1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:06,320 --> 00:00:11,200
Speaker 1: The most famous nominal damages case I know in recent times,

3
00:00:11,600 --> 00:00:14,800
Speaker 1: which is Taylor Swift sexual assault case. Do you know

4
00:00:14,880 --> 00:00:17,920
Speaker 1: that one Taylor Swift did not have a case at

5
00:00:17,920 --> 00:00:20,639
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, but a case before the Court on

6
00:00:20,760 --> 00:00:25,440
Speaker 1: campus speech rights. Reminded Justice Elina Kagan of Swift's successful

7
00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:30,560
Speaker 1: student against a Denver radio host for sexual harassment, where

8
00:00:30,560 --> 00:00:33,360
Speaker 1: the pop star asked for only a dollar in damages,

9
00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:36,720
Speaker 1: and she said, I'm not really interested in your money.

10
00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:39,720
Speaker 1: I just want a dollar, and that dollar is going

11
00:00:39,840 --> 00:00:42,680
Speaker 1: to represent something both to me and to the world

12
00:00:42,680 --> 00:00:46,800
Speaker 1: of women who have experienced what I've experienced. Kagan said

13
00:00:46,800 --> 00:00:49,440
Speaker 1: Swift's case was similar to the case before the Court

14
00:00:49,720 --> 00:00:53,400
Speaker 1: where two former students are suing Georgia Gwinnette College for

15
00:00:53,560 --> 00:00:57,720
Speaker 1: nominal damages for violating their First Amendment rights. And Justice

16
00:00:57,760 --> 00:01:00,920
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett seemed to agree and just as Kagan's

17
00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:05,000
Speaker 1: questions suggested that really what Taylor Swift wanted was, you know,

18
00:01:05,319 --> 00:01:10,080
Speaker 1: vindication of the moral right, the legal right that sexual

19
00:01:10,120 --> 00:01:13,280
Speaker 1: assault is reprehensible and wrong. My guest is Harold Crent,

20
00:01:13,400 --> 00:01:16,600
Speaker 1: a professor at the Chicago, Kent College of Law. How first,

21
00:01:16,640 --> 00:01:18,840
Speaker 1: tell us a little bit about the case. The case

22
00:01:18,920 --> 00:01:22,559
Speaker 1: is a First Amendment challenged by students to their college

23
00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:26,479
Speaker 1: administrators for limiting the right of free speech. They had

24
00:01:26,520 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 1: to do with someone who's a evangelical Christian who wanted

25
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:34,280
Speaker 1: to talk about he preaches Saith, and the university quenched

26
00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:37,840
Speaker 1: the speech. Therefore, you have precipitated a First Amendment challenge

27
00:01:38,000 --> 00:01:41,480
Speaker 1: in court, and before it could be finally resolved, their

28
00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:45,560
Speaker 1: college changed where duties could make speeches and broaden the

29
00:01:45,560 --> 00:01:49,760
Speaker 1: opportunity for students, so in essence handing the plaintiffs of victory.

30
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 1: But then the question was could they continue to get

31
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:56,400
Speaker 1: a court resolution that they were right under the Constitution

32
00:01:56,680 --> 00:01:59,800
Speaker 1: and would be entitled at least two nominal damages and

33
00:01:59,840 --> 00:02:02,640
Speaker 1: the atorney's fees. And so far the Eleventh Circuit had

34
00:02:02,680 --> 00:02:05,240
Speaker 1: held that the case was moved because there's no longer

35
00:02:05,280 --> 00:02:09,239
Speaker 1: a continuing controversy because the university had changed his policy

36
00:02:09,680 --> 00:02:12,040
Speaker 1: and that the idea of just the tourny's fee and

37
00:02:12,120 --> 00:02:15,480
Speaker 1: normal damages would not be enough to keep the case alive,

38
00:02:15,800 --> 00:02:19,840
Speaker 1: so they refused to address the merits. Does the government

39
00:02:20,200 --> 00:02:25,560
Speaker 1: or government ended these often changed policy following lawsuits. The

40
00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:29,800
Speaker 1: government does not infrequently change his policies, and indeed, a

41
00:02:29,880 --> 00:02:33,280
Speaker 1: great example that came up recently when New York City

42
00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:37,760
Speaker 1: had an active, very tight gun controlled legislation which was challenging,

43
00:02:37,760 --> 00:02:40,080
Speaker 1: and they fought it tooth and nail, But as it

44
00:02:40,120 --> 00:02:42,680
Speaker 1: was getting close to the Supreme Court, New York City

45
00:02:42,720 --> 00:02:45,880
Speaker 1: backed down and said, well, maybe this was too restrictive,

46
00:02:46,200 --> 00:02:50,560
Speaker 1: and therefore, in essence mooted out the controversy, giving plaintiffs

47
00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:53,000
Speaker 1: all that they wanted, And the Supreme Court in that

48
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:56,560
Speaker 1: case refused to entertain the case by saying it was

49
00:02:56,600 --> 00:02:59,680
Speaker 1: moved because New York changes policies, it was not likely

50
00:02:59,720 --> 00:03:01,480
Speaker 1: to go back. So this in some ways to a

51
00:03:01,600 --> 00:03:04,919
Speaker 1: cousin case in the sense that it asks what happens

52
00:03:04,960 --> 00:03:08,520
Speaker 1: when a government changes its policy not likely to revert

53
00:03:08,560 --> 00:03:12,560
Speaker 1: to the older policy. Can a core nonetheless continue to

54
00:03:12,680 --> 00:03:15,799
Speaker 1: hear the substance of the claim because it's kept alive

55
00:03:15,880 --> 00:03:18,680
Speaker 1: by this notion of nominal damages. So it's a narrow

56
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:23,120
Speaker 1: case focusing on what really is nominal damages and should

57
00:03:23,160 --> 00:03:28,320
Speaker 1: the judges have power to consider more constitutional claims, In particular,

58
00:03:28,840 --> 00:03:32,280
Speaker 1: if nominal damages are alleged in the case. Before we

59
00:03:32,320 --> 00:03:35,680
Speaker 1: get back to nominal damages, people might ask, well, why

60
00:03:35,760 --> 00:03:40,320
Speaker 1: doesn't that case from last term where the justices said

61
00:03:40,360 --> 00:03:43,320
Speaker 1: it was moot, why doesn't that control here? It's going

62
00:03:43,400 --> 00:03:46,360
Speaker 1: to be in the justice's mind. In that case, nominal

63
00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:48,480
Speaker 1: damages were not sought, and so there was not an

64
00:03:48,600 --> 00:03:50,840
Speaker 1: argument that the case was still alive because of the

65
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:54,120
Speaker 1: nonminal damages as there are in the Georgia case. But

66
00:03:54,360 --> 00:03:57,760
Speaker 1: certainly what this case is about, it's about judicial power.

67
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:02,800
Speaker 1: Should judges be able to second guests and scrutinize more

68
00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:06,720
Speaker 1: governmental bodies actions than otherwise would be able to the

69
00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:10,240
Speaker 1: problem is, it's hard to quantify First Amendment speech in

70
00:04:10,280 --> 00:04:12,920
Speaker 1: our case, and the plaintiff wasn't allowed to speak. How

71
00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:15,480
Speaker 1: do you put a dollar value on that? Maybe you

72
00:04:15,520 --> 00:04:18,120
Speaker 1: could say he had to walk fifteen minutes to a

73
00:04:18,120 --> 00:04:21,760
Speaker 1: different forum and that would cost time, and time is money,

74
00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:24,120
Speaker 1: and maybe he should have said it costs me thirty

75
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:26,600
Speaker 1: five dollars that I could otherwise be making in order

76
00:04:26,640 --> 00:04:29,240
Speaker 1: to go to the other forum to give my speech,

77
00:04:29,800 --> 00:04:32,160
Speaker 1: and the courts would entertain that they'd have to It's

78
00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:37,080
Speaker 1: a traditional thirty five injury, isn't it more practical to say,

79
00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:40,359
Speaker 1: we know that the restriction on speech damaged you, you

80
00:04:40,360 --> 00:04:42,599
Speaker 1: couldn't speak. It's hard to put dollar figure on that,

81
00:04:42,880 --> 00:04:46,640
Speaker 1: So vindicate your claim by just saying its phenominal damages.

82
00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:50,400
Speaker 1: And that's why this has become really a very intriguing

83
00:04:50,720 --> 00:04:53,840
Speaker 1: case because it doesn't fall really on a conservative versus

84
00:04:53,920 --> 00:04:57,280
Speaker 1: liberal lines exactly. It falls with the question of how

85
00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:01,520
Speaker 1: much power should judges have to second guests and administration.

86
00:05:01,839 --> 00:05:04,880
Speaker 1: So I think that's the axis under which the position

87
00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:09,440
Speaker 1: we reached in the case. The school officials basically said, look,

88
00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:12,919
Speaker 1: there's nothing left for the court to do. Is that

89
00:05:13,000 --> 00:05:16,040
Speaker 1: a strong argument? In one sense, it's true. The only

90
00:05:16,080 --> 00:05:18,960
Speaker 1: thing left for the court to do is to decide

91
00:05:19,000 --> 00:05:22,400
Speaker 1: the constitutional question and decide to give the planets a

92
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:25,560
Speaker 1: dollar each if they agree that their First Amendment rights

93
00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:29,520
Speaker 1: were violated. Um. That is, on the one hand, you

94
00:05:29,560 --> 00:05:32,920
Speaker 1: can say this is not with the need to address

95
00:05:33,200 --> 00:05:36,320
Speaker 1: the constitutional issue in that context, and that's what Chief

96
00:05:36,400 --> 00:05:39,120
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts seems to be saying. But on the other hand,

97
00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:45,000
Speaker 1: there was a very arguably serious First Amendment violation, and

98
00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:48,719
Speaker 1: we may wonder what courts should arguably address that in

99
00:05:48,839 --> 00:05:51,919
Speaker 1: order to give guidance for the future and to compensate

100
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:55,960
Speaker 1: the individual through nominal damages in light of the fact

101
00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:59,560
Speaker 1: that their First Amendment rights allegedly were violated. In this

102
00:05:59,640 --> 00:06:03,480
Speaker 1: case has groups that are often on opposite sides of issues,

103
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:06,800
Speaker 1: like the Americans Civil Liberties Union and the U S

104
00:06:06,880 --> 00:06:10,560
Speaker 1: Conference of Catholic Bishops uniting. And there were just two

105
00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:14,080
Speaker 1: amiquest briefs in support of the College. How odd is

106
00:06:14,120 --> 00:06:18,520
Speaker 1: that it's very unusual. And I think that any kind

107
00:06:18,520 --> 00:06:22,920
Speaker 1: of interest group that challenges governmental action knows that its

108
00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:26,919
Speaker 1: ability to get cases heard before the court depend upon

109
00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 1: a vehicle for keeping a case alive and normal damages

110
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:34,760
Speaker 1: is such a vehicle because it recognizes that there are

111
00:06:35,000 --> 00:06:39,120
Speaker 1: dignitary harms caused by when the government violates your constitutional rights,

112
00:06:39,320 --> 00:06:42,400
Speaker 1: even if they're not quantifiable. I mean, there are dignitary

113
00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:46,080
Speaker 1: harms that common laws trespassed, the violation of someone's trademark,

114
00:06:46,400 --> 00:06:50,279
Speaker 1: and private individuals would get some kind of damages even

115
00:06:50,360 --> 00:06:55,120
Speaker 1: if you couldn't prove actual damages. And that's in essence

116
00:06:55,160 --> 00:06:58,520
Speaker 1: what the claim is here, supported by many Friends of

117
00:06:58,520 --> 00:07:01,640
Speaker 1: the Court's briefs. And also I think it's a recognition

118
00:07:02,080 --> 00:07:05,520
Speaker 1: that we somehow don't trust government when they change policies

119
00:07:05,760 --> 00:07:08,359
Speaker 1: that they're not doing it for the wrong reason, namely

120
00:07:08,440 --> 00:07:11,720
Speaker 1: to avoid a judicial decision as to right or wrong.

121
00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:15,920
Speaker 1: Taylor Swift came up in the oral arguments. I think

122
00:07:15,920 --> 00:07:17,600
Speaker 1: it was a little bit of a surprise. Tell us

123
00:07:17,640 --> 00:07:23,120
Speaker 1: how her name came up. She relatively famously sued a

124
00:07:23,200 --> 00:07:27,400
Speaker 1: Denver talk show host for sexual proprieties when he had

125
00:07:27,400 --> 00:07:30,040
Speaker 1: her on the air, and she said, look, I'm not

126
00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:33,200
Speaker 1: going to try to quantify the kind of damages that

127
00:07:33,280 --> 00:07:36,520
Speaker 1: you caused me. All I want is a vindication in

128
00:07:36,600 --> 00:07:39,600
Speaker 1: court that you acted inappropriately, and I'm going to do

129
00:07:39,640 --> 00:07:42,680
Speaker 1: that by just asking phenomenal damages. She could have tried

130
00:07:42,720 --> 00:07:46,720
Speaker 1: to characterize her injuries in terms of money figure, but

131
00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:49,720
Speaker 1: she saw instead to say, I'm suing because of principle.

132
00:07:50,080 --> 00:07:53,280
Speaker 1: I want to be validated regally in that you evaded

133
00:07:53,320 --> 00:07:56,760
Speaker 1: my autonomy, and she won't. So it's become one of

134
00:07:56,800 --> 00:08:00,640
Speaker 1: the more famous recent cases phenomenal damages. And so the

135
00:08:00,760 --> 00:08:04,080
Speaker 1: reason why Justice Kagan suggested this is to show that

136
00:08:04,160 --> 00:08:08,440
Speaker 1: normal damages can play a very important role to vindicate

137
00:08:08,600 --> 00:08:12,560
Speaker 1: the individual's injuries, even if it doesn't look like a

138
00:08:12,600 --> 00:08:17,600
Speaker 1: traditional compensatory harm. Such as I have a broken bone,

139
00:08:17,880 --> 00:08:19,640
Speaker 1: how much does it cost me to get to a doctor?

140
00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:23,520
Speaker 1: Or my house has been ruined by a flood, how

141
00:08:23,600 --> 00:08:26,560
Speaker 1: much will cost to repair it. This instead is a

142
00:08:26,640 --> 00:08:29,280
Speaker 1: notion that, yes, there's been an invasion of illegal wrong

143
00:08:29,880 --> 00:08:32,760
Speaker 1: and that should be sufficient to continue a case. Even

144
00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:35,280
Speaker 1: if it's otherwise it would be mooted out because of

145
00:08:35,320 --> 00:08:38,600
Speaker 1: the change of policy of a government defendant. Now, some

146
00:08:38,679 --> 00:08:42,440
Speaker 1: of the justice has expressed concerns that this could lead

147
00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:45,200
Speaker 1: to a flood of litigation. If you allow these kinds

148
00:08:45,200 --> 00:08:48,880
Speaker 1: of claims. There is no question that a ruling in

149
00:08:48,960 --> 00:08:52,679
Speaker 1: favor of the plaintiffs in Georgia will result in increased

150
00:08:52,760 --> 00:08:56,000
Speaker 1: claims against government action. I don't think there'll be a flood.

151
00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:57,760
Speaker 1: There's been no showing that there'll be a flood, but

152
00:08:57,920 --> 00:09:01,400
Speaker 1: absolutely because they'll be more because, as you suggested earlier,

153
00:09:01,600 --> 00:09:05,200
Speaker 1: there are a not insignificant number of times when government

154
00:09:05,679 --> 00:09:09,640
Speaker 1: is sued, they realize that they have taken an untenable

155
00:09:09,880 --> 00:09:13,679
Speaker 1: legal position, they'll change course. And if changing course will

156
00:09:13,679 --> 00:09:16,679
Speaker 1: not get with the lawsuits, then course will more frequently

157
00:09:17,000 --> 00:09:20,600
Speaker 1: be invited into the dispute. So, yes, that the margin

158
00:09:20,640 --> 00:09:23,719
Speaker 1: there will definitely be more suits that are brought. And indeed,

159
00:09:23,920 --> 00:09:27,640
Speaker 1: because of the fact that nominal damages in some contexts

160
00:09:27,640 --> 00:09:31,240
Speaker 1: will support an attorney's fees award, a decision in favor

161
00:09:31,280 --> 00:09:35,040
Speaker 1: of the Georgia plantiffs would give plainests attorneys more incentive

162
00:09:35,120 --> 00:09:38,840
Speaker 1: defined plainists to challenge government action that they think is

163
00:09:38,880 --> 00:09:41,120
Speaker 1: illegal because they may, at the end of the day

164
00:09:41,400 --> 00:09:45,280
Speaker 1: recover a handsome attorney's FASA award. Now Chief Justice John

165
00:09:45,400 --> 00:09:48,080
Speaker 1: Robert's question whether it would make a mockery of the

166
00:09:48,120 --> 00:09:52,040
Speaker 1: courts mutinous doctrine if a plaintiff could stop a judge

167
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:55,120
Speaker 1: from throwing out a case by simply asking for a

168
00:09:55,160 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 1: dollar in damages and he says, well, then you don't

169
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:02,120
Speaker 1: have standing of got to throw the case out. You said, oh,

170
00:10:02,200 --> 00:10:04,480
Speaker 1: well throw me throwing a buck, and then the judge

171
00:10:04,480 --> 00:10:06,760
Speaker 1: is supposed say, yeah, well everything's fine now, doesn't that

172
00:10:06,920 --> 00:10:10,920
Speaker 1: Doesn't that make a mockery of our Article three requirements.

173
00:10:11,600 --> 00:10:14,839
Speaker 1: What he is considering is that it would limit the

174
00:10:14,880 --> 00:10:17,319
Speaker 1: moutenous doctor And I think that Chief Justice Roberts is

175
00:10:17,400 --> 00:10:20,480
Speaker 1: right about that, but not totally. What you're saying is

176
00:10:20,520 --> 00:10:24,119
Speaker 1: that an individual's right to go to court and say

177
00:10:24,360 --> 00:10:27,560
Speaker 1: I want you to say that I was injured, just

178
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:29,600
Speaker 1: so I can have the satisfaction that you say that

179
00:10:29,640 --> 00:10:32,160
Speaker 1: I was injured. You know, that is one way to

180
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:35,240
Speaker 1: frame the issue. And if you believe in a strong

181
00:10:35,320 --> 00:10:38,240
Speaker 1: moutenous doctor and to limit the courts, that you only

182
00:10:38,280 --> 00:10:41,280
Speaker 1: want to have the courts opine on these issues of

183
00:10:41,400 --> 00:10:44,520
Speaker 1: great constitution moment when they actually have to. Then you

184
00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:47,400
Speaker 1: want to get rid of this case because there is

185
00:10:47,480 --> 00:10:51,199
Speaker 1: no continuing dispute. So Chief Justice Roberts is right. And

186
00:10:51,240 --> 00:10:54,040
Speaker 1: this goes to the whole question of judicial power. Judges

187
00:10:54,080 --> 00:10:58,080
Speaker 1: will be brought into more controversies if they decide that

188
00:10:58,120 --> 00:11:02,200
Speaker 1: a normal damages is sufficient to keep a case alive,

189
00:11:02,360 --> 00:11:05,000
Speaker 1: probably not as many as the court fears, but at

190
00:11:05,080 --> 00:11:08,240
Speaker 1: least at the margin, more controversies. And so that's why

191
00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:11,720
Speaker 1: this becomes a question really about judicial power and about

192
00:11:11,760 --> 00:11:15,640
Speaker 1: how much you trust administrative and bureaucratic governmental entities. And

193
00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:18,560
Speaker 1: I think that we may see an unusual alliance here.

194
00:11:18,960 --> 00:11:23,240
Speaker 1: So what kind of alliance of the justices might we see? So,

195
00:11:23,400 --> 00:11:27,319
Speaker 1: for instance, we might see Justice Comy and Justice Corsets

196
00:11:27,600 --> 00:11:32,080
Speaker 1: deciding in favor of sympathetic plainmus here because of their

197
00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:36,000
Speaker 1: mistrust of government entities and their sympathy for individuals who

198
00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:39,240
Speaker 1: might be harmed by a Biden administration, for instance, or

199
00:11:39,440 --> 00:11:42,959
Speaker 1: who might be harmed because entities are not respecting the

200
00:11:43,080 --> 00:11:47,040
Speaker 1: religious interests. So it may be some traditional liberals such

201
00:11:47,080 --> 00:11:50,000
Speaker 1: as Briar taken and so to my or that may

202
00:11:50,120 --> 00:11:53,320
Speaker 1: make a pact or alliance in this case with some

203
00:11:53,400 --> 00:11:56,000
Speaker 1: of the more conservative justices, because at the end of

204
00:11:56,000 --> 00:11:58,520
Speaker 1: the day, this is about do you want these cases

205
00:11:58,559 --> 00:12:00,520
Speaker 1: to go to court? And if you're the court, you

206
00:12:00,559 --> 00:12:03,520
Speaker 1: may trust the court more than the political branches to

207
00:12:03,559 --> 00:12:07,480
Speaker 1: get these issues right. Let's say that the plaintiffs do

208
00:12:07,679 --> 00:12:10,400
Speaker 1: win here with the opinion by the court, have to

209
00:12:10,520 --> 00:12:14,920
Speaker 1: explain how this differs from the Second Amendment case we're

210
00:12:14,920 --> 00:12:18,240
Speaker 1: talking about. The Second Amendment case did not squarely raised

211
00:12:18,280 --> 00:12:21,440
Speaker 1: this issue. It is as a kind of a cousin

212
00:12:21,520 --> 00:12:24,240
Speaker 1: of it. It could have raised the issue, but that's

213
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:27,360
Speaker 1: not what the court was focusing on um or the

214
00:12:27,400 --> 00:12:31,240
Speaker 1: parties we're focusing on uh in the procedural posture before

215
00:12:31,280 --> 00:12:34,400
Speaker 1: the court. But there will be My prediction is that

216
00:12:34,440 --> 00:12:37,920
Speaker 1: there will be discussion of that situation because the Court

217
00:12:37,960 --> 00:12:41,600
Speaker 1: will want to explain or give guidance to what should

218
00:12:41,600 --> 00:12:45,560
Speaker 1: happen if that Second Amendment challenge is raised again. Thanks

219
00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:48,679
Speaker 1: Hal that's Harold Crant to the Chicago Kent College of Law.

220
00:12:50,080 --> 00:12:53,120
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has vacated the convictions of four men,

221
00:12:53,320 --> 00:12:57,000
Speaker 1: including the one time King of Political Intelligence, in an

222
00:12:57,000 --> 00:13:01,280
Speaker 1: insider trading case involving a scheme to profit from government secrets.

223
00:13:01,720 --> 00:13:04,200
Speaker 1: The Justice has sent the case back to the Second

224
00:13:04,200 --> 00:13:07,120
Speaker 1: Circuit Federal Court of Appeals to take another look at

225
00:13:07,160 --> 00:13:09,920
Speaker 1: its ruling in light of the Supreme courts so called

226
00:13:09,920 --> 00:13:13,680
Speaker 1: Bridgegate case. You may remember the case that drew headlines

227
00:13:13,720 --> 00:13:16,360
Speaker 1: and the scandal that helped to derail former New Jersey

228
00:13:16,360 --> 00:13:20,920
Speaker 1: Governor Chris Christie's run for president, a politically motivated scheme

229
00:13:20,960 --> 00:13:24,160
Speaker 1: that caused a traffic nightmare on the George Washington Bridge

230
00:13:24,160 --> 00:13:28,280
Speaker 1: in and led to two of Christie's aids being convicted

231
00:13:28,280 --> 00:13:32,959
Speaker 1: of fraud. Bridget Kelly blamed Christie. Just because someone has

232
00:13:32,960 --> 00:13:35,920
Speaker 1: the title of governor doesn't give them the right to

233
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:41,160
Speaker 1: mislead others. It's dishonorable and it only shows that person

234
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:44,760
Speaker 1: for the coward he is. The Supreme Court reversed those

235
00:13:44,760 --> 00:13:47,640
Speaker 1: convictions last May. But what does that have to do

236
00:13:47,720 --> 00:13:50,960
Speaker 1: with an insider trading case? Here to answer that question

237
00:13:51,080 --> 00:13:54,680
Speaker 1: is John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School. Jack

238
00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:57,800
Speaker 1: tell us about the so called King of Political Intelligence.

239
00:13:58,760 --> 00:14:02,600
Speaker 1: David Blazak was a former employee of the Center for

240
00:14:02,720 --> 00:14:06,839
Speaker 1: Medicare and Medicaid Services, and when he left that agency,

241
00:14:07,160 --> 00:14:11,040
Speaker 1: he became a consultant for Hedge Funds because Hedge Funds

242
00:14:11,120 --> 00:14:15,160
Speaker 1: follow what that agency does, because it determines the profitability

243
00:14:15,200 --> 00:14:18,600
Speaker 1: of all kinds of treatments that various medical and pharmaceutical

244
00:14:18,640 --> 00:14:22,240
Speaker 1: companies provide. Now he learns that the agency is going

245
00:14:22,280 --> 00:14:24,760
Speaker 1: to cut back on the amount that will pay for

246
00:14:24,800 --> 00:14:28,120
Speaker 1: certain kind of cancer treatments. He tells that to his

247
00:14:28,160 --> 00:14:32,480
Speaker 1: Hedge fund clients. They sell short the companies that will

248
00:14:32,520 --> 00:14:35,880
Speaker 1: be most adversely affected by that new ruling. They make

249
00:14:35,920 --> 00:14:38,160
Speaker 1: a lot of money, They pay him a lot of money,

250
00:14:38,600 --> 00:14:42,360
Speaker 1: and he gets convicted under a priority of charges. What

251
00:14:42,480 --> 00:14:45,800
Speaker 1: was the essence of the prosecution's case against him and

252
00:14:45,960 --> 00:14:49,080
Speaker 1: three others? The conduct would look to most people like

253
00:14:49,200 --> 00:14:54,840
Speaker 1: pretty egregious insider trading. Well, you have misappropriated material, non

254
00:14:54,880 --> 00:14:59,080
Speaker 1: public information that is known at that agency. Believe they

255
00:14:59,080 --> 00:15:02,280
Speaker 1: could just really give this information to people who might

256
00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:05,040
Speaker 1: want to trade on it. There's all kinds of governmental

257
00:15:05,120 --> 00:15:09,200
Speaker 1: information that has a dramatic impact on the price of securities.

258
00:15:09,600 --> 00:15:12,120
Speaker 1: If you know in advance that the Federal Reserve is

259
00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:16,400
Speaker 1: going to raise or lower interest rates, you can make billions.

260
00:15:16,480 --> 00:15:18,720
Speaker 1: And thus the Fedal Reserve probably to keep that very

261
00:15:18,840 --> 00:15:23,480
Speaker 1: very confidential. And this agency basically had similar rules. But

262
00:15:23,960 --> 00:15:26,840
Speaker 1: the guys who were friends and sort of alumni that

263
00:15:26,920 --> 00:15:29,800
Speaker 1: agency had a way of lunching with their old colleagues

264
00:15:29,840 --> 00:15:32,000
Speaker 1: and learning what was going on, and they got very

265
00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:37,920
Speaker 1: valuable information. In the view of the prosecution, they were stealing, embezzling,

266
00:15:38,040 --> 00:15:43,120
Speaker 1: or misappropriating that information from the agency. But then the

267
00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:47,800
Speaker 1: big surprise occurs. The Supreme Court decides what's called the

268
00:15:47,840 --> 00:15:50,960
Speaker 1: bridge Gate case, and that says the government may not

269
00:15:51,080 --> 00:15:56,160
Speaker 1: have any property interest any right to hold its confidential

270
00:15:56,200 --> 00:15:59,280
Speaker 1: information private. So if you don't have a property interest,

271
00:15:59,440 --> 00:16:02,680
Speaker 1: there can't be a property charge. And the case he'll

272
00:16:02,720 --> 00:16:04,600
Speaker 1: go back to the second Circuit to see if a

273
00:16:04,680 --> 00:16:07,920
Speaker 1: different theory can be worked out that does not offend

274
00:16:08,000 --> 00:16:11,280
Speaker 1: the bridge Gate decision. Just to be clear, the bridge

275
00:16:11,280 --> 00:16:15,320
Speaker 1: Gate case did not involve insider trading of any kind involved,

276
00:16:15,360 --> 00:16:19,920
Speaker 1: really just corrupt governmental action that was in a form

277
00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:23,520
Speaker 1: of retaliation against the mayor of Fort Lee because he

278
00:16:23,560 --> 00:16:27,160
Speaker 1: had not endorsed Governor Christie, and the Supreme Court said,

279
00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:31,520
Speaker 1: that's not fraud, that's just politics. Explain why the federal

280
00:16:31,520 --> 00:16:36,200
Speaker 1: prosecutors saw the Bridgegate decision and took the unusual step

281
00:16:36,240 --> 00:16:39,520
Speaker 1: of asking the Supreme Court to remand the case that

282
00:16:39,640 --> 00:16:43,040
Speaker 1: they won. They saw the Kelly decision, and they saw

283
00:16:43,120 --> 00:16:46,160
Speaker 1: the briefs come in from the party that sought sociary.

284
00:16:46,520 --> 00:16:50,520
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court granted sociary on the defendants theory that

285
00:16:50,680 --> 00:16:54,840
Speaker 1: Kelly controlled this case. So because the government has suddenly

286
00:16:54,880 --> 00:16:58,640
Speaker 1: seen the theory of property being narrowed, they know this

287
00:16:58,680 --> 00:17:01,440
Speaker 1: case is in danger, and the government that rather than

288
00:17:01,520 --> 00:17:04,040
Speaker 1: fight on that line of battle, let's get the case

289
00:17:04,119 --> 00:17:06,560
Speaker 1: for Amanda down to the Second Circuit and they can

290
00:17:06,560 --> 00:17:09,720
Speaker 1: write a revised opinion that ducks that problem. So what's

291
00:17:09,800 --> 00:17:13,640
Speaker 1: likely to happen at the second Circuit? Specifically, the key

292
00:17:13,800 --> 00:17:19,040
Speaker 1: charge here is something called securities fraud under section and

293
00:17:19,119 --> 00:17:21,680
Speaker 1: that has two prongs, and one of those problems involves

294
00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:25,960
Speaker 1: a deprivation of property and the other prong involves defrauding

295
00:17:26,000 --> 00:17:29,639
Speaker 1: any person. I would suspect that the Second Circuit panel

296
00:17:29,680 --> 00:17:32,920
Speaker 1: they've already did convict. This guy will say, well, he's

297
00:17:32,960 --> 00:17:36,520
Speaker 1: also guilty of that other prong in which you are

298
00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:40,920
Speaker 1: defrauding some person even though you're not obtaining money or property.

299
00:17:41,240 --> 00:17:44,280
Speaker 1: So that's just a prediction. I'm not certain that I'm right,

300
00:17:44,600 --> 00:17:47,040
Speaker 1: but I think the government asked the case to be

301
00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:50,280
Speaker 1: remanded even though they had one, because they thought a

302
00:17:50,320 --> 00:17:53,520
Speaker 1: stronger theory could be written now that Kelly was the lord.

303
00:17:54,600 --> 00:17:57,720
Speaker 1: And so the Second Circuit will have no choice but

304
00:17:57,840 --> 00:18:03,360
Speaker 1: to reverse itself rewrite a decision, because they are if

305
00:18:03,400 --> 00:18:08,040
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court tells you to reconsider, you better reconsider seriously.

306
00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:13,480
Speaker 1: Has a Supreme Court limited the take on the expanse

307
00:18:13,560 --> 00:18:17,560
Speaker 1: of insider trading? Over the years now, the Supreme Court

308
00:18:17,560 --> 00:18:22,879
Speaker 1: has been very much expansive and basically quite supportive of

309
00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:27,760
Speaker 1: the prosecution. They do require that you have show a

310
00:18:27,840 --> 00:18:30,800
Speaker 1: proof of a fiduciary breach if this is going to

311
00:18:30,880 --> 00:18:33,320
Speaker 1: be done under rule ten B five. And that's sort

312
00:18:33,320 --> 00:18:36,560
Speaker 1: of the irony of this case because the prosecutors, while

313
00:18:36,600 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 1: they used Rule ten B five, use several other theories

314
00:18:39,880 --> 00:18:42,879
Speaker 1: that allow them to outflank the need for showing a

315
00:18:42,920 --> 00:18:46,600
Speaker 1: breach of fiduciary duty. And now those other theories are

316
00:18:46,640 --> 00:18:48,960
Speaker 1: shown to have a problem because you've got to show

317
00:18:48,960 --> 00:18:53,800
Speaker 1: at least some deprivation of property, and right now the

318
00:18:53,880 --> 00:18:55,960
Speaker 1: government is not going to be able to convince the

319
00:18:55,960 --> 00:18:59,879
Speaker 1: Supreme Court the confidential information of a government agency about

320
00:18:59,880 --> 00:19:02,760
Speaker 1: what it's about to do amounts to property that can

321
00:19:03,000 --> 00:19:06,159
Speaker 1: can have stolen. Norm Biddle, do you agree with that

322
00:19:06,160 --> 00:19:10,159
Speaker 1: that confidential you know, government information shouldn't be considered. I

323
00:19:10,160 --> 00:19:12,240
Speaker 1: think we have to protect that so it will be

324
00:19:12,280 --> 00:19:15,119
Speaker 1: protected if you get it through computer hacking or if

325
00:19:15,119 --> 00:19:19,320
Speaker 1: you violate the espionage Statute by the stealing defense secrets.

326
00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:22,639
Speaker 1: But I think lots of information is extremely valuable and

327
00:19:22,680 --> 00:19:25,320
Speaker 1: would wreck havoc with the government. Think of the Federal

328
00:19:25,359 --> 00:19:28,719
Speaker 1: Reserve Board. If people could find out a week early

329
00:19:29,119 --> 00:19:31,359
Speaker 1: that Federal Reserve we're going to raise or lower interest

330
00:19:31,440 --> 00:19:34,600
Speaker 1: rates by defined amount, there would be a phenomenal amount

331
00:19:34,680 --> 00:19:37,920
Speaker 1: of informed trading by people who would know information that

332
00:19:38,040 --> 00:19:40,639
Speaker 1: the rest of the market would not know. You know,

333
00:19:40,680 --> 00:19:45,160
Speaker 1: when Free Berrara was U S Attorney for the Southern District,

334
00:19:45,160 --> 00:19:50,080
Speaker 1: we saw crackdown insider trading. How has that fared under

335
00:19:50,440 --> 00:19:53,840
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Well, the U S Attorneys have still

336
00:19:53,920 --> 00:19:59,040
Speaker 1: one cases the Southern District. It's a sort of independent agency.

337
00:19:59,480 --> 00:20:02,119
Speaker 1: It called itself the Sovereign District in New York, and

338
00:20:02,480 --> 00:20:07,360
Speaker 1: they haven't let the government in Washington directly control everything

339
00:20:07,440 --> 00:20:10,240
Speaker 1: they do. Uh. And this was a case that was

340
00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:13,879
Speaker 1: prosecuted years ago. The decision came down from the Second

341
00:20:13,920 --> 00:20:17,400
Speaker 1: Circuit on the last day of two thousand nineteen. So

342
00:20:17,480 --> 00:20:20,679
Speaker 1: this was a prosecution that we brought before Trump. The

343
00:20:20,720 --> 00:20:25,040
Speaker 1: Trump administration has not been particularly vocal about not bringing

344
00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:27,600
Speaker 1: inside a trading cases, other kind of cases that they're

345
00:20:27,840 --> 00:20:30,760
Speaker 1: much more conservative about. So I think the Southern District

346
00:20:30,760 --> 00:20:34,679
Speaker 1: has persisted in bringing some inside writer trading cases, but

347
00:20:34,800 --> 00:20:38,120
Speaker 1: not nearly as many as were brought under President Obama.

348
00:20:38,240 --> 00:20:41,120
Speaker 1: Do you have any expectations about what will happen under

349
00:20:41,160 --> 00:20:44,920
Speaker 1: a President Biden. I think we've got to go back

350
00:20:44,960 --> 00:20:48,320
Speaker 1: to the old pattern. I think the Democrats and most

351
00:20:48,359 --> 00:20:51,760
Speaker 1: of the country doesn't see any value and insider trading,

352
00:20:52,040 --> 00:20:54,760
Speaker 1: and they wanted those cases prosecuted, or at least the

353
00:20:54,800 --> 00:20:57,840
Speaker 1: big cases prosecuted. And this was a case in which

354
00:20:57,840 --> 00:21:00,600
Speaker 1: an awful lot of money was made and just to

355
00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:04,399
Speaker 1: summon up you think that Blazac will end up with

356
00:21:04,480 --> 00:21:09,160
Speaker 1: a prison sentence, even after the second Circuits. Well, I'm

357
00:21:09,160 --> 00:21:11,919
Speaker 1: not going to predict the sentencing, but that is the

358
00:21:12,000 --> 00:21:15,479
Speaker 1: normal sentence that even first defenders usually get a prison

359
00:21:15,680 --> 00:21:18,720
Speaker 1: term when they are convicted of inside the trading. I

360
00:21:18,760 --> 00:21:22,200
Speaker 1: think that the Second Circuit can write a decision that

361
00:21:22,320 --> 00:21:25,880
Speaker 1: skirts around the problems in the Kelly case and the

362
00:21:25,960 --> 00:21:29,960
Speaker 1: RidgeGate case because they can find something not involving property

363
00:21:30,040 --> 00:21:33,320
Speaker 1: was violated, such as a defrauding of an individual. You

364
00:21:33,359 --> 00:21:37,360
Speaker 1: can say the agency was defrauded and cheated because they

365
00:21:37,400 --> 00:21:43,800
Speaker 1: weren't allowed to persist in keeping their internal processes secret.

366
00:21:43,840 --> 00:21:46,280
Speaker 1: Even though it wasn't property. You could say you devoted

367
00:21:46,320 --> 00:21:49,080
Speaker 1: the agency. I will see how they write it. I mean,

368
00:21:49,200 --> 00:21:52,520
Speaker 1: maybe they decide they can't write a decision, but I

369
00:21:52,560 --> 00:21:55,080
Speaker 1: think they've been giving the opportunity, and the U S

370
00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:57,520
Speaker 1: attorneys Upice thought if they got a second chance, they

371
00:21:57,560 --> 00:22:00,000
Speaker 1: would be able to write a decision that would would

372
00:22:00,119 --> 00:22:03,800
Speaker 1: withstand an appeal based on Kelly. In the bridge Gate case,

373
00:22:04,040 --> 00:22:07,080
Speaker 1: what about the three other people who were involved, Well,

374
00:22:07,119 --> 00:22:09,280
Speaker 1: some of them have said guilty already, but they're all

375
00:22:09,320 --> 00:22:10,919
Speaker 1: in the same boat. Those that are up there in

376
00:22:10,920 --> 00:22:14,879
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court are all in the same boat. Blaizac

377
00:22:15,040 --> 00:22:18,000
Speaker 1: was the critical person because he was the person who

378
00:22:18,119 --> 00:22:21,000
Speaker 1: got the information from the agency and gave it to

379
00:22:21,040 --> 00:22:24,840
Speaker 1: the hedge funds. The hedge funds are basically doing that

380
00:22:24,880 --> 00:22:27,320
Speaker 1: they're usually doing, trying to pay experts to get them

381
00:22:27,320 --> 00:22:30,440
Speaker 1: information that the public doesn't know. So the case now

382
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:33,880
Speaker 1: returns to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. We'll keep

383
00:22:33,920 --> 00:22:37,040
Speaker 1: you updated on what happens there. Thanks so much for

384
00:22:37,080 --> 00:22:39,800
Speaker 1: being on the Bloomberg Laws Show. Jack. That's Professor John

385
00:22:39,840 --> 00:22:43,000
Speaker 1: Coffee of Columbia Law School. And that's it for the

386
00:22:43,160 --> 00:22:46,400
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Lawn Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Thanks

387
00:22:46,440 --> 00:22:49,080
Speaker 1: so much for listening, and remember you can always get

388
00:22:49,080 --> 00:22:52,159
Speaker 1: the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You

389
00:22:52,200 --> 00:22:55,480
Speaker 1: can find them on Apple podcast and Spotify and wherever

390
00:22:55,560 --> 00:23:00,639
Speaker 1: you get your favorite podcast. You're listening to Bloomberg. The

391
00:23:00,720 --> 00:23:04,720
Speaker 1: counting of the counting ended the end of the