Speaker 1: Global business news twenty four hours a day at Bloomberg
Speaker 1: dot com, the Radio plus mobile APT and on your radio.
Speaker 1: This is a Bloomberg Business flag from Bloomberg World Headquarters.
Speaker 1: I'm Charlie Pellot. Stocks higher across the board one percent
Speaker 1: jump right now for the SMP five hundred index. We
Speaker 1: are brought to you by Sector Spider E t F S.
Speaker 1: Why by a single stock when you can invest in
Speaker 1: the entire sector. Visits Sector sp d r S dot
Speaker 1: com or call Sector E t F. Now over to
Speaker 1: the First Word Breaking news desk for today's afternoon call.
Speaker 1: Here he is Bill Maloney. Good afternoon, and Charlie, like
Speaker 1: you said, stocks are climbing today, with the Dow currently
Speaker 1: higher by a hundred and sixty six points, says He's
Speaker 1: Game twenty and NAZAC rises fifties seven, the small cap
Speaker 1: six hundred games twelve points, and the US ten yield
Speaker 1: at one point seven four per cent. All ten s
Speaker 1: B sectors are higher, led by games and financials, Materials
Speaker 1: and energy doubtry sports rise fifty eight and as a
Speaker 1: biotechs Game forty six, and the VIX is lower by
Speaker 1: fourteen percent. Down leaders were Goldman Sachs Visa and Caterpillar,
Speaker 1: while Nike fell one percent, Micron gained ten percent. Stock
Speaker 1: jumped above the changey day moving average. Shares were upgraded
Speaker 1: at Nomura and Susquehanna, while BlackBerry game three point three
Speaker 1: percent after its results Live on the First Breaking news desk,
Speaker 1: I'm Bill Maloney, Charlie all right, thank you very much,
Speaker 1: Bill Maloney, And to hear live breaking news over your
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Time. Squawk squ a k on your terminal, I'm
Speaker 1: Charlie Public. That's a Bloomberg business flash. You're listening to.
Speaker 1: Taking Stock with Kathleen on Bluebird Radio. Evenly divided. That's
Speaker 1: what the U. S. Supreme Court is over President Barack
Speaker 1: Obama's plan to shield as many as four million unauthorized
Speaker 1: immigrants from deportation. This is a deadlock. The effectively kills
Speaker 1: the initiative for the rest of the president presidency. Joining
Speaker 1: us now our own legal expert, June grass So. She's
Speaker 1: the creator and host of Bloomberg Law, which you can
Speaker 1: hear weekdays at four thirty pm Wall Street Time on
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. Tune Welcome to show. It's a treat to
Speaker 1: have you here. To be here, Kathleen and pim So
Speaker 1: the decision tell us about it, Well, there's not much
Speaker 1: to say about the decision itself, because all the nation
Speaker 1: knows is one simple sentence that the court was unable
Speaker 1: to come to a conclusion. They were divided four to four.
Speaker 1: And what that means is that the lower court decision.
Speaker 1: This means that a decision of one judge in Texas
Speaker 1: and three judges on the appellate court of the Fifth Circuit,
Speaker 1: which is the most conservative circuit almost you can say,
Speaker 1: or most conservative circuit in the country, have basically decided
Speaker 1: immigration for President Obama's term. Because this is the end
Speaker 1: of his immigration initiatives. What does this due to his
Speaker 1: pledge for a comprehensive immigration overhaul, Well, he can't. He
Speaker 1: can't do it. He absolutely can't do it. He has
Speaker 1: six months left, he can't have any more tries and
Speaker 1: executive action. Because that's what struck that's why this was
Speaker 1: struck down. The court below said that he didn't have
Speaker 1: the authority to do what he did, and also he
Speaker 1: has a Congress that is not going to help him out.
Speaker 1: So basically, and you could see in his press conference
Speaker 1: today that he was disappointed, he was frustrated, He also
Speaker 1: mentioned why we need a ninth justice here, we need
Speaker 1: to appoint a ninth justice. But it's really not up
Speaker 1: to him anymore. And I think that he was looking
Speaker 1: at this as something to mark his his presidency. Well,
Speaker 1: that's all well and good, but you know what, they're
Speaker 1: all laws. And I guess that's why the where I
Speaker 1: got the Supreme Court, because there's so much great area
Speaker 1: the present in fact saying this program just a broader
Speaker 1: exercise of my accepted power to set priority priority and
Speaker 1: who should be deported. Other people saying are other people
Speaker 1: in Congress probably Republicans, or that he was offering amnesty
Speaker 1: to people who broke the law to and to ermine
Speaker 1: in the country. When you're as a legal expert, how
Speaker 1: does the law look to you? Miss Grosso? To me,
Speaker 1: if this would fit within an executive action, what he
Speaker 1: was doing was for three years allowing people whose who
Speaker 1: are the parents of either citizens or Green card holders
Speaker 1: to get work visas for three years. That's that's all
Speaker 1: it was. To me either, that seems like it's within
Speaker 1: the executive function. Another thing is the Supreme Court could
Speaker 1: have found ways around this. For example, there was a
Speaker 1: question of are these states like Texas really being injured
Speaker 1: by this. They said, well, we have to pay for
Speaker 1: driver's license. Is that enough of an impact for them
Speaker 1: to go before the Supreme Court? And the ruling was
Speaker 1: so broad for one judge to rule for the entire country.
Speaker 1: That is a broad rule. You don't see that very often.
Speaker 1: June a win for affirmative action. Rustic was upholding race
Speaker 1: conscious admissions. Big surprise there. That's a big surprise. And
Speaker 1: the reason it's a surprise is because Justice Kennedy, who
Speaker 1: his entire career has been voting against affirmative action, turned
Speaker 1: and decided to vote for affirmative action. That's why he
Speaker 1: wrote the majority opinion, because he was the swing vote there,
Speaker 1: and you saw a dissent from Justice Alito of fifty
Speaker 1: pages that was scathing and he very disappointed in the majority,
Speaker 1: saying what happened to our law here? But the point
Speaker 1: is too that the University of Texas program is enough
Speaker 1: of a hybrid and there's enough going on there that
Speaker 1: Justice Kennedy could see his way clear for that. But
Speaker 1: that was huge surprise. So what does that mean in
Speaker 1: real terms? Now? If I didn't get accepted, can I
Speaker 1: the woman who didn't get accepted has already been in
Speaker 1: through a school at another school. This is the second
Speaker 1: time it's been up there. It's very it's a very
Speaker 1: confusing area because it's very fact specific, so we don't
Speaker 1: have a guideline for what other schools can do as
Speaker 1: far as affirmative action is concerned. But if they have
Speaker 1: an open program like this for example, Texas program, they
Speaker 1: automatically take the top ten percent of all the high
Speaker 1: schools in the states, So that is a way of
Speaker 1: showing that they're they're not They only consider race in
Speaker 1: certain circumstances, in certain instances, so that was open enough
Speaker 1: for the court. And you have to really look at
Speaker 1: each case individually, which is why affirmative action is at
Speaker 1: the courts over and over and over again. Drunk driving
Speaker 1: drunk driving basically, and it was three consolidated cases, so
Speaker 1: pretty complicated. The bottom line is that police need a
Speaker 1: warrant if they want you to take a test a
Speaker 1: blood test for alcohol for drunk driving, and that entails,
Speaker 1: you know, taking you to another place a hospital, So
Speaker 1: the justice is thought that was intrusive and also taking
Speaker 1: your blood, whereas if they want you to take a
Speaker 1: breathalyzer test, that's something they can do without a warrant,
Speaker 1: because there was a lot of talk about how that's
Speaker 1: just blowing into a breathalyzer. Not a big deal, Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. Always a big deal when you join us. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's a pleasure. Look forward to more. June Grosso, legal
Speaker 1: expert and yes host of Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio
Speaker 1: weekdays at a four thirty Wall Street time. You're listening
Speaker 1: to taking Stock, I'm pim Fox, my co host Kathleen Hayes,
Speaker 1: and this is Bloomberg Radio. Thank Bloomberg. Taking Song is
Speaker 1: brought to you by the accountants and advisors at Eisenery Amper.
Speaker 1: Cybersecurity is on the mind of every business leader. Managing
Speaker 1: cyber risk should be to get started with a cyber
Speaker 1: risk assessment. Learn more eisener Amper dot com slash cyber
Speaker 1: risk