1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,840 --> 00:00:12,799 Speaker 2: In a six to three decision down ideological lines, the 3 00:00:12,840 --> 00:00:17,439 Speaker 2: Supreme Court on Tuesday throughout long standing federal limits on 4 00:00:17,640 --> 00:00:22,320 Speaker 2: spending by political parties, saying they violate First Amendment rights. 5 00:00:22,680 --> 00:00:26,639 Speaker 2: In doing so, the Court's conservatives reversed a twenty five 6 00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:29,880 Speaker 2: year old precedent that upheld the caps as a means 7 00:00:29,880 --> 00:00:34,440 Speaker 2: of tackling corruption. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh 8 00:00:34,520 --> 00:00:38,800 Speaker 2: said the ruling will allow all political parties to participate 9 00:00:38,840 --> 00:00:42,920 Speaker 2: more freely and compete more fully in the political process, 10 00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:47,159 Speaker 2: and to coordinate more closely with their candidates. That echoed 11 00:00:47,200 --> 00:00:49,400 Speaker 2: his comments during the oral arguments. 12 00:00:49,880 --> 00:00:51,640 Speaker 1: That's the real source of the disadvantage. 13 00:00:51,680 --> 00:00:51,920 Speaker 3: Right. 14 00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:55,080 Speaker 1: You can give huge money to the outside group, but 15 00:00:55,200 --> 00:00:56,960 Speaker 1: you can't give huge money of the party. 16 00:00:57,080 --> 00:00:59,360 Speaker 4: So the parties are very much weakened compared to the 17 00:00:59,400 --> 00:00:59,920 Speaker 4: outside group. 18 00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:04,920 Speaker 2: But writing for the dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan warned the 19 00:01:04,959 --> 00:01:08,919 Speaker 2: decision could bring back quid pro quo corruption by allowing 20 00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:12,720 Speaker 2: a political party to serve as an alternative checking account 21 00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:16,160 Speaker 2: for campaign and donors to give as much as half 22 00:01:16,200 --> 00:01:19,920 Speaker 2: a million dollars to cover a candidate's bills. It's a 23 00:01:20,000 --> 00:01:23,959 Speaker 2: ruling likely to help Republicans in the November midterms, and 24 00:01:24,280 --> 00:01:27,399 Speaker 2: just the latest case in a string of cases in 25 00:01:27,400 --> 00:01:32,560 Speaker 2: which the conservative majority has rolled back campaign finance regulations 26 00:01:32,640 --> 00:01:36,119 Speaker 2: in the name of the First Amendment, something liberal Justice 27 00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:40,240 Speaker 2: Sonya Soto Mayor bemoaned during the oral arguments. 28 00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:45,280 Speaker 5: You're telling us that Citizens United and McCutcheon ended up 29 00:01:45,880 --> 00:01:50,880 Speaker 5: yes in amplifying the voice of corporations, but Diminian shoeing 30 00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:54,440 Speaker 5: another voice, that of the party. Now you want to 31 00:01:54,520 --> 00:01:59,360 Speaker 5: now sinker some more and try to raise the voice 32 00:01:59,400 --> 00:02:03,200 Speaker 5: of one Our tin cream causes more harm than it 33 00:02:03,200 --> 00:02:03,760 Speaker 5: does good. 34 00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:07,480 Speaker 2: My guest is Andrew Shapiro, a partner in Quinn Emmanuel's 35 00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:11,240 Speaker 2: appellate practice group. He was the former US Ambassador to 36 00:02:11,280 --> 00:02:14,920 Speaker 2: the Czech Republic. Andy, let's start with the big question, 37 00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:18,960 Speaker 2: how important is this decision? How much will it change 38 00:02:19,120 --> 00:02:22,280 Speaker 2: how money is spent in congressional elections. 39 00:02:22,600 --> 00:02:25,240 Speaker 1: I think it's important for two reasons. 40 00:02:25,400 --> 00:02:29,560 Speaker 3: So at a general level, it's important because it's the next, 41 00:02:29,919 --> 00:02:33,959 Speaker 3: maybe almost inevitable step in the evolution of the way 42 00:02:33,960 --> 00:02:38,200 Speaker 3: the Roberts Court looks at campaign finance cases, and so 43 00:02:38,280 --> 00:02:42,200 Speaker 3: maybe by itself it's not an earthquake, but as part 44 00:02:42,240 --> 00:02:45,519 Speaker 3: of a pattern over the last fifteen or twenty years, 45 00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:46,919 Speaker 3: it says a lot. 46 00:02:47,160 --> 00:02:48,880 Speaker 1: But then even as a practical matter. 47 00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:55,040 Speaker 3: It is going to allow individuals to give half a 48 00:02:55,080 --> 00:02:59,280 Speaker 3: million dollars or more to a party, and the party 49 00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:02,440 Speaker 3: is essentially free to spend it in support of a candidate, 50 00:03:02,520 --> 00:03:06,400 Speaker 3: to pay a candidate's bills. Obviously, that's a much bigger 51 00:03:06,760 --> 00:03:08,880 Speaker 3: bang for the buck that a donor might get than 52 00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:11,880 Speaker 3: just a seven thousand dollars which is currently kept. 53 00:03:12,120 --> 00:03:15,959 Speaker 2: So the majority decision was written by Brett Cavanaugh. Tell 54 00:03:16,040 --> 00:03:20,000 Speaker 2: us about his argument and whether it mirrors the First 55 00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:22,160 Speaker 2: Amendment kind of arguments that we seem to see in 56 00:03:22,200 --> 00:03:24,639 Speaker 2: all these campaign finance cases. 57 00:03:25,280 --> 00:03:30,000 Speaker 3: So Justice Kavanaugh, writing for six members of the Court, 58 00:03:30,760 --> 00:03:33,480 Speaker 3: set this up as essentially just an exercise in a 59 00:03:33,520 --> 00:03:37,600 Speaker 3: balancing test. Try to frame it as a fairly narrow ruling. 60 00:03:37,920 --> 00:03:41,080 Speaker 3: So you have competing interests here. You have the interest 61 00:03:41,240 --> 00:03:45,720 Speaker 3: that Congress and in some prior decisions the Supreme Court 62 00:03:45,760 --> 00:03:49,200 Speaker 3: had identified of trying to keep not just corruption, but 63 00:03:49,280 --> 00:03:51,600 Speaker 3: the appearance of corruption or of a quid pro quo 64 00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:55,080 Speaker 3: out of our politics. That's on one side of the scale. 65 00:03:55,160 --> 00:03:57,320 Speaker 3: On the other side of the scale is the First 66 00:03:57,320 --> 00:04:00,560 Speaker 3: Amendment and the right of individuals or or in some 67 00:04:00,600 --> 00:04:04,680 Speaker 3: of these cases organizations to use their money to get 68 00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:08,160 Speaker 3: their views across or support candidates as they wish. And 69 00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:11,200 Speaker 3: so when you're balancing that, the test that the Court 70 00:04:11,240 --> 00:04:15,200 Speaker 3: has ultimately developed is it has to be closely and 71 00:04:15,360 --> 00:04:16,480 Speaker 3: narrowly tailored. 72 00:04:16,560 --> 00:04:19,000 Speaker 1: I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially you. 73 00:04:19,000 --> 00:04:23,440 Speaker 3: Have to say this specific restriction on speech is closely 74 00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:26,280 Speaker 3: tailored to accomplishing the goal that we want to accomplish. 75 00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:31,240 Speaker 3: And just as Kevinaugh walked through the stated goals, which 76 00:04:31,279 --> 00:04:34,920 Speaker 3: are avoiding corruption and avoiding quid pro quos, maybe one 77 00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:40,680 Speaker 3: might say quids pro quote, and decided that existing mechanisms 78 00:04:41,200 --> 00:04:44,840 Speaker 3: are sufficient. So he pointed to the fact that there 79 00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:47,360 Speaker 3: is still a cap on how much one can give 80 00:04:47,640 --> 00:04:50,880 Speaker 3: to an individual or to a party. He pointed to 81 00:04:51,240 --> 00:04:55,880 Speaker 3: prohibitions against what is called earmarking. That is, I can't 82 00:04:56,320 --> 00:05:00,440 Speaker 3: specifically and expressly give five hundred thousand dollars do to 83 00:05:00,480 --> 00:05:03,159 Speaker 3: the Democratic Party or the Republican Party and say spend 84 00:05:03,200 --> 00:05:07,240 Speaker 3: it in support of this candidate. That's still forbidden. And 85 00:05:07,279 --> 00:05:10,400 Speaker 3: so Justice Kavanaugh said that's a guardrail and he said 86 00:05:10,400 --> 00:05:14,839 Speaker 3: that the disclosure laws are a guardrail. Right, the campaigns 87 00:05:14,880 --> 00:05:18,039 Speaker 3: still have to disclose in most instances, the donors and 88 00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:19,960 Speaker 3: the parties have to do the same thing. And so 89 00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:23,120 Speaker 3: the idea that having these things out in the sunlight 90 00:05:23,160 --> 00:05:26,880 Speaker 3: will deter corruption, he felt was sufficient, and therefore, just 91 00:05:26,920 --> 00:05:30,240 Speaker 3: when doing this balancing test, said those are enough. It's 92 00:05:30,240 --> 00:05:33,839 Speaker 3: not narrowly tailored, and so we do not need and 93 00:05:33,880 --> 00:05:37,400 Speaker 3: cannot justify under the First Amendment having a further restriction 94 00:05:37,480 --> 00:05:42,760 Speaker 3: saying that parties cannot coordinate their expenditures with individual candidates. 95 00:05:43,400 --> 00:05:46,560 Speaker 2: You mentioned quid pro quote. Writing for the dissenters, the 96 00:05:46,600 --> 00:05:50,320 Speaker 2: three Liberals, just as Elena Kagan said, the ruling opens 97 00:05:50,400 --> 00:05:55,000 Speaker 2: up the same opportunities for quid pro quo corruption that 98 00:05:55,120 --> 00:05:59,240 Speaker 2: the limits were meant to check, allowing wealthy donors to 99 00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:03,920 Speaker 2: dodge in individual contribution limits by donating through parties instead. 100 00:06:04,560 --> 00:06:07,679 Speaker 2: And she did the math sort of about what that means, 101 00:06:07,680 --> 00:06:11,320 Speaker 2: which you had mentioned before. Explain the concerns that the 102 00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:17,039 Speaker 2: Liberals have about ever expanding Supreme Court decisions knocking down 103 00:06:17,040 --> 00:06:18,680 Speaker 2: campaign finance limits. 104 00:06:19,120 --> 00:06:21,320 Speaker 3: Sure, I think a lot of this has to do 105 00:06:21,480 --> 00:06:26,240 Speaker 3: with the different views that the majority and the dissenters 106 00:06:26,279 --> 00:06:29,400 Speaker 3: have about corruption, what does it really mean a quid 107 00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:34,359 Speaker 3: pro quo? So the majority is taking a very narrow view. Essentially, 108 00:06:34,480 --> 00:06:37,039 Speaker 3: they say, well, these laws are meant to prevent quid 109 00:06:37,200 --> 00:06:41,120 Speaker 3: pro quo and corruption, and by that we mean somebody 110 00:06:41,240 --> 00:06:45,680 Speaker 3: very specifically saying I'm giving five hundred thousand dollars to 111 00:06:45,880 --> 00:06:49,720 Speaker 3: the party in support of this candidate, and in exchange, 112 00:06:49,760 --> 00:06:54,200 Speaker 3: I am expecting that I will get some relief from 113 00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:58,440 Speaker 3: a government investigation, or that subsidies for my industry will 114 00:06:58,480 --> 00:06:59,520 Speaker 3: be approved, etc. 115 00:07:00,200 --> 00:07:01,719 Speaker 1: And the justices in. 116 00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:07,760 Speaker 3: The minority, Justice Kagan and Justices Soda Mayor and Tanji 117 00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:12,440 Speaker 3: Brown Jackson take a somewhat broader view and say that's 118 00:07:12,480 --> 00:07:16,200 Speaker 3: overly technical, and everybody knows what's going on, even if 119 00:07:16,200 --> 00:07:19,960 Speaker 3: I'm not specifically saying, hey, you know, I'm trying to 120 00:07:20,040 --> 00:07:23,600 Speaker 3: develop a nuclear power plant here and I need approval, 121 00:07:23,640 --> 00:07:25,680 Speaker 3: and by the way, I'd like to give. 122 00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:28,920 Speaker 1: Five hundred thousand dollars to the party. That's enough. It's 123 00:07:29,040 --> 00:07:30,760 Speaker 1: enough to do a nudge nudge, wink wink. 124 00:07:30,920 --> 00:07:33,640 Speaker 3: You don't have to have someone expressly saying I'm happy 125 00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:35,640 Speaker 3: to give you five hundred thousand dollars if you approve 126 00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:38,200 Speaker 3: my nuclear power plant. And there's a lot of force 127 00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:41,040 Speaker 3: to some of the examples that Justice Kagan gives in 128 00:07:41,120 --> 00:07:45,120 Speaker 3: that dissent. She points out that the parties can essentially 129 00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:48,800 Speaker 3: be paying the candidate's bills. And you know, the functional 130 00:07:48,800 --> 00:07:52,960 Speaker 3: difference between someone donating to the candidate to pay the 131 00:07:52,960 --> 00:07:55,760 Speaker 3: candidate's bills or donating to the party to pay the 132 00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:57,080 Speaker 3: candidate's bills. 133 00:07:56,880 --> 00:07:57,960 Speaker 1: Can be hard to discern. 134 00:07:58,200 --> 00:08:01,240 Speaker 3: So essentially, now, even though in in name there's a 135 00:08:01,280 --> 00:08:04,480 Speaker 3: seven thousand dollars limit on what an individual can give 136 00:08:04,680 --> 00:08:08,960 Speaker 3: to a particular candidate, the party can simply say, we're 137 00:08:09,000 --> 00:08:11,920 Speaker 3: going to take the money that this individual gave us, 138 00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:14,960 Speaker 3: and we'll pay your electricity or your rent, will pay 139 00:08:15,000 --> 00:08:17,480 Speaker 3: for your ads. So she's taking, I think of a 140 00:08:17,560 --> 00:08:18,800 Speaker 3: more practical. 141 00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:21,840 Speaker 2: View from what I've been reading. In the short term, 142 00:08:21,880 --> 00:08:25,360 Speaker 2: at least, this is a win for Republicans. President Trump 143 00:08:25,360 --> 00:08:28,400 Speaker 2: actually said it's a big win for Republicans. Explain why 144 00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:31,320 Speaker 2: Republicans might benefit more than Democrats. 145 00:08:31,960 --> 00:08:33,320 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's right. In the short term. 146 00:08:33,360 --> 00:08:36,760 Speaker 3: I mean, of course, parties and donors and candidates are 147 00:08:36,760 --> 00:08:39,280 Speaker 3: pretty good at figuring out how to play by whatever 148 00:08:39,320 --> 00:08:41,840 Speaker 3: the rules are. As the rules adapt to adapt their 149 00:08:41,840 --> 00:08:45,640 Speaker 3: own strategies. But right now, the Republican Party itself has 150 00:08:45,800 --> 00:08:49,280 Speaker 3: been better at fundraising than the Democratic Party. If you're 151 00:08:49,280 --> 00:08:53,720 Speaker 3: looking in the national committees, they have greater number of 152 00:08:53,880 --> 00:08:57,319 Speaker 3: donors who are ready willing and able to write. 153 00:08:57,000 --> 00:08:59,840 Speaker 1: The checks in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 154 00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:03,920 Speaker 3: And that's why this case was originally brought by Republicans. 155 00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:06,760 Speaker 3: It's the National Publican Senatorial Committee. 156 00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:07,920 Speaker 1: It was originally. JD. 157 00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:11,160 Speaker 3: Vance when he was a candidate in Ohio, challenged some 158 00:09:11,240 --> 00:09:15,400 Speaker 3: restrictions against the coordinating. That being said, at least on 159 00:09:15,480 --> 00:09:19,480 Speaker 3: its face, the ruling frees the Democratic Party or and 160 00:09:19,559 --> 00:09:23,080 Speaker 3: in some future party freese that party up to spend 161 00:09:23,120 --> 00:09:25,679 Speaker 3: as much money as it wants as well in coordination 162 00:09:25,840 --> 00:09:29,040 Speaker 3: with other candidates. Big question for the longer term, though, 163 00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:32,599 Speaker 3: is whether benefits one party or not. It certainly benefits 164 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:35,840 Speaker 3: people who have the ability to write really big checks. 165 00:09:36,040 --> 00:09:40,240 Speaker 3: Back in the nineteen seventies, after Watergate, when Congress passed 166 00:09:40,640 --> 00:09:45,200 Speaker 3: the federal Election campaign at the idea was to try 167 00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:50,040 Speaker 3: to limit the ability of large donors and large interests 168 00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:54,600 Speaker 3: to impact government policy just by writing big checks. It's 169 00:09:54,640 --> 00:09:59,040 Speaker 3: difficult to see how that is not undermined somewhat by 170 00:09:59,080 --> 00:10:02,439 Speaker 3: this ruling. Maybe it's correct ruling, correct application of the 171 00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,760 Speaker 3: First Amendment. I'm not stating a position on that, but 172 00:10:05,840 --> 00:10:08,440 Speaker 3: I think it's hard to deny that this really will 173 00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:13,000 Speaker 3: amplify the voices of individuals and industries with the deepest pockets. 174 00:10:13,480 --> 00:10:15,839 Speaker 2: Are we going to see more TV ads now, and 175 00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:20,040 Speaker 2: even more political TV ads because of the candidates getting 176 00:10:20,040 --> 00:10:21,720 Speaker 2: lower rates for TV ads? 177 00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:25,720 Speaker 3: Well, you know, June, it's hard to imagine seeing more 178 00:10:25,760 --> 00:10:29,960 Speaker 3: ads than we sometimes see during the political campaign season, 179 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:33,839 Speaker 3: but it does seem likely that you will have more 180 00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:37,960 Speaker 3: money going into television ads now because as you adverted 181 00:10:38,000 --> 00:10:42,079 Speaker 3: to their typically A party and pats and other organizations 182 00:10:42,400 --> 00:10:46,240 Speaker 3: did not get the same favorable rates that candidates campaigns did, 183 00:10:46,440 --> 00:10:50,160 Speaker 3: and now that's essentially out the window because the campaigns 184 00:10:50,160 --> 00:10:53,240 Speaker 3: can just pay the bills. So we may yet see 185 00:10:53,440 --> 00:10:56,480 Speaker 3: even more ads, not just on TV, but they're going 186 00:10:56,520 --> 00:10:59,160 Speaker 3: to be popping up on your computer as well. It's 187 00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:01,320 Speaker 3: going to be very good for political consultants, I'm sure, 188 00:11:01,360 --> 00:11:04,200 Speaker 3: and for TV stations as more money flows in. There 189 00:11:04,200 --> 00:11:06,800 Speaker 3: are a whole bunch of other folks in the ecosystem 190 00:11:07,000 --> 00:11:08,640 Speaker 3: who will benefit as well. 191 00:11:09,040 --> 00:11:13,720 Speaker 2: So tell us about this long line of decisions where 192 00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:18,520 Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has been cutting back on campaign finance regulations. 193 00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:22,160 Speaker 2: The one that stands out to me is the Citizens 194 00:11:22,480 --> 00:11:26,480 Speaker 2: United case, which I think during the oral arguments in 195 00:11:26,520 --> 00:11:32,320 Speaker 2: this case, Justice Alito mentioned that Citizens United was still 196 00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:34,160 Speaker 2: a much maligned case. 197 00:11:34,679 --> 00:11:38,440 Speaker 3: He's still fairly maligned, yes, much and unfairly maligned. 198 00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:41,760 Speaker 2: And no one can forget the video of Justice Alito 199 00:11:41,880 --> 00:11:47,240 Speaker 2: shaking his head when Barack Obama criticized Citizens United during 200 00:11:47,280 --> 00:11:50,439 Speaker 2: a State of the Union address. So tell us about 201 00:11:50,440 --> 00:11:52,199 Speaker 2: this string of cases. 202 00:11:52,320 --> 00:11:55,360 Speaker 3: If there's been an evolution over an even longer period, 203 00:11:55,679 --> 00:11:59,120 Speaker 3: going about back about fifty years. So the first case, 204 00:11:59,160 --> 00:12:02,400 Speaker 3: and the landmark case, was in the nineteen seventies and 205 00:12:02,440 --> 00:12:07,880 Speaker 3: it was called Buckley versus Valea. And they're the candidate 206 00:12:08,040 --> 00:12:10,880 Speaker 3: had it was either a candidate or a donor, it's 207 00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:16,000 Speaker 3: escape ingamy right now. Had challenged the federal campaign laws 208 00:12:16,080 --> 00:12:21,960 Speaker 3: contribution limits and disclosure requirements, and the Court upheld though 209 00:12:22,200 --> 00:12:27,040 Speaker 3: saying it's entirely proper for these anti corruption reasons to 210 00:12:27,120 --> 00:12:30,480 Speaker 3: place limits dollar limits on how much can be contributed 211 00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:35,400 Speaker 3: to a campaign and to require disclosure. And it articulated 212 00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:39,000 Speaker 3: this anti corruption rationale, and I think in somewhat broader 213 00:12:39,080 --> 00:12:41,200 Speaker 3: terms than the court today does. 214 00:12:41,360 --> 00:12:43,319 Speaker 1: And then, if you remember, there was a law. 215 00:12:43,240 --> 00:12:46,439 Speaker 3: Passed in the early two thousands, sometimes known as McCain 216 00:12:46,679 --> 00:12:50,800 Speaker 3: fine Gold. Formal name was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform at 217 00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:55,360 Speaker 3: and the McCain fine Gold Act said that national party 218 00:12:55,360 --> 00:12:59,679 Speaker 3: committees couldn't raise or spend funds that mentioned federal candidates 219 00:12:59,800 --> 00:13:03,080 Speaker 3: with in a certain I think it was thirty days 220 00:13:03,200 --> 00:13:06,040 Speaker 3: of an election if they were financed with corporate or 221 00:13:06,120 --> 00:13:08,560 Speaker 3: union funds. And there was a case in two thousand 222 00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:11,480 Speaker 3: and three called McConnell versus the FEC, which largely upheld 223 00:13:11,559 --> 00:13:14,840 Speaker 3: McCain fine Gold, and it upheld the soft money ban 224 00:13:15,000 --> 00:13:18,680 Speaker 3: and disclosure rules and had a fairly broad conception again 225 00:13:19,080 --> 00:13:23,600 Speaker 3: of corruption and this possibility of circumventing the donor rules 226 00:13:24,000 --> 00:13:27,400 Speaker 3: by party and outside groups. Now, there was another decision 227 00:13:27,760 --> 00:13:31,080 Speaker 3: in two thousand and seven Wisconsin Rights to Life, which 228 00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:33,480 Speaker 3: coughed out an exemption that we're probably all familiar with, 229 00:13:33,960 --> 00:13:38,679 Speaker 3: and it said that corporations or other organizations could still 230 00:13:38,920 --> 00:13:42,880 Speaker 3: have electioneering communications. 231 00:13:41,400 --> 00:13:43,160 Speaker 1: That are issue ads. 232 00:13:43,360 --> 00:13:45,800 Speaker 3: So that's why you'll sometimes see these ads that say 233 00:13:46,200 --> 00:13:49,160 Speaker 3: call your representative now, or call Senator Sell and So 234 00:13:49,320 --> 00:13:53,000 Speaker 3: and say that you disagree with having people pouring over 235 00:13:53,040 --> 00:13:57,120 Speaker 3: our border with no restrictions. It's obvious that their campaigning 236 00:13:57,160 --> 00:13:59,880 Speaker 3: against Senator Sell and So. But if it's framed as 237 00:14:00,120 --> 00:14:03,640 Speaker 3: issues at it was permissible under that rule. 238 00:14:03,920 --> 00:14:05,000 Speaker 1: Citizens United, of. 239 00:14:04,960 --> 00:14:09,199 Speaker 3: Course came next, and that was the real earthquake Citizens 240 00:14:09,280 --> 00:14:10,560 Speaker 3: United in twenty ten. 241 00:14:10,840 --> 00:14:12,880 Speaker 1: It was a transformative shift. 242 00:14:13,000 --> 00:14:15,880 Speaker 3: It overruled some parts of the McConnell decision and some 243 00:14:15,920 --> 00:14:19,840 Speaker 3: prior decisions, and it really narrowed It said that, of 244 00:14:19,840 --> 00:14:24,120 Speaker 3: course political speech is protected by the First Amendment, regardless 245 00:14:24,160 --> 00:14:28,000 Speaker 3: of whether the sources of corporation, and it narrowed campaign 246 00:14:28,080 --> 00:14:32,560 Speaker 3: finance regulation really to preventing these quid pro quo scenarios 247 00:14:32,760 --> 00:14:34,960 Speaker 3: or its appearance, and it opened the door to unlimited 248 00:14:35,040 --> 00:14:36,080 Speaker 3: corporate spending. 249 00:14:36,280 --> 00:14:38,160 Speaker 1: There's one other recent case that came up a lot 250 00:14:38,200 --> 00:14:39,160 Speaker 1: in the oral argument here. 251 00:14:39,200 --> 00:14:43,080 Speaker 3: It's called McCutcheon versus the FEC from twenty fourteen, and 252 00:14:43,120 --> 00:14:46,560 Speaker 3: that struck down aggregate limits on how much any individual 253 00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:50,160 Speaker 3: could give to all federal candidates. There used to be 254 00:14:50,200 --> 00:14:52,480 Speaker 3: a rule that said, in addition to a limit on 255 00:14:52,520 --> 00:14:55,520 Speaker 3: how much I can give to candidate A, I can 256 00:14:55,560 --> 00:14:58,520 Speaker 3: only give a certain amount to all federal candidates in 257 00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:02,640 Speaker 3: a particular election cycle. That was struck down on the 258 00:15:02,640 --> 00:15:06,960 Speaker 3: same rationale that we already have limits on how much 259 00:15:07,000 --> 00:15:09,280 Speaker 3: you can give an individual candidate. We have disclosure and 260 00:15:09,320 --> 00:15:13,200 Speaker 3: that's enough. You can see how each new challenge to 261 00:15:13,280 --> 00:15:16,960 Speaker 3: the remaining restrictions has resulted in, I think, a more 262 00:15:17,000 --> 00:15:20,160 Speaker 3: and more narrow view of what type of corruption or 263 00:15:20,200 --> 00:15:24,280 Speaker 3: quid pro quo these laws are aimed at, and it 264 00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:29,400 Speaker 3: becomes harder and harder to justify these restrictions against the 265 00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:32,440 Speaker 3: First Amendment interest that here Justice Kavana talks about. 266 00:15:32,200 --> 00:15:37,240 Speaker 2: In the majority, The majority here overruled two thousand and 267 00:15:37,280 --> 00:15:40,480 Speaker 2: one decision. That was the second time in two days 268 00:15:40,520 --> 00:15:44,000 Speaker 2: that the Court overturned a precedent. On Monday, it reversed 269 00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:48,560 Speaker 2: the ninety year old Humphrey's Executor decision, and Justice Kagan, 270 00:15:48,640 --> 00:15:53,280 Speaker 2: in her dissent said, the majority must overrule Colorado two 271 00:15:53,480 --> 00:15:57,760 Speaker 2: to arrive at its outcome. So once again disregards and 272 00:15:57,920 --> 00:16:02,880 Speaker 2: disrespects the core legal principle of starry decisives. So what's 273 00:16:02,920 --> 00:16:08,400 Speaker 2: your take on the conservative majority and their respect for president? 274 00:16:08,840 --> 00:16:13,160 Speaker 3: There are certainly a pattern, right, So the decision that 275 00:16:13,240 --> 00:16:16,560 Speaker 3: was overturned here that you're referring to was from the 276 00:16:16,600 --> 00:16:22,400 Speaker 3: early two thousands called Colorado two, and traditionally, obviously this 277 00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:24,200 Speaker 3: was something that was discussed a lot in the Dobbs 278 00:16:24,240 --> 00:16:27,720 Speaker 3: decision as well. But the standard has been over the 279 00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:34,440 Speaker 3: years that the court should or can overturn a precedent 280 00:16:34,520 --> 00:16:38,960 Speaker 3: only in unusual circumstances, and that there has to be 281 00:16:38,960 --> 00:16:42,760 Speaker 3: a very high bar, something other than just that the 282 00:16:43,240 --> 00:16:49,320 Speaker 3: court thinks the prior decision was wrong. And here Justice Kevanaugh, 283 00:16:49,440 --> 00:16:54,280 Speaker 3: writing for the majority, said, well, subsequent developments in the 284 00:16:54,360 --> 00:16:58,600 Speaker 3: case law suggests that in this Colorado two decision, which 285 00:16:58,880 --> 00:17:02,320 Speaker 3: had upheld the restrictions that were struck down in this case, 286 00:17:02,600 --> 00:17:06,000 Speaker 3: Justice Kavin I said, well, since that time, the standard 287 00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:09,119 Speaker 3: that we use for balancing has changed, and we apply 288 00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:12,960 Speaker 3: a closer type of scrutiny to restrictions on the First Amendment. 289 00:17:13,240 --> 00:17:16,800 Speaker 3: But as Justice Kagan points out, essentially in this decision, 290 00:17:16,840 --> 00:17:20,720 Speaker 3: they applied the same level of scrutiny, and she calls 291 00:17:20,760 --> 00:17:24,240 Speaker 3: them out, saying that what seems to be happening here 292 00:17:24,280 --> 00:17:27,040 Speaker 3: and I think you're right, June, it's happened in some 293 00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:30,840 Speaker 3: other cases. The Court is becoming more comfortable overturning a 294 00:17:30,960 --> 00:17:36,040 Speaker 3: precedent simply because a majority of justices on the current 295 00:17:36,200 --> 00:17:40,399 Speaker 3: court think that the prior decision was wrong, rather than 296 00:17:40,880 --> 00:17:47,960 Speaker 3: that there is some unusual and identifiable need to overturn 297 00:17:48,000 --> 00:17:49,800 Speaker 3: people settles expectations. 298 00:17:50,200 --> 00:17:54,000 Speaker 2: Justice Kegan quoted from a dissent by Justice Stephen Bryer 299 00:17:54,040 --> 00:17:57,720 Speaker 2: in the McCutcheon case, where he said that the decision 300 00:17:57,840 --> 00:18:03,760 Speaker 2: eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant. And 301 00:18:03,840 --> 00:18:06,479 Speaker 2: at the end of her descent, she said, I'm not 302 00:18:06,560 --> 00:18:10,080 Speaker 2: sure what to call a remnant of a remnant, but 303 00:18:10,200 --> 00:18:12,200 Speaker 2: that is what the Court has left today. 304 00:18:12,840 --> 00:18:13,560 Speaker 6: Is this the end? 305 00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:16,160 Speaker 2: Or do you think there'll be more attacks on what's 306 00:18:16,280 --> 00:18:18,280 Speaker 2: left of campaign finance laws? 307 00:18:19,720 --> 00:18:22,880 Speaker 3: There still are limits that was uphelden Bucklet and versus 308 00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:25,960 Speaker 3: Philia in the nineteen seventies. So there's seven thousand dollars 309 00:18:26,040 --> 00:18:29,280 Speaker 3: limit to an individual candidate, and these limits which the 310 00:18:29,280 --> 00:18:31,760 Speaker 3: majority in descent debate, or they debated at least at 311 00:18:31,760 --> 00:18:34,639 Speaker 3: the oral argument about is it technically forty four thousand 312 00:18:34,720 --> 00:18:37,359 Speaker 3: or is it five hundred thousand. It depends how you 313 00:18:37,480 --> 00:18:40,520 Speaker 3: characterize it. But there still are some limits. So is 314 00:18:40,560 --> 00:18:44,399 Speaker 3: the next challenge going to say you know, limits should 315 00:18:44,440 --> 00:18:48,040 Speaker 3: be out the window as well, or disclosure. Disclosure is 316 00:18:48,080 --> 00:18:54,199 Speaker 3: still one of the guardrails against corruption that both the 317 00:18:54,200 --> 00:18:58,000 Speaker 3: Majority and the Descent pointed to here. You can imagine 318 00:18:58,440 --> 00:19:03,159 Speaker 3: a challenge sometime in future in which a candidate or 319 00:19:03,200 --> 00:19:06,480 Speaker 3: a party or an organization says that too is not 320 00:19:06,680 --> 00:19:10,560 Speaker 3: justified by the as certain need to protect the system. 321 00:19:10,800 --> 00:19:12,480 Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to see. 322 00:19:12,680 --> 00:19:14,560 Speaker 2: It's been great having you on. Thanks so much for 323 00:19:14,600 --> 00:19:15,320 Speaker 2: your insights. 324 00:19:15,359 --> 00:19:15,719 Speaker 6: Andy. 325 00:19:16,400 --> 00:19:20,520 Speaker 2: That's Andrew Shapiro, a partner in Quinn Emmanuel's appellate practice group. 326 00:19:21,040 --> 00:19:25,720 Speaker 2: Transgender Rights lost again at the Supreme Court. A divided 327 00:19:25,800 --> 00:19:30,000 Speaker 2: court upheld state laws that banned transgender girls and women 328 00:19:30,359 --> 00:19:34,600 Speaker 2: from competing for their schools on female athletic teams, Siding 329 00:19:34,640 --> 00:19:38,800 Speaker 2: with conservatives and President Donald Trump on a divisive culture 330 00:19:38,800 --> 00:19:43,320 Speaker 2: war issue. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, finding 331 00:19:43,359 --> 00:19:48,080 Speaker 2: that states can separate teams based on biological sex without 332 00:19:48,200 --> 00:19:52,359 Speaker 2: violating the Constitution or Title nine, a law that bars 333 00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:56,959 Speaker 2: gender discrimination in schools receiving federal money. Kavanaugh wrote that 334 00:19:57,160 --> 00:20:01,120 Speaker 2: given the inherent physical differences between the sex is, allowing 335 00:20:01,200 --> 00:20:05,080 Speaker 2: only biological females to play on women's and girls teams 336 00:20:05,359 --> 00:20:09,560 Speaker 2: can reduce the risk of physical injury, and ensure fair competition. 337 00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:13,359 Speaker 2: My guest is Zane McNeil, an attorney from Lawyers for 338 00:20:13,440 --> 00:20:17,680 Speaker 2: Good Government's Gender Justice and Health Equity team. So will 339 00:20:17,720 --> 00:20:22,680 Speaker 2: you explain how the court decided that they don't violate 340 00:20:22,760 --> 00:20:24,840 Speaker 2: the Constitution in Title nine? 341 00:20:25,080 --> 00:20:27,600 Speaker 7: Yeah, and let me just do some level setting. I 342 00:20:27,600 --> 00:20:28,280 Speaker 7: guess okay. 343 00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:30,840 Speaker 8: First, So, for those who don't know about Title nine, 344 00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:32,959 Speaker 8: it was a federal law passed in nineteen seventy two 345 00:20:33,040 --> 00:20:36,360 Speaker 8: for hoping sex discrimination schools and education programs or see 346 00:20:36,359 --> 00:20:42,479 Speaker 8: federal funding. The Buien administration had interpreted it to protect 347 00:20:42,520 --> 00:20:47,040 Speaker 8: against discrimination of trans folks, and so what the court 348 00:20:47,080 --> 00:20:52,560 Speaker 8: held was that Title nine allows schools to pretty much 349 00:20:53,000 --> 00:20:58,480 Speaker 8: say that female sports teams can exclude may exclude trans women, 350 00:20:58,880 --> 00:21:03,320 Speaker 8: and that West Virginia had permisely maintained the female sports 351 00:21:03,400 --> 00:21:06,639 Speaker 8: for what they call biological females, which is sort of 352 00:21:06,720 --> 00:21:10,280 Speaker 8: like a far right talking point. And so their interpretation 353 00:21:10,640 --> 00:21:16,480 Speaker 8: of Title nine was that when it was drafted, sex 354 00:21:16,480 --> 00:21:20,040 Speaker 8: could only mean one thing, and that's what they perceive 355 00:21:20,160 --> 00:21:23,960 Speaker 8: as the anti trans term biological sex or sex assign 356 00:21:24,040 --> 00:21:27,000 Speaker 8: at birth. For equal protection. You know, we've had a 357 00:21:27,040 --> 00:21:31,200 Speaker 8: hard time since SCRIMMETI with it. I mean, the nice 358 00:21:31,240 --> 00:21:35,040 Speaker 8: thing with the decision is it didn't go as horribly 359 00:21:35,400 --> 00:21:38,800 Speaker 8: as they possibly could have gone. The court held that 360 00:21:38,880 --> 00:21:41,560 Speaker 8: West Virginia and Idaho did not violate equal Protection Clause 361 00:21:41,640 --> 00:21:44,400 Speaker 8: or the Porte by maintaining these, you know, quote unquote 362 00:21:44,920 --> 00:21:48,520 Speaker 8: female sports teams for quote unquote biological females. They used 363 00:21:48,560 --> 00:21:52,400 Speaker 8: intermediate scrutiny, so they looked at it as it being 364 00:21:52,520 --> 00:21:57,840 Speaker 8: sex discrimination or aligning based on sex, and they held, 365 00:21:57,960 --> 00:22:01,639 Speaker 8: even though it had this sort of heightened scrutiny, that 366 00:22:01,680 --> 00:22:05,680 Speaker 8: the states didn't actually violate that or really they were 367 00:22:05,720 --> 00:22:09,119 Speaker 8: able to show that it was at least connected to 368 00:22:09,760 --> 00:22:12,919 Speaker 8: the purpose of the specific language here. The Eagle Production 369 00:22:13,000 --> 00:22:15,600 Speaker 8: clause allowed schools to maintain separate teams for female and 370 00:22:15,640 --> 00:22:19,200 Speaker 8: male athletes. Schools can determine eligibility based on the quote 371 00:22:19,240 --> 00:22:23,439 Speaker 8: biological sex constitutionally justified by the what they consider vitally 372 00:22:23,480 --> 00:22:26,879 Speaker 8: important interests of safety and competitive fairness, and so the 373 00:22:26,920 --> 00:22:30,240 Speaker 8: sex based classification is justified. States don't need to make 374 00:22:30,280 --> 00:22:32,040 Speaker 8: case by case exceptions. So they found that it was 375 00:22:32,080 --> 00:22:35,439 Speaker 8: substantially related to the important government objective, But that was 376 00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:41,119 Speaker 8: challenged in one of the concurrences sodemo Or, Kegan and 377 00:22:41,200 --> 00:22:44,920 Speaker 8: Jackson concurred and dissented in part. Soina Mayor was arguing 378 00:22:45,000 --> 00:22:48,359 Speaker 8: that there could still be fact finding about whether that 379 00:22:48,560 --> 00:22:51,719 Speaker 8: was connected enough based on bpj's specific facts. 380 00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:55,680 Speaker 2: Has it been proven, has it been shown that there 381 00:22:55,680 --> 00:23:02,080 Speaker 2: are more injuries when there are transgender athletes in female sports? 382 00:23:02,320 --> 00:23:04,400 Speaker 7: That's what the states say, right. 383 00:23:04,520 --> 00:23:09,439 Speaker 8: Twenty seven states do restrict sports and athletics based on 384 00:23:09,560 --> 00:23:10,639 Speaker 8: your sex assign of birth. 385 00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:13,719 Speaker 7: The facts are really up in the air. It's not 386 00:23:14,200 --> 00:23:15,159 Speaker 7: known for sure, you know. 387 00:23:15,200 --> 00:23:16,760 Speaker 8: And one of the things we've seen with far right 388 00:23:16,760 --> 00:23:18,920 Speaker 8: talking points too, is that maybe trans girls are trying 389 00:23:18,920 --> 00:23:21,120 Speaker 8: to cheat their way into women's sports, right or take 390 00:23:21,119 --> 00:23:22,520 Speaker 8: away opportunities from girls. 391 00:23:22,280 --> 00:23:23,760 Speaker 7: And that's not the truth. 392 00:23:23,840 --> 00:23:26,760 Speaker 8: Transgender girls are not biological males, even though the court 393 00:23:26,840 --> 00:23:28,400 Speaker 8: might have used that term throughout. 394 00:23:29,200 --> 00:23:31,439 Speaker 7: And what the. 395 00:23:30,840 --> 00:23:34,479 Speaker 8: Concurrence in Part Descent in Part says is that BBJ, 396 00:23:34,640 --> 00:23:38,520 Speaker 8: specifically because she was put on puberty blockers, had never 397 00:23:38,600 --> 00:23:42,560 Speaker 8: gone through what is seen as like male puberty. Even 398 00:23:42,640 --> 00:23:46,920 Speaker 8: if there were certain facts or studies saying that some 399 00:23:47,000 --> 00:23:50,359 Speaker 8: trans girls have this quote unquote advantage, that wouldn't be 400 00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:53,760 Speaker 8: the case for BBJ and so the concurrence and dissent 401 00:23:53,920 --> 00:23:57,520 Speaker 8: had argued that there need be additional facts about whether 402 00:23:57,920 --> 00:24:00,320 Speaker 8: the stated necessarily used her an exception to the law. 403 00:24:00,640 --> 00:24:05,480 Speaker 2: How did the majority distinguish boss Stock from twenty twenty, 404 00:24:05,680 --> 00:24:08,760 Speaker 2: which is based on Title seven's ban on sex discrimination 405 00:24:08,920 --> 00:24:13,400 Speaker 2: in employment and saying that that protects gay and transgender workers. 406 00:24:13,720 --> 00:24:15,840 Speaker 2: Was that distinguished from this case? 407 00:24:16,520 --> 00:24:18,960 Speaker 8: Yeah, so they said that Title seven and boss Stock 408 00:24:19,000 --> 00:24:21,800 Speaker 8: weren't just not relevant because of the different statutory and 409 00:24:21,840 --> 00:24:25,159 Speaker 8: factual context. So Title seven, you know, would be employment 410 00:24:25,640 --> 00:24:29,120 Speaker 8: while Title nine was on sports, and then yeah, boss 411 00:24:29,119 --> 00:24:34,119 Speaker 8: Stock was not connected because the question was different there. 412 00:24:34,440 --> 00:24:36,919 Speaker 8: I do want to just highlight that, you know, it 413 00:24:37,000 --> 00:24:41,399 Speaker 8: is concerning you know, Gorset in his concurrence seems to 414 00:24:41,440 --> 00:24:46,359 Speaker 8: really want to expand this decision, right it despite Boss Stock. 415 00:24:46,480 --> 00:24:49,320 Speaker 8: You know, the Biden administration had perceived Boss Stock as 416 00:24:49,359 --> 00:24:53,320 Speaker 8: being this broad protection that the Trump administration immediately when 417 00:24:53,560 --> 00:24:56,320 Speaker 8: they came into office started to try to undermine. Right, 418 00:24:56,640 --> 00:25:01,040 Speaker 8: and the Court, especially in concurrence, seems interesting, did in 419 00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:04,720 Speaker 8: really limiting Boss Stock to the specific facts of that 420 00:25:04,800 --> 00:25:09,639 Speaker 8: case and unemployment. And I think that shows that we 421 00:25:09,720 --> 00:25:11,159 Speaker 8: might have really troubling times ahead. 422 00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:12,960 Speaker 6: Tell us more about that. 423 00:25:13,560 --> 00:25:16,720 Speaker 8: Yeah, So, as we know, the Trump administration, right when 424 00:25:16,720 --> 00:25:20,440 Speaker 8: he came into office started signing anti trans executive orders, 425 00:25:20,920 --> 00:25:22,720 Speaker 8: made it the policy of the United States, you know, 426 00:25:22,800 --> 00:25:25,200 Speaker 8: to keep trans folks from participating in sports that align 427 00:25:25,200 --> 00:25:28,199 Speaker 8: with their gender identities, implemented anti trans definitions of sex. 428 00:25:28,400 --> 00:25:31,920 Speaker 8: Attacid Secretary of Education to prioritize these Title nine enforcement 429 00:25:31,920 --> 00:25:35,720 Speaker 8: actions against educational institutions were sent in guidance documents on 430 00:25:35,800 --> 00:25:40,119 Speaker 8: transgender quality, inclusive and non discriminary school environments for LGBTQ students, 431 00:25:40,160 --> 00:25:43,040 Speaker 8: supporting transgender youth in sports, and we've seen the Department 432 00:25:43,080 --> 00:25:45,760 Speaker 8: of Education arguing the Title nine is not only permissive 433 00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:48,040 Speaker 8: of sport bands, but also require them, and have been 434 00:25:48,040 --> 00:25:51,240 Speaker 8: investigating schools who have such gender ferring policies relating to 435 00:25:51,320 --> 00:25:53,800 Speaker 8: even bathrooms and locker rooms in addition to sports. 436 00:25:54,040 --> 00:25:54,800 Speaker 7: There's dozens of. 437 00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:58,920 Speaker 8: These cases that I imagine the Trump administration will take this 438 00:25:59,160 --> 00:26:01,720 Speaker 8: case and really run with it. We've also seen the 439 00:26:01,720 --> 00:26:04,479 Speaker 8: Alliance Defending Freedom, which is designated a hate group by 440 00:26:04,480 --> 00:26:07,520 Speaker 8: the Southern Poverty Law Center, already signaling that they're going 441 00:26:07,560 --> 00:26:09,960 Speaker 8: to use this case of file increasing lawsuits against schools 442 00:26:09,960 --> 00:26:11,280 Speaker 8: with gender perming care policies. 443 00:26:11,760 --> 00:26:16,320 Speaker 2: Kavanaugh said that the law can't plausibly be interpreted to 444 00:26:16,400 --> 00:26:20,760 Speaker 2: refer to anything other than biological sex and not gender identity. 445 00:26:21,160 --> 00:26:24,120 Speaker 6: Explain why that makes a difference. 446 00:26:24,280 --> 00:26:26,840 Speaker 7: Specifically around Title nine. 447 00:26:26,920 --> 00:26:30,440 Speaker 8: Right, it protects against sex discrimination, and so what Kavanaugh 448 00:26:30,480 --> 00:26:33,480 Speaker 8: is saying there and what every other justice says there 449 00:26:34,000 --> 00:26:40,240 Speaker 8: is that cannot be interpreted as including sex discrimination broadly, right, 450 00:26:40,320 --> 00:26:44,240 Speaker 8: so including discrimination on gender identity or like transgender status. 451 00:26:44,560 --> 00:26:47,760 Speaker 8: And therefore the s West Virginia is not in violation 452 00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:51,280 Speaker 8: of Title nine by having this band that affects PPJ 453 00:26:51,520 --> 00:26:54,480 Speaker 8: because it's specific to sex aside at birth. You know, 454 00:26:54,680 --> 00:26:59,760 Speaker 8: the decision and the Trump administration, they're really using terms 455 00:26:59,800 --> 00:27:04,680 Speaker 8: that have been employed to go after an increased discrimination 456 00:27:04,680 --> 00:27:05,520 Speaker 8: against trans people. 457 00:27:06,760 --> 00:27:11,040 Speaker 2: What parts of the opinion did the liberals dissent from 458 00:27:11,359 --> 00:27:13,320 Speaker 2: and what parts did they concur in? 459 00:27:14,119 --> 00:27:15,520 Speaker 7: They concurred in Title nine. 460 00:27:15,880 --> 00:27:20,439 Speaker 8: So they agreed with the majority that Title nine is 461 00:27:20,480 --> 00:27:23,720 Speaker 8: not a violation for these states to have these sports bands. Again, 462 00:27:23,760 --> 00:27:27,600 Speaker 8: it's may not have to So states may create these 463 00:27:27,600 --> 00:27:30,560 Speaker 8: sports bands, but it's not mandated under Title Knights. It's 464 00:27:30,600 --> 00:27:34,040 Speaker 8: not in violation of Title nine. The difference was around 465 00:27:34,119 --> 00:27:37,959 Speaker 8: equal protection. The majorities were mandated down to the courts, 466 00:27:38,080 --> 00:27:40,400 Speaker 8: you know, for the preceising since system of the opinion. 467 00:27:40,680 --> 00:27:45,119 Speaker 8: But the question that the liberals had was that there 468 00:27:45,119 --> 00:27:48,320 Speaker 8: should be more fact finding. You know, like I said before, 469 00:27:48,880 --> 00:27:53,240 Speaker 8: BPJ is is a specific case. She did not go 470 00:27:53,359 --> 00:27:56,359 Speaker 8: through what is seen as like male puberty, you know, 471 00:27:56,960 --> 00:27:59,640 Speaker 8: and they she didn't get to have those. 472 00:27:59,400 --> 00:28:01,040 Speaker 7: Facts in those considerations. 473 00:28:01,440 --> 00:28:04,640 Speaker 8: And you know, the liberals said that the Court's equal 474 00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:07,639 Speaker 8: protection precedents and majority neither required nor support what they 475 00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:10,960 Speaker 8: considered contorted logic, and really said that there was a 476 00:28:11,600 --> 00:28:14,840 Speaker 8: outstanding factual dispute that should have prevented the court's resolution 477 00:28:15,160 --> 00:28:16,000 Speaker 8: of her claim. 478 00:28:17,080 --> 00:28:20,040 Speaker 2: One of the plaintiffs here wanted to drop the case. 479 00:28:20,160 --> 00:28:24,280 Speaker 2: She was no longer participating in sports, and she was 480 00:28:25,040 --> 00:28:29,080 Speaker 2: approaching graduation. That was in the Idaho case, and I'm 481 00:28:29,080 --> 00:28:33,280 Speaker 2: wondering why the Supreme Court didn't allow her to drop out. 482 00:28:33,680 --> 00:28:36,800 Speaker 8: So in kee Cox had brought the equal protection claim. 483 00:28:36,880 --> 00:28:39,120 Speaker 8: BPJ is the one who brought the Title nine claim. 484 00:28:39,200 --> 00:28:42,560 Speaker 8: And so you know, in my opinion, it's it seems 485 00:28:43,440 --> 00:28:47,440 Speaker 8: really harmful, right that they didn't let her drop the case, 486 00:28:47,520 --> 00:28:51,200 Speaker 8: right because she was facing such amounts of harassment and discrimination. 487 00:28:51,280 --> 00:28:54,880 Speaker 8: You know, having her name on these cases really increased 488 00:28:55,120 --> 00:28:59,120 Speaker 8: rates of discrimination. I'm very proud, you know, of BPJ 489 00:28:59,280 --> 00:29:02,280 Speaker 8: and he Cox for fighting for themselves and fighting for 490 00:29:02,400 --> 00:29:04,040 Speaker 8: trans youth because they. 491 00:29:03,920 --> 00:29:05,920 Speaker 7: Just wanted to, you know, play on sports teams. 492 00:29:06,200 --> 00:29:07,840 Speaker 8: They wanted to be there with their friends, and they 493 00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:09,440 Speaker 8: fought for themselves in their community. 494 00:29:10,000 --> 00:29:13,240 Speaker 7: I don't know why the court didn't let Heacock drop 495 00:29:13,320 --> 00:29:13,680 Speaker 7: the case. 496 00:29:13,800 --> 00:29:16,760 Speaker 8: I think they are said that there was already so 497 00:29:16,880 --> 00:29:18,520 Speaker 8: much in here, so much fact finding, you know, there's 498 00:29:18,560 --> 00:29:20,880 Speaker 8: so much briefing on it, so why not. 499 00:29:21,000 --> 00:29:23,560 Speaker 7: But from the actual claims. 500 00:29:23,040 --> 00:29:25,880 Speaker 8: Brought, I don't see how they could be different, like 501 00:29:25,960 --> 00:29:27,000 Speaker 8: if it was just BPJ. 502 00:29:27,440 --> 00:29:31,120 Speaker 2: Well, thanks so much for joining me today, that's saying McNeil, 503 00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:35,360 Speaker 2: an attorney for Lawyers for Good Government's Gender Justice and 504 00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:41,960 Speaker 2: Health Equity Team. Former NBA players Malik Beasley and Edward Davis, 505 00:29:42,200 --> 00:29:45,880 Speaker 2: as well as sports agent Paulo Zamorano, and three others, 506 00:29:46,240 --> 00:29:50,400 Speaker 2: have been charged by federal prosecutors in an expanding illegal 507 00:29:50,440 --> 00:29:55,200 Speaker 2: sports betting probe. According to the unsealed indictment, Beasley agreed 508 00:29:55,240 --> 00:29:59,480 Speaker 2: with his former teammate Davis to underperform or overperform in 509 00:29:59,600 --> 00:30:03,400 Speaker 2: games leading insiders to make bets on how many points 510 00:30:03,560 --> 00:30:07,080 Speaker 2: or rebounds he would collect in a game. His attorneys said, 511 00:30:07,080 --> 00:30:10,760 Speaker 2: we look forward to vigorously defending Malik against any of 512 00:30:10,800 --> 00:30:14,000 Speaker 2: these charges. The case is the latest to emerge from 513 00:30:14,040 --> 00:30:18,120 Speaker 2: a long running federal investigation into the sports industry that's 514 00:30:18,200 --> 00:30:22,240 Speaker 2: already led to charges against NBA player Terry Roser and 515 00:30:22,320 --> 00:30:26,080 Speaker 2: two MLB pictures on the Cleveland Guardians, My guest is 516 00:30:26,120 --> 00:30:29,880 Speaker 2: Marissa Darden, chair of the Government Investigations and white collar 517 00:30:29,960 --> 00:30:33,680 Speaker 2: practice at Benish Law. Marissa tell us about the charges here. 518 00:30:34,200 --> 00:30:37,800 Speaker 9: So two days ago, the US Attorney's Office for the 519 00:30:37,880 --> 00:30:41,760 Speaker 9: Eastern District of New York unsealed an indictment charging in 520 00:30:41,800 --> 00:30:46,960 Speaker 9: another six individuals with a conspiracy to commit money laundering 521 00:30:47,320 --> 00:30:50,840 Speaker 9: on a services product and violating anti petty statutes. And 522 00:30:50,880 --> 00:30:53,200 Speaker 9: this seems like this investigation had been going on for 523 00:30:53,280 --> 00:30:56,560 Speaker 9: over a year. At least one of the defendants in 524 00:30:56,600 --> 00:30:59,520 Speaker 9: the case knew about it. That was Milink Beasley, one 525 00:30:59,520 --> 00:31:02,520 Speaker 9: of the former and NBA players, and it had been 526 00:31:02,520 --> 00:31:04,720 Speaker 9: publicly reported over a year ago that he was under 527 00:31:04,800 --> 00:31:09,440 Speaker 9: investigation for gambling illegal gambling. And this is another indictment 528 00:31:09,600 --> 00:31:13,360 Speaker 9: coming from the same US Attorney's Office that previously had 529 00:31:13,360 --> 00:31:17,160 Speaker 9: indicted some other NBA players late last year for a 530 00:31:17,200 --> 00:31:19,240 Speaker 9: similar crime. So it seems like this is something that 531 00:31:19,240 --> 00:31:20,560 Speaker 9: they've been looking into for a while. 532 00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:25,440 Speaker 2: Explain exactly what they're accused of, you know, the tweaking 533 00:31:25,480 --> 00:31:27,920 Speaker 2: their performance on these so called prop bits. 534 00:31:28,600 --> 00:31:33,320 Speaker 9: So two of the defendants in this sixth defendant conspiracy 535 00:31:33,560 --> 00:31:38,560 Speaker 9: are former NBA players, one is an agent one of 536 00:31:38,560 --> 00:31:41,200 Speaker 9: the agents of the former NBA players, that's Malik Beasley 537 00:31:41,280 --> 00:31:45,040 Speaker 9: and Edward Davis. And the other individuals would have been, 538 00:31:45,080 --> 00:31:47,080 Speaker 9: you know, sort of friends, hangers on, keep parts of 539 00:31:47,080 --> 00:31:50,640 Speaker 9: their entourage that were assisting in creating these prop bets. 540 00:31:51,320 --> 00:31:54,840 Speaker 9: And there were several games that the US Attorney's Office 541 00:31:54,880 --> 00:31:58,120 Speaker 9: actually lists right in the conspiracy as part of the 542 00:31:58,240 --> 00:32:03,880 Speaker 9: online gambling during scheme where the players were actually making 543 00:32:04,240 --> 00:32:06,680 Speaker 9: decisions early on and discussing with each other that they 544 00:32:06,720 --> 00:32:10,400 Speaker 9: were going to either shave points or score less rebounds 545 00:32:10,560 --> 00:32:14,880 Speaker 9: or do any kind of manipulation for purposes of hitting 546 00:32:14,920 --> 00:32:18,800 Speaker 9: side parlay bets in certain games, which includes a twenty 547 00:32:18,800 --> 00:32:23,840 Speaker 9: twenty four Milwaukee Bucks Cleveland Cavaliers game, a Charlotte Hornet's 548 00:32:23,880 --> 00:32:27,320 Speaker 9: game against the Bucks, and this was when again, Beasley 549 00:32:27,400 --> 00:32:31,480 Speaker 9: and Davis were both playing in the NBA, so I 550 00:32:31,520 --> 00:32:35,240 Speaker 9: can imagine that the NBA is very concerned about these 551 00:32:35,240 --> 00:32:38,560 Speaker 9: allegations and has publicly stated that they're cooperating in the 552 00:32:38,560 --> 00:32:39,640 Speaker 9: government's investigation. 553 00:32:40,640 --> 00:32:45,240 Speaker 2: How much did Beasley make in this alleged scheme, because 554 00:32:45,240 --> 00:32:49,040 Speaker 2: he made about sixty million dollars during his NBA career. 555 00:32:49,720 --> 00:32:52,960 Speaker 9: They don't give a total amount in the conspiracy, but 556 00:32:53,200 --> 00:32:55,200 Speaker 9: you can imagine it's in the hundreds of thousands of 557 00:32:55,240 --> 00:32:58,960 Speaker 9: dollars or more. I mean, as you noted, both these 558 00:32:58,960 --> 00:33:02,440 Speaker 9: individuals were making millions of dollars, although it's been publicly 559 00:33:02,480 --> 00:33:05,640 Speaker 9: reported that Beasley and Davis were in financial trouble, particularly 560 00:33:05,680 --> 00:33:07,800 Speaker 9: after they left the league. And I think it was 561 00:33:08,160 --> 00:33:10,880 Speaker 9: mister Beasley who was in the midst of securing a 562 00:33:10,920 --> 00:33:15,120 Speaker 9: forty two million dollar multi year contract with the Detroit 563 00:33:15,120 --> 00:33:16,680 Speaker 9: Pistons when the news. 564 00:33:16,440 --> 00:33:19,240 Speaker 4: Of this investigation in summer of twenty twenty five came out. 565 00:33:20,080 --> 00:33:24,080 Speaker 9: So the money, the actual total amount, is really less 566 00:33:24,120 --> 00:33:28,720 Speaker 9: of an issue here June, mostly because the statutes don't 567 00:33:28,760 --> 00:33:32,600 Speaker 9: require a threshold dollar amount in order to violate the law. 568 00:33:33,320 --> 00:33:36,080 Speaker 2: I think it was in October of last year there 569 00:33:36,080 --> 00:33:40,320 Speaker 2: were the arrests of Terry Rosier and Chauncey Billups. Is 570 00:33:40,360 --> 00:33:44,240 Speaker 2: it the same investigation that's ongoing or is it look 571 00:33:44,320 --> 00:33:45,640 Speaker 2: like a different investigation? 572 00:33:46,640 --> 00:33:50,680 Speaker 9: Again, the US Attorney's Office doesn't say, and so we 573 00:33:51,040 --> 00:33:53,640 Speaker 9: really don't know whether this all stems from the same 574 00:33:53,680 --> 00:33:57,520 Speaker 9: investigation or is part of something different. But you can 575 00:33:57,640 --> 00:34:02,320 Speaker 9: expect that this is something that the NBA and the 576 00:34:02,400 --> 00:34:05,360 Speaker 9: US Attorney's Office has been looking at for a long time, 577 00:34:06,280 --> 00:34:09,480 Speaker 9: and if they believe that there are more than one 578 00:34:09,680 --> 00:34:11,480 Speaker 9: or more than just a handful of players, that the 579 00:34:11,600 --> 00:34:14,319 Speaker 9: FBI would have established a task force or some other 580 00:34:14,800 --> 00:34:18,959 Speaker 9: sort of designated team of investigators to look into these 581 00:34:19,000 --> 00:34:22,560 Speaker 9: allegations and to try to figure out whether this is 582 00:34:22,600 --> 00:34:23,880 Speaker 9: a systemic problem. 583 00:34:24,000 --> 00:34:27,520 Speaker 2: In the other indictment, the three defendants in the similar 584 00:34:27,600 --> 00:34:32,160 Speaker 2: gambling case, an assistant coach Damon Jones has pleaded guilty, 585 00:34:32,400 --> 00:34:35,279 Speaker 2: so he'll be testifying and I guess that's where a 586 00:34:35,320 --> 00:34:37,360 Speaker 2: lot of the information will come at trial. 587 00:34:37,480 --> 00:34:39,880 Speaker 6: Do we know if he's involved in this case as well? 588 00:34:40,480 --> 00:34:45,080 Speaker 9: Not currently, although the indictment does list several unindicted co 589 00:34:45,080 --> 00:34:48,960 Speaker 9: conspirators in this case, that are they're just named as 590 00:34:49,000 --> 00:34:51,680 Speaker 9: sort of co conspirator one or co conspirator two, some 591 00:34:51,719 --> 00:34:54,600 Speaker 9: of whom were residents of Arizona and in Brooklyn, and 592 00:34:54,760 --> 00:34:58,000 Speaker 9: there may be some overlap there, and those individuals who 593 00:34:58,040 --> 00:34:59,920 Speaker 9: are named in the indictment and who are known. 594 00:34:59,760 --> 00:35:02,200 Speaker 4: To the granjury would be likely to testify a trial. 595 00:35:02,840 --> 00:35:07,600 Speaker 2: And also there were similar indictments against MLB players. 596 00:35:08,200 --> 00:35:13,320 Speaker 9: Yes, there's a pending case of former Cleveland Guardians players 597 00:35:13,440 --> 00:35:17,279 Speaker 9: in my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio that is pending in 598 00:35:17,360 --> 00:35:21,359 Speaker 9: the Southern District of New York for similar allegations. And 599 00:35:21,800 --> 00:35:25,080 Speaker 9: fans of the MLB may also know that famous La 600 00:35:25,200 --> 00:35:30,080 Speaker 9: Dodger Shani otanis his translator and confidant, has been accused 601 00:35:30,080 --> 00:35:34,600 Speaker 9: of illegal gambling. So it's become pretty rampant, you know, 602 00:35:34,680 --> 00:35:38,440 Speaker 9: since twenty eighteen twenty nineteen, when sports gambling was made 603 00:35:38,520 --> 00:35:41,200 Speaker 9: legal and a lot of these online prop bet companies 604 00:35:41,239 --> 00:35:44,000 Speaker 9: have come up, it's getting harder and harder for the 605 00:35:44,560 --> 00:35:47,399 Speaker 9: major sports leagues to clamp down on this. I think 606 00:35:47,400 --> 00:35:51,360 Speaker 9: the NFL has probably done the best at it, but 607 00:35:51,800 --> 00:35:57,480 Speaker 9: NBA and MLB certainly have had their public share of issue. 608 00:35:57,800 --> 00:36:03,160 Speaker 2: According to let's see the American Association the American Sports 609 00:36:03,239 --> 00:36:06,640 Speaker 2: Betting Industry wagered nearly one hundred and fifty billion dollars 610 00:36:06,680 --> 00:36:10,160 Speaker 2: on sports in twenty twenty four, up more than twenty 611 00:36:10,160 --> 00:36:14,440 Speaker 2: three percent from a year earlier. Those numbers are astonishing. 612 00:36:14,920 --> 00:36:18,839 Speaker 2: What is the NFL done that the NBA and the 613 00:36:19,120 --> 00:36:21,560 Speaker 2: MLB haven't done. 614 00:36:22,520 --> 00:36:23,920 Speaker 4: I think it's a couple of things. 615 00:36:24,280 --> 00:36:30,560 Speaker 9: Number One, the NFL ownership structure and group is very 616 00:36:30,600 --> 00:36:35,400 Speaker 9: heavy handed, and the players understand that they have to 617 00:36:35,520 --> 00:36:38,919 Speaker 9: abide by the rules. Their player association is not as 618 00:36:38,960 --> 00:36:42,320 Speaker 9: strong as the MLB or the NBA by any stretch 619 00:36:42,320 --> 00:36:45,320 Speaker 9: of the imagination. The owners have a ton of control, 620 00:36:45,840 --> 00:36:48,320 Speaker 9: and so as a general rule, I think when edicts 621 00:36:48,360 --> 00:36:52,960 Speaker 9: are made by the NFL, by Roger Goodell and the ownership, 622 00:36:53,120 --> 00:36:55,840 Speaker 9: they are followed because there just aren't a lot of 623 00:36:55,840 --> 00:36:58,800 Speaker 9: other options. Right if you play football, persue, the odds 624 00:36:58,800 --> 00:37:01,680 Speaker 9: of you getting into the NFL so low the numbers 625 00:37:01,719 --> 00:37:04,640 Speaker 9: are really against your favorite, and so people follow the rules. 626 00:37:04,760 --> 00:37:07,080 Speaker 9: The second thing is, I think it's been a lot 627 00:37:07,120 --> 00:37:10,719 Speaker 9: harder to create side and parlay bets side. 628 00:37:10,440 --> 00:37:12,480 Speaker 4: Bets rather than just on major games. 629 00:37:12,680 --> 00:37:15,400 Speaker 9: So it's easier in the NBA or the MLB to 630 00:37:15,440 --> 00:37:20,120 Speaker 9: break down statistics in very easy ways that players can control, 631 00:37:20,360 --> 00:37:22,560 Speaker 9: as opposed to the NFL, where there's a whole lot 632 00:37:22,560 --> 00:37:25,799 Speaker 9: of other factors involved that make it a lot harder. 633 00:37:25,560 --> 00:37:26,880 Speaker 4: To create parlay bets. 634 00:37:27,160 --> 00:37:32,040 Speaker 9: Third, I think most importantly is the culture of sports 635 00:37:32,040 --> 00:37:36,400 Speaker 9: betting has been more embedded from a fan perspective, I 636 00:37:36,400 --> 00:37:39,560 Speaker 9: think in the NBA than either of the other professional sports. 637 00:37:39,719 --> 00:37:42,600 Speaker 9: I can't speak to hockey, but certainly in the NFL 638 00:37:42,680 --> 00:37:47,200 Speaker 9: and in MLB. You go to any sports stadium right 639 00:37:47,239 --> 00:37:49,759 Speaker 9: now that has NBA games that play in it, there 640 00:37:49,800 --> 00:37:54,920 Speaker 9: are several locations where there are betting facilities on the premises. 641 00:37:55,560 --> 00:37:58,680 Speaker 9: And so there's been a real integration of sports betting 642 00:37:58,760 --> 00:38:02,600 Speaker 9: into the fandom in a way, particularly in basketball, that 643 00:38:02,640 --> 00:38:04,400 Speaker 9: there hasn't been in some of the other sports. 644 00:38:04,960 --> 00:38:07,200 Speaker 4: And I think you're seeing the consequence of that. 645 00:38:07,520 --> 00:38:10,360 Speaker 2: I mean, the things that they're accused of don't affect 646 00:38:10,400 --> 00:38:13,279 Speaker 2: the final score, do they? So does that make it 647 00:38:13,320 --> 00:38:15,520 Speaker 2: hard to find the violation the gambling? 648 00:38:15,760 --> 00:38:17,279 Speaker 9: I don't think we can say that. I mean, if 649 00:38:17,680 --> 00:38:21,160 Speaker 9: you have individuals who are accused of, you know, not 650 00:38:21,360 --> 00:38:24,120 Speaker 9: getting as many rebounds as they would normally go after, 651 00:38:24,680 --> 00:38:27,600 Speaker 9: or you know, faking an injury like in the in 652 00:38:27,640 --> 00:38:31,319 Speaker 9: the chouncy Billups indictment. There was one player who you 653 00:38:31,320 --> 00:38:33,239 Speaker 9: know went out in the second quarter of a game 654 00:38:33,680 --> 00:38:36,920 Speaker 9: as part of his side bet, you know, sort of conspiracy, 655 00:38:37,040 --> 00:38:40,680 Speaker 9: and so I think there is a bottom line effect 656 00:38:40,880 --> 00:38:45,520 Speaker 9: on the outcome of the game. But to your point, Dune, 657 00:38:45,680 --> 00:38:50,240 Speaker 9: the breakdown of each individual statistic or each individual player's 658 00:38:50,280 --> 00:38:55,359 Speaker 9: responsibility or role makes it harder to you know, look 659 00:38:55,400 --> 00:38:58,600 Speaker 9: at this sort of plainly and say they shaved points, right. 660 00:38:58,680 --> 00:39:01,760 Speaker 9: This is sort of like not your or grandpa's sports 661 00:39:01,800 --> 00:39:05,160 Speaker 9: betting conspiracy of thirty years ago, where people were much 662 00:39:05,160 --> 00:39:08,360 Speaker 9: more blatantly obvious about how they would shave points or how. 663 00:39:08,360 --> 00:39:10,560 Speaker 4: You know, they would go about this. So it's much 664 00:39:10,560 --> 00:39:11,320 Speaker 4: harder to detect. 665 00:39:11,360 --> 00:39:13,239 Speaker 9: And that's part of the reason why the NBA, I think, 666 00:39:13,239 --> 00:39:17,120 Speaker 9: hasn't rooted it out from the beginning without government intervention, 667 00:39:17,239 --> 00:39:20,280 Speaker 9: is because they just don't have a way of seeing 668 00:39:20,320 --> 00:39:23,319 Speaker 9: what individual players are discussing outside of the locker room. 669 00:39:23,560 --> 00:39:27,640 Speaker 2: The NBA has said that they're cooperating with the government, 670 00:39:28,040 --> 00:39:30,520 Speaker 2: do you know if they're doing anything else on their 671 00:39:30,560 --> 00:39:32,799 Speaker 2: own to try to stem this. 672 00:39:33,480 --> 00:39:37,480 Speaker 9: I don't have any specific knowledge of the NBA, you know, 673 00:39:37,560 --> 00:39:42,200 Speaker 9: doing anything. My assumption based on my experience is that 674 00:39:42,239 --> 00:39:45,640 Speaker 9: the NBA would have hired a am Law fifty, you know, 675 00:39:45,760 --> 00:39:49,120 Speaker 9: top tier law firm, or an individual who's used to 676 00:39:49,160 --> 00:39:53,680 Speaker 9: doing high stakes internal investigations such as Loretta Lynch at 677 00:39:53,680 --> 00:39:57,040 Speaker 9: Paul Weiss or Mary Joe White at Debavoys and Plimpton 678 00:39:57,200 --> 00:40:01,960 Speaker 9: or other respectable individuals at the highest level of investigations 679 00:40:02,440 --> 00:40:06,560 Speaker 9: to come in and help do some internal reviews of players, 680 00:40:06,760 --> 00:40:12,640 Speaker 9: cell phones, player communications staffing, create interview opportunities to talk 681 00:40:12,680 --> 00:40:16,640 Speaker 9: to key personnel, and then make recommendations for how the 682 00:40:16,760 --> 00:40:21,720 Speaker 9: NBA can do a better job of ameliorating these problems upfront. 683 00:40:22,080 --> 00:40:23,560 Speaker 6: Any final thoughts here. 684 00:40:23,840 --> 00:40:26,640 Speaker 9: The whole industry I think is really due for reckoning. 685 00:40:26,680 --> 00:40:29,560 Speaker 9: And I'm just as a bystander, as a fan, as 686 00:40:29,600 --> 00:40:32,440 Speaker 9: a lawyer, I'm very interested to see how the leagues 687 00:40:32,719 --> 00:40:36,560 Speaker 9: continue to respond, either publicly or privately. You know, one 688 00:40:36,600 --> 00:40:39,960 Speaker 9: of the things that is a common denominator in all 689 00:40:40,000 --> 00:40:43,640 Speaker 9: white collar criminal defense cases is if they take the phone, 690 00:40:43,760 --> 00:40:45,040 Speaker 9: you know that there's a problem. 691 00:40:45,480 --> 00:40:47,400 Speaker 4: And in these cases they're often. 692 00:40:47,080 --> 00:40:50,280 Speaker 9: Made by the text messages between you know, co conspirators, 693 00:40:50,360 --> 00:40:52,839 Speaker 9: and so you have to wonder, like, is the NBA 694 00:40:52,960 --> 00:40:55,400 Speaker 9: going to start giving out phones Are there going to 695 00:40:55,400 --> 00:40:57,839 Speaker 9: be different cell phone usage policies? 696 00:40:58,080 --> 00:40:59,840 Speaker 4: What can they negotiate with the Players. 697 00:40:59,600 --> 00:41:02,360 Speaker 9: Association about the type of communications that are going to 698 00:41:02,360 --> 00:41:02,960 Speaker 9: be monitored? 699 00:41:03,320 --> 00:41:05,239 Speaker 4: Are you going to have to turn over your phone. 700 00:41:05,120 --> 00:41:07,600 Speaker 9: As an employee of the NBA or as an employee 701 00:41:07,600 --> 00:41:10,719 Speaker 9: of a franchise. That type of information, I think is 702 00:41:10,760 --> 00:41:13,040 Speaker 9: what will be interesting to see as we move forward. 703 00:41:13,440 --> 00:41:17,520 Speaker 2: Oh those text messages, Thanks so much, Marissa. That's Marissa 704 00:41:17,600 --> 00:41:20,239 Speaker 2: Darden of Benish Law. And that's it for this edition 705 00:41:20,280 --> 00:41:22,920 Speaker 2: of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get 706 00:41:22,920 --> 00:41:26,080 Speaker 2: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You 707 00:41:26,120 --> 00:41:30,200 Speaker 2: can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www 708 00:41:30,360 --> 00:41:34,640 Speaker 2: dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember 709 00:41:34,640 --> 00:41:37,600 Speaker 2: to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 710 00:41:37,640 --> 00:41:41,120 Speaker 2: ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Junie Grosso and you're 711 00:41:41,200 --> 00:41:42,400 Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg