1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,760 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:13,440 Speaker 2: The US Supreme Court will take up a new clash 3 00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:17,160 Speaker 2: over the use of race in redistricting, agree to hear 4 00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:21,520 Speaker 2: arguments on a Louisiana congressional map that creates an additional 5 00:00:21,640 --> 00:00:25,600 Speaker 2: majority black voting district. But the Court won't hear arguments 6 00:00:25,680 --> 00:00:29,200 Speaker 2: until early next year, and the twenty twenty four elections 7 00:00:29,240 --> 00:00:33,720 Speaker 2: are proceeding under the challenged map, which could boost Democrats' 8 00:00:33,840 --> 00:00:38,480 Speaker 2: chances of retaking the closely divided House of Representatives. This 9 00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:41,360 Speaker 2: is the latest step in more than two years of 10 00:00:41,440 --> 00:00:46,440 Speaker 2: federal court battles over Louisiana congressional districts. The state has 11 00:00:46,479 --> 00:00:50,120 Speaker 2: had two congressional maps blocked by lower courts, and the 12 00:00:50,159 --> 00:00:54,320 Speaker 2: Supreme Court has intervened twice. Joining me is Bloomberg Supreme 13 00:00:54,360 --> 00:00:58,040 Speaker 2: Court reporter Greg Storr. We've been hearing about this Louisiana 14 00:00:58,080 --> 00:01:00,760 Speaker 2: map for years, So tell us the history here. 15 00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:05,040 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a convoluted history. The key practical question is 16 00:01:05,360 --> 00:01:08,880 Speaker 3: whether there has to be a second majority black district 17 00:01:08,959 --> 00:01:13,160 Speaker 3: in Louisiana. Louisiana has six congressional districts. About thirty three 18 00:01:13,200 --> 00:01:15,280 Speaker 3: percent of the state is black, and the question is 19 00:01:15,600 --> 00:01:18,520 Speaker 3: when the districts are being drawn, isn't enough just to 20 00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:21,760 Speaker 3: have one majority black district. And so there was a 21 00:01:21,760 --> 00:01:25,440 Speaker 3: Supreme Court decision back in twenty twenty three involving Alabama 22 00:01:25,480 --> 00:01:29,080 Speaker 3: that was very similar, in which the Court essentially said, yeah, 23 00:01:29,080 --> 00:01:31,759 Speaker 3: Alabama has to have a second majority black district under 24 00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:35,320 Speaker 3: the Voting Rights Act, which basically protects minority voters from 25 00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:39,720 Speaker 3: having their voting power diluted by the way districts are drawn. 26 00:01:40,280 --> 00:01:43,000 Speaker 3: And it seemed like Louisiana was going to go the 27 00:01:43,040 --> 00:01:46,440 Speaker 3: same way, but then another group of voters, a group 28 00:01:46,440 --> 00:01:50,560 Speaker 3: of voters opposed to the second majority black district, sued 29 00:01:50,600 --> 00:01:53,480 Speaker 3: and said the way the state drew this up is 30 00:01:53,560 --> 00:01:59,120 Speaker 3: so convoluted, it's so jerrymandered that that violates the US Constitution. 31 00:01:59,360 --> 00:02:02,320 Speaker 3: They used ray too much in doing that. And so 32 00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:05,440 Speaker 3: this case at the Supreme Court is going to sort 33 00:02:05,440 --> 00:02:08,400 Speaker 3: of determine the balance between those two issues. The Voting 34 00:02:08,440 --> 00:02:12,279 Speaker 3: Rights Act that says essentially, you know, create a majority 35 00:02:12,480 --> 00:02:16,720 Speaker 3: minority district when you can, and the Equal Protection Clause, 36 00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:19,040 Speaker 3: which the Supreme Court is interpreted to put limits on 37 00:02:19,080 --> 00:02:21,520 Speaker 3: the ability of mapter ours to use race. 38 00:02:22,000 --> 00:02:26,160 Speaker 2: The disputed map will be used on Tuesday. 39 00:02:26,520 --> 00:02:28,840 Speaker 3: It will be there will be a second majority black 40 00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:32,680 Speaker 3: district on Tuesday in the election, and that will probably 41 00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:36,880 Speaker 3: be a shift another Democratic seat in Congress because of 42 00:02:36,880 --> 00:02:37,600 Speaker 3: that new map. 43 00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:42,640 Speaker 2: And explain how there have been unusual dynamics in this case. 44 00:02:43,440 --> 00:02:49,359 Speaker 3: Yeah. So interestingly, both the Republican controlled states, including the 45 00:02:49,400 --> 00:02:54,440 Speaker 3: Republican Attorney General Liz Murle and the NWCP Legal Defense FUNT, 46 00:02:54,800 --> 00:02:58,359 Speaker 3: ask the Supreme Court to intervene and uphold this map. 47 00:02:58,480 --> 00:03:02,040 Speaker 3: And the state, you look, we're being put in this 48 00:03:02,600 --> 00:03:06,320 Speaker 3: ridiculous bind. On one hand, we had been because of 49 00:03:06,360 --> 00:03:11,359 Speaker 3: another court case ordered to create a second majority black district. 50 00:03:11,480 --> 00:03:14,640 Speaker 3: And on the other hand, this different court comes along 51 00:03:14,720 --> 00:03:18,280 Speaker 3: and tells us, nope, used race too much. And so 52 00:03:18,960 --> 00:03:21,720 Speaker 3: Louisiana argued that even though we didn't agree with the 53 00:03:21,760 --> 00:03:25,560 Speaker 3: original decision requiring a second majority black district, here you're 54 00:03:25,600 --> 00:03:28,799 Speaker 3: basically turning us into the way to live Mura put 55 00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:31,400 Speaker 3: It were like a ball stuck at an endless game 56 00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:34,440 Speaker 3: of King Pok, And she argued, the state's got to 57 00:03:34,480 --> 00:03:36,440 Speaker 3: have a little breathing room to create districts. 58 00:03:37,200 --> 00:03:39,480 Speaker 2: And so while I have you, Greg, just explain what 59 00:03:39,520 --> 00:03:43,560 Speaker 2: the court did or didn't do as far as Pennsylvania 60 00:03:43,680 --> 00:03:44,520 Speaker 2: on Friday. 61 00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:49,840 Speaker 3: Yes, So this was a case where Republicans were asking 62 00:03:49,880 --> 00:03:53,760 Speaker 3: the Supreme Court to intervene and stop some provisional ballots 63 00:03:53,760 --> 00:03:56,960 Speaker 3: from being kind of potentially tens of thousands of provisional ballots. 64 00:03:57,000 --> 00:04:01,480 Speaker 3: And what these are folks who voted by mail and 65 00:04:01,520 --> 00:04:05,240 Speaker 3: there was something wrong with their mail in ballot, like, 66 00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:08,839 Speaker 3: for example, they didn't include the required secrecy envelope. And 67 00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:13,120 Speaker 3: so under a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, those folks were 68 00:04:13,160 --> 00:04:15,800 Speaker 3: going to be allowed to cast provisional ballot, so that 69 00:04:16,000 --> 00:04:18,800 Speaker 3: the original flawed ballot wasn't going to count, but they 70 00:04:18,839 --> 00:04:22,839 Speaker 3: could go to the polls and vote anyway. And Republicans 71 00:04:22,880 --> 00:04:25,120 Speaker 3: were asking the Supreme Court to intervene and say, no, 72 00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:28,120 Speaker 3: those folks are not allowed to cast provisional ballots. They 73 00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:32,360 Speaker 3: basically lost their chance because they submitted that flawed mail ballot, 74 00:04:32,400 --> 00:04:36,240 Speaker 3: and the Supreme Court said, no, we're not going to intervene. Essentially, 75 00:04:36,279 --> 00:04:38,800 Speaker 3: we're going to let those votes be counted. None of 76 00:04:38,839 --> 00:04:41,480 Speaker 3: the justices dissented. There was a statement by three of 77 00:04:41,520 --> 00:04:44,279 Speaker 3: the conservative justices on some aspects of the case, but 78 00:04:44,880 --> 00:04:48,919 Speaker 3: no disagreement at the Supreme Court about letting those votes count. 79 00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:52,479 Speaker 2: But there was disagreement among the justices earlier in the 80 00:04:52,480 --> 00:04:57,240 Speaker 2: week on Wednesday about Virginia purging voter rolls. That was 81 00:04:57,279 --> 00:04:58,480 Speaker 2: a six to three decision. 82 00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:02,440 Speaker 3: Yeah, well, they're very very different legal issues. The Virginia 83 00:05:02,480 --> 00:05:05,600 Speaker 3: case was all about whether the state could purge its 84 00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:08,839 Speaker 3: voter rules in the run up to the election, just 85 00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:11,240 Speaker 3: before the election, and what it said was an effort 86 00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:14,320 Speaker 3: to remove non citizens from the polls, even though if 87 00:05:14,320 --> 00:05:17,320 Speaker 3: you at least some folks who were citizens were also 88 00:05:17,360 --> 00:05:21,680 Speaker 3: purged from the roles there. The Pennsylvania issue was very, 89 00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:24,080 Speaker 3: very different in that it's the kind of thing we 90 00:05:24,200 --> 00:05:27,520 Speaker 3: might actually see after the election if the election is 91 00:05:27,560 --> 00:05:31,040 Speaker 3: super close. It's a question of how quick will the 92 00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:34,080 Speaker 3: US Supreme Court be to jump in and say, State 93 00:05:34,120 --> 00:05:38,320 Speaker 3: Supreme Court, you misinterpreted your own law and we're going 94 00:05:38,400 --> 00:05:41,640 Speaker 3: to overrule you. And at least this one particular data 95 00:05:41,640 --> 00:05:45,200 Speaker 3: point says at the moment, the US Supreme Court is 96 00:05:45,240 --> 00:05:48,400 Speaker 3: not that interested in telling a state supreme court that 97 00:05:48,440 --> 00:05:51,479 Speaker 3: it's done something wrong and for example, should not have 98 00:05:51,560 --> 00:05:52,680 Speaker 3: counted some votes. 99 00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:56,239 Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Greg, that's Bloomberg. New Supreme Court reporter 100 00:05:56,400 --> 00:05:59,680 Speaker 2: Greg store turning now to the one million dollars a 101 00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:04,359 Speaker 2: day voter giveaway by Elon Musk's pro Trump Superpack that 102 00:06:04,440 --> 00:06:08,159 Speaker 2: the Philadelphia District Attorney is trying to stop as an 103 00:06:08,279 --> 00:06:13,719 Speaker 2: illegal lottery. Here's how Musk has characterized the giveaway. We 104 00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:20,200 Speaker 2: are going to be awarding a million dollars to randomly 105 00:06:20,320 --> 00:06:22,840 Speaker 2: to people who have signed the petition. 106 00:06:23,960 --> 00:06:28,000 Speaker 1: Every day from now until the election. 107 00:06:28,600 --> 00:06:32,080 Speaker 2: But today in court, Musk's lawyer made a surprising admission, 108 00:06:32,440 --> 00:06:35,440 Speaker 2: saying that the winners are not chosen by chance, but 109 00:06:35,560 --> 00:06:39,239 Speaker 2: are selected based on their suitability to be a public 110 00:06:39,279 --> 00:06:44,520 Speaker 2: spokesperson for Musk's political action committee. Bloomberg's Crystal Mesh was 111 00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:47,440 Speaker 2: in the courtroom. Chris tell us about this admission. 112 00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:50,360 Speaker 1: What's clear is that Musk bet on stage, you know, 113 00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:52,919 Speaker 1: these people are being chosen at random, And what's the 114 00:06:53,040 --> 00:06:55,479 Speaker 1: treasurer for the pack that stified today is He said, 115 00:06:55,480 --> 00:06:59,040 Speaker 1: he was a little bit surprised by that because essentially 116 00:06:59,640 --> 00:07:02,440 Speaker 1: what they they are calling it is an employment contract 117 00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:05,560 Speaker 1: that these people are chosen. You know, once they sign 118 00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:08,360 Speaker 1: the position to refer others, they're chosen based on the 119 00:07:08,440 --> 00:07:12,200 Speaker 1: number of people they refer, you know, their social media posts, 120 00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:15,400 Speaker 1: things like that, and it's not because they're just chosen 121 00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:17,920 Speaker 1: their band. They made that pretty clear during the hearing, 122 00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:20,160 Speaker 1: and that's why they say it's not an illegal lottery. 123 00:07:20,200 --> 00:07:23,080 Speaker 1: They're basically say they're employing these people and the work 124 00:07:23,160 --> 00:07:26,080 Speaker 1: that they're doing is making videos, you know, speaking on 125 00:07:26,160 --> 00:07:27,720 Speaker 1: behalf of the pack, that sort of thing. 126 00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:31,080 Speaker 2: I mean, did the people who sign up for this 127 00:07:31,520 --> 00:07:33,440 Speaker 2: know that that's the way they were being chosen? 128 00:07:34,280 --> 00:07:37,040 Speaker 1: Well, it's not clear. I mean, so at least the 129 00:07:37,080 --> 00:07:40,600 Speaker 1: first person was chosen before he was told, he was 130 00:07:40,600 --> 00:07:42,960 Speaker 1: told he was going to appear on stage. He made 131 00:07:42,960 --> 00:07:45,440 Speaker 1: some videos, but he didn't know until that moment when 132 00:07:45,480 --> 00:07:47,880 Speaker 1: he was selected. As to the other winners, it's not 133 00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:50,800 Speaker 1: there how much they knew or what they suspected. But 134 00:07:50,960 --> 00:07:52,600 Speaker 1: they were also told that they were going to appear 135 00:07:52,640 --> 00:07:55,480 Speaker 1: on stage, So the possibility is that they were not 136 00:07:55,560 --> 00:07:58,240 Speaker 1: really in the dark there as to what might be happened. 137 00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:02,880 Speaker 2: Tell us about the testimony of the Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner. 138 00:08:03,440 --> 00:08:06,480 Speaker 1: He said essentially that he've used this as a violation 139 00:08:06,600 --> 00:08:10,680 Speaker 1: of both state's lottery laws and its consumer protection laws, 140 00:08:10,680 --> 00:08:14,120 Speaker 1: mostly because they're taking the individual personal information of the 141 00:08:14,120 --> 00:08:16,320 Speaker 1: people who got the money. He also argues that the 142 00:08:16,320 --> 00:08:19,160 Speaker 1: lottery laws would be violated because they require free things, 143 00:08:19,360 --> 00:08:21,600 Speaker 1: there to be a prize, there to be an element 144 00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:24,400 Speaker 1: of chance, and for there to be compensation, meaning that 145 00:08:24,440 --> 00:08:26,760 Speaker 1: somebody has to pay to get in. He contends that 146 00:08:26,920 --> 00:08:30,160 Speaker 1: to pay that they are giving is their information and 147 00:08:30,160 --> 00:08:32,400 Speaker 1: that it therefore violates the state laws, and the rgues 148 00:08:32,400 --> 00:08:36,240 Speaker 1: they're not protecting their personal information. He said, they're essentially 149 00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:39,520 Speaker 1: trying to buy votes. So it was relatively testy points 150 00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:42,440 Speaker 1: during the cross but it was all in all mostly 151 00:08:42,480 --> 00:08:43,640 Speaker 1: congenialous change. 152 00:08:44,120 --> 00:08:47,880 Speaker 2: What was his reaction to their saying that now this 153 00:08:48,120 --> 00:08:50,560 Speaker 2: is not a lottery, it's not random. 154 00:08:50,920 --> 00:08:54,040 Speaker 1: Well, the Philadelphia DA was incredulous to stay the least. 155 00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:56,880 Speaker 1: He called it one of the more disingenuous arguments he's 156 00:08:56,920 --> 00:09:00,960 Speaker 1: ever heard during his decades of practicing law. He contended 157 00:09:00,960 --> 00:09:03,840 Speaker 1: that it was essentially nonsense. He thought it was outrageous 158 00:09:03,880 --> 00:09:06,080 Speaker 1: to say the legal the most entertaining part of it, 159 00:09:06,320 --> 00:09:08,520 Speaker 1: without a doubt. He was asked to be on to 160 00:09:08,559 --> 00:09:10,960 Speaker 1: testilize and said, he asked you on to twenty sixteen. 161 00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:13,720 Speaker 1: He used to be a mechanic, and he appreciates the vehicle. 162 00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:16,880 Speaker 4: And then he was asked about you know, the political 163 00:09:17,280 --> 00:09:20,720 Speaker 4: accusations that he's doing this simply political point and he said, 164 00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:24,120 Speaker 4: he said Taylor Swift did the same thing. 165 00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:25,640 Speaker 1: He would bring a complain against her. 166 00:09:26,480 --> 00:09:28,880 Speaker 2: Was Elon Musk there, he was supposed to attend, right. 167 00:09:29,559 --> 00:09:32,800 Speaker 1: He did not. And honestly it was kind of interesting 168 00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:35,480 Speaker 1: because you know, the judge said last week was supposed 169 00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:39,880 Speaker 1: to be here, and he clearly was not. He didn't testify. Uh, 170 00:09:39,920 --> 00:09:43,120 Speaker 1: he didn't even There was no real address to that 171 00:09:43,160 --> 00:09:45,679 Speaker 1: other than the DA pointing it out once again. So 172 00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:48,920 Speaker 1: whether the judge, you know, gives that any weight as 173 00:09:48,960 --> 00:09:51,720 Speaker 1: the credibility and that's sort of thing the DA you know, 174 00:09:51,800 --> 00:09:55,000 Speaker 1: implied that, you know, basically they're they're running away from it. 175 00:09:55,160 --> 00:09:57,640 Speaker 1: And the fact that he didn't show up at them not. 176 00:09:57,720 --> 00:10:01,120 Speaker 2: Addressing Thanks so much, Chris, that s Bloomberg Legal reporter 177 00:10:01,280 --> 00:10:04,840 Speaker 2: Chris Domesh. Shortly after the hearing, the judge ruled that 178 00:10:04,880 --> 00:10:09,720 Speaker 2: the million dollar a day sweepstakes can continue through election day. 179 00:10:10,160 --> 00:10:13,160 Speaker 2: He did not give his reasons for that decision, but 180 00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:17,840 Speaker 2: Musk's lawyers in closing arguments had called it core political speech, 181 00:10:18,240 --> 00:10:22,640 Speaker 2: given that participants sign a petition endorsing the US Constitution 182 00:10:23,280 --> 00:10:26,800 Speaker 2: They also said that Krasner's legal bid to shut down 183 00:10:26,800 --> 00:10:30,920 Speaker 2: the sweepstakes under Pennsylvania law was moot because there would 184 00:10:30,960 --> 00:10:35,840 Speaker 2: be no more Pennsylvania winners before the program ends tomorrow. 185 00:10:36,600 --> 00:10:40,520 Speaker 2: The first three winners came from Pennsylvania. Other winners came 186 00:10:40,559 --> 00:10:46,200 Speaker 2: from the battleground states of Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, 187 00:10:46,280 --> 00:10:50,200 Speaker 2: and Michigan. Krasner has said he could still consider criminal 188 00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:54,120 Speaker 2: charges as he's tasked with protecting both lotteries and the 189 00:10:54,160 --> 00:10:57,680 Speaker 2: integrity of elections. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lane Show, 190 00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:02,840 Speaker 2: two prosecutors fired by Florida Governor Ron de Santis are 191 00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:06,760 Speaker 2: asking voters to reinstate them. And I'm June Grosso and 192 00:11:06,800 --> 00:11:10,760 Speaker 2: this is Bloomberg. Florida Governor Ron de Santis removed two 193 00:11:10,960 --> 00:11:15,679 Speaker 2: elected prosecutors from their jobs, saying they refuse to enforce 194 00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:20,960 Speaker 2: the state's laws. Now, Andrew Warren and Monique Warrel, both Democrats, 195 00:11:21,320 --> 00:11:26,200 Speaker 2: are asking voters to reinstate them as district attorneys. Joining 196 00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:30,520 Speaker 2: me is Alex Ebert, Bloomberg Last senior correspondent, So Alex 197 00:11:30,520 --> 00:11:33,160 Speaker 2: tell us about these two former prosecutors who are running 198 00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:37,199 Speaker 2: for reelection despite being ousted by Ron de Santis. 199 00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:41,760 Speaker 5: So, these two former prosecutors, both progressives and both outspoken 200 00:11:41,800 --> 00:11:46,079 Speaker 5: critics of Governor Ron de Santas, were both terminated by 201 00:11:46,080 --> 00:11:50,760 Speaker 5: the governor, he says, for refusing to follow the state law. 202 00:11:50,960 --> 00:11:53,720 Speaker 5: And they say it was all part of their discretion 203 00:11:53,960 --> 00:11:56,160 Speaker 5: and their ability to pick and choose what crimes they're 204 00:11:56,160 --> 00:11:57,360 Speaker 5: going to tackle, and. 205 00:11:57,320 --> 00:12:00,240 Speaker 2: So tell us about the court battles. 206 00:12:00,840 --> 00:12:06,000 Speaker 5: Absolutely, so the court battles ranged from state and federal, 207 00:12:06,160 --> 00:12:09,480 Speaker 5: and they both didn't go the prosecutor's way on the 208 00:12:09,520 --> 00:12:13,679 Speaker 5: state level. Both Andrew Warren and he's in Tampa, and 209 00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:17,840 Speaker 5: Monique Warrel and she's in Orlando. They assued in the 210 00:12:17,880 --> 00:12:21,160 Speaker 5: state Supreme Court seeking a special writ to get them 211 00:12:21,240 --> 00:12:24,559 Speaker 5: back into office, and the State Supreme Court said that 212 00:12:24,840 --> 00:12:27,400 Speaker 5: Warren he waited too long to sue he started in 213 00:12:27,440 --> 00:12:32,720 Speaker 5: feral court and Warrel she didn't have enough back into 214 00:12:33,000 --> 00:12:37,000 Speaker 5: her complaints. Basically, they ruled that Warren, you were too late, 215 00:12:37,160 --> 00:12:41,040 Speaker 5: too short, and Warrel, what you did is arguably within 216 00:12:41,120 --> 00:12:43,080 Speaker 5: the discretion of the governor to get rid of you for. 217 00:12:43,720 --> 00:12:47,559 Speaker 2: And now they're running for the same seats that they 218 00:12:47,600 --> 00:12:49,560 Speaker 2: were ejected from by the governor. 219 00:12:49,960 --> 00:12:52,640 Speaker 5: That's right. They're running for their old jobs back and 220 00:12:52,760 --> 00:12:55,720 Speaker 5: both of them are in districts the Democrats do pretty well, 221 00:12:55,760 --> 00:12:59,520 Speaker 5: and Worrel won a landslide back in twenty twenty. She 222 00:12:59,600 --> 00:13:02,600 Speaker 5: had like sixty percent of the vote. Warren was around 223 00:13:02,720 --> 00:13:06,400 Speaker 5: the mid fifties with his election. And both of them 224 00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:09,679 Speaker 5: are once again running against prosecutors they think they can 225 00:13:09,720 --> 00:13:10,000 Speaker 5: take on. 226 00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:13,800 Speaker 2: And are they running against the prosecutors that DeSantis put 227 00:13:13,840 --> 00:13:17,560 Speaker 2: in place after he removed Warren and Warrel. 228 00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:22,400 Speaker 5: Indeed, yes, it is like they're running against exes right there. 229 00:13:22,760 --> 00:13:28,000 Speaker 5: So in Tampa, we've got Warren running against State Attorney Lopez, 230 00:13:28,000 --> 00:13:31,040 Speaker 5: who we interviewed with for Our Peace and she touts 231 00:13:31,120 --> 00:13:34,200 Speaker 5: all of her great relationships with local law enforcement. She 232 00:13:34,320 --> 00:13:36,800 Speaker 5: was in the office for over a decade and she 233 00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:39,840 Speaker 5: was tapped to be a local judge before being tapped 234 00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:42,520 Speaker 5: once again by De Santas to take over that state 235 00:13:42,559 --> 00:13:45,920 Speaker 5: attorney's office. You know, she said that she's focusing on 236 00:13:46,160 --> 00:13:49,920 Speaker 5: prosecuting more low level crimes and focusing more on the 237 00:13:49,960 --> 00:13:53,280 Speaker 5: interest of victims than Warren did when he was the 238 00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:54,160 Speaker 5: prosecutor there. 239 00:13:54,679 --> 00:13:56,719 Speaker 2: I mean, have there been polls out to see, you know, 240 00:13:56,760 --> 00:13:57,840 Speaker 2: who's doing better? 241 00:13:58,160 --> 00:14:01,079 Speaker 5: Not to my knowledge I got with the attorneys that 242 00:14:01,160 --> 00:14:03,880 Speaker 5: were running here, and they didn't share with me anything. 243 00:14:04,440 --> 00:14:07,920 Speaker 5: What is well known is how sort of striking the 244 00:14:08,040 --> 00:14:10,840 Speaker 5: voting public is here. You know, you have districts that 245 00:14:11,000 --> 00:14:14,600 Speaker 5: lean Democrat, you know, especially in the Orlando area, and 246 00:14:14,720 --> 00:14:18,679 Speaker 5: even though DeSantis was winning across the state, these individuals 247 00:14:18,760 --> 00:14:21,880 Speaker 5: were able to easily win their offices four years ago. 248 00:14:22,680 --> 00:14:26,040 Speaker 2: The amount of money being poured by conservatives into these 249 00:14:26,160 --> 00:14:32,560 Speaker 2: races is just amazing. Backers of Dessanders's replacement for Warren, 250 00:14:32,760 --> 00:14:36,800 Speaker 2: Susie Lopez, have spent two point one million dollars on 251 00:14:37,120 --> 00:14:41,320 Speaker 2: ads and groups supporting the other desand disappointee Andrew Bain 252 00:14:42,320 --> 00:14:45,040 Speaker 2: has spent two point three million dollars. 253 00:14:45,600 --> 00:14:48,960 Speaker 5: It is iepopping. So the amount of money is involved 254 00:14:49,040 --> 00:14:53,120 Speaker 5: in the ninth district race that's Swirl and the thirteenth 255 00:14:53,200 --> 00:14:58,800 Speaker 5: district race that's Warren together, that is more than four 256 00:14:58,960 --> 00:15:02,040 Speaker 5: times as much as you're seeing spent statewide. 257 00:15:02,480 --> 00:15:03,360 Speaker 3: And in those. 258 00:15:03,200 --> 00:15:08,080 Speaker 5: Specific races, the Republican or conservative sides are vastly outspending 259 00:15:08,160 --> 00:15:11,560 Speaker 5: the Democrats. You see figures as much as ten to 260 00:15:11,560 --> 00:15:15,560 Speaker 5: one spent in these races seeking to have these conservatives 261 00:15:15,640 --> 00:15:16,840 Speaker 5: hold on to their posts. 262 00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:21,160 Speaker 2: If they do win, will DeSantis remove them again? 263 00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:24,200 Speaker 5: This is an open question, and it's one of the 264 00:15:24,200 --> 00:15:27,480 Speaker 5: reasons why this becomes such a flashpoint for this broader 265 00:15:27,480 --> 00:15:32,440 Speaker 5: discussion across the country. We've seen states where progressive prosecutors 266 00:15:32,480 --> 00:15:36,240 Speaker 5: were recalled right or they've paced immense criticism and they 267 00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:39,080 Speaker 5: lost their next election. But this is the first and 268 00:15:39,240 --> 00:15:43,520 Speaker 5: second instance where we've seen a governor literally remove the 269 00:15:43,560 --> 00:15:48,360 Speaker 5: progressive prosecutors just because of a difference in discretion. You 270 00:15:48,480 --> 00:15:52,800 Speaker 5: have Warren who had refused to enforce abortion related crimes, 271 00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:56,360 Speaker 5: and you had World whose policies were to seek more 272 00:15:56,400 --> 00:16:02,880 Speaker 5: diversion and more non bail related pre trial release, and 273 00:16:03,080 --> 00:16:05,680 Speaker 5: because of that, DeSantis said that he could remove them. 274 00:16:06,080 --> 00:16:09,160 Speaker 5: National experts in criminal law and others that follow this 275 00:16:09,240 --> 00:16:12,360 Speaker 5: issue closely say that this could be a template for 276 00:16:12,560 --> 00:16:17,240 Speaker 5: other governors or even a Republican president to seek to 277 00:16:17,280 --> 00:16:20,280 Speaker 5: remove or work around local prosecutors. 278 00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:23,680 Speaker 2: You know, there have been different places where these conflicts 279 00:16:23,720 --> 00:16:27,960 Speaker 2: have arisen. Do they only arise when it's liberal prosecutors 280 00:16:28,080 --> 00:16:32,760 Speaker 2: elected in cities in a state with a conservative governor 281 00:16:32,880 --> 00:16:34,000 Speaker 2: or legislature? 282 00:16:34,640 --> 00:16:38,280 Speaker 5: Experts at the ABA discuss this topic with me. They've 283 00:16:38,360 --> 00:16:42,960 Speaker 5: researched this issue really thoroughly, and what they've come across 284 00:16:43,120 --> 00:16:47,720 Speaker 5: is that you're seeing mostly this occur with progressive local 285 00:16:47,760 --> 00:16:53,280 Speaker 5: prosecutors and Republican governors. However, you've seen for years this 286 00:16:53,400 --> 00:16:58,560 Speaker 5: issue where democratic governors or data attorneys general will seek 287 00:16:58,640 --> 00:17:02,280 Speaker 5: to take issue used off the plate of the local 288 00:17:02,320 --> 00:17:07,000 Speaker 5: prosecutors or seek to bring cases that local prosecutors won't bring. 289 00:17:07,400 --> 00:17:12,520 Speaker 5: You've seen things like that in states like Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, 290 00:17:12,880 --> 00:17:16,960 Speaker 5: where liberal executives or other state officials will sort of 291 00:17:17,000 --> 00:17:20,400 Speaker 5: work around the local prosecutors and do things they don't want. 292 00:17:20,640 --> 00:17:23,880 Speaker 5: The most high profile version of this was back after 293 00:17:23,920 --> 00:17:27,919 Speaker 5: the jobs decision came down. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel 294 00:17:28,240 --> 00:17:32,480 Speaker 5: came in and she wrestled power from local prosecutors saying 295 00:17:32,480 --> 00:17:36,000 Speaker 5: that no, you can't bring abortion related crimes. She went 296 00:17:36,040 --> 00:17:39,480 Speaker 5: to court to get a declaration from a state court 297 00:17:39,520 --> 00:17:42,439 Speaker 5: saying no, that's the job of the state attorney general 298 00:17:42,600 --> 00:17:45,159 Speaker 5: and our policies that we're not going to prosecute these. 299 00:17:45,040 --> 00:17:47,639 Speaker 2: Has anything like this happened in Texas? 300 00:17:48,080 --> 00:17:52,080 Speaker 5: Indeed, it's an open question in Texas. My colleague Ryan Otulio, 301 00:17:52,359 --> 00:17:56,040 Speaker 5: the Great correspondent, we have in Texas did a great 302 00:17:56,080 --> 00:17:59,320 Speaker 5: story about this last week on this very issue, where 303 00:17:59,400 --> 00:18:02,879 Speaker 5: there's a job that will be considering whether a desearch 304 00:18:02,920 --> 00:18:07,000 Speaker 5: attorney there should be taken out. There's other issues in 305 00:18:07,040 --> 00:18:11,120 Speaker 5: Georgia surrounding the prosecution of Trump and in Tennessee where 306 00:18:11,160 --> 00:18:15,040 Speaker 5: lawmakers there are actually campaigning and possibly taking out a 307 00:18:15,080 --> 00:18:16,199 Speaker 5: progressive prosecutor. 308 00:18:17,119 --> 00:18:22,320 Speaker 2: These progressive prosecutors were probably elected by voters in a 309 00:18:22,359 --> 00:18:27,240 Speaker 2: city or area that is more liberal than the state. 310 00:18:27,840 --> 00:18:30,000 Speaker 2: How does the governor have the right to take away 311 00:18:30,040 --> 00:18:31,480 Speaker 2: their vote? 312 00:18:31,760 --> 00:18:34,959 Speaker 5: So I had pretty in depth conversations with national experts 313 00:18:35,000 --> 00:18:38,080 Speaker 5: for this story over several months, and the bottom line 314 00:18:38,160 --> 00:18:41,760 Speaker 5: is that there's a gray area here. So prosecutors under 315 00:18:41,760 --> 00:18:45,280 Speaker 5: the law, they have unlimited discretion, but at the same time, 316 00:18:45,600 --> 00:18:49,800 Speaker 5: there's court rulings that say, if you're categorically refusing to 317 00:18:50,000 --> 00:18:53,480 Speaker 5: enforce parts of the state law, that might be reason 318 00:18:53,600 --> 00:18:56,480 Speaker 5: to say that you're not actually doing your job. DeSantis 319 00:18:56,520 --> 00:19:00,280 Speaker 5: is leaning on some Florida president in his state that 320 00:19:00,560 --> 00:19:04,600 Speaker 5: says basically exactly that for a prosecutor that refused to 321 00:19:04,600 --> 00:19:08,600 Speaker 5: prosecute gambling issues. So you know, both sides have pretty 322 00:19:08,640 --> 00:19:12,160 Speaker 5: strong legal arguments, and the question is you know, how 323 00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:15,480 Speaker 5: do we balance that need for, you know, the protection 324 00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:19,359 Speaker 5: of local citizens against crime with the ability of prosecutors 325 00:19:19,400 --> 00:19:23,240 Speaker 5: to innovate and to consider what's the most important thing 326 00:19:23,320 --> 00:19:25,560 Speaker 5: for them to do. Because at the end of the day, 327 00:19:26,119 --> 00:19:29,240 Speaker 5: we can't prosecute all the crimes. The question is can 328 00:19:29,240 --> 00:19:32,440 Speaker 5: we look the other way if certain crimes should be prosecuted. 329 00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:37,800 Speaker 2: Do these cases arise only when a prosecutor says I'm 330 00:19:37,840 --> 00:19:40,760 Speaker 2: not going to prosecute abortion related crimes or I'm not 331 00:19:40,800 --> 00:19:44,720 Speaker 2: going to prosecute gambling related crimes, where a prosecutor is 332 00:19:44,760 --> 00:19:47,040 Speaker 2: sort of, you know, drawing a line in the sand, 333 00:19:47,680 --> 00:19:50,680 Speaker 2: or does it happen because they notice that prosecutors are 334 00:19:50,680 --> 00:19:53,800 Speaker 2: not are not going after certain kinds of criminals. 335 00:19:54,400 --> 00:19:56,560 Speaker 5: That's the distinction between Warren and Worl. 336 00:19:56,720 --> 00:19:56,880 Speaker 6: Right. 337 00:19:57,280 --> 00:20:00,879 Speaker 5: So, Warren is one of dozens of prosecut uters whom, 338 00:20:01,040 --> 00:20:04,600 Speaker 5: after the Job's decision, came out and signed a statement 339 00:20:04,640 --> 00:20:07,399 Speaker 5: saying I'm not going to prosecute abortion related crimes. And 340 00:20:07,560 --> 00:20:10,760 Speaker 5: the interesting thing for Warren's perspective is there have been 341 00:20:10,800 --> 00:20:15,840 Speaker 5: no crimes like that committed inside of his district, you know, 342 00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:19,080 Speaker 5: And both Republicans and Democrats will point to that but 343 00:20:19,160 --> 00:20:22,520 Speaker 5: regardless that categoric Cobar got him in trouble with war. 344 00:20:22,640 --> 00:20:26,399 Speaker 5: What's different the Orlando attorney she got in trouble because 345 00:20:26,400 --> 00:20:31,040 Speaker 5: of her policies, which DeSantis said, reduced sentences at jails, 346 00:20:31,359 --> 00:20:34,679 Speaker 5: so there were fewer people being jailed, and because criminals 347 00:20:34,760 --> 00:20:37,800 Speaker 5: that you know, normally would have been locked up prior 348 00:20:37,840 --> 00:20:40,800 Speaker 5: to trial, you know, because of her policies were able 349 00:20:40,840 --> 00:20:43,840 Speaker 5: to be outside of the carstural system at the time 350 00:20:44,240 --> 00:20:47,160 Speaker 5: and had committed crimes. And so he pointed to that 351 00:20:47,640 --> 00:20:51,080 Speaker 5: as a version of incompetence, while she pointed to that 352 00:20:51,600 --> 00:20:54,000 Speaker 5: as something that she was trying to implement with her 353 00:20:54,040 --> 00:20:57,879 Speaker 5: discretion to improve the local criminal justice system. 354 00:20:58,280 --> 00:21:02,040 Speaker 2: Tell us about these legislation in twenty seven states that 355 00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:03,400 Speaker 2: the bills that they filed. 356 00:21:03,880 --> 00:21:06,320 Speaker 5: This was a topic that I hadn't expected to come 357 00:21:06,400 --> 00:21:08,399 Speaker 5: up when I was looking into this. You know, often 358 00:21:08,560 --> 00:21:13,040 Speaker 5: at Blomberg WA we do sidetrack sort of legal and 359 00:21:13,160 --> 00:21:16,800 Speaker 5: legislative analysis to look at this. But a law professor 360 00:21:16,840 --> 00:21:19,600 Speaker 5: brought this up and said, there are twenty seven states 361 00:21:19,960 --> 00:21:24,760 Speaker 5: where legislators are seeking to improve governor's ability to remove 362 00:21:25,200 --> 00:21:28,199 Speaker 5: local prosecutors. You know, many states they're not going to 363 00:21:28,240 --> 00:21:31,240 Speaker 5: have the ability to do that unless there's some sort 364 00:21:31,280 --> 00:21:36,000 Speaker 5: of truly bad ethics issue or competence issue, or, as 365 00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:39,840 Speaker 5: the experts told me, issues revolving around you know, drug 366 00:21:39,920 --> 00:21:43,680 Speaker 5: use or alcoholism in an office. Right, those are instances 367 00:21:43,680 --> 00:21:46,040 Speaker 5: where we've seen these things happen in the past. But 368 00:21:46,119 --> 00:21:51,360 Speaker 5: lawmakers here, typically Republicans, they're looking to empower the governors 369 00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:54,600 Speaker 5: to remove people the same way that Desantist did. And 370 00:21:54,640 --> 00:21:57,560 Speaker 5: that's something that in Project twenty twenty five to see 371 00:21:57,560 --> 00:22:01,800 Speaker 5: the Heritage Foundation encouraging the next president of the United 372 00:22:01,800 --> 00:22:05,840 Speaker 5: States to consider doing as well. Their argument is, you know, 373 00:22:05,880 --> 00:22:09,200 Speaker 5: if you're not enforcing all the laws in a particular jurisdiction, 374 00:22:09,440 --> 00:22:12,240 Speaker 5: they're getting enforced in other parts of the state, that's 375 00:22:12,320 --> 00:22:16,320 Speaker 5: not equal protection under the state constitution or federal constitution, 376 00:22:16,720 --> 00:22:18,840 Speaker 5: because you could be you know, put in jail for 377 00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:21,800 Speaker 5: a crime in one area and not at another. Whereas 378 00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:24,359 Speaker 5: you know, the people that are criticizing these lawmakers, they 379 00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:29,119 Speaker 5: say this is actually undoing the votes of local voters 380 00:22:29,240 --> 00:22:32,439 Speaker 5: who want to have their policies followed and the crimes 381 00:22:32,480 --> 00:22:35,399 Speaker 5: they think most important, you know, be the emphasis of 382 00:22:35,480 --> 00:22:36,399 Speaker 5: their state attorneys. 383 00:22:36,560 --> 00:22:39,119 Speaker 2: And you talk to someone who said there was a 384 00:22:39,160 --> 00:22:45,159 Speaker 2: concern about prosecutors worrying about keeping their jobs instead of 385 00:22:45,160 --> 00:22:47,000 Speaker 2: worrying about the job that they're doing. 386 00:22:47,960 --> 00:22:52,920 Speaker 5: Professor Ellen Yarshevsky over at Hofstra Law School, she's one 387 00:22:52,920 --> 00:22:56,480 Speaker 5: of the co chairs of this American Bar Association Criminal 388 00:22:56,600 --> 00:23:01,440 Speaker 5: Law Section that is studying prosecutorial and what she said 389 00:23:01,480 --> 00:23:05,640 Speaker 5: is the main concern is that instead of sentencing how 390 00:23:05,680 --> 00:23:08,960 Speaker 5: they should based on the local rules and you know, 391 00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:12,439 Speaker 5: what they're seeing at their office or filing charges that 392 00:23:12,560 --> 00:23:17,920 Speaker 5: properly align with their priorities, Prosecutors whether they're Democrats or Republicans, 393 00:23:18,240 --> 00:23:20,800 Speaker 5: now might have to look over their shoulders and think, 394 00:23:21,160 --> 00:23:24,000 Speaker 5: what is the governor going to think about this instead 395 00:23:24,000 --> 00:23:26,680 Speaker 5: of what is the best thing for my local community? 396 00:23:27,119 --> 00:23:30,639 Speaker 5: You know. She said that extends from bail, to sentencing, 397 00:23:30,760 --> 00:23:34,280 Speaker 5: to charging or going to over or under charge instead 398 00:23:34,359 --> 00:23:37,679 Speaker 5: of using their own discretion. She's worried and folks at 399 00:23:37,720 --> 00:23:40,720 Speaker 5: the ABA are also worried that we're going to see 400 00:23:40,720 --> 00:23:44,040 Speaker 5: prosecutors now think first, what would the governor want? 401 00:23:44,280 --> 00:23:46,760 Speaker 2: Thanks so much for being on the show, Alex. That's 402 00:23:46,800 --> 00:23:51,439 Speaker 2: Alex Ebert Bloomberg Laws, Senior correspondent. Coming up next. The 403 00:23:51,720 --> 00:23:54,960 Speaker 2: justices here arguments over the False Claims Act. This is 404 00:23:54,960 --> 00:23:59,520 Speaker 2: Bloomberg today the justice is considered what a government dollar is. 405 00:24:00,160 --> 00:24:05,439 Speaker 2: Federal Communications Commission fraud case. Whistleblower Todd Heath filed a 406 00:24:05,480 --> 00:24:09,119 Speaker 2: false CLAIMSAC suit in two thousand and eight alleging that 407 00:24:09,160 --> 00:24:15,560 Speaker 2: telecommunications provider Wisconsin Bell overcharged schools and libraries for services 408 00:24:15,720 --> 00:24:19,560 Speaker 2: under the FCC's E rate program, resulting in the fund 409 00:24:19,600 --> 00:24:23,600 Speaker 2: paying out more money. But Wisconsin Bell argues the government 410 00:24:23,760 --> 00:24:27,239 Speaker 2: couldn't have been harmed by the alleged misconduct because the 411 00:24:27,280 --> 00:24:31,879 Speaker 2: fund is financed by the telecommunications providers and not the 412 00:24:31,880 --> 00:24:35,520 Speaker 2: federal government. Joining me is Joe Whitley, a partner at 413 00:24:35,520 --> 00:24:38,960 Speaker 2: Womble Bond Dickinson. He's the former US attorney for the 414 00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:42,520 Speaker 2: Middle and Northern Districts of Georgia. So tell us about 415 00:24:42,520 --> 00:24:43,240 Speaker 2: the issue here. 416 00:24:43,680 --> 00:24:47,360 Speaker 6: This is the false Claims AC case being brought by 417 00:24:47,720 --> 00:24:51,160 Speaker 6: a relator by the name of Todd Heath, and mister 418 00:24:51,240 --> 00:24:54,840 Speaker 6: Heath followed this action in the name of the United States. 419 00:24:55,200 --> 00:24:59,960 Speaker 6: That's how the false Claims statute works. And before he filed, 420 00:25:00,400 --> 00:25:04,000 Speaker 6: he met with the United States on this filing in 421 00:25:04,040 --> 00:25:08,480 Speaker 6: the United States at that time decided not to intervene 422 00:25:08,560 --> 00:25:11,960 Speaker 6: and join mister Heath in the action. So this action 423 00:25:12,200 --> 00:25:15,640 Speaker 6: then was filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and 424 00:25:15,720 --> 00:25:19,040 Speaker 6: a district court there in the Eastern District granted summary 425 00:25:19,160 --> 00:25:24,199 Speaker 6: judgment to Wisconsin Bell and mister Heath, the relator in 426 00:25:24,280 --> 00:25:28,919 Speaker 6: this case. Appealed this case to the Seventh Circuit, and 427 00:25:29,000 --> 00:25:33,919 Speaker 6: the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, But then Wisconsin 428 00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:37,840 Speaker 6: Bell appealed this case to the US Supreme Court. 429 00:25:38,040 --> 00:25:43,439 Speaker 2: Wisconsin Bell is saying that the government doesn't provide money 430 00:25:43,480 --> 00:25:48,840 Speaker 2: to the company that administers the Universal Service Fund. When 431 00:25:48,840 --> 00:25:51,520 Speaker 2: the post office delivers a birthday card with a twenty 432 00:25:51,560 --> 00:25:55,119 Speaker 2: dollars bill inside, no one would doubt that Grandma, not 433 00:25:55,280 --> 00:25:59,040 Speaker 2: the government, provides the cash. Explain their argument correct. 434 00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:03,600 Speaker 6: They're saying that the money that is being distributed, or 435 00:26:03,640 --> 00:26:06,360 Speaker 6: the funds that they have in the account they provide 436 00:26:06,400 --> 00:26:10,040 Speaker 6: money to, is not federal money. In other words, going back, 437 00:26:10,320 --> 00:26:13,800 Speaker 6: I could go back to eighteen sixty three when the 438 00:26:14,280 --> 00:26:18,280 Speaker 6: Congress passed the first version of the False Claims Act. 439 00:26:19,320 --> 00:26:22,760 Speaker 6: It dealt exclusively with federal money, in other words, money 440 00:26:22,760 --> 00:26:26,359 Speaker 6: that had been appropriated by Congress for the provisions that 441 00:26:26,359 --> 00:26:29,480 Speaker 6: were needed during the Civil War. There was a lot 442 00:26:29,520 --> 00:26:34,399 Speaker 6: of corruption happening in terms of government contractors providing materials 443 00:26:34,440 --> 00:26:37,600 Speaker 6: to the Union government, the United States government during the 444 00:26:37,640 --> 00:26:40,600 Speaker 6: Civil War. So at that time that was what it 445 00:26:40,720 --> 00:26:45,479 Speaker 6: is contemplated to cover, only moneys appropriated by Congress. And 446 00:26:45,520 --> 00:26:48,919 Speaker 6: in this circumstance, Wisconsin bella is saying, you know, in 447 00:26:49,040 --> 00:26:52,760 Speaker 6: present day, all of the money that's in the account, 448 00:26:52,840 --> 00:26:58,640 Speaker 6: the distributed out or provided reimbursement to telecommunications providers is 449 00:26:58,720 --> 00:27:03,240 Speaker 6: not public money, not appropriated by the Congress, and it's 450 00:27:03,280 --> 00:27:05,720 Speaker 6: not money from the US Treasury. 451 00:27:06,240 --> 00:27:09,919 Speaker 2: And does the government agree with Wisconsin Bell or the 452 00:27:09,960 --> 00:27:10,400 Speaker 2: other side. 453 00:27:10,560 --> 00:27:14,640 Speaker 6: No, the government is taking the position that this provision 454 00:27:14,760 --> 00:27:19,679 Speaker 6: could reach these funds and that there could be actionable 455 00:27:19,760 --> 00:27:25,000 Speaker 6: cases against telecommunication providers if they don't provide. In other words, 456 00:27:25,000 --> 00:27:30,000 Speaker 6: the issue is was Wisconsin Bell providing the lowest possible 457 00:27:30,119 --> 00:27:34,560 Speaker 6: rate to schools and libraries and the relator says they 458 00:27:34,600 --> 00:27:39,560 Speaker 6: were not providing lowest corresponding price also known as LCP 459 00:27:40,720 --> 00:27:43,439 Speaker 6: under the c rate program. So that there is at 460 00:27:43,520 --> 00:27:47,560 Speaker 6: least some suggestion that the government sees this, I would 461 00:27:47,600 --> 00:27:51,640 Speaker 6: think as an opportunity to reach other conduct where there 462 00:27:51,640 --> 00:27:54,679 Speaker 6: could be does an argument the government would be making 463 00:27:54,720 --> 00:27:58,120 Speaker 6: that this does reach the conduct to Wisconsin. 464 00:27:57,560 --> 00:28:00,000 Speaker 2: Bell is that also the argument of the real. 465 00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:04,000 Speaker 6: Yes, the relator believes that the funds are from the 466 00:28:04,080 --> 00:28:07,119 Speaker 6: US Treasury in the sense that some portion of the 467 00:28:07,160 --> 00:28:12,080 Speaker 6: funds are fines, delinquent payments, criminal find some small amount 468 00:28:12,119 --> 00:28:15,480 Speaker 6: of money actually in the fund is from arguably from 469 00:28:15,480 --> 00:28:19,480 Speaker 6: the government. Relater is also arguing that the fund is 470 00:28:19,520 --> 00:28:23,119 Speaker 6: also the E rate program is acting as an agent 471 00:28:24,080 --> 00:28:27,639 Speaker 6: of the United States under this program because of the 472 00:28:27,680 --> 00:28:33,919 Speaker 6: provisions are legislated and are regulated. And Congress is also 473 00:28:34,040 --> 00:28:36,840 Speaker 6: involved because you know where as they set up this 474 00:28:36,920 --> 00:28:42,480 Speaker 6: program via the regulations that the FCC created, and they 475 00:28:42,560 --> 00:28:48,040 Speaker 6: believe that the position of the Fifth Circuit is incorrect 476 00:28:48,200 --> 00:28:52,760 Speaker 6: and that this is covered by the legislation and that 477 00:28:52,800 --> 00:28:56,840 Speaker 6: this should be conduct that falls within the false Claimed Act. 478 00:28:57,360 --> 00:28:59,360 Speaker 2: I mean, which argument do you think is better? 479 00:29:00,400 --> 00:29:03,320 Speaker 6: I have a bit of a bias having been a 480 00:29:03,360 --> 00:29:06,840 Speaker 6: federal prosecutor and having been a US attorney in two 481 00:29:06,840 --> 00:29:10,800 Speaker 6: different offices here in Georgia, Atlanta and Macon, and then 482 00:29:10,840 --> 00:29:13,280 Speaker 6: also serving in the Department of Justice and a number 483 00:29:13,320 --> 00:29:17,160 Speaker 6: of high level positions. I would prefer that this is 484 00:29:17,200 --> 00:29:20,800 Speaker 6: a direction that we should go in, that this would 485 00:29:20,800 --> 00:29:24,040 Speaker 6: be legislated by Congress. At Congress take a look at 486 00:29:24,480 --> 00:29:26,960 Speaker 6: the reach of the False Claims Act, and if Congress 487 00:29:27,000 --> 00:29:30,640 Speaker 6: deems there be a need to expand coverage here under 488 00:29:30,640 --> 00:29:32,920 Speaker 6: the False Claim Act, so the E rate program would 489 00:29:32,960 --> 00:29:36,160 Speaker 6: be covered, I would suggest that would be a better path, 490 00:29:36,240 --> 00:29:41,040 Speaker 6: because there is some suggestion that if this case were 491 00:29:41,080 --> 00:29:44,800 Speaker 6: to be resolved in favor of the relator, relators arguments 492 00:29:45,400 --> 00:29:51,000 Speaker 6: that False Claims Act cases could be brought against the 493 00:29:51,080 --> 00:29:55,480 Speaker 6: Fannie May and Freddie mac programs, which are mortgage programs 494 00:29:55,480 --> 00:30:00,560 Speaker 6: that provide insurance for mortgages in situations like that. This 495 00:30:00,640 --> 00:30:03,440 Speaker 6: could also perhaps the Boy Scouts that are set up 496 00:30:03,520 --> 00:30:07,720 Speaker 6: under federal law, and the Veterans Affairs veterments of foreign wars. 497 00:30:08,040 --> 00:30:10,800 Speaker 6: Perhaps there is another group that could be covered, and 498 00:30:11,120 --> 00:30:14,040 Speaker 6: the damages in these cases are extreme. In other words, 499 00:30:14,040 --> 00:30:17,360 Speaker 6: if you're a mortgage company and you're using Fanny May 500 00:30:17,440 --> 00:30:21,440 Speaker 6: or Freddie mack Is for insurance on your mortgage, if 501 00:30:21,480 --> 00:30:24,480 Speaker 6: you provide information that somehow is deemed to be faulse, 502 00:30:24,920 --> 00:30:28,800 Speaker 6: you might be facing trebled damages which could be substantial, 503 00:30:29,520 --> 00:30:32,480 Speaker 6: and then fines of five thousand dollars to eleven thousand 504 00:30:32,560 --> 00:30:36,960 Speaker 6: dollars per claim that you might have a file with 505 00:30:37,040 --> 00:30:39,840 Speaker 6: the government. Arguably, so, I just I don't think any 506 00:30:39,840 --> 00:30:43,000 Speaker 6: of this was contemplated, and I guess maybe some thought 507 00:30:43,040 --> 00:30:45,560 Speaker 6: about this kind of original intent, if you will, and 508 00:30:45,640 --> 00:30:49,160 Speaker 6: the legislation going back to Lincoln and Congress in eighteen 509 00:30:49,240 --> 00:30:52,440 Speaker 6: sixty three. I just believe that this is a step 510 00:30:52,520 --> 00:30:56,760 Speaker 6: beyond what is contemplated under the law, and that should 511 00:30:56,800 --> 00:31:00,600 Speaker 6: be legislated by Congress, and then the FCC could provide 512 00:31:00,680 --> 00:31:05,320 Speaker 6: regulatory coverage for this. But I think it's a bit 513 00:31:05,400 --> 00:31:08,560 Speaker 6: it's a step too far, in my opinion. I'm taking them. 514 00:31:08,680 --> 00:31:12,360 Speaker 6: I believe we shouldn't have the Supreme Court or any 515 00:31:12,360 --> 00:31:15,800 Speaker 6: court legislating and effect I think that's what the Circuit 516 00:31:15,840 --> 00:31:17,280 Speaker 6: Court did in the Seventh Circuit. 517 00:31:17,400 --> 00:31:20,760 Speaker 2: So how do you think the Supreme Court will rule? 518 00:31:21,280 --> 00:31:25,040 Speaker 6: Well, I think looking at the most recent Chevron case 519 00:31:25,200 --> 00:31:27,760 Speaker 6: and how the Chevron case came out in the words 520 00:31:27,800 --> 00:31:31,800 Speaker 6: that Chevron had been a doctrine that most administrative lawyers 521 00:31:31,880 --> 00:31:34,600 Speaker 6: kind of took as a given in their analysis of 522 00:31:34,800 --> 00:31:40,520 Speaker 6: administration or administrative regulations, and I think that that is 523 00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:43,640 Speaker 6: a harbinger for this case. I think the Supreme Court 524 00:31:43,720 --> 00:31:48,200 Speaker 6: will well side with the Fifth circuit. In terms of 525 00:31:48,240 --> 00:31:50,880 Speaker 6: this circuit split, I think they will say that the 526 00:31:50,960 --> 00:31:55,760 Speaker 6: reach of the False Claims Act does not reach circumstances 527 00:31:55,840 --> 00:31:58,920 Speaker 6: like this where the funds are not government funds, and 528 00:31:59,000 --> 00:32:03,720 Speaker 6: will suggest that the role of Congress should be part 529 00:32:03,760 --> 00:32:07,600 Speaker 6: of this in our separation of power's government. And if 530 00:32:07,640 --> 00:32:11,200 Speaker 6: Congress deems that this re should that rea should the 531 00:32:11,360 --> 00:32:15,360 Speaker 6: false claims actually cover this particular fund, that that should 532 00:32:15,400 --> 00:32:19,720 Speaker 6: be legislated. And I think in a six three decision, 533 00:32:20,680 --> 00:32:23,520 Speaker 6: I can see the there may be being a split 534 00:32:25,200 --> 00:32:28,200 Speaker 6: in the in the justices, or it could be you know, 535 00:32:28,280 --> 00:32:30,880 Speaker 6: they'll be they'll all agree and have a nine to 536 00:32:30,920 --> 00:32:35,160 Speaker 6: o decision. But I don't see this as you know, 537 00:32:35,200 --> 00:32:39,760 Speaker 6: a political case. But I do see it as you know, 538 00:32:39,960 --> 00:32:43,480 Speaker 6: what what role do relators have and what roles do 539 00:32:44,480 --> 00:32:48,400 Speaker 6: plans have in in sort of structuring the law here. 540 00:32:48,440 --> 00:32:53,200 Speaker 6: And I think that the prevailing provision or prevailing opinion 541 00:32:53,960 --> 00:32:58,240 Speaker 6: is that this this, this, uh, this action or is 542 00:32:58,320 --> 00:33:01,160 Speaker 6: not supportable and the False Claims Act. 543 00:33:02,120 --> 00:33:04,440 Speaker 2: Do we know how much money is involved here? 544 00:33:04,840 --> 00:33:07,520 Speaker 6: I think that that would be the determine in the 545 00:33:07,600 --> 00:33:10,680 Speaker 6: litigation in court, but it would be it I believe 546 00:33:10,680 --> 00:33:14,280 Speaker 6: in the tens of millions of dollars that Wisconsin Bell 547 00:33:14,480 --> 00:33:18,320 Speaker 6: might be arguably liable for. I can't give you an 548 00:33:18,360 --> 00:33:23,719 Speaker 6: exact amount, but obviously Wisconsin Bell would not be litigating 549 00:33:23,760 --> 00:33:27,520 Speaker 6: this unless they thought it merited. They're doing so, and 550 00:33:27,560 --> 00:33:30,640 Speaker 6: I think they've done a good job. Nonetheless, we're talking 551 00:33:30,680 --> 00:33:33,840 Speaker 6: about millions of dollars not only in this case, but 552 00:33:33,960 --> 00:33:37,320 Speaker 6: in many, many other cases it could be brought simming 553 00:33:37,400 --> 00:33:40,240 Speaker 6: the court takes a more expansive view of the False 554 00:33:40,280 --> 00:33:40,880 Speaker 6: Claims Act. 555 00:33:41,680 --> 00:33:44,760 Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me. That's Joe Whitley of 556 00:33:44,840 --> 00:33:48,400 Speaker 2: Womblebond Dickinson. And that's it for this edition of the 557 00:33:48,400 --> 00:33:51,720 Speaker 2: Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest 558 00:33:51,760 --> 00:33:54,680 Speaker 2: legal news by subscribing and listening to the show on 559 00:33:54,760 --> 00:33:59,080 Speaker 2: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, 560 00:33:59,160 --> 00:34:03,000 Speaker 2: slash Law. I'm June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg