1
00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,640
Speaker 1: President Trump's tweeting has been the subject of comedy, derision,

2
00:00:03,680 --> 00:00:07,080
Speaker 1: and concern. It's become his method of giving information to

3
00:00:07,160 --> 00:00:10,760
Speaker 1: the public. Trump announced his nomination of Christopher Ray as

4
00:00:10,920 --> 00:00:14,480
Speaker 1: FBI director on Twitter, he tweeted threats that he had

5
00:00:14,560 --> 00:00:18,000
Speaker 1: military solutions that were locked and loaded to use on

6
00:00:18,079 --> 00:00:21,319
Speaker 1: North Korea. His tweets have often led members of his

7
00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:26,320
Speaker 1: administration to respond to public concerns. Here's National Security Advisor

8
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:32,160
Speaker 1: hr McMaster on ABC's This Week. The purpose of capable

9
00:00:32,600 --> 00:00:37,440
Speaker 1: ready forces is to preserve peace and prevent war. George

10
00:00:37,440 --> 00:00:41,400
Speaker 1: Washington said it. As much as Trump loves tweeting, Trump

11
00:00:41,440 --> 00:00:44,800
Speaker 1: also loves to block Twitter users who have criticized or

12
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:48,080
Speaker 1: mocked him from his account. A First Amendment group is

13
00:00:48,120 --> 00:00:51,559
Speaker 1: sued Trump, saying it's unconstitutional for him to block the

14
00:00:51,600 --> 00:00:55,840
Speaker 1: Twitter users it represents. The Justice Department has responded that

15
00:00:55,880 --> 00:00:58,760
Speaker 1: Trump has the legal right to block Twitter users on

16
00:00:58,800 --> 00:01:02,960
Speaker 1: the privately run website. Our guests are Stephen Vladdock, professor

17
00:01:02,960 --> 00:01:06,759
Speaker 1: at the University of Texas Law School, and Sycretion of Procush,

18
00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:10,959
Speaker 1: professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Steve

19
00:01:11,040 --> 00:01:14,440
Speaker 1: The group of seven Twitter users range from a former

20
00:01:14,480 --> 00:01:19,400
Speaker 1: police officer to a writer, tell us the argument that

21
00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:23,839
Speaker 1: the First Amendment group is making on their behalf. Sure,

22
00:01:23,880 --> 00:01:25,880
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the basic gist of their claim

23
00:01:25,959 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 1: June is that the president's Twitter account is part of

24
00:01:29,920 --> 00:01:33,080
Speaker 1: his job responsibilities. It's a public forum. It's a place

25
00:01:33,080 --> 00:01:36,080
Speaker 1: where he hands down official statements at a place where

26
00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:41,280
Speaker 1: he disseminates news. Um. And by preventing individual users from

27
00:01:41,319 --> 00:01:46,559
Speaker 1: accessing that forum for what are at least from the allegations,

28
00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:50,960
Speaker 1: content based reasons, the President is discriminating on the basis

29
00:01:51,040 --> 00:01:55,320
Speaker 1: of the content of his user's speech against him, um,

30
00:01:55,320 --> 00:01:57,880
Speaker 1: and that he's blocking them basically because they have a

31
00:01:57,960 --> 00:02:01,440
Speaker 1: viewpoint with which he disagrees. You know, in a normal context,

32
00:02:01,480 --> 00:02:05,000
Speaker 1: if a government official we're shutting out particular speakers based

33
00:02:05,040 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 1: on their viewpoint, that would received the highest scrutiny under

34
00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:10,200
Speaker 1: the First Amendment and would typically be struck down by

35
00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:13,000
Speaker 1: the courts. And so I we're still at a pretty

36
00:02:13,000 --> 00:02:16,200
Speaker 1: early stage in this litigation, but give us an overview

37
00:02:16,480 --> 00:02:19,680
Speaker 1: of what it looks like the Justice Department's defense of

38
00:02:19,720 --> 00:02:22,720
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is going to be here. Well, the Justice

39
00:02:22,720 --> 00:02:26,840
Speaker 1: Development filed the letter with the court and basically made

40
00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:32,720
Speaker 1: to two different claims one was that, UM, this you know,

41
00:02:33,040 --> 00:02:37,000
Speaker 1: the website, UM is not a public forum. The president

42
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:41,440
Speaker 1: had this Twitter account before he was president. UM, I

43
00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:45,239
Speaker 1: presumably will have it after he's president, and he's using

44
00:02:45,280 --> 00:02:48,400
Speaker 1: it to communicate with people, But it's not UM. It's

45
00:02:48,440 --> 00:02:52,080
Speaker 1: not an official website, our official Twitter handle for the government.

46
00:02:52,320 --> 00:02:55,120
Speaker 1: There's a separate White House Twitter feed for that. And

47
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:57,480
Speaker 1: then they're separately saying, and Stephen's very familiar with us,

48
00:02:57,520 --> 00:03:00,320
Speaker 1: they're separately saying that you can't enjoin the pre sident.

49
00:03:01,280 --> 00:03:06,200
Speaker 1: Under some Supreme Court cases going back to right after

50
00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:08,440
Speaker 1: the Civil War, you can't enjoin the president in his

51
00:03:08,480 --> 00:03:11,480
Speaker 1: official duties. And so they're saying, one, it's not a

52
00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:14,639
Speaker 1: public form, contrary to what the plaintiffs are saying. And too,

53
00:03:14,800 --> 00:03:18,840
Speaker 1: even if it is, you can't tell the president to

54
00:03:18,880 --> 00:03:21,880
Speaker 1: stop blocking these people from his Twitter account. So Steve,

55
00:03:21,960 --> 00:03:25,200
Speaker 1: let's take those one at a time. Because when the

56
00:03:25,240 --> 00:03:28,600
Speaker 1: federal Federal Appeals Court recently ruled against a key part

57
00:03:28,600 --> 00:03:32,280
Speaker 1: of Trump's travel band his executive order, they lifted the

58
00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:35,640
Speaker 1: injunction against the president. So how strong is the government's

59
00:03:35,800 --> 00:03:40,640
Speaker 1: argue argument that an injunction is inappropriate against a president? Well,

60
00:03:40,680 --> 00:03:42,800
Speaker 1: you know, June. I think it depends on the force

61
00:03:43,040 --> 00:03:46,280
Speaker 1: of this eighteen sixty seven president that's I referred to.

62
00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:49,800
Speaker 1: It's called Mississippi versus Johnson, UM, and this is an important,

63
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:54,000
Speaker 1: you know, challenge to military reconstruction by the state of Mississippi.

64
00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:56,960
Speaker 1: UM and the president and the Court basically ducked the merits.

65
00:03:57,000 --> 00:03:59,880
Speaker 1: They actually spent about five years ducting the merits of

66
00:03:59,920 --> 00:04:02,440
Speaker 1: the question by saying that at least in that case,

67
00:04:02,760 --> 00:04:06,400
Speaker 1: you know, they couldn't issue an injunction directly against President Johnson.

68
00:04:06,800 --> 00:04:08,520
Speaker 1: So a bunch of other states followed up in suits

69
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:11,680
Speaker 1: Secretary Stanton Um and the Court still duck the matter

70
00:04:11,760 --> 00:04:15,080
Speaker 1: on different grounds. I think to you know, most of

71
00:04:15,120 --> 00:04:17,960
Speaker 1: what's happened in the last hundred years has overtaken that president.

72
00:04:18,360 --> 00:04:20,640
Speaker 1: We have the Nixon case from nineteen seventy four, where

73
00:04:20,680 --> 00:04:23,400
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court upheld the power of the federal courts

74
00:04:23,400 --> 00:04:26,360
Speaker 1: to issue with subtoena to the president. We have lots

75
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:29,360
Speaker 1: of lower court decisions that have issued some kind of

76
00:04:29,480 --> 00:04:31,960
Speaker 1: compulsory release against the president. You know, I think the

77
00:04:31,960 --> 00:04:33,440
Speaker 1: courts are going to try to find a way to

78
00:04:33,480 --> 00:04:35,720
Speaker 1: avoid this question if they can. But if push comes

79
00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:39,279
Speaker 1: to shove, I suspect they'll say Mississippi versus. Johnson doesn't

80
00:04:39,360 --> 00:04:42,480
Speaker 1: stand for quite as broader proposition as the Justice Department

81
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:46,160
Speaker 1: has invoked it for Steve, as so often does make

82
00:04:46,160 --> 00:04:48,400
Speaker 1: it makes a pretty strong case there. Do you agree

83
00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 1: with him? I? I mean, honestly, Steve makes it sound

84
00:04:50,520 --> 00:04:53,760
Speaker 1: pretty I'm pretty likely that the Court would say, no,

85
00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:56,039
Speaker 1: we do have the authority to go ahead and issue

86
00:04:56,040 --> 00:04:59,520
Speaker 1: an injunction against the president. You know, I I think

87
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:02,800
Speaker 1: Steve is right on the merits. I think um as

88
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:06,280
Speaker 1: a matter of constitutional law, the president can be enjoined.

89
00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:09,279
Speaker 1: But if we're going to decide what the district Court's

90
00:05:09,279 --> 00:05:10,839
Speaker 1: going to do or what the courts are going to do,

91
00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,040
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone but the Supreme Court will walk

92
00:05:14,120 --> 00:05:16,920
Speaker 1: back what what is what was said in Mississippi versus Johnson,

93
00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:19,560
Speaker 1: or and what's been repeated in other U. S. Supreme

94
00:05:19,560 --> 00:05:22,120
Speaker 1: Court cases. So, you know, in order for what I

95
00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:26,600
Speaker 1: think Steve is saying to happen, the lower courts would

96
00:05:26,640 --> 00:05:29,000
Speaker 1: have to rule in favor of the United States and

97
00:05:29,040 --> 00:05:31,120
Speaker 1: would have to eventually get to the Supreme Court. And

98
00:05:31,160 --> 00:05:34,760
Speaker 1: then the Supreme Court might change its mind on this

99
00:05:34,880 --> 00:05:37,880
Speaker 1: sort of narrow point in line with the other cases

100
00:05:37,920 --> 00:05:40,120
Speaker 1: that Steve Iss cited. But I don't think that a

101
00:05:40,200 --> 00:05:42,240
Speaker 1: district court will do it because I don't think that

102
00:05:42,279 --> 00:05:46,120
Speaker 1: the district court will feel that it's in a position

103
00:05:46,160 --> 00:05:48,960
Speaker 1: to say that this old case in other cases that

104
00:05:49,000 --> 00:05:51,720
Speaker 1: have quoted this case or relied upon it. We've been

105
00:05:51,720 --> 00:05:55,040
Speaker 1: talking with Professor Steven Vladdock of the University of Texas

106
00:05:55,160 --> 00:05:58,840
Speaker 1: Law School and PROFESSORSA. Krishna Prakash of the University of

107
00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:04,040
Speaker 1: Virginia School of Law about the lawsuit against President Trump

108
00:06:05,080 --> 00:06:08,440
Speaker 1: for blocking people from his Twitter account and about the

109
00:06:08,480 --> 00:06:13,000
Speaker 1: government's response. Steve. Part of the government's response was this

110
00:06:13,160 --> 00:06:17,520
Speaker 1: was his private account before he became president, that it

111
00:06:17,640 --> 00:06:23,039
Speaker 1: is a private website, and also that this is within

112
00:06:23,360 --> 00:06:27,400
Speaker 1: his authority to do. But is that contradicted by the

113
00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:31,360
Speaker 1: fact that his White House officials, including Sean Spicer, have

114
00:06:31,560 --> 00:06:35,359
Speaker 1: said that this is uh part of the White House

115
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 1: and that this is something that you can look to

116
00:06:37,520 --> 00:06:41,360
Speaker 1: as official statements of the White House, you know, June,

117
00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:43,520
Speaker 1: I think that's the whole question that you know, if

118
00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:46,240
Speaker 1: the courts get to the merits in this lawsuit, this

119
00:06:46,279 --> 00:06:47,680
Speaker 1: is going to come down to. I mean, so I

120
00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:50,680
Speaker 1: was talking before the break about the arguments that, you know,

121
00:06:50,680 --> 00:06:54,360
Speaker 1: the president's Twitter feed is not necessarily a public forum.

122
00:06:54,400 --> 00:06:56,480
Speaker 1: I think that depends to some degree on how he's

123
00:06:56,560 --> 00:06:59,040
Speaker 1: using it. And we've seen him, as you mentioned at

124
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:02,680
Speaker 1: the top of the segment, making announcements on Twitter. He

125
00:07:02,720 --> 00:07:04,760
Speaker 1: announced that John Kelly was going to be his new

126
00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:06,920
Speaker 1: chief of staff on Twitter. He announced that he was

127
00:07:06,960 --> 00:07:10,000
Speaker 1: going to ban service by transgendered individuals in the military

128
00:07:10,040 --> 00:07:12,120
Speaker 1: on Twitter. And I think it's worth noting, I mean,

129
00:07:12,240 --> 00:07:16,480
Speaker 1: Congress in even before you know, Twitter was a big

130
00:07:16,520 --> 00:07:20,160
Speaker 1: part of this story. Um actually amended the Presidential Records

131
00:07:20,200 --> 00:07:25,280
Speaker 1: Act to obliterate the distinction between official and unofficial social

132
00:07:25,280 --> 00:07:28,280
Speaker 1: media accounts, the theory being that it's the substance of

133
00:07:28,320 --> 00:07:31,640
Speaker 1: the statement that matters, not the platform. So if that's true,

134
00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 1: if courts look at that for indications of how to

135
00:07:34,520 --> 00:07:37,240
Speaker 1: treat this, I think it's gonna be hard to conclude

136
00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:40,400
Speaker 1: that when the president speaks on Twitter, even through the

137
00:07:40,480 --> 00:07:43,920
Speaker 1: at real Donald Trump account, he's not speaking in at

138
00:07:43,960 --> 00:07:47,280
Speaker 1: least some quasi official capacity in a manner that implicates

139
00:07:47,320 --> 00:07:51,880
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. SI, how much harm are these plaintiffs

140
00:07:51,880 --> 00:07:55,760
Speaker 1: really suffering so they can still see Donald Trump's tweets

141
00:07:55,800 --> 00:07:59,760
Speaker 1: and they can even reply to them by setting up

142
00:07:59,800 --> 00:08:05,520
Speaker 1: another account. Is there really any um loss of free

143
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:10,680
Speaker 1: speech by letting the president block some people? Well, I mean,

144
00:08:10,680 --> 00:08:13,480
Speaker 1: I think that the plaintiffs are saying that they want

145
00:08:13,480 --> 00:08:17,000
Speaker 1: to be able to respond to the President as themselves,

146
00:08:17,000 --> 00:08:19,560
Speaker 1: that they've built up an identity online at you know,

147
00:08:19,640 --> 00:08:22,400
Speaker 1: with their real names or with the pseudonyms they're using,

148
00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:25,240
Speaker 1: and that having to create a different account in order

149
00:08:25,280 --> 00:08:27,880
Speaker 1: to to follow the president again puts them at a

150
00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:31,280
Speaker 1: distinct disadvantage. But you're right, the you know, a lot

151
00:08:31,320 --> 00:08:33,720
Speaker 1: of people are saying, if you, you know, just sign

152
00:08:33,720 --> 00:08:36,640
Speaker 1: out of Twitter, you can follow what the president saying,

153
00:08:36,720 --> 00:08:38,840
Speaker 1: and so that can't be a problem. And then other

154
00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:41,520
Speaker 1: people are saying, you can post under a different name,

155
00:08:41,679 --> 00:08:44,640
Speaker 1: and so you really aren't being shut out. I mean,

156
00:08:44,679 --> 00:08:47,720
Speaker 1: it's effectively saying, you know, if the if at a

157
00:08:47,720 --> 00:08:50,640
Speaker 1: city council meeting they throw out a person, the person

158
00:08:50,679 --> 00:08:53,680
Speaker 1: can still come back in wearing some sort of mask

159
00:08:53,760 --> 00:08:56,079
Speaker 1: and make the exact same comments, and so there is

160
00:08:56,120 --> 00:08:58,839
Speaker 1: obviously a burden being placed on them. I think it

161
00:08:58,880 --> 00:09:01,600
Speaker 1: will largely turn on the question that Steven pointed out,

162
00:09:01,640 --> 00:09:04,000
Speaker 1: which is is it a public form to begin with?

163
00:09:04,080 --> 00:09:06,480
Speaker 1: And I wonder whether the courts are going to want

164
00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:09,040
Speaker 1: to go down the road of of saying that it

165
00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:12,400
Speaker 1: is because you know, Donald Trump can so sort of

166
00:09:12,400 --> 00:09:15,280
Speaker 1: solve this problem just by turning off the ability to

167
00:09:15,320 --> 00:09:17,640
Speaker 1: comment at all on his Twitter account, and then there

168
00:09:17,679 --> 00:09:21,200
Speaker 1: would no longer be a public forum. But will but

169
00:09:21,320 --> 00:09:24,880
Speaker 1: will he do that? Likely not, because I think he

170
00:09:25,000 --> 00:09:28,320
Speaker 1: feeds off whatever positive comments he's getting off of off

171
00:09:28,360 --> 00:09:33,120
Speaker 1: of Twitter. But I think it's I think it's problematic

172
00:09:33,240 --> 00:09:36,640
Speaker 1: when you start trying to apply the public form doctrine

173
00:09:36,640 --> 00:09:40,160
Speaker 1: to Twitter. Right, suppose he banishes half the people from

174
00:09:40,160 --> 00:09:43,320
Speaker 1: the thing. Suppose he posts more photos of his food

175
00:09:43,640 --> 00:09:46,120
Speaker 1: on the account? Right is he? Is it a public

176
00:09:46,160 --> 00:09:49,080
Speaker 1: form only for the official post, but not for the

177
00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:52,040
Speaker 1: post of his dog or his children? It? I mean,

178
00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:55,000
Speaker 1: it's it's an odd claim that because some of the

179
00:09:55,120 --> 00:10:00,600
Speaker 1: things are official, the entire account becomes official at that point. Well, Steve,

180
00:10:00,679 --> 00:10:03,760
Speaker 1: let's talk about the federal judge in Virginia who ruled

181
00:10:03,840 --> 00:10:07,360
Speaker 1: last month that a local politician had violated the First

182
00:10:07,360 --> 00:10:10,720
Speaker 1: Amendment rights of a constituent when the politician blocked her

183
00:10:10,760 --> 00:10:14,360
Speaker 1: from a Facebook page where she discussed public business, and

184
00:10:14,400 --> 00:10:17,600
Speaker 1: the judge said that the Facebook page operates as a

185
00:10:17,679 --> 00:10:21,520
Speaker 1: forum for speech under the First Amendment, Might this be

186
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:24,880
Speaker 1: even more of a forum? So, I think it depends.

187
00:10:25,000 --> 00:10:26,880
Speaker 1: I think I think Size put his finger, you know,

188
00:10:27,000 --> 00:10:29,280
Speaker 1: right on the right, on the nub of the dispute here,

189
00:10:29,360 --> 00:10:31,880
Speaker 1: which is, you know, is there a way to split

190
00:10:31,880 --> 00:10:36,440
Speaker 1: the difference between those aspects of President Trump's Twitter presidents

191
00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:39,120
Speaker 1: that are official, that are part of his official duties,

192
00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:42,680
Speaker 1: that are communicating official statements from the president as the

193
00:10:42,720 --> 00:10:45,440
Speaker 1: chief executive of the United States, from those aspects of

194
00:10:45,480 --> 00:10:48,400
Speaker 1: his Twitter account that really are personal in our private

195
00:10:48,760 --> 00:10:51,600
Speaker 1: you know, one possibility here, which I think would never happen,

196
00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:54,200
Speaker 1: would be for the government to say, listen, we will

197
00:10:54,240 --> 00:10:57,320
Speaker 1: avow from this point forward that nothing on the at

198
00:10:57,400 --> 00:11:00,679
Speaker 1: real Donald Trump account constitutes the official policy of the

199
00:11:00,760 --> 00:11:03,040
Speaker 1: United States. If they said that, I actually think that

200
00:11:03,040 --> 00:11:05,320
Speaker 1: would make this case a lot easier on the First

201
00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:08,559
Speaker 1: Amendment basis. But we know that we're never going to

202
00:11:08,600 --> 00:11:10,520
Speaker 1: say that because the President doesn't want that. And so

203
00:11:10,559 --> 00:11:13,679
Speaker 1: I think what we had June is a First Amendment

204
00:11:13,880 --> 00:11:17,920
Speaker 1: mess almost entirely of the president's own making, because he

205
00:11:18,040 --> 00:11:20,800
Speaker 1: is so committed to use in what is typically a

206
00:11:20,840 --> 00:11:25,720
Speaker 1: personal platform for so much official business side. There's another

207
00:11:25,840 --> 00:11:28,760
Speaker 1: legal theory being used by the plaintiffs that's not focused

208
00:11:28,800 --> 00:11:32,280
Speaker 1: on on speech so much as the right to petition

209
00:11:32,920 --> 00:11:38,320
Speaker 1: the government for redress of grievances. Is that um analytically separate.

210
00:11:38,400 --> 00:11:42,320
Speaker 1: Is that another uh significant quiver in the arrow in

211
00:11:42,360 --> 00:11:44,280
Speaker 1: the quiver of the plaintiffs or does that sort of

212
00:11:44,480 --> 00:11:46,440
Speaker 1: mailed right into the first to the to the free

213
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:49,079
Speaker 1: speech argument. I think it mails right in. I mean

214
00:11:49,120 --> 00:11:51,560
Speaker 1: the basically, the public forum doctrine says I should be

215
00:11:51,600 --> 00:11:54,640
Speaker 1: able to speak in this particular forum right be at

216
00:11:54,640 --> 00:11:58,160
Speaker 1: the street or be at Twitter. And one response to

217
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:00,760
Speaker 1: that is just to say, well, you can speak in

218
00:12:00,800 --> 00:12:02,679
Speaker 1: another form where you don't have to be you don't

219
00:12:02,720 --> 00:12:04,680
Speaker 1: have to speak in this form. You can speak somewhere else.

220
00:12:04,679 --> 00:12:07,880
Speaker 1: But that's never a sufficient defense to a claim that

221
00:12:07,920 --> 00:12:10,200
Speaker 1: I should be allowed to speak in the public forum.

222
00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:12,480
Speaker 1: And so I think you know they're they're gonna the

223
00:12:12,520 --> 00:12:14,400
Speaker 1: fact that they can write a letter to the president

224
00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:18,440
Speaker 1: is no substitute for them being able to write on Twitter,

225
00:12:18,559 --> 00:12:22,640
Speaker 1: if in fact his Twitter account is a public form. Steve,

226
00:12:23,040 --> 00:12:27,640
Speaker 1: this raises cutting edge issues about the constitution and social media.

227
00:12:27,800 --> 00:12:31,240
Speaker 1: If it goes forward, is it a case the Supreme

228
00:12:31,280 --> 00:12:34,880
Speaker 1: Court might take up. I think it depends on how

229
00:12:34,880 --> 00:12:37,120
Speaker 1: it unfolds. June. I mean, I think that there's certainly

230
00:12:37,120 --> 00:12:39,960
Speaker 1: going to come a point sometime in the near future

231
00:12:40,320 --> 00:12:42,360
Speaker 1: where the Supreme Court is going to have to sort out,

232
00:12:42,400 --> 00:12:46,040
Speaker 1: at the very least the underlying merits question here, which

233
00:12:46,120 --> 00:12:49,400
Speaker 1: is whether when the President sends a tweet, that tweet

234
00:12:49,440 --> 00:12:52,320
Speaker 1: has the force of an executive order, that tweet has

235
00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:55,400
Speaker 1: the force of any other public prep pronouncement by the President,

236
00:12:55,800 --> 00:12:58,680
Speaker 1: whether that's gonna get to the Court in this context

237
00:12:58,840 --> 00:13:02,240
Speaker 1: or in the context of the now pendum challenge to

238
00:13:02,280 --> 00:13:05,600
Speaker 1: the new transgender policy in the military, or something else.

239
00:13:05,800 --> 00:13:07,280
Speaker 1: I think we're meant to be seen, but one way

240
00:13:07,360 --> 00:13:09,640
Speaker 1: or the other, I sispect the president's use of his

241
00:13:10,280 --> 00:13:13,439
Speaker 1: so called personal Twitter account is eventually going to force

242
00:13:13,520 --> 00:13:16,480
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to draw some kind of line between

243
00:13:16,800 --> 00:13:19,640
Speaker 1: the public aspect of that account and the personal aspect,

244
00:13:19,880 --> 00:13:22,920
Speaker 1: and that will be a very interesting Supreme Court argument.

245
00:13:23,000 --> 00:13:24,480
Speaker 1: I want to thank both of you for being on

246
00:13:24,520 --> 00:13:27,720
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law. That's Stephen Vladik, he's a professor at the

247
00:13:27,840 --> 00:13:31,679
Speaker 1: University of Texas Law School, and say Krishna Prakash, professor

248
00:13:31,720 --> 00:13:35,160
Speaker 1: at the University of Virginia School of Law. Thank you both.

249
00:13:35,520 --> 00:13:37,880
Speaker 1: That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law, but we'll

250
00:13:37,920 --> 00:13:40,240
Speaker 1: be back tomorrow at one pm Wall Street Time, and

251
00:13:40,320 --> 00:13:43,000
Speaker 1: hope that you will be as well. Thanks to our

252
00:13:43,040 --> 00:13:46,679
Speaker 1: producer David Suckerman and our technical director Mark sinist Councy.

253
00:13:47,080 --> 00:13:49,559
Speaker 1: You can always find the latest legal news at Bloomberg

254
00:13:49,600 --> 00:13:52,400
Speaker 1: Law dot com and Bloomberg BNA dot com, plus a

255
00:13:52,480 --> 00:13:55,160
Speaker 1: website for the legal community at Big Law Business dot

256
00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:58,400
Speaker 1: com and Attorneys You can find exceptional legal research and

257
00:13:58,520 --> 00:14:01,400
Speaker 1: business development tools Era as well, and don't forget to

258
00:14:01,440 --> 00:14:03,719
Speaker 1: listen to the latest legal topics in the news on

259
00:14:03,760 --> 00:14:07,600
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcast. Coming up next, Bloomberg Markets with

260
00:14:07,679 --> 00:14:12,120
Speaker 1: Carol Masser and Cory Johnson. I'm June Grasso with Greg Store.

261
00:14:12,200 --> 00:14:15,480
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for listening to Bloomberg Law. We'll be

262
00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:17,880
Speaker 1: back with you tomorrow. This is Bloomberg