WEBVTT - Court Refuses to Consider Challenge to Racist Cases

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.200 --> 0:00:11.840
<v Speaker 1>The Insular Cases are a series of rulings from the

0:00:11.920 --> 0:00:16.599
<v Speaker 1>nineteen hundreds establishing that people in US territories don't have

0:00:16.680 --> 0:00:20.640
<v Speaker 1>the same constitutional rights as other Americans. The cases are

0:00:20.680 --> 0:00:24.840
<v Speaker 1>almost universally described as racist, even by some Supreme Court

0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:28.920
<v Speaker 1>justices in a concurrence. In a case last year, Justice

0:00:28.960 --> 0:00:32.640
<v Speaker 1>Neil Gorstch called for the Insular cases to be overruled,

0:00:32.920 --> 0:00:37.200
<v Speaker 1>describing them as shameful and based on ugly racial stereotypes.

0:00:37.960 --> 0:00:42.120
<v Speaker 1>If that's true, why shouldn't we just admit that cases

0:00:42.240 --> 0:00:47.040
<v Speaker 1>were incorrectly decided? Fast forward to this Monday. Civil rights

0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:50.520
<v Speaker 1>groups urged the Court to take a case involving birthright

0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:55.400
<v Speaker 1>citizenship that could undo the Insular cases, but the Justices

0:00:55.480 --> 0:00:59.040
<v Speaker 1>turned the case down. My guest is and Lofasso, a

0:00:59.120 --> 0:01:03.320
<v Speaker 1>constitutional a professor at the West Virginia University College of Law,

0:01:03.680 --> 0:01:07.240
<v Speaker 1>and tell us about this challenge brought by three Samoans

0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:10.679
<v Speaker 1>who live in Utah. So basically, the three Samoans and

0:01:10.720 --> 0:01:14.640
<v Speaker 1>a nonprofit organization of saying that they're entitled to birthright

0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>citizenizenship by virtue of the fact that they were born

0:01:18.200 --> 0:01:22.880
<v Speaker 1>in Samoa. After the Civil War, the Fourteenth made clear

0:01:23.080 --> 0:01:27.120
<v Speaker 1>under the Citizenship Clause that anyone born in the United

0:01:27.160 --> 0:01:31.080
<v Speaker 1>States is entitled to birthright citizenship and was really initially

0:01:31.080 --> 0:01:35.600
<v Speaker 1>intended to make sure that former slaves were absolutely citizens.

0:01:35.600 --> 0:01:37.679
<v Speaker 1>It is til to all the rights of a citizen.

0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:43.600
<v Speaker 1>Then what happened was after the Spanish American War, the

0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:49.200
<v Speaker 1>United States acquired territories that overseas, and there were series

0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:52.120
<v Speaker 1>of cases at the turn of the century. Some say six,

0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:54.960
<v Speaker 1>some say nine, some say more than that, but in

0:01:55.040 --> 0:01:59.120
<v Speaker 1>any event, a small series of cases that stated that

0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:01.919
<v Speaker 1>this was not a seraily the case and that these

0:02:01.960 --> 0:02:06.600
<v Speaker 1>overseas territories that were acquired specifically in the Spanish American War,

0:02:07.000 --> 0:02:10.359
<v Speaker 1>the United States was allowed to govern them as colonies.

0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:14.720
<v Speaker 1>And this is what many people believe was reading the

0:02:15.120 --> 0:02:20.520
<v Speaker 1>power to colonize into the United States Constitution. So they

0:02:20.600 --> 0:02:23.920
<v Speaker 1>want these cases to be overturned. So it's clear that

0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:26.920
<v Speaker 1>the United States doesn't have this power to colonize the

0:02:26.960 --> 0:02:30.680
<v Speaker 1>fact that they are not US citizens, meaning they can't vote,

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 1>they can't serve on juries or run for state or

0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:38.959
<v Speaker 1>federal office. So these insular cases, Conservative Justice Neil Gorcich

0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:44.200
<v Speaker 1>and liberal Justice Sonya Soto Mayor have both expressed concern

0:02:44.440 --> 0:02:48.440
<v Speaker 1>about the Insular cases remaining on the books, but neither

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:52.160
<v Speaker 1>of them dissented here. Well, there's a couple of things

0:02:52.200 --> 0:02:54.320
<v Speaker 1>going on here. They may not have had the votes

0:02:54.560 --> 0:02:58.280
<v Speaker 1>to overturn the precedent, so why even go there. There

0:02:58.280 --> 0:03:00.840
<v Speaker 1>were also a lot of problems with this case. Samoa

0:03:01.080 --> 0:03:05.880
<v Speaker 1>is very unique. It wasn't part of the original Insular cases.

0:03:06.520 --> 0:03:10.000
<v Speaker 1>This case can be decided without referring to them, so

0:03:10.080 --> 0:03:13.600
<v Speaker 1>they could decide this case purely on constitutional grounds and

0:03:13.639 --> 0:03:17.000
<v Speaker 1>not go to be insular cases. There is no split

0:03:17.040 --> 0:03:20.360
<v Speaker 1>in the circuits on this issue either. Six courts have

0:03:20.440 --> 0:03:24.120
<v Speaker 1>looked at it, all six have agreed. The second of all,

0:03:24.280 --> 0:03:27.640
<v Speaker 1>when the Supreme Court takes a case, it doesn't just

0:03:27.760 --> 0:03:31.160
<v Speaker 1>take it because it thinks it's an important federal issue.

0:03:31.400 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 1>There's what's a good vehicle for deciding this case. That

0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:39.160
<v Speaker 1>means there aren't any extraneous issues that could prevent them

0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:41.920
<v Speaker 1>from coming into a conclusion because they don't even have

0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:44.720
<v Speaker 1>to look at the Insular cases to decide this. So

0:03:45.040 --> 0:03:48.360
<v Speaker 1>that's why it would be considered a poor vehicle for

0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 1>revisiting the Insular cases. Politics are also involved here. Might

0:03:53.720 --> 0:03:58.520
<v Speaker 1>that be another reason the court didn't take this case. Currently,

0:03:59.040 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>they're negotiatings between the United States and Samoa about how

0:04:02.280 --> 0:04:05.320
<v Speaker 1>to progress preserve the Samoan way of life, which I

0:04:05.400 --> 0:04:08.760
<v Speaker 1>hope I'm not mispronouncing this, but it's called fa Samoa,

0:04:08.880 --> 0:04:12.839
<v Speaker 1>and so there's a lot of concern among the Samoans

0:04:12.880 --> 0:04:16.520
<v Speaker 1>and the government of Samoa that a birthright citizenship might

0:04:16.640 --> 0:04:19.960
<v Speaker 1>disrupt their way of life. The Samoan people right now

0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:22.479
<v Speaker 1>and have not reached a consensus as to whether or

0:04:22.520 --> 0:04:27.440
<v Speaker 1>not they want to have citizenship. And there's a streamlined

0:04:27.480 --> 0:04:32.480
<v Speaker 1>process for people born in Samoa to become US citizens,

0:04:32.560 --> 0:04:35.920
<v Speaker 1>So that means that many Samoans might say, well, we

0:04:36.000 --> 0:04:38.919
<v Speaker 1>still don't want the birthright. If an individual wants to

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:41.000
<v Speaker 1>become a U. S. Citizen, they can, It will be

0:04:41.120 --> 0:04:44.680
<v Speaker 1>very easy. And I know many of us in the

0:04:44.760 --> 0:04:47.280
<v Speaker 1>United States might sing, why would anyone not want the

0:04:47.320 --> 0:04:51.040
<v Speaker 1>American citizens But some people don't, so I think that's

0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:53.200
<v Speaker 1>also important to respect, and that was one of the

0:04:53.200 --> 0:04:55.359
<v Speaker 1>points that the brief for the Samoan government made, is like,

0:04:55.560 --> 0:04:58.719
<v Speaker 1>why would we want this court by judicial fiat to

0:04:58.880 --> 0:05:03.560
<v Speaker 1>impose U. S citizenship on every person born in Samoa,

0:05:04.000 --> 0:05:07.760
<v Speaker 1>where right now there is not a political consensus, so

0:05:07.839 --> 0:05:11.000
<v Speaker 1>it would almost be colonization in a different way by

0:05:11.080 --> 0:05:15.039
<v Speaker 1>judicial fiat saying now you are automatically U s citizens,

0:05:15.080 --> 0:05:19.520
<v Speaker 1>and so there is this political dimension that perhaps the

0:05:19.960 --> 0:05:23.799
<v Speaker 1>Court didn't want to wait in on. Everything I've read

0:05:23.880 --> 0:05:28.960
<v Speaker 1>about the Insular cases says racist. Course, it said ugly

0:05:29.080 --> 0:05:32.159
<v Speaker 1>racial stereotypes. I mean, some of the language in some

0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:36.000
<v Speaker 1>of those cases is sort of astonishing. Isn't that something

0:05:36.000 --> 0:05:41.720
<v Speaker 1>that the Supreme Court should want to overrule? Yeah, it should,

0:05:41.839 --> 0:05:44.680
<v Speaker 1>But we don't want the Supreme Court to overreach on

0:05:44.720 --> 0:05:47.600
<v Speaker 1>an issue because even though in this case it might

0:05:47.640 --> 0:05:50.039
<v Speaker 1>be a good thing, we don't want them to then

0:05:50.120 --> 0:05:53.680
<v Speaker 1>feel emboldened to overreach. I mean, especially they might be

0:05:53.800 --> 0:05:57.840
<v Speaker 1>gun shy after what happened last term where they didn't

0:05:57.880 --> 0:06:00.960
<v Speaker 1>have to reach Row versus way at all. I mean

0:06:01.000 --> 0:06:05.440
<v Speaker 1>Justice Roberts made that clears concurrence in Daubs, and yet

0:06:05.480 --> 0:06:10.640
<v Speaker 1>they overturned Roversus Wade. They got tremendous criticism. Many people

0:06:10.760 --> 0:06:13.719
<v Speaker 1>are now more than ever, are saying that the Court

0:06:13.760 --> 0:06:17.719
<v Speaker 1>is illegitimate. So it's really important for the courts to

0:06:17.880 --> 0:06:22.760
<v Speaker 1>take a more conservative. By conservative, I don't mean politically conservative.

0:06:22.800 --> 0:06:25.239
<v Speaker 1>But what I mean by that approach is a more

0:06:25.440 --> 0:06:29.440
<v Speaker 1>cautious approach. If they're going to undo precedent, they have

0:06:29.560 --> 0:06:32.120
<v Speaker 1>to do it when the time is right, when it's

0:06:32.120 --> 0:06:36.760
<v Speaker 1>squarely presented. Otherwise, even if it's it's welcome at that moment,

0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:39.760
<v Speaker 1>it allows them to do it in other times when

0:06:39.960 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 1>it's much more unpopular. For example, in Daubed, the co

0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:46.839
<v Speaker 1>counsel in the case said, the Supreme Court's refusal to

0:06:46.920 --> 0:06:51.520
<v Speaker 1>reconsider the insular cases today continues to reflect that equal

0:06:51.600 --> 0:06:54.200
<v Speaker 1>justice under law does not mean the same for the

0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:58.120
<v Speaker 1>three point six million residents of US territories as it

0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:01.960
<v Speaker 1>does for everyone else. Does he have a point? Yeah,

0:07:02.000 --> 0:07:05.200
<v Speaker 1>I mean he has a point, and that's an important point.

0:07:05.279 --> 0:07:09.800
<v Speaker 1>And the underlying problem of colonization is a significant point,

0:07:09.880 --> 0:07:13.560
<v Speaker 1>especially right now with the death of the Queen of England,

0:07:13.880 --> 0:07:18.680
<v Speaker 1>that issue became very newsworthy and the whole history of

0:07:18.720 --> 0:07:22.920
<v Speaker 1>colonization is an ugly history. So yeah, that's a really

0:07:22.960 --> 0:07:26.680
<v Speaker 1>important substantive point. But and I'm not necessarily defending what

0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:29.600
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court did. What I'm saying is why I

0:07:29.600 --> 0:07:33.080
<v Speaker 1>think they did what they did, which is this idea

0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:35.920
<v Speaker 1>that the case has to be presented to them. Let

0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:39.400
<v Speaker 1>me give you a ridiculous example. If this case we're

0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:42.440
<v Speaker 1>about something that has to do with corporate law and

0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:44.640
<v Speaker 1>nothing to do with territories, you wouldn't want them to say, oh,

0:07:44.640 --> 0:07:47.000
<v Speaker 1>and by the way, the insular cases need to be

0:07:47.040 --> 0:07:50.920
<v Speaker 1>overruled here. It's obviously is much more related to the

0:07:50.920 --> 0:07:54.160
<v Speaker 1>insular cases. They could reach it, but my guess is

0:07:54.320 --> 0:07:57.360
<v Speaker 1>the charitable guess is that they wanted it to be

0:07:57.400 --> 0:08:00.560
<v Speaker 1>squarely presented. The other problem is they may not have

0:08:00.600 --> 0:08:04.120
<v Speaker 1>the votes. This is where I'm concerned. What if gors

0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:07.760
<v Speaker 1>which wants to overrule it, thought mayor maybe the other

0:08:07.760 --> 0:08:10.840
<v Speaker 1>two liberals, but the others don't, so they only have

0:08:10.960 --> 0:08:13.160
<v Speaker 1>four votes. And if that's the case, it would be

0:08:13.200 --> 0:08:16.800
<v Speaker 1>worse to then reaffirm those cases. So that could be

0:08:16.840 --> 0:08:18.960
<v Speaker 1>the other one. Another thing is that they knew they

0:08:18.960 --> 0:08:22.560
<v Speaker 1>were going to reaffirm the lower court's decision here, but

0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:25.640
<v Speaker 1>they were going to avoid this issue anyway because they

0:08:25.640 --> 0:08:28.960
<v Speaker 1>didn't have the votes on this particular issue. So I

0:08:29.000 --> 0:08:33.040
<v Speaker 1>think that's much more likely. Even though yeah, sure, there

0:08:33.120 --> 0:08:35.720
<v Speaker 1>is definitely a point that these are racist cases. There's

0:08:35.760 --> 0:08:39.240
<v Speaker 1>a lot of problems with these cases, and we need

0:08:39.320 --> 0:08:42.080
<v Speaker 1>to come to a reckoning with our past and our

0:08:42.120 --> 0:08:45.120
<v Speaker 1>treatment of different areas that we have so called, and

0:08:45.160 --> 0:08:47.600
<v Speaker 1>this world is even used in some of the briefs conquered,

0:08:47.880 --> 0:08:50.920
<v Speaker 1>so I think that is important. The ten Circuit said

0:08:50.960 --> 0:08:56.760
<v Speaker 1>it was for Congress to bestow the privilege of US citizenships. Yeah,

0:08:56.800 --> 0:08:59.120
<v Speaker 1>that's the precedent right now, is that this would be

0:08:59.200 --> 0:09:02.360
<v Speaker 1>Congress's job up and certainly different treaties. I've said that,

0:09:02.679 --> 0:09:07.080
<v Speaker 1>But the Samoan people under principles of self determination right

0:09:07.120 --> 0:09:09.600
<v Speaker 1>now and have not reached a consensus as to whether

0:09:09.679 --> 0:09:13.400
<v Speaker 1>or not they want to have citizenship. You know, we're

0:09:13.400 --> 0:09:14.880
<v Speaker 1>just going to have to wait till another day to

0:09:14.920 --> 0:09:17.360
<v Speaker 1>see what they do about the insular cases, which obviously

0:09:17.400 --> 0:09:20.560
<v Speaker 1>are are problematic, but there were also problems that any

0:09:20.559 --> 0:09:22.800
<v Speaker 1>way the Supreme Court decided in this case could have

0:09:22.840 --> 0:09:27.760
<v Speaker 1>been considered racist as well. So it's a very complicated

0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:31.480
<v Speaker 1>area and this was not called a clean vehicle to

0:09:31.559 --> 0:09:35.079
<v Speaker 1>decide these cases. Thanks so much. And that's Professor and

0:09:35.240 --> 0:09:38.520
<v Speaker 1>Lo Faso of the West Virginia University College of Law.

0:09:40.400 --> 0:09:44.080
<v Speaker 1>Rishi Sunac will be Britain's next Prime Minister. The forty

0:09:44.080 --> 0:09:46.560
<v Speaker 1>two year old member of the Conservative Party will be

0:09:46.640 --> 0:09:49.679
<v Speaker 1>sworn in as the country's third leader in less than

0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:52.800
<v Speaker 1>two months, and it's first ever prime minister of color.

0:09:53.320 --> 0:09:56.280
<v Speaker 1>It is the greatest privilege of my life to be

0:09:56.320 --> 0:09:59.640
<v Speaker 1>able to serve the party I love and give back

0:09:59.800 --> 0:10:03.280
<v Speaker 1>to the country I owe so much too. Joining me

0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:06.480
<v Speaker 1>to discuss a new prime minister is Ambassador Robert Holliman,

0:10:06.559 --> 0:10:10.120
<v Speaker 1>the President and CEO of Crowell and Mooring International. He

0:10:10.200 --> 0:10:13.800
<v Speaker 1>served as Deputy United States Trade Representative from two thousand

0:10:13.920 --> 0:10:17.480
<v Speaker 1>fourteen to two thousand seventeen. So what's your take on

0:10:17.640 --> 0:10:21.080
<v Speaker 1>Rishi Sunac as the new prime minister? This is very

0:10:21.200 --> 0:10:26.559
<v Speaker 1>much a UK decision to make, and the people who

0:10:26.600 --> 0:10:29.760
<v Speaker 1>are in the rooms as they're making the decisions are

0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:33.640
<v Speaker 1>clearly the you know, the best place to understand from

0:10:33.679 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 1>how Rishi Sunac will serve as the Prime Minister. With

0:10:39.320 --> 0:10:41.920
<v Speaker 1>that said, I think we can see kind of looking

0:10:41.960 --> 0:10:47.160
<v Speaker 1>across the Atlantic from the US, um we can see

0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:52.640
<v Speaker 1>that there's a significant need for the UK to reassert

0:10:53.640 --> 0:10:56.280
<v Speaker 1>a level and show the world a level of stability.

0:10:56.640 --> 0:11:00.760
<v Speaker 1>Clearly that can often be best accomplished with somebody who

0:11:00.960 --> 0:11:06.760
<v Speaker 1>is a known player, but who is um as they

0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:10.160
<v Speaker 1>may determine at the time carrying less of the baggage

0:11:10.240 --> 0:11:14.200
<v Speaker 1>that some of the other potential contenders would have. UM

0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:16.640
<v Speaker 1>And so I think in that sense, you know, he's

0:11:16.640 --> 0:11:22.040
<v Speaker 1>a known player, he's understood. How this affects domestic politics

0:11:22.120 --> 0:11:24.760
<v Speaker 1>within the UK or something I wouldn't be in a

0:11:24.800 --> 0:11:29.200
<v Speaker 1>position to um to comment on, but how this affects

0:11:29.760 --> 0:11:33.040
<v Speaker 1>the UK standing with the US or with the rest

0:11:33.080 --> 0:11:36.520
<v Speaker 1>of the world community. I think the US will be

0:11:37.120 --> 0:11:41.120
<v Speaker 1>um um pleased to see somebody come into place with

0:11:41.240 --> 0:11:45.680
<v Speaker 1>the hope that he will have a um you know,

0:11:46.040 --> 0:11:49.520
<v Speaker 1>a less rocky tenure than his immediate predecessor. I mean,

0:11:49.600 --> 0:11:51.760
<v Speaker 1>one of the things I think is a hallmark and

0:11:51.840 --> 0:11:55.240
<v Speaker 1>a strength of the U s UK relationship is that

0:11:55.400 --> 0:11:59.559
<v Speaker 1>it can, you know, weather a variety of storms and

0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:04.800
<v Speaker 1>turbulence through elections, whether their party elections or national elections

0:12:04.880 --> 0:12:08.880
<v Speaker 1>in either country. So I think we'll move on well

0:12:08.920 --> 0:12:12.320
<v Speaker 1>with mercy soon act. So he said today, there's no

0:12:12.360 --> 0:12:16.600
<v Speaker 1>doubt we face profound economic challenges. Can you describe some

0:12:16.679 --> 0:12:21.000
<v Speaker 1>of the economic challenges that the UK is facing right now? Sure?

0:12:21.080 --> 0:12:25.560
<v Speaker 1>I think they're really threefold. Um. One, there's the purely

0:12:25.600 --> 0:12:32.840
<v Speaker 1>domestic UK economic challenges with rising inflation rates, with recent

0:12:32.880 --> 0:12:38.920
<v Speaker 1>needs for intervention into the British economy UM, and UM

0:12:39.240 --> 0:12:43.800
<v Speaker 1>the high costs that are still associated with them, not

0:12:43.960 --> 0:12:48.880
<v Speaker 1>only the you know, the lingering aftermaths of the COVID pandemic,

0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:53.560
<v Speaker 1>but also the lingering economic challenges as a result of

0:12:54.280 --> 0:13:00.680
<v Speaker 1>Bruxit UM. So they have significant domestic challenges that are

0:13:02.040 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 1>creating concerns not only in the marketplace within the UK,

0:13:06.520 --> 0:13:09.640
<v Speaker 1>but also on the part of UK citizens. I think

0:13:09.679 --> 0:13:12.960
<v Speaker 1>the second part of it is how does the UK

0:13:13.960 --> 0:13:17.120
<v Speaker 1>UM hold up in the light of the rest of

0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:21.120
<v Speaker 1>the world. UM. You know, they're the fifth largest economy

0:13:21.160 --> 0:13:25.440
<v Speaker 1>in the world, so they matter enormously in terms of

0:13:25.480 --> 0:13:31.280
<v Speaker 1>the global economy. They matter significantly in terms of their

0:13:31.920 --> 0:13:36.880
<v Speaker 1>economic and political stability UM. And simply for the US

0:13:36.960 --> 0:13:40.559
<v Speaker 1>and the UK. They are a key ally of the

0:13:40.640 --> 0:13:44.479
<v Speaker 1>United States, not only on economics but on national security

0:13:44.679 --> 0:13:50.439
<v Speaker 1>and defense UH and supportive democracy, so they play an

0:13:50.440 --> 0:13:55.520
<v Speaker 1>outsize role UM and any lack of stability economically or

0:13:55.520 --> 0:13:59.200
<v Speaker 1>politically in the UK is certainly a source of concern

0:13:59.400 --> 0:14:02.360
<v Speaker 1>for the U. US. And finally, I think in a

0:14:02.520 --> 0:14:10.800
<v Speaker 1>world where we see an increasing number of authoritarian regimes

0:14:10.800 --> 0:14:15.600
<v Speaker 1>that are gaining power, UM, the ability to have a

0:14:15.640 --> 0:14:21.000
<v Speaker 1>democratic regime in the UK. UH in a stable regime

0:14:21.160 --> 0:14:24.720
<v Speaker 1>is important force of the global discussions that are happening.

0:14:24.720 --> 0:14:28.600
<v Speaker 1>I'm not talking about small p politics discussions, but I'm

0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:33.360
<v Speaker 1>just talking about having a strong voice by which the UK,

0:14:33.800 --> 0:14:36.280
<v Speaker 1>as such a large economy can speak up on the

0:14:36.280 --> 0:14:40.040
<v Speaker 1>world stage on issues that go beyond the borders of

0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:42.600
<v Speaker 1>the UK. So those are the key issues that I

0:14:42.640 --> 0:14:45.240
<v Speaker 1>see at play. I think the most important ones that

0:14:45.240 --> 0:14:48.560
<v Speaker 1>the UK is working on now are on their domestic ones.

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:52.360
<v Speaker 1>How do they restore confidence at home? How do they

0:14:53.080 --> 0:14:57.120
<v Speaker 1>stabilize their economy, how do they manage to deal with

0:14:57.160 --> 0:15:00.080
<v Speaker 1>some of the inflation issues and try to regain in

0:15:00.120 --> 0:15:03.880
<v Speaker 1>the growth they're looking for. Um. The others are certainly

0:15:04.680 --> 0:15:08.120
<v Speaker 1>hugely important, certainly for the US. But I suspect what

0:15:08.160 --> 0:15:10.720
<v Speaker 1>the UK is focused on right now is how do

0:15:10.800 --> 0:15:13.880
<v Speaker 1>they write the ship at home um and get get

0:15:13.920 --> 0:15:18.400
<v Speaker 1>the kind of stability they need. Say, trade relationships now, well,

0:15:18.440 --> 0:15:21.120
<v Speaker 1>it's substantial, and you know the good news I think

0:15:21.120 --> 0:15:26.440
<v Speaker 1>it's it's say, it's sort of it's largely unaffected by

0:15:26.560 --> 0:15:31.040
<v Speaker 1>any of the recent political turmoils within the UK. UM.

0:15:31.080 --> 0:15:36.960
<v Speaker 1>You know, it's a large trade relationship the US is

0:15:37.680 --> 0:15:42.160
<v Speaker 1>accounts for nearly twenty of all trade by the UK,

0:15:42.960 --> 0:15:48.000
<v Speaker 1>so we are a enormous trading partner for the UK.

0:15:48.840 --> 0:15:52.320
<v Speaker 1>The US is obviously a much larger economy, but UK

0:15:52.520 --> 0:15:57.320
<v Speaker 1>trade is five of total US trade, so this is

0:15:57.360 --> 0:16:02.280
<v Speaker 1>an extremely important relationship. I think another factor that really

0:16:02.560 --> 0:16:07.120
<v Speaker 1>underscores the importance of it is around foreign direct investment,

0:16:07.800 --> 0:16:11.440
<v Speaker 1>which is another key element of trade, and the UK

0:16:11.880 --> 0:16:18.000
<v Speaker 1>is the number one destination by country or foreign investment

0:16:18.120 --> 0:16:22.720
<v Speaker 1>coming out of the US UM it's nearly a trillion

0:16:22.760 --> 0:16:29.240
<v Speaker 1>dollars as last year, and the UK is investing merely

0:16:29.480 --> 0:16:35.760
<v Speaker 1>half a trillion dollars in the US in UM, so

0:16:36.120 --> 0:16:41.080
<v Speaker 1>as a source of both bilateral trade but a source

0:16:41.160 --> 0:16:44.720
<v Speaker 1>of the investments in each country is making the other.

0:16:45.120 --> 0:16:50.200
<v Speaker 1>It's enormous and the good news is that that continues

0:16:50.320 --> 0:16:55.000
<v Speaker 1>to be a strong trade relationship and a source of

0:16:55.360 --> 0:17:01.000
<v Speaker 1>economic stability between our two countries. I think the question though,

0:17:01.080 --> 0:17:06.439
<v Speaker 1>that that poses is does that relationship between the US

0:17:06.520 --> 0:17:11.720
<v Speaker 1>and the UK get better and how has the Brexit

0:17:11.960 --> 0:17:16.639
<v Speaker 1>vote and the aftermath of Brexit affected the US and

0:17:16.800 --> 0:17:20.040
<v Speaker 1>the UK, And there I think the jury is still

0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:22.760
<v Speaker 1>out uh And in fact I would say that the

0:17:22.840 --> 0:17:27.959
<v Speaker 1>UK has not obtained even more favorable benefits in trade

0:17:28.000 --> 0:17:30.640
<v Speaker 1>with the U S or other countries that they had

0:17:30.760 --> 0:17:35.840
<v Speaker 1>hoped to obtain following their departure from the EU. The

0:17:36.000 --> 0:17:40.159
<v Speaker 1>UK and the US were negotiating a bilateral free trade

0:17:40.200 --> 0:17:44.640
<v Speaker 1>agreement during the Trump administration. What happened to that? Where

0:17:44.640 --> 0:17:49.720
<v Speaker 1>does that stand? That bilateral free trade agreement really fell

0:17:49.960 --> 0:17:56.600
<v Speaker 1>by the wayside, largely as a result of domestic priorities

0:17:56.680 --> 0:18:00.840
<v Speaker 1>within the United States. Liz Trust had been in the

0:18:00.920 --> 0:18:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Trade Secretary War Administer for the UK when those discussions started,

0:18:07.280 --> 0:18:12.399
<v Speaker 1>so certainly she had a history of working on those discussions. Um,

0:18:12.440 --> 0:18:14.960
<v Speaker 1>I think what happened in the United States it was

0:18:15.080 --> 0:18:21.760
<v Speaker 1>really twofold. One is that the Trade Promotion authority that

0:18:21.880 --> 0:18:26.120
<v Speaker 1>the US Congress had in place that would enable, whether

0:18:26.160 --> 0:18:29.560
<v Speaker 1>it was the Trump administration or the Biden administration, to

0:18:29.880 --> 0:18:36.080
<v Speaker 1>negotiate new free trade agreements on favorable terms, that authority

0:18:36.280 --> 0:18:41.440
<v Speaker 1>expired in the middle of So in the absence of

0:18:41.480 --> 0:18:46.919
<v Speaker 1>that authority, it is difficult for any White House to

0:18:47.040 --> 0:18:50.720
<v Speaker 1>negotiate a free trade agreement, whether with the UK or

0:18:50.760 --> 0:18:54.120
<v Speaker 1>any other country. And those really are the trade promotion

0:18:54.200 --> 0:18:59.720
<v Speaker 1>authority practices that Congress imposes on itself To say that

0:18:59.800 --> 0:19:02.159
<v Speaker 1>if a trade agreement is brought back to them, that

0:19:02.280 --> 0:19:06.600
<v Speaker 1>they will approve it on an expedited approve or disapprove

0:19:07.320 --> 0:19:09.840
<v Speaker 1>or does that they retain the ability to disapprove, but

0:19:09.920 --> 0:19:14.159
<v Speaker 1>that they would act on it on a expedited time frame,

0:19:14.840 --> 0:19:19.199
<v Speaker 1>and that they would consider it as a totality of

0:19:19.200 --> 0:19:24.080
<v Speaker 1>an agreement not subject to the amendment process which Congress

0:19:24.200 --> 0:19:28.600
<v Speaker 1>uses for most typical legislation. So that Trade Promotion Authority

0:19:29.240 --> 0:19:33.159
<v Speaker 1>was in place. It was put in place when I

0:19:33.240 --> 0:19:37.600
<v Speaker 1>was in office in the Obama administration, but expired in

0:19:37.680 --> 0:19:41.639
<v Speaker 1>the middle of last year, and so without Trade Promotion Authority,

0:19:42.080 --> 0:19:46.720
<v Speaker 1>it becomes very difficult for a White House to undertake

0:19:46.760 --> 0:19:51.840
<v Speaker 1>a new free trade negotiation um with confidence that they

0:19:51.840 --> 0:19:55.680
<v Speaker 1>could successfully conclude it and then actually get it approved

0:19:56.840 --> 0:20:01.439
<v Speaker 1>by Congress in the implementing legislation. So that expired. I

0:20:01.480 --> 0:20:04.000
<v Speaker 1>think the second thing is that the Biden administration has

0:20:04.040 --> 0:20:08.600
<v Speaker 1>really been focused on all series of domestic priorities, whether

0:20:08.680 --> 0:20:12.359
<v Speaker 1>it was the Inflation Reduction Act or UM, it was

0:20:12.440 --> 0:20:17.320
<v Speaker 1>the infrastructure bill, or it was focused on clean energy

0:20:18.440 --> 0:20:21.680
<v Speaker 1>other health matters, and so it really has not been

0:20:21.840 --> 0:20:26.760
<v Speaker 1>a top of mind priority for the Biden administration to

0:20:26.800 --> 0:20:31.960
<v Speaker 1>negotiate the agreement, particularly in the absence of trade Promotion authority,

0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:37.240
<v Speaker 1>So it's really um foundered. Uh, and it's sort of

0:20:37.400 --> 0:20:44.280
<v Speaker 1>on a side track now, largely because of US domestic issues.

0:20:44.720 --> 0:20:48.399
<v Speaker 1>I think the question I supposed that, you know, could

0:20:48.440 --> 0:20:52.719
<v Speaker 1>it be revived in the next Congress, you know, that

0:20:52.800 --> 0:20:57.440
<v Speaker 1>remains to be seen. But for the moment, the EU

0:20:57.880 --> 0:21:02.679
<v Speaker 1>and the UK both have relationships with the US that

0:21:02.840 --> 0:21:07.840
<v Speaker 1>are substantially similar. The UK doesn't have anything less favorable

0:21:08.160 --> 0:21:11.399
<v Speaker 1>than the EU has with the US, nor does the

0:21:11.520 --> 0:21:15.760
<v Speaker 1>UK have anything more favorable. We don't have a comprehensive

0:21:15.760 --> 0:21:19.600
<v Speaker 1>trade agreement with the EU and the UK. There are

0:21:19.680 --> 0:21:22.800
<v Speaker 1>a series of smaller agreements that are in place that

0:21:22.880 --> 0:21:27.879
<v Speaker 1>were ranged from things like pharmaceuticals to certain types of

0:21:27.960 --> 0:21:34.240
<v Speaker 1>machines to mined spirits. Those we've negotiated with the UK,

0:21:34.560 --> 0:21:37.480
<v Speaker 1>just like we have with the EU. So what would

0:21:37.480 --> 0:21:40.800
<v Speaker 1>it take for the US to negotiate a trade agreement

0:21:40.840 --> 0:21:44.359
<v Speaker 1>with the UK? I think it would take three things. One,

0:21:44.600 --> 0:21:48.800
<v Speaker 1>it would take the US Congress deciding that they wanted

0:21:48.840 --> 0:21:53.840
<v Speaker 1>to adopt a narrow trade Promotion authority that would say

0:21:53.880 --> 0:21:56.919
<v Speaker 1>that the US could negotiate a free trade agreement with

0:21:57.000 --> 0:22:00.399
<v Speaker 1>the UK and the UK alone, and that would be

0:22:00.520 --> 0:22:05.520
<v Speaker 1>the easiest, most surgical way in which the Congress could

0:22:05.520 --> 0:22:09.040
<v Speaker 1>act to say that they supported a trade agreement with

0:22:09.080 --> 0:22:12.120
<v Speaker 1>the UK, even if they weren't willing to say, as

0:22:12.160 --> 0:22:14.720
<v Speaker 1>they're not that they would support a whole series of

0:22:14.760 --> 0:22:18.000
<v Speaker 1>other free trade agreements with other countries. Secondly, it would

0:22:18.000 --> 0:22:20.600
<v Speaker 1>have to be viewed in the economic interest by both

0:22:20.640 --> 0:22:23.639
<v Speaker 1>the US and the UK, but particularly the US to

0:22:23.840 --> 0:22:26.320
<v Speaker 1>take that on at a time of the coming year

0:22:26.359 --> 0:22:29.680
<v Speaker 1>where we're certainly going to have a series of economic challenges,

0:22:29.800 --> 0:22:32.960
<v Speaker 1>including inflation in both markets. And Three, I think it

0:22:33.000 --> 0:22:35.680
<v Speaker 1>would have take a meeting of the minds that involved

0:22:35.720 --> 0:22:39.480
<v Speaker 1>not only the business community, but labor community and NGOs

0:22:39.600 --> 0:22:42.160
<v Speaker 1>to say that there was something about the long term

0:22:42.200 --> 0:22:46.119
<v Speaker 1>special relationship between the UK and the US that needed

0:22:46.240 --> 0:22:50.200
<v Speaker 1>to be coupled with a special trade agreement. It's entirely possible.

0:22:50.280 --> 0:22:53.280
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it's probable. Thanks for being on the show.

0:22:53.800 --> 0:22:57.639
<v Speaker 1>That's Ambassador Robert Hollingman of Crowland Mooring, and that's it

0:22:57.760 --> 0:23:00.280
<v Speaker 1>for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. We member.

0:23:00.280 --> 0:23:02.320
<v Speaker 1>You can always get the latest legal news on our

0:23:02.359 --> 0:23:06.680
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:23:06.720 --> 0:23:11.720
<v Speaker 1>and at www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law,

0:23:12.160 --> 0:23:14.760
<v Speaker 1>and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

0:23:14.800 --> 0:23:18.200
<v Speaker 1>week night at ten BM Wall Street Time. I'm June

0:23:18.240 --> 0:23:20.440
<v Speaker 1>Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg