1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,959
Speaker 1: For the first time, the US Supreme Court has adopted

3
00:00:13,000 --> 00:00:16,280
Speaker 1: a code of conduct. It's a response to months of

4
00:00:16,360 --> 00:00:20,560
Speaker 1: pressure after a stream of ethics controversies that have undercut

5
00:00:20,600 --> 00:00:23,599
Speaker 1: the Court's public standing and showe new light on the

6
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:28,920
Speaker 1: Justice's friendships and financial dealings. The revelations include reports that

7
00:00:29,160 --> 00:00:33,800
Speaker 1: Justice Clarence Thomas got lavish vacations, private jet flights, and

8
00:00:33,920 --> 00:00:37,879
Speaker 1: other gifts funded by Republican megadoner Harlan Crowe. But the

9
00:00:37,960 --> 00:00:41,720
Speaker 1: code won't necessarily mean significant changes in how the nine

10
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:46,320
Speaker 1: Justices conduct themselves. The rules are mostly a codification of

11
00:00:46,400 --> 00:00:50,559
Speaker 1: existing principles, and the Justices stop short of creating a

12
00:00:50,600 --> 00:00:53,680
Speaker 1: system for the public to lodge complaints or for an

13
00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:58,080
Speaker 1: outside review of alleged violations. The rules are mostly a

14
00:00:58,160 --> 00:01:01,760
Speaker 1: codification of existing rules that apply to the rest of

15
00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:05,840
Speaker 1: the federal judiciary, but without the type of complaint system

16
00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:09,240
Speaker 1: that applies to other federal judges. Joining me is an

17
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:13,200
Speaker 1: expert on the judiciary, Carl Tobias, professor at the University

18
00:01:13,200 --> 00:01:16,760
Speaker 1: of Richmond Law School. Carl, what's your initial reaction to

19
00:01:16,840 --> 00:01:18,880
Speaker 1: this code of conduct? Well?

20
00:01:18,959 --> 00:01:24,640
Speaker 2: I think it pretty much applies the same ethics rules

21
00:01:24,959 --> 00:01:29,160
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court, with some limited exceptions, and basically

22
00:01:29,520 --> 00:01:32,920
Speaker 2: adopts twenty at USC four fifty five, which applies to

23
00:01:33,319 --> 00:01:37,240
Speaker 2: all lower federal court judges, magistrate judges, district judges, appeals

24
00:01:37,240 --> 00:01:38,000
Speaker 2: court judges.

25
00:01:38,200 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 1: Is there anything special in there?

26
00:01:40,000 --> 00:01:40,080
Speaker 2: Like?

27
00:01:40,120 --> 00:01:44,080
Speaker 1: Would anything there tell you if Justice Thomas has to

28
00:01:44,160 --> 00:01:48,760
Speaker 1: recuse himself in a case involving let's say, Harlan Crow.

29
00:01:49,280 --> 00:01:51,360
Speaker 2: Yes, I mean, I think there are provisions in there.

30
00:01:51,640 --> 00:01:56,920
Speaker 2: If a justice has knowledge of a financial interests of

31
00:01:57,120 --> 00:02:00,840
Speaker 2: someone like Crow, then I think the Justice would need

32
00:02:00,840 --> 00:02:04,080
Speaker 2: to seriously consider recusing. But that doesn't change what we've

33
00:02:04,120 --> 00:02:07,440
Speaker 2: had before. But I do think that's relatively clear from

34
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:07,960
Speaker 2: what's there.

35
00:02:08,520 --> 00:02:13,440
Speaker 1: Didn't the justices always say that they followed this judicial code?

36
00:02:13,960 --> 00:02:17,120
Speaker 2: Yes? Yes, But I mean I think reasonable people could

37
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:20,200
Speaker 2: differ about whether they actually did. I think it's valuable

38
00:02:20,840 --> 00:02:23,640
Speaker 2: in order to be able to say they are subject

39
00:02:23,720 --> 00:02:26,320
Speaker 2: to it. Now have signed on to this, but it

40
00:02:26,320 --> 00:02:29,280
Speaker 2: will be difficult to enforce in certain situations. I assume

41
00:02:29,440 --> 00:02:32,560
Speaker 2: if other people don't know of some kind of conflict,

42
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:36,519
Speaker 2: and so it's still going to be dependent substantially on

43
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:42,880
Speaker 2: the justices themselves and recognizing potential conflicts and then either

44
00:02:42,919 --> 00:02:47,120
Speaker 2: decided to recuse or causing with their colleagues and deciding

45
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:48,240
Speaker 2: whether they should or should not.

46
00:02:49,200 --> 00:02:53,000
Speaker 1: So there's no enforcement mechanism. Say a group says, oh,

47
00:02:53,200 --> 00:02:58,360
Speaker 1: I think that Justice Alito shouldn't sit or shouldn't have

48
00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:01,680
Speaker 1: sat on that tax case where one of the lawyers

49
00:03:01,720 --> 00:03:05,600
Speaker 1: involved interviewed him for the Wall Street Journal. Is there

50
00:03:05,639 --> 00:03:07,280
Speaker 1: any mechanism to enforce that.

51
00:03:07,919 --> 00:03:11,160
Speaker 2: It doesn't seem like it, though. I suppose someone could

52
00:03:11,200 --> 00:03:15,040
Speaker 2: try to petition the justices on something that they thought

53
00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:19,320
Speaker 2: was irregular or inappropriate, and always lawyers have been able

54
00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:23,600
Speaker 2: to suggest refusal, right, And I don't think that changes.

55
00:03:24,280 --> 00:03:27,320
Speaker 2: Then the justice can respond to that, and they do,

56
00:03:27,520 --> 00:03:30,840
Speaker 2: and certainly Justice Kalia did on many occasions, and others

57
00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:31,160
Speaker 2: have to.

58
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:34,760
Speaker 1: Does it seem like this really moves the ball forward?

59
00:03:34,840 --> 00:03:36,560
Speaker 1: Does it really change things?

60
00:03:37,160 --> 00:03:40,880
Speaker 2: Not substantially? No, I don't think so. But we can't

61
00:03:40,880 --> 00:03:43,280
Speaker 2: really know because we don't know what has gone on

62
00:03:43,360 --> 00:03:46,480
Speaker 2: internally in the court among the justices. Some of that's

63
00:03:46,520 --> 00:03:47,240
Speaker 2: just not public.

64
00:03:47,360 --> 00:03:48,840
Speaker 1: What do you mean by that? What could have gone on?

65
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 2: Well, any justice could say to the other justice, I

66
00:03:51,760 --> 00:03:54,200
Speaker 2: think I have a conflict, let's talk about it, or

67
00:03:54,320 --> 00:03:56,880
Speaker 2: you know, I can't decide what to do in this situation,

68
00:03:57,280 --> 00:03:59,040
Speaker 2: and they may have thrashed it out. We just don't

69
00:03:59,080 --> 00:04:00,040
Speaker 2: know about that.

70
00:04:00,400 --> 00:04:03,720
Speaker 1: With this code, it leaves it up to the individual justice,

71
00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:08,160
Speaker 1: for example, to decide whether to recuse himself or herself.

72
00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:12,000
Speaker 2: I think basically, yes, that doesn't preclude the fact that

73
00:04:12,520 --> 00:04:15,480
Speaker 2: a well intentioned justice would bring it up with his

74
00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:18,719
Speaker 2: or her colleagues and hopefully that would happen seek guidance

75
00:04:18,760 --> 00:04:19,839
Speaker 2: from them. Perhaps.

76
00:04:20,080 --> 00:04:23,280
Speaker 1: Do you think it was the public pressure or the

77
00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:26,440
Speaker 1: pressure from Senate Democrats? What do you think it was

78
00:04:26,520 --> 00:04:30,120
Speaker 1: that got them to finally do this? Well?

79
00:04:30,160 --> 00:04:32,400
Speaker 2: I think discretion was the better part of valor, and

80
00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:35,800
Speaker 2: I think they realized that it wasn't going to calm

81
00:04:35,839 --> 00:04:40,279
Speaker 2: down until something happened, and so they needed to act.

82
00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:42,640
Speaker 2: And I think you know that that is a good

83
00:04:42,680 --> 00:04:44,280
Speaker 2: thing in some ways, because there was going to be

84
00:04:44,320 --> 00:04:47,960
Speaker 2: a huge subpoena fight already has been in Judiciary committee,

85
00:04:48,520 --> 00:04:50,640
Speaker 2: and I don't know that that was going to really

86
00:04:50,680 --> 00:04:54,480
Speaker 2: help that much. But again, it doesn't have an enforcement

87
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 2: mechanism you suggests, and so we'll have to see how

88
00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:01,440
Speaker 2: it works in practice. May difficult to detect.

89
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:04,719
Speaker 1: Yes, the Supreme Court is not what you'd call a

90
00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:10,280
Speaker 1: transparent institution. Well, let's turn now to judicial confirmations. And

91
00:05:10,440 --> 00:05:14,600
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden reached a milestone last week. He secured

92
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:18,120
Speaker 1: as one hundred and fiftieth federal judicial appointment with a

93
00:05:18,240 --> 00:05:21,000
Speaker 1: record breaking number of women named to the bench.

94
00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:24,680
Speaker 2: Well, the milestone is important of one hundred and fifty

95
00:05:24,920 --> 00:05:27,440
Speaker 2: and now actually it's up to one hundred and fifty

96
00:05:27,480 --> 00:05:32,920
Speaker 2: three and will be higher today after judge and at

97
00:05:33,040 --> 00:05:36,839
Speaker 2: the Alba of the Eastern District of California is confirmed

98
00:05:36,839 --> 00:05:39,800
Speaker 2: to the Ninth Circuit. So in that one hundred and

99
00:05:39,880 --> 00:05:45,240
Speaker 2: fifty or so, one hundred of those appointees are women,

100
00:05:46,240 --> 00:05:52,600
Speaker 2: approximately one hundred are ethnic minorities, in fifty or so

101
00:05:53,160 --> 00:05:59,360
Speaker 2: are black appointees. So he's broken all kinds of records

102
00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:06,320
Speaker 2: in turn of ethnic minority appointments. And what is also

103
00:06:06,480 --> 00:06:11,839
Speaker 2: very important is experiential diversity. So you're seeing a number

104
00:06:12,080 --> 00:06:16,800
Speaker 2: of federal public defenders, state public defenders, as well as

105
00:06:16,920 --> 00:06:21,360
Speaker 2: civil rights attorneys, people who've worked for the ACLU, legal

106
00:06:21,400 --> 00:06:25,320
Speaker 2: aid lawyers in the mix. And all of that is

107
00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:28,840
Speaker 2: what Biden pledged to do and has kept his word

108
00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:32,039
Speaker 2: and is continuing to do that with new nominees and

109
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:32,919
Speaker 2: new appointees.

110
00:06:33,480 --> 00:06:38,039
Speaker 1: Confirmations have slowed, haven't they compared to earlier in his tenure?

111
00:06:38,480 --> 00:06:41,640
Speaker 2: A little bit? Yes, And part of the issue is

112
00:06:41,800 --> 00:06:47,080
Speaker 2: nominations because there are not very many vacancies in states

113
00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:51,960
Speaker 2: represented by two senators, and most of them now are

114
00:06:52,120 --> 00:06:55,479
Speaker 2: in states where at least one senator is a Republican.

115
00:06:55,760 --> 00:06:58,920
Speaker 2: But there's been some breakthroughs. For example, there were four

116
00:06:59,000 --> 00:07:05,839
Speaker 2: vacancies in Florida last week. All four people were nominated,

117
00:07:06,120 --> 00:07:09,920
Speaker 2: three were women of color, and three were magistrate judges.

118
00:07:10,240 --> 00:07:14,760
Speaker 2: And I think they'll easily be confirmed and hopefully relatively soon.

119
00:07:15,400 --> 00:07:19,280
Speaker 2: So that's a promising sign. But there are other red states.

120
00:07:19,280 --> 00:07:22,800
Speaker 2: For example, Texas, there're seven vacancies there, I think almost

121
00:07:22,840 --> 00:07:28,400
Speaker 2: all emergencies, and Missouri has Eastern District has three emergencies

122
00:07:28,480 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 2: and no nominees, and so we'll be looking at those.

123
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:36,160
Speaker 2: There two in the Northern District of Indiana. The Indiana

124
00:07:36,480 --> 00:07:39,880
Speaker 2: Senators have been very good about moving two people to

125
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:43,760
Speaker 2: the appeals courts and filling district vacancies.

126
00:07:44,160 --> 00:07:48,240
Speaker 1: Do you think you'll be able to match former President

127
00:07:48,480 --> 00:07:53,080
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's two hundred and thirty four judicial nominations, especially

128
00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:57,720
Speaker 1: because it seems like the Democrats' control of the Senate

129
00:07:58,680 --> 00:08:00,000
Speaker 1: is in jeopardy.

130
00:08:00,440 --> 00:08:03,160
Speaker 2: Well, I think so, because if you look at the

131
00:08:03,360 --> 00:08:07,679
Speaker 2: comparable date in twenty nineteen, Trump had confirmed forty six

132
00:08:07,880 --> 00:08:13,560
Speaker 2: as opposed to Biden's thirty seven appellate conferenes. But Biden

133
00:08:13,680 --> 00:08:16,960
Speaker 2: is ahead on district nominees one hundred and sixteen to

134
00:08:17,040 --> 00:08:21,840
Speaker 2: one hundred and twelve. And so, depending of course on

135
00:08:22,040 --> 00:08:27,040
Speaker 2: the shutdown if that comes, and what else happens this

136
00:08:27,200 --> 00:08:29,280
Speaker 2: year and next year, which of course is an election

137
00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:33,240
Speaker 2: year when it may slow somewhat, we'll see, but I

138
00:08:33,280 --> 00:08:36,960
Speaker 2: think he's on track and could do that, but needs

139
00:08:36,960 --> 00:08:39,520
Speaker 2: to have a few more nominees, and the nominees to

140
00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:42,800
Speaker 2: be in sync with the Judiciary Committee shared. Durbin has

141
00:08:42,800 --> 00:08:46,400
Speaker 2: said he would have hearings every two weeks the Senate

142
00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:48,680
Speaker 2: is in session, and of course he has the holidays

143
00:08:48,720 --> 00:08:51,040
Speaker 2: coming up, but when they come back in January, I

144
00:08:51,160 --> 00:08:55,839
Speaker 2: think they will have more nominees, and there's still many

145
00:08:55,880 --> 00:08:59,600
Speaker 2: on the floor, and so I think he is on

146
00:08:59,679 --> 00:09:04,240
Speaker 2: track to surpass what Trump did. But we'll see what happened.

147
00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:07,440
Speaker 1: Coming up next. Those gag orders on Donald Trump. This

148
00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:10,800
Speaker 1: is Bloomberg. I've been talking professor Carl Tobias at the

149
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:15,439
Speaker 1: University of Richmond Law School about judicial appointments. Carl, we've

150
00:09:15,480 --> 00:09:22,319
Speaker 1: spoken before about how Republicans and Republican voters have always

151
00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:27,640
Speaker 1: seemed to be more concerned about judicial appointments and Supreme

152
00:09:27,720 --> 00:09:32,560
Speaker 1: Court appointments than Democrats. Has that changed in any respect

153
00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:36,959
Speaker 1: in light of recent Supreme Court decisions and lower court

154
00:09:37,000 --> 00:09:40,040
Speaker 1: decisions that don't follow precedent.

155
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:44,679
Speaker 2: Well, I think Chair Durbin and the President and all

156
00:09:44,800 --> 00:09:48,640
Speaker 2: the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are painfully

157
00:09:48,640 --> 00:09:54,040
Speaker 2: aware of that history, and so rules about blue slips

158
00:09:54,360 --> 00:09:58,720
Speaker 2: for circuit nominees they've retained the ones that the Republicans

159
00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:03,200
Speaker 2: used and to their benefit in terms of confirming people.

160
00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:09,280
Speaker 2: And Durbin has expressly said in committee publicly that we're

161
00:10:09,280 --> 00:10:11,840
Speaker 2: not going to have different rules for Democrats and Republicans.

162
00:10:11,880 --> 00:10:14,880
Speaker 2: So I think Democrats have learned their lesson to the

163
00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:19,840
Speaker 2: extent that there were different standards, different requirements, and so

164
00:10:20,120 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 2: now I think Democrats are pushing just as aggressively as

165
00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:27,640
Speaker 2: Republicans did, But of course they're getting pushed back from

166
00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:31,319
Speaker 2: a number of GOP senators too, who are not always

167
00:10:31,360 --> 00:10:34,680
Speaker 2: in sync with the nominees of the president.

168
00:10:34,960 --> 00:10:39,400
Speaker 1: Do you think that Democratic voters are recognizing the importance

169
00:10:39,640 --> 00:10:43,400
Speaker 1: of the judiciary when they cast their ballots.

170
00:10:44,440 --> 00:10:46,560
Speaker 2: I think so. That's certainly what we saw in Virginia,

171
00:10:46,679 --> 00:10:49,160
Speaker 2: and I'm in the middle of that. And so the

172
00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:53,760
Speaker 2: abortion issue was I think the driver in the Democrats

173
00:10:53,760 --> 00:10:58,320
Speaker 2: retaining this Senate in Virginia and then also regaining a

174
00:10:58,400 --> 00:11:02,840
Speaker 2: House majority here. And you saw similar things, and for example,

175
00:11:02,880 --> 00:11:07,520
Speaker 2: even red states like Ohio with the abortion issue on

176
00:11:07,600 --> 00:11:10,520
Speaker 2: the ballot, and a number of other states around the country.

177
00:11:10,600 --> 00:11:13,600
Speaker 2: So I think yes, And I think going to twenty

178
00:11:13,600 --> 00:11:16,640
Speaker 2: twenty four, with the chaos in the House of Representatives

179
00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:20,920
Speaker 2: and with the abortion issue and other hot button issues,

180
00:11:21,440 --> 00:11:26,400
Speaker 2: that Democrats are doing relatively well. And especially people are

181
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:31,079
Speaker 2: cognizant of the judges because of the pushback on overturning

182
00:11:31,160 --> 00:11:32,679
Speaker 2: Rod versus Way.

183
00:11:32,800 --> 00:11:35,880
Speaker 1: Speaking of judges and being cognizant of the judges, one

184
00:11:36,200 --> 00:11:39,240
Speaker 1: judge who's been in the news a great deal is

185
00:11:39,880 --> 00:11:45,360
Speaker 1: the New York trial judge Arthur and Gorin because of

186
00:11:45,400 --> 00:11:49,880
Speaker 1: the problems he's had with former President Trump in the

187
00:11:49,920 --> 00:11:53,640
Speaker 1: New York Attorney General civil fraud trial against him. So

188
00:11:54,000 --> 00:12:00,320
Speaker 1: already the judge has fined Trump twice for violent a

189
00:12:00,320 --> 00:12:03,640
Speaker 1: gag order on him making any kind of comments about

190
00:12:03,720 --> 00:12:06,840
Speaker 1: court staff. How often do you hear about gag orders

191
00:12:07,360 --> 00:12:07,719
Speaker 1: like that?

192
00:12:08,360 --> 00:12:11,960
Speaker 2: Well, not very often, fortunately in the past. But I

193
00:12:12,000 --> 00:12:14,280
Speaker 2: think in the short term we're likely to hear about

194
00:12:14,320 --> 00:12:19,280
Speaker 2: it more. And I think the judges are perfectly within

195
00:12:19,360 --> 00:12:25,120
Speaker 2: their rights to take measures to protect themselves and protect

196
00:12:25,679 --> 00:12:30,319
Speaker 2: their staff, because you do not want those court employees,

197
00:12:30,720 --> 00:12:35,840
Speaker 2: much less jurors or witnesses, to feel that their safety

198
00:12:36,040 --> 00:12:39,720
Speaker 2: is threatened by litigants in the court. You just can't

199
00:12:39,760 --> 00:12:41,119
Speaker 2: have that kind of situation.

200
00:12:41,679 --> 00:12:44,880
Speaker 1: When Trump was on the stand last week, the judge

201
00:12:44,960 --> 00:12:48,320
Speaker 1: was just pushed to the limit. He said things like,

202
00:12:49,160 --> 00:12:52,320
Speaker 1: can't you control your client? You can say whatever you

203
00:12:52,360 --> 00:12:54,959
Speaker 1: want about me, but just answer the question. I mean,

204
00:12:55,000 --> 00:12:59,040
Speaker 1: he was just uncontrollable. Now, this is a trial where

205
00:12:59,080 --> 00:13:01,280
Speaker 1: the judge is going to make the decision. But what

206
00:13:01,520 --> 00:13:04,040
Speaker 1: happens if Jump decides to take the stand in a

207
00:13:04,120 --> 00:13:07,240
Speaker 1: criminal trial. There'll be a jury in that case, And

208
00:13:07,320 --> 00:13:09,520
Speaker 1: how does a judge keep him under control.

209
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:13,080
Speaker 2: Well, I think it's difficult, but I think you're right.

210
00:13:13,080 --> 00:13:17,480
Speaker 2: The New York judge was a model of restraint and

211
00:13:18,200 --> 00:13:22,040
Speaker 2: pleaded with the lawyers to try to bring their client

212
00:13:22,160 --> 00:13:26,000
Speaker 2: under control. And so I think that is the best

213
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:30,400
Speaker 2: way to proceed, and I think he showed substantial patience

214
00:13:30,960 --> 00:13:33,360
Speaker 2: in the face of that. And that's what you want

215
00:13:33,360 --> 00:13:35,560
Speaker 2: a judge to do, is to be restrained, but to

216
00:13:35,720 --> 00:13:41,160
Speaker 2: keep the process moving along and to protect court personnel, witnesses,

217
00:13:41,520 --> 00:13:45,880
Speaker 2: jurors in that situation. And that's one reason for the

218
00:13:45,920 --> 00:13:49,480
Speaker 2: gag orders and then the penalties. Judges have broad discretion

219
00:13:49,760 --> 00:13:54,480
Speaker 2: to sanction litigants who disobey any kind of order that

220
00:13:54,520 --> 00:13:55,480
Speaker 2: the judge issues.

221
00:13:56,200 --> 00:13:59,640
Speaker 1: I'm wondering is this a tactic because the attorneys have

222
00:13:59,720 --> 00:14:03,880
Speaker 1: also have been very aggressive in that courtroom and very

223
00:14:03,920 --> 00:14:06,960
Speaker 1: critical of the judge to the judge's face.

224
00:14:07,520 --> 00:14:09,000
Speaker 2: So is that a.

225
00:14:08,840 --> 00:14:12,120
Speaker 1: Tactic for an appellate issue? But I mean, what kind

226
00:14:12,120 --> 00:14:14,199
Speaker 1: of an appellate issue would it be? The judge lost

227
00:14:14,200 --> 00:14:16,040
Speaker 1: his temper? Is that an appellate issue?

228
00:14:16,800 --> 00:14:19,640
Speaker 2: Doesn't seem like it. But the other thing, of course,

229
00:14:19,720 --> 00:14:23,400
Speaker 2: is that lawyers are officers of the court, and the

230
00:14:23,560 --> 00:14:29,120
Speaker 2: court can ask them to try to keep conduct appropriate

231
00:14:29,280 --> 00:14:33,400
Speaker 2: for a courtroom, and they can do that in any

232
00:14:33,480 --> 00:14:36,440
Speaker 2: number of ways. But I don't think an appellate court

233
00:14:36,880 --> 00:14:40,120
Speaker 2: is going to have much patience with arguments based on

234
00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:43,760
Speaker 2: the fact that the judge overreached, especially if it's extreme

235
00:14:43,840 --> 00:14:47,120
Speaker 2: behavior on the part of the client or of the attorney.

236
00:14:47,840 --> 00:14:52,040
Speaker 1: The judge in DC, Judge Tanya Chuckin also issued a

237
00:14:52,080 --> 00:14:56,520
Speaker 1: gag order. None of these gag orders prevent Trump from

238
00:14:56,560 --> 00:14:58,960
Speaker 1: talking about the judges in the case, but this was

239
00:14:59,000 --> 00:15:02,160
Speaker 1: to prevent him from t talking about the witnesses, the

240
00:15:02,200 --> 00:15:06,760
Speaker 1: special counsel, and his staff, and that's being criticized as

241
00:15:06,840 --> 00:15:10,920
Speaker 1: being unconstitutionally vague. The problem is that Donald Trump is

242
00:15:11,000 --> 00:15:13,440
Speaker 1: running for president, So even in the New York case,

243
00:15:14,000 --> 00:15:16,480
Speaker 1: the lawyers contended that he could say whatever he wants

244
00:15:16,480 --> 00:15:17,880
Speaker 1: because he's running for president.

245
00:15:18,320 --> 00:15:22,920
Speaker 2: Well, Tanya Jacobe, in Your Own Publication wrote a piece

246
00:15:23,120 --> 00:15:27,760
Speaker 2: responding to that and criticizing the view that it was

247
00:15:27,880 --> 00:15:31,960
Speaker 2: unconstitutionally vague, and she makes a pretty strong argument saying

248
00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:34,840
Speaker 2: it's observed on its faith. Trump has made bald threats

249
00:15:35,320 --> 00:15:39,000
Speaker 2: if you go after me, I'm coming after you, and

250
00:15:39,120 --> 00:15:42,760
Speaker 2: that kind of language is inappropriate or gag order picks

251
00:15:42,840 --> 00:15:45,680
Speaker 2: up on that. It says that we just can't have

252
00:15:45,720 --> 00:15:50,960
Speaker 2: that threatening of witnesses or staff or judges.

253
00:15:50,920 --> 00:15:54,920
Speaker 1: That injunction in DC is going to be litigated, perhaps

254
00:15:54,920 --> 00:15:57,520
Speaker 1: all the way to the Supreme Court. We'll see, Thanks

255
00:15:57,560 --> 00:16:00,360
Speaker 1: so much, Carl. That's Professor Carlton by Yes of the

256
00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:03,200
Speaker 1: University of Richmond Law School. Coming up next on the

257
00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:07,720
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show, the issue of reporters privilege. A judge

258
00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:12,239
Speaker 1: in DC has ordered a reporter to reveal her confidential sources,

259
00:16:12,680 --> 00:16:16,200
Speaker 1: and the plaintiff has asked for some stiff sanctions. I'm

260
00:16:16,280 --> 00:16:23,000
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. This is Bloomberg

261
00:16:23,120 --> 00:16:28,640
Speaker 1: Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. Almost all federal

262
00:16:28,680 --> 00:16:32,400
Speaker 1: and state courts have found that state and federal constitutions

263
00:16:32,440 --> 00:16:36,600
Speaker 1: provide a qualified privilege to allow journalists to refuse to

264
00:16:36,640 --> 00:16:40,600
Speaker 1: reveal the names of their confidential sources and the unpublished

265
00:16:40,640 --> 00:16:44,600
Speaker 1: information provided by the sources. There is currently a case

266
00:16:44,680 --> 00:16:49,240
Speaker 1: in DC that's testing that privilege. Catherine Herriage is refusing

267
00:16:49,240 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 1: to reveal her source for a series of stories she

268
00:16:52,240 --> 00:16:55,560
Speaker 1: reported on in twenty seventeen when she was a reporter

269
00:16:55,640 --> 00:16:59,240
Speaker 1: at Fox News. Joining me is an expert in media law.

270
00:16:59,360 --> 00:17:03,000
Speaker 1: John Eppsy, a partner at Hall Still, So tell us

271
00:17:03,040 --> 00:17:06,040
Speaker 1: about this case where the reporter is facing the possibility

272
00:17:06,080 --> 00:17:07,760
Speaker 1: of some serious sanctions.

273
00:17:08,440 --> 00:17:11,879
Speaker 3: From time to time we have situations in the country

274
00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:16,879
Speaker 3: where the important policies of the free press and the

275
00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:20,600
Speaker 3: freedom of litigant in order to get discovery clash, and

276
00:17:20,600 --> 00:17:22,199
Speaker 3: that's what we had in this case. This is a

277
00:17:22,240 --> 00:17:27,200
Speaker 3: case where a scientist filed a lawsuit against the FBI

278
00:17:28,240 --> 00:17:32,000
Speaker 3: claiming that the FBI had breached the Federal Privacy Act

279
00:17:32,600 --> 00:17:35,840
Speaker 3: by disclosing information and in this case, by disclosing information

280
00:17:35,880 --> 00:17:39,679
Speaker 3: to a reporter. The scientists then in the course of

281
00:17:39,680 --> 00:17:45,200
Speaker 3: the lawsuit, subpoenaed the reporter in order to get information

282
00:17:46,240 --> 00:17:50,760
Speaker 3: about who actually disclosed the information that she claims was

283
00:17:50,760 --> 00:17:55,280
Speaker 3: a violation of the Act. Importantly, she got the federal

284
00:17:55,400 --> 00:17:59,480
Speaker 3: judge to order the reporter to sit for a deposition

285
00:17:59,600 --> 00:18:03,440
Speaker 3: and provide that information. The reporter, Catherine Herridge, who was

286
00:18:03,560 --> 00:18:07,680
Speaker 3: originally had done the story for Fox and is currently

287
00:18:07,800 --> 00:18:11,480
Speaker 3: a CBS reporter, but the report was done in twenty sixteen.

288
00:18:12,040 --> 00:18:16,480
Speaker 3: Miss Herridge sat for the deposition and politely declined to

289
00:18:16,560 --> 00:18:20,320
Speaker 3: provide that information. And so now what the Miss Chen's

290
00:18:20,359 --> 00:18:24,600
Speaker 3: council has done has filed a motion for sanctions, asking

291
00:18:24,640 --> 00:18:28,240
Speaker 3: the court to require Miss Hendridge to finally disclose that information,

292
00:18:28,600 --> 00:18:32,040
Speaker 3: and those sanctions could be in the form of severe

293
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:35,920
Speaker 3: monetary penalties or even potentially jail.

294
00:18:36,440 --> 00:18:39,439
Speaker 1: Did Jen subpoena the FBI as well?

295
00:18:39,680 --> 00:18:41,960
Speaker 3: That's an important question because it's one of the things

296
00:18:41,960 --> 00:18:45,720
Speaker 3: that goes into whether or not the information should be disclosed.

297
00:18:45,760 --> 00:18:49,200
Speaker 3: It's what information has she sought in the litigation? Has

298
00:18:49,240 --> 00:18:52,080
Speaker 3: she done whatever she could in order to get alternative sources?

299
00:18:52,359 --> 00:18:55,199
Speaker 3: And so I don't know to what extent she has

300
00:18:55,240 --> 00:18:58,119
Speaker 3: actually gone to get that information from the FBI, but

301
00:18:58,200 --> 00:19:01,119
Speaker 3: the judge has determined that she is done enough to

302
00:19:01,160 --> 00:19:05,800
Speaker 3: seek information from alternative sources in order to require this

303
00:19:05,920 --> 00:19:07,520
Speaker 3: reporter to disclose the information.

304
00:19:07,960 --> 00:19:10,760
Speaker 1: Tell us about the reporter's privilege in general.

305
00:19:11,440 --> 00:19:16,159
Speaker 3: So the reporter's privilege is different with respect to each state,

306
00:19:16,240 --> 00:19:19,280
Speaker 3: except for one has its own reporter's privilege, and then

307
00:19:19,320 --> 00:19:24,040
Speaker 3: the federal law has its own different set of reporter's privileges,

308
00:19:24,320 --> 00:19:26,119
Speaker 3: so that it becomes a little bit confusing as to

309
00:19:26,320 --> 00:19:28,639
Speaker 3: in which jurisdiction you find it in. But most of

310
00:19:28,640 --> 00:19:33,800
Speaker 3: the reporter's privileges provide it's a qualified privilege, which means

311
00:19:33,920 --> 00:19:38,200
Speaker 3: that the reporter may be forced to disclose confidential source

312
00:19:38,240 --> 00:19:42,720
Speaker 3: information or unpublished information if certain things apply, one of

313
00:19:42,760 --> 00:19:45,280
Speaker 3: which is does the information go to the heart of

314
00:19:45,320 --> 00:19:48,639
Speaker 3: the matter, is it absolutely necessary for the lidy to

315
00:19:48,680 --> 00:19:51,440
Speaker 3: have The other is has the litigant tried to get

316
00:19:51,440 --> 00:19:54,560
Speaker 3: the information from alternative sources, and of course is that

317
00:19:54,600 --> 00:19:57,960
Speaker 3: information available from alternative sources. Then the court would then

318
00:19:58,080 --> 00:20:02,160
Speaker 3: have to balance the interest between whether or not the

319
00:20:02,280 --> 00:20:05,000
Speaker 3: litigant should be able to get the information, or whether

320
00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:07,480
Speaker 3: or not, even if there is no alternative source, whether

321
00:20:07,520 --> 00:20:10,760
Speaker 3: the reporter should be able to withhold that information because

322
00:20:11,119 --> 00:20:13,840
Speaker 3: the policy reasons behind the reporter's privilege.

323
00:20:14,280 --> 00:20:17,840
Speaker 1: So in this case, the judge then did what he

324
00:20:18,040 --> 00:20:20,520
Speaker 1: was supposed to do. He balanced the interests, and in

325
00:20:20,600 --> 00:20:24,680
Speaker 1: his opinion, the interest weighed in favor of the disclosure.

326
00:20:25,720 --> 00:20:28,119
Speaker 3: That's what he'd said, and that's what he said initially.

327
00:20:28,160 --> 00:20:32,119
Speaker 3: So initially what happened was the subpoena was issued and

328
00:20:32,200 --> 00:20:35,120
Speaker 3: immediately the reporter said, no, I'm not going to comply

329
00:20:35,200 --> 00:20:38,040
Speaker 3: with a subpoena. They went and the judge ordered her

330
00:20:38,160 --> 00:20:41,119
Speaker 3: to at least sit for the deposition. She sat for

331
00:20:41,160 --> 00:20:43,640
Speaker 3: the deposition, and then when the questions were asked about

332
00:20:43,880 --> 00:20:47,160
Speaker 3: who her sources were. She declined to provide that information,

333
00:20:47,640 --> 00:20:51,320
Speaker 3: and so then the litigant, the scientist Chen and her

334
00:20:51,400 --> 00:20:53,840
Speaker 3: counsel had to go back to the judge and say, okay,

335
00:20:53,880 --> 00:20:57,280
Speaker 3: she's now declined. Now we want you to issue sanctions.

336
00:20:57,440 --> 00:20:59,960
Speaker 3: So the judge has not yet issued any sanctions yet,

337
00:21:00,080 --> 00:21:03,560
Speaker 3: that's still pending, but that is likely to happen. There's

338
00:21:03,600 --> 00:21:06,640
Speaker 3: going to be some sanctions that will happen. The question

339
00:21:06,720 --> 00:21:09,800
Speaker 3: is what are those sanctions. So the judge believes that

340
00:21:09,880 --> 00:21:14,680
Speaker 3: based on what he heard, that the balancing required disclosure.

341
00:21:15,080 --> 00:21:20,000
Speaker 3: Of course that that was met with some serious backlash

342
00:21:20,080 --> 00:21:23,879
Speaker 3: from media advocates and free speech and free press advocates.

343
00:21:24,359 --> 00:21:27,119
Speaker 3: And the reason is because even if there were no

344
00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:31,800
Speaker 3: alternative sources, you've got a situation where if this reporter

345
00:21:32,160 --> 00:21:37,040
Speaker 3: is sanctioned, whether it's severe monetary sanctions or prison, you're

346
00:21:37,040 --> 00:21:39,720
Speaker 3: going to put this reporter and the next reporter on

347
00:21:39,760 --> 00:21:43,040
Speaker 3: the next important case in a position to whether they

348
00:21:43,040 --> 00:21:47,080
Speaker 3: have to choose between whether to sit in jail and

349
00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:50,439
Speaker 3: wait for something to happen, or pay a hot, high fine,

350
00:21:51,000 --> 00:21:55,040
Speaker 3: or to basically burn the source. The reporter had agreed

351
00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:58,120
Speaker 3: to give confidentiality to the source so that the source

352
00:21:58,119 --> 00:22:02,240
Speaker 3: would come forward, so that choice will have to be made.

353
00:22:02,480 --> 00:22:06,840
Speaker 3: If that choice is made, and for instance, and the

354
00:22:06,880 --> 00:22:09,840
Speaker 3: source is disclosed, then what happens in the next case

355
00:22:10,320 --> 00:22:13,359
Speaker 3: when the next reporter seeks to get information from a source,

356
00:22:13,640 --> 00:22:15,679
Speaker 3: that source may not be willing to give it if

357
00:22:15,720 --> 00:22:19,239
Speaker 3: they're concerned that the confidentiality will be breached. And so

358
00:22:19,320 --> 00:22:21,840
Speaker 3: these are unfaced. You would think, Okay, this is a

359
00:22:21,880 --> 00:22:25,160
Speaker 3: litigant that wants to get information, they should be entitled

360
00:22:25,240 --> 00:22:27,000
Speaker 3: that information so that they can live to get the case.

361
00:22:27,400 --> 00:22:30,760
Speaker 3: But it has ramifications, and the ramifications are it may

362
00:22:30,840 --> 00:22:35,879
Speaker 3: be that if future witnesses or whistleblowers are afraid to

363
00:22:35,920 --> 00:22:40,120
Speaker 3: come forward, then important information will not reach the public.

364
00:22:40,560 --> 00:22:44,600
Speaker 1: Are there any circumstances in which the judge would be

365
00:22:44,680 --> 00:22:48,840
Speaker 1: correct in ordering a reporter to reveal his or her sources.

366
00:22:49,359 --> 00:22:52,920
Speaker 3: There is an important case years ago called the Brandsburg case,

367
00:22:53,400 --> 00:22:55,359
Speaker 3: which a lot of this comes from, at least with

368
00:22:55,400 --> 00:23:00,560
Speaker 3: respect to federal jurisdiction. And in Brandsburg, a third party

369
00:23:00,640 --> 00:23:04,440
Speaker 3: or a witness was subpoenaed by the government to appear

370
00:23:04,520 --> 00:23:07,359
Speaker 3: at a grand jury proceeding and to testify, and the

371
00:23:07,480 --> 00:23:10,920
Speaker 3: reporter that that was a reporter, and the reporter fought that,

372
00:23:11,480 --> 00:23:15,120
Speaker 3: and the United States Supreme Court determined that no, under

373
00:23:15,160 --> 00:23:19,320
Speaker 3: those circumstances. In that case, the reporter was required to

374
00:23:19,359 --> 00:23:22,840
Speaker 3: testify at the grand jury. And so a lot of

375
00:23:22,840 --> 00:23:25,600
Speaker 3: times that comes into place when the reporter is actually

376
00:23:25,720 --> 00:23:30,160
Speaker 3: a witness to a particular crime, you know, in that case,

377
00:23:30,280 --> 00:23:33,600
Speaker 3: courts sometimes say, well, you know, a journalist, a journalist

378
00:23:33,600 --> 00:23:35,239
Speaker 3: should be treated just like any other person, and if

379
00:23:35,240 --> 00:23:36,720
Speaker 3: you're a witness to a crime, you should have to

380
00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:39,960
Speaker 3: testify before the grand jury. Where a lot of these

381
00:23:40,000 --> 00:23:43,560
Speaker 3: cases come in is not necessarily when the journalist is

382
00:23:43,560 --> 00:23:45,720
Speaker 3: a witness of the crime, but when the journalist is

383
00:23:45,800 --> 00:23:48,600
Speaker 3: actually you know, as a private citizen. But it's when

384
00:23:48,760 --> 00:23:51,960
Speaker 3: the journalist is actually serving as a reporter and getting

385
00:23:52,000 --> 00:23:55,560
Speaker 3: information about a crime that has already happened. Then the

386
00:23:55,640 --> 00:23:57,840
Speaker 3: question is should that journalists have to come forward and

387
00:23:57,920 --> 00:24:03,199
Speaker 3: testify about what that journalist learned from its sources. And

388
00:24:03,840 --> 00:24:06,720
Speaker 3: I've explained why, you know, I think that it's really

389
00:24:06,760 --> 00:24:09,199
Speaker 3: important to be able to protect your sources and your

390
00:24:09,240 --> 00:24:13,560
Speaker 3: unpublished information because you know, it could lock down. You know,

391
00:24:13,600 --> 00:24:16,679
Speaker 3: there's been so many important stories over the years that

392
00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:21,880
Speaker 3: have only been told because the witnesses or the sources

393
00:24:21,920 --> 00:24:26,359
Speaker 3: came forward and required confidentiality. Had that information had that

394
00:24:26,440 --> 00:24:30,199
Speaker 3: confidentiality not been promised and protected, than those witnesses wouldn't

395
00:24:30,200 --> 00:24:32,600
Speaker 3: have come forward and the public would never have learned

396
00:24:32,600 --> 00:24:33,760
Speaker 3: about these important things.

397
00:24:34,200 --> 00:24:37,440
Speaker 1: Where does the importance of the story weigh in here?

398
00:24:38,080 --> 00:24:42,200
Speaker 3: The more important the story is, that's one more argument

399
00:24:42,320 --> 00:24:46,000
Speaker 3: in favor of not disclosing. But I would argue also

400
00:24:46,119 --> 00:24:49,840
Speaker 3: that even in what you or I might determine to

401
00:24:49,840 --> 00:24:52,919
Speaker 3: be a lesser important story, if it's still it's important

402
00:24:52,960 --> 00:24:55,640
Speaker 3: to somebody, it's important to the confidential source, it's important

403
00:24:55,680 --> 00:24:58,160
Speaker 3: to the people that are involved in that particular issue,

404
00:24:58,320 --> 00:25:00,639
Speaker 3: And even if it might not be important to the

405
00:25:00,640 --> 00:25:04,480
Speaker 3: rest of the country, it's still a confidentiality that was promised.

406
00:25:04,480 --> 00:25:07,639
Speaker 3: And so if that confidentiality is breached in that what

407
00:25:07,680 --> 00:25:10,680
Speaker 3: you're thinking of as the lesser important story, it still

408
00:25:10,720 --> 00:25:13,560
Speaker 3: could impact the next very important story if that if

409
00:25:13,560 --> 00:25:16,439
Speaker 3: that witness in the very important story is concerned that

410
00:25:16,480 --> 00:25:18,200
Speaker 3: his identity is going to be disclosed.

411
00:25:18,240 --> 00:25:23,320
Speaker 1: Also, so in this case, Chen is alleging that the

412
00:25:23,359 --> 00:25:28,800
Speaker 1: federal authorities improperly leaked information about her, violating a privacy act.

413
00:25:29,240 --> 00:25:33,600
Speaker 1: So if she doesn't get that information from the person

414
00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:37,359
Speaker 1: it was leaked to. Then I suppose her case is dead.

415
00:25:38,000 --> 00:25:40,119
Speaker 3: Well, I don't know if it's dead, you know, I

416
00:25:40,119 --> 00:25:42,399
Speaker 3: certainly don't know all the ins and outs of everything

417
00:25:42,400 --> 00:25:45,280
Speaker 3: having to do with her particular case. But the fact

418
00:25:45,359 --> 00:25:49,639
Speaker 3: of the matter is there was information that was published

419
00:25:49,960 --> 00:25:54,320
Speaker 3: in those twenty seventeen stories. So maybe if she can't

420
00:25:54,359 --> 00:25:57,600
Speaker 3: find out who in fact disclosed it, she at least

421
00:25:57,600 --> 00:26:01,080
Speaker 3: has the information that in fact information was disclosed. And

422
00:26:01,160 --> 00:26:03,400
Speaker 3: whether you know whether or not it kills her case

423
00:26:03,440 --> 00:26:05,960
Speaker 3: that it was a particular person at the FBI that

424
00:26:06,040 --> 00:26:08,399
Speaker 3: disclosed it, or whether it was just somebody at the

425
00:26:08,440 --> 00:26:10,560
Speaker 3: FBI that disclosed it, she still might be able to

426
00:26:10,560 --> 00:26:13,080
Speaker 3: proceed forward. And also we don't know, I mean, there

427
00:26:13,080 --> 00:26:15,840
Speaker 3: may be other ways for her to get the information

428
00:26:15,880 --> 00:26:19,320
Speaker 3: of who who specifically disclosed it, you know, by going

429
00:26:19,359 --> 00:26:22,840
Speaker 3: through the FBI or or potentially other sources that we

430
00:26:23,000 --> 00:26:23,800
Speaker 3: just aren't aware of.

431
00:26:24,119 --> 00:26:29,080
Speaker 1: Are cases like this over reporters privilege regularly litigated? Have

432
00:26:29,200 --> 00:26:32,159
Speaker 1: we not been hearing that much about them? Because, you know,

433
00:26:32,240 --> 00:26:35,520
Speaker 1: investigative journalism is not what it used to be.

434
00:26:36,920 --> 00:26:39,920
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I think some of that, But yes, definitely,

435
00:26:40,080 --> 00:26:43,160
Speaker 3: in our practice we are often asked to go into

436
00:26:43,200 --> 00:26:44,600
Speaker 3: and when I say often, I mean, you know, two

437
00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:46,720
Speaker 3: or three times a year are often asked to go

438
00:26:46,800 --> 00:26:49,959
Speaker 3: in and protect the rights of the reporter or the

439
00:26:50,040 --> 00:26:54,159
Speaker 3: media outlet from having to disclose either confidential sources or

440
00:26:54,240 --> 00:26:58,000
Speaker 3: unpublished information. So it happens, It does happen regularly, but

441
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:00,840
Speaker 3: it doesn't oftentimes get in the news as much as

442
00:27:00,840 --> 00:27:06,000
Speaker 3: this particular case unless you've got a pretty high profile litiganto,

443
00:27:06,000 --> 00:27:09,520
Speaker 3: a high profile reporter, or a situation where a reporter

444
00:27:09,640 --> 00:27:12,920
Speaker 3: is actually doing some time. You might remember several years ago,

445
00:27:13,080 --> 00:27:17,119
Speaker 3: New York Times reporter Judith Miller had a confidential source

446
00:27:17,200 --> 00:27:21,679
Speaker 3: case and she refused to disclose the identity and she

447
00:27:21,760 --> 00:27:24,240
Speaker 3: actually sat in jail for eighty five days. So you know,

448
00:27:24,520 --> 00:27:28,359
Speaker 3: it's interesting. You know, I don't know specifically what the

449
00:27:28,480 --> 00:27:31,760
Speaker 3: strategies are of Chen, or even of the judge and

450
00:27:32,080 --> 00:27:35,639
Speaker 3: where he sees this case going, but he did issue

451
00:27:35,680 --> 00:27:39,159
Speaker 3: an order last week or so, and he said, you know,

452
00:27:39,200 --> 00:27:42,560
Speaker 3: now that the contemp proceedings are teed up, one of

453
00:27:42,600 --> 00:27:46,520
Speaker 3: two outcomes appear likely. Either heriage will be held in

454
00:27:46,560 --> 00:27:50,320
Speaker 3: contempt in the near future and can immediately appeal that order,

455
00:27:50,720 --> 00:27:54,120
Speaker 3: or as sometimes occurs. In these cases, the sources may

456
00:27:54,359 --> 00:27:57,359
Speaker 3: release heroage from the privilege rather than watch or undergo

457
00:27:57,400 --> 00:28:00,240
Speaker 3: the consequences of the contempt. So that happens sometimes times

458
00:28:00,320 --> 00:28:03,720
Speaker 3: where you've got a source who sees now that the

459
00:28:03,760 --> 00:28:05,960
Speaker 3: reporter is willing to go to jail for that source,

460
00:28:06,320 --> 00:28:08,679
Speaker 3: and then the source comes forward and says, no, no, no, no,

461
00:28:08,680 --> 00:28:10,120
Speaker 3: I don't need you going to jail for me. I'll

462
00:28:10,160 --> 00:28:13,119
Speaker 3: come forward and I'll identify myself. So now you're not

463
00:28:13,400 --> 00:28:15,520
Speaker 3: being held in contempt for failing to disclose.

464
00:28:16,000 --> 00:28:16,720
Speaker 2: That happens.

465
00:28:17,040 --> 00:28:20,159
Speaker 3: My concern about situations like that, while I appreciate it,

466
00:28:20,480 --> 00:28:23,600
Speaker 3: my concern about that is I think it still might

467
00:28:23,880 --> 00:28:30,399
Speaker 3: impact the future case where a future confidential source is

468
00:28:30,400 --> 00:28:32,919
Speaker 3: concerned about whether or not they're going to disclose something

469
00:28:33,320 --> 00:28:36,199
Speaker 3: based you know, on the I guess prospect that the

470
00:28:36,280 --> 00:28:38,080
Speaker 3: reporter might be jailed and they might have to come

471
00:28:38,080 --> 00:28:41,520
Speaker 3: and identify themselves. So I still think the issue still

472
00:28:41,680 --> 00:28:42,640
Speaker 3: is important.

473
00:28:42,800 --> 00:28:45,720
Speaker 1: We assume she's going to appeal this, Where where would

474
00:28:45,720 --> 00:28:50,240
Speaker 1: the appeal go is A is this a DC case? Absolutely?

475
00:28:50,600 --> 00:28:53,840
Speaker 1: And we assume she's going to appeal this, that would

476
00:28:53,840 --> 00:28:57,440
Speaker 1: be to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. So where

477
00:28:57,440 --> 00:28:58,920
Speaker 1: did the sanctions stand.

478
00:29:01,000 --> 00:29:05,200
Speaker 3: Lawyers have filed for sanctions, and now the judge is

479
00:29:05,240 --> 00:29:08,320
Speaker 3: going to have to consider that and determine if sanctions

480
00:29:08,320 --> 00:29:11,400
Speaker 3: are going to be awarded, which is probably likely, and

481
00:29:11,440 --> 00:29:14,600
Speaker 3: then if they are awarded, what are those sanctions. The

482
00:29:15,000 --> 00:29:18,560
Speaker 3: Chen lawyers have asked for pretty severe sanctions because they

483
00:29:18,680 --> 00:29:22,240
Speaker 3: believe that Fox, because that's where Catherine Herridge was when

484
00:29:22,280 --> 00:29:24,800
Speaker 3: the stories came out. They think that Fox is funding

485
00:29:25,080 --> 00:29:27,200
Speaker 3: and would basically put up any money if there was

486
00:29:27,240 --> 00:29:29,800
Speaker 3: a monetary deal, and so they don't believe that that

487
00:29:29,840 --> 00:29:34,000
Speaker 3: would actually be any pressure on her to disclose the information,

488
00:29:34,200 --> 00:29:37,480
Speaker 3: and they want individual sanctions on her. Also, we don't

489
00:29:37,480 --> 00:29:39,840
Speaker 3: know what those sanctions would be. It could be more

490
00:29:39,880 --> 00:29:43,240
Speaker 3: severe personal monetary sanctions where she'd have to play them herself,

491
00:29:44,000 --> 00:29:47,160
Speaker 3: or possibly jail or something else, but it'll be pretty strong.

492
00:29:47,200 --> 00:29:49,800
Speaker 3: And then once that happens, she'll have the right to appeal,

493
00:29:50,000 --> 00:29:52,920
Speaker 3: and I'm sure she'll appeal immediately. And then there's also

494
00:29:53,000 --> 00:29:56,560
Speaker 3: questions about if she is sanctioned, would the judge then

495
00:29:56,680 --> 00:29:59,640
Speaker 3: stay those sanctions pending the appeal And I don't know

496
00:29:59,680 --> 00:30:01,000
Speaker 3: the answ I don't know what the judge will do

497
00:30:01,040 --> 00:30:03,920
Speaker 3: in this particular case, But my guess is that the

498
00:30:03,960 --> 00:30:06,680
Speaker 3: appellate court would get to this issue rather quickly.

499
00:30:07,160 --> 00:30:09,360
Speaker 1: Is there anything happening in Congress?

500
00:30:09,680 --> 00:30:13,200
Speaker 3: Almost all every state has a journalist privileged statute. Federal

501
00:30:13,280 --> 00:30:16,040
Speaker 3: law does not have a statute on the newsman's privilege,

502
00:30:16,360 --> 00:30:20,240
Speaker 3: and so from time to time there's bipartisan efforts taken

503
00:30:20,280 --> 00:30:25,920
Speaker 3: in order to try to get a Newsman's Privilege Act codified.

504
00:30:26,280 --> 00:30:29,480
Speaker 3: And so lately there's been something called the Press Act

505
00:30:29,960 --> 00:30:32,320
Speaker 3: that is where certain legislators on both sides of the

506
00:30:32,320 --> 00:30:35,800
Speaker 3: aisle are trying to get a newsom's privilege codified for

507
00:30:35,840 --> 00:30:39,000
Speaker 3: federal purposes. As of now, that has not passed. My

508
00:30:39,160 --> 00:30:42,320
Speaker 3: personal concern is it might not be politically expedient for

509
00:30:42,360 --> 00:30:45,120
Speaker 3: some legislators to vote for it, and so I'm concerned

510
00:30:45,120 --> 00:30:45,560
Speaker 3: about that.

511
00:30:45,880 --> 00:30:48,800
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the show. John. That's John Epstein,

512
00:30:48,920 --> 00:30:51,480
Speaker 1: a partner at Hall Still. And that's it for this

513
00:30:51,640 --> 00:30:54,360
Speaker 1: edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

514
00:30:54,400 --> 00:30:57,320
Speaker 1: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

515
00:30:57,600 --> 00:31:00,640
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at

516
00:31:00,800 --> 00:31:05,800
Speaker 1: www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and

517
00:31:05,880 --> 00:31:08,959
Speaker 1: remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight

518
00:31:09,040 --> 00:31:12,480
Speaker 1: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and

519
00:31:12,560 --> 00:31:14,000
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg