1
00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:07,280
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:13,080
Speaker 2: The music industry faced off against internet providers at the

3
00:00:13,119 --> 00:00:17,080
Speaker 2: Supreme Court this week over a one billion dollar jury

4
00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:21,400
Speaker 2: verdict against Cox Communications for not shutting down the accounts

5
00:00:21,400 --> 00:00:26,000
Speaker 2: of customers who'd pirated more than ten thousand copyrighted songs

6
00:00:26,040 --> 00:00:30,680
Speaker 2: by artists like Beyonce and Justin Timberlake. The lawyers painted

7
00:00:30,880 --> 00:00:34,920
Speaker 2: very different bleak pictures of the consequences of a decision

8
00:00:35,040 --> 00:00:40,800
Speaker 2: against their clients. Joshua Rosenkrantz represents the internet provider Cox,

9
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,160
Speaker 2: and Paul Clement represents the record companies.

10
00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:49,640
Speaker 3: There is no short fireway for an ISP to avoid liability,

11
00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:53,080
Speaker 3: and the only way it can is to cut off

12
00:00:53,200 --> 00:00:57,800
Speaker 3: the Internet, not just for the accused infringer, but for

13
00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:02,120
Speaker 3: anyone else who happens to use the same connection. That

14
00:01:02,160 --> 00:01:05,720
Speaker 3: could be entire towns, universities, or hospitals.

15
00:01:06,800 --> 00:01:09,080
Speaker 4: If Cox is right on the law, then Cox could

16
00:01:09,080 --> 00:01:12,640
Speaker 4: take tens of thousands of copyright notices and throw them

17
00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:15,320
Speaker 4: in the trash, and they could have its employees, say

18
00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:16,520
Speaker 4: f the DMCA.

19
00:01:16,600 --> 00:01:20,520
Speaker 2: The issue is whether internet providers should be held responsible

20
00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:24,759
Speaker 2: for contributing to copyright infringement when they know their customers

21
00:01:24,760 --> 00:01:29,800
Speaker 2: are pirating music but don't terminate their Internet access. Several

22
00:01:30,080 --> 00:01:34,840
Speaker 2: justices appeared skeptical that Cox had done enough to stop piracy,

23
00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:39,120
Speaker 2: and questioned whether a favorable ruling would allow Internet service

24
00:01:39,200 --> 00:01:44,360
Speaker 2: providers to ignore clear copyright infringement by their users. Here

25
00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:48,120
Speaker 2: are Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Amy Cony Barrett.

26
00:01:48,920 --> 00:01:54,400
Speaker 5: You did nothing and in fact, counselor your clients sort

27
00:01:54,440 --> 00:02:00,440
Speaker 5: of lais a fair attitude towards the respondents's probably what

28
00:02:00,480 --> 00:02:01,800
Speaker 5: got the jury upset?

29
00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:05,480
Speaker 6: What incentive would you have to do anything? If you

30
00:02:05,560 --> 00:02:09,200
Speaker 6: wont if you if you win and mayre knowledge isn't enough,

31
00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:11,640
Speaker 6: Why would you bother to send out any notices in

32
00:02:11,680 --> 00:02:12,200
Speaker 6: the future.

33
00:02:12,680 --> 00:02:17,160
Speaker 2: But Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about the effect on

34
00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:22,440
Speaker 2: large institutions like universities or hospitals. If an Internet service

35
00:02:22,520 --> 00:02:25,760
Speaker 2: provider is forced to cut off infringers.

36
00:02:25,520 --> 00:02:29,400
Speaker 7: What is an ISP supposed to do with a university

37
00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:33,680
Speaker 7: account that has let's say, seventy thousand users? What is

38
00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:35,080
Speaker 7: the university supposed to do?

39
00:02:35,480 --> 00:02:39,520
Speaker 2: My guest is intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner

40
00:02:39,560 --> 00:02:43,480
Speaker 2: at Catan Euchin Rosenmuan Terry. Will you explain the issue

41
00:02:43,520 --> 00:02:47,800
Speaker 2: here and the process of policing music piracy.

42
00:02:48,400 --> 00:02:52,760
Speaker 8: The issue in the case involved process by which recording

43
00:02:52,960 --> 00:02:59,640
Speaker 8: companies track online sharing of musical compositions that they own.

44
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:03,680
Speaker 8: The cop write in the process allows them to identify

45
00:03:04,320 --> 00:03:09,840
Speaker 8: the IP address and the ISP that is providing the

46
00:03:09,919 --> 00:03:13,760
Speaker 8: service to that IP address, and so the music company's

47
00:03:13,760 --> 00:03:17,800
Speaker 8: recording companies regularly on a daily basis, in fact, send

48
00:03:18,240 --> 00:03:24,040
Speaker 8: notices of infringement to the ISPs that are providing the

49
00:03:24,080 --> 00:03:27,480
Speaker 8: Internet service to these infringers. And there are days in

50
00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:31,679
Speaker 8: which they're sending out ten thousand notices to each individual

51
00:03:31,919 --> 00:03:36,520
Speaker 8: ISP service, and the recording companies finally became fed up

52
00:03:36,600 --> 00:03:39,600
Speaker 8: that the ISPs were not doing something. They wanted the

53
00:03:39,640 --> 00:03:43,880
Speaker 8: ISPs to cut off service to these identified infringers, and

54
00:03:44,320 --> 00:03:49,560
Speaker 8: the ISPs dragged their heels doing anything taking any real

55
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:53,800
Speaker 8: concrete action to stop it. And so the recording companies

56
00:03:53,840 --> 00:03:58,600
Speaker 8: finally sued cos Cable Company, which is one of the

57
00:03:58,760 --> 00:04:02,960
Speaker 8: largest ISPs in the nation, alleging that they had engaged

58
00:04:03,120 --> 00:04:05,680
Speaker 8: in contributory copyright infringement.

59
00:04:06,080 --> 00:04:09,800
Speaker 2: In its papers, COX had argued that Grandma will be

60
00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:15,280
Speaker 2: thrown off the Internet because Junior visited and illegally downloaded songs.

61
00:04:15,640 --> 00:04:17,960
Speaker 2: Did some of the justices seem to pick up on

62
00:04:18,080 --> 00:04:18,880
Speaker 2: that concern.

63
00:04:19,440 --> 00:04:22,600
Speaker 8: There was only one justice who seemed to give some

64
00:04:22,640 --> 00:04:24,960
Speaker 8: credence that, and that was Justice the Lead of He

65
00:04:25,000 --> 00:04:28,760
Speaker 8: was the only justice who really seemed to buy into

66
00:04:29,120 --> 00:04:33,480
Speaker 8: the position by Cox that it was hesitant to kick

67
00:04:33,520 --> 00:04:36,000
Speaker 8: people off because of and then you can fill in

68
00:04:36,040 --> 00:04:38,240
Speaker 8: the blank as to what the reason is their grandmother,

69
00:04:38,320 --> 00:04:42,599
Speaker 8: their university, their hospital. In fact, the hypothetically posed at

70
00:04:42,880 --> 00:04:45,680
Speaker 8: oral argument in the Supreme Court was what happens when

71
00:04:45,960 --> 00:04:48,960
Speaker 8: all you can do is identify that the IP address

72
00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:51,640
Speaker 8: belongs to university? Or you going to shut down the

73
00:04:51,720 --> 00:04:55,600
Speaker 8: entire university? One of those odd hypotheticals that takes the

74
00:04:55,680 --> 00:04:59,560
Speaker 8: case the extreme. The facts are actually contrast to that,

75
00:05:00,040 --> 00:05:02,760
Speaker 8: and indeed none of the other justices seemed to buy

76
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:06,159
Speaker 8: into that argument. The reality is that over the period

77
00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:09,720
Speaker 8: of time and issue, Cox had received one hundred and

78
00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:14,880
Speaker 8: sixty three thousand notices of infringement and had kicked off

79
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:20,640
Speaker 8: of its service only thirty two customers. The policy of

80
00:05:21,240 --> 00:05:25,640
Speaker 8: compliance used by Cox was described in some detail, and

81
00:05:26,160 --> 00:05:30,599
Speaker 8: it was sub law. They fare to use the word

82
00:05:30,720 --> 00:05:33,200
Speaker 8: that one of the justices used to describe it they

83
00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:35,400
Speaker 8: had originally started off to say, well, if we get

84
00:05:35,400 --> 00:05:39,320
Speaker 8: three notices about a particular user, we're going to tell

85
00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:42,760
Speaker 8: them we're cutting off their service. That rose gradually over

86
00:05:42,839 --> 00:05:45,320
Speaker 8: time from being a three strikes you're out policy to

87
00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:48,800
Speaker 8: being a thirteen strikes and you're aut policy. And the

88
00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:52,240
Speaker 8: thirteen strikes reset every six months, so if you didn't

89
00:05:52,240 --> 00:05:55,280
Speaker 8: get to thirteen within a six month period, you went

90
00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:57,680
Speaker 8: back to zero, or if you got kicked off after

91
00:05:57,760 --> 00:06:00,720
Speaker 8: six months off, you got put back on. Also cap

92
00:06:00,800 --> 00:06:05,440
Speaker 8: the number notices that they were accepting from recording companies

93
00:06:05,480 --> 00:06:08,479
Speaker 8: at three hundred a day. And then probably the worst

94
00:06:08,600 --> 00:06:11,599
Speaker 8: fact of all in which got brought up at the

95
00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:14,479
Speaker 8: Supreme Court, if you could believe it, was the head

96
00:06:14,600 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 8: of Copyright Compliance at Cox sent out an email to

97
00:06:18,440 --> 00:06:23,480
Speaker 8: the people in charge of enforcing copyright policy in which

98
00:06:23,520 --> 00:06:28,200
Speaker 8: he said, f the DMCA. Now, the DMCA refers to

99
00:06:28,600 --> 00:06:32,160
Speaker 8: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is one of the

100
00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:37,760
Speaker 8: key statutes that shoe here and which requires ISPs to

101
00:06:37,800 --> 00:06:42,800
Speaker 8: set up a policing mechanism against copyright infringement if they

102
00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:46,000
Speaker 8: want to claim the safe harbor that is embedded in

103
00:06:46,279 --> 00:06:49,600
Speaker 8: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act In response to that, one

104
00:06:49,640 --> 00:06:52,880
Speaker 8: of the minions for the head of compliance wrote back saying, well,

105
00:06:52,880 --> 00:06:56,560
Speaker 8: we're helping law breaking customers. And there were dozens of

106
00:06:56,600 --> 00:06:59,680
Speaker 8: emails like this amongst the compliance group of cocks that

107
00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:04,920
Speaker 8: just manifested a complete disdain for copyright laws, which obviously

108
00:07:05,360 --> 00:07:08,440
Speaker 8: impacted the jury because the jury below had awarded a

109
00:07:08,480 --> 00:07:11,400
Speaker 8: billion dollars in damages against cop and in the Supreme

110
00:07:11,440 --> 00:07:15,160
Speaker 8: Court argument, it was clear that outside of Justice Alito,

111
00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:18,880
Speaker 8: none of the eight other justices were buying what Cox

112
00:07:19,160 --> 00:07:22,480
Speaker 8: was trying to claim was their reason for not cutting

113
00:07:22,520 --> 00:07:26,080
Speaker 8: off people that you'd kick Grandma's off of the Internet.

114
00:07:26,440 --> 00:07:28,720
Speaker 8: The other eight justices just didn't buy it, and it

115
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:30,200
Speaker 8: was a loser argument for Cox.

116
00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:33,440
Speaker 2: So then, can you tell where most of the justices

117
00:07:33,840 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 2: do stand?

118
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:37,360
Speaker 8: That's always a tough question. In this case. I think

119
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:40,240
Speaker 8: it's tover the most. I think outside of Justice Alito,

120
00:07:40,280 --> 00:07:44,440
Speaker 8: the other eight were just incredibly skeptical of Cox's excuses

121
00:07:44,640 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 8: for allowing this widespread infringement to go on. In the

122
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:52,040
Speaker 8: record below, there's apparently one period of time at which

123
00:07:52,280 --> 00:07:55,880
Speaker 8: twenty one percent of all traffic on the Cox's Internet

124
00:07:55,880 --> 00:07:59,880
Speaker 8: connections twenty one percent involved copyright infringement, and the law

125
00:08:00,080 --> 00:08:03,960
Speaker 8: super low didn't go after you know, every single mom

126
00:08:04,000 --> 00:08:08,480
Speaker 8: and pop business or every single college student. It was

127
00:08:08,600 --> 00:08:13,320
Speaker 8: targeted only at distributors, not people who were downloading the

128
00:08:13,320 --> 00:08:17,840
Speaker 8: occasional song, but people who were copying music digitally and

129
00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:21,760
Speaker 8: distributing it on a mass scale. So there was this

130
00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:27,080
Speaker 8: enormous skepticism expressed by the justice except for Justice Alita,

131
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:33,000
Speaker 8: that Cox really wasn't fulfilling it its obligation and needed

132
00:08:33,000 --> 00:08:35,920
Speaker 8: to do something differently now. On the other hand, there

133
00:08:35,960 --> 00:08:39,800
Speaker 8: also seemed to be some concern about the size of

134
00:08:39,840 --> 00:08:44,640
Speaker 8: the jury verdict and whether or not the actions of

135
00:08:45,040 --> 00:08:51,440
Speaker 8: Cocks were sufficient to constitute willful contributory infringement, which is

136
00:08:51,520 --> 00:08:55,520
Speaker 8: what set them up for much larger scale of damages

137
00:08:55,760 --> 00:08:57,880
Speaker 8: than if this had been found to be just ordinary

138
00:08:57,920 --> 00:08:58,880
Speaker 8: copyright infringement.

139
00:08:59,280 --> 00:09:02,920
Speaker 2: So what's the and that the justices would use here?

140
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:07,800
Speaker 2: Cox contends that under a two thousand and five Supreme

141
00:09:07,840 --> 00:09:11,920
Speaker 2: Court ruling, it can't be held liable for contributory infringement

142
00:09:12,360 --> 00:09:17,880
Speaker 2: unless it affirmatively fostered piracy or clearly intended to promote it.

143
00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:21,959
Speaker 2: The music companies say it's enough that Cox's new subscribers

144
00:09:22,080 --> 00:09:25,760
Speaker 2: were using its service to download songs illegally.

145
00:09:26,600 --> 00:09:29,760
Speaker 8: The case on appeal to the Supreme Court present it

146
00:09:29,840 --> 00:09:34,520
Speaker 8: to pretty crisp issues for decision. The first issue, which

147
00:09:34,520 --> 00:09:36,000
Speaker 8: I think is where the real fight is going to be,

148
00:09:36,520 --> 00:09:41,360
Speaker 8: is whether or not contributory copyright infringement required some sort

149
00:09:41,360 --> 00:09:45,559
Speaker 8: of affirmative action by the tenant. The second question presented

150
00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:51,040
Speaker 8: for review was whether or not wilfulness required some sort

151
00:09:51,080 --> 00:09:55,000
Speaker 8: of knowledge of customer infringement. Now, a problem with that

152
00:09:55,160 --> 00:09:59,880
Speaker 8: second question, the wolfleness standard, is that Cox had failed

153
00:10:00,400 --> 00:10:05,040
Speaker 8: to object in the trial court to the instruction that

154
00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:08,959
Speaker 8: the judge gave to the jury about how to find wilfulness.

155
00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:11,760
Speaker 8: So after the case has finished, all the evidence has submitted,

156
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:14,480
Speaker 8: and the attorneys have made their closing argument, and then

157
00:10:14,640 --> 00:10:16,319
Speaker 8: just before the jury goes into the jury room to

158
00:10:16,440 --> 00:10:19,040
Speaker 8: make a decision, the judge reads to them a series

159
00:10:19,080 --> 00:10:21,520
Speaker 8: of instructions as to what the law is. And one

160
00:10:21,520 --> 00:10:25,160
Speaker 8: of those instructions will go something like Sony Music Corporation.

161
00:10:25,240 --> 00:10:28,840
Speaker 8: Here is alleged that the contributor copyright infringement was wilful

162
00:10:29,040 --> 00:10:32,120
Speaker 8: on the part of costs. In order for you to

163
00:10:32,200 --> 00:10:36,760
Speaker 8: find wilfulness, you must consider the following factors. And typically

164
00:10:37,120 --> 00:10:40,560
Speaker 8: if a party doesn't believe the judge has stayed at

165
00:10:40,559 --> 00:10:43,120
Speaker 8: the law correctly to the jury, they get up and

166
00:10:43,160 --> 00:10:45,160
Speaker 8: they object, and indeed they don't even have to do

167
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:47,800
Speaker 8: it at the time of trial. These jury instructions are

168
00:10:47,840 --> 00:10:50,600
Speaker 8: spent out to the lawyers while advance, and you file

169
00:10:50,640 --> 00:10:52,600
Speaker 8: the objection with courts saying we objected this, and give

170
00:10:52,640 --> 00:10:55,880
Speaker 8: the court a chance to refine it, improve it so

171
00:10:56,000 --> 00:10:59,400
Speaker 8: that there's no objection here. The Cox folks for whatever

172
00:10:59,440 --> 00:11:02,640
Speaker 8: reason to object to the wilfulness instruction, and that means

173
00:11:02,679 --> 00:11:07,880
Speaker 8: they waived any objection to wilfulness and had really no excuse.

174
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:12,600
Speaker 8: So I just don't see question number two as being

175
00:11:12,679 --> 00:11:16,640
Speaker 8: resolved in any way in favor of Cox, and indeed

176
00:11:16,679 --> 00:11:18,920
Speaker 8: I suspect the court won't reach it so that we

177
00:11:19,000 --> 00:11:22,319
Speaker 8: will get no further instruction from the Supreme Court on

178
00:11:22,679 --> 00:11:26,240
Speaker 8: what constitutes wilfulness. I think the Court is focused really

179
00:11:26,400 --> 00:11:31,840
Speaker 8: on the position that Cox is arguing that contributory infringement

180
00:11:31,880 --> 00:11:34,839
Speaker 8: requires some sort of affirmative act, and that, as they

181
00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:39,000
Speaker 8: phrased it, they can't be a contributory infringer by providing

182
00:11:39,240 --> 00:11:41,920
Speaker 8: internet service to one of their customers.

183
00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:45,240
Speaker 2: So then do you think that they'll send it back

184
00:11:45,360 --> 00:11:48,360
Speaker 2: to the lower court with an instruction.

185
00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:52,600
Speaker 8: I just don't know what they're going to do here.

186
00:11:53,000 --> 00:11:54,720
Speaker 8: I have to be frank, this is one of the

187
00:11:54,760 --> 00:11:59,160
Speaker 8: more opaque oral arguments I've have listened to. Other commentators

188
00:11:59,559 --> 00:12:04,960
Speaker 8: have argued that the Court might be looking for some

189
00:12:05,000 --> 00:12:07,600
Speaker 8: sort of middle ground. Indeed, I think it was Justice

190
00:12:07,640 --> 00:12:11,520
Speaker 8: sodom Or commented at one point during the argument that

191
00:12:11,920 --> 00:12:16,000
Speaker 8: the Court was being forced to choose between two extreme positions,

192
00:12:16,320 --> 00:12:19,439
Speaker 8: and in particular Justice so Myior, who was very skeptical

193
00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:25,000
Speaker 8: of Cox's position but also didn't quite like the extreme

194
00:12:25,200 --> 00:12:28,360
Speaker 8: argument being made by Sony Music Corp. In the recording company,

195
00:12:28,520 --> 00:12:31,640
Speaker 8: seems really perplexed as to what to do. Genuinely perplexed.

196
00:12:31,800 --> 00:12:35,160
Speaker 8: The problem the Supreme Court faces here is that the

197
00:12:35,240 --> 00:12:41,240
Speaker 8: standard for contributory copyright infringement has been pretty well settled

198
00:12:41,360 --> 00:12:44,960
Speaker 8: in this court for more than a century. As early

199
00:12:45,000 --> 00:12:50,560
Speaker 8: as nineteen twelve, there was a case that involved miniograph machines.

200
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:54,000
Speaker 8: If you remember those, they were a pre Xerox machines

201
00:12:54,360 --> 00:12:58,280
Speaker 8: way of doing sort of a mass production, mass production

202
00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:01,520
Speaker 8: being a couple hundred There was a case in which

203
00:13:01,800 --> 00:13:07,480
Speaker 8: a publisher sued a mimeograph company for knowingly selling mimiograph

204
00:13:07,600 --> 00:13:11,800
Speaker 8: materials to a company that it knew was engaged in

205
00:13:11,800 --> 00:13:16,240
Speaker 8: infringing copyright works by using the mimiograph machine. And the

206
00:13:16,280 --> 00:13:20,120
Speaker 8: standard was set out there and has been repeated over

207
00:13:20,280 --> 00:13:24,200
Speaker 8: and over since that time nineteen twelve. And the standard

208
00:13:24,400 --> 00:13:27,240
Speaker 8: is pretty simple. If you provide something that you know

209
00:13:27,480 --> 00:13:29,959
Speaker 8: is going to be used by a person to commit

210
00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:35,079
Speaker 8: copyright infringement, you've engaged in contributory infringement. And the past

211
00:13:35,080 --> 00:13:37,920
Speaker 8: cases haven't spoken in terms of needing an affirmative act,

212
00:13:38,400 --> 00:13:40,439
Speaker 8: although one could argue this did not come up with

213
00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:43,680
Speaker 8: the Supreme Court hearing that providing the Internet service is

214
00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:49,160
Speaker 8: an affirmative act. The Cox Company argued court that that's

215
00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:51,840
Speaker 8: not an affirmative act, but that's sort of a stretch

216
00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:54,320
Speaker 8: in order to try to get around that line cases,

217
00:13:54,800 --> 00:13:59,760
Speaker 8: the Cox Company argued that contributory infringement is really a

218
00:13:59,840 --> 00:14:04,120
Speaker 8: key into aiding and embedding liability in the context of

219
00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:07,360
Speaker 8: torts and criminal law, and that's a real stretch that

220
00:14:07,520 --> 00:14:10,320
Speaker 8: I think is just dead wrong. It would give the

221
00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:13,000
Speaker 8: court a way to get out of this dilemma, but

222
00:14:13,040 --> 00:14:15,480
Speaker 8: it would mean the court would have to overturn half

223
00:14:15,480 --> 00:14:18,560
Speaker 8: a dozen cases going back to nineteen twelve for over

224
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:21,120
Speaker 8: a century and say now they're not good law anymore.

225
00:14:21,240 --> 00:14:22,840
Speaker 8: I don't see the Court doing that here.

226
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:25,720
Speaker 2: Do you think we'll see that Justice is coming up

227
00:14:25,760 --> 00:14:27,600
Speaker 2: with some sort of middle ground.

228
00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:31,360
Speaker 8: So it's a shame that Justice Ginsburg is no longer

229
00:14:31,400 --> 00:14:33,960
Speaker 8: on the Court. And we've had many conversations about our

230
00:14:34,360 --> 00:14:38,000
Speaker 8: knowledge of copyright law and her ability to copy together

231
00:14:38,080 --> 00:14:42,800
Speaker 8: coalition for positions under the Copyright Act that we're actually

232
00:14:42,880 --> 00:14:46,440
Speaker 8: quite pragmatic and useful. And I just don't see anybody

233
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:49,480
Speaker 8: either with that depth of knowledge to copyright law or

234
00:14:49,520 --> 00:14:51,720
Speaker 8: the ability to do that sort of log rolling on

235
00:14:51,760 --> 00:14:53,520
Speaker 8: this Court. And so I think it's going to be

236
00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:55,600
Speaker 8: a real struggle for this Court to come up with

237
00:14:55,680 --> 00:14:58,160
Speaker 8: some sort of middle ground, particularly in light of the

238
00:14:58,200 --> 00:15:01,040
Speaker 8: fact that the law here is just so set for

239
00:15:01,120 --> 00:15:03,680
Speaker 8: such a long period time and the sort of odd

240
00:15:03,760 --> 00:15:06,600
Speaker 8: cases that Cock sited to the Supreme Court, including this

241
00:15:06,800 --> 00:15:10,440
Speaker 8: recent gun distribution case sprin court to site recently where

242
00:15:10,680 --> 00:15:14,040
Speaker 8: the gun companies were being sued for deaths in Mexico,

243
00:15:14,520 --> 00:15:18,520
Speaker 8: and the argument was they were aiding embedding this criminal activity,

244
00:15:18,920 --> 00:15:21,520
Speaker 8: and the gun company said, well, we sold the guns

245
00:15:21,520 --> 00:15:24,920
Speaker 8: to dealers in Texas, not knowing what they were going

246
00:15:24,960 --> 00:15:27,480
Speaker 8: to do with them, and if anybody's contributed to them,

247
00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:29,440
Speaker 8: but it's not us. We had no knowledge of it,

248
00:15:29,800 --> 00:15:34,960
Speaker 8: and that case just doesn't fit here, either legally or factually.

249
00:15:35,360 --> 00:15:37,960
Speaker 8: And yet Cock sort of beed a lot on that.

250
00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:40,120
Speaker 8: I mean, it was almost as if there's a hey,

251
00:15:40,320 --> 00:15:44,160
Speaker 8: we cite to some case in which the second circuit,

252
00:15:44,160 --> 00:15:47,120
Speaker 8: which everybody beleeves in on the Supreme Court, that'll get

253
00:15:47,160 --> 00:15:49,520
Speaker 8: us over the humpire. It's just such a stretch that,

254
00:15:49,840 --> 00:15:53,200
Speaker 8: in fact backfires. One starts to think, well, what's wrong

255
00:15:53,280 --> 00:15:55,080
Speaker 8: with their case? That that's the best they've got.

256
00:15:55,320 --> 00:15:59,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, gun distribution and pirated music don't seem to equate.

257
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:03,400
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Terry, as always, that's Terrence Fross of

258
00:16:03,520 --> 00:16:10,000
Speaker 2: Catnuchen Rosenman. Immigration courts decide about two hundred thousand asylum

259
00:16:10,120 --> 00:16:15,120
Speaker 2: applications every year, and Douglas Urgus Urlana, his wife and

260
00:16:15,280 --> 00:16:19,760
Speaker 2: child joined that pool of applicants after fleeing Il Salvador

261
00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:23,920
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty one. They claimed they were repeatedly threatened

262
00:16:23,920 --> 00:16:27,280
Speaker 2: by a cartel hit man in a year's long violent

263
00:16:27,440 --> 00:16:32,520
Speaker 2: vendetta against their extended family, but an immigration judge rejected

264
00:16:32,560 --> 00:16:36,359
Speaker 2: their bid for asylum, as did the Board of Immigration Appeals,

265
00:16:36,760 --> 00:16:40,240
Speaker 2: and a federal appeals court deferred to the board's decision,

266
00:16:40,680 --> 00:16:44,120
Speaker 2: and it appeared during oral arguments this week that the

267
00:16:44,160 --> 00:16:47,720
Speaker 2: family would not fare much better at the Supreme Court.

268
00:16:48,320 --> 00:16:53,520
Speaker 2: Several justices from across the ideological spectrum appeared to agree

269
00:16:53,560 --> 00:16:57,720
Speaker 2: that the Board's decision on whether an immigrant faces persecution

270
00:16:58,160 --> 00:17:02,680
Speaker 2: serious enough to qualify for asylum is a factual inquiry,

271
00:17:03,000 --> 00:17:05,840
Speaker 2: not a legal one, and so the Court of Appeal

272
00:17:05,920 --> 00:17:09,960
Speaker 2: should defer to the Immigration Board's decision. Here are liberal

273
00:17:10,200 --> 00:17:14,760
Speaker 2: Justice Elaina Kagan and conservative Justice Samuel Alito.

274
00:17:14,960 --> 00:17:17,560
Speaker 6: And that's the legal rule. A threat can be persecution,

275
00:17:17,720 --> 00:17:21,679
Speaker 6: but only if it's menacing enough to cause actual harm. Now,

276
00:17:21,720 --> 00:17:24,120
Speaker 6: what's going to happen in this case is we're going

277
00:17:24,160 --> 00:17:26,880
Speaker 6: to have to look at all this evidence, all these facts,

278
00:17:27,280 --> 00:17:32,520
Speaker 6: and decide whether these threats were indeed that level of menacing.

279
00:17:33,040 --> 00:17:36,800
Speaker 6: And that sounds like really weighing evidence to me. That

280
00:17:36,960 --> 00:17:38,240
Speaker 6: sounds really factual.

281
00:17:39,480 --> 00:17:43,480
Speaker 7: It must add up to more than ordinary harassment, mistreatment,

282
00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:49,400
Speaker 7: or suffering. You may have a set of historical facts

283
00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:53,480
Speaker 7: that are undisputed, but determining whether they add up whether

284
00:17:53,560 --> 00:17:57,560
Speaker 7: the totality of those facts satisfies that standard. Sure looks

285
00:17:57,560 --> 00:18:01,159
Speaker 7: to me like primarily a factual question.

286
00:18:01,880 --> 00:18:05,639
Speaker 2: Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner

287
00:18:05,640 --> 00:18:08,760
Speaker 2: at Hollnden Knight. Leon tell us a little about the

288
00:18:08,880 --> 00:18:10,119
Speaker 2: asylum process.

289
00:18:10,920 --> 00:18:14,760
Speaker 4: What a person asks for asylum, they have to prove

290
00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:17,359
Speaker 4: at the end of the day, that they have what's

291
00:18:17,400 --> 00:18:22,359
Speaker 4: called a well founded fear of future persecution on the

292
00:18:22,400 --> 00:18:26,880
Speaker 4: basis of their race, religion, political origin, social group. There's

293
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:31,160
Speaker 4: a presumption that if you have experienced what's called past persecution,

294
00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:35,800
Speaker 4: there's a presumption that you will then have a well

295
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:39,880
Speaker 4: founded fear a future persecution. So what does that mean.

296
00:18:40,040 --> 00:18:43,200
Speaker 4: That means that people go into immigration court and they

297
00:18:43,240 --> 00:18:46,320
Speaker 4: explain what happened in their country that caused them to leave,

298
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:49,840
Speaker 4: and there's cross examination and the judge can ask questions.

299
00:18:50,200 --> 00:18:52,879
Speaker 4: At the end of all of this, there's two determinations.

300
00:18:52,960 --> 00:18:58,520
Speaker 4: One did the person experience past persecution? And number two,

301
00:18:58,680 --> 00:19:01,520
Speaker 4: was it on the basis of one of the protected grounds.

302
00:19:01,920 --> 00:19:06,280
Speaker 4: So in this Supreme Court case, what happened was there

303
00:19:06,400 --> 00:19:11,600
Speaker 4: literally was no dispute about the credibility of the facts

304
00:19:11,720 --> 00:19:15,399
Speaker 4: raised by the foreign national. In this case, Douglas Umberto

305
00:19:15,520 --> 00:19:20,080
Speaker 4: Orias Oriana, who said that he fled El Salvador after

306
00:19:20,200 --> 00:19:23,480
Speaker 4: repeated threats and violence from a hitman linked to a

307
00:19:23,560 --> 00:19:26,240
Speaker 4: drug lord, and he said that the drug lord shot

308
00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:28,679
Speaker 4: his hot brothers and tracked and thread in his family.

309
00:19:28,960 --> 00:19:32,320
Speaker 4: And so since there was no dispute about the facts,

310
00:19:32,359 --> 00:19:36,320
Speaker 4: there was not a factual issue that was being raised

311
00:19:36,359 --> 00:19:39,160
Speaker 4: on appeal. Instead, the court said, I'm going to take

312
00:19:39,240 --> 00:19:42,320
Speaker 4: all of the facts that you've presented today as true,

313
00:19:42,720 --> 00:19:44,920
Speaker 4: and I'm going to say that they still do not

314
00:19:45,200 --> 00:19:49,520
Speaker 4: rise to the high level of this word persecution such

315
00:19:49,600 --> 00:19:54,720
Speaker 4: that we can say that you experienced past persecution such

316
00:19:54,760 --> 00:19:58,520
Speaker 4: that you would get the presumption of future persecution. So

317
00:19:58,680 --> 00:20:03,520
Speaker 4: now Missed Oris Oriana then says, well, how is that possible?

318
00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:06,639
Speaker 4: I would like to get review of that. And so

319
00:20:06,760 --> 00:20:09,720
Speaker 4: when it gets to the First Circuit Court of Appeals,

320
00:20:10,200 --> 00:20:13,320
Speaker 4: the First Circuit says, We're going to defer to the

321
00:20:13,320 --> 00:20:17,000
Speaker 4: Board of Immigration Appeals, which is the administrative court that

322
00:20:17,080 --> 00:20:19,520
Speaker 4: decides this issue at the end of the day. We're

323
00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:23,040
Speaker 4: going to defer to them and say that even though

324
00:20:23,040 --> 00:20:27,879
Speaker 4: the facts are not in dispute, we still have to

325
00:20:27,920 --> 00:20:31,680
Speaker 4: give some difference to their decision. In terms of let's

326
00:20:31,680 --> 00:20:34,320
Speaker 4: say there's a scale and you're weighing it, how many

327
00:20:34,400 --> 00:20:37,280
Speaker 4: pebbles go on one scale, how many pebbles go on

328
00:20:37,320 --> 00:20:42,359
Speaker 4: the other scale, that even that determination gets some difference,

329
00:20:42,720 --> 00:20:47,880
Speaker 4: that the federal courts can't just reweigh the evidence on

330
00:20:48,040 --> 00:20:52,119
Speaker 4: their ends and decide whether the facts that were undisputed

331
00:20:52,240 --> 00:20:57,440
Speaker 4: in a particular case constituted persecution such that the person

332
00:20:57,520 --> 00:20:59,040
Speaker 4: should win their asylum case.

333
00:21:00,040 --> 00:21:03,360
Speaker 2: Courts of appeals have been split on whether federal courts

334
00:21:03,400 --> 00:21:07,840
Speaker 2: can review the Immigration Board's decision from scratch or have

335
00:21:07,920 --> 00:21:08,879
Speaker 2: to defer the board.

336
00:21:09,520 --> 00:21:13,280
Speaker 4: The Supreme Court then has to decide, okay, what happens

337
00:21:13,320 --> 00:21:16,600
Speaker 4: in a case like this where there's not a dispute

338
00:21:16,680 --> 00:21:19,920
Speaker 4: about the actual facts, but there's a dispute about whether

339
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:24,240
Speaker 4: the facts when you weigh them, there's quote unquote significant

340
00:21:24,359 --> 00:21:28,640
Speaker 4: enough pebbles on the scale. Does the foreign national win

341
00:21:29,000 --> 00:21:31,480
Speaker 4: or do they lose? Can we reweigh that on our

342
00:21:31,520 --> 00:21:35,040
Speaker 4: own or do we have to give some difference under

343
00:21:35,160 --> 00:21:40,760
Speaker 4: some standard of deferential review. And so the foreign nationals

344
00:21:40,760 --> 00:21:43,280
Speaker 4: obviously claiming there should be the Novo review, the court

345
00:21:43,320 --> 00:21:45,840
Speaker 4: should look at this and say, okay, we're the threats

346
00:21:45,880 --> 00:21:49,480
Speaker 4: here that were undisputed sufficient to say that that was

347
00:21:49,680 --> 00:21:53,359
Speaker 4: past persecution. And the government says no, no, no, the

348
00:21:53,480 --> 00:21:57,040
Speaker 4: standard is actually much different and that this is a

349
00:21:57,200 --> 00:22:01,080
Speaker 4: mixed question of law and fact, and so you have

350
00:22:01,160 --> 00:22:06,199
Speaker 4: to treat that with some type of deferential review. And

351
00:22:06,280 --> 00:22:10,359
Speaker 4: so you had justices like Justice Court Sis saying a

352
00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:14,480
Speaker 4: reasonable fact finder standard as opposed to the Novo review,

353
00:22:15,200 --> 00:22:20,560
Speaker 4: and others wanted to weigh it even more deferentially potentially

354
00:22:20,640 --> 00:22:25,160
Speaker 4: than even that, and say that basically, if there's substantial

355
00:22:25,280 --> 00:22:30,399
Speaker 4: evidence to support the determination of the lower administrative court,

356
00:22:30,440 --> 00:22:34,320
Speaker 4: that's enough. So that would be even a broader deferential standard.

357
00:22:34,760 --> 00:22:37,920
Speaker 4: And it appears as if really there's not a lot

358
00:22:37,920 --> 00:22:40,680
Speaker 4: of excitement in the Supreme Court for having a complete

359
00:22:40,880 --> 00:22:43,280
Speaker 4: the Novo review of this process. So the issue is

360
00:22:43,280 --> 00:22:46,360
Speaker 4: really going to be how much difference is given in

361
00:22:46,600 --> 00:22:48,440
Speaker 4: these types of cases moving forward.

362
00:22:48,920 --> 00:22:52,679
Speaker 2: So Leon, just to clarify, everyone accepts that the facts

363
00:22:52,680 --> 00:22:56,480
Speaker 2: of the asylum claim are determined by the court below,

364
00:22:56,600 --> 00:23:00,040
Speaker 2: the Immigration Court. So the only question is how the

365
00:23:00,320 --> 00:23:04,240
Speaker 2: federal appellate court is going to weigh those facts.

366
00:23:04,280 --> 00:23:08,119
Speaker 4: Correct So what the lower court said in this case

367
00:23:08,359 --> 00:23:12,119
Speaker 4: was yes, all these very bad and serious things happened

368
00:23:12,160 --> 00:23:14,679
Speaker 4: to you. But when we put all those pebbles on

369
00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:19,000
Speaker 4: the scale, they're not sufficiently weighty enough to actually constitute

370
00:23:19,000 --> 00:23:23,560
Speaker 4: persecution for the purposes of winning your case. And then

371
00:23:23,640 --> 00:23:26,240
Speaker 4: the question is, okay, when this gets to the federal court,

372
00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:30,040
Speaker 4: can they literally reweigh all of that exact evidence and say, no, no, no,

373
00:23:30,400 --> 00:23:33,879
Speaker 4: those stones do weigh enough to tip the scales in

374
00:23:33,960 --> 00:23:39,080
Speaker 4: favor of the foreign national or are they stuck with Hey,

375
00:23:39,119 --> 00:23:41,720
Speaker 4: if this is in any way defensible, we have to

376
00:23:41,800 --> 00:23:45,000
Speaker 4: keep this decision the way it is. And it seemed

377
00:23:45,040 --> 00:23:47,320
Speaker 4: like the Supreme Court did want to give more difference

378
00:23:47,359 --> 00:23:52,520
Speaker 4: than rather re weighing all of the facts in the case,

379
00:23:52,560 --> 00:23:55,600
Speaker 4: even if they're undisputed, to decide if they need the

380
00:23:55,720 --> 00:23:58,359
Speaker 4: legal standard of past persecution.

381
00:23:58,960 --> 00:24:03,680
Speaker 2: If the appeals court can't reweigh what the lower court decided,

382
00:24:04,160 --> 00:24:06,879
Speaker 2: it's not much of a review, is it correct.

383
00:24:06,960 --> 00:24:10,240
Speaker 4: I mean, it would only be a review if essentially

384
00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:15,760
Speaker 4: what happened was somebody goes into immigration court and they

385
00:24:15,800 --> 00:24:19,560
Speaker 4: say the government came in and shot me one time

386
00:24:19,600 --> 00:24:22,480
Speaker 4: in the left arm because I'm a dissident, and then

387
00:24:22,520 --> 00:24:25,000
Speaker 4: they left, and then two weeks later they shot me

388
00:24:25,040 --> 00:24:27,800
Speaker 4: in the right arm. And then three weeks later they

389
00:24:27,800 --> 00:24:30,320
Speaker 4: shot me in the left leg and they said, you

390
00:24:30,320 --> 00:24:32,000
Speaker 4: want this to keep going or are you going to

391
00:24:32,040 --> 00:24:36,240
Speaker 4: stop being a dissident? And then the immigration judge says, well,

392
00:24:36,280 --> 00:24:39,119
Speaker 4: that doesn't seem like sufficient persecution. You only got shot

393
00:24:39,320 --> 00:24:42,960
Speaker 4: three times. Maybe in a case like that, then the

394
00:24:43,000 --> 00:24:46,080
Speaker 4: court would say, well, there's no way a reasonable fact

395
00:24:46,080 --> 00:24:50,200
Speaker 4: finder could come to that determination that that wasn't persecution,

396
00:24:50,840 --> 00:24:53,440
Speaker 4: because then you'd have this sort of reasonable fact finder

397
00:24:53,600 --> 00:24:57,840
Speaker 4: deference or some other standard like that. It's not never

398
00:24:58,119 --> 00:25:00,679
Speaker 4: will we review it. So they're not saying ever, But

399
00:25:00,760 --> 00:25:04,720
Speaker 4: as opposed to a case like this, where they're saying, okay, threats,

400
00:25:05,119 --> 00:25:08,320
Speaker 4: how serious are the threats or the threats very serious?

401
00:25:08,680 --> 00:25:10,560
Speaker 4: They might say, look, this is the kind of case

402
00:25:10,600 --> 00:25:12,399
Speaker 4: that falls in the gray zone. And when you're in

403
00:25:12,440 --> 00:25:14,440
Speaker 4: the gray zone, the government wins.

404
00:25:15,040 --> 00:25:17,720
Speaker 2: I'm curious, what do you think about the threats in

405
00:25:17,760 --> 00:25:20,560
Speaker 2: this case? Do you think they were serious enough for

406
00:25:20,600 --> 00:25:21,840
Speaker 2: an asylum claim?

407
00:25:22,280 --> 00:25:24,720
Speaker 4: I think it's really in the gray zone. I think

408
00:25:24,760 --> 00:25:26,480
Speaker 4: this is the problem when they talk about sort of

409
00:25:26,520 --> 00:25:30,760
Speaker 4: bad facts make bad law, is this is the exact

410
00:25:30,800 --> 00:25:34,560
Speaker 4: type of case where one judge would definitely grant asylum

411
00:25:34,760 --> 00:25:37,720
Speaker 4: one hundred out of one hundred times, and another judge

412
00:25:37,720 --> 00:25:40,679
Speaker 4: would never grant the asylum zero out of one hundred times.

413
00:25:40,760 --> 00:25:44,360
Speaker 4: Because people just approach these cases with different levels of

414
00:25:44,480 --> 00:25:49,359
Speaker 4: sympathy and different levels of concern and different standards in

415
00:25:49,400 --> 00:25:54,320
Speaker 4: their mind of what constitutes persecution. It really does become

416
00:25:54,440 --> 00:25:59,000
Speaker 4: problematic in terms of the subjectiveness of the process. But

417
00:25:59,119 --> 00:26:01,280
Speaker 4: what the Supreme we are trying to figure out is

418
00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:04,879
Speaker 4: where does the subjectiveness stop. Does it stop at the

419
00:26:04,880 --> 00:26:08,399
Speaker 4: Court of Appeals or does it stop at the administrative level.

420
00:26:08,840 --> 00:26:10,959
Speaker 4: And it seems like they're going to stop it at

421
00:26:10,960 --> 00:26:14,240
Speaker 4: the administrative level for the most part, and not bring

422
00:26:14,280 --> 00:26:18,520
Speaker 4: in sort of a new antiseptic Court of Appeals who's

423
00:26:18,560 --> 00:26:22,720
Speaker 4: just reading a transcript without any other context than deciding

424
00:26:22,840 --> 00:26:26,000
Speaker 4: is this sufficient persecution. It didn't really seem like any

425
00:26:26,119 --> 00:26:28,840
Speaker 4: of the Supreme Court justices wanted to do that. The

426
00:26:28,920 --> 00:26:30,040
Speaker 4: novo I.

427
00:26:29,960 --> 00:26:33,440
Speaker 2: Agree in these arguments. It seemed like the justices were

428
00:26:33,760 --> 00:26:37,880
Speaker 2: mostly on the same page. Thanks as always, Leon, that's

429
00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:41,480
Speaker 2: Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight and in other Supreme

430
00:26:41,560 --> 00:26:45,480
Speaker 2: Court news. On Thursday, in a six to three decision,

431
00:26:45,920 --> 00:26:49,960
Speaker 2: the Court came to the rescue of Texas Republicans allowing

432
00:26:50,040 --> 00:26:53,280
Speaker 2: next year's elections to be held under their newly drawn

433
00:26:53,400 --> 00:26:57,160
Speaker 2: congressional map, despite a lower court ruling that the map

434
00:26:57,440 --> 00:27:01,160
Speaker 2: likely discriminates on the basis of race. Joining me Is Bloomberg,

435
00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:04,880
Speaker 2: Supreme Court reporter Greg Store Greg what was the reasoning

436
00:27:04,880 --> 00:27:08,560
Speaker 2: of the six Conservatives for allowing Texas to use this map?

437
00:27:08,800 --> 00:27:11,080
Speaker 9: Well, the Court gave us a little bit of its reasoning,

438
00:27:11,280 --> 00:27:13,320
Speaker 9: a little bit less than two pages on it. First

439
00:27:13,359 --> 00:27:15,360
Speaker 9: of all, they said that the district court that ruled

440
00:27:15,359 --> 00:27:18,800
Speaker 9: against Texas that said these districts are probably a racial jerymnader,

441
00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:22,320
Speaker 9: that that lower court did not quote honor the presumption

442
00:27:22,400 --> 00:27:24,679
Speaker 9: of legislative good faith. In other words, they should have

443
00:27:24,680 --> 00:27:26,879
Speaker 9: given Texas the benefit of the doubt that it was

444
00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:31,600
Speaker 9: acting constitutionally. Secondly, the Supreme Court said that normally, in

445
00:27:31,760 --> 00:27:34,479
Speaker 9: cases where you're challenging a racial jerymander, you have to

446
00:27:34,600 --> 00:27:37,720
Speaker 9: produce an alternative map that would accomplish whatever the state's

447
00:27:37,720 --> 00:27:40,960
Speaker 9: trying to accomplish without using race so much. And they

448
00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:44,160
Speaker 9: faulted the challengers for not doing that. And then finally,

449
00:27:44,320 --> 00:27:48,639
Speaker 9: the Court said this decision came too close to the election.

450
00:27:48,800 --> 00:27:51,920
Speaker 9: In the past, the Supreme Court has said that federal

451
00:27:52,000 --> 00:27:55,280
Speaker 9: courts should not change the state's election rules on the

452
00:27:55,320 --> 00:27:57,560
Speaker 9: eve of the election. And you might say, well, the

453
00:27:57,560 --> 00:28:00,159
Speaker 9: election is not for another eleven months or so, but

454
00:28:00,400 --> 00:28:04,080
Speaker 9: in this case, Texas's filing deadlines were coming up, and

455
00:28:04,359 --> 00:28:07,480
Speaker 9: the Supreme Court said, that's close enough, and that's a problem.

456
00:28:07,560 --> 00:28:10,680
Speaker 9: So the federal court shouldn't act, even if it found

457
00:28:10,760 --> 00:28:13,800
Speaker 9: the districts as it did, to be probably unconstitutional.

458
00:28:14,240 --> 00:28:18,239
Speaker 2: All three liberals dissented, No surprise there. What was the

459
00:28:18,280 --> 00:28:22,160
Speaker 2: focus of Justice Kagan's seventeen page descent.

460
00:28:23,160 --> 00:28:26,360
Speaker 9: She mostly focused on the process that this district court

461
00:28:26,400 --> 00:28:29,040
Speaker 9: went through to gather evidence about what was going on,

462
00:28:29,600 --> 00:28:32,879
Speaker 9: why the state drew this map, and in particular looking

463
00:28:32,880 --> 00:28:35,639
Speaker 9: at things like this letter from the Justice Department that

464
00:28:36,080 --> 00:28:39,720
Speaker 9: said that the state should eliminate these so called coalition

465
00:28:39,840 --> 00:28:43,760
Speaker 9: districts that are made up of heavily Hispanic, heavily black voters,

466
00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:45,400
Speaker 9: you know, with the two of them combining to be

467
00:28:45,440 --> 00:28:48,400
Speaker 9: more than fifty percent of the district. And Kagan said

468
00:28:48,840 --> 00:28:52,320
Speaker 9: the Supreme Court should have deferred to those factual findings

469
00:28:52,320 --> 00:28:54,880
Speaker 9: of the district court who spent nine days hearing evidence

470
00:28:54,920 --> 00:28:58,120
Speaker 9: about this case, and she blasted them for essentially deciding

471
00:28:58,120 --> 00:29:00,240
Speaker 9: this thing over a holiday weekend.

472
00:29:00,200 --> 00:29:03,880
Speaker 2: And then on Friday, the Justice has announced that they'll

473
00:29:03,920 --> 00:29:09,600
Speaker 2: take up President Trump's planned rollback of automatic birthright citizenship.

474
00:29:09,960 --> 00:29:13,240
Speaker 2: Are you surprised that they took this case since it's

475
00:29:13,320 --> 00:29:19,400
Speaker 2: basically universally been accepted that the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship

476
00:29:19,520 --> 00:29:22,800
Speaker 2: on virtually everyone born on US soil.

477
00:29:23,640 --> 00:29:26,120
Speaker 9: Not at all surprised because this is the kind of

478
00:29:26,120 --> 00:29:28,600
Speaker 9: thing that the Supreme Court wants to do itself and

479
00:29:28,600 --> 00:29:31,000
Speaker 9: not lead to the lower courts. So lower courts have

480
00:29:31,400 --> 00:29:34,920
Speaker 9: across the board ruled against Trump on this and said

481
00:29:34,960 --> 00:29:37,680
Speaker 9: that what he's trying to do through his executive order

482
00:29:38,000 --> 00:29:42,080
Speaker 9: is unconstitutional and also in violation of federal immigration law.

483
00:29:42,200 --> 00:29:45,520
Speaker 9: But given that these are decisions that block the federal

484
00:29:45,520 --> 00:29:48,840
Speaker 9: government from doing something, that's almost always something the Supreme

485
00:29:48,880 --> 00:29:50,240
Speaker 9: Court wants to do itself.

486
00:29:50,560 --> 00:29:52,640
Speaker 2: A lot of big decisions that are going to be

487
00:29:52,640 --> 00:29:55,960
Speaker 2: coming out of the Supreme Court this term. Thanks Greg,

488
00:29:56,240 --> 00:29:58,800
Speaker 2: that's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store.

489
00:29:59,640 --> 00:30:01,760
Speaker 10: I saw that room was one of the most troubling

490
00:30:01,760 --> 00:30:05,719
Speaker 10: things I've seen in my time in public service. You

491
00:30:05,800 --> 00:30:10,840
Speaker 10: have two individuals in clear distress without any means of

492
00:30:11,840 --> 00:30:16,880
Speaker 10: locomotion with a destroyed vessel who were killed by the

493
00:30:16,960 --> 00:30:17,600
Speaker 10: United States.

494
00:30:18,000 --> 00:30:22,600
Speaker 2: Congressman Jim Hines, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,

495
00:30:22,840 --> 00:30:26,920
Speaker 2: described his reaction to video footage of the second attack

496
00:30:27,040 --> 00:30:31,000
Speaker 2: that killed two survivors after an initial strike on an

497
00:30:31,000 --> 00:30:35,920
Speaker 2: alleged drug smuggling boat in international waters near Venezuela on

498
00:30:35,960 --> 00:30:41,800
Speaker 2: September two. Lawmakers and military legal experts have questioned whether

499
00:30:41,840 --> 00:30:46,360
Speaker 2: the attack on survivors was a war crime, because international

500
00:30:46,440 --> 00:30:51,080
Speaker 2: law prohibits killing enemy combatants who no longer pose a threat.

501
00:30:51,600 --> 00:30:56,800
Speaker 2: Navy Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the strikes, briefed lawmakers

502
00:30:56,840 --> 00:31:01,000
Speaker 2: on Thursday in closed door sessions and confirmed that there

503
00:31:01,040 --> 00:31:04,680
Speaker 2: had not been a kill them all order as reported.

504
00:31:05,120 --> 00:31:09,200
Speaker 2: After the briefing, Republican Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the

505
00:31:09,240 --> 00:31:13,480
Speaker 2: Senate Intelligence Committee, said he believes the men did still

506
00:31:13,560 --> 00:31:15,880
Speaker 2: pose a threat after the first strike.

507
00:31:16,480 --> 00:31:21,320
Speaker 7: I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded

508
00:31:21,360 --> 00:31:24,719
Speaker 7: with drugs down the United States back over so they

509
00:31:24,720 --> 00:31:25,640
Speaker 7: could stay in the fight.

510
00:31:26,000 --> 00:31:29,320
Speaker 2: Joining me is Professor Joshua Castenberg of the University of

511
00:31:29,360 --> 00:31:32,880
Speaker 2: New Mexico Law School. He was a military judge and

512
00:31:33,040 --> 00:31:37,680
Speaker 2: lawyer in the US Air Force, Josh Democratic Senator Chris

513
00:31:37,800 --> 00:31:42,160
Speaker 2: Van Holland said the second strike was an extra judicial killing,

514
00:31:42,400 --> 00:31:46,440
Speaker 2: amounting to murder or a war crime. What's your analysis

515
00:31:46,680 --> 00:31:47,800
Speaker 2: of the second strike?

516
00:31:48,160 --> 00:31:51,400
Speaker 1: So my take on the second strike is partly colored

517
00:31:51,400 --> 00:31:56,360
Speaker 1: by the fact that the administration has this changing narrative constantly,

518
00:31:56,800 --> 00:31:59,360
Speaker 1: and the latest narrative that they come up with is

519
00:31:59,400 --> 00:32:02,760
Speaker 1: implaus that somehow these men were going to climb back

520
00:32:02,800 --> 00:32:05,920
Speaker 1: on the vessel and continue on in their cocaine run.

521
00:32:06,200 --> 00:32:09,120
Speaker 1: So having said that, look, you know, the United States

522
00:32:09,160 --> 00:32:12,760
Speaker 1: has convened grand juries for murder on the high seas

523
00:32:12,840 --> 00:32:16,200
Speaker 1: going back to the War of eighteen twelve, and there's

524
00:32:16,240 --> 00:32:20,960
Speaker 1: a federal statute prohibiting precisely what occurred, you know, murder

525
00:32:20,960 --> 00:32:25,360
Speaker 1: on the high seas. Now, of course, Trump himself is

526
00:32:25,400 --> 00:32:29,960
Speaker 1: immune from any criminal liability thanks to the Supreme Court's decision,

527
00:32:30,160 --> 00:32:34,120
Speaker 1: you know, Trump versus United States. But it seems to

528
00:32:34,160 --> 00:32:37,239
Speaker 1: mean that nobody else is immune from that kind of

529
00:32:37,240 --> 00:32:40,239
Speaker 1: a charge. On the other hand, who's going to pursue it.

530
00:32:40,400 --> 00:32:43,680
Speaker 1: I don't think the Attorney General of the United States

531
00:32:43,760 --> 00:32:46,640
Speaker 1: is going to differ from the White House's version of

532
00:32:46,640 --> 00:32:48,800
Speaker 1: events or their own legal reasoning.

533
00:32:49,440 --> 00:32:53,880
Speaker 2: Defense Secretary Pete Hegsith said he left the room after

534
00:32:53,920 --> 00:32:58,640
Speaker 2: the first strike. Who's responsible the Navy admiral who ordered

535
00:32:58,640 --> 00:33:03,160
Speaker 2: the second strike or the Defense secretary who reportedly approved

536
00:33:03,200 --> 00:33:04,720
Speaker 2: the overall operation.

537
00:33:05,400 --> 00:33:08,400
Speaker 1: Well they all are. And I'm chuckling in a sad

538
00:33:08,560 --> 00:33:12,800
Speaker 1: kind of way about that claim of Secretary of Defense

539
00:33:13,400 --> 00:33:16,320
Speaker 1: or secretary of war he seths because at the end

540
00:33:16,320 --> 00:33:19,360
Speaker 1: of the day, it really doesn't matter in this regard.

541
00:33:19,480 --> 00:33:22,560
Speaker 1: You know, coming out of World War One, if not

542
00:33:22,840 --> 00:33:26,680
Speaker 1: the Civil War, the United States embraced the doctrine of

543
00:33:26,680 --> 00:33:31,080
Speaker 1: command responsibility, and we particularly saw that play out in

544
00:33:31,320 --> 00:33:35,320
Speaker 1: World War Two at the Nuremberg and International Tribunal for

545
00:33:35,520 --> 00:33:39,080
Speaker 1: War Crimes in Tokyo. Those trials, and even in US

546
00:33:39,200 --> 00:33:43,760
Speaker 1: law when the Army under General MacArthur prosecuted generally Yamashta,

547
00:33:44,240 --> 00:33:46,960
Speaker 1: nobody ever alleged that he was the trigger puller or

548
00:33:47,000 --> 00:33:50,040
Speaker 1: gave an order for his troops to massacre thousands of

549
00:33:50,080 --> 00:33:54,240
Speaker 1: innocent Filipinos. As the United States liberated the island, they

550
00:33:54,320 --> 00:33:57,200
Speaker 1: prosecuted and for failing to control as troops and for

551
00:33:57,280 --> 00:34:01,080
Speaker 1: creating the environment where it would be made possible. The

552
00:34:01,280 --> 00:34:05,560
Speaker 1: only thing in a real rule of law setting that

553
00:34:05,600 --> 00:34:09,160
Speaker 1: would save hegsath Is if he preferred uc him J

554
00:34:09,480 --> 00:34:12,480
Speaker 1: charges against the individual who gave the order. But I

555
00:34:12,480 --> 00:34:14,759
Speaker 1: don't think that's going to happen. I think they're all

556
00:34:14,840 --> 00:34:19,000
Speaker 1: banking on protection from Republican allies in the House and

557
00:34:19,120 --> 00:34:22,719
Speaker 1: Senate and then ultimately presidential pardons which have now been

558
00:34:22,760 --> 00:34:24,839
Speaker 1: given to Honduran drug dealers.

559
00:34:25,280 --> 00:34:29,560
Speaker 2: What about the legality of the broader military campaign which

560
00:34:29,600 --> 00:34:33,800
Speaker 2: is ongoing. After the briefings on Thursday, the military announced

561
00:34:33,840 --> 00:34:37,680
Speaker 2: that he had struck another boat, killing four people. That

562
00:34:37,760 --> 00:34:40,920
Speaker 2: brings the death toll to at least eighty seven people.

563
00:34:41,560 --> 00:34:46,360
Speaker 1: So we are not at war with Venezuela, and the

564
00:34:46,520 --> 00:34:52,480
Speaker 1: idea that United States domestic law can reach into Venezuelan

565
00:34:52,719 --> 00:34:57,560
Speaker 1: waters has no basis. However, and this is a big caveat.

566
00:34:57,960 --> 00:35:03,600
Speaker 1: Under international maritime law, any nation can stop action such

567
00:35:03,640 --> 00:35:08,560
Speaker 1: as piracy or other high crimes that occur on the sea.

568
00:35:08,680 --> 00:35:12,200
Speaker 1: In order to do that, you have to have absolute

569
00:35:12,560 --> 00:35:18,320
Speaker 1: correct intelligence that a crime such as international drug trafficking

570
00:35:19,040 --> 00:35:21,279
Speaker 1: is occurring, and there has to be some sort of

571
00:35:21,320 --> 00:35:25,680
Speaker 1: agreement among nations that that is occurring. And on top

572
00:35:25,719 --> 00:35:28,680
Speaker 1: of that, you have to be able to show that

573
00:35:29,200 --> 00:35:35,879
Speaker 1: what you're doing is consistent proportionality wise to the crime involved.

574
00:35:36,120 --> 00:35:39,719
Speaker 1: And the problem with that proportionality aspect is that the

575
00:35:39,800 --> 00:35:43,560
Speaker 1: United States Coast Guard, which most often does not use

576
00:35:43,640 --> 00:35:47,879
Speaker 1: that kind of lethal force, does an excellent job of

577
00:35:47,960 --> 00:35:52,759
Speaker 1: stopping kilo upon kilo upon kilo of cocaine coming into

578
00:35:52,760 --> 00:35:56,040
Speaker 1: the United States. They don't catch at all. So you know,

579
00:35:56,280 --> 00:36:00,680
Speaker 1: the argument that this is lawful is sort of the

580
00:36:00,760 --> 00:36:04,680
Speaker 1: realism of law into the alice in wonderland of law.

581
00:36:05,600 --> 00:36:09,439
Speaker 2: Let's turn now to the video released last month by

582
00:36:09,800 --> 00:36:15,960
Speaker 2: six Democratic members of Congress directly addressing active duty military

583
00:36:16,040 --> 00:36:17,759
Speaker 2: and intelligence personnel.

584
00:36:18,320 --> 00:36:21,279
Speaker 1: Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming

585
00:36:21,280 --> 00:36:23,000
Speaker 1: from a miroad, but from right here at home.

586
00:36:23,080 --> 00:36:27,080
Speaker 4: Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You

587
00:36:27,120 --> 00:36:28,840
Speaker 4: can refuse illegal orders.

588
00:36:29,120 --> 00:36:31,280
Speaker 3: You must refuse illegal orders.

589
00:36:31,480 --> 00:36:33,759
Speaker 2: No one has to carry out orders that violate the

590
00:36:33,880 --> 00:36:35,359
Speaker 2: law or our constitution.

591
00:36:35,719 --> 00:36:37,840
Speaker 10: We know this is hard and that it's a difficult

592
00:36:37,840 --> 00:36:39,000
Speaker 10: time to be a public.

593
00:36:38,719 --> 00:36:41,040
Speaker 4: Servant, but whether you're serving in the CIA.

594
00:36:40,920 --> 00:36:43,160
Speaker 1: The Army, or Navy Air Force.

595
00:36:43,120 --> 00:36:46,680
Speaker 4: Your vigilance is critical and know that we have your back.

596
00:36:47,200 --> 00:36:51,799
Speaker 2: All six who have military or intelligence backgrounds, we're just

597
00:36:51,920 --> 00:36:57,440
Speaker 2: telling service members and intelligence officers what the law is.

598
00:36:57,960 --> 00:37:01,200
Speaker 2: Yet President Trump has called them tray and said they

599
00:37:01,200 --> 00:37:04,960
Speaker 2: were engaging in seditious behavior punishable by death.

600
00:37:05,280 --> 00:37:09,480
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, all the members of the House

601
00:37:09,560 --> 00:37:13,520
Speaker 1: and Senate who made that video said was you have

602
00:37:13,560 --> 00:37:16,239
Speaker 1: a duty to obey the law, and that includes a

603
00:37:16,320 --> 00:37:20,560
Speaker 1: duty to disobey on lawful orders. That's a correct statement

604
00:37:20,560 --> 00:37:24,640
Speaker 1: of the law. And I don't think that any investigation

605
00:37:25,120 --> 00:37:28,280
Speaker 1: into those members should ever come up as a result

606
00:37:28,280 --> 00:37:31,239
Speaker 1: of them making a correct statement of the law. I

607
00:37:31,360 --> 00:37:36,360
Speaker 1: think that that concern is real based on this bellicosity

608
00:37:36,520 --> 00:37:40,120
Speaker 1: that's come out of the White House, and that bellicosity

609
00:37:40,520 --> 00:37:45,360
Speaker 1: includes the use of the federalized National Guard in our cities.

610
00:37:46,000 --> 00:37:51,600
Speaker 2: According to Bloomberg's sources, FBI headquarters is pressuring the bureau's

611
00:37:51,680 --> 00:37:58,120
Speaker 2: domestic terrorism agents to open a seditious conspiracy investigation into

612
00:37:58,120 --> 00:37:59,960
Speaker 2: those six democratic laws.

613
00:38:01,120 --> 00:38:05,120
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, I was asked the other day if

614
00:38:05,160 --> 00:38:10,960
Speaker 1: there is precedent for this, or precedent for a military investigation,

615
00:38:11,120 --> 00:38:15,000
Speaker 1: and to Senator Mark Kelly, and I said, no, there

616
00:38:15,080 --> 00:38:18,279
Speaker 1: is not, not in the United States. There is precedent

617
00:38:18,360 --> 00:38:21,400
Speaker 1: for it elsewhere. One of the things that the framers

618
00:38:21,400 --> 00:38:25,000
Speaker 1: of our constitution and all their genius wanted to do

619
00:38:25,840 --> 00:38:29,400
Speaker 1: was to create a government that was responsible to the

620
00:38:29,480 --> 00:38:34,320
Speaker 1: people through the legislative branch. And the last time something

621
00:38:34,440 --> 00:38:37,640
Speaker 1: like this happened wasn't in the United States. It was

622
00:38:37,680 --> 00:38:41,799
Speaker 1: before the United States was created. It was Oliver Cromwell

623
00:38:42,239 --> 00:38:46,319
Speaker 1: using his new model army to pressure Parliament to take

624
00:38:46,440 --> 00:38:49,640
Speaker 1: votes the way that he wanted them to take votes,

625
00:38:49,719 --> 00:38:53,279
Speaker 1: including the execution of Charles the First. We built a

626
00:38:53,360 --> 00:38:59,080
Speaker 1: constitution to prevent the very thing that apparently the FBI's

627
00:38:59,200 --> 00:39:06,239
Speaker 1: leaderships to now think is plausible seditious conspiracy. Look to me,

628
00:39:06,520 --> 00:39:10,200
Speaker 1: if there's a high crime or misdemeanor, it's the attempt

629
00:39:10,520 --> 00:39:14,800
Speaker 1: to cower members of Congress from exercising their free speech rights.

630
00:39:15,040 --> 00:39:18,919
Speaker 1: It's not the exercise of those free speech rights themselves.

631
00:39:19,360 --> 00:39:25,080
Speaker 2: The Civil War era seditious conspiracy law requires prosecutors to

632
00:39:25,120 --> 00:39:29,520
Speaker 2: prove a defendant conspired to use force to oppose US

633
00:39:29,600 --> 00:39:34,160
Speaker 2: government authority or to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution

634
00:39:34,480 --> 00:39:38,279
Speaker 2: of any US law. Is it sort of absurd to

635
00:39:38,480 --> 00:39:42,839
Speaker 2: claim under that statute that this was in any way

636
00:39:43,080 --> 00:39:44,680
Speaker 2: seditious conspiracy?

637
00:39:45,320 --> 00:39:48,399
Speaker 1: Again, I go back to my Alice in Wonderland quote. Yes,

638
00:39:48,800 --> 00:39:52,200
Speaker 1: in the rule of law. It certainly is that you

639
00:39:52,239 --> 00:39:54,759
Speaker 1: need to go back to the Civil War, and you

640
00:39:54,760 --> 00:39:59,080
Speaker 1: can look at members of Congress, slaveholder like Benjamin Gwynn

641
00:39:59,160 --> 00:40:02,359
Speaker 1: Harris from Maryland, who actually gave a prayer on the

642
00:40:02,400 --> 00:40:06,120
Speaker 1: floor of Congress for a Southern victory, or a pacifist

643
00:40:06,239 --> 00:40:10,560
Speaker 1: like Alexander Long who gave anti war speeches, and at

644
00:40:10,560 --> 00:40:16,600
Speaker 1: no time were those two sitting members of Congress investigated

645
00:40:16,719 --> 00:40:20,400
Speaker 1: or prosecuted. You know, every time you and I speak

646
00:40:20,440 --> 00:40:23,880
Speaker 1: about the administration, I say they pushed the envelope. But

647
00:40:24,040 --> 00:40:28,759
Speaker 1: on this particular case, this truly is. It's beyond absurd.

648
00:40:28,960 --> 00:40:33,560
Speaker 1: It's truly an affront to the Constitution, the separation of powers,

649
00:40:33,880 --> 00:40:37,480
Speaker 1: and the ability of members of Congress to represent their

650
00:40:37,560 --> 00:40:41,759
Speaker 1: constituents on the very fundamental positions that a majority of

651
00:40:41,840 --> 00:40:45,160
Speaker 1: their constituents elected them to do. Again, it goes back

652
00:40:45,200 --> 00:40:49,400
Speaker 1: to the pre revolutionary days, the mentality of Cromwell and

653
00:40:49,520 --> 00:40:52,160
Speaker 1: the rule of the major generals and the dictatorship of

654
00:40:52,200 --> 00:40:54,640
Speaker 1: the mid sixteen hundreds in Britain, the very thing we

655
00:40:54,680 --> 00:40:56,160
Speaker 1: had a revolution against.

656
00:40:56,520 --> 00:41:00,480
Speaker 2: You know, your history. Just that's certain. Thanks for joining me.

657
00:41:01,160 --> 00:41:05,120
Speaker 2: That's Professor Joshua Kastenberg of the University of New Mexico

658
00:41:05,440 --> 00:41:08,239
Speaker 2: Law School. And that's it for this edition of The

659
00:41:08,239 --> 00:41:11,200
Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest

660
00:41:11,239 --> 00:41:14,359
Speaker 2: legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find

661
00:41:14,400 --> 00:41:18,960
Speaker 2: them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

662
00:41:19,040 --> 00:41:22,799
Speaker 2: dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And remember to tune

663
00:41:22,800 --> 00:41:26,040
Speaker 2: into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm

664
00:41:26,120 --> 00:41:29,680
Speaker 2: Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to

665
00:41:29,719 --> 00:41:30,279
Speaker 2: Bloomberg