1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:12,560 Speaker 2: The Supreme Court is considering a Republican led effort to 3 00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:17,680 Speaker 2: erase yet another campaign finance regulation, this time the federal 4 00:00:17,800 --> 00:00:21,480 Speaker 2: caps that limit how much political parties can spend in 5 00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:25,919 Speaker 2: coordination with candidates for Congress. It's the latest in a 6 00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:31,360 Speaker 2: line of cases where the conservative majority has upended congressionally 7 00:00:31,440 --> 00:00:35,880 Speaker 2: enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections, 8 00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:40,839 Speaker 2: and two hours of oral arguments showed the entrenched divisions 9 00:00:40,880 --> 00:00:46,640 Speaker 2: between the liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions. 10 00:00:47,120 --> 00:00:52,000 Speaker 2: Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor said that every time the Court interferes, 11 00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:53,680 Speaker 2: it makes matters worse. 12 00:00:54,800 --> 00:00:59,440 Speaker 3: You're telling us that citizens United and McCutcheon ended up 13 00:01:00,120 --> 00:01:05,039 Speaker 3: yes in amplifying the voice of corporations, but diminsion sing 14 00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,640 Speaker 3: another voice, that of the party. Now you want to 15 00:01:08,720 --> 00:01:13,520 Speaker 3: now tinker some more and try to raise the voice 16 00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:17,360 Speaker 3: of one party. Our tinkering causes more harm than it 17 00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:27,360 Speaker 3: does good, because once we take off this coordinated expenditure limits, 18 00:01:28,280 --> 00:01:34,840 Speaker 3: then what's left. What's left is nothing, no control whatsoever. 19 00:01:35,680 --> 00:01:40,319 Speaker 2: While Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the spending limits 20 00:01:40,440 --> 00:01:44,720 Speaker 2: have hurt political parties in an era of unlimited spending 21 00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:46,399 Speaker 2: by other organizations. 22 00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:49,480 Speaker 4: That's the real source of the disadvantage. Right, you can 23 00:01:49,520 --> 00:01:52,800 Speaker 4: give huge money to the outside group, but you can't 24 00:01:52,840 --> 00:01:54,920 Speaker 4: give huge money of the party. So the parties are 25 00:01:55,000 --> 00:01:57,360 Speaker 4: very much weakened compared to the outside groups. 26 00:01:57,720 --> 00:02:02,440 Speaker 2: And Chief Justice John Roberts, a potentially pivotal vote, said 27 00:02:02,480 --> 00:02:07,480 Speaker 2: that he didn't see much distinction between contribution limits, which 28 00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:12,320 Speaker 2: the Court has long upheld, and caps on coordinated expenditures. 29 00:02:12,919 --> 00:02:14,680 Speaker 1: It seems to me that that's kind of a fiction 30 00:02:14,960 --> 00:02:19,200 Speaker 1: that you know, they're just coordinating expenditures, they're not making 31 00:02:19,560 --> 00:02:20,639 Speaker 1: direct contributions. 32 00:02:20,680 --> 00:02:22,600 Speaker 3: I don't know in substance what the difference is. 33 00:02:23,360 --> 00:02:27,120 Speaker 2: Doing away with the caps would overturn a quarter century 34 00:02:27,160 --> 00:02:30,280 Speaker 2: old precedent in a week when it appears that the 35 00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:34,359 Speaker 2: Court will also be overturning a ninety year old president 36 00:02:34,760 --> 00:02:38,600 Speaker 2: in a case involving President Trump's ability to fire the 37 00:02:38,639 --> 00:02:42,560 Speaker 2: heads of independent agencies. Joining me is elections law expert 38 00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:46,640 Speaker 2: Richard Brefald, a professor at Columbia Law School. Rich Well, 39 00:02:46,639 --> 00:02:50,520 Speaker 2: you start by explaining the federal caps on spending by 40 00:02:50,560 --> 00:02:53,600 Speaker 2: political parties in coordination with candidates. 41 00:02:54,080 --> 00:02:56,680 Speaker 1: So the Federal Ussian Campaign Act, going back to the 42 00:02:56,800 --> 00:03:00,760 Speaker 1: nineteen seventies when it was enacted in the aftermath of Hortegate, 43 00:03:00,919 --> 00:03:05,480 Speaker 1: places limits on donations to candidates, and it also places 44 00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:08,600 Speaker 1: limits on donations to parties. It does something else, It 45 00:03:08,639 --> 00:03:12,639 Speaker 1: places limits on how much parties can give to candidates, 46 00:03:13,120 --> 00:03:16,200 Speaker 1: on the theory that donors, once they max out on 47 00:03:16,240 --> 00:03:18,240 Speaker 1: how much the donor can give directly to a candidate, 48 00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:20,720 Speaker 1: will then just give to a party to channel the 49 00:03:20,720 --> 00:03:23,080 Speaker 1: money to a candidate. So there's a limit on how 50 00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:25,080 Speaker 1: much the parties can give to their candidates. And that 51 00:03:25,120 --> 00:03:27,760 Speaker 1: comes up in two ways. One is a literal limit 52 00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:31,680 Speaker 1: on contributions actually writing a check, but the parties are 53 00:03:31,720 --> 00:03:36,600 Speaker 1: also allowed to engage in their own spending in supportive candidates, 54 00:03:37,000 --> 00:03:40,160 Speaker 1: and that's called coordinated expenditures. In other words, the party 55 00:03:40,200 --> 00:03:42,520 Speaker 1: does the spending. They don't give the candidate a check, 56 00:03:42,800 --> 00:03:45,880 Speaker 1: but they do spending to promote the candidate. Parties are 57 00:03:45,880 --> 00:03:48,520 Speaker 1: allowed to do that, but the law places a limit 58 00:03:48,760 --> 00:03:52,560 Speaker 1: on how much money they can spend supporting candidates. And 59 00:03:52,600 --> 00:03:55,240 Speaker 1: again for the same idea that if there is no 60 00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:58,040 Speaker 1: limit on how much they could support candidates through spending. 61 00:03:58,520 --> 00:04:01,360 Speaker 1: Once again, donors who once they max out on the 62 00:04:01,400 --> 00:04:04,360 Speaker 1: direct donation to the candidate, would then just give unlimited 63 00:04:04,360 --> 00:04:07,440 Speaker 1: amounts or very big amounts to the parties, and the 64 00:04:07,480 --> 00:04:11,120 Speaker 1: parties could then use that money to basically support their candidates. 65 00:04:11,640 --> 00:04:15,480 Speaker 1: So that's what this limit on coordinated spending does. It's 66 00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:19,080 Speaker 1: higher than the contribution limit, and it varies from state 67 00:04:19,160 --> 00:04:21,919 Speaker 1: to state based on the population of the state. But 68 00:04:22,080 --> 00:04:23,719 Speaker 1: parties are allowed to do this in a way that 69 00:04:23,839 --> 00:04:27,000 Speaker 1: other organizations are not. Packs are not allowed to coordinate 70 00:04:27,080 --> 00:04:31,080 Speaker 1: at all with candidates. So parties get this extra permission 71 00:04:31,120 --> 00:04:34,200 Speaker 1: to support the candidates directly, but with a cap on it. 72 00:04:34,640 --> 00:04:37,120 Speaker 1: And what's going on in this case is the National 73 00:04:37,120 --> 00:04:41,320 Speaker 1: Republican Senate Campaign Committee and JD. Vance, who this case 74 00:04:41,360 --> 00:04:44,240 Speaker 1: began was a Senator and a Congressman from Ohio who 75 00:04:44,240 --> 00:04:47,360 Speaker 1: I think has since retired, have all brought suit challenging 76 00:04:47,680 --> 00:04:51,920 Speaker 1: this limit on the ability of parties to coordinate their 77 00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:56,320 Speaker 1: spending with candidates. I should say almost twenty five years ago. 78 00:04:56,360 --> 00:04:59,600 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court upheld this limit in a case called 79 00:04:59,640 --> 00:05:02,160 Speaker 1: Color a Republican Aside in two thousand and one, and 80 00:05:02,200 --> 00:05:05,880 Speaker 1: the Court said yes because of the danger of conduits 81 00:05:06,200 --> 00:05:10,120 Speaker 1: of party serving as conduits for donor support. These limits 82 00:05:10,320 --> 00:05:13,320 Speaker 1: make sense and are constitutional. Well, the Sperreme Court is 83 00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:16,640 Speaker 1: being asked basically now is to overturn that decision. 84 00:05:16,839 --> 00:05:22,279 Speaker 2: The liberal justices had concerns, and one that lifting the 85 00:05:22,360 --> 00:05:26,640 Speaker 2: limits on party spending would lead to quid pro quo bribery, 86 00:05:26,720 --> 00:05:31,320 Speaker 2: so wealthy donors could bypass the individual contribution limits by 87 00:05:31,360 --> 00:05:33,000 Speaker 2: donating through parties instead. 88 00:05:33,440 --> 00:05:35,120 Speaker 1: I mean that is the major concern of the liberal 89 00:05:35,200 --> 00:05:38,320 Speaker 1: justices and of the call of the campaign finance reform 90 00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:42,560 Speaker 1: community as a whole, is that this will put another 91 00:05:42,680 --> 00:05:46,200 Speaker 1: hole in the campaign finance laws and make it easier 92 00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:49,760 Speaker 1: for wealthy donors to channel money to candidates. There's still 93 00:05:49,760 --> 00:05:52,919 Speaker 1: limits on their ability to give directly, but this would 94 00:05:53,240 --> 00:05:55,680 Speaker 1: enable them to give through the parties and so that 95 00:05:55,720 --> 00:05:57,760 Speaker 1: money would still get to candidate. So yeah, that is 96 00:05:57,839 --> 00:06:01,160 Speaker 1: the core concern. A second con is, depending on how 97 00:06:01,160 --> 00:06:04,120 Speaker 1: the Court writes this decision, it could be the green 98 00:06:04,200 --> 00:06:07,480 Speaker 1: light for further challenges to other aspects of a campaign 99 00:06:07,520 --> 00:06:09,839 Speaker 1: finance laws depending on exactly how. 100 00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:10,320 Speaker 5: They write this. 101 00:06:10,839 --> 00:06:14,520 Speaker 1: So it's both upfront making it easier to channel money 102 00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:18,560 Speaker 1: from donors to candidates and also yet one more case, 103 00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:23,120 Speaker 1: eroding Congress's ability to place limits on campaign money. 104 00:06:23,800 --> 00:06:28,080 Speaker 2: What was your take on Justice Soda Mayor telling Nold Francisco, 105 00:06:28,520 --> 00:06:32,240 Speaker 2: the attorney for the Republicans here, that Elon Musk got 106 00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:35,159 Speaker 2: his position at DOGE through a quid pro quote. 107 00:06:35,839 --> 00:06:37,279 Speaker 6: More speech is always. 108 00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:42,279 Speaker 3: Suggests that the fact that one major donor to the 109 00:06:42,400 --> 00:06:47,960 Speaker 3: current president, the most major donor to the current current president, 110 00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:54,760 Speaker 3: got a very lucrative job immediately upon election from the 111 00:06:54,800 --> 00:06:59,760 Speaker 3: new administration does not give the appearance. 112 00:07:02,480 --> 00:07:03,800 Speaker 5: With pro quote, Honor. 113 00:07:03,800 --> 00:07:06,640 Speaker 6: I'm not a one hundred percent sure about the example 114 00:07:07,000 --> 00:07:09,880 Speaker 6: that you're looking at, but if I am familiar, if 115 00:07:09,960 --> 00:07:11,880 Speaker 6: I think I know what you're talking about, I have 116 00:07:11,960 --> 00:07:14,840 Speaker 6: a hard time thinking that his salary that he drew 117 00:07:14,880 --> 00:07:18,200 Speaker 6: from the federal government was an effective quid pro quote bribery, 118 00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:21,440 Speaker 6: which may be why nobody has even remotely suggested that. 119 00:07:21,520 --> 00:07:26,120 Speaker 3: Maybe not the salary, but certainly the lucrative government contracts 120 00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:27,400 Speaker 3: might be. 121 00:07:28,160 --> 00:07:30,280 Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's fair to say that the 122 00:07:30,480 --> 00:07:34,520 Speaker 1: Elon must was by any stretch Trump's biggest supporter, unless 123 00:07:34,520 --> 00:07:37,840 Speaker 1: the biggest financial supporter in the last election, somewhere in 124 00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:40,480 Speaker 1: the neighborhood of three hundred million dollars, and I think 125 00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:44,280 Speaker 1: that allowed him to ask Trump for special favors, including 126 00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:47,440 Speaker 1: running Doge, which itself you know, obviously he didn't get 127 00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:49,680 Speaker 1: paid for running Doge, but it put it in a 128 00:07:49,720 --> 00:07:53,920 Speaker 1: position to influence the personnel and the policies of a 129 00:07:53,960 --> 00:07:57,680 Speaker 1: lot of agencies that have regulatory functions over a lot 130 00:07:57,680 --> 00:08:01,840 Speaker 1: of his activities, whether it's the SEC or NASA or 131 00:08:01,880 --> 00:08:04,960 Speaker 1: other organizations that can affect the industries and businesses that 132 00:08:05,040 --> 00:08:05,440 Speaker 1: he has. 133 00:08:06,080 --> 00:08:11,400 Speaker 2: The administration and the Republicans argument centers on free speech 134 00:08:11,520 --> 00:08:17,400 Speaker 2: rights as these campaign finance cases since Citizens United have 135 00:08:17,600 --> 00:08:20,000 Speaker 2: done tell us more about that argument. 136 00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:23,040 Speaker 1: The essential argument is that this is a limit on 137 00:08:23,080 --> 00:08:25,320 Speaker 1: the ability of parties to speak and that you don't 138 00:08:25,360 --> 00:08:30,160 Speaker 1: need it. That the combination of disclosure laws, anti bribery laws, 139 00:08:30,640 --> 00:08:34,400 Speaker 1: and limits on literally earmarking, and that's the term, let's 140 00:08:34,480 --> 00:08:37,360 Speaker 1: use a donation that a donor gives to a party 141 00:08:37,520 --> 00:08:38,520 Speaker 1: to be used for a candidate. 142 00:08:38,840 --> 00:08:39,560 Speaker 5: That that's enough. 143 00:08:39,679 --> 00:08:44,280 Speaker 1: That those three things banning bribes, requiring disclosure, and saying 144 00:08:44,480 --> 00:08:47,960 Speaker 1: what a donor gives a party a donation saying they 145 00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:50,720 Speaker 1: can't literally say this is going to candidate so and so, 146 00:08:50,760 --> 00:08:53,520 Speaker 1: that that's enough, and that to go beyond that is 147 00:08:53,559 --> 00:08:56,600 Speaker 1: to constrain the ability of parties as free speech actors, 148 00:08:56,600 --> 00:08:59,480 Speaker 1: as First Amendment actors to participate in the political process. 149 00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:01,959 Speaker 1: What do you think, So it's hard to say that 150 00:09:02,000 --> 00:09:04,640 Speaker 1: this is a big constraint. Parties are free to participate 151 00:09:04,640 --> 00:09:08,320 Speaker 1: in the process. In a fairly controversial decison thirty years ago, 152 00:09:08,559 --> 00:09:11,120 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said that parties are capable of engaging 153 00:09:11,120 --> 00:09:15,079 Speaker 1: in independent spending. That parties can promote their candidates just 154 00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:17,440 Speaker 1: as long as they don't coordinate with them, just as 155 00:09:17,480 --> 00:09:19,920 Speaker 1: long as they don't actually sit down with them and say, 156 00:09:19,920 --> 00:09:21,720 Speaker 1: what do you want us to say, How do you 157 00:09:21,720 --> 00:09:23,559 Speaker 1: want us to say it, what media do you want 158 00:09:23,600 --> 00:09:26,240 Speaker 1: to use? So the court, you know, thirty years ago, 159 00:09:26,360 --> 00:09:30,800 Speaker 1: created this vehicle for unlimited party participation in elections. So 160 00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:32,679 Speaker 1: it's hard to say that this is a big constraint. 161 00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:37,400 Speaker 1: The defenders of the law argue that in practice and 162 00:09:37,480 --> 00:09:40,319 Speaker 1: coordinated spending, the parties actually don't. 163 00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:42,559 Speaker 5: Do a lot of literal speech. 164 00:09:42,559 --> 00:09:45,040 Speaker 1: You're fine, they don't do a lot of actual advertising 165 00:09:45,480 --> 00:09:48,280 Speaker 1: or promoting that often what it's being used is just 166 00:09:48,280 --> 00:09:51,360 Speaker 1: to help the candidates pay their bills. So the candidate 167 00:09:51,520 --> 00:09:54,160 Speaker 1: you know, basically booked a block of hotels is during 168 00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:57,559 Speaker 1: a campaign swing or you know, was paying for literature 169 00:09:57,920 --> 00:10:00,920 Speaker 1: or to the candidates, you know, campaign director or makes 170 00:10:00,920 --> 00:10:03,440 Speaker 1: the commitment buy and then gives the party the bill 171 00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:06,160 Speaker 1: and says pay this. That's at least the argument that 172 00:10:06,200 --> 00:10:08,880 Speaker 1: the defenders of the law we're making that in practice, 173 00:10:08,880 --> 00:10:12,520 Speaker 1: coordinated expenditures are not parties getting out there and saying 174 00:10:12,559 --> 00:10:15,679 Speaker 1: this is the party message. But there are de facto 175 00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:18,880 Speaker 1: contributions to help the candidates to freight their bills. 176 00:10:19,040 --> 00:10:20,360 Speaker 5: That gets constitutional protection. 177 00:10:20,960 --> 00:10:23,600 Speaker 1: It still enables candidates the campaign, and there's a First 178 00:10:23,600 --> 00:10:26,200 Speaker 1: Amendment interest, but it's hard to see that this is 179 00:10:26,320 --> 00:10:29,600 Speaker 1: really squeezing the party's ability to have its own voice. 180 00:10:30,080 --> 00:10:33,320 Speaker 2: Just as Brett Kavanaugh said, you can give huge money 181 00:10:33,360 --> 00:10:35,640 Speaker 2: to the outside group, but you can't give huge money 182 00:10:35,640 --> 00:10:38,320 Speaker 2: to the party, and so the parties are very much 183 00:10:38,400 --> 00:10:41,960 Speaker 2: weakened compared to the outside group. Is he talking about 184 00:10:42,000 --> 00:10:42,760 Speaker 2: packs here, is it? 185 00:10:43,240 --> 00:10:44,800 Speaker 5: Yes, he's talking about super PACs. 186 00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:47,120 Speaker 1: And indeed, that is an argument that many people have 187 00:10:47,240 --> 00:10:50,040 Speaker 1: raised who don't like this law, including people who might 188 00:10:50,360 --> 00:10:53,480 Speaker 1: liberals or reformers. They say this law might have made 189 00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:56,360 Speaker 1: some sense when it was first adopted, but given the 190 00:10:56,440 --> 00:11:00,200 Speaker 1: proliferation of super PACs and other outside groups, we be 191 00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:02,560 Speaker 1: better off if parties actually had a bigger voice, that 192 00:11:02,679 --> 00:11:06,720 Speaker 1: parties can play a coordination function, that parties maybe can 193 00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:10,040 Speaker 1: be a little less extreme than some outside groups, that 194 00:11:10,160 --> 00:11:12,360 Speaker 1: parties have more of an interest in governance rather than 195 00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:15,120 Speaker 1: being single issue and that actually if we could start 196 00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:18,199 Speaker 1: all over now that the outside groups have kind of 197 00:11:18,320 --> 00:11:22,120 Speaker 1: unlimited voice, that anything that strengthens the parties is actually 198 00:11:22,120 --> 00:11:24,280 Speaker 1: a good thing. And that you see many people who 199 00:11:24,320 --> 00:11:27,480 Speaker 1: are not conservatives who are taking that position, who are 200 00:11:27,480 --> 00:11:30,680 Speaker 1: not First Amendment absolutists, but think that in fact, the 201 00:11:30,760 --> 00:11:34,320 Speaker 1: campaign financystem has gotten unbalanced and it would actually be 202 00:11:34,360 --> 00:11:36,440 Speaker 1: good to strengthen the role of parties and this could 203 00:11:36,440 --> 00:11:36,760 Speaker 1: do that. 204 00:11:36,960 --> 00:11:41,800 Speaker 2: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Richard breflt. So, 205 00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:44,760 Speaker 2: how is the Court likely to rule? I'm Juan Grasso, 206 00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:49,079 Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court this week 207 00:11:49,280 --> 00:11:54,679 Speaker 2: weighed Republican calls for a fresh rollback of campaign finance regulations, 208 00:11:55,080 --> 00:11:59,440 Speaker 2: questioning federal caps that limit spending by political parties in 209 00:11:59,480 --> 00:12:03,319 Speaker 2: coordinat with candidates. I've been talking to Columbia Law School 210 00:12:03,360 --> 00:12:08,440 Speaker 2: professor Richard Brefault, So, rich the Chief Justice suggested that 211 00:12:08,679 --> 00:12:13,000 Speaker 2: he didn't see much difference between the contribution limits, which 212 00:12:13,040 --> 00:12:18,559 Speaker 2: the Court has long upheld, and the caps on coordinated expenditures. 213 00:12:19,679 --> 00:12:23,600 Speaker 2: Do you think there's a chance that the Chief won't 214 00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:27,839 Speaker 2: vote with the super conservatives on this to do away 215 00:12:27,880 --> 00:12:30,160 Speaker 2: with the caps, or there's. 216 00:12:29,960 --> 00:12:31,960 Speaker 1: A chance that it goes the other way, and that 217 00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:35,199 Speaker 1: once they begin to dismantle limits on coordinate expenditure as 218 00:12:35,200 --> 00:12:38,439 Speaker 1: contributional limits are next. And there was an interesting point 219 00:12:38,480 --> 00:12:41,240 Speaker 1: where some of the justices ask mister Francisco, who is 220 00:12:41,280 --> 00:12:44,680 Speaker 1: the lawyer for the National publican Centate Campaign Committee, well 221 00:12:44,679 --> 00:12:47,600 Speaker 1: what about that? What about limits on contributions? And he says, 222 00:12:47,800 --> 00:12:49,319 Speaker 1: I don't want to get into that right now. I 223 00:12:49,480 --> 00:12:51,680 Speaker 1: kind of want to reserve the right to challenge that 224 00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:55,040 Speaker 1: down the road. And indeed, some of the liberal justices 225 00:12:55,120 --> 00:12:58,160 Speaker 1: and the lawyer for people who are defending this law, 226 00:12:58,240 --> 00:13:00,240 Speaker 1: which I should say is not the government as a 227 00:13:00,240 --> 00:13:03,520 Speaker 1: federal statute, but the Trump administration will not defend it. 228 00:13:03,520 --> 00:13:05,600 Speaker 1: In fact, they actually joined in the attack on it. 229 00:13:06,160 --> 00:13:09,280 Speaker 1: So the statue was being defended by two lawyers. One 230 00:13:09,360 --> 00:13:11,400 Speaker 1: was a lawyer pointed about the court to speak for 231 00:13:11,400 --> 00:13:14,520 Speaker 1: the statute. In addition, the lawyer for the Democratic Party 232 00:13:14,600 --> 00:13:18,600 Speaker 1: for Democratic Organizations also was given permission to argue, and 233 00:13:18,760 --> 00:13:21,000 Speaker 1: they both argue that basically this is the bate and 234 00:13:21,040 --> 00:13:23,080 Speaker 1: switch that's been going on in campaign finance law for 235 00:13:23,120 --> 00:13:23,720 Speaker 1: a long time. 236 00:13:24,280 --> 00:13:26,640 Speaker 5: Someone says, well, given changes in the law. 237 00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:30,040 Speaker 1: This particular restriction doesn't make any sense, so you should 238 00:13:30,080 --> 00:13:32,320 Speaker 1: strike it down. And then they come along and say, well, 239 00:13:32,320 --> 00:13:34,720 Speaker 1: now you're struck down this one. The next restriction doesn't 240 00:13:34,720 --> 00:13:37,439 Speaker 1: make any sense either, so strike that down. And there 241 00:13:37,440 --> 00:13:39,679 Speaker 1: seems to be a kind of a salami tactic aspect 242 00:13:39,679 --> 00:13:42,599 Speaker 1: to this. A number of the justices are very, very skeptical, 243 00:13:42,920 --> 00:13:46,680 Speaker 1: more than skeptical about the constitutionality of the contribution restrictions. 244 00:13:46,840 --> 00:13:49,040 Speaker 1: They don't have to decide that in this case, but 245 00:13:49,280 --> 00:13:53,760 Speaker 1: the Court has traditionally treated coordinated expenditures as the constitutional 246 00:13:53,840 --> 00:13:57,520 Speaker 1: equivalent of contributions. If they're going to start protecting coordinated 247 00:13:57,520 --> 00:14:01,200 Speaker 1: expenditures more, saying that they're more protected from limitation, it's 248 00:14:01,280 --> 00:14:03,520 Speaker 1: not a big leap to say that that kind of 249 00:14:03,520 --> 00:14:05,800 Speaker 1: thinking would also apply to the contribution restrictions. 250 00:14:06,800 --> 00:14:11,360 Speaker 2: The Republicans are bringing this challenge to do away with 251 00:14:11,440 --> 00:14:15,640 Speaker 2: the federal caps, so one assumes that they would benefit 252 00:14:15,800 --> 00:14:18,880 Speaker 2: more than the Democrats who are fighting to keep the caps. 253 00:14:19,520 --> 00:14:23,840 Speaker 2: But Justice Amy Cony Barrett asked the attorney for the 254 00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:29,520 Speaker 2: Democrats which party would ultimately benefit from a ruling. If 255 00:14:29,560 --> 00:14:32,280 Speaker 2: there isn't an imbalance in who this benefits, why would 256 00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:35,480 Speaker 2: the DNC be here? And I believe that was the 257 00:14:35,520 --> 00:14:37,400 Speaker 2: only question she asked. 258 00:14:38,040 --> 00:14:41,040 Speaker 1: I think what Barrett was getting at is that the 259 00:14:41,080 --> 00:14:42,760 Speaker 1: reason you're here, Elias, the. 260 00:14:42,680 --> 00:14:44,800 Speaker 5: Impressive hear is for pure partisan reasons. 261 00:14:44,960 --> 00:14:48,560 Speaker 1: That you have less of a merits basis for opposing this, 262 00:14:48,600 --> 00:14:50,600 Speaker 1: and more you're doing it because you think that this 263 00:14:50,640 --> 00:14:53,320 Speaker 1: will help the Republicans and if the first knowne requires 264 00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:56,160 Speaker 1: it, it doesn't matter who's helped, they're not. I think there 265 00:14:56,280 --> 00:14:58,840 Speaker 1: was also some sort of some effort to figure out 266 00:14:58,840 --> 00:15:00,880 Speaker 1: why is it if this this is a better restriction 267 00:15:01,000 --> 00:15:03,760 Speaker 1: on parties, and in fact, why does one party want 268 00:15:03,800 --> 00:15:05,480 Speaker 1: to strike it down a one party want to keep it? 269 00:15:05,840 --> 00:15:09,240 Speaker 1: And does it that mean that it operates unevenly across 270 00:15:09,280 --> 00:15:11,720 Speaker 1: the party? Is not clear that it does, but if 271 00:15:11,720 --> 00:15:15,160 Speaker 1: it operates unevenly, it suggests that you're opposing it for 272 00:15:15,760 --> 00:15:18,760 Speaker 1: partisan reasons rather than on a kind of a merits 273 00:15:18,800 --> 00:15:21,760 Speaker 1: based this is good for democracy. 274 00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:27,160 Speaker 2: There was also a standing argument that the attorney appointed 275 00:15:27,200 --> 00:15:32,480 Speaker 2: to defend the law made. It's centered on Vice President JD. Vance, 276 00:15:32,760 --> 00:15:36,360 Speaker 2: who was a Senate candidate when he originally brought the case. 277 00:15:36,720 --> 00:15:39,280 Speaker 2: And the argument is that Vance no longer has a 278 00:15:39,280 --> 00:15:42,680 Speaker 2: stake in the case and so no standing because he's 279 00:15:42,680 --> 00:15:44,840 Speaker 2: no longer a candidate. And then there was a lot 280 00:15:44,880 --> 00:15:49,120 Speaker 2: of discussion about, well, is he going to run for president. 281 00:15:49,520 --> 00:15:52,280 Speaker 2: I don't think this standing argument is going anywhere, but 282 00:15:52,320 --> 00:15:54,320 Speaker 2: it's interesting, so tell us about it. 283 00:15:54,640 --> 00:15:57,520 Speaker 1: So Ramon Martinez was the man appointed by the court 284 00:15:57,560 --> 00:16:00,280 Speaker 1: to defend the law when the government declined to do so, 285 00:16:00,880 --> 00:16:03,640 Speaker 1: and he opened by saying, this case is a big deal. 286 00:16:03,720 --> 00:16:06,080 Speaker 1: You know, anytime you're being asked to overturn a president 287 00:16:06,160 --> 00:16:08,880 Speaker 1: that's twenty five years old, should be very hesitant. You 288 00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:12,560 Speaker 1: should make sure that this is a case that's jurisdictionally sound. 289 00:16:12,760 --> 00:16:16,600 Speaker 1: And he basically said it's not for two reasons. One, 290 00:16:16,760 --> 00:16:19,920 Speaker 1: so this case was brought by some individuals JD. Vance 291 00:16:19,960 --> 00:16:23,720 Speaker 1: and Congressman Chevaux from Ohio, and also by the National. 292 00:16:23,480 --> 00:16:24,680 Speaker 5: Republican Senate Committee. 293 00:16:24,720 --> 00:16:27,240 Speaker 1: With respect to the two individuals, one of them is 294 00:16:27,280 --> 00:16:29,440 Speaker 1: actually retired and no longer in politics. So that gets 295 00:16:29,440 --> 00:16:33,040 Speaker 1: it down to Vance, and Vance has pretty clearly said 296 00:16:33,440 --> 00:16:36,000 Speaker 1: I don't know if I'm running, or more than point, 297 00:16:36,120 --> 00:16:37,960 Speaker 1: I don't currently have a plan to run. I mean, 298 00:16:38,000 --> 00:16:40,680 Speaker 1: apparently he was recently quoted saying I might run, I 299 00:16:40,760 --> 00:16:43,960 Speaker 1: might not run. So mister Martinez's argument was, well, if 300 00:16:44,000 --> 00:16:46,600 Speaker 1: that's the case, its case isn't ripe. We don't know 301 00:16:46,640 --> 00:16:50,040 Speaker 1: if he's running, so there's no candidate here to bring it, 302 00:16:50,480 --> 00:16:53,720 Speaker 1: and therefore there's no plaintiff. He's not a good plaintiff 303 00:16:53,760 --> 00:16:56,440 Speaker 1: because whether he's going to run a speculative, he doesn't 304 00:16:56,440 --> 00:16:58,640 Speaker 1: clearly have a stake in this case. And then he 305 00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:01,480 Speaker 1: met Martinez makes the point that the reason this case 306 00:17:01,520 --> 00:17:04,359 Speaker 1: goes directly from the district court, it's jump by a 307 00:17:04,359 --> 00:17:07,439 Speaker 1: three judge panel. There was an appeal within the Sixth Circuit, 308 00:17:07,680 --> 00:17:10,760 Speaker 1: But the jurisdictional basis for this going to the Supreme 309 00:17:10,760 --> 00:17:13,760 Speaker 1: Court is the federal campaign financial and gives sort of 310 00:17:13,760 --> 00:17:16,480 Speaker 1: a special ability to go directly to the Supreme Court 311 00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:20,879 Speaker 1: to cases that burden voters, certain other special groups, and 312 00:17:21,200 --> 00:17:25,879 Speaker 1: the national party committees. And his argument is based on 313 00:17:25,920 --> 00:17:29,879 Speaker 1: a much older Supreme Court case. The only national committees 314 00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:33,119 Speaker 1: that get that right are the two top committees, the 315 00:17:33,119 --> 00:17:36,320 Speaker 1: Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, And he 316 00:17:36,400 --> 00:17:38,080 Speaker 1: points out there was a decision on the Supreme Court 317 00:17:38,080 --> 00:17:41,280 Speaker 1: back around nineteen eighty that said that the Democratic Senate 318 00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:44,679 Speaker 1: Campaign Committee couldn't take advantage of that law, and so 319 00:17:44,760 --> 00:17:47,720 Speaker 1: his point is the NRSC, the National Republican Senate Campaign 320 00:17:47,720 --> 00:17:50,600 Speaker 1: Committee can't do it either. So it's basically making the 321 00:17:50,680 --> 00:17:53,680 Speaker 1: argument that there's either no standing or a lack of jurisdiction. 322 00:17:54,040 --> 00:17:57,040 Speaker 1: Jd Vance could use that, but he's not a candidate. 323 00:17:57,119 --> 00:17:57,560 Speaker 5: He can't. 324 00:17:58,080 --> 00:18:00,719 Speaker 1: So there were some back and forth on that, but 325 00:18:00,800 --> 00:18:03,840 Speaker 1: it does seem unlikely that well, you never know what 326 00:18:03,920 --> 00:18:06,679 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, but most of almost all of the 327 00:18:06,800 --> 00:18:09,920 Speaker 1: oral argument was really focused on the merits of the case. 328 00:18:10,520 --> 00:18:12,520 Speaker 2: It doesn't seem as clear as in other cases. But 329 00:18:12,600 --> 00:18:16,240 Speaker 2: can you tell where the justices are on this? Gorsuch 330 00:18:16,359 --> 00:18:17,560 Speaker 2: didn't even ask a question. 331 00:18:17,920 --> 00:18:21,199 Speaker 1: It's worth pointing out that in every single campaign finance 332 00:18:21,359 --> 00:18:25,520 Speaker 1: case the Court has taken since Chief Justice Roberts became 333 00:18:25,600 --> 00:18:29,080 Speaker 1: Chief Justice and Justice Alito joined the Court, the attack 334 00:18:29,119 --> 00:18:30,840 Speaker 1: on campaign finance law has won. 335 00:18:31,080 --> 00:18:32,320 Speaker 5: That's about eight cases. 336 00:18:32,680 --> 00:18:35,000 Speaker 1: And turn it around, and there's not been a single 337 00:18:35,080 --> 00:18:37,639 Speaker 1: case that the Supreme Court has taken since two thousand 338 00:18:37,680 --> 00:18:40,560 Speaker 1: and five on campaign finance law where the law was sustained. 339 00:18:40,880 --> 00:18:42,600 Speaker 1: That's all I think I need to say about that. 340 00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:47,880 Speaker 1: So the track record, the Court hasn't upheld a campaign 341 00:18:47,880 --> 00:18:52,200 Speaker 1: finance law federal or state since around two thousand and three. 342 00:18:52,520 --> 00:18:55,040 Speaker 2: Okay, then, so then what would be the effect of 343 00:18:55,080 --> 00:18:59,160 Speaker 2: getting rid of these federal caps. There are some predictions 344 00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:04,840 Speaker 2: that it will come completely reshaped TV advertising for congressional races. 345 00:19:05,359 --> 00:19:07,040 Speaker 5: I think that's unlikely. Honestly. 346 00:19:07,080 --> 00:19:09,520 Speaker 1: I think the system that we have had for the 347 00:19:09,600 --> 00:19:13,360 Speaker 1: last roughly fifteen years, since the emergence of super PACs 348 00:19:13,640 --> 00:19:17,440 Speaker 1: in a big way around twenty ten twenty twelve, I 349 00:19:17,520 --> 00:19:19,760 Speaker 1: don't know that it's going to change that much. I mean, 350 00:19:19,800 --> 00:19:22,400 Speaker 1: I think right now many of these super PACs are 351 00:19:22,680 --> 00:19:26,000 Speaker 1: candidate specific superpacks, or they are super PACs that are 352 00:19:26,000 --> 00:19:28,760 Speaker 1: already run by the parties. Some of the biggest super 353 00:19:28,800 --> 00:19:32,520 Speaker 1: PACs are the four super PACs run by the Republican 354 00:19:32,960 --> 00:19:36,280 Speaker 1: Senate and House and Democratic Senate and House leadership. 355 00:19:36,359 --> 00:19:37,760 Speaker 5: If you look at the top ten. 356 00:19:37,680 --> 00:19:41,240 Speaker 1: Super PACs by dollars, certainly the Senate once are always 357 00:19:41,280 --> 00:19:43,240 Speaker 1: in the top ten, and I think the House one's 358 00:19:43,280 --> 00:19:43,880 Speaker 1: often are two. 359 00:19:44,680 --> 00:19:47,000 Speaker 5: So I don't know that there's going to be a 360 00:19:47,040 --> 00:19:47,840 Speaker 5: revolution in this. 361 00:19:47,920 --> 00:19:49,920 Speaker 1: I mean, it's always hard to tell, and it may 362 00:19:49,960 --> 00:19:52,600 Speaker 1: take a couple of election cycles till we fully see 363 00:19:52,600 --> 00:19:53,360 Speaker 1: how it works out. 364 00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:56,840 Speaker 5: But you know, it's hard to tell. But I doubt 365 00:19:56,920 --> 00:19:59,000 Speaker 5: they'll be a dramatic change. 366 00:19:59,200 --> 00:20:02,560 Speaker 1: I think many have wealthy individuals just as soon would 367 00:20:02,680 --> 00:20:05,920 Speaker 1: run their money through packs that they control through super PACs, 368 00:20:06,240 --> 00:20:08,439 Speaker 1: and many candidates, I think would continue to want to 369 00:20:08,480 --> 00:20:11,520 Speaker 1: have a super pack that works just for them. Many 370 00:20:11,560 --> 00:20:14,200 Speaker 1: of our super PACs now are basically one candidate super 371 00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:16,880 Speaker 1: PACs on the other And some people do think that 372 00:20:17,119 --> 00:20:19,160 Speaker 1: maybe it will change the balance and more money will 373 00:20:19,200 --> 00:20:22,760 Speaker 1: run through the parties, and that could have some benefits 374 00:20:22,760 --> 00:20:25,840 Speaker 1: in terms of giving the party committees a little more 375 00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:29,800 Speaker 1: ability to kind of coordinate their candidates. Not so much 376 00:20:29,800 --> 00:20:31,840 Speaker 1: in the election, but in the government that follows. 377 00:20:32,520 --> 00:20:33,400 Speaker 5: I think that the. 378 00:20:33,359 --> 00:20:36,399 Speaker 1: Party committees will have a bit more influence. Maybe holding 379 00:20:36,400 --> 00:20:40,840 Speaker 1: their party delegations in Congress together a bit more seems 380 00:20:40,880 --> 00:20:44,680 Speaker 1: to be lately, given parties in polarization in Congress, they 381 00:20:44,720 --> 00:20:47,560 Speaker 1: tend to hold together pretty well right now, but it 382 00:20:47,600 --> 00:20:50,040 Speaker 1: could be that at the margins parties will be a 383 00:20:50,040 --> 00:20:51,880 Speaker 1: little bit more unified in Congress. 384 00:20:53,119 --> 00:20:58,000 Speaker 2: So if the Court uphols the caps, would you be surprised, 385 00:20:58,080 --> 00:21:03,160 Speaker 2: fall off your chair? Surprised or that's interesting surprised. 386 00:21:03,080 --> 00:21:07,480 Speaker 1: Well, probably fall off my chair. I mean when the 387 00:21:07,520 --> 00:21:09,639 Speaker 1: Court upheld this law in two thousand and one, it 388 00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:12,840 Speaker 1: was a five to four vote then. And in terms 389 00:21:12,880 --> 00:21:15,560 Speaker 1: of just the commentary of the Supreme Court, I guess 390 00:21:15,840 --> 00:21:18,520 Speaker 1: I'm not sure if Justice Barrett has written on a 391 00:21:18,520 --> 00:21:22,560 Speaker 1: big campaign finance case, but all the others Conservatives have, 392 00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:25,960 Speaker 1: and they've been rather consistently skeptical of campaign finance. There 393 00:21:26,000 --> 00:21:28,280 Speaker 1: was a decision in twenty twenty one. I think she 394 00:21:28,359 --> 00:21:30,000 Speaker 1: was already on the court then. I don't think she 395 00:21:30,920 --> 00:21:33,640 Speaker 1: wrote on it. She might not have participated given when 396 00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:35,800 Speaker 1: it was argued. So I'm not one hundred percent sure 397 00:21:36,280 --> 00:21:39,760 Speaker 1: about her voting pattern. But the other justices have shown 398 00:21:39,800 --> 00:21:43,400 Speaker 1: themselves to be extremely skeptical of campaign finance regulation. 399 00:21:44,280 --> 00:21:47,560 Speaker 2: Well, as you cited the history of the Roberts Court 400 00:21:47,640 --> 00:21:51,880 Speaker 2: on campaign finance, it does seem like an uphill battle 401 00:21:52,119 --> 00:21:56,960 Speaker 2: for the Democrats here. Thanks so much, rich That's Professor 402 00:21:57,040 --> 00:22:00,720 Speaker 2: Richard Ruffald of Columbia Law School coming up. Next on 403 00:22:00,760 --> 00:22:04,639 Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show, A golden doodle in a custody 404 00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:07,880 Speaker 2: battle is the subject of a case that's made its 405 00:22:07,880 --> 00:22:12,199 Speaker 2: way through four of Delaware's courts. I'm June Grosso. When 406 00:22:12,200 --> 00:22:15,560 Speaker 2: you're listening to Bloomberg, there's. 407 00:22:15,400 --> 00:22:17,440 Speaker 5: No easy way to say this, Wesley. So I'm just 408 00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:19,720 Speaker 5: gonna come right out with it. Mommy and Daddy is 409 00:22:19,720 --> 00:22:22,920 Speaker 5: putting out a battle these laws. 410 00:22:23,000 --> 00:22:27,080 Speaker 7: Wesley's prophet in the outstanding issue is the custody arrangers. 411 00:22:27,200 --> 00:22:30,240 Speaker 1: I'll a sign a veterinary behaviorist. 412 00:22:30,520 --> 00:22:33,040 Speaker 3: Wesley is on the verge of psychological disarray. 413 00:22:34,160 --> 00:22:37,320 Speaker 2: The movie Who Gets the Dog tells the story of 414 00:22:37,359 --> 00:22:40,159 Speaker 2: a couple who are divorcing and fight each other in 415 00:22:40,280 --> 00:22:44,119 Speaker 2: court to get custody of their beloved dog, Wesley. It 416 00:22:44,200 --> 00:22:47,440 Speaker 2: may seem a little dramatic, but it's not that far 417 00:22:47,520 --> 00:22:51,680 Speaker 2: from real life. In fact, the custody battle over Wesley 418 00:22:52,200 --> 00:22:56,400 Speaker 2: mirrors the battle over Tucker, a golden doodle whose owners 419 00:22:56,440 --> 00:22:59,760 Speaker 2: broke up in twenty twenty two and are still fighting 420 00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:03,440 Speaker 2: in court over who gets to keep him. Tucker's case 421 00:23:03,480 --> 00:23:07,040 Speaker 2: has been through every level of state court in Delaware. 422 00:23:07,560 --> 00:23:11,960 Speaker 2: Justice of the Peace, Court of Common Please, Delaware Superior Court, 423 00:23:12,400 --> 00:23:16,920 Speaker 2: and the Chancery Court, Delaware's elite business court, and now 424 00:23:16,960 --> 00:23:19,879 Speaker 2: his case is being appealed to the state's highest court, 425 00:23:20,640 --> 00:23:25,000 Speaker 2: the Delaware Supreme Court. Joining me is Jennifer Kay Bloomberg 426 00:23:25,080 --> 00:23:29,359 Speaker 2: Law Senior correspondent who has been following Tucker's saga. So 427 00:23:29,480 --> 00:23:32,800 Speaker 2: Jennifer tell us about the custody battle for Tucker. 428 00:23:33,359 --> 00:23:36,840 Speaker 7: So let's just establish, in case anyone hasn't walked around 429 00:23:36,840 --> 00:23:40,280 Speaker 7: their neighborhood recently, what a golden doodle is. The golden 430 00:23:40,280 --> 00:23:43,360 Speaker 7: doodle is one of these very trendy doodle breeds. 431 00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:44,360 Speaker 8: They're very popular. 432 00:23:44,880 --> 00:23:47,400 Speaker 7: My neighborhood has at least four of them. A mix 433 00:23:47,480 --> 00:23:50,600 Speaker 7: between a golden Retriever and a poodle and the result 434 00:23:50,920 --> 00:23:55,160 Speaker 7: is a very curly haired, very energetic and affectionate dog. 435 00:23:55,800 --> 00:23:58,439 Speaker 7: This one is named Tucker. There is a picture in 436 00:23:58,480 --> 00:23:59,640 Speaker 7: the court violins. 437 00:24:00,119 --> 00:24:00,840 Speaker 8: Very cute dog. 438 00:24:01,080 --> 00:24:06,440 Speaker 7: So his owners began dating in twenty eighteen, and they 439 00:24:06,480 --> 00:24:10,040 Speaker 7: moved in together in the following year, and then in 440 00:24:10,119 --> 00:24:15,199 Speaker 7: twenty twenty, the ex boyfriend's daughter brought Tucker home as 441 00:24:15,240 --> 00:24:18,520 Speaker 7: a gift for him, and Tucker was just a member 442 00:24:18,520 --> 00:24:21,280 Speaker 7: of the family until this couple broke up in May 443 00:24:21,320 --> 00:24:24,200 Speaker 7: of twenty twenty two. They were never married, so that's 444 00:24:24,240 --> 00:24:27,560 Speaker 7: an important detail here. If they had been married, they 445 00:24:27,760 --> 00:24:29,840 Speaker 7: would have gone to family court and they would have 446 00:24:29,880 --> 00:24:33,680 Speaker 7: split all the marital property as normally under Delaware law, 447 00:24:34,280 --> 00:24:37,520 Speaker 7: and they would have worked out some sort of custody 448 00:24:37,600 --> 00:24:40,480 Speaker 7: arrangement for Tucker, and we probably would never have heard 449 00:24:40,480 --> 00:24:43,320 Speaker 7: about him. But that's not what happened because they weren't married. 450 00:24:43,440 --> 00:24:48,520 Speaker 7: So Delaware law allows family court to take into consideration 451 00:24:48,640 --> 00:24:52,440 Speaker 7: the best interest of an animal, a companion animal when 452 00:24:52,720 --> 00:24:56,280 Speaker 7: there's a divorce involved. But since there wasn't a divorce here, 453 00:24:56,600 --> 00:24:59,960 Speaker 7: this couple first went to a Justice of the Peace 454 00:25:00,080 --> 00:25:02,840 Speaker 7: court in twenty twenty two to try to sort out 455 00:25:02,840 --> 00:25:06,399 Speaker 7: who the dog belonged to. That first court found that 456 00:25:06,480 --> 00:25:10,240 Speaker 7: the ex girlfriend was the rightful owner, but to subsequent 457 00:25:10,320 --> 00:25:13,240 Speaker 7: state courts, the Court of Common Pleased and the Delaware 458 00:25:13,280 --> 00:25:18,680 Speaker 7: Superior Court found actually that they've shared a joint ownership. 459 00:25:18,119 --> 00:25:19,520 Speaker 8: Of the dog, and so that they would have to 460 00:25:19,600 --> 00:25:20,560 Speaker 8: work out some sort. 461 00:25:20,400 --> 00:25:23,880 Speaker 7: Of arrangement, and since they really could not agree, they 462 00:25:24,000 --> 00:25:26,119 Speaker 7: ended up in chancery court about a year ago, a 463 00:25:26,160 --> 00:25:29,320 Speaker 7: little over a year ago, asking the chancery court to 464 00:25:29,320 --> 00:25:32,240 Speaker 7: figure out what to do and just again to remind 465 00:25:32,280 --> 00:25:34,919 Speaker 7: some of your listeners. Chancery court is where you go 466 00:25:35,000 --> 00:25:38,720 Speaker 7: in Delaware when you have a civil case where damages 467 00:25:38,800 --> 00:25:39,919 Speaker 7: really aren't the answer. 468 00:25:40,080 --> 00:25:43,480 Speaker 8: You're looking for a judge to figure out what's equitable, like. 469 00:25:43,480 --> 00:25:47,720 Speaker 7: What's happened, was what happened fair? And how to fix 470 00:25:47,760 --> 00:25:48,800 Speaker 7: it if it wasn't fair. 471 00:25:49,240 --> 00:25:51,520 Speaker 8: So that's kind of where we are now with this case. 472 00:25:51,800 --> 00:25:57,119 Speaker 2: And there was a hearing where a veterinary behaviorist testified. 473 00:25:56,880 --> 00:25:57,439 Speaker 8: In the spring. 474 00:25:57,520 --> 00:26:00,359 Speaker 7: The chancery court said, look, you guys really can't agree. Fine, 475 00:26:00,920 --> 00:26:05,399 Speaker 7: we will follow the procedures under Delaware property law. Because 476 00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:09,520 Speaker 7: Delaware law looks at dogs as property. I don't want 477 00:26:09,520 --> 00:26:11,480 Speaker 7: any of your listeners to come at me. That is 478 00:26:11,520 --> 00:26:14,160 Speaker 7: not my personal opinion. I know people have very strong 479 00:26:14,200 --> 00:26:17,480 Speaker 7: feelings about their for children, but their property, and under 480 00:26:17,480 --> 00:26:20,400 Speaker 7: Delaware law, there's property and you really can't agree about 481 00:26:20,440 --> 00:26:23,840 Speaker 7: who gets what the rule is to partition it. Sometimes 482 00:26:23,880 --> 00:26:26,399 Speaker 7: that means actually splitting something in half. No one is 483 00:26:26,400 --> 00:26:29,439 Speaker 7: suggesting that Tucker should be split in half here, So 484 00:26:29,480 --> 00:26:32,439 Speaker 7: the court left it up to this estranged couple to 485 00:26:32,520 --> 00:26:34,760 Speaker 7: figure out how are you going to split Tucker? 486 00:26:34,880 --> 00:26:36,200 Speaker 8: Like this is what the law says. 487 00:26:36,320 --> 00:26:39,280 Speaker 7: We need to partition this property. You need to figure 488 00:26:39,280 --> 00:26:41,840 Speaker 7: out what that means. They could not figure out what 489 00:26:41,880 --> 00:26:43,720 Speaker 7: it meant. The couple just could not figure it out. 490 00:26:43,960 --> 00:26:47,000 Speaker 7: So they came back to court and a part of 491 00:26:47,000 --> 00:26:51,320 Speaker 7: that was an evidentiary hearing about who's actually taking care 492 00:26:51,480 --> 00:26:54,600 Speaker 7: of Tucker? Who did what when this couple was actually 493 00:26:54,600 --> 00:26:57,720 Speaker 7: living together that was three years ago. Now what is 494 00:26:57,760 --> 00:27:01,120 Speaker 7: Tucker's health and well being at this point? And that's 495 00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:05,479 Speaker 7: where the veterinary behaviorist came in and said, well, you know, Tucker, 496 00:27:05,560 --> 00:27:06,439 Speaker 7: I think, like a lot. 497 00:27:06,280 --> 00:27:09,040 Speaker 8: Of doodles, has a few issues. He's got some anxiety. 498 00:27:09,200 --> 00:27:12,680 Speaker 7: He doesn't really deal with changes his routine all that well, 499 00:27:13,000 --> 00:27:15,760 Speaker 7: So that's where the evaluation of Tucker came in. But 500 00:27:15,960 --> 00:27:19,720 Speaker 7: the court ultimately decided, in this case, if you really 501 00:27:19,720 --> 00:27:22,800 Speaker 7: can't agree what partition is going to mean is a 502 00:27:22,840 --> 00:27:26,280 Speaker 7: private auction. It's just going to be this estranged couple, 503 00:27:26,480 --> 00:27:29,240 Speaker 7: just the two of them. Whoever is the highest bidder, 504 00:27:29,320 --> 00:27:32,040 Speaker 7: We'll go home with Tucker and the other person will 505 00:27:32,040 --> 00:27:32,879 Speaker 7: get compensation. 506 00:27:33,600 --> 00:27:37,720 Speaker 2: So the judge then decided not to base it on 507 00:27:37,840 --> 00:27:39,520 Speaker 2: Tucker's best interests. 508 00:27:39,920 --> 00:27:43,720 Speaker 7: That's right, And that's a really interesting point because that 509 00:27:44,680 --> 00:27:48,800 Speaker 7: is kind of different from the trend in a lot 510 00:27:48,840 --> 00:27:51,119 Speaker 7: of these cases, and there are more and more of 511 00:27:51,160 --> 00:27:54,879 Speaker 7: them all the time, even in situations where people aren't 512 00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:59,440 Speaker 7: romantically involved. There was a trial in Philadelphia recently over 513 00:27:59,480 --> 00:28:03,360 Speaker 7: a cat named Gary to ex roommates. Each of them 514 00:28:03,400 --> 00:28:07,480 Speaker 7: wanted Gary. What some courts are looking at is what's 515 00:28:07,520 --> 00:28:08,760 Speaker 7: in the best interests. 516 00:28:08,400 --> 00:28:09,040 Speaker 8: Of the animal. 517 00:28:09,280 --> 00:28:11,760 Speaker 7: They're looking at them as a little bit more than property, 518 00:28:12,160 --> 00:28:17,000 Speaker 7: and they're kind of borrowing from these state laws in Delaware, 519 00:28:17,040 --> 00:28:21,120 Speaker 7: in California and New York in other places where if 520 00:28:21,119 --> 00:28:25,240 Speaker 7: there's a divorce the companion animal, the pet will be 521 00:28:25,320 --> 00:28:28,280 Speaker 7: evaluated under the question of what's in the best interest 522 00:28:28,359 --> 00:28:30,880 Speaker 7: of the animal before deciding who is going. 523 00:28:30,720 --> 00:28:33,280 Speaker 8: To take it. So some courts have applied that. 524 00:28:33,400 --> 00:28:37,600 Speaker 7: Standard in these other cases where you have a couple 525 00:28:37,680 --> 00:28:41,360 Speaker 7: that weren't married, or you know, it's roommates, there's no 526 00:28:41,440 --> 00:28:42,600 Speaker 7: romantic relationship. 527 00:28:43,120 --> 00:28:45,920 Speaker 8: But here the chancery court judge says, you. 528 00:28:45,880 --> 00:28:48,800 Speaker 7: Know, I see what other courts are doing, but I'm 529 00:28:48,800 --> 00:28:51,080 Speaker 7: not convinced that the best interest standard. 530 00:28:50,720 --> 00:28:51,720 Speaker 8: Is the way to go here. 531 00:28:51,960 --> 00:28:55,440 Speaker 7: What Delaware law calls for is a partition, which is 532 00:28:55,480 --> 00:28:58,640 Speaker 7: an auction that will maximize the value of the property, 533 00:28:59,200 --> 00:29:01,920 Speaker 7: and there's no reason to move away from that default. 534 00:29:02,320 --> 00:29:05,320 Speaker 2: I mean, just how does the auction work. Is the 535 00:29:05,320 --> 00:29:08,360 Speaker 2: bidding open and it keeps going up and up or 536 00:29:08,480 --> 00:29:09,600 Speaker 2: is it sealed bids? 537 00:29:09,920 --> 00:29:13,000 Speaker 7: So again, unfortunately, the court is kind of stuck with 538 00:29:13,640 --> 00:29:18,240 Speaker 7: putting it to a couple that really are not getting 539 00:29:18,280 --> 00:29:19,720 Speaker 7: along to figure. 540 00:29:19,400 --> 00:29:20,040 Speaker 8: Out what to do. 541 00:29:20,240 --> 00:29:23,400 Speaker 7: A partition trustee has been appointed by the court, a 542 00:29:23,440 --> 00:29:26,360 Speaker 7: third party attorney, if you will, but they haven't gotten 543 00:29:26,400 --> 00:29:28,800 Speaker 7: to that point yet because the ex boyfriend has sought 544 00:29:28,840 --> 00:29:32,040 Speaker 7: to appeal this ruling to the Delaware Supreme Court in 545 00:29:32,080 --> 00:29:36,480 Speaker 7: a mid case appeal basically an interlocatory review. He wants 546 00:29:36,560 --> 00:29:40,080 Speaker 7: to stop the auction and have a high court consider 547 00:29:40,160 --> 00:29:42,440 Speaker 7: the case before he potentially loses Tucker. 548 00:29:42,760 --> 00:29:45,720 Speaker 8: This couple, I think the legal term here really is 549 00:29:45,840 --> 00:29:47,440 Speaker 8: this is a very bad breakup. 550 00:29:48,040 --> 00:29:52,720 Speaker 7: They've also been fighting over other property. According to the 551 00:29:52,720 --> 00:29:57,000 Speaker 7: court documents, they've actually been fighting over actual literal property 552 00:29:57,400 --> 00:30:00,160 Speaker 7: and threatened litigation over something that they all so. 553 00:30:00,280 --> 00:30:03,479 Speaker 8: Had bought while they were together. So it's not just 554 00:30:03,560 --> 00:30:04,880 Speaker 8: Tucker that they're fighting over. 555 00:30:05,280 --> 00:30:08,400 Speaker 2: As I understand it, the woman hasn't seen Tucker since 556 00:30:08,520 --> 00:30:11,600 Speaker 2: the breakup, so best interests, I guess if Tucker has 557 00:30:11,680 --> 00:30:15,960 Speaker 2: separation anxiety and distress, would play them with a man. 558 00:30:16,760 --> 00:30:19,360 Speaker 8: It's very much a he said, she said, kind of situation. 559 00:30:19,720 --> 00:30:20,840 Speaker 8: If you go into the briefs. 560 00:30:20,960 --> 00:30:24,920 Speaker 7: The ex girlfriend said Tucker was her companion animal, her 561 00:30:24,960 --> 00:30:28,320 Speaker 7: support animal during cancer treatments while she was still in 562 00:30:28,360 --> 00:30:31,920 Speaker 7: the relationship, but then the ex boyfriend after the breakup 563 00:30:32,040 --> 00:30:34,400 Speaker 7: that he took Tucker out of state and prevented her 564 00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:36,520 Speaker 7: from seeing him all this time. 565 00:30:36,880 --> 00:30:38,040 Speaker 8: The ex boyfriend. 566 00:30:37,680 --> 00:30:40,560 Speaker 7: Says, no, you know, this dog was again a gift 567 00:30:40,640 --> 00:30:44,240 Speaker 7: originally from my daughter. You know, he was abandoned by 568 00:30:44,280 --> 00:30:45,920 Speaker 7: the ex girlfriend when we broke up. 569 00:30:46,240 --> 00:30:48,920 Speaker 8: He's been my best buddy this whole time. I care 570 00:30:49,000 --> 00:30:49,920 Speaker 8: for him all the time. 571 00:30:50,160 --> 00:30:52,600 Speaker 7: And it's really the ex boyfriend saying, you really need 572 00:30:52,640 --> 00:30:55,840 Speaker 7: to look at the best interests of Tucker here, whereas 573 00:30:55,840 --> 00:30:58,640 Speaker 7: the ex girlfriend is saying, you know, this was property 574 00:30:58,680 --> 00:31:00,600 Speaker 7: we both shared and we need to we need to 575 00:31:00,600 --> 00:31:01,480 Speaker 7: come to a resolution. 576 00:31:02,000 --> 00:31:05,320 Speaker 2: So what's the next step. The ex boyfriend is appealing, So. 577 00:31:05,280 --> 00:31:08,719 Speaker 7: The ex boyfriend filed a motion for an interlocatory appeal 578 00:31:09,080 --> 00:31:11,240 Speaker 7: is kind of asking the Chancery court, can we have 579 00:31:11,560 --> 00:31:14,160 Speaker 7: the Delaware Supreme Court step in here, even though we 580 00:31:14,240 --> 00:31:17,040 Speaker 7: haven't gone through a final order, and the Chancery Court 581 00:31:17,120 --> 00:31:19,960 Speaker 7: denied that. So where he's left now is he could 582 00:31:19,960 --> 00:31:22,320 Speaker 7: go to the Delaware Supreme Court on his own and 583 00:31:22,360 --> 00:31:25,760 Speaker 7: ask the justices to take his case kind of mid case, 584 00:31:25,880 --> 00:31:28,479 Speaker 7: to review it. The justices could decide to do that, 585 00:31:28,480 --> 00:31:30,280 Speaker 7: They could deny him and tell him that he has 586 00:31:30,360 --> 00:31:33,000 Speaker 7: to wait until the auction happens, which is where the 587 00:31:33,080 --> 00:31:36,360 Speaker 7: Chancery Court said the case should go. The Chancery Court 588 00:31:36,360 --> 00:31:39,000 Speaker 7: has said, look, you've had the dog all this time, 589 00:31:39,120 --> 00:31:42,160 Speaker 7: so you won't be harmed by putting a hold on 590 00:31:42,200 --> 00:31:45,640 Speaker 7: the auction. But the ex girlfriend will be harmed because 591 00:31:45,720 --> 00:31:48,600 Speaker 7: she hasn't seen the dog in three years, and a 592 00:31:48,680 --> 00:31:51,840 Speaker 7: dog only lives so long. You know, this dog with 593 00:31:51,880 --> 00:31:55,600 Speaker 7: a puppy in twenty twenty when it was first acquired, 594 00:31:55,720 --> 00:31:58,560 Speaker 7: then it's already five six years old. 595 00:31:58,880 --> 00:32:02,480 Speaker 2: The cost involved if they've been through every level of 596 00:32:02,720 --> 00:32:07,480 Speaker 2: Delaware court and now possibly the Delaware Supreme Court, I mean, 597 00:32:07,520 --> 00:32:10,880 Speaker 2: what are the costs involved here for attorneys, fees and 598 00:32:11,080 --> 00:32:12,120 Speaker 2: expert witnesses. 599 00:32:12,840 --> 00:32:15,920 Speaker 7: I don't know a dollar figure for what these people 600 00:32:16,000 --> 00:32:19,280 Speaker 7: are spending individually, but what the ex boyfriend has said 601 00:32:19,480 --> 00:32:22,040 Speaker 7: in his briefs is that. You know, he's already had 602 00:32:22,120 --> 00:32:25,480 Speaker 7: to pay thirty five thousand dollars to the ex girlfriend 603 00:32:25,600 --> 00:32:28,920 Speaker 7: over the other property that they've been fighting over that 604 00:32:28,960 --> 00:32:32,240 Speaker 7: they reached a kind of settlement over that, and he says, look, 605 00:32:32,320 --> 00:32:34,960 Speaker 7: she wants an auction because she knows that she has 606 00:32:35,000 --> 00:32:37,320 Speaker 7: the superior finances compared to me. 607 00:32:37,720 --> 00:32:38,920 Speaker 8: So that's not fair. 608 00:32:39,080 --> 00:32:41,040 Speaker 7: You know, we aren't on equal footing here. 609 00:32:41,280 --> 00:32:42,120 Speaker 8: Again, I can't. 610 00:32:41,880 --> 00:32:44,960 Speaker 7: Speak to what exactly each of these parties is spending, 611 00:32:45,040 --> 00:32:47,000 Speaker 7: but it has to be a lot. If you've gone 612 00:32:47,040 --> 00:32:51,440 Speaker 7: through basically every level of Delaware State court except family court, 613 00:32:51,520 --> 00:32:53,520 Speaker 7: and the only reason you haven't gone to family court 614 00:32:53,600 --> 00:32:54,880 Speaker 7: is because you weren't married. 615 00:32:54,640 --> 00:32:55,320 Speaker 8: In the first place. 616 00:32:55,640 --> 00:32:59,360 Speaker 2: So is it unusual for the chancery court to be 617 00:32:59,560 --> 00:33:02,040 Speaker 2: sorting out dispute so over animals? 618 00:33:02,640 --> 00:33:06,200 Speaker 7: Most people probably if they know Delaware Chancery Court, they 619 00:33:06,240 --> 00:33:08,080 Speaker 7: know it, probably because of Elon. 620 00:33:07,880 --> 00:33:09,520 Speaker 8: Musk over the last couple of years. 621 00:33:09,720 --> 00:33:11,880 Speaker 7: This is the court that told him, no, you can't 622 00:33:11,880 --> 00:33:15,200 Speaker 7: have fifty six billion dollars as your pay package as 623 00:33:15,200 --> 00:33:18,920 Speaker 7: being the tesla ceo. That's a case that is before 624 00:33:18,960 --> 00:33:22,840 Speaker 7: the Delaware Supreme Court right now. It's also become very 625 00:33:22,920 --> 00:33:26,840 Speaker 7: unpopular in certain corporate circles over some other court rulings. 626 00:33:27,120 --> 00:33:29,560 Speaker 7: That's a largely stemming from its role as a court 627 00:33:29,560 --> 00:33:33,400 Speaker 7: of equity. Again, you go here when damages aren't necessarily 628 00:33:34,000 --> 00:33:36,080 Speaker 7: going to fix the problem. You need to figure out 629 00:33:37,160 --> 00:33:40,160 Speaker 7: was a transaction fair, and if it wasn't, how to 630 00:33:40,200 --> 00:33:43,320 Speaker 7: fix it. But because it's a court of equity, it 631 00:33:43,360 --> 00:33:46,920 Speaker 7: also has this other role where it has to decide 632 00:33:47,120 --> 00:33:50,080 Speaker 7: local property cases, and that's where you end up with 633 00:33:50,120 --> 00:33:52,719 Speaker 7: cases like Tucker. You know you and I spoke earlier 634 00:33:52,720 --> 00:33:55,520 Speaker 7: this year about another case where Elon. 635 00:33:55,320 --> 00:33:58,360 Speaker 8: Musk's judge, the one that he probably hates. 636 00:33:58,160 --> 00:34:01,080 Speaker 7: Most in the country, had to decide what to do 637 00:34:01,240 --> 00:34:05,040 Speaker 7: with a man who said, my Clydesdale, my horse, and 638 00:34:05,080 --> 00:34:07,880 Speaker 7: I were in a car accident. The horse was euthanized 639 00:34:07,920 --> 00:34:10,799 Speaker 7: and taken to a landfill without my consent, and now 640 00:34:10,800 --> 00:34:13,040 Speaker 7: I want the horse back because I don't want to 641 00:34:13,080 --> 00:34:15,200 Speaker 7: bury it in a landfill. And so she had to 642 00:34:15,239 --> 00:34:19,240 Speaker 7: decide that while also deciding matters pertaining to Elon Musk. 643 00:34:19,400 --> 00:34:22,000 Speaker 7: So it can be this really interesting court where you 644 00:34:22,040 --> 00:34:25,480 Speaker 7: have very very important corporate questions but also very very 645 00:34:25,560 --> 00:34:29,479 Speaker 7: important questions to like the local litigants that just want 646 00:34:29,520 --> 00:34:31,640 Speaker 7: to do what's best for their pet. And you know, 647 00:34:31,680 --> 00:34:34,920 Speaker 7: it's interesting that the judge in this case, Vice Chancellor 648 00:34:34,960 --> 00:34:38,160 Speaker 7: Bonnie David. One of the other big corporate cases that's 649 00:34:38,239 --> 00:34:41,920 Speaker 7: on her docket involves Fox News and the big settlement, 650 00:34:42,120 --> 00:34:44,400 Speaker 7: the eight hundred million dollars settlement that it had to 651 00:34:45,120 --> 00:34:49,320 Speaker 7: reach over defamation claims stemming from the twenty twenty election 652 00:34:49,480 --> 00:34:52,239 Speaker 7: broadcasts that it made. So she also has quite a 653 00:34:52,280 --> 00:34:55,040 Speaker 7: bit on her docket. But she, in her opinions, has 654 00:34:55,080 --> 00:34:58,560 Speaker 7: cited a number of cases from other state courts and 655 00:34:58,640 --> 00:35:02,160 Speaker 7: a lot of them involve pets that were acquired by 656 00:35:02,200 --> 00:35:05,279 Speaker 7: a couple who didn't get married so they couldn't go 657 00:35:05,360 --> 00:35:08,120 Speaker 7: through family court. And it's interesting that a lot of 658 00:35:08,160 --> 00:35:10,759 Speaker 7: them kind of follow a similar path that they take 659 00:35:11,040 --> 00:35:13,279 Speaker 7: years to figure out, and you really have to think 660 00:35:13,320 --> 00:35:15,959 Speaker 7: about it and in terms of like how many dog 661 00:35:16,000 --> 00:35:18,600 Speaker 7: years is this case going to take, because if it 662 00:35:18,640 --> 00:35:21,480 Speaker 7: can take like four or five human years, that's a 663 00:35:21,520 --> 00:35:24,280 Speaker 7: long time for a dog. If this auction moves forward, 664 00:35:24,800 --> 00:35:25,840 Speaker 7: it's unclear. 665 00:35:25,600 --> 00:35:28,320 Speaker 8: Still, like one, exactly how that would. 666 00:35:28,160 --> 00:35:32,000 Speaker 7: Look to how much it would cost? And then three, 667 00:35:32,120 --> 00:35:34,480 Speaker 7: how are you going to enforce it? Like is a 668 00:35:34,520 --> 00:35:37,160 Speaker 7: deputy going to show up at someone's house for the dog, 669 00:35:37,360 --> 00:35:39,719 Speaker 7: and then if you appeal it, what happens to the 670 00:35:39,719 --> 00:35:42,520 Speaker 7: dog in the meantime. There's a lot of unanswered questions here, 671 00:35:42,640 --> 00:35:44,839 Speaker 7: and we're talking about it because this is a case 672 00:35:44,880 --> 00:35:47,279 Speaker 7: that is setting all kinds of precedent for the chance 673 00:35:47,320 --> 00:35:49,959 Speaker 7: of record in these property disputes. Is really the first 674 00:35:49,960 --> 00:35:53,080 Speaker 7: time it's had to deal with a partition case involving 675 00:35:53,120 --> 00:35:55,200 Speaker 7: a living, breathing being. 676 00:35:55,800 --> 00:35:58,080 Speaker 2: So now pre nups have to include if we have 677 00:35:58,160 --> 00:35:59,879 Speaker 2: a pet, what happened to the pet. 678 00:36:00,080 --> 00:36:03,000 Speaker 7: You're joking, but that is actually what an animal law 679 00:36:03,120 --> 00:36:06,480 Speaker 7: expert and attorney practicing in the animal laws here told me. 680 00:36:06,680 --> 00:36:08,080 Speaker 8: She said, Yeah, you have. 681 00:36:08,040 --> 00:36:11,360 Speaker 7: To really think about these things much like a prenup, 682 00:36:11,600 --> 00:36:14,560 Speaker 7: even if you are just roommates, there's no romantic relationship. 683 00:36:14,600 --> 00:36:17,319 Speaker 7: If you get a pet with someone, you need to 684 00:36:17,560 --> 00:36:19,840 Speaker 7: make a contract so that you can plan for what 685 00:36:20,000 --> 00:36:23,279 Speaker 7: happens when you're no longer living together, which I think 686 00:36:23,360 --> 00:36:25,680 Speaker 7: absolutely no one thinks about when they're looking at a 687 00:36:25,760 --> 00:36:26,880 Speaker 7: kitten or a puppy. 688 00:36:27,160 --> 00:36:29,600 Speaker 2: Well, you'll have to let us know what happens to Tucker. 689 00:36:30,080 --> 00:36:34,640 Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Jennifer. That's Bloomberg law. Senior Correspondent Jennifer k. 690 00:36:35,520 --> 00:36:37,840 Speaker 2: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. 691 00:36:38,160 --> 00:36:40,520 Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on 692 00:36:40,560 --> 00:36:44,839 Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, 693 00:36:45,040 --> 00:36:50,080 Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, 694 00:36:50,480 --> 00:36:53,040 Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every 695 00:36:53,120 --> 00:36:57,000 Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso 696 00:36:57,160 --> 00:36:58,719 Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg