WEBVTT - President Biden's Debt Ceiling Options 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.160 --> 0:00:12.280 Is imposing the fourteenth Amendment a perfect solution? No it 0:00:12.400 --> 0:00:15.720 is not, but using the fourteenth Amendment would allow the 0:00:15.800 --> 0:00:18.480 United States to continue to pay its bills on time 0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:22.000 and without delay, prevent an economic catastrophe. 0:00:22.360 --> 0:00:25.000 With no sign of a debt limit deal in sight, 0:00:25.400 --> 0:00:29.960 some progressive Democrats, like Senator Bernie Sanders are urging President 0:00:30.000 --> 0:00:33.920 Biden to invoke the fourteenth Amendment to go around Congress 0:00:33.960 --> 0:00:37.400 to pay off the nation's debts. Biden believes he has 0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:40.760 the legal right to do that, but doesn't necessarily know 0:00:40.920 --> 0:00:44.600 if he has the time because of the expected legal challenges. 0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:48.479 I'm looking at the fourteenth Amendment whether or not we 0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:51.720 have the authority. I think we have the authority. The 0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:54.960 question is could it be done and invoked in time? 0:00:55.440 --> 0:00:58.240 Joining me is Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law 0:00:58.280 --> 0:01:02.320 School who's been studying and writing about this issue for 0:01:02.400 --> 0:01:06.360 some twelve years. So the White House has appeared to 0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:10.640 rule out invoking the fourteenth Amendment, even though President Biden 0:01:10.680 --> 0:01:12.959 said this week that he believes he has the legal 0:01:13.080 --> 0:01:15.840 right to invoke it. So tell us what the argument 0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:17.319 is there? For the Fourteenth Amendment. 0:01:17.720 --> 0:01:21.640 So Section four of the Fourteenth Amendment says that the 0:01:21.720 --> 0:01:24.160 validity of the public debt of the United States shall 0:01:24.200 --> 0:01:29.480 not be questioned. And it was adopted in eighteen sixty 0:01:29.520 --> 0:01:34.400 eight in response to the fear that representatives of the 0:01:34.440 --> 0:01:38.920 states of the former Confederacy in Congress might not pay 0:01:39.280 --> 0:01:44.520 for the Union side debts from the Civil War. But 0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:49.160 the language is much clearly broader than simply Civil War debts, 0:01:49.440 --> 0:01:53.480 and so it is taken by everybody to be a 0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:57.279 general statement of the proposition that the federal government should 0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:01.600 pay its debts. There is debate over or what counts 0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:05.120 as part of the public debt. Does that mean, as 0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:09.920 some people say, only principle and interest payments on bonds, 0:02:10.280 --> 0:02:13.239 or does it mean, as simplical say, in the other direction, 0:02:13.880 --> 0:02:17.840 everything that the government has agreed to pay. So that includes, 0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:21.919 of course bond principle and interest, but also paying creditors 0:02:21.960 --> 0:02:26.000 for services rendered, such as hospitals and doctors who perform 0:02:26.200 --> 0:02:30.480 medical services pursued to medicare social security recipients who are 0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:34.560 owed the money by virtue of entitlement legislation, and so forth. 0:02:34.680 --> 0:02:38.440 So that's the question, and the theory is that if 0:02:38.520 --> 0:02:41.720 the government is unable to pay all of its bills, 0:02:41.960 --> 0:02:44.840 then that is either a default, or even if not 0:02:44.880 --> 0:02:49.280 a default, it calls into question the validity of the 0:02:49.280 --> 0:02:52.040 public debt. So some people argue, and I think this 0:02:52.080 --> 0:02:57.000 is a pretty plausible argument, that if the government fails 0:02:57.080 --> 0:02:59.359 to raise the debt feeling and can't come up with 0:02:59.400 --> 0:03:01.600 the money to pay all of its bills some other 0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:04.760 way by taxes or selling property or what have you, 0:03:05.680 --> 0:03:10.080 then that would violate the fourteenth Amendment. And under those circumstances, 0:03:10.280 --> 0:03:15.120 the debt sealing statute would be unconstitutional. And so the president, 0:03:15.320 --> 0:03:18.440 by so called invoking that would be saying, well, if 0:03:18.440 --> 0:03:21.920 the debt stealing statute is unconstitutional, we do what we 0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:25.000 do with any unconstituted statute. We put it aside. And 0:03:25.040 --> 0:03:28.080 then there are other statutory provisions that authorize the government 0:03:28.120 --> 0:03:31.360 to borrow so much money as is necessary to pay 0:03:31.360 --> 0:03:35.680 the government's bills. So that's the theory behind invoking the 0:03:35.720 --> 0:03:38.520 fourteenth Amendment. And as I say, it's pretty good. What 0:03:38.640 --> 0:03:43.160 President Biden expressed a worry about is that, as he said, 0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:45.240 it would have to be litigated. Now I don't think 0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:48.640 that's literally accurate. It wouldn't have to be litigated, but 0:03:48.680 --> 0:03:52.200 it almost certainly would be litigated. So, as a practical matter, 0:03:52.280 --> 0:03:58.160 his concern is legitimate people would sue. Possibly House Republicans 0:03:58.200 --> 0:04:03.320 would sue. You could imagine investors in pension funds and 0:04:03.360 --> 0:04:08.520 the like suing to stop the funds from purchasing bonds 0:04:08.560 --> 0:04:12.360 of questionable legality, and so there would be litigation, and 0:04:12.400 --> 0:04:15.880 that would mean that there would be uncertainty about the 0:04:16.279 --> 0:04:19.040 new debt that had been issued. At the very least, 0:04:19.279 --> 0:04:22.360 there would be an interest premium that the government would 0:04:22.360 --> 0:04:26.880 have to offer investors to accept bonds that might not 0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:29.000 later be declared valid. 0:04:30.000 --> 0:04:33.480 Has this been tested in the courts at all? Barack 0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:38.120 Obama also rejected this option during the twenty eleven debt 0:04:38.160 --> 0:04:41.080 sealing crisis. Why are presidents so reluctant to. 0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:44.359 Use this well, precisely because it hasn't been tested in 0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:47.719 the courts. The way that our legal system works is 0:04:47.800 --> 0:04:51.039 you can't get into federal court just to ask a question. 0:04:51.240 --> 0:04:53.520 You can do that in some state court systems. There 0:04:53.520 --> 0:04:55.560 are many other countries in which you can do that. 0:04:55.560 --> 0:04:58.479 You can get a so called advisory opinion from a 0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:02.719 constitutional court. Until relatively recently that was the only kind 0:05:02.760 --> 0:05:05.479 of ruling you could get in France, for example. But 0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:08.680 our courts do not issue advisory opinions, and so the 0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:11.400 only way to find out the answer to a legal 0:05:11.480 --> 0:05:14.880 question is to do it in real time, as it were. 0:05:15.360 --> 0:05:18.280 And so I think the reason that both President Obama 0:05:18.360 --> 0:05:22.040 and now President Biden were reluctant to go that route 0:05:22.600 --> 0:05:26.560 was because if you do, and then subsequently the courts say, actually, 0:05:26.560 --> 0:05:29.120 you can't do that because the fourteenth Senment has a 0:05:29.240 --> 0:05:31.920 narrower scope, or because even if the dead ceiling is 0:05:32.000 --> 0:05:34.560 unconstitutionally you still don't have the power to borrow money. 0:05:34.600 --> 0:05:36.400 Then you only find out after the fact, and in 0:05:36.440 --> 0:05:39.880 the meantime a whole lot of people might have purchased bonds, 0:05:39.920 --> 0:05:44.400 and that could add to the chaos, uncertainty, and economic damage. 0:05:44.680 --> 0:05:48.279 There is a lawsuit filed by a federal workers' union 0:05:49.000 --> 0:05:52.279 in Massachusetts. Is it on the theory that you have 0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:56.040 said is a possible alternative to the fourteenth Amendment? 0:05:56.279 --> 0:05:59.920 Yes, So that lawsuit, which I think is very well crafted, 0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:04.760 is on behalf of unionized federal workers, thousands of them 0:06:04.960 --> 0:06:09.160 who would risk not getting paid on time and being 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:12.880 unable to pay the bills. For their families, if the 0:06:12.920 --> 0:06:16.279 government does not raise the dead feeling, and if the 0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:20.080 administration then goes through with what is sometimes thought to 0:06:20.120 --> 0:06:25.000 be the conventional wisdom of then prioritizing paying people who 0:06:25.040 --> 0:06:30.440 have bonds and deprioritizing other government bills, so not paying 0:06:30.480 --> 0:06:33.480 federal workers. Their theory is not that this would violate 0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:38.120 the fourteenth Amendment, but following a line of reasoning that 0:06:38.400 --> 0:06:41.880 I and Neil Buchanan, who's a macroeconomist at the University 0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:44.800 of Florida, have articulated over the last dozen or so years, 0:06:45.040 --> 0:06:46.920 the theory would be that this would be a violation 0:06:47.080 --> 0:06:50.200 of separation of powers. And let me explain why that 0:06:50.240 --> 0:06:53.280 would be so. Article one, section eight of the Constitution 0:06:53.520 --> 0:06:57.480 gives to Congress all of the relevant powers of the purse, 0:06:57.600 --> 0:07:00.240 the power to tax, the power to spend, and the 0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:04.440 power to borrow. If the government passes sets of laws 0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:10.120 that say, collectively, spend more money than the combination of 0:07:10.200 --> 0:07:14.640 what you take in through taxation and borrowing, Professor Buchanan 0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:17.720 and I say, well, that means that the government can't 0:07:17.720 --> 0:07:21.560 comply with all three of those things simultaneously. Something has 0:07:21.600 --> 0:07:24.960 got to give. Our analysis has always been that what 0:07:25.120 --> 0:07:29.920 has to give then should be the debt sealing that 0:07:30.040 --> 0:07:33.280 the debt sealing provision would be the one that you 0:07:33.360 --> 0:07:37.160 don't comply with. And the reason is that you can't 0:07:37.280 --> 0:07:40.520 do either of the other two things. Certainly, the president 0:07:40.880 --> 0:07:44.240 isn't going to raise taxes on his own. That's not 0:07:44.520 --> 0:07:47.480 power the president has. But the president also doesn't have 0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:51.000 the power to prioritize, that is to say, to cut spending. 0:07:51.360 --> 0:07:55.200 That's the power of Congress. The Constitution says Congress gets 0:07:55.240 --> 0:07:58.000 decide how much we spend money on. And it's not 0:07:58.080 --> 0:08:01.400 just that the president can't spend money without authorization. The 0:08:01.440 --> 0:08:05.040 president also can't not spend money that he's been authorized 0:08:05.080 --> 0:08:08.560 to spend. I can give you two relatively recent examples 0:08:08.640 --> 0:08:12.160 of this. So President Nixon tried to do this. He impounded, 0:08:12.240 --> 0:08:14.440 that is to say, didn't spend a whole bunch of 0:08:14.480 --> 0:08:18.360 money that Congress had appropriated, and that was eventually slapped 0:08:18.360 --> 0:08:22.440 down by the court. When President Trump did this with 0:08:22.480 --> 0:08:24.800 respect to the money that was supposed to go to Ukraine, 0:08:24.880 --> 0:08:28.960 that ended up being the first basis for the articles 0:08:29.040 --> 0:08:32.320 of impeachment against him in twenty nineteen. Right, the idea 0:08:32.360 --> 0:08:35.760 that you can't fail to spend money that Congress has 0:08:35.800 --> 0:08:38.600 said you should spend. And the reason for that is simple. 0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:41.319 Congress has the power of the purse. Budget deals are 0:08:41.679 --> 0:08:45.839 carefully negotiated. There's all sorts of bargaining going on. If 0:08:45.880 --> 0:08:48.439 the president could just decide, you know what, I didn't 0:08:48.480 --> 0:08:51.319 want to spend the money on this combat fighter plane 0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:54.400 or for this environmental project, so I'm just not going 0:08:54.480 --> 0:08:58.080 to spend it, you would be taking over legislative power. 0:08:58.200 --> 0:09:02.040 And so what this lawsuit argues is if the president, 0:09:02.280 --> 0:09:05.440 in a debt sealing crisis were to say, I'm going 0:09:05.520 --> 0:09:10.120 to pay the bondholders, I'm going to pay federal military contractors, 0:09:10.400 --> 0:09:12.960 but I'm not going to pay all of these federal workers. 0:09:13.240 --> 0:09:18.240 That would be a usurpation of legislative power, far worse 0:09:18.440 --> 0:09:21.199 than for the president simply to instruct the Secretary of 0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:24.520 the Treasury continue borrowing money the way you always do, 0:09:24.840 --> 0:09:30.200 but only in the amount necessary to cover the revenue gap. Crucially, 0:09:30.200 --> 0:09:33.440 what the lawsuit says is that Congress could, if it 0:09:33.640 --> 0:09:37.440 wanted to give to the president discretion not to spend 0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:40.360 certain funds. But it hasn't done that here, and it 0:09:40.440 --> 0:09:44.160 certainly hasn't provided any kind of what is sometimes called 0:09:44.200 --> 0:09:47.560 an intelligible principle, by which the president is supposed to 0:09:47.800 --> 0:09:50.600 make the decision of whom to pay, when to pay, 0:09:50.720 --> 0:09:53.400 whom to stiff by how much, and so forth, so 0:09:53.440 --> 0:09:59.920 that in the absence of congressional legislation specifying a prioritization scheme, 0:10:00.320 --> 0:10:03.960 it is a usurpation of legislative power because of the 0:10:04.080 --> 0:10:07.240 vast scope of presidential discretion. As I say, that is 0:10:07.559 --> 0:10:10.079 the theory of this lawsuit. It is also more or 0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:12.360 less the view that Professor Buchanan and I have been 0:10:12.440 --> 0:10:15.000 arguing for now for about a dozen years. 0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:18.760 The judge in Boston has ordered a hearing for next 0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:22.560 week on May thirty first, on this key argument, But 0:10:22.640 --> 0:10:26.640 the Justice Department lawyer didn't take a position on that 0:10:26.760 --> 0:10:28.120 question at issue. 0:10:28.120 --> 0:10:31.880 So far right, So this goes back to a point 0:10:31.880 --> 0:10:35.840 you made earlier, which is that although President Biden has 0:10:36.040 --> 0:10:39.760 seemed to rule out the so called fourteenth Amendment option, 0:10:40.320 --> 0:10:44.360 neither he nor Secretary Yellen has taken off the table 0:10:44.679 --> 0:10:48.600 all of the other possible workarounds in the event that 0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:52.760 a deal doesn't get through Congress. I suspect that what 0:10:52.840 --> 0:10:56.400 the Justice Department is doing here is sort of holding 0:10:56.400 --> 0:10:59.880 their cards as close to the vest as possible, because 0:11:00.080 --> 0:11:04.719 they undoubtedly have a Plan B, but they want to 0:11:04.840 --> 0:11:09.920 keep the pressure on the Congress to make a deal 0:11:10.080 --> 0:11:13.240 by not saying what that Plan B is. I should 0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:16.840 say this is not necessarily the best bargaining strategy. Sometimes 0:11:16.880 --> 0:11:19.440 you want to make clearer to your bargaining partner what 0:11:19.480 --> 0:11:23.199 you'll do in the event that the negotiations break down, 0:11:23.320 --> 0:11:26.480 because arguably by ruling out or seeming to rule out, 0:11:26.760 --> 0:11:30.240 these other workarounds, what the administration is doing is telling 0:11:30.400 --> 0:11:33.320 Speaker McCarthy, hey, we've got no Plan B, and so 0:11:33.440 --> 0:11:35.840 we need this more than you do. What you really 0:11:35.880 --> 0:11:38.800 want is to put the pressure on the other side 0:11:38.960 --> 0:11:41.280 to think that they need it more than you do, 0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:44.559 and so ruling out Plan B doesn't seem to do that. 0:11:44.760 --> 0:11:47.400 But as I say, I don't think that President Biden 0:11:47.520 --> 0:11:51.280 has fully ruled out other options, whether it's the fourteenth 0:11:51.320 --> 0:11:55.800 Amendment or even better, this separation of powers argument, or 0:11:55.800 --> 0:11:57.840 some of the other ideas that have been floated. 0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:00.880 So as the Union was pushed for the case to 0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:03.800 be put on an even faster track, the federal judge 0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:07.200 Richard Stern said, if the emergency is as dire as 0:12:07.240 --> 0:12:09.160 you think it is. I would think that it's within 0:12:09.200 --> 0:12:12.240 the power of the president to address it using executive 0:12:12.280 --> 0:12:15.120 branch authority. What do you think he was saying there? 0:12:15.480 --> 0:12:18.000 It's not my value Wick, So I'm. 0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:23.360 Not really sure. Until we hit the so called X date, right, 0:12:23.400 --> 0:12:25.480 the date in which the government runs out of money, 0:12:25.920 --> 0:12:30.360 the president isn't going to address it by borrowing additional funds, 0:12:30.559 --> 0:12:34.000 and for the moment, the Treasury is paying all of 0:12:34.040 --> 0:12:37.160 the bills in full and on time. Now, maybe he's 0:12:37.200 --> 0:12:42.560 suggesting that the administration could issue an executive order stating 0:12:43.120 --> 0:12:45.760 what it's going to do in the event that the 0:12:45.840 --> 0:12:49.280 clock strikes midnight with no legislation. But of course the 0:12:49.800 --> 0:12:53.559 Union is suing the administration right, Saying that the administration 0:12:53.679 --> 0:12:57.360 could do something seems like it's confusing who the plaintiff 0:12:57.400 --> 0:13:00.079 and the defendant are, right, the plaintiffs of the and 0:13:00.080 --> 0:13:02.160 who are saying, yeah, they should do something, so give 0:13:02.200 --> 0:13:03.080 them an order to do it. 0:13:03.440 --> 0:13:06.040 How likely is it that the judge would give them 0:13:06.120 --> 0:13:07.120 an order to do it? 0:13:07.440 --> 0:13:11.439 I think it's quite unlikely. Before you know, June one 0:13:11.520 --> 0:13:13.960 or June two, that is, I think the judge here 0:13:14.160 --> 0:13:17.920 quite understandably is hoping to be let off the hook 0:13:18.120 --> 0:13:21.840 and waiting to see whether Congress enacts something in the 0:13:21.880 --> 0:13:22.960 next few days. 0:13:23.320 --> 0:13:26.920 In the area of I told you so, the president 0:13:27.400 --> 0:13:30.520 could have announced from the start that the debt ceiling 0:13:30.640 --> 0:13:33.680 was unconstitutional and it won't stop him from paying the 0:13:33.679 --> 0:13:35.719 country's bills, and that's it. 0:13:36.160 --> 0:13:38.560 So let me be clear. I have never said, and 0:13:38.640 --> 0:13:43.559 I don't think that there is any good way around 0:13:43.720 --> 0:13:48.280 the debt ceiling if Congress doesn't raise it. All we're 0:13:48.320 --> 0:13:51.920 talking about are what are the less bad ways around it. 0:13:52.120 --> 0:13:54.880 And it's not necessarily even my view that the debt 0:13:54.880 --> 0:13:58.000 feeling is unconstitutional the way Professor Buchanan and I talk 0:13:58.040 --> 0:14:01.200 about it, As we say, violating the debt ceiling is 0:14:01.600 --> 0:14:07.880 less unconstitutional than the other plausible options, in particular, less 0:14:07.960 --> 0:14:12.720 unconstitutional than usurping legislative power to make the president have 0:14:12.800 --> 0:14:16.840 the decision over the entire budget. But what I have said, 0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:19.920 and this is more as a matter of sort of 0:14:20.240 --> 0:14:25.520 strategy and tactics and constitutional law, is that the president's 0:14:25.600 --> 0:14:30.480 hand would be strengthened in any bargaining were he to 0:14:30.600 --> 0:14:34.960 announce that, if push comes to shove, I'm going to 0:14:35.000 --> 0:14:38.480 continue to issue debt. I should say I'm not a 0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:43.000 professional strategist, tactician, or politician. And so when I say 0:14:43.000 --> 0:14:45.080 that they should have announced that, I don't say that 0:14:45.160 --> 0:14:49.800 with enormous confidence. I have greater confidence in my legal 0:14:49.800 --> 0:14:53.800 analysis than I do in my ability to project how 0:14:53.840 --> 0:14:55.240 all the politics plays out. 0:14:55.560 --> 0:15:00.240 But no one has that ability, as we've seen. What 0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:02.680 are some of the other suggestions out there? 0:15:03.160 --> 0:15:08.239 There are other suggestions floating about. One that was popular 0:15:08.800 --> 0:15:12.120 back in twenty eleven and has been refloated this time 0:15:12.160 --> 0:15:18.080 around is a seemingly crazy idea to have the US 0:15:18.280 --> 0:15:22.800 Mint create a coin with a face value of approximately 0:15:22.920 --> 0:15:27.040 three trillion dollars and deposit this with the Federal Reserve, 0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:32.560 which would then credit the Treasury's account by three trillion dollars, 0:15:32.680 --> 0:15:35.640 and they would use that money to pay the government's bills. 0:15:35.880 --> 0:15:39.200 The idea is so facially outlandish that I believe the 0:15:39.240 --> 0:15:43.280 administration has ruled it out. In addition, I don't actually 0:15:43.320 --> 0:15:46.840 believe it has the legal advantages that as proponents say. 0:15:46.840 --> 0:15:50.400 That is to say, I don't think the statute authorizing 0:15:51.040 --> 0:15:54.040 the creation of these coins is for anything other than 0:15:54.560 --> 0:15:59.200 collector's items and commemorative coins. But that's one idea that's 0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:04.000 floating around a somewhat less ridiculous idea is to have 0:16:04.120 --> 0:16:07.880 the government borrow money but to issue bonds that either 0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:13.200 have no expiration date or that pay a super premium 0:16:13.280 --> 0:16:16.440 rate of interest. And the reason to do that is that, 0:16:16.600 --> 0:16:19.680 given that the way that the Debt Feeling Statute is written, 0:16:19.880 --> 0:16:24.600 the face value of those bonds would be much lower 0:16:24.600 --> 0:16:27.240 than what the government could sell them for, and so 0:16:27.320 --> 0:16:29.720 the government would be able to actually issue a lot 0:16:29.760 --> 0:16:32.720 of debt, not all of which would count against the 0:16:32.800 --> 0:16:35.080 debt fealing, and so that would buy a whole lot 0:16:35.120 --> 0:16:38.520 of time potentially. I think this argument is somewhat more 0:16:38.520 --> 0:16:41.400 plausible as a matter of the statutory text, but it 0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:44.560 would also be subject to the same problem that the 0:16:44.560 --> 0:16:48.200 President had with invoking the fourteenth Amendment, namely, there would 0:16:48.240 --> 0:16:51.880 undoubtedly be litigation over the validity of those bonds. 0:16:51.920 --> 0:16:54.960 Well, thanks so much for covering the entire landscape for us. 0:16:55.160 --> 0:16:58.760 That's Professor Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School, and that's 0:16:58.800 --> 0:17:01.520 it for this edition of the Bloomberg Glaw Show. Remember you 0:17:01.520 --> 0:17:04.000 can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg 0:17:04.080 --> 0:17:07.720 Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 0:17:07.880 --> 0:17:12.960 and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, 0:17:13.359 --> 0:17:15.919 and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 0:17:15.960 --> 0:17:19.880 weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso 0:17:20.000 --> 0:17:21.600 and you're listening to Bloomberg