1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:22,400
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Shares of Internet

6
00:00:22,440 --> 00:00:25,800
Speaker 1: retailers plunged after a decision by the Supreme Court today.

7
00:00:26,160 --> 00:00:28,000
Speaker 1: In a five to four vote, the Court ruled that

8
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:31,200
Speaker 1: states can start collecting billions of dollars in sales taxes

9
00:00:31,240 --> 00:00:35,120
Speaker 1: from Internet retailers that don't currently charge tax to their customers.

10
00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:39,160
Speaker 1: The Justice has reversed in ruling that had made most

11
00:00:39,200 --> 00:00:42,000
Speaker 1: of the Internet at tax free zone. Joining me Bloomberg,

12
00:00:42,040 --> 00:00:45,840
Speaker 1: New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store Greg Justice Kennedy wrote

13
00:00:45,880 --> 00:00:48,640
Speaker 1: the majority opinion. What did he base the reversal on?

14
00:00:49,720 --> 00:00:51,920
Speaker 1: He based it both on the fact that he didn't

15
00:00:51,920 --> 00:00:54,400
Speaker 1: think the physical presence rule made a whole lot of

16
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:57,560
Speaker 1: sense in and he said, it really doesn't make a

17
00:00:57,800 --> 00:01:02,360
Speaker 1: lot of sense today when commerce is uh is the

18
00:01:02,400 --> 00:01:05,640
Speaker 1: way so much business gets done. UH. South Dakota's law

19
00:01:06,160 --> 00:01:09,000
Speaker 1: uses instead of a physical presence requirement that says you

20
00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:11,280
Speaker 1: have to have an economic connection to the state by

21
00:01:11,280 --> 00:01:15,039
Speaker 1: having a certain minimum amount of sales. And uh, he

22
00:01:15,120 --> 00:01:18,080
Speaker 1: said that's a better way to determine whether a state

23
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:22,640
Speaker 1: should have the right to impose tax collection responsibilities. It

24
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:26,320
Speaker 1: wasn't a typical lineup of justices joining Justice Kennedy in

25
00:01:26,360 --> 00:01:31,040
Speaker 1: the majority, where Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito,

26
00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:37,880
Speaker 1: and Neil Gorst. So to what do you attribute this? Yeah,

27
00:01:38,920 --> 00:01:41,399
Speaker 1: this the underlying legal doctrine which is known as the

28
00:01:41,440 --> 00:01:44,160
Speaker 1: dormant Commerce clause, which sounds like something that would put

29
00:01:44,200 --> 00:01:46,600
Speaker 1: you to sleep, but it's basically the idea that states

30
00:01:46,600 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 1: can't interfere with interstate commerce, at least unless Congress lets

31
00:01:49,880 --> 00:01:54,320
Speaker 1: them explicitly says they can. That underlying doctrine, for whatever reason,

32
00:01:54,680 --> 00:01:58,160
Speaker 1: just cuts across ideological lines. It has never divided the

33
00:01:58,200 --> 00:02:01,760
Speaker 1: Court the way so many other issues UH do. And

34
00:02:01,800 --> 00:02:03,840
Speaker 1: in this case, it was very clear that the arguments

35
00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:08,359
Speaker 1: UH that Justice Ginsburg was poised to overturn this physical

36
00:02:08,360 --> 00:02:11,639
Speaker 1: presence requirement. Uh. She didn't see any reason why a

37
00:02:11,720 --> 00:02:16,320
Speaker 1: state should not be allowed to UH impose tax collection responsibilities,

38
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:18,839
Speaker 1: and she joined with people like Justice Thomas, who thinks

39
00:02:18,840 --> 00:02:22,239
Speaker 1: that the whole Dorman's dormant commerce clause idea actually isn't

40
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:26,200
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. So he was even uh more excited

41
00:02:26,200 --> 00:02:29,840
Speaker 1: about overturning the Quill decision. What did the descent say

42
00:02:30,080 --> 00:02:32,120
Speaker 1: and who wrote out well that the you know, it

43
00:02:32,200 --> 00:02:34,080
Speaker 1: wasn't so much. He was written by the Chief Justice

44
00:02:34,160 --> 00:02:36,280
Speaker 1: John Roberts, and it was so much that he was

45
00:02:36,320 --> 00:02:40,040
Speaker 1: saying the physical presence requirement was a good one, but

46
00:02:40,160 --> 00:02:43,560
Speaker 1: basically that this is going to have a lot of implications,

47
00:02:43,919 --> 00:02:47,680
Speaker 1: implications we can't fully understand. And Congress is the one

48
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:49,760
Speaker 1: who should deal with us. So this entire area of

49
00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:53,120
Speaker 1: law is one where uh, you know, both before this

50
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:55,960
Speaker 1: ruling and after this ruling, Congress can come in and

51
00:02:56,000 --> 00:02:57,880
Speaker 1: set the rules for the states in terms of what

52
00:02:57,919 --> 00:03:01,800
Speaker 1: they can what they can do, and and Chief Justice

53
00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:04,520
Speaker 1: Roberts essentially said, it would be much better if we

54
00:03:04,639 --> 00:03:08,360
Speaker 1: let Congress overturn the physical presence rule and therefore be

55
00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:11,400
Speaker 1: able to set whatever, you know, sort of minimum requirements.

56
00:03:11,240 --> 00:03:15,280
Speaker 1: It would want, uh for first states to avoid imposing

57
00:03:15,320 --> 00:03:18,720
Speaker 1: too much of a burden on small businesses. So Congress

58
00:03:18,760 --> 00:03:21,280
Speaker 1: has never been able to pass that kind of a

59
00:03:21,840 --> 00:03:25,440
Speaker 1: of a law, but might states Now all the states

60
00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:30,359
Speaker 1: having different kinds of requirements. Might that lead Congress to

61
00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:34,920
Speaker 1: move intet a federal standard, Yeah, it's sure might. Um,

62
00:03:34,960 --> 00:03:37,760
Speaker 1: there are you know, some of the internet retailers Amazon has,

63
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:41,400
Speaker 1: for example, has wanted for a while for Congress to

64
00:03:41,400 --> 00:03:44,360
Speaker 1: step in and do something like that. Uh. So you

65
00:03:44,440 --> 00:03:48,200
Speaker 1: have both the concern of a patchwork of state laws

66
00:03:48,680 --> 00:03:52,920
Speaker 1: and a concern that uh small businesses might be forced

67
00:03:52,920 --> 00:03:55,440
Speaker 1: to collect taxes. And there will be a push for

68
00:03:55,440 --> 00:03:59,560
Speaker 1: Congress to set a clear minimum threshold. Uh. You know,

69
00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:01,760
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously it's it's it's tough to get much

70
00:04:01,760 --> 00:04:05,120
Speaker 1: through Congress these days at all, but there is certainly

71
00:04:05,160 --> 00:04:07,560
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about trying to get Congress to act.

72
00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:10,800
Speaker 1: At this point. Another ruling could effect about a hundred

73
00:04:10,800 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 1: cases currently at the SEC, along with a dozen that

74
00:04:13,960 --> 00:04:17,080
Speaker 1: are on appeal. Tell us about that it hasn't gotten

75
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 1: as much play, obviously as the Internet ruling. No, it

76
00:04:20,040 --> 00:04:24,680
Speaker 1: has it. Um. It is uh involving a guy UH

77
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:30,480
Speaker 1: named Ray Lucia who UH was an investment office investment advisor,

78
00:04:30,640 --> 00:04:35,320
Speaker 1: and he uh touted his investment strategy as buckets of money,

79
00:04:35,480 --> 00:04:39,760
Speaker 1: and he was accused by the SEC of misleading potential

80
00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:43,960
Speaker 1: investors and his arguments, which could be really important for

81
00:04:44,000 --> 00:04:47,160
Speaker 1: the way administrative agencies work, is that the judge who

82
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,920
Speaker 1: decided his case and find him and banned them from

83
00:04:50,960 --> 00:04:55,880
Speaker 1: the investment advisory business UH wasn't properly appointed under the constitution.

84
00:04:55,920 --> 00:04:58,599
Speaker 1: So basically, the Constitution says, there are certain people who

85
00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:04,240
Speaker 1: are called officer and because they're pretty darn important, more

86
00:05:04,320 --> 00:05:06,839
Speaker 1: important than just the run of the mill employee, they

87
00:05:06,920 --> 00:05:10,279
Speaker 1: have to be appointed in a specific way, like directly

88
00:05:10,320 --> 00:05:14,800
Speaker 1: by the Commission and the SECS administrative law judges were

89
00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:19,599
Speaker 1: not appointed. It was through UH the federal government's Personnel

90
00:05:19,600 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 1: Office was involved. They weren't appointed directly by the Commission UH,

91
00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:26,440
Speaker 1: and so he challenged the finding against him on those grounds.

92
00:05:26,520 --> 00:05:28,760
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court agreed with them. And what could be

93
00:05:28,800 --> 00:05:33,000
Speaker 1: really important about this more broadly is that UM, it's

94
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:35,200
Speaker 1: all part of a doctrine that could give the president

95
00:05:35,320 --> 00:05:38,680
Speaker 1: more control and ultimately give the president more ability to

96
00:05:38,800 --> 00:05:44,120
Speaker 1: have somebody fired for not going along with administrative priorities.

97
00:05:44,839 --> 00:05:48,680
Speaker 1: Explain how that could happen, GREG, and what kind of circumstances.

98
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:53,120
Speaker 1: So if if UM, the so now we know that

99
00:05:53,160 --> 00:05:58,320
Speaker 1: administrative law judges are officers. UM. The argument from some

100
00:05:58,400 --> 00:06:02,120
Speaker 1: other cases. Is that it's you're an officer, you have

101
00:06:02,279 --> 00:06:06,600
Speaker 1: to have a certain level of accountability, and at least

102
00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:10,960
Speaker 1: the agency, which is politically appointed, the SEC has to

103
00:06:11,080 --> 00:06:14,720
Speaker 1: have ability to file to fire you for not going

104
00:06:14,760 --> 00:06:21,839
Speaker 1: along with administrative administration priorities. UM. So that issue wasn't

105
00:06:21,880 --> 00:06:25,920
Speaker 1: directly before the court in this case, but it seems

106
00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:29,520
Speaker 1: very likely that soon we'll get a case saying uh

107
00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:33,359
Speaker 1: that the SEC um whose members are are you know,

108
00:06:33,400 --> 00:06:36,200
Speaker 1: we're appointed by the president. Uh, you should have more

109
00:06:36,240 --> 00:06:39,200
Speaker 1: ability to fire people like administrative law judges and potentially

110
00:06:39,240 --> 00:06:41,440
Speaker 1: other people who work for for the agency. Does this

111
00:06:41,520 --> 00:06:44,640
Speaker 1: mean that the SEC now has to go back and

112
00:06:44,800 --> 00:06:47,800
Speaker 1: appoint all the judges are already on the stats, so

113
00:06:47,839 --> 00:06:50,400
Speaker 1: they've already tried to do that. Um. But what the

114
00:06:50,400 --> 00:06:54,440
Speaker 1: court said in this case is that's not good enough. Uh.

115
00:06:54,600 --> 00:06:57,680
Speaker 1: Mr Lucia has a right to a hearing before a

116
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:02,400
Speaker 1: different administrative law judge because you you um, uh you know,

117
00:07:02,480 --> 00:07:04,640
Speaker 1: even if this person will be able to stay in

118
00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:07,840
Speaker 1: the job. Uh while he was while this a l

119
00:07:07,920 --> 00:07:11,680
Speaker 1: J was considering uh the Luccia case. Uh, he had

120
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:13,800
Speaker 1: not been properly appointed. And it doesn't make any sense

121
00:07:13,840 --> 00:07:15,400
Speaker 1: that we need to send it to another person to

122
00:07:15,440 --> 00:07:17,360
Speaker 1: kind of give him a fresh start in front of

123
00:07:17,360 --> 00:07:20,720
Speaker 1: a judge who was properly appointed. It's a technical issue

124
00:07:20,760 --> 00:07:25,080
Speaker 1: that actually has a lot of repercussions. Let's talk about

125
00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:27,880
Speaker 1: what's coming up. I understand that we're having opinions on

126
00:07:27,920 --> 00:07:30,360
Speaker 1: a Friday as well. Tomorrow. We are having opinions on

127
00:07:30,400 --> 00:07:33,160
Speaker 1: a Friday bonus opinion day tomorrow at the Supreme Court.

128
00:07:33,200 --> 00:07:35,880
Speaker 1: We are now down to tin cases that are still

129
00:07:36,000 --> 00:07:38,640
Speaker 1: to come. The biggest, the one that people are really

130
00:07:38,640 --> 00:07:41,960
Speaker 1: watching for, of course, as a Trump travel band. Another

131
00:07:42,080 --> 00:07:45,640
Speaker 1: really big business case that that is important involves American

132
00:07:45,760 --> 00:07:49,360
Speaker 1: Express UH and an anti trust case against them for

133
00:07:49,560 --> 00:07:53,480
Speaker 1: with what's known as its anti steering rules, those bar

134
00:07:53,680 --> 00:07:58,080
Speaker 1: merchants who accept American Express cards from steering customers to

135
00:07:58,280 --> 00:08:02,000
Speaker 1: another card that may h charge the merchant lower fees.

136
00:08:02,080 --> 00:08:05,320
Speaker 1: In other words, the merchant can't say, hey, if you

137
00:08:05,360 --> 00:08:09,160
Speaker 1: pay with X card, will give you a discount. Um.

138
00:08:09,200 --> 00:08:11,840
Speaker 1: There's an trust case against that. The Court could revive

139
00:08:11,960 --> 00:08:15,200
Speaker 1: that case. There's also a big case involving mandatory union

140
00:08:15,200 --> 00:08:17,760
Speaker 1: fees by public sector workers and whether they have a

141
00:08:18,520 --> 00:08:20,360
Speaker 1: government Workers have a First Amendment right to say I

142
00:08:20,440 --> 00:08:22,640
Speaker 1: don't want to contribute to to my union. All right,

143
00:08:22,680 --> 00:08:24,600
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Greg. We will check back with you

144
00:08:24,720 --> 00:08:27,720
Speaker 1: tomorrow for all the latest opinions. Thanks for listening to

145
00:08:27,760 --> 00:08:31,080
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

146
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:34,840
Speaker 1: the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

147
00:08:34,880 --> 00:08:41,959
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Basso. This is Bloomberg yea