if they desire to

31
00:02:01,720 --> 00:02:04,279
Speaker 2: do so. So what the judge here was making sure

32
00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:09,000
Speaker 2: was that the defendant, Mayor Adams, understood that this dismissal

33
00:02:09,320 --> 00:02:11,840
Speaker 2: could be reinstated at some point in the future, and

34
00:02:11,919 --> 00:02:14,200
Speaker 2: the mayor's response was that he did not fear that

35
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 2: at all, because he had done nothing wrong.

36
00:02:17,480 --> 00:02:21,519
Speaker 1: One of the concerns of the Manhattan US attorney who

37
00:02:21,600 --> 00:02:26,200
Speaker 1: resigned is that this was a quid pro quo Adam's

38
00:02:26,200 --> 00:02:30,600
Speaker 1: help on immigration enforcement in exchange for the Justice Department

39
00:02:30,720 --> 00:02:34,040
Speaker 1: dropping the case, and the judge asked Bouve if there

40
00:02:34,080 --> 00:02:38,280
Speaker 1: were other examples where a similar rationale was used to

41
00:02:38,360 --> 00:02:42,360
Speaker 1: drop charges against a public official. Bouvet couldn't come up

42
00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:45,760
Speaker 1: with a case like that, but he cited the Biden

43
00:02:45,800 --> 00:02:51,040
Speaker 1: administration's decision to release Russian arms dealer Victor Bout in

44
00:02:51,120 --> 00:02:56,240
Speaker 1: exchange for US basketball player Britney Griner. But that's clearly

45
00:02:56,280 --> 00:02:57,120
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo.

46
00:02:58,400 --> 00:03:01,120
Speaker 2: Well, I think what he was trying to show was

47
00:03:01,160 --> 00:03:05,200
Speaker 2: that there are some times where the government will take

48
00:03:05,240 --> 00:03:09,200
Speaker 2: a position in which they will exchange one thing for another.

49
00:03:09,480 --> 00:03:13,440
Speaker 2: In prisoner exchanges, you do have a circumstance where somebody

50
00:03:13,480 --> 00:03:16,399
Speaker 2: who's being held by the United States government, who obviously

51
00:03:16,919 --> 00:03:20,600
Speaker 2: was duly tried and convicted before a jury, and another

52
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:25,080
Speaker 2: US citizen, usually who's held by another foreign country, usually

53
00:03:25,080 --> 00:03:27,680
Speaker 2: in the situation in which they were deprived of all

54
00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:32,959
Speaker 2: due process, they are exchanged. But there's really no parallel there,

55
00:03:33,000 --> 00:03:36,360
Speaker 2: because nobody is saying that is anything but a quid

56
00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:40,200
Speaker 2: pro quo in exchange for one prisoner for another. For

57
00:03:40,280 --> 00:03:44,200
Speaker 2: various policy reasons, it does not go to the dismissal

58
00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:47,280
Speaker 2: of a pending criminal charge, which is something that is

59
00:03:47,440 --> 00:03:51,360
Speaker 2: entirely different. Those are circumstances where each of those individuals

60
00:03:51,480 --> 00:03:53,520
Speaker 2: have already been tried and convicted, whether it's in this

61
00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:57,360
Speaker 2: country or somewhere else, and are now simply getting exchanged

62
00:03:57,400 --> 00:03:59,000
Speaker 2: for purely political reasons.

63
00:03:59,360 --> 00:04:03,040
Speaker 1: It seemed as if Beauvay was sort of outlining what

64
00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:06,280
Speaker 1: the judge could and could not consider. For example, he

65
00:04:06,320 --> 00:04:10,080
Speaker 1: said that the judge couldn't do a wide ranging inquiry

66
00:04:10,640 --> 00:04:14,520
Speaker 1: into DOJ decision making in the case. He said, the

67
00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:17,520
Speaker 1: inquiry is limited to whether the department made the request

68
00:04:17,640 --> 00:04:21,479
Speaker 1: in good faith. That's the end of the inquiry. Beauve said,

69
00:04:21,560 --> 00:04:24,039
Speaker 1: I'm telling you as an officer of the court that

70
00:04:24,040 --> 00:04:26,720
Speaker 1: that was made in good faith. I mean, did the

71
00:04:26,800 --> 00:04:27,880
Speaker 1: judge have to accept that?

72
00:04:28,560 --> 00:04:31,400
Speaker 2: Well, what the Deputy Attorney General was trying to do

73
00:04:31,960 --> 00:04:36,600
Speaker 2: was to take away all of this controversy, the unprecedented

74
00:04:36,920 --> 00:04:41,920
Speaker 2: scene of one prosecutor after another resigning rather than follow

75
00:04:41,920 --> 00:04:45,200
Speaker 2: in order that they believed was improper, and to take

76
00:04:45,240 --> 00:04:47,960
Speaker 2: that issue completely off the table and present to the

77
00:04:48,080 --> 00:04:52,039
Speaker 2: judge what he said was simply a straightforward exercise in

78
00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:56,039
Speaker 2: prosecutorial discretion. And to really try to make this sound

79
00:04:56,400 --> 00:04:59,800
Speaker 2: as if this is a routine dismissal of a criminal

80
00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:04,680
Speaker 2: that is, in the words of mister Bob, virtually unreviewable

81
00:05:04,880 --> 00:05:07,400
Speaker 2: by this courtroom. What he was trying to do with

82
00:05:07,520 --> 00:05:09,960
Speaker 2: the signal to the judge that the judge here really

83
00:05:10,000 --> 00:05:13,520
Speaker 2: does not have much discretion at all, and that if

84
00:05:13,560 --> 00:05:16,440
Speaker 2: the government is moving to dismiss this case, the court

85
00:05:16,520 --> 00:05:19,360
Speaker 2: really should simply acquiesce and sign the order.

86
00:05:19,960 --> 00:05:25,000
Speaker 1: What continues to surprise me is that Beauvet's argument for

87
00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:28,440
Speaker 1: dismissing the charges is the same argument he made in

88
00:05:28,520 --> 00:05:31,719
Speaker 1: his first order to the Manhattan US Attorney and that

89
00:05:31,920 --> 00:05:36,400
Speaker 1: caused a string of prosecutors to resign. He said, the

90
00:05:36,440 --> 00:05:40,960
Speaker 1: continuation of this prosecution is interfering with both national security

91
00:05:41,000 --> 00:05:45,080
Speaker 1: and immigration initiatives. I think the fact that Mayor Adams

92
00:05:45,120 --> 00:05:47,520
Speaker 1: is sitting to my left is part of the problem.

93
00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:51,520
Speaker 1: He's not able to be outrunning the city. So again,

94
00:05:51,600 --> 00:05:56,120
Speaker 1: there's no consideration of the evidence against Adams. So the

95
00:05:56,360 --> 00:06:00,279
Speaker 1: Justice Department is dismissing a case based on political consideration

96
00:06:00,560 --> 00:06:02,080
Speaker 1: and it's admitting that.

97
00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:05,080
Speaker 2: Yeah. Well, what this really does is it raises the

98
00:06:05,240 --> 00:06:09,640
Speaker 2: question as to what limits, if any, there are in

99
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:14,040
Speaker 2: terms of prosecutorial discretion. Hear, what the Deputy Attorney General

100
00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:17,679
Speaker 2: is really arguing that if the Department of Justice wants

101
00:06:17,720 --> 00:06:20,320
Speaker 2: to dismiss the case, they can pretty much do it

102
00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:24,159
Speaker 2: for any reason whatsoever. And in this case, the argument

103
00:06:24,400 --> 00:06:28,920
Speaker 2: is that the continued prosecution of Mayor Adams will interfere

104
00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:33,600
Speaker 2: with President Trump's ability to pursue his immigration agenda. And

105
00:06:33,640 --> 00:06:37,440
Speaker 2: the real question then is is that an appropriate basis

106
00:06:37,480 --> 00:06:40,599
Speaker 2: to dismiss the case? And what the government's position now

107
00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:43,480
Speaker 2: is that the judge does not get to question whether

108
00:06:43,600 --> 00:06:46,320
Speaker 2: or not the basis for the dismissal is appropriate or not,

109
00:06:46,600 --> 00:06:50,360
Speaker 2: simply if it is made in good faith, that that's enough. Now,

110
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:53,720
Speaker 2: what we've seen here too is mister Beauveat kind of

111
00:06:53,760 --> 00:06:55,960
Speaker 2: trying to have it both ways, in the sense that

112
00:06:56,240 --> 00:06:59,599
Speaker 2: initially he said that the decision to dismiss this case

113
00:06:59,760 --> 00:07:03,080
Speaker 2: would not based at all on the case's legal merits

114
00:07:03,200 --> 00:07:06,039
Speaker 2: or the theory of prosecution, and he stuck to that

115
00:07:06,240 --> 00:07:09,760
Speaker 2: again during this hearing, But then he also told the

116
00:07:09,880 --> 00:07:14,520
Speaker 2: judge that the prosecution had the appearances of impropriety and

117
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:18,240
Speaker 2: the suggestion that this entire case was brought simply to

118
00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:21,520
Speaker 2: punish the mayor for his stance on immigration, which was

119
00:07:21,600 --> 00:07:24,840
Speaker 2: contrary to the position of the Biden administration at the time.

120
00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:28,960
Speaker 2: So he really is challenging in some way the merits

121
00:07:29,000 --> 00:07:33,080
Speaker 2: of the case and suggesting that this case was improvidently

122
00:07:33,160 --> 00:07:36,360
Speaker 2: brought by the US Attorney's office. The problem with that

123
00:07:36,560 --> 00:07:40,640
Speaker 2: argument is that the investigation began well before Mayor Adams

124
00:07:40,680 --> 00:07:45,240
Speaker 2: became mayor, and well before he criticized the Biden administration's

125
00:07:45,280 --> 00:07:48,640
Speaker 2: position on immigration. So the acting US Attorney for the

126
00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 2: Southern District of New York, who refused to carry out

127
00:07:51,320 --> 00:07:54,960
Speaker 2: this order and who has since resigned in protests, pointed

128
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:58,240
Speaker 2: out that that argument really didn't hold any water, and

129
00:07:58,280 --> 00:08:02,600
Speaker 2: that this investigation was never about Mayor Adam's position with

130
00:08:02,800 --> 00:08:05,680
Speaker 2: regard to immigration and the fact that he challenged the

131
00:08:05,680 --> 00:08:08,960
Speaker 2: Biden administration on some of the immigration policies.

132
00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:11,840
Speaker 1: And both Ay also said at one point that even

133
00:08:11,880 --> 00:08:15,480
Speaker 1: if there were a quid pro quo, there wouldn't be

134
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:17,520
Speaker 1: any issue with this motion.

135
00:08:18,040 --> 00:08:21,360
Speaker 2: Once again, the position of the Deputy US Attorney General

136
00:08:21,440 --> 00:08:24,800
Speaker 2: here is that the government can come in to dismiss

137
00:08:24,840 --> 00:08:28,640
Speaker 2: the case pretty much for any reason whatsoever, as long

138
00:08:28,800 --> 00:08:31,760
Speaker 2: as they are quote unquote acting in good faith. And

139
00:08:31,840 --> 00:08:34,160
Speaker 2: here the position that was put forward to the judge

140
00:08:34,559 --> 00:08:37,319
Speaker 2: was that if the decision is made by the Department

141
00:08:37,360 --> 00:08:41,800
Speaker 2: of Justice, that this decision furthers a policy agenda by

142
00:08:41,840 --> 00:08:45,600
Speaker 2: the administration, that that is a valid basis to dismiss

143
00:08:45,600 --> 00:08:48,640
Speaker 2: the case. And what troubled the prosecutors from the Southern

144
00:08:48,720 --> 00:08:51,800
Speaker 2: District of New York and other federal prosecutors he resigned

145
00:08:51,800 --> 00:08:55,440
Speaker 2: in protests is that really is saying to somebody that

146
00:08:55,559 --> 00:08:58,200
Speaker 2: if you're in a position as an elected official to

147
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:03,120
Speaker 2: further the political agenda of the administration, that then your

148
00:09:03,360 --> 00:09:07,040
Speaker 2: value as a public official and your ability to carry

149
00:09:07,040 --> 00:09:10,640
Speaker 2: out the administrations again to outweighs the fact that you

150
00:09:10,760 --> 00:09:13,280
Speaker 2: may have committed a crime and that the case should

151
00:09:13,280 --> 00:09:14,840
Speaker 2: be dropped for that reason.

152
00:09:15,040 --> 00:09:17,280
Speaker 1: So Judge Host said he was aware that he had

153
00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:21,560
Speaker 1: little discretion and that courts have found prosecutors are the

154
00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:24,439
Speaker 1: best judges of whether or not a case should continue,

155
00:09:24,720 --> 00:09:27,600
Speaker 1: but he said judges do have a limited role to play.

156
00:09:28,200 --> 00:09:32,320
Speaker 1: There was a request from emotion from common cause for

157
00:09:32,400 --> 00:09:35,520
Speaker 1: the judge to appoint a special prosecutor, and something like

158
00:09:35,559 --> 00:09:38,079
Speaker 1: that was done in the Michael Flynn case. Couldn't the

159
00:09:38,160 --> 00:09:38,880
Speaker 1: judge do that?

160
00:09:40,040 --> 00:09:43,760
Speaker 2: Well, judge could do that here. The judge is very measured,

161
00:09:44,200 --> 00:09:46,920
Speaker 2: very methodical in the way he approached this hearing. He

162
00:09:47,040 --> 00:09:50,800
Speaker 2: started out by calling it an unusual situation, which is

163
00:09:50,840 --> 00:09:54,520
Speaker 2: a rather understated way to describe the situation that was

164
00:09:54,559 --> 00:09:57,559
Speaker 2: before him that led to this hearing. He also said

165
00:09:57,600 --> 00:10:00,040
Speaker 2: that he acknowledged, as you point out, that he he

166
00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:03,400
Speaker 2: has limited discretion here, but that he is entitled to

167
00:10:03,440 --> 00:10:06,559
Speaker 2: have a hearing and to understand the government's position for

168
00:10:06,720 --> 00:10:09,800
Speaker 2: dismissing the case and to determine whether or not dismissal

169
00:10:10,040 --> 00:10:13,560
Speaker 2: is in the public interest. The judge can, as you mentioned,

170
00:10:13,760 --> 00:10:17,160
Speaker 2: appoint a special prosecutor if it finds that the Justice

171
00:10:17,160 --> 00:10:21,480
Speaker 2: Department acted improperly, and he can order that evidence that

172
00:10:21,600 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 2: was gathered by the Department of Justice, for example, be

173
00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:28,160
Speaker 2: made available to state and local prosecutors so they could

174
00:10:28,200 --> 00:10:31,360
Speaker 2: pursue the case if the Department of Justice refused.

175
00:10:30,840 --> 00:10:31,319
Speaker 1: To do so.

176
00:10:31,679 --> 00:10:34,640
Speaker 2: But that would be a really unusual move by the judge,

177
00:10:34,840 --> 00:10:37,160
Speaker 2: and based upon the way this hearing went, I don't

178
00:10:37,160 --> 00:10:38,280
Speaker 2: think he's likely to do that.

179
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:42,280
Speaker 1: Judge Hoe ended the hearing by saying he wouldn't shoot

180
00:10:42,280 --> 00:10:45,840
Speaker 1: from the hip and rule immediately, but he was aware

181
00:10:45,920 --> 00:10:48,720
Speaker 1: that it's not in anyone's interest here for this to

182
00:10:48,840 --> 00:10:53,000
Speaker 1: drag on. Of course, even After this motion to dismiss

183
00:10:53,200 --> 00:10:57,400
Speaker 1: is settled, there are still continuing questions about Eric Adams's

184
00:10:57,440 --> 00:11:01,240
Speaker 1: future as the mayor of New York City. Governor Kathy

185
00:11:01,320 --> 00:11:05,199
Speaker 1: Hochel held a series of meetings with key political figures

186
00:11:05,240 --> 00:11:10,239
Speaker 1: Tuesday as she contemplates removing Mayor Adams from his office.

187
00:11:10,640 --> 00:11:14,280
Speaker 1: It would be an unprecedented step in New York history.

188
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:18,480
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mintz of Macarter and English.

189
00:11:18,800 --> 00:11:21,680
Speaker 1: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Trump is

190
00:11:21,760 --> 00:11:25,760
Speaker 1: forcing the Supreme Court to face its greatest fear. I'll

191
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:30,240
Speaker 1: talk to Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. I'm June Grosso,

192
00:11:30,360 --> 00:11:35,760
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg. Unlike the executive and legislative

193
00:11:35,800 --> 00:11:40,080
Speaker 1: branches of government, the Supreme Court has no real power

194
00:11:40,160 --> 00:11:45,400
Speaker 1: to enforce its decisions, no army or constitutional spending power

195
00:11:45,559 --> 00:11:49,000
Speaker 1: to use. So what happens if the President of the

196
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:53,280
Speaker 1: United States refuses to comply with a Supreme Court order?

197
00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:57,240
Speaker 1: It hasn't happened since the Civil War, but Donald Trump

198
00:11:57,320 --> 00:12:02,400
Speaker 1: seems to be ignoring longstandingly legal constraints. Is the next step.

199
00:12:02,679 --> 00:12:06,120
Speaker 1: Defying a court order. Though Trump has said he always

200
00:12:06,160 --> 00:12:10,400
Speaker 1: follows court orders. His truth. Social posts and statements from

201
00:12:10,440 --> 00:12:14,600
Speaker 1: his key aids seem to suggest defiance. My guest, his

202
00:12:14,600 --> 00:12:18,840
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Storr. His recent essay is

203
00:12:19,040 --> 00:12:23,840
Speaker 1: entitled Trump forces the Supreme Court to face its greatest fear.

204
00:12:24,440 --> 00:12:27,920
Speaker 1: You know, you wrote this article and it's very scholarly, Greg,

205
00:12:28,160 --> 00:12:30,840
Speaker 1: and it reminds me of being in law school in

206
00:12:30,880 --> 00:12:33,360
Speaker 1: a good way. And you start with the history of

207
00:12:33,720 --> 00:12:38,280
Speaker 1: the landmark case known to every lawyer, Marbury versus Madison.

208
00:12:38,880 --> 00:12:41,679
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is probably the most important case in the

209
00:12:41,760 --> 00:12:45,160
Speaker 3: history of the country, written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

210
00:12:45,520 --> 00:12:48,240
Speaker 3: As you said, it established that the Court has the

211
00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:52,440
Speaker 3: power to strike down acts of Congress. But what's notable

212
00:12:52,679 --> 00:12:55,560
Speaker 3: for our purposes here is is how Marshall got to

213
00:12:55,600 --> 00:13:00,360
Speaker 3: that conclusion. The case is about when John Adams the

214
00:13:00,400 --> 00:13:05,440
Speaker 3: presidency after losing reelection. He on his way out the

215
00:13:05,480 --> 00:13:09,440
Speaker 3: door in eighteen oh one, appointed a bunch of judges

216
00:13:09,920 --> 00:13:13,120
Speaker 3: known as Midnight Judges, and kind of in the frenzy

217
00:13:13,160 --> 00:13:15,800
Speaker 3: of doing that with one of them, a guy by

218
00:13:15,840 --> 00:13:19,600
Speaker 3: the name of William Marbury, the vital step of paperwork

219
00:13:19,640 --> 00:13:24,320
Speaker 3: didn't happen. The commission didn't get delivered to Marbury, before

220
00:13:24,440 --> 00:13:29,080
Speaker 3: Adam's left office. Then Jefferson comes into office and his

221
00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:33,240
Speaker 3: Secretary of State James Madison, refuses to deliver the paperwork,

222
00:13:33,280 --> 00:13:37,200
Speaker 3: even though that's a pretty routine step. So Marbury goes

223
00:13:37,240 --> 00:13:40,880
Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court and says, hey, order Madison to

224
00:13:41,200 --> 00:13:44,000
Speaker 3: turn over that commission. He's violating the law by not

225
00:13:44,160 --> 00:13:47,440
Speaker 3: doing that. And so John Marshall has this dilemma here.

226
00:13:47,880 --> 00:13:51,680
Speaker 3: Supreme Court's new hasn't really established itself. The question is

227
00:13:51,679 --> 00:13:54,520
Speaker 3: is he going to or is the Supreme Court going

228
00:13:54,559 --> 00:13:57,600
Speaker 3: to order Madison in the Jefferson administration to turn over

229
00:13:57,679 --> 00:14:02,280
Speaker 3: that commission to Marbury. And the continuous solution that he came.

230
00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:05,679
Speaker 2: Up with was, Hey, we don't want to.

231
00:14:05,160 --> 00:14:09,480
Speaker 3: Risk the possibility that Jefferson and Madison won't comply, so

232
00:14:09,520 --> 00:14:12,240
Speaker 3: instead we're going to say, yes, Marbury is entitled to

233
00:14:12,320 --> 00:14:15,000
Speaker 3: the commission. But as it turns out, we don't actually

234
00:14:15,000 --> 00:14:18,120
Speaker 3: have jurisdiction to decide this case because this law that

235
00:14:18,200 --> 00:14:24,040
Speaker 3: Congress passed giving us jurisdiction is actually unconstitutional. So Marbury

236
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:28,600
Speaker 3: ducked the confrontation with Jefferson while establishing that the Court

237
00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:30,760
Speaker 3: is this very powerful institution.

238
00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:35,960
Speaker 1: Marshall's fear that a President wouldn't comply with the Court's order.

239
00:14:36,440 --> 00:14:42,240
Speaker 1: Came to fruition during Andrew Jackson's administration. Jackson, who, by

240
00:14:42,280 --> 00:14:44,680
Speaker 1: the way, is one of Trump's heroes.

241
00:14:46,120 --> 00:14:50,560
Speaker 3: So this is in the context of efforts to move

242
00:14:50,640 --> 00:14:55,040
Speaker 3: the Jerkey Indians off their land in Georgia. And there

243
00:14:55,080 --> 00:14:57,440
Speaker 3: was a case that didn't actually involve the Jackson administration.

244
00:14:57,520 --> 00:15:00,920
Speaker 3: It was between the State of Georgia and a private

245
00:15:01,280 --> 00:15:06,360
Speaker 3: white man named Worcester, and the Supreme Court said that

246
00:15:06,560 --> 00:15:11,880
Speaker 3: the State of Georgia was illegally forcing Worcester to take

247
00:15:11,920 --> 00:15:14,880
Speaker 3: an oath of allegiance to the state. Worcester's a white

248
00:15:14,920 --> 00:15:18,280
Speaker 3: missionary who lived on Cherokee land, and Georgia law that

249
00:15:18,320 --> 00:15:22,360
Speaker 3: required every taken oath. Georgia arrested him and refused to

250
00:15:22,840 --> 00:15:26,240
Speaker 3: release him after the Supreme Court ruling, and then Andrew Jackson,

251
00:15:26,440 --> 00:15:28,320
Speaker 3: you know, it was not actually a party to the case,

252
00:15:28,320 --> 00:15:31,520
Speaker 3: but had definite interest in it, essentially refused to help

253
00:15:31,560 --> 00:15:34,280
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court enforce the ruling and refused to use

254
00:15:34,280 --> 00:15:37,240
Speaker 3: federal troops to help ensure that that Worcester was released.

255
00:15:37,480 --> 00:15:41,800
Speaker 3: Jackson's quote, which is probably apocryphal, was John Marshall has

256
00:15:41,800 --> 00:15:44,040
Speaker 3: made his decision now let him enforce it.

257
00:15:44,720 --> 00:15:49,840
Speaker 1: And President Lincoln also clashed with a Supreme Court justice

258
00:15:50,000 --> 00:15:53,800
Speaker 1: during the Civil War. He actually went further than Jackson.

259
00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:57,000
Speaker 1: He suspended the writ of habeas corpus.

260
00:15:57,720 --> 00:16:01,000
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is probably the closest as president has ever

261
00:16:01,040 --> 00:16:04,440
Speaker 3: come to directly defining the Supreme Court. This is a

262
00:16:04,480 --> 00:16:08,960
Speaker 3: situation where the war had started. The war was precipitated

263
00:16:09,200 --> 00:16:11,520
Speaker 3: in part by the Supreme Court in Chief Justice Roger

264
00:16:11,560 --> 00:16:15,760
Speaker 3: brook Tawny issuing the dread Scott decision that declared that

265
00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:19,480
Speaker 3: freed slaves could never be be citizens in the United States.

266
00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:24,800
Speaker 3: And as the war starts, Abraham Lincoln's very concerned about sabotage,

267
00:16:25,080 --> 00:16:29,800
Speaker 3: and he issues an order that authorized one of his

268
00:16:29,880 --> 00:16:34,120
Speaker 3: generals to suspend the rid of habeas corpus near railroad

269
00:16:34,120 --> 00:16:37,360
Speaker 3: lines in Maryland and hapeas corpus is this notion that

270
00:16:37,640 --> 00:16:40,360
Speaker 3: if the government holds you, rescue you can go to

271
00:16:40,400 --> 00:16:43,600
Speaker 3: a judge and make the governments defend why it's holding you.

272
00:16:44,040 --> 00:16:47,800
Speaker 3: And Lincoln said, we're going to suspend that notion because

273
00:16:47,840 --> 00:16:50,840
Speaker 3: of the crisis we face here. Well, the guy named

274
00:16:50,880 --> 00:16:55,920
Speaker 3: John Merriman was arrested, turned to Roger brook Tawny got

275
00:16:55,960 --> 00:16:58,880
Speaker 3: a rid of habeas corpus anyway, which demanded that the

276
00:16:58,920 --> 00:17:03,120
Speaker 3: military justified why Merriman had been been picked up, and

277
00:17:03,400 --> 00:17:07,040
Speaker 3: Lincoln in his generals essentially ignored the order. Merriman did

278
00:17:07,119 --> 00:17:11,680
Speaker 3: not go before a judge, and Roger brook Tawney eventually said, look,

279
00:17:11,920 --> 00:17:14,400
Speaker 3: I've done all I can do here, But he said,

280
00:17:14,480 --> 00:17:17,000
Speaker 3: my power has been resisted by a force too strong

281
00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:20,480
Speaker 3: for me to overcome. And Lincoln later justified what he did, saying,

282
00:17:21,080 --> 00:17:23,800
Speaker 3: are all the laws but one to go on executed,

283
00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:26,359
Speaker 3: and the government itself to go to pieces lest that

284
00:17:26,440 --> 00:17:29,320
Speaker 3: one be violated. In other words, he said he was

285
00:17:29,440 --> 00:17:32,359
Speaker 3: justified by the exigencies of the circumstance, namely of the

286
00:17:32,400 --> 00:17:32,920
Speaker 3: Civil War.

287
00:17:33,920 --> 00:17:39,720
Speaker 1: Since Lincoln, presidents have complied with Supreme Court orders, and

288
00:17:39,880 --> 00:17:44,320
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon turning over the secret White House recordings in

289
00:17:44,400 --> 00:17:47,960
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy two is the most recent incident and probably

290
00:17:48,359 --> 00:17:51,199
Speaker 1: one that people remember most but tell us about some

291
00:17:51,240 --> 00:17:54,119
Speaker 1: of the other presidents who chose not to defy a

292
00:17:54,160 --> 00:17:54,800
Speaker 1: court order.

293
00:17:55,040 --> 00:17:57,280
Speaker 3: So there's a litany of examples. A few of the

294
00:17:57,280 --> 00:18:00,000
Speaker 3: biggest ones just because of how high profile they came,

295
00:18:00,119 --> 00:18:03,760
Speaker 3: as were nineteen fifty two President Harry Truman seizes the

296
00:18:03,880 --> 00:18:06,880
Speaker 3: nation's steel mills to make sure there's not a work

297
00:18:06,920 --> 00:18:12,120
Speaker 3: stoppage during the Korean War. Supreme Court rules against them,

298
00:18:12,160 --> 00:18:16,960
Speaker 3: says he did that illegally. Truman immediately complies. In nineteen

299
00:18:17,000 --> 00:18:19,919
Speaker 3: fifty four the Brown Versus Board of Education decision and

300
00:18:20,000 --> 00:18:25,080
Speaker 3: some subsequent rulings, President Dwight Eisenhower initially reluctant to get involved,

301
00:18:25,119 --> 00:18:28,480
Speaker 3: but actually helped the Supreme Court enforce those rulings and

302
00:18:28,480 --> 00:18:31,280
Speaker 3: the lower courts enforce those rulings when he sent federal

303
00:18:31,359 --> 00:18:36,600
Speaker 3: troops to escort black students into a high school in Arkansas.

304
00:18:36,640 --> 00:18:40,080
Speaker 3: And then nineteen seventy four, Supreme Court orders Richard Nixon

305
00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:44,560
Speaker 3: to turnover secret White House recordings. Nixon complies days later

306
00:18:44,640 --> 00:18:47,480
Speaker 3: he has to resign the presidency.

307
00:18:47,600 --> 00:18:50,679
Speaker 1: So you asked this question in your piece, and so

308
00:18:50,720 --> 00:18:52,720
Speaker 1: now I'm going to ask you for the answer. Why

309
00:18:52,760 --> 00:18:57,320
Speaker 1: are presidents so quick to accept Supreme Court rulings as binding?

310
00:18:57,760 --> 00:19:00,840
Speaker 3: Well, there are both specific answers to each instance and

311
00:19:00,960 --> 00:19:03,119
Speaker 3: kind of a general answer. And the specific answer is

312
00:19:03,160 --> 00:19:05,720
Speaker 3: often a lot of the time the president is taking

313
00:19:05,720 --> 00:19:10,360
Speaker 3: a very unpopular position. Harry Truman's position, for example, very

314
00:19:10,440 --> 00:19:13,720
Speaker 3: unpopular at the time, and his standing was especially low.

315
00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:16,920
Speaker 3: But there's also the more general issue, which is that

316
00:19:17,359 --> 00:19:20,920
Speaker 3: the Court over the years, over the decades and centuries,

317
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:25,200
Speaker 3: has earned some trust with the public. It has institutional

318
00:19:25,240 --> 00:19:28,959
Speaker 3: standing that, at least until recently, was pretty strong and

319
00:19:29,520 --> 00:19:32,080
Speaker 3: very often stronger than the other branches of government. And

320
00:19:32,119 --> 00:19:36,359
Speaker 3: that goodwill has essentially created what some call it, the

321
00:19:36,520 --> 00:19:40,200
Speaker 3: habit of accepting the Supreme Court decisions even when folks

322
00:19:40,200 --> 00:19:40,960
Speaker 3: disagree with them.

323
00:19:41,960 --> 00:19:45,160
Speaker 1: And so now we're at a time where the Supreme

324
00:19:45,240 --> 00:19:48,960
Speaker 1: Court and courts in general are not held in as

325
00:19:49,080 --> 00:19:52,359
Speaker 1: high regard by the public. I mean, the standing of

326
00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:55,240
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is it at its lowest since it's

327
00:19:55,280 --> 00:19:56,000
Speaker 1: been recorded.

328
00:19:56,359 --> 00:19:59,320
Speaker 3: It's not quite at it flowest. Now it has recovered somewhat,

329
00:19:59,400 --> 00:20:01,400
Speaker 3: but it did. It did hit bottom just a couple

330
00:20:01,440 --> 00:20:04,200
Speaker 3: of years ago after the Dobbs really have overturned the

331
00:20:04,280 --> 00:20:05,439
Speaker 3: test too, so right to abortion.

332
00:20:06,200 --> 00:20:11,919
Speaker 1: And so President Trump has said that he'll obey court orders.

333
00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:14,760
Speaker 1: I always obey court orders, he said in the Oval

334
00:20:14,840 --> 00:20:19,280
Speaker 1: Office when asked. But he also has said some things

335
00:20:19,320 --> 00:20:22,000
Speaker 1: that leave a question mark in the air. For example,

336
00:20:22,440 --> 00:20:25,800
Speaker 1: on social media on Saturday, he posted a quote that's

337
00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:30,800
Speaker 1: been attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte. He who saves his country

338
00:20:30,920 --> 00:20:35,120
Speaker 1: does not violate any law. So is there a question

339
00:20:35,320 --> 00:20:38,560
Speaker 1: still of whether he's going to be different than he

340
00:20:38,680 --> 00:20:40,000
Speaker 1: was in his first administration?

341
00:20:40,800 --> 00:20:45,920
Speaker 3: Absolutely, there's a question. The administration is clearly sending out

342
00:20:46,040 --> 00:20:48,080
Speaker 3: mixed signals about its intentions.

343
00:20:48,119 --> 00:20:48,320
Speaker 4: Here.

344
00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:51,240
Speaker 3: You talked about some of the things President Trump has said.

345
00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:53,520
Speaker 3: There are also things that some of his top aides

346
00:20:53,880 --> 00:20:58,400
Speaker 3: have said, like Vice President Jade Vance, who actually quoted

347
00:20:58,400 --> 00:21:03,080
Speaker 3: that apocryphal Andrew Jackson comment about the Chief Justices made

348
00:21:03,160 --> 00:21:06,240
Speaker 3: is really now let him enforce it. Elon Musk has

349
00:21:06,720 --> 00:21:09,879
Speaker 3: said things that have strongly suggested he would be willing

350
00:21:09,920 --> 00:21:15,440
Speaker 3: to defy the Supreme Court. So that concern is in

351
00:21:15,480 --> 00:21:18,720
Speaker 3: the air in a way it has not been in

352
00:21:18,760 --> 00:21:23,320
Speaker 3: my lifetime. Even in those moments of huge national crisis,

353
00:21:23,359 --> 00:21:26,000
Speaker 3: major Supreme Court decisions like the next one Takes case,

354
00:21:26,240 --> 00:21:29,480
Speaker 3: there wasn't this level of concern that a president might

355
00:21:29,520 --> 00:21:31,920
Speaker 3: just bumb his nose at the Supreme Court.

356
00:21:32,320 --> 00:21:36,600
Speaker 1: And he has issued a lot of executive orders that

357
00:21:37,800 --> 00:21:41,359
Speaker 1: either ignore the law or defy the law. And you

358
00:21:41,359 --> 00:21:44,480
Speaker 1: know one that stands out not only the funding freeze,

359
00:21:44,480 --> 00:21:49,639
Speaker 1: but the birthright Citizenship order, which every judge that's ruled

360
00:21:49,680 --> 00:21:53,879
Speaker 1: on has blocked it. So is it almost a deliberate

361
00:21:54,040 --> 00:21:56,480
Speaker 1: defying of the legal norms.

362
00:21:57,400 --> 00:22:01,640
Speaker 3: So let me separate two things. With right citizenship, what

363
00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:05,480
Speaker 3: we have seen this administration do is start off by

364
00:22:06,119 --> 00:22:09,879
Speaker 3: just ignoring what has been the longstanding understanding of the

365
00:22:09,920 --> 00:22:15,680
Speaker 3: fourteenth Amendment and acting as though birthright citizenship is not guaranteed.

366
00:22:16,040 --> 00:22:19,280
Speaker 3: But once quote orders have come through, they are complying

367
00:22:19,400 --> 00:22:23,840
Speaker 3: with them. But in other contexts the administration has, for example,

368
00:22:24,359 --> 00:22:30,600
Speaker 3: with an order to unfreeze federal funding, the administration has

369
00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:34,520
Speaker 3: been a little less quick to comply, and in one

370
00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:37,560
Speaker 3: case is promptly a judge to issue a follow up

371
00:22:37,680 --> 00:22:41,480
Speaker 3: order saying, hey, I really expect you to unfreeze that funding.

372
00:22:41,760 --> 00:22:44,640
Speaker 3: So this is planning out in a lot of different cases.

373
00:22:44,960 --> 00:22:48,240
Speaker 3: And we haven't yet got to that point where I

374
00:22:48,280 --> 00:22:51,879
Speaker 3: would say we're at, say, a constitutional crisis, but there

375
00:22:51,920 --> 00:22:53,560
Speaker 3: are at least hints that we could have a big

376
00:22:53,600 --> 00:22:54,440
Speaker 3: issue down the road.

377
00:22:54,840 --> 00:22:57,160
Speaker 1: And you bring this out, which I thought was really interesting.

378
00:22:57,440 --> 00:23:01,240
Speaker 1: Trump's control of the Republican Party, and we've seen that

379
00:23:01,680 --> 00:23:05,400
Speaker 1: Congress is not intervening even when Trump does things that

380
00:23:05,800 --> 00:23:08,320
Speaker 1: take away some of their power. He has such tight

381
00:23:08,359 --> 00:23:12,960
Speaker 1: control over the Republican Party, so the Court can't count

382
00:23:13,080 --> 00:23:14,840
Speaker 1: on Congress to support it.

383
00:23:15,359 --> 00:23:18,879
Speaker 3: Right now, some members of Congress have suggested that the

384
00:23:18,880 --> 00:23:22,280
Speaker 3: Supreme Court should be obeyed. Josh Hawley is Senator jesshal

385
00:23:22,280 --> 00:23:25,879
Speaker 3: Ad Missouri is when it comes to mind. But we

386
00:23:26,000 --> 00:23:31,199
Speaker 3: have seen time and again how Republicans in Congress ultimately

387
00:23:31,400 --> 00:23:35,359
Speaker 3: have given in to what this president wants, and we

388
00:23:35,440 --> 00:23:38,360
Speaker 3: end up in a world where it is the Supreme

389
00:23:38,400 --> 00:23:42,240
Speaker 3: Court against both the President and Congress. You know, that's

390
00:23:42,280 --> 00:23:44,520
Speaker 3: a tough fight for the Supreme Court. You look back

391
00:23:44,560 --> 00:23:48,840
Speaker 3: in history at the big moments. Richard Nixon resigned in

392
00:23:49,320 --> 00:23:52,399
Speaker 3: big part because members of his own party went to

393
00:23:52,480 --> 00:23:55,200
Speaker 3: him and said, mister President, you can't continue. You don't

394
00:23:55,200 --> 00:23:58,720
Speaker 3: have the support. There have been people who are more

395
00:23:58,760 --> 00:24:03,879
Speaker 3: concerned about the institutional interests of the government and the

396
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:09,520
Speaker 3: continuing functioning of our democratic system rather than loyalty to

397
00:24:09,640 --> 00:24:13,560
Speaker 3: a person or a party. And given this political climate,

398
00:24:13,840 --> 00:24:16,520
Speaker 3: it's fair to wonder, is this going to be the

399
00:24:16,560 --> 00:24:21,959
Speaker 3: Supreme Court standing by itself against both the President and

400
00:24:22,359 --> 00:24:23,840
Speaker 3: the majority of Congress.

401
00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:27,040
Speaker 1: Craig I have to say I find some irony here

402
00:24:27,320 --> 00:24:29,840
Speaker 1: in the fact that it seems like the Supreme Court

403
00:24:29,920 --> 00:24:34,639
Speaker 1: has made its own bed with that ruling in Trump

404
00:24:34,760 --> 00:24:39,320
Speaker 1: the United States last term, granting immunity to the president

405
00:24:39,440 --> 00:24:44,240
Speaker 1: for official acts. I mean that ruling was stunning, and

406
00:24:44,720 --> 00:24:48,240
Speaker 1: now they're facing a president who may or may not

407
00:24:48,400 --> 00:24:53,280
Speaker 1: listen to their orders. But administration lawyers are now quoting

408
00:24:53,320 --> 00:24:58,159
Speaker 1: that opinion to demonstrate their points about presidential authority.

409
00:24:59,080 --> 00:25:02,000
Speaker 3: Yes, there's a case that the in fact, the Trump

410
00:25:02,040 --> 00:25:05,760
Speaker 3: administration's first case at the Supreme Court in this new term,

411
00:25:05,960 --> 00:25:09,160
Speaker 3: asking the court to let him immediately fire the head

412
00:25:09,200 --> 00:25:14,359
Speaker 3: of a whistleblower agency. That brief was chock full of

413
00:25:14,680 --> 00:25:17,679
Speaker 3: citations to Trump versus the United States. The case you

414
00:25:17,720 --> 00:25:21,000
Speaker 3: talk about, the immunity case basically saying that the president

415
00:25:21,560 --> 00:25:26,560
Speaker 3: has broad authority, complete authority over the executive branch of government.

416
00:25:26,720 --> 00:25:30,800
Speaker 3: And what they're arguing in this case involving the whistleblower

417
00:25:30,880 --> 00:25:34,280
Speaker 3: agency and what they're arguing in other contexts is the

418
00:25:34,320 --> 00:25:38,480
Speaker 3: Supreme Court has said that the president is the head

419
00:25:38,480 --> 00:25:42,679
Speaker 3: of the executive branch and can fire people when he

420
00:25:42,720 --> 00:25:45,800
Speaker 3: deems it to be in the country's best interest. And

421
00:25:46,320 --> 00:25:50,480
Speaker 3: that ruling has put a fair amount of wind behind

422
00:25:50,520 --> 00:25:51,359
Speaker 3: Trump's sales and.

423
00:25:51,440 --> 00:25:54,040
Speaker 1: Making that argument maybe the Chief Justice, did you have

424
00:25:54,080 --> 00:25:57,840
Speaker 1: a few regrets tell us about his annual remarks.

425
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:00,720
Speaker 3: So every year John Roberts put out a report on

426
00:26:00,760 --> 00:26:02,600
Speaker 3: the state of the federal judiciary at the end of

427
00:26:02,600 --> 00:26:05,280
Speaker 3: the year, comes out December thirty first, and this year

428
00:26:05,320 --> 00:26:08,960
Speaker 3: he decided to talk about judicial independence, which is a

429
00:26:09,000 --> 00:26:12,119
Speaker 3: subject that is near and dear to his heart. He

430
00:26:12,240 --> 00:26:16,080
Speaker 3: talked about the safety of judges and threats against judges,

431
00:26:16,600 --> 00:26:19,159
Speaker 3: and he talked about this issue that you and I

432
00:26:19,200 --> 00:26:23,080
Speaker 3: have been talking about, the prospect that court rulings would

433
00:26:23,280 --> 00:26:29,359
Speaker 3: be defined. He didn't explicitly mention Donald Trump. He didn't

434
00:26:29,400 --> 00:26:31,919
Speaker 3: just talk about the president, but he talked about the

435
00:26:32,000 --> 00:26:35,080
Speaker 3: situations in the fifties and sixties when a lot of

436
00:26:35,080 --> 00:26:39,160
Speaker 3: state officials were refusing to abide by Brown versus Board

437
00:26:39,160 --> 00:26:43,720
Speaker 3: of Education. And he talked about the Kennedy and the

438
00:26:43,760 --> 00:26:48,000
Speaker 3: Eisenhower administrations backing up the court and helping to enforce

439
00:26:48,040 --> 00:26:51,480
Speaker 3: those rulings. And also talked about the federal judges who,

440
00:26:52,080 --> 00:26:55,440
Speaker 3: in some cases, at risk of their safety, stood by

441
00:26:55,480 --> 00:26:59,960
Speaker 3: those rulings and enforce the law. And he said these suggestions,

442
00:27:00,640 --> 00:27:03,960
Speaker 3: called them dangerous, suggestions that federal court rules could be defied,

443
00:27:04,600 --> 00:27:06,400
Speaker 3: must be quotes soundly rejected.

444
00:27:06,840 --> 00:27:10,240
Speaker 1: So it's barely a month into the administration and they're

445
00:27:10,280 --> 00:27:13,639
Speaker 1: bringing a case before the Supreme Court. Tell us about it.

446
00:27:14,240 --> 00:27:16,520
Speaker 3: Yes, this is a guy named Hampton Dellinger who's the

447
00:27:16,560 --> 00:27:20,240
Speaker 3: head of a federal whistleblower agency that's called the US

448
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:24,480
Speaker 3: Office of Special Counsel. Footnote it's different from Special Counsel

449
00:27:24,560 --> 00:27:27,119
Speaker 3: Jack Smith, who was the one who was prosecuting Trump

450
00:27:27,440 --> 00:27:31,560
Speaker 3: during the Biden presidency. And Donald Trump is trying to

451
00:27:31,680 --> 00:27:34,160
Speaker 3: fire him and put his own person in place there.

452
00:27:34,640 --> 00:27:37,440
Speaker 3: And the legal issue, the underlying legal issue is sort

453
00:27:37,480 --> 00:27:39,680
Speaker 3: of similar to the case the Court had a couple

454
00:27:39,720 --> 00:27:42,760
Speaker 3: of years ago when the question was whether the president

455
00:27:42,760 --> 00:27:45,439
Speaker 3: could fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,

456
00:27:45,520 --> 00:27:48,800
Speaker 3: and the Supreme Court say yes, notwithstanding the job protections

457
00:27:48,880 --> 00:27:52,480
Speaker 3: Congress gave that person, and the Special Council also has

458
00:27:52,560 --> 00:27:55,040
Speaker 3: job protection in the law. And the White House says,

459
00:27:55,200 --> 00:27:58,199
Speaker 3: we want to fire him anyway. So the question for

460
00:27:58,240 --> 00:28:01,440
Speaker 3: the Court with at the court right now is a

461
00:28:01,480 --> 00:28:05,360
Speaker 3: federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order for fourteen

462
00:28:05,480 --> 00:28:09,360
Speaker 3: days saying he can't be fired. While I give this

463
00:28:09,440 --> 00:28:14,360
Speaker 3: case a little deeper consideration, and the normally a temporary

464
00:28:14,400 --> 00:28:17,960
Speaker 3: restraining order like that can't be appealed. But the Trump

465
00:28:18,000 --> 00:28:20,920
Speaker 3: administration first asked the Federal appeals Court and now is

466
00:28:20,960 --> 00:28:25,800
Speaker 3: asking the Supreme Court to consider that appeal anyway and

467
00:28:25,880 --> 00:28:30,199
Speaker 3: to set aside the temporary restraining order so that Hampton

468
00:28:30,280 --> 00:28:34,800
Speaker 3: Dellinger can be fired right away. Basically, they're saying, you know, yeah,

469
00:28:34,920 --> 00:28:37,879
Speaker 3: we know this normal rule that you can't appeal a RO,

470
00:28:38,400 --> 00:28:42,320
Speaker 3: but when we're talking about an infringement on core presidential powers,

471
00:28:42,640 --> 00:28:44,960
Speaker 3: that should be an exception to that general rule about

472
00:28:45,000 --> 00:28:46,240
Speaker 3: not appealing to ros.

473
00:28:47,160 --> 00:28:47,280
Speaker 4: So.

474
00:28:47,480 --> 00:28:49,920
Speaker 3: I think Trump is really testing how accommodating the Court's

475
00:28:49,960 --> 00:28:52,760
Speaker 3: going to be to his efforts to remake the federal

476
00:28:52,800 --> 00:28:56,760
Speaker 3: government house people who don't share his views. It will

477
00:28:56,800 --> 00:29:00,240
Speaker 3: be the minimum. A very interesting and potentially a telling

478
00:29:00,600 --> 00:29:04,120
Speaker 3: signal about just how accommodating this Supreme Court is going

479
00:29:04,160 --> 00:29:06,000
Speaker 3: to be in the new Trump administration.

480
00:29:06,560 --> 00:29:08,200
Speaker 1: And we'll talk to you about it as soon as

481
00:29:08,240 --> 00:29:12,240
Speaker 1: that's decided. Thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg News Supreme

482
00:29:12,280 --> 00:29:15,719
Speaker 1: Court reporter Greg Store turning out of other legal news

483
00:29:16,200 --> 00:29:19,040
Speaker 1: after the Supreme Court weekend, a key piece of the

484
00:29:19,120 --> 00:29:23,400
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act. Voting discrimination cases are not just harder

485
00:29:23,400 --> 00:29:27,400
Speaker 1: to bring to court, but dramatically so. That's according to

486
00:29:27,440 --> 00:29:31,600
Speaker 1: a Bloomberg Law analysis, and experts who examine the findings.

487
00:29:32,240 --> 00:29:35,600
Speaker 1: Joining me to talk about their analysis is Alex Ebert,

488
00:29:35,800 --> 00:29:42,840
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Senior Correspondent and Diana Dombrowski, Bloomberg Law Investigative reporter. So, Alex,

489
00:29:42,840 --> 00:29:45,640
Speaker 1: why don't you start by explaining the ruling in the

490
00:29:45,680 --> 00:29:46,720
Speaker 1: Bernovich case?

491
00:29:47,800 --> 00:29:52,160
Speaker 4: Sure, Jean, So, both progressive and conservative litigators say this

492
00:29:52,320 --> 00:29:54,760
Speaker 4: was a real sea change because what it did was

493
00:29:54,800 --> 00:29:59,640
Speaker 4: it created a new test for how courts will interpret challenges,

494
00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:03,640
Speaker 4: especially to state voting laws, and these are the laws

495
00:30:03,640 --> 00:30:07,240
Speaker 4: that handle the time, place, and manner for when people

496
00:30:07,280 --> 00:30:10,080
Speaker 4: can cast their votes. What it does is it creates

497
00:30:10,160 --> 00:30:13,440
Speaker 4: new standards that really raise the bar for these kind

498
00:30:13,480 --> 00:30:16,760
Speaker 4: of suits. These kind of suits have to have bigger

499
00:30:16,800 --> 00:30:21,760
Speaker 4: sort of disparities between minority voting groups and white voting groups.

500
00:30:22,200 --> 00:30:26,680
Speaker 4: They have to be different but still similar to what

501
00:30:26,760 --> 00:30:31,000
Speaker 4: you see in the nineteen eighties when the law was updated,

502
00:30:31,560 --> 00:30:35,680
Speaker 4: and they really make it a lot harder for groups

503
00:30:35,720 --> 00:30:39,240
Speaker 4: to bring challenges against things that are now common practice

504
00:30:39,240 --> 00:30:44,320
Speaker 4: throughout the United States. That includes things like dropboxes, early voting,

505
00:30:44,920 --> 00:30:47,760
Speaker 4: having someone help you carry in your ballot if you

506
00:30:47,800 --> 00:30:50,600
Speaker 4: have a disability. Things that we are now used to

507
00:30:50,640 --> 00:30:53,720
Speaker 4: seeing across the United States to help people vote, those

508
00:30:53,760 --> 00:30:57,640
Speaker 4: things are now much harder to challenge underneath this Burndage standard.

509
00:30:58,040 --> 00:31:01,600
Speaker 1: So, Diana, this was a long term project from the

510
00:31:01,640 --> 00:31:04,600
Speaker 1: investigations team. Tell us what your research found.

511
00:31:05,080 --> 00:31:09,040
Speaker 5: Sure, So we were trying to measure the impact of

512
00:31:09,200 --> 00:31:13,120
Speaker 5: this particular decision on Section two of the Voting Rights Act.

513
00:31:13,400 --> 00:31:16,840
Speaker 5: So our biggest finding we looked at five hundred and

514
00:31:16,880 --> 00:31:22,240
Speaker 5: seventy nine federal voting rights complaints, and our biggest finding

515
00:31:22,560 --> 00:31:25,680
Speaker 5: was that there was a sixty percent drop off in

516
00:31:25,760 --> 00:31:28,920
Speaker 5: cases relying on Section two of the Voting Rights Act

517
00:31:29,280 --> 00:31:32,760
Speaker 5: after the Bernovich decision. In terms of what the cases

518
00:31:32,760 --> 00:31:37,240
Speaker 5: were actually about, we saw cases related to immigrations, the

519
00:31:37,280 --> 00:31:40,480
Speaker 5: cases that mentioned the phrases like illegal immigrants or non

520
00:31:40,520 --> 00:31:44,920
Speaker 5: English voting materials or proof of citizenship. Those increased by

521
00:31:44,920 --> 00:31:47,920
Speaker 5: almost one hundred and ten percent. We also saw a

522
00:31:47,920 --> 00:31:51,880
Speaker 5: big increase in suburging of voter rolls cases about that

523
00:31:52,040 --> 00:31:56,240
Speaker 5: over one hundred percent. Voter registration laws cases challenging those

524
00:31:56,400 --> 00:32:01,680
Speaker 5: those increased by almost seventy percent. We also saw complaints

525
00:32:01,760 --> 00:32:04,720
Speaker 5: related to voting not on election base, so these would

526
00:32:04,720 --> 00:32:08,680
Speaker 5: be about like mail in ballots, early in person voting,

527
00:32:08,760 --> 00:32:13,360
Speaker 5: and ballot dropox voting. Those all decreased by almost twenty

528
00:32:13,400 --> 00:32:18,640
Speaker 5: two percent, and cases related to disability related voting concerns

529
00:32:18,680 --> 00:32:22,480
Speaker 5: decreased by twenty six percent. I think the drop off itself, like,

530
00:32:22,520 --> 00:32:26,160
Speaker 5: that's our biggest finding. And the attorneys we talked to

531
00:32:26,280 --> 00:32:29,480
Speaker 5: were surprised by how big the drop off was. This

532
00:32:29,520 --> 00:32:33,000
Speaker 5: is sixty percent drop off, and you know, it was

533
00:32:33,120 --> 00:32:35,800
Speaker 5: the whole point of the decision. You know, it was

534
00:32:35,840 --> 00:32:38,760
Speaker 5: supposed to be harder to bring Section two cases, but

535
00:32:39,080 --> 00:32:41,840
Speaker 5: I mean the number itself was surprising to many of

536
00:32:41,840 --> 00:32:43,560
Speaker 5: the sources that we spoke with.

537
00:32:44,080 --> 00:32:48,040
Speaker 1: Alex, is it that these cases aren't being brought or

538
00:32:48,040 --> 00:32:51,720
Speaker 1: is it that they're being brought in different ways not

539
00:32:51,880 --> 00:32:52,840
Speaker 1: under Section two?

540
00:32:53,640 --> 00:32:56,480
Speaker 4: Both of those things are true. Jan So we have

541
00:32:56,720 --> 00:33:00,680
Speaker 4: two major trends that experts have told us are really

542
00:33:00,680 --> 00:33:04,840
Speaker 4: exhibited in this data. One is that litigators are searching

543
00:33:05,000 --> 00:33:07,400
Speaker 4: for some way to bring these kinds of lawsuits they

544
00:33:07,400 --> 00:33:11,240
Speaker 4: brought in the past. Oftentimes these cases just aren't getting brought.

545
00:33:11,520 --> 00:33:15,120
Speaker 4: But they're also having to rely much more on the

546
00:33:15,200 --> 00:33:19,600
Speaker 4: politically turbulent state courts, where as you know we've talked

547
00:33:19,600 --> 00:33:22,960
Speaker 4: about in the past, elections can really determine how these

548
00:33:23,000 --> 00:33:26,440
Speaker 4: courts approach voting rights, and so now all of a

549
00:33:26,440 --> 00:33:29,640
Speaker 4: sudden you see groups having to rely on novel theories

550
00:33:29,720 --> 00:33:33,920
Speaker 4: under state constitutions or newly passed voting laws in liberal

551
00:33:33,920 --> 00:33:39,640
Speaker 4: states in efforts to bolster the rights of minority voters, and.

552
00:33:39,600 --> 00:33:43,280
Speaker 1: Where what areas are voters' rights being impinged upon?

553
00:33:43,440 --> 00:33:49,080
Speaker 4: Most so, the instances we're seeing are where litigation groups

554
00:33:49,120 --> 00:33:52,240
Speaker 4: aren't really able to grab some purchase in the state courts.

555
00:33:52,880 --> 00:33:55,440
Speaker 4: You know, we're being told that, especially in the South,

556
00:33:55,920 --> 00:33:59,760
Speaker 4: where we no longer have this federal court access to

557
00:33:59,760 --> 00:34:03,120
Speaker 4: bring in these Section two claims, litigants aren't really having

558
00:34:03,160 --> 00:34:08,080
Speaker 4: success in Republican controlled states where the state constitutions might

559
00:34:08,120 --> 00:34:13,520
Speaker 4: have strong rights to vote. While most states have these

560
00:34:13,719 --> 00:34:17,000
Speaker 4: really strong rights to vote inside of their state constitutions,

561
00:34:17,280 --> 00:34:20,920
Speaker 4: those things are up to interpretation, and so courts, especially

562
00:34:20,960 --> 00:34:23,759
Speaker 4: in the South, Republican holed states that really can help

563
00:34:23,760 --> 00:34:26,680
Speaker 4: determine the control of Congress, they're seeing not as much

564
00:34:26,719 --> 00:34:29,960
Speaker 4: success there as they might see in state courts like

565
00:34:30,400 --> 00:34:35,520
Speaker 4: New York or California, where states have literally passed a

566
00:34:35,680 --> 00:34:40,400
Speaker 4: Voting Rights Act law after Bernovich in order to bolster

567
00:34:40,440 --> 00:34:42,200
Speaker 4: the rights of litigants Diana.

568
00:34:42,239 --> 00:34:47,200
Speaker 1: There are some people who think that this ruling refocused

569
00:34:47,920 --> 00:34:50,520
Speaker 1: and sort of reined in Section two as it needed

570
00:34:50,560 --> 00:34:51,480
Speaker 1: to be reined in.

571
00:34:52,880 --> 00:34:53,320
Speaker 3: Correct.

572
00:34:54,320 --> 00:34:56,640
Speaker 5: There's sort of two sides to this. One is that

573
00:34:56,680 --> 00:35:01,080
Speaker 5: this is like a huge this took away from one

574
00:35:01,080 --> 00:35:04,520
Speaker 5: of the most important civil rights laws. And then the

575
00:35:04,560 --> 00:35:07,640
Speaker 5: other side of this is saying, this is going back

576
00:35:07,680 --> 00:35:11,200
Speaker 5: to what Section two was initially intended for. It was

577
00:35:11,239 --> 00:35:15,400
Speaker 5: too sweeping, it was too broad, and this is actually

578
00:35:15,440 --> 00:35:17,120
Speaker 5: what it was originally intended for.

579
00:35:17,640 --> 00:35:21,040
Speaker 1: I thought it was interesting, Alex that lawyers are hesitant

580
00:35:21,080 --> 00:35:24,680
Speaker 1: to file cases because they were afraid data bad ruling

581
00:35:24,880 --> 00:35:27,200
Speaker 1: on the books, and they were even afraid to appeal

582
00:35:27,239 --> 00:35:28,560
Speaker 1: for that reason they are.

583
00:35:28,640 --> 00:35:32,239
Speaker 4: Indeed, we've covered litigation in recent years where there will

584
00:35:32,280 --> 00:35:35,640
Speaker 4: be a massive loss for voting rights groups. A good

585
00:35:35,680 --> 00:35:38,799
Speaker 4: example is there's an entire circuit in this country where

586
00:35:38,920 --> 00:35:42,680
Speaker 4: you can't bring a Section two case in many instances,

587
00:35:43,000 --> 00:35:44,759
Speaker 4: but they didn't want to appeal that to the US

588
00:35:44,760 --> 00:35:47,200
Speaker 4: Supreme Court because they were afraid of getting a ruling

589
00:35:47,280 --> 00:35:50,239
Speaker 4: against them and making that apply across the United States.

590
00:35:50,560 --> 00:35:54,920
Speaker 4: That's just a microchasm, a microcosm of this broader issue

591
00:35:54,960 --> 00:35:58,080
Speaker 4: we have, which is really a fight at its core

592
00:35:58,239 --> 00:36:02,880
Speaker 4: between the concepts of equality to the ballot right and

593
00:36:02,960 --> 00:36:07,040
Speaker 4: equality outcome at the ballot. And liberal groups are saying

594
00:36:07,280 --> 00:36:10,120
Speaker 4: we need to be able to use modern statistics and

595
00:36:10,200 --> 00:36:14,000
Speaker 4: the courts to fight for you know, equal access for

596
00:36:14,520 --> 00:36:17,480
Speaker 4: mail in voting or early voting, and others are saying

597
00:36:17,640 --> 00:36:21,880
Speaker 4: we need to allow states to manage elections and not

598
00:36:22,040 --> 00:36:24,440
Speaker 4: have to bog down things when they innovate and make

599
00:36:24,480 --> 00:36:24,960
Speaker 4: things better.

600
00:36:25,200 --> 00:36:28,680
Speaker 1: Professor Justin Levitt of Loyal Law School said it's like

601
00:36:28,680 --> 00:36:30,839
Speaker 1: a hammer and a screwdrivers. Yeah.

602
00:36:31,120 --> 00:36:34,160
Speaker 5: Basically, he was saying that Section two was the best

603
00:36:34,160 --> 00:36:36,600
Speaker 5: tool for the job, like this was the most direct

604
00:36:36,719 --> 00:36:40,839
Speaker 5: path to argue these cases, and without it, you can

605
00:36:41,000 --> 00:36:45,480
Speaker 5: try to rely on other laws, but they're just not

606
00:36:45,680 --> 00:36:48,239
Speaker 5: as good. You know. We found like the National Voter

607
00:36:48,320 --> 00:36:51,520
Speaker 5: Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act both increase

608
00:36:52,200 --> 00:36:55,680
Speaker 5: and maybe some of that captured that attorneys are relying

609
00:36:55,680 --> 00:36:59,120
Speaker 5: on those laws, but they also weren't designed specifically for this,

610
00:36:59,239 --> 00:37:02,120
Speaker 5: so they'll also be used for other things you could

611
00:37:02,239 --> 00:37:07,160
Speaker 5: use like the fourteenth and fifteenth Amendment. Bernovich didn't impact those,

612
00:37:07,280 --> 00:37:10,400
Speaker 5: but again, they're like not the most direct way to

613
00:37:10,520 --> 00:37:14,200
Speaker 5: address it. And we even saw a decrease in the

614
00:37:14,200 --> 00:37:18,480
Speaker 5: fourteenth Amendment after Burnabitt. The fifteenth Amendment increased about thirty

615
00:37:18,600 --> 00:37:19,240
Speaker 5: six percent.

616
00:37:20,120 --> 00:37:24,160
Speaker 4: Many sources are worried about creating a patchwork across the

617
00:37:24,320 --> 00:37:30,719
Speaker 4: United States, which really causes a strange battlefield for these rules.

618
00:37:31,000 --> 00:37:34,600
Speaker 4: You'll have states like Wisconsin or North Carolina where a

619
00:37:34,680 --> 00:37:37,960
Speaker 4: flip of the state Supreme Court, which happens fairly frequently,

620
00:37:38,520 --> 00:37:43,200
Speaker 4: could change really important voting laws. You have other states

621
00:37:43,239 --> 00:37:45,680
Speaker 4: where there's just not as much access to the poles

622
00:37:46,360 --> 00:37:49,800
Speaker 4: usum states where you have immense amounts of early voting,

623
00:37:49,840 --> 00:37:52,560
Speaker 4: but you might not have other things, and without sort

624
00:37:52,560 --> 00:37:56,480
Speaker 4: of the federal clearinghouse for what does and doesn't violate

625
00:37:56,520 --> 00:37:59,839
Speaker 4: the rights of minority groups. They're concerned among people that

626
00:38:00,080 --> 00:38:03,600
Speaker 4: we're missing out on the ability of federal courts to

627
00:38:03,680 --> 00:38:08,600
Speaker 4: stabilize elections in certain ways. And this also increases the

628
00:38:08,640 --> 00:38:12,160
Speaker 4: attacks that we might see on those state judges that

629
00:38:12,280 --> 00:38:16,040
Speaker 4: now have that responsibility placed on their shoulder, and they

630
00:38:16,120 --> 00:38:19,920
Speaker 4: might be seeing additional threats, which is something that sources

631
00:38:19,960 --> 00:38:23,560
Speaker 4: have said they're noticing in time post Burnovich, what.

632
00:38:23,680 --> 00:38:26,839
Speaker 1: Is left of the Voting Rights Act Diana after this

633
00:38:26,920 --> 00:38:28,880
Speaker 1: decision and after Shelby County.

634
00:38:29,160 --> 00:38:33,800
Speaker 5: So I mean it still applies to redistricting cases. Burnevich

635
00:38:33,880 --> 00:38:38,240
Speaker 5: did not affect how it's used to argue redistricting cases,

636
00:38:38,239 --> 00:38:41,000
Speaker 5: So we actually took those out of our analysis. Everything

637
00:38:41,040 --> 00:38:44,200
Speaker 5: we're talking about is non redistricting cases, so it's still

638
00:38:44,200 --> 00:38:45,719
Speaker 5: going to be used in that context.

639
00:38:46,120 --> 00:38:48,879
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that the conservatives that we reached out

640
00:38:48,920 --> 00:38:52,080
Speaker 4: to for their insights correctly point out that if the

641
00:38:52,120 --> 00:38:56,040
Speaker 4: disparity between the racial minority voting group and the white

642
00:38:56,080 --> 00:39:00,720
Speaker 4: voting group for a certain rule, let's say, state eliminate

643
00:39:00,840 --> 00:39:04,120
Speaker 4: souls to the polls, an early voting dance Sunday, or

644
00:39:04,480 --> 00:39:07,839
Speaker 4: black congregations might encourage folks to go vote. That might

645
00:39:07,880 --> 00:39:10,920
Speaker 4: be an instance where because there's such a disparity, you

646
00:39:10,960 --> 00:39:15,160
Speaker 4: could still bring a Section two case, But it's going

647
00:39:15,239 --> 00:39:18,279
Speaker 4: to have to be really really strong to bring one

648
00:39:18,320 --> 00:39:21,880
Speaker 4: of these time, place and manner cases, and getting that

649
00:39:22,040 --> 00:39:25,960
Speaker 4: sort of information is expensive and time consuming for these

650
00:39:26,000 --> 00:39:29,320
Speaker 4: litigation groups. So you're seeing a plummet in these federal cases.

651
00:39:29,320 --> 00:39:31,960
Speaker 1: Thank you both for being on this show. That's Alex

652
00:39:32,000 --> 00:39:36,919
Speaker 1: Ebert Bloomberg Law Senior Correspondent, and Diana Dombrowski, Bloomberg Law

653
00:39:37,000 --> 00:39:39,600
Speaker 1: Investigative Reporter. And that's it for this edition of The

654
00:39:39,640 --> 00:39:42,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

655
00:39:42,640 --> 00:39:45,759
Speaker 1: legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

656
00:39:45,760 --> 00:39:50,360
Speaker 1: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

657
00:39:50,400 --> 00:39:54,200
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to tune

658
00:39:54,200 --> 00:39:57,480
Speaker 1: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

659
00:39:57,520 --> 00:40:01,080
Speaker 1: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to

660
00:40:01,120 --> 00:40:06,600
Speaker 1: Bloomberg mhm