1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:11,960
Speaker 1: Just Saturday, former President Trump and ounce he's had gotten

3
00:00:11,960 --> 00:00:14,920
Speaker 1: his booster shot. Maybe one of the few things he

4
00:00:14,960 --> 00:00:18,400
Speaker 1: and I agree on. Though President Joe Biden and former

5
00:00:18,440 --> 00:00:22,079
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump may agree on the need for vaccines,

6
00:00:22,520 --> 00:00:25,439
Speaker 1: it will be the Supreme Court that decides whether to

7
00:00:25,520 --> 00:00:30,400
Speaker 1: allow two federal vaccine mandates to take effect nationwide in

8
00:00:30,440 --> 00:00:34,680
Speaker 1: the first argued cases of a year that will be

9
00:00:34,800 --> 00:00:38,559
Speaker 1: consequential at the Court, with cases involving a range of

10
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:43,320
Speaker 1: controversial social issues, from abortion and climate change to gun

11
00:00:43,400 --> 00:00:47,000
Speaker 1: rights in religion. Joining me is Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court

12
00:00:47,080 --> 00:00:52,440
Speaker 1: reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson Kimberly. David Cole, the National Legal

13
00:00:52,440 --> 00:00:56,080
Speaker 1: director of the American Civil Liberties Union, told you that

14
00:00:56,120 --> 00:00:59,880
Speaker 1: this is going to be the most important term in decade.

15
00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:04,480
Speaker 1: Explain why, Well, even with the cases that the justices

16
00:01:04,560 --> 00:01:08,000
Speaker 1: have already heard in this is going to be a

17
00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:12,400
Speaker 1: blockbuster term. So I'm thinking about cases on abortion, gun rights,

18
00:01:12,480 --> 00:01:15,919
Speaker 1: and religious freedom. These are all cases that have already

19
00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:18,520
Speaker 1: been argued, many of which are waiting an opinion in

20
00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:23,160
Speaker 1: two and would really set the term apart. From really

21
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:26,880
Speaker 1: what's been a series of blockbuster terms. But the justices

22
00:01:26,959 --> 00:01:30,679
Speaker 1: do have a small window to add new cases to

23
00:01:30,840 --> 00:01:35,160
Speaker 1: that explosive docket. We've already recently seen them as the

24
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:37,720
Speaker 1: vaccine mandates, which is the first thing they're going to

25
00:01:37,840 --> 00:01:40,840
Speaker 1: tackle when they return to the courtroom in January. But

26
00:01:40,920 --> 00:01:43,960
Speaker 1: there are a lot of other cases are on schedule

27
00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:46,360
Speaker 1: to meet this mid January cut off to add new

28
00:01:46,400 --> 00:01:49,520
Speaker 1: cases to the term, and many of those really show

29
00:01:49,560 --> 00:01:53,000
Speaker 1: how the courts cases are increasingly intersecting with some of

30
00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:56,120
Speaker 1: the biggest social debates and a really stealing questions about

31
00:01:56,120 --> 00:02:00,280
Speaker 1: the Court's legitimacy. The Court is fast tracking, I do

32
00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:05,400
Speaker 1: mean fast two cases on Biden's vaccine mandates. The two

33
00:02:05,440 --> 00:02:07,480
Speaker 1: cases are going to be the first thing the justices

34
00:02:07,560 --> 00:02:11,000
Speaker 1: tackle on January seven, and as you said, they are

35
00:02:11,080 --> 00:02:16,240
Speaker 1: really two separate mandates. One involved the Occupational Safety and

36
00:02:16,320 --> 00:02:20,680
Speaker 1: Health Administrations Mandate more frequently known as OSHA, and the

37
00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:24,840
Speaker 1: question there is whether OSHA has the authority to adopt

38
00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:28,760
Speaker 1: the so called shot or tests mandate for certain large employers,

39
00:02:28,880 --> 00:02:32,840
Speaker 1: or whether it really overstepped is congressional mandate to develop

40
00:02:32,960 --> 00:02:36,519
Speaker 1: standards that you know typically are tended to ensure safe

41
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:39,960
Speaker 1: and healthy workplaces, you know, think of things like falls,

42
00:02:40,080 --> 00:02:45,079
Speaker 1: or hazardous materials or dangerous machines. Now OSHA has been

43
00:02:45,120 --> 00:02:47,560
Speaker 1: asked by the Biden administration to expand that to the

44
00:02:47,639 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 1: vaccine mandates. And then the second challenge is one involving

45
00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:55,400
Speaker 1: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS. We

46
00:02:55,440 --> 00:02:57,400
Speaker 1: always have to have a bunch of alphabet soup in

47
00:02:57,400 --> 00:03:01,400
Speaker 1: these cases, and these applied to health care facilities that

48
00:03:01,680 --> 00:03:05,480
Speaker 1: accepted these federal funds. And it's really the same issue

49
00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:08,840
Speaker 1: there whether or not CMS went too far in adopting

50
00:03:08,880 --> 00:03:11,880
Speaker 1: these sweeping rules, and whether or not Congress have to

51
00:03:11,919 --> 00:03:15,120
Speaker 1: say more before they can and act such a mandate

52
00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:18,200
Speaker 1: like this. So I looked at the calendar. You know,

53
00:03:18,320 --> 00:03:22,320
Speaker 1: usually the court has arguments on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and

54
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:25,480
Speaker 1: I saw that this was on a Friday. That's so unusual,

55
00:03:25,600 --> 00:03:28,600
Speaker 1: isn't it. It is really unusual, And I think to

56
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:31,800
Speaker 1: understand why it's scheduled on a Friday, we have to

57
00:03:31,840 --> 00:03:34,320
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about what's called the shadow docket

58
00:03:34,440 --> 00:03:38,320
Speaker 1: or the courts emergency docket. This procedure is really a

59
00:03:38,480 --> 00:03:41,320
Speaker 1: kind of special way for the justices to consider things

60
00:03:41,360 --> 00:03:44,760
Speaker 1: that come up outside of the normal course of its

61
00:03:44,840 --> 00:03:47,920
Speaker 1: regular decision making process. But think of things like a

62
00:03:48,000 --> 00:03:51,000
Speaker 1: month law breaking arguments and then a really considered opinion

63
00:03:51,080 --> 00:03:54,160
Speaker 1: that could go for dozens of pages. Instead, in these

64
00:03:54,160 --> 00:03:57,080
Speaker 1: shadow doctor cases, we tend to get a one sentence ruling,

65
00:03:57,440 --> 00:04:00,760
Speaker 1: you know, very expedited, and you know that's at particular

66
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:04,240
Speaker 1: process caught a lot of criticism after the Court required

67
00:04:04,280 --> 00:04:08,440
Speaker 1: the Biden administration to keep a Trump era immigration policy

68
00:04:08,480 --> 00:04:11,560
Speaker 1: in place, and then that's six weeks Abortion Man out

69
00:04:11,600 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 1: of Texas as the Court allowed to go forward. And

70
00:04:14,720 --> 00:04:17,480
Speaker 1: so even though we've seen some pushback from the justices

71
00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:22,360
Speaker 1: about that criticism, they have taken the extraordinary step of taking,

72
00:04:22,720 --> 00:04:26,159
Speaker 1: you know, these vaccine cases, that Texas case, off of

73
00:04:26,200 --> 00:04:28,800
Speaker 1: the shadow docket, setting them in an argument more in

74
00:04:28,839 --> 00:04:31,640
Speaker 1: line with how they traditionally do things. And that's why

75
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:35,000
Speaker 1: we see such a rapid schedule for these vaccine cases.

76
00:04:35,560 --> 00:04:40,080
Speaker 1: So the environment comes into focus on February twenty in

77
00:04:40,240 --> 00:04:44,640
Speaker 1: three cases. They're all from the DC Circuit Court, that's right,

78
00:04:44,680 --> 00:04:48,159
Speaker 1: And these cases concerning the environment are really similar to

79
00:04:48,200 --> 00:04:51,240
Speaker 1: these vaccine mandate cases, and that they go to the

80
00:04:51,279 --> 00:04:56,040
Speaker 1: ability of administrative agencies past sweeping rules that could potentially

81
00:04:56,040 --> 00:04:59,000
Speaker 1: cost US us as billions of dollars. And it really

82
00:04:59,040 --> 00:05:03,400
Speaker 1: shows the overt court's interest in administrative laws. And before

83
00:05:03,440 --> 00:05:06,480
Speaker 1: listeners start to tune out, you know, it can be

84
00:05:06,560 --> 00:05:08,440
Speaker 1: a very technical area of the law, but they have

85
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:12,479
Speaker 1: enormous impact. And so here the Justice will consider whether

86
00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:15,839
Speaker 1: the e p A has the authority to regulate greenhouse

87
00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:19,080
Speaker 1: gas emissions from coal plants and an attempts to really

88
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:23,200
Speaker 1: rein in climate change. And you know the fact that

89
00:05:23,240 --> 00:05:26,400
Speaker 1: the Justices took this case is concerning for those who

90
00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:30,359
Speaker 1: want really broad and sweeping reactions to climate change because

91
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:32,719
Speaker 1: they didn't have to take it. This is one of

92
00:05:32,720 --> 00:05:36,880
Speaker 1: those cases where this particular program that cleaned power plant

93
00:05:37,040 --> 00:05:39,520
Speaker 1: is not in effect, and so the Biden administrations but

94
00:05:39,720 --> 00:05:41,440
Speaker 1: just hold on, let us figure out what we're going

95
00:05:41,480 --> 00:05:43,880
Speaker 1: to do with it. But of course that didn't happen,

96
00:05:43,960 --> 00:05:46,440
Speaker 1: suggesting that you know, there may be support on the

97
00:05:46,480 --> 00:05:49,279
Speaker 1: Court for saying the administration has just gone too far.

98
00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:52,520
Speaker 1: And you know, this is really an area where Congress

99
00:05:52,520 --> 00:05:56,520
Speaker 1: has at another case the Court didn't have to take

100
00:05:56,800 --> 00:06:01,760
Speaker 1: also involves a Trump administration rule on the public charge doctrine.

101
00:06:02,240 --> 00:06:06,520
Speaker 1: The Biden administration and the challengers agree to dismiss the case.

102
00:06:07,279 --> 00:06:10,080
Speaker 1: So it's a little confusing as to why the court

103
00:06:10,240 --> 00:06:14,960
Speaker 1: decided to take the case. It is confusing, and you know, again,

104
00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:17,919
Speaker 1: this is one of those cases where it seems like

105
00:06:17,960 --> 00:06:21,120
Speaker 1: the justices are reaching out to decide this case when

106
00:06:21,120 --> 00:06:23,920
Speaker 1: they really don't have to. The rule it issue here

107
00:06:24,120 --> 00:06:27,919
Speaker 1: requires the government to consider whether a non citizen is

108
00:06:27,920 --> 00:06:30,960
Speaker 1: going to pull on public benefits when considering whether to

109
00:06:31,000 --> 00:06:33,839
Speaker 1: grant them release, like admission into the country. And you know,

110
00:06:33,920 --> 00:06:36,039
Speaker 1: like the Clean Power Plan is not a rule that's

111
00:06:36,080 --> 00:06:39,159
Speaker 1: an effect right now. But the question here is for

112
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:42,719
Speaker 1: the justices a procedural one. Again. You know, we see

113
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:45,400
Speaker 1: them tackling so many of these really big issue cases

114
00:06:45,400 --> 00:06:48,160
Speaker 1: on procedural grounds rather than on the merits. And it's

115
00:06:48,240 --> 00:06:51,200
Speaker 1: whether or not these gop led states can really pick

116
00:06:51,320 --> 00:06:54,840
Speaker 1: up where the Biden administration left off and go ahead

117
00:06:54,880 --> 00:06:58,120
Speaker 1: and defend the legality of this rule, as the Biden

118
00:06:58,120 --> 00:07:01,120
Speaker 1: administration says it no longer wants to do at federal court.

119
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:05,159
Speaker 1: Several of these cases seemed to be sort of caught

120
00:07:05,279 --> 00:07:10,560
Speaker 1: between two administrations. The Biden administration is also asking the

121
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:14,600
Speaker 1: court to consider whether it has to continue the Trump

122
00:07:14,600 --> 00:07:18,400
Speaker 1: remained in Mexico policy. Yeah, we have really seen over

123
00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:21,280
Speaker 1: the last five years, given that there's such a break

124
00:07:21,320 --> 00:07:25,760
Speaker 1: between the Obama, Trump and Biden administrations, this issue of

125
00:07:25,960 --> 00:07:29,480
Speaker 1: changing administrations really cropping up in the Supreme Court. So

126
00:07:29,640 --> 00:07:32,320
Speaker 1: in the past, there will be maybe a handful of

127
00:07:32,400 --> 00:07:35,880
Speaker 1: cases where this would happen, where a new administration would

128
00:07:35,880 --> 00:07:37,520
Speaker 1: come in and just say we're going to take a

129
00:07:37,520 --> 00:07:40,960
Speaker 1: whole new approach to this particular law. But by and large,

130
00:07:41,160 --> 00:07:44,560
Speaker 1: administrations have continued to have kind of the same general

131
00:07:44,600 --> 00:07:47,600
Speaker 1: interests and that's just not the case today. And it

132
00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:50,560
Speaker 1: will be really interesting to see when the next administration

133
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:53,040
Speaker 1: takes over. Is this a trend that's going to continue

134
00:07:53,120 --> 00:07:55,560
Speaker 1: or is it something unique to Trump and to Biden.

135
00:07:55,920 --> 00:07:59,840
Speaker 1: Coming up, I'll continue this conversation with Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson

136
00:08:00,320 --> 00:08:03,560
Speaker 1: and we'll talk about some controversial cases that could make

137
00:08:03,600 --> 00:08:08,560
Speaker 1: the docket. The House committee investigating the January sixth attack

138
00:08:08,600 --> 00:08:12,480
Speaker 1: on the Capitol is considering the involvement of former President

139
00:08:12,520 --> 00:08:16,200
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and wants documents from the Trump White House

140
00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:19,320
Speaker 1: being held by the National Archives. Here are the committee

141
00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:23,360
Speaker 1: chairman Benny Thompson and Vice chair Liz Cheney, the White

142
00:08:23,360 --> 00:08:27,080
Speaker 1: House knew exactly what was happening here at the Capitol.

143
00:08:28,840 --> 00:08:32,480
Speaker 1: We are getting a clearer picture of what happened, who

144
00:08:32,520 --> 00:08:35,160
Speaker 1: was involved, and who paid for it, and where the

145
00:08:35,200 --> 00:08:38,840
Speaker 1: money went. And now Trump is using an interview Thompson

146
00:08:38,880 --> 00:08:41,840
Speaker 1: gave to the Washington Post to try to get the

147
00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:45,640
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to block the National Archives from turning over

148
00:08:45,679 --> 00:08:49,360
Speaker 1: his documents. I've been talking to Bloomberg Law Supreme Court

149
00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:53,600
Speaker 1: reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. So, Kimberly, this is one of

150
00:08:53,600 --> 00:08:57,080
Speaker 1: the cases the Court could put on its argument calendar for.

151
00:08:58,520 --> 00:09:00,760
Speaker 1: So this was a recent it that came to the

152
00:09:00,880 --> 00:09:03,320
Speaker 1: Court just in the past week. And it's really the

153
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:06,359
Speaker 1: first time that the Court has been asked to consider

154
00:09:06,840 --> 00:09:10,760
Speaker 1: the legal ramifications of that January six attack on the Capitol,

155
00:09:11,160 --> 00:09:14,120
Speaker 1: and it deals with the House Select committees attempt to

156
00:09:14,160 --> 00:09:17,720
Speaker 1: get documents from the White House involving then President Trump's

157
00:09:17,760 --> 00:09:20,880
Speaker 1: actions on that day. Now, it's important to note that

158
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:24,280
Speaker 1: there was a similar battle listeners may remember over documents

159
00:09:24,360 --> 00:09:27,800
Speaker 1: that recently reached the Court, the battle over President trump

160
00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:31,760
Speaker 1: tax returns, and they're the Streme quote said that, you know,

161
00:09:31,880 --> 00:09:34,800
Speaker 1: Chris should really stay out of these disputes, that the

162
00:09:34,840 --> 00:09:38,000
Speaker 1: political branches, Congress and the President have been able to

163
00:09:38,040 --> 00:09:40,440
Speaker 1: work these disputes out in the past, and you know

164
00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:43,400
Speaker 1: it should be hands off for the judiciary. Of course,

165
00:09:43,600 --> 00:09:47,920
Speaker 1: the twist here is that this involves the Biden administration

166
00:09:48,160 --> 00:09:52,520
Speaker 1: agreeing with Congress to turn over certain documents by waiving

167
00:09:52,679 --> 00:09:57,760
Speaker 1: executive privilege for documents that came up under a different administration.

168
00:09:57,840 --> 00:10:00,760
Speaker 1: And so we're gonna see if that make a difference

169
00:10:00,880 --> 00:10:04,120
Speaker 1: for the Court and whether or not they say that

170
00:10:04,400 --> 00:10:07,480
Speaker 1: Congress and the American people really have a great interest

171
00:10:07,640 --> 00:10:09,920
Speaker 1: in these cases that they should go ahead and be

172
00:10:10,000 --> 00:10:13,600
Speaker 1: turned over. But importantly, as you mentioned, the Justices have

173
00:10:13,800 --> 00:10:16,360
Speaker 1: not agreed yet to take up this case. The House

174
00:10:16,400 --> 00:10:18,840
Speaker 1: has asked the Justices to expedite this case so that

175
00:10:18,880 --> 00:10:21,000
Speaker 1: they can hear at this term. And I think what's

176
00:10:21,000 --> 00:10:23,240
Speaker 1: really behind that is that you know, the House is

177
00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:26,240
Speaker 1: working on this informal deadline of the midterm elections, because

178
00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:29,320
Speaker 1: of course, a GOP takeover of the House could undo

179
00:10:29,360 --> 00:10:33,680
Speaker 1: the whole commission. And on Wednesday, Trump's lawyers filed a

180
00:10:33,760 --> 00:10:39,120
Speaker 1: supplemental brief asking the Justices to look at Thompson's statements

181
00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:44,000
Speaker 1: that the committee was considering making a criminal referral against Trump,

182
00:10:44,320 --> 00:10:48,120
Speaker 1: arguing that it's outside the committee's purpose. Another case the

183
00:10:48,200 --> 00:10:51,440
Speaker 1: court is being asked to take, and this is unusual

184
00:10:51,720 --> 00:10:56,640
Speaker 1: in there was a landmark ruling about the sovereignty of

185
00:10:56,880 --> 00:11:02,000
Speaker 1: Indian tribes and now Oklahoma is asking the justices to

186
00:11:02,160 --> 00:11:06,480
Speaker 1: reverse that ruling they just handed down. That's exactly right, dude,

187
00:11:06,480 --> 00:11:08,640
Speaker 1: And I think that's why this is one of those

188
00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:11,760
Speaker 1: cases that court watchers are really keeping an eye off.

189
00:11:12,000 --> 00:11:14,679
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, this case was a very recent case

190
00:11:14,800 --> 00:11:18,040
Speaker 1: that came down five to four in favor of the tribe,

191
00:11:18,240 --> 00:11:22,000
Speaker 1: and Oklahoma is now citing what it does is chaos

192
00:11:22,040 --> 00:11:24,560
Speaker 1: following the ruling, and the state has asked the court

193
00:11:24,600 --> 00:11:28,200
Speaker 1: outright just the over rule that brand new case. And

194
00:11:28,400 --> 00:11:31,040
Speaker 1: it's a pretty significant ask given that, you know, the

195
00:11:31,080 --> 00:11:33,839
Speaker 1: state really made the same arguments in the first case,

196
00:11:33,920 --> 00:11:35,960
Speaker 1: but they didn't win the day. And I think the

197
00:11:36,080 --> 00:11:38,760
Speaker 1: ruling flipping the decision the other way. It's really cannot

198
00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:41,240
Speaker 1: be seen by many as an example of how the

199
00:11:41,320 --> 00:11:44,440
Speaker 1: court is really just another political actor and they're not

200
00:11:44,520 --> 00:11:47,720
Speaker 1: deciding these cases based on the law, but instead, you know,

201
00:11:47,760 --> 00:11:50,840
Speaker 1: based on their personal preferences, and that really anything is

202
00:11:51,000 --> 00:11:53,800
Speaker 1: up for grabs based on the makeup of the Court

203
00:11:53,840 --> 00:11:56,640
Speaker 1: at that time. So I will be watching how the

204
00:11:56,720 --> 00:11:59,360
Speaker 1: Justice is response to that. You know, we know if

205
00:11:59,360 --> 00:12:01,000
Speaker 1: this for the first time they were hearing the case,

206
00:12:01,040 --> 00:12:03,240
Speaker 1: it's likely that it would come down five to four

207
00:12:03,280 --> 00:12:05,559
Speaker 1: the other way. But are they going to consider the

208
00:12:05,640 --> 00:12:09,720
Speaker 1: potential questions about their legitimacy when deciding that the only

209
00:12:09,800 --> 00:12:13,520
Speaker 1: thing that's really changed is Justice Sammy Coney Barrett being

210
00:12:13,559 --> 00:12:17,080
Speaker 1: on the court, that's right. And so that's why I

211
00:12:17,120 --> 00:12:20,240
Speaker 1: think this is, like many indicates on the court stocket,

212
00:12:20,679 --> 00:12:23,120
Speaker 1: one of those cases that it's going to have implications

213
00:12:23,120 --> 00:12:26,680
Speaker 1: beyond just the merits, but really implications for the way

214
00:12:26,679 --> 00:12:29,920
Speaker 1: that the Court of operates and it's legitimacy going forward.

215
00:12:30,559 --> 00:12:34,880
Speaker 1: There are a pair of challenges involving affirmative action programs

216
00:12:34,920 --> 00:12:38,840
Speaker 1: at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina. The

217
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:43,000
Speaker 1: schools wanted trial. Will the Court want to add more

218
00:12:43,120 --> 00:12:47,960
Speaker 1: controversy to its donket by taking these cases? If we're

219
00:12:48,000 --> 00:12:50,360
Speaker 1: just looking at what the justices have said in the past,

220
00:12:50,520 --> 00:12:53,640
Speaker 1: this does seem like a case that a majority of

221
00:12:53,679 --> 00:12:55,600
Speaker 1: the Court would like to take on and would like

222
00:12:55,720 --> 00:12:59,240
Speaker 1: to say something about affirmative action and maybe pull it

223
00:12:59,240 --> 00:13:01,840
Speaker 1: back a little bit again. You know, as we've been

224
00:13:01,840 --> 00:13:04,240
Speaker 1: talking about this whole time, this is just such a

225
00:13:04,280 --> 00:13:07,600
Speaker 1: blockbuster case that the Justices might want to wait on

226
00:13:07,720 --> 00:13:09,760
Speaker 1: that case until they can kind of get the lay

227
00:13:09,760 --> 00:13:13,839
Speaker 1: of the landscape after these bombshell rulings come down on

228
00:13:13,880 --> 00:13:16,000
Speaker 1: the flip side. You know, if they're already doing all

229
00:13:16,000 --> 00:13:18,240
Speaker 1: these other things and it seems like they're going to

230
00:13:18,360 --> 00:13:21,720
Speaker 1: have implications for the midterm elections, why not just go

231
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:24,920
Speaker 1: ahead and all and lets the American electorate, you know,

232
00:13:25,160 --> 00:13:27,680
Speaker 1: go from there. But I don't really have a sense

233
00:13:27,679 --> 00:13:30,160
Speaker 1: of which way that's playing on the justices. But for

234
00:13:30,280 --> 00:13:33,679
Speaker 1: sure affirmative action is going to be a strategic grant

235
00:13:33,720 --> 00:13:37,080
Speaker 1: for the justices. But which way strategically it goes, I

236
00:13:37,160 --> 00:13:40,080
Speaker 1: don't now. One thing that is sure is you're going

237
00:13:40,120 --> 00:13:45,000
Speaker 1: to be very busy this year. Thanks so much, Kimberly.

238
00:13:45,400 --> 00:13:51,480
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Law. Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson. Former

239
00:13:51,520 --> 00:13:55,080
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump's too eldest children have been subpoenaed by

240
00:13:55,120 --> 00:13:58,760
Speaker 1: the New York Attorney General, who is investigating whether Trump's

241
00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:02,720
Speaker 1: real estate business manipulated the value of key assets for

242
00:14:02,840 --> 00:14:07,080
Speaker 1: tax and insurance purposes. Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

243
00:14:07,360 --> 00:14:10,000
Speaker 1: Filed a joint motion in New York State Court to

244
00:14:10,080 --> 00:14:14,360
Speaker 1: block the subpoenas, accusing New York Attorney General Letitia James

245
00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:18,320
Speaker 1: of making an unconstitutional attempt to get testimony from the

246
00:14:18,360 --> 00:14:22,400
Speaker 1: family members while they still face a separate criminal investigation.

247
00:14:23,000 --> 00:14:26,800
Speaker 1: Joining me as former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden, Michael tell

248
00:14:26,880 --> 00:14:31,080
Speaker 1: us a little bit about the age's investigation. So, beginning

249
00:14:31,120 --> 00:14:36,080
Speaker 1: in two thousand and nineteen, the Attorney General of the

250
00:14:36,120 --> 00:14:40,160
Speaker 1: State of New York has had a civil inquiry focused

251
00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:46,520
Speaker 1: on whether the Trump organization fraudulently inflated the value of

252
00:14:46,520 --> 00:14:50,800
Speaker 1: its assets to secure bank loans while at the same

253
00:14:50,840 --> 00:14:55,040
Speaker 1: time understating them when he had to pay taxes on

254
00:14:55,120 --> 00:14:59,680
Speaker 1: the same property. So her office now has this investigation

255
00:14:59,720 --> 00:15:05,480
Speaker 1: about whether this dual valuation is part of a civil

256
00:15:06,160 --> 00:15:09,920
Speaker 1: fraudulent scheme to deny New York. It's a tax revenue.

257
00:15:10,680 --> 00:15:14,440
Speaker 1: Why has it taken so long? It seems like something

258
00:15:14,520 --> 00:15:18,720
Speaker 1: like that. You know, you need the papers involved, and

259
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:22,640
Speaker 1: then you could do the calculations. Well, if you have

260
00:15:22,760 --> 00:15:26,080
Speaker 1: the papers and if you have the testimony of witnesses

261
00:15:26,120 --> 00:15:30,360
Speaker 1: to explain to you what those papers represent, then this

262
00:15:30,440 --> 00:15:35,480
Speaker 1: case could have moved quicker. But the Trump organization has

263
00:15:35,600 --> 00:15:40,600
Speaker 1: not cooperated. They've fought every subpoena and every effort to

264
00:15:40,640 --> 00:15:46,080
Speaker 1: obtain the information to make the evaluation. And therefore we

265
00:15:46,200 --> 00:15:49,400
Speaker 1: now are in year two of this case. So do

266
00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:54,240
Speaker 1: you know why she's subpoenaing Don Junior and Ivanka Trump. Well,

267
00:15:54,320 --> 00:15:58,840
Speaker 1: Don Junior and Ivanka Trump have been executives in the

268
00:15:58,920 --> 00:16:03,520
Speaker 1: Trump organised nation. When Donald Trump became president in the

269
00:16:03,560 --> 00:16:08,800
Speaker 1: United States, he turned over the business to his two children,

270
00:16:09,640 --> 00:16:13,320
Speaker 1: his three children, actually Eric as well, and each of

271
00:16:13,320 --> 00:16:18,520
Speaker 1: them therefore has knowledge of the company's operations and how

272
00:16:18,560 --> 00:16:23,080
Speaker 1: they valued things, and therefore their testimony is relevant to

273
00:16:23,880 --> 00:16:26,720
Speaker 1: the Attorney general's determination of whether or not this was

274
00:16:27,520 --> 00:16:33,080
Speaker 1: a fraud or this was appropriate business conduct. So now

275
00:16:33,160 --> 00:16:39,760
Speaker 1: they already deposed Eric Trump in October. There are reason

276
00:16:39,800 --> 00:16:44,120
Speaker 1: why he was deposed first or subpoenaed first. I don't know.

277
00:16:44,800 --> 00:16:49,640
Speaker 1: Eric has had a large role in the operation of

278
00:16:49,720 --> 00:16:53,760
Speaker 1: these companies, and uh, it may just simply be that

279
00:16:54,200 --> 00:16:56,560
Speaker 1: he was the first one that they wanted to speak to.

280
00:16:56,800 --> 00:17:00,720
Speaker 1: But I don't know why they chose the do they chose?

281
00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:03,360
Speaker 1: I know, though, that they believe that all three of

282
00:17:03,400 --> 00:17:06,680
Speaker 1: them have relevant testimony to answer the question of whether

283
00:17:06,720 --> 00:17:08,840
Speaker 1: this was a fraud or whether this was not a fraud.

284
00:17:09,600 --> 00:17:13,240
Speaker 1: The Trump's Don Junior Ivanka are asking a New York

285
00:17:13,320 --> 00:17:17,560
Speaker 1: State judge to block the subpoenas. What are their grounds

286
00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:22,480
Speaker 1: for doing that? What they say is that Miss James,

287
00:17:22,560 --> 00:17:27,840
Speaker 1: who is conducting a civil investigation, is improperly trying to

288
00:17:28,640 --> 00:17:31,840
Speaker 1: sidestep the grand jury process that would apply in a

289
00:17:31,840 --> 00:17:35,480
Speaker 1: criminal case. Meaning in a criminal case, if you brought

290
00:17:35,520 --> 00:17:38,600
Speaker 1: either Trump into the grand jury to take their testimony

291
00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:42,920
Speaker 1: under New York law, they would be immunized from prosecution

292
00:17:43,119 --> 00:17:46,240
Speaker 1: for their testimony, not so in a civil case. And

293
00:17:46,480 --> 00:17:49,439
Speaker 1: so what they're arguing is that really what she's trying

294
00:17:49,480 --> 00:17:53,040
Speaker 1: to do is making an in run around the limits

295
00:17:53,160 --> 00:17:56,520
Speaker 1: that the criminal investigators have because she's working with the

296
00:17:56,560 --> 00:18:00,320
Speaker 1: Manhattan District Attorney's Office, who has a parallel criminal test agation.

297
00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:03,119
Speaker 1: So what they're saying is essentially she's trying to with

298
00:18:03,280 --> 00:18:07,480
Speaker 1: bad motive bypass the restrictions of criminal investigations in order

299
00:18:07,520 --> 00:18:10,119
Speaker 1: to get the information through the civil process, which he

300
00:18:10,200 --> 00:18:13,440
Speaker 1: then will turn over to the Manhattan District Attorney's office

301
00:18:13,440 --> 00:18:15,920
Speaker 1: and they will use it with the criminal prosecution. So

302
00:18:16,160 --> 00:18:18,879
Speaker 1: do they have a point? If there's a criminal investigation

303
00:18:18,960 --> 00:18:23,679
Speaker 1: going on, wouldn't they be foolish to testify in a

304
00:18:23,760 --> 00:18:28,240
Speaker 1: civil deposition? Well, yes, possibly, depending on what they have

305
00:18:28,320 --> 00:18:32,080
Speaker 1: to say. But in orders them to prevail in this case,

306
00:18:32,920 --> 00:18:35,800
Speaker 1: what they'll have to do is prove that she is

307
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:41,320
Speaker 1: in fact abusing the civil process to gather evidence for

308
00:18:41,480 --> 00:18:43,560
Speaker 1: a criminal case. They'll have to have a basis to

309
00:18:43,960 --> 00:18:46,359
Speaker 1: prove the truth of that proposition, not just the bold

310
00:18:46,760 --> 00:18:49,639
Speaker 1: statement of their belief that this is the case. Because

311
00:18:49,880 --> 00:18:52,760
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, in a case called US versus Cordell,

312
00:18:53,280 --> 00:18:58,480
Speaker 1: has held that evidence obtained through civil discovery can be

313
00:18:58,600 --> 00:19:03,439
Speaker 1: used in a parallel criminal prosecution. There is there's notion

314
00:19:03,480 --> 00:19:07,400
Speaker 1: of parallel proceedings in the law where things which used

315
00:19:07,400 --> 00:19:11,479
Speaker 1: to be only civil or administrative are now both civil

316
00:19:11,520 --> 00:19:14,720
Speaker 1: and administrative and also criminal. And so the screaming Court

317
00:19:14,840 --> 00:19:18,960
Speaker 1: was asked to figure out whether or not this is appropriate,

318
00:19:19,080 --> 00:19:21,720
Speaker 1: and the Court held in Cordell and followed up with

319
00:19:21,960 --> 00:19:26,080
Speaker 1: other cases where they basically said, parallel proceedings are okay.

320
00:19:26,240 --> 00:19:28,879
Speaker 1: You just have to make sure that things are done properly,

321
00:19:29,200 --> 00:19:32,679
Speaker 1: and you have to measure the full sort of civil

322
00:19:32,720 --> 00:19:37,520
Speaker 1: discovery rights and civil discovery, the rule is full disclosure.

323
00:19:37,880 --> 00:19:40,399
Speaker 1: Everyone gets to know what everyone else is doing, no surprises.

324
00:19:40,760 --> 00:19:43,440
Speaker 1: In criminal it's much more restrictive. And so the course

325
00:19:43,480 --> 00:19:45,159
Speaker 1: that as long as you're not, you know, making this

326
00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:50,639
Speaker 1: improper end around, it's perfectly normal, uh for this to occur.

327
00:19:50,920 --> 00:19:53,639
Speaker 1: So they have to prove that it's it's an end around,

328
00:19:54,160 --> 00:19:56,320
Speaker 1: and then they have to figure out what they want

329
00:19:56,359 --> 00:19:58,359
Speaker 1: to do if they have these subpoenas, and they can

330
00:19:58,400 --> 00:20:00,960
Speaker 1: simply say, you know what, we're a ticket the Amendment

331
00:20:01,000 --> 00:20:04,439
Speaker 1: because this may jeopardize us in the criminal case, and

332
00:20:04,480 --> 00:20:08,600
Speaker 1: that's they're they're right, but they can't necessarily bring it

333
00:20:08,720 --> 00:20:12,800
Speaker 1: to a complete close. Do you know if Eric Trump

334
00:20:12,960 --> 00:20:15,600
Speaker 1: for his subpoena as well, do you know if he

335
00:20:15,760 --> 00:20:20,359
Speaker 1: used the same grounds. I don't know that he specifically

336
00:20:20,480 --> 00:20:23,560
Speaker 1: argued the end around theory that we've been discussing, but

337
00:20:23,640 --> 00:20:28,879
Speaker 1: he too fought the subpoena. Usually they fight these things

338
00:20:28,920 --> 00:20:33,600
Speaker 1: on them being overbroad and unnecessary. But in the end

339
00:20:33,680 --> 00:20:36,520
Speaker 1: he lost his case. And I think that in the end,

340
00:20:37,320 --> 00:20:41,840
Speaker 1: Ivanka and Donald Jr. Should lose their case. Not because

341
00:20:41,840 --> 00:20:43,959
Speaker 1: I have a political mode for saying should, but they

342
00:20:43,960 --> 00:20:47,720
Speaker 1: should on the basis of the law that governs parallel

343
00:20:47,960 --> 00:20:53,160
Speaker 1: proceedings and due process. Courts have generally ruled in parallel

344
00:20:53,320 --> 00:20:58,360
Speaker 1: suits that there isn't a due process violation and they

345
00:20:58,520 --> 00:21:03,840
Speaker 1: don't apply double jeopard um, but they do sometimes allow

346
00:21:03,960 --> 00:21:08,199
Speaker 1: for various remedies, such as a stay in the civil

347
00:21:08,320 --> 00:21:12,240
Speaker 1: proceeding or protective order in the civil proceeding until the

348
00:21:12,280 --> 00:21:15,960
Speaker 1: completion of the criminal case. So the Trumps may say

349
00:21:16,000 --> 00:21:21,040
Speaker 1: to the court, look, court, please stay the civil action

350
00:21:21,359 --> 00:21:24,360
Speaker 1: until the completion of the criminal action, and that might

351
00:21:24,480 --> 00:21:27,640
Speaker 1: be in a winning argument for them, or the court

352
00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:31,879
Speaker 1: might say, no, these things can run in parallel to

353
00:21:31,880 --> 00:21:35,239
Speaker 1: one another. We'll just make sure that the evidence is

354
00:21:35,359 --> 00:21:38,439
Speaker 1: used properly as it is supposed to be used in

355
00:21:38,800 --> 00:21:41,920
Speaker 1: the civil versus a criminal case. And if they were

356
00:21:42,280 --> 00:21:47,680
Speaker 1: witnesses before the grand jury, they would get transactional immunity. Correct.

357
00:21:48,160 --> 00:21:50,840
Speaker 1: That's their big argument. They're saying, Look, if you want

358
00:21:50,880 --> 00:21:54,560
Speaker 1: to hear from us about this, bring us into the

359
00:21:54,560 --> 00:21:59,560
Speaker 1: grand jury, give us immunity and we'll talk. But you

360
00:21:59,600 --> 00:22:03,560
Speaker 1: can't force us to talk in the civil case and

361
00:22:03,560 --> 00:22:06,480
Speaker 1: then use that evidence against us in a criminal case.

362
00:22:07,280 --> 00:22:11,040
Speaker 1: The Spreme court has said you can, um, but with

363
00:22:11,720 --> 00:22:16,159
Speaker 1: you know, qualifications to make sure that there isn't a

364
00:22:16,320 --> 00:22:21,240
Speaker 1: improper process that's in place, um, some subch refuge that

365
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:24,119
Speaker 1: the government is using to obtain evidence that they couldn't

366
00:22:24,160 --> 00:22:29,440
Speaker 1: otherwise properly obtain. So they attached to their papers tweets

367
00:22:29,520 --> 00:22:33,000
Speaker 1: that the New York A g Letitia James has made

368
00:22:33,080 --> 00:22:38,320
Speaker 1: in public statements to support their claim that she's operating

369
00:22:38,359 --> 00:22:42,720
Speaker 1: in a dual role. Here is that convincing at all? No,

370
00:22:42,920 --> 00:22:46,879
Speaker 1: because she is permitted to engage in a dual participate

371
00:22:46,960 --> 00:22:50,359
Speaker 1: in the dual process. What they're arguing, in some sense

372
00:22:50,720 --> 00:22:55,359
Speaker 1: is her motives are impure, that this case is a

373
00:22:55,520 --> 00:22:59,520
Speaker 1: political witch hunt, and therefore it should be brought to

374
00:22:59,640 --> 00:23:03,000
Speaker 1: a those So I think that they're really impugning her,

375
00:23:03,440 --> 00:23:07,280
Speaker 1: you know, sort of integrity, her intentions in this case

376
00:23:08,600 --> 00:23:10,720
Speaker 1: more than they are saying that you can't do these

377
00:23:10,760 --> 00:23:13,479
Speaker 1: things side by side. But they're saying she's They call

378
00:23:13,520 --> 00:23:16,960
Speaker 1: her all sorts of names, corrupt, attorney general and the

379
00:23:17,040 --> 00:23:20,480
Speaker 1: like because they say that this is all a witch hunt,

380
00:23:21,080 --> 00:23:24,840
Speaker 1: phrases that we've heard them use in other contexts. And

381
00:23:25,280 --> 00:23:29,080
Speaker 1: former President Trump had sued her last month along the

382
00:23:29,119 --> 00:23:34,000
Speaker 1: same lines exactly. Trump is trying to bring it in

383
00:23:34,119 --> 00:23:38,159
Speaker 1: to these this litigation by saying, essentially, this is a

384
00:23:38,160 --> 00:23:42,600
Speaker 1: political witch hunt, and um, it should be called to

385
00:23:42,760 --> 00:23:45,240
Speaker 1: an end, and courts, I think are going to be

386
00:23:45,960 --> 00:23:50,439
Speaker 1: very reluctant to do that. To impune the the integrity

387
00:23:50,480 --> 00:23:53,560
Speaker 1: of the government in such a way as to cause

388
00:23:53,640 --> 00:23:57,320
Speaker 1: the case to be brought to a end is I

389
00:23:57,359 --> 00:24:01,520
Speaker 1: think a very unlikely outcome. Yeah, So that's the question

390
00:24:01,560 --> 00:24:05,280
Speaker 1: I have because you know, as you talk about former

391
00:24:05,320 --> 00:24:09,720
Speaker 1: President Trump trying to delay other cases, for example, to

392
00:24:09,760 --> 00:24:14,119
Speaker 1: delay the January six Committee from getting his records. The

393
00:24:14,200 --> 00:24:17,720
Speaker 1: aim there is to delay it until the mid terms,

394
00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:20,760
Speaker 1: when likely the House will be turned over the Republicans

395
00:24:20,800 --> 00:24:25,240
Speaker 1: and the investigation will be terminated. But here there's there's

396
00:24:25,280 --> 00:24:28,560
Speaker 1: nothing like that. Any Attorney General New York is going

397
00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:32,920
Speaker 1: to continue this investigation. So how do the delay tactics

398
00:24:32,960 --> 00:24:36,240
Speaker 1: really help him in the end. They don't, and they shouldn't.

399
00:24:36,800 --> 00:24:41,879
Speaker 1: But that's still his method of operation. When anyone accuses

400
00:24:41,960 --> 00:24:45,560
Speaker 1: him in a in a legal case, what he does

401
00:24:46,040 --> 00:24:53,480
Speaker 1: is delay and fight back by attacking the integrity of

402
00:24:53,680 --> 00:24:56,639
Speaker 1: the lawyers who are for the government agency that's bringing

403
00:24:56,680 --> 00:25:01,439
Speaker 1: the case. This is just his standard method of operation.

404
00:25:01,960 --> 00:25:05,200
Speaker 1: So he doesn't you're exactly right that in New York,

405
00:25:05,200 --> 00:25:08,320
Speaker 1: because we saw this already in the Manhattan District Attorney's office.

406
00:25:09,800 --> 00:25:13,600
Speaker 1: Cyrus Vans, who started this investigation, has left office. He

407
00:25:13,680 --> 00:25:19,040
Speaker 1: has there's a successor ahead of the Manhattan District Attorney's office, right,

408
00:25:19,560 --> 00:25:23,520
Speaker 1: and uh, that person is proceeding with the case without

409
00:25:23,760 --> 00:25:26,679
Speaker 1: missing a beat. If Miss James, who was going to

410
00:25:26,760 --> 00:25:30,320
Speaker 1: run for governor but now no longer is if she

411
00:25:30,480 --> 00:25:35,119
Speaker 1: had one for governor, then her successor would pick up

412
00:25:35,119 --> 00:25:36,920
Speaker 1: this case and they would just move it right along.

413
00:25:36,960 --> 00:25:40,080
Speaker 1: So this is not like you're exactly right. This is

414
00:25:40,080 --> 00:25:43,320
Speaker 1: not like the Hill where he is trying to delay

415
00:25:43,400 --> 00:25:45,800
Speaker 1: that in the hopes that the Republicans take over the

416
00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:51,360
Speaker 1: House and kill the investigation. That's a very different endgame here.

417
00:25:51,400 --> 00:25:54,480
Speaker 1: There is no endgame that this will be able to

418
00:25:54,560 --> 00:25:57,320
Speaker 1: run out the clock. It's just this is what he does.

419
00:25:58,080 --> 00:26:01,520
Speaker 1: And it remind us he already to look the subpoena

420
00:26:01,640 --> 00:26:04,760
Speaker 1: for records from his accountants to the Supreme Court. Remind

421
00:26:04,840 --> 00:26:09,439
Speaker 1: us what happened there. He lost. He loses, essentially, he

422
00:26:09,520 --> 00:26:13,159
Speaker 1: loses all of these cases, all of these arguments that

423
00:26:13,240 --> 00:26:16,600
Speaker 1: he makes it the government is not entiled to this

424
00:26:16,760 --> 00:26:19,680
Speaker 1: or this is this is a case born of political

425
00:26:19,920 --> 00:26:22,840
Speaker 1: bad faith. But this is a witch hunt. All of

426
00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:26,679
Speaker 1: those cases for his tax records and the like, he

427
00:26:26,760 --> 00:26:32,400
Speaker 1: loses because they're not based in solid legal reasoning. They're

428
00:26:32,440 --> 00:26:38,480
Speaker 1: based in, you know, sort of wishful political outcome based thinking.

429
00:26:39,080 --> 00:26:42,679
Speaker 1: And so that's why I say, in this case, the

430
00:26:42,800 --> 00:26:47,760
Speaker 1: law favors Miss James being able to proceed, but the

431
00:26:47,840 --> 00:26:54,520
Speaker 1: court could entertain various protective styled orders to ensure that

432
00:26:54,600 --> 00:27:00,200
Speaker 1: the Trump's are not penalized for sitting for the old

433
00:27:00,200 --> 00:27:04,040
Speaker 1: deposition in their criminal case. Thanks for being on the show, Michael.

434
00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:08,119
Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Michael Selden and that's if in

435
00:27:08,160 --> 00:27:10,520
Speaker 1: the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can

436
00:27:10,520 --> 00:27:12,600
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news by listening to our

437
00:27:12,600 --> 00:27:16,840
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

438
00:27:17,040 --> 00:27:22,240
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law.

439
00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:25,159
Speaker 1: I'm Judie Bronso when you're listening to Bloomberg