WEBVTT - Federal Judge Questions Enemy Combatant Detentions (Correct)

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.440
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.000
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.400
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. It may seem

0:00:22.440 --> 0:00:25.520
<v Speaker 1>like deja vu, the US government arguing in court that

0:00:25.560 --> 0:00:28.640
<v Speaker 1>it can detain a US citizen indefinitely as an enemy

0:00:28.680 --> 0:00:31.600
<v Speaker 1>combatant without giving him access to an attorney that he's

0:00:31.640 --> 0:00:34.400
<v Speaker 1>asked for. A DC federal judge said the government was

0:00:34.440 --> 0:00:36.440
<v Speaker 1>trying to do an end raun around the right to

0:00:36.520 --> 0:00:40.960
<v Speaker 1>habeas corpus, a basic constitutional right to challenge detention. The

0:00:41.040 --> 0:00:43.960
<v Speaker 1>unidentified American has been held by the US military in

0:00:43.960 --> 0:00:46.800
<v Speaker 1>a rock since he was captured in Syria in September

0:00:47.120 --> 0:00:50.519
<v Speaker 1>after allegedly fighting on behalf of isis joining me is

0:00:50.520 --> 0:00:54.040
<v Speaker 1>William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University Law School. Bill

0:00:54.160 --> 0:00:56.760
<v Speaker 1>set the stage for this week's hearing by telling us

0:00:56.800 --> 0:01:00.120
<v Speaker 1>how Judge Tanya Chutkin has had to use court or

0:01:00.120 --> 0:01:04.600
<v Speaker 1>is to get basic information from the government. It really

0:01:04.680 --> 0:01:09.480
<v Speaker 1>is quite an extraordinary situation. Uh. This this man, we're

0:01:09.560 --> 0:01:12.240
<v Speaker 1>calling him John Doe because we do not know his

0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:16.120
<v Speaker 1>identity has been held by the governments. In September, he

0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:21.600
<v Speaker 1>either surrendered or was apprehended by the Syrian Democratic forces

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:24.800
<v Speaker 1>and then handed over to the United States and taken

0:01:24.840 --> 0:01:27.560
<v Speaker 1>to Iraq, where he has been ever since. The government

0:01:27.640 --> 0:01:31.120
<v Speaker 1>has not let us know his name, the circumstances of

0:01:31.319 --> 0:01:36.920
<v Speaker 1>his capture or or turning himself in, or his current status,

0:01:36.959 --> 0:01:41.480
<v Speaker 1>except to say that he's being held. Uh. It's it's

0:01:41.480 --> 0:01:44.959
<v Speaker 1>certainly possible that the government has the legal right to

0:01:45.080 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 1>detain this man. The Supreme Court held in the two

0:01:50.080 --> 0:01:54.560
<v Speaker 1>thousand four decision called Hamdi versus runs But that the

0:01:54.600 --> 0:01:57.800
<v Speaker 1>government may have a right to detain even a citizen

0:01:58.040 --> 0:02:01.760
<v Speaker 1>combatant to his fighting for an enemy in an armed

0:02:01.840 --> 0:02:06.520
<v Speaker 1>conflict against the United States. In that case, the citizen

0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:09.360
<v Speaker 1>is not different than any other enemy if he's bringing

0:02:09.480 --> 0:02:13.040
<v Speaker 1>arms against the United States. What's so extraordinary here is

0:02:13.080 --> 0:02:16.440
<v Speaker 1>that the government has not afforded this young man an

0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:20.840
<v Speaker 1>opportunity to contest the circumstances of his detention, that is,

0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:24.000
<v Speaker 1>to have his day in court. The a c o

0:02:24.160 --> 0:02:27.680
<v Speaker 1>U has filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of

0:02:27.680 --> 0:02:32.280
<v Speaker 1>this unidentified American. What were the Justice Department's arguments against

0:02:32.280 --> 0:02:37.560
<v Speaker 1>that petition. The arguments really weren't legal arguments at all.

0:02:37.600 --> 0:02:40.280
<v Speaker 1>They simply argued that that it wasn't time yet, that

0:02:40.320 --> 0:02:43.600
<v Speaker 1>they were still trying to determine what to do with them.

0:02:43.720 --> 0:02:48.280
<v Speaker 1>There of course various possibilities here, but the possibilities are

0:02:48.720 --> 0:02:51.960
<v Speaker 1>are stretching credibility now that it's been more than twelve

0:02:52.040 --> 0:02:55.679
<v Speaker 1>weeks since he's been detained. One is that they were

0:02:55.680 --> 0:02:58.560
<v Speaker 1>trying to amass evidence with which they could charge him

0:02:58.600 --> 0:03:01.320
<v Speaker 1>in a regular civilian or in the United States. As

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:04.320
<v Speaker 1>as many of your listeners know, the United States routine

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:09.079
<v Speaker 1>brings captured alleged terrorists to the United States to stand trial,

0:03:09.120 --> 0:03:13.000
<v Speaker 1>and that system works quite well. The second possibility is

0:03:13.040 --> 0:03:16.440
<v Speaker 1>that they are trying to arrange for transfer of him

0:03:16.480 --> 0:03:19.880
<v Speaker 1>to a third country somewhere that might take him. With this,

0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:23.120
<v Speaker 1>with this man's consent, even though he is the United

0:03:23.200 --> 0:03:27.079
<v Speaker 1>States citizen, that could be taking a lengthier period of time.

0:03:27.120 --> 0:03:29.800
<v Speaker 1>And the third possibility is less favorable for the government,

0:03:30.440 --> 0:03:32.480
<v Speaker 1>which is that they simply don't know what to do

0:03:33.280 --> 0:03:36.960
<v Speaker 1>with this guy, whether to prosecute him, let him go,

0:03:37.480 --> 0:03:41.120
<v Speaker 1>which has yet another possibility, or transferring somewhere. So the

0:03:41.240 --> 0:03:45.600
<v Speaker 1>government admits that the detainee asked for a lawyer before

0:03:45.600 --> 0:03:49.000
<v Speaker 1>he would go forward with questioning. At that point, wasn't

0:03:49.000 --> 0:03:52.040
<v Speaker 1>the government required to provide him with a lawyer, which

0:03:52.080 --> 0:03:54.000
<v Speaker 1>they don't want to give him through the a c

0:03:54.200 --> 0:03:58.560
<v Speaker 1>l U. Apparently, well, that's the standard interpretation that most

0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 1>of us would have full or what we call the

0:04:01.200 --> 0:04:05.360
<v Speaker 1>Miranda rights. When you rehim his rights and law enforcement interrogation,

0:04:05.880 --> 0:04:07.800
<v Speaker 1>he told you have a right to an attorney, but

0:04:07.920 --> 0:04:12.280
<v Speaker 1>that right actually doesn't detach until the government moves to

0:04:12.320 --> 0:04:15.360
<v Speaker 1>bring a case against you. So he's in a limbo.

0:04:15.480 --> 0:04:18.720
<v Speaker 1>Now he's being held. He's not being prosecuted, he's simply

0:04:18.760 --> 0:04:23.640
<v Speaker 1>being held. So following the miranda principle, he doesn't have

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:26.880
<v Speaker 1>that right to the attorney until the government takes the

0:04:26.960 --> 0:04:31.120
<v Speaker 1>next step. And it's it's art of circular because they say,

0:04:31.160 --> 0:04:34.160
<v Speaker 1>we're not ready to take the next step yet. Now

0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:37.000
<v Speaker 1>let's discuss what is settled law and what is not.

0:04:37.200 --> 0:04:39.960
<v Speaker 1>You mentioned the Supreme Court's ruling in hom D v.

0:04:40.120 --> 0:04:44.359
<v Speaker 1>Rumsfeld that the government can detain US citizens as enemy combatants,

0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:47.320
<v Speaker 1>but they have the right to challenge their detention before

0:04:47.320 --> 0:04:51.159
<v Speaker 1>a neutral arbiter. What are the questions that are still open?

0:04:51.520 --> 0:04:55.400
<v Speaker 1>How long is too long? And who decides right? Well,

0:04:55.520 --> 0:04:58.480
<v Speaker 1>Judge Chutkin in the District Court in Washington will make

0:04:58.520 --> 0:05:02.080
<v Speaker 1>that decision preliminary early, you know. We we hope and

0:05:02.160 --> 0:05:04.800
<v Speaker 1>expect that she could be making that any day now,

0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:09.200
<v Speaker 1>ordering the government to provide him a council who could

0:05:09.240 --> 0:05:13.360
<v Speaker 1>then bring his habeas corpus case in a federal court

0:05:13.360 --> 0:05:15.880
<v Speaker 1>in the United States. As I said a moment ago.

0:05:16.080 --> 0:05:18.920
<v Speaker 1>Once once that case is brought, the government may well

0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:22.159
<v Speaker 1>win it. But the important principle, of course, is to

0:05:22.200 --> 0:05:25.640
<v Speaker 1>reinforce his right to have his day in court. He

0:05:25.760 --> 0:05:28.680
<v Speaker 1>had things that are not settled yet. As of course

0:05:29.360 --> 0:05:32.559
<v Speaker 1>what he was doing, what he did that would would

0:05:32.560 --> 0:05:38.119
<v Speaker 1>justify his detention. Uh. Sometimes somebody captured is or turned

0:05:38.160 --> 0:05:42.520
<v Speaker 1>himself in is not necessarily culpable as as a member

0:05:42.520 --> 0:05:45.400
<v Speaker 1>of an art force of fighting against the United States.

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:48.200
<v Speaker 1>They are facts to be heard here. Bill. Is this

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:51.320
<v Speaker 1>the same issue that came up under the George W.

0:05:51.480 --> 0:05:57.000
<v Speaker 1>Bush administration or is it different? Well, it's it is

0:05:57.040 --> 0:05:59.320
<v Speaker 1>the same in the sense that we're in the Homby

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:03.440
<v Speaker 1>case at someone who was allegedly her originally rather thought

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:06.760
<v Speaker 1>to be an alien fighting for the Taliban who was

0:06:06.800 --> 0:06:09.760
<v Speaker 1>sent to Guantanamo Bay, and after some period of time

0:06:09.760 --> 0:06:13.400
<v Speaker 1>it was discovered that Hammy had actually was born in

0:06:13.560 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 1>the United States, so he was transferred to a military

0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:20.760
<v Speaker 1>break in South Carolina rather than held at Guantanamo. Guantanamo

0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:27.240
<v Speaker 1>was reserved for non citizen aliens who were unlawful combatants

0:06:27.279 --> 0:06:30.920
<v Speaker 1>picked up in the soapballed war and tear. So it's

0:06:30.920 --> 0:06:34.520
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a little bit alike, but somewhat different because

0:06:34.600 --> 0:06:38.840
<v Speaker 1>this this individual, of course, was presented to the United

0:06:38.880 --> 0:06:42.960
<v Speaker 1>States UH in a combat zone and being held still

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:45.839
<v Speaker 1>in what you could call a combat zone by the

0:06:45.920 --> 0:06:51.280
<v Speaker 1>US officials. Judge Chukins said, what the government suggests is

0:06:51.320 --> 0:06:54.440
<v Speaker 1>an end run around the right to habeas He wants counsel,

0:06:54.480 --> 0:06:56.680
<v Speaker 1>which is an assertion and request that I don't think

0:06:56.720 --> 0:07:00.560
<v Speaker 1>I can't ignore. Is she signaling pretty clearly how she's

0:07:00.560 --> 0:07:04.039
<v Speaker 1>going to rule. I think she is, and she's I

0:07:04.080 --> 0:07:08.800
<v Speaker 1>think been remarkably patient with the government here, trying to

0:07:08.920 --> 0:07:13.720
<v Speaker 1>give it time to make more UH coherent arguments that

0:07:13.760 --> 0:07:18.480
<v Speaker 1>would justify the continuing refusal to provide him counsel. I

0:07:18.800 --> 0:07:21.520
<v Speaker 1>think we're going to find an order to provide him

0:07:21.520 --> 0:07:32.400
<v Speaker 1>counsel and then ah habeas petition forthwith. The Supreme Court

0:07:32.400 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 1>has turned down a chance to decide whether the federal

0:07:34.880 --> 0:07:39.160
<v Speaker 1>law protecting workers against discrimination based on sex also protects

0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:43.400
<v Speaker 1>workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The circuit courts

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:46.240
<v Speaker 1>are divided on the question of whether Title seven covers

0:07:46.280 --> 0:07:48.840
<v Speaker 1>gay workers, and so are the E O, C and

0:07:48.880 --> 0:07:52.760
<v Speaker 1>the Justice Department. The Justices did not explain their reasoning

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:55.400
<v Speaker 1>for turning down the case of a hospital security guard

0:07:55.440 --> 0:07:58.440
<v Speaker 1>in Georgia who said she was discriminated against because she

0:07:58.520 --> 0:08:01.400
<v Speaker 1>was gay. Joining me is Anthony Christ, professor at the

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:05.160
<v Speaker 1>Chicago Kent College of Law. Anthony the circuits are split.

0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:09.320
<v Speaker 1>The seven Circuit rules sexual orientation discrimination is a form

0:08:09.400 --> 0:08:12.880
<v Speaker 1>of gender bias protected by Title seven. The eleven Circuit

0:08:12.960 --> 0:08:16.240
<v Speaker 1>ruled it's not, and the second Circuit is considering it now.

0:08:16.760 --> 0:08:19.520
<v Speaker 1>Isn't this the type of confusion that the Supreme Court

0:08:19.560 --> 0:08:23.640
<v Speaker 1>is supposed to clear up? Yeah? Absolutely. I think that

0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:27.080
<v Speaker 1>the Court and not hearing this case is only delayed

0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:30.560
<v Speaker 1>the timing of when they will actually decide a case

0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:33.920
<v Speaker 1>of this sort um. This case wasn't a particularly great

0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:36.360
<v Speaker 1>vehicle to decide this this issue. I mean, it's a

0:08:36.400 --> 0:08:39.160
<v Speaker 1>it's a big issue, UM. And so certainly the court

0:08:39.160 --> 0:08:42.880
<v Speaker 1>would want a clean case. UM. There are some procedural

0:08:42.960 --> 0:08:47.199
<v Speaker 1>problems with the defendants claiming they weren't properly served. UM.

0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:51.400
<v Speaker 1>And in fact, Jimmy Evans has a potential remedy as

0:08:51.440 --> 0:08:56.119
<v Speaker 1>a as a traditional gender nonconformity claim that's removed from

0:08:56.160 --> 0:08:58.240
<v Speaker 1>her such orientation claim. So I think that there are

0:08:58.240 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of factors here that my have not made

0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:03.040
<v Speaker 1>this best case for the court to take up to

0:09:03.120 --> 0:09:06.600
<v Speaker 1>decide this this incredibly important issue. Tell us what the

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:12.440
<v Speaker 1>argument is on both sides. So the argument in favor

0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:17.479
<v Speaker 1>of expanding our understanding of what sex discrimination is that effectively,

0:09:17.640 --> 0:09:21.880
<v Speaker 1>if if you take into consideration a person sexual orientation,

0:09:22.000 --> 0:09:25.080
<v Speaker 1>you're taking into account that person sex and the sex

0:09:25.320 --> 0:09:28.640
<v Speaker 1>of the people that they form intimate relationships with. And

0:09:28.720 --> 0:09:32.480
<v Speaker 1>so if you're taking sex into account at all, that's

0:09:32.760 --> 0:09:36.720
<v Speaker 1>a plain form of sex discrimination that Title seven UH

0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:42.719
<v Speaker 1>was enacted to to to remove from the workplace. UM.

0:09:42.800 --> 0:09:47.000
<v Speaker 1>The The counter response is, well, homophobia is a different

0:09:47.040 --> 0:09:51.040
<v Speaker 1>and distinct form of bias, that's not UH sexism, and

0:09:51.120 --> 0:09:54.520
<v Speaker 1>so these are distinct things. UM. And that Congress when

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:57.840
<v Speaker 1>they enacted Title seven's protections in the N four. Um,

0:09:57.880 --> 0:10:02.160
<v Speaker 1>we're really thinking about protecting men versus women in the workplace. Um,

0:10:02.200 --> 0:10:05.080
<v Speaker 1>you know, based on biological sex, and they weren't thinking

0:10:05.120 --> 0:10:08.600
<v Speaker 1>about sex orientation or LGBT people, and so these things

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:11.920
<v Speaker 1>are distinct issues. Um. And if the Court or if

0:10:11.960 --> 0:10:14.760
<v Speaker 1>if Congress wants to a me entitle seven to include

0:10:14.880 --> 0:10:18.680
<v Speaker 1>LGBT discrimination claims, and they're free to do so, Anthony,

0:10:18.840 --> 0:10:21.200
<v Speaker 1>is it important to gay rights groups to get this

0:10:21.360 --> 0:10:25.960
<v Speaker 1>issue before the Court before Justice Anthony Kennedy retires and

0:10:25.960 --> 0:10:29.160
<v Speaker 1>that could be this term? Yeah, I think the timing

0:10:29.200 --> 0:10:33.920
<v Speaker 1>here is is incredibly important. Um. I think gay rights

0:10:34.480 --> 0:10:38.560
<v Speaker 1>groups certainly would like this, this case, a type of

0:10:38.559 --> 0:10:41.720
<v Speaker 1>case like this to come before the Court for Justice

0:10:41.800 --> 0:10:45.120
<v Speaker 1>Kennedy retires. If he does, Um, it certainly would be

0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:48.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot easier of a road, uh, for for advocates

0:10:48.720 --> 0:10:52.080
<v Speaker 1>in that sense. Um, you know, if Justice Kennedy is

0:10:52.080 --> 0:10:55.520
<v Speaker 1>on the Court as opposed to someone who President nominate

0:10:55.840 --> 0:10:59.000
<v Speaker 1>to replace him in within the next few months. So

0:10:59.120 --> 0:11:02.080
<v Speaker 1>how did how does it affect rights in the workplace

0:11:02.120 --> 0:11:05.520
<v Speaker 1>that in the same court case, the Second Circuit case

0:11:05.520 --> 0:11:07.600
<v Speaker 1>in New York which I was talking about before, the

0:11:07.640 --> 0:11:12.199
<v Speaker 1>Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was arguing that Title seven protects

0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:16.319
<v Speaker 1>against discrimination based on sexual orientation, while the Justice Department

0:11:16.520 --> 0:11:20.880
<v Speaker 1>was arguing that it doesn't. Yeah, it's a very unusual

0:11:21.280 --> 0:11:24.680
<v Speaker 1>situation where you have two different entities within the federal

0:11:24.679 --> 0:11:29.320
<v Speaker 1>government taking opposite views. UM. The e of C, of

0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:33.880
<v Speaker 1>course the agency that Congress charged with the responsibility of

0:11:34.400 --> 0:11:38.200
<v Speaker 1>UM enforcing Title seven, and so they get a considerable

0:11:38.200 --> 0:11:42.520
<v Speaker 1>amount of of UM of deference in the sense that

0:11:43.240 --> 0:11:46.400
<v Speaker 1>you know that that they're the experts in this field. UM.

0:11:46.440 --> 0:11:48.880
<v Speaker 1>But the Department of Justice certainly has you know, they've

0:11:48.920 --> 0:11:52.000
<v Speaker 1>claimed that, as the nation's largest employer of the federal government,

0:11:52.280 --> 0:11:56.840
<v Speaker 1>has a has an important interest in Title seven and

0:11:56.960 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the administration of Title seven. UM. And you know, it's

0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:03.840
<v Speaker 1>it's not surprising that the political appointees that were put

0:12:03.840 --> 0:12:06.720
<v Speaker 1>in place by the Trump administration UM in the Department

0:12:06.760 --> 0:12:09.880
<v Speaker 1>of Justice took this position, UM, given you know, Attorney

0:12:09.920 --> 0:12:12.280
<v Speaker 1>General Sessions and a number of high profile people in

0:12:12.320 --> 0:12:17.160
<v Speaker 1>the Trump administration have generally been uneasy with pro LGBT

0:12:17.280 --> 0:12:21.520
<v Speaker 1>policies and and pro or policies that protect LGBT employees

0:12:21.520 --> 0:12:24.800
<v Speaker 1>and workers. Anthony. Some states do have laws that protect

0:12:24.880 --> 0:12:28.960
<v Speaker 1>against workplace discrimination, so is titled seven less important in

0:12:29.000 --> 0:12:33.960
<v Speaker 1>those states. Uh. It depends on a state by state basis. UM.

0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:36.840
<v Speaker 1>There are a number of states where uh, you know,

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:40.440
<v Speaker 1>you certainly have coequal protections, but there are many states,

0:12:40.679 --> 0:12:43.400
<v Speaker 1>many many states in the fact that they do not. UM.

0:12:43.480 --> 0:12:45.920
<v Speaker 1>And it's important to have I think it's important to

0:12:45.920 --> 0:12:50.560
<v Speaker 1>have access to UM, you know, to to have access

0:12:50.559 --> 0:12:54.960
<v Speaker 1>to robust protections and have protections for people UM on

0:12:55.000 --> 0:12:58.400
<v Speaker 1>a federal level, because it's important that we have uniform laws.

0:12:58.480 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 1>The patch work laws where LGBT people were protecting certain

0:13:01.400 --> 0:13:05.720
<v Speaker 1>situations and not in other states. UM, it's a fundamentally

0:13:05.760 --> 0:13:09.239
<v Speaker 1>unworkable UM. And I think we need a national resolution

0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:11.920
<v Speaker 1>to this for for every LGBT employee to know that

0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:14.840
<v Speaker 1>they uh, you know, they're free from that, that they're

0:13:14.880 --> 0:13:18.440
<v Speaker 1>protected from workplace bias and workplace discrimination no matter what

0:13:18.520 --> 0:13:22.520
<v Speaker 1>state they live and work in. Just briefly, might this

0:13:22.640 --> 0:13:26.280
<v Speaker 1>second circuit case be the one that the court takes. Yeah,

0:13:26.280 --> 0:13:28.400
<v Speaker 1>I think this is an ideal vehicle for it. The

0:13:28.440 --> 0:13:30.960
<v Speaker 1>real question at the end of the day, does the

0:13:30.960 --> 0:13:33.880
<v Speaker 1>employer want to be the face of defending this at

0:13:33.880 --> 0:13:36.840
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court? UM? They may not necessarily appeal, but

0:13:36.920 --> 0:13:40.640
<v Speaker 1>that time will tell if that happens. Always a pleasure

0:13:40.679 --> 0:13:43.160
<v Speaker 1>to have you on that. Professor Anthony Christ of the

0:13:43.240 --> 0:13:46.920
<v Speaker 1>Chicago Kent College of Law, thanks for listening to the

0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:50.280
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the

0:13:50.320 --> 0:13:54.240
<v Speaker 1>show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on bloomberg dot com

0:13:54.320 --> 0:14:00.440
<v Speaker 1>slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This is Bloomberg, the Duck,

0:14:00.640 --> 0:14:02.439
<v Speaker 1>the dependent and duck of the