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

2
00:00:11,320 --> 00:00:14,720
Speaker 1: It will be a legal test for sixteen top universities,

3
00:00:14,920 --> 00:00:18,680
Speaker 1: including Yale, Columbia and m I T. They're being sued

4
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:23,000
Speaker 1: for allegedly conspiring to manipulate the admission system to limit

5
00:00:23,040 --> 00:00:26,400
Speaker 1: financial aid for students and tilt the scales to favor

6
00:00:26,560 --> 00:00:30,400
Speaker 1: children of wealthy donors. Joining me as antitrust law expert

7
00:00:30,480 --> 00:00:33,479
Speaker 1: Harry First, a professor at n y U Law School,

8
00:00:33,840 --> 00:00:38,240
Speaker 1: Harry tell us the history of the antitrust exemption, because

9
00:00:38,320 --> 00:00:41,920
Speaker 1: this lawsuit depends on that, doesn't it. It depends first

10
00:00:41,960 --> 00:00:44,919
Speaker 1: of all in the anti trust exemption. YEA, so um,

11
00:00:45,040 --> 00:00:48,240
Speaker 1: background is good? You are right. So let's background a

12
00:00:48,320 --> 00:00:53,279
Speaker 1: little bit. Thirty years ago, Holy moly, thirty years ago,

13
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:59,960
Speaker 1: the Justice Department dude UM a group of IVY League

14
00:01:00,080 --> 00:01:05,600
Speaker 1: schools plus m I T for a practice called Overlap

15
00:01:05,800 --> 00:01:08,680
Speaker 1: Ivy League. It was the Ivy League Overlap group. And

16
00:01:08,800 --> 00:01:13,400
Speaker 1: basically what this was was an agreement among schools that

17
00:01:13,720 --> 00:01:17,959
Speaker 1: said they admitted students only on the basis of needs

18
00:01:18,280 --> 00:01:20,640
Speaker 1: to do two things. One the agreement was that they

19
00:01:20,720 --> 00:01:24,559
Speaker 1: would admit students only on the basis of needs and Two,

20
00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:28,600
Speaker 1: if they had students that overlapped, in other words, admitted

21
00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:32,840
Speaker 1: the same students, they had a meeting annual meetings at

22
00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:36,640
Speaker 1: which they would discuss these overlap students and make sure

23
00:01:36,720 --> 00:01:40,080
Speaker 1: that their offers were close to each other so that

24
00:01:40,240 --> 00:01:44,040
Speaker 1: the price that the student would would be charged in

25
00:01:44,160 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: the end tuition mined scholarship would be the same at

26
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:56,360
Speaker 1: both schools. So the overlap group met and this agreement

27
00:01:56,480 --> 00:02:00,240
Speaker 1: was done for two reasons. One was so that they

28
00:02:00,720 --> 00:02:05,120
Speaker 1: wouldn't compete by offering merit scholarships but only compete by

29
00:02:05,240 --> 00:02:10,600
Speaker 1: offering scholarships to students with needs. And two that they

30
00:02:10,639 --> 00:02:15,000
Speaker 1: wouldn't then compete for particular students that schools you know,

31
00:02:15,120 --> 00:02:20,000
Speaker 1: had mutually accepted that they wouldn't start a bidding more

32
00:02:20,400 --> 00:02:24,000
Speaker 1: for those students. Students would get basically the same offers

33
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:27,519
Speaker 1: from any school to which they were admitted. So the

34
00:02:27,720 --> 00:02:31,200
Speaker 1: Justice Department cloud students that that this was first day

35
00:02:31,240 --> 00:02:34,720
Speaker 1: price fixing or in the more colorful words that we

36
00:02:34,880 --> 00:02:39,320
Speaker 1: like to use, a cartel that ended up fixing prices

37
00:02:39,520 --> 00:02:44,799
Speaker 1: of tuitions, you know, by by preventing these universities from

38
00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:50,000
Speaker 1: competing on financial aid offers. Now, financial aid offers are

39
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:54,560
Speaker 1: basically discounts off of the sticker price. So you know,

40
00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:57,080
Speaker 1: if you compete more on that, of course, that means

41
00:02:57,160 --> 00:03:00,600
Speaker 1: that your price of your college tuition keeps going down.

42
00:03:00,800 --> 00:03:04,079
Speaker 1: You get a better deal. And this prevented that competition.

43
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:07,000
Speaker 1: One of the problems they had was that Stanford was

44
00:03:07,120 --> 00:03:11,680
Speaker 1: not in the group, and Stanford was competing for students

45
00:03:11,800 --> 00:03:15,000
Speaker 1: by giving money, you know, based on merit. There was

46
00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:19,359
Speaker 1: one example where Princeton started giving thousand dollar awards to

47
00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:22,679
Speaker 1: some of these people who have been admitted, and the

48
00:03:22,800 --> 00:03:26,000
Speaker 1: group castigated them for that. In any events, the Justice

49
00:03:26,080 --> 00:03:30,120
Speaker 1: Department sued these schools, and every school except for m

50
00:03:30,200 --> 00:03:33,160
Speaker 1: I T. Settled. So m I T chose to go

51
00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,800
Speaker 1: to trial. Tell us about the trial and m I

52
00:03:36,920 --> 00:03:41,920
Speaker 1: t s defense. The trial was in its day quite

53
00:03:41,960 --> 00:03:45,680
Speaker 1: a cause the lab actually because M I T argued

54
00:03:45,840 --> 00:03:49,280
Speaker 1: that this is done for social reasons that you know,

55
00:03:49,320 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 1: there was only a limited amount of financial aid that's

56
00:03:51,840 --> 00:03:55,080
Speaker 1: the school had, and they wanted to spread it around

57
00:03:55,400 --> 00:03:58,840
Speaker 1: as that they could and not start giving it to

58
00:03:58,920 --> 00:04:02,160
Speaker 1: people who can afford school, you know, who had the money,

59
00:04:02,720 --> 00:04:05,400
Speaker 1: and you know, not just give it to a few,

60
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:09,200
Speaker 1: So spread it around as much as possible, so that

61
00:04:09,440 --> 00:04:13,920
Speaker 1: classes could be socially diverse and balanced, and all of

62
00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:17,560
Speaker 1: the reasons why we don't want universities just training the

63
00:04:17,760 --> 00:04:21,280
Speaker 1: children of wealthy people. So that was in part their defense.

64
00:04:21,640 --> 00:04:25,880
Speaker 1: It's a controversial defense in any trust social reasons, and

65
00:04:26,160 --> 00:04:28,960
Speaker 1: there was a big controversy whether this was relevant at

66
00:04:29,000 --> 00:04:33,320
Speaker 1: the trial. The Justice Department one at trial with an

67
00:04:33,400 --> 00:04:36,360
Speaker 1: argument that that sort of defense is irrelevant, and the

68
00:04:36,440 --> 00:04:39,720
Speaker 1: case went up to the Court of Appeals. This was

69
00:04:39,839 --> 00:04:42,520
Speaker 1: argued on behalf of m I T was argued by

70
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:46,080
Speaker 1: Judge Leon hincol Bosom, Black judge who had just recently

71
00:04:46,560 --> 00:04:50,200
Speaker 1: resigned from the Court of Appeals. And there was a

72
00:04:50,480 --> 00:04:56,040
Speaker 1: view at the time that the Republican Justice Department was

73
00:04:56,160 --> 00:05:01,000
Speaker 1: doing this in part was either racially motivated or racially insensitive,

74
00:05:01,560 --> 00:05:07,080
Speaker 1: and that this agreement benefited minorities and plaques, and the

75
00:05:07,240 --> 00:05:10,839
Speaker 1: Justice Department thought that those sorts of benefits were improper.

76
00:05:11,920 --> 00:05:14,360
Speaker 1: I've never personally been convinced that this was the reason

77
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:17,640
Speaker 1: the case was brought, but some people thought that and

78
00:05:18,560 --> 00:05:21,120
Speaker 1: thinking about some argue and behalf of m I T,

79
00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: and the Court of Appeals returned the case to the

80
00:05:27,400 --> 00:05:32,160
Speaker 1: District Court for further proceedings. To flesh out this defense

81
00:05:32,320 --> 00:05:36,400
Speaker 1: that m I had raised, and then the case settled

82
00:05:36,960 --> 00:05:41,920
Speaker 1: and m I t ended up signing the same agreement

83
00:05:42,080 --> 00:05:46,480
Speaker 1: that the other universities had signed, which allows them to

84
00:05:46,800 --> 00:05:49,440
Speaker 1: exchange some information as long as they didn't agree on

85
00:05:49,560 --> 00:05:52,720
Speaker 1: price and particularly you know, the amount of financially to

86
00:05:52,839 --> 00:05:57,440
Speaker 1: particular students. And then the upshot of it was the

87
00:05:57,640 --> 00:06:02,360
Speaker 1: statute which is at the center of the litigation now,

88
00:06:03,360 --> 00:06:08,640
Speaker 1: the Need Based Education and Antitrust Protection Act, which Congress

89
00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:14,320
Speaker 1: past in the wake of this litigation. So again the

90
00:06:14,360 --> 00:06:19,680
Speaker 1: background is suit is brought. Any trust liability is certainly possible.

91
00:06:19,760 --> 00:06:22,520
Speaker 1: There's a question of whether it's you know, the social

92
00:06:22,600 --> 00:06:27,400
Speaker 1: benefits are benefits that can be considered in any trust case.

93
00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:32,200
Speaker 1: Cas is ultimately not fully resolved. Congress resolves it by

94
00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:37,200
Speaker 1: passing this exemption to the anti trust laws. So tell

95
00:06:37,279 --> 00:06:39,560
Speaker 1: us a little about that exemption. And it's supposed to

96
00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:43,440
Speaker 1: be only temporary, allowing universities to get together and agree

97
00:06:43,480 --> 00:06:46,360
Speaker 1: on a common methodology so long as the university is

98
00:06:46,400 --> 00:06:50,360
Speaker 1: admitted on the needs blind basis and the common methodology

99
00:06:50,480 --> 00:06:53,800
Speaker 1: to give scholarship aid on you know, a needs blind

100
00:06:54,000 --> 00:06:57,240
Speaker 1: basis as well, and they could adopt a common methodology

101
00:06:57,400 --> 00:06:59,880
Speaker 1: for trying to assess you know, how do you figure

102
00:07:00,040 --> 00:07:03,360
Speaker 1: whether someone has needs? Not an easy as anyone who

103
00:07:03,360 --> 00:07:06,920
Speaker 1: had to fulfill in those forms knows, not an easy assessment.

104
00:07:07,120 --> 00:07:10,200
Speaker 1: So Congress at least felt that there was some benefit

105
00:07:10,320 --> 00:07:13,160
Speaker 1: to having a common metric for this, and the statute

106
00:07:13,200 --> 00:07:16,840
Speaker 1: specifically says they could do this. They could exchange this information,

107
00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:20,800
Speaker 1: agree on this common methodology. So long as they didn't

108
00:07:20,800 --> 00:07:24,920
Speaker 1: agree on a price to a specific student, their agreement

109
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:27,040
Speaker 1: would be exempt in any trust book because the any

110
00:07:27,080 --> 00:07:31,600
Speaker 1: trust laws prohibit agreement joint actions in restraints of trade.

111
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:35,920
Speaker 1: So specifically, the agreement allowed them to agree to award

112
00:07:36,120 --> 00:07:39,040
Speaker 1: students all read the statue of that to award students

113
00:07:39,400 --> 00:07:42,840
Speaker 1: financial aid only on the basis of demonstrative financial needs,

114
00:07:43,080 --> 00:07:46,000
Speaker 1: to use common principles of analysis, and to use a

115
00:07:46,120 --> 00:07:50,640
Speaker 1: common aid application form. They somewhat narrow exemption. Five former

116
00:07:50,760 --> 00:07:54,480
Speaker 1: students are bringing this class action. What are their allegations?

117
00:07:55,000 --> 00:07:58,520
Speaker 1: So the claims are actually quite interesting, I think, So

118
00:07:58,680 --> 00:08:02,600
Speaker 1: stepping back at the point, there are two hurdles for plaintiffs.

119
00:08:02,840 --> 00:08:05,840
Speaker 1: One is the exemption itself. Of course, you know, whatever

120
00:08:06,240 --> 00:08:09,440
Speaker 1: these universities have done, do they fall within this statute

121
00:08:09,520 --> 00:08:12,640
Speaker 1: and within this exemption. The exemption, by the way, aspires

122
00:08:12,920 --> 00:08:16,240
Speaker 1: this year by its terms, but Congress always seems to

123
00:08:16,280 --> 00:08:18,960
Speaker 1: renew it, so who knows. So the first questions, they

124
00:08:19,000 --> 00:08:22,320
Speaker 1: fall within the exemption so that they have a complete

125
00:08:22,360 --> 00:08:25,800
Speaker 1: defense to any trust suit, and the plaintiffs seems to

126
00:08:25,960 --> 00:08:29,080
Speaker 1: be arguing, first of all, these universities have broken the

127
00:08:29,200 --> 00:08:32,719
Speaker 1: very first heart of the statute, which says that it

128
00:08:32,800 --> 00:08:37,960
Speaker 1: applies to institutions of higher education at which all students

129
00:08:38,080 --> 00:08:41,800
Speaker 1: admitted are admitted on a needs line basis. So basically

130
00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:45,360
Speaker 1: they say, give us a break. All of these schools

131
00:08:45,520 --> 00:08:49,120
Speaker 1: consider money when they're making the decisions, and they go

132
00:08:49,320 --> 00:08:52,640
Speaker 1: through this in some detail, and it's not pretty in

133
00:08:52,800 --> 00:08:55,040
Speaker 1: some ways. I mean, you know, it shows the extent

134
00:08:55,160 --> 00:08:58,480
Speaker 1: to which the schools actually do seem to consider the

135
00:08:58,640 --> 00:09:02,360
Speaker 1: means of applicants in deciding who they are going to

136
00:09:02,640 --> 00:09:06,319
Speaker 1: admit in certain circumstances, and do it on a, you know,

137
00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:10,240
Speaker 1: an institutionalized basis. So the argument would be, well, you

138
00:09:10,280 --> 00:09:13,559
Speaker 1: don't even qualify for the statute, first of all, because

139
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:17,080
Speaker 1: you are not an institution at which all students need

140
00:09:17,160 --> 00:09:19,600
Speaker 1: on basis. You know, people don't get in whether they

141
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:21,720
Speaker 1: have money or not. Some people get in because they

142
00:09:21,760 --> 00:09:24,240
Speaker 1: have money and you do it consciously, So that would

143
00:09:24,320 --> 00:09:27,719
Speaker 1: put the school outside of the exemption. And then the

144
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:30,200
Speaker 1: second question is going to be, Okay, you're outside the exemption,

145
00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:33,320
Speaker 1: but is it a violation of the anti trust Many

146
00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:36,040
Speaker 1: of the schools being sued offer some of the most

147
00:09:36,120 --> 00:09:40,200
Speaker 1: generous financial aid to low income students, and the schools

148
00:09:40,240 --> 00:09:44,760
Speaker 1: are permitted to collaborate on a common formula for financial aid.

149
00:09:45,360 --> 00:09:49,080
Speaker 1: So how would the plaintiffs go about proving an antitrust violation.

150
00:09:49,760 --> 00:09:52,679
Speaker 1: That's going to depend on proving that there was an

151
00:09:52,720 --> 00:09:57,559
Speaker 1: agreement on price. Now they're using a common formula. What

152
00:09:57,720 --> 00:10:00,559
Speaker 1: does that mean they're agreeing on price. Do they deviates

153
00:10:00,559 --> 00:10:03,440
Speaker 1: from the crisis? Will be the subject of some questions,

154
00:10:03,520 --> 00:10:07,560
Speaker 1: and then whether their justifications for what they do are

155
00:10:08,080 --> 00:10:11,880
Speaker 1: in the language of any trust pro competitive designed. In

156
00:10:12,000 --> 00:10:14,959
Speaker 1: the end, the schools might argue, this is designed so

157
00:10:15,080 --> 00:10:17,559
Speaker 1: that we can compete with other schools, you know, in

158
00:10:17,720 --> 00:10:20,360
Speaker 1: some way or another, and don't exhaust all our money

159
00:10:20,400 --> 00:10:23,880
Speaker 1: on certain applicants and don't get a diverse class. Those

160
00:10:23,920 --> 00:10:27,120
Speaker 1: sorts of so a lot of hurdles yet to go through.

161
00:10:27,320 --> 00:10:30,760
Speaker 1: By the basic story of we purport to be needs blind,

162
00:10:30,960 --> 00:10:34,439
Speaker 1: but we're privileged based. But will it be difficult to

163
00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:38,160
Speaker 1: prove the schools are not need blind. Well, you might

164
00:10:38,280 --> 00:10:40,959
Speaker 1: think so, but just from reading through the complaints, you

165
00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:43,839
Speaker 1: don't seem to have done a great job of concealing it.

166
00:10:44,040 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 1: So the best defendants to sue are those who think

167
00:10:47,080 --> 00:10:50,800
Speaker 1: they don't have any possible liability, so they don't try

168
00:10:50,880 --> 00:10:54,240
Speaker 1: to conceal things. And there's a lot of quotations in

169
00:10:54,400 --> 00:10:57,080
Speaker 1: the complaints of things that are on the public records,

170
00:10:57,320 --> 00:11:00,959
Speaker 1: and more to follow. Presumably it's early days, but is

171
00:11:01,040 --> 00:11:04,760
Speaker 1: this still an uphill battle for the plaintiffs. It's always

172
00:11:04,800 --> 00:11:08,920
Speaker 1: a fight for plaintiffs. Courts are not hugely embracing of

173
00:11:09,040 --> 00:11:13,640
Speaker 1: class actions, but price fixing is your clearest anti trust

174
00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:16,000
Speaker 1: violation in that sense, they don't have some of the

175
00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:20,160
Speaker 1: problems that other major anti trust litigation has on the

176
00:11:20,240 --> 00:11:22,800
Speaker 1: substance of law, but getting there may be a problem,

177
00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:25,600
Speaker 1: and it will be a battler going up against major

178
00:11:25,760 --> 00:11:30,319
Speaker 1: major institutions which heavy financial abilities to fund litigation. And

179
00:11:30,679 --> 00:11:32,800
Speaker 1: my guest in the end is this is not a

180
00:11:32,880 --> 00:11:35,160
Speaker 1: trial these universities want to have. They don't want to

181
00:11:35,240 --> 00:11:37,760
Speaker 1: have their officers on the stand admitting they say that,

182
00:11:38,000 --> 00:11:40,079
Speaker 1: you know, they want diverse classes, and then they go

183
00:11:40,200 --> 00:11:42,320
Speaker 1: out of their way to admit the children of the privilege.

184
00:11:42,400 --> 00:11:44,280
Speaker 1: I don't think that they want that. This is a

185
00:11:44,360 --> 00:11:47,640
Speaker 1: big thought. If the plaintiffs can get over certain legal hurdles,

186
00:11:47,679 --> 00:11:51,839
Speaker 1: and particularly the hurdle of the extension, Harry, will you

187
00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:56,559
Speaker 1: explain again the two steps of proof. So first have

188
00:11:56,720 --> 00:11:59,199
Speaker 1: to show its needs blind and then there's the rest

189
00:11:59,240 --> 00:12:02,440
Speaker 1: of the statue to see you know, if they complied

190
00:12:02,559 --> 00:12:06,720
Speaker 1: with it. Uh, you know which which has other requirements,

191
00:12:06,800 --> 00:12:10,760
Speaker 1: not just that it's needs line. But all they did

192
00:12:11,040 --> 00:12:16,319
Speaker 1: was use common principles um and never agreed on prices.

193
00:12:18,200 --> 00:12:21,400
Speaker 1: So um, you know, there may be more that happened

194
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:27,480
Speaker 1: then you know appears now in public m but that

195
00:12:27,640 --> 00:12:29,920
Speaker 1: you know that that just gets you past the exemption.

196
00:12:30,800 --> 00:12:34,920
Speaker 1: So the exemption just says you you have a complete defense.

197
00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:37,679
Speaker 1: If you don't have a complete defense, it doesn't mean

198
00:12:37,760 --> 00:12:42,079
Speaker 1: that you're liable. The next step is the point of

199
00:12:42,160 --> 00:12:47,199
Speaker 1: step to show that they agreed to six prices um.

200
00:12:47,480 --> 00:12:52,679
Speaker 1: And if they don't have explicit proof of you know,

201
00:12:53,920 --> 00:12:57,240
Speaker 1: agreement on exact prices, but agreement to use the formula.

202
00:12:57,800 --> 00:13:01,240
Speaker 1: That's a little more complicated under the law. So it

203
00:13:01,360 --> 00:13:05,560
Speaker 1: sounds like this is a for plaintiffs, a massive undertaking

204
00:13:05,679 --> 00:13:10,080
Speaker 1: that's going to require so much work before they even

205
00:13:10,280 --> 00:13:15,640
Speaker 1: get to the trial stage. So much discovery. Oh yes, um,

206
00:13:15,920 --> 00:13:19,679
Speaker 1: big cases are big efforts. Yes, you're you're right, Um,

207
00:13:20,080 --> 00:13:25,360
Speaker 1: it's not um, now we follow our motions to win. No,

208
00:13:25,640 --> 00:13:29,640
Speaker 1: they're gonna have to be discovery. There they're doing major

209
00:13:29,760 --> 00:13:34,719
Speaker 1: universities who you know are you know, they're powerful institutions

210
00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:44,880
Speaker 1: facing large potential liability. Uh, you know, who knows how

211
00:13:44,920 --> 00:13:48,959
Speaker 1: they'll react exactly. So yeah, it's um at least on

212
00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:54,280
Speaker 1: its face, it is certainly a big undertaking. And I

213
00:13:54,400 --> 00:13:59,040
Speaker 1: assume that this type of class action is being funded

214
00:13:59,720 --> 00:14:02,960
Speaker 1: by the plaintiffs attorneys who expect to pay out at

215
00:14:03,000 --> 00:14:07,920
Speaker 1: the other end. Yeah, I mean, this is the Norman

216
00:14:08,120 --> 00:14:14,320
Speaker 1: in plaintiffs class actions. Um, the money is not fronted

217
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:17,959
Speaker 1: by the client usually, particularly if it's you know, on

218
00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:22,160
Speaker 1: behalf of end user consumers, which these are. These are

219
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:26,120
Speaker 1: the students that they're doing on behalf of. There are

220
00:14:26,120 --> 00:14:29,680
Speaker 1: a lot of students you know, over the years from

221
00:14:29,720 --> 00:14:33,800
Speaker 1: these colleges, so they're asking for the you know, um half.

222
00:14:33,880 --> 00:14:37,320
Speaker 1: This as a class action. Uh, and they're asking for

223
00:14:37,400 --> 00:14:43,200
Speaker 1: a jury trial. Um, you know, so yes, the cost

224
00:14:43,520 --> 00:14:47,120
Speaker 1: the cost of this upfront are borne by the lawyers

225
00:14:47,640 --> 00:14:53,280
Speaker 1: who are representing the class members. So plants class action lawyers.

226
00:14:54,080 --> 00:14:59,600
Speaker 1: Um do not undertake these kinds of cases lightly. Um,

227
00:15:00,200 --> 00:15:04,120
Speaker 1: I think you're you know, your question implies, you know,

228
00:15:04,320 --> 00:15:08,520
Speaker 1: they they're pretty hardheaded about the kinds of cases they take,

229
00:15:09,280 --> 00:15:13,680
Speaker 1: and you know, the view of the possibilities of winning.

230
00:15:14,720 --> 00:15:18,040
Speaker 1: But they don't always win. But yeah, they don't file

231
00:15:18,120 --> 00:15:21,320
Speaker 1: triple its cases. Does the suit claim that nine of

232
00:15:21,400 --> 00:15:25,840
Speaker 1: the schools are not actually need blind but they're all guilty.

233
00:15:26,680 --> 00:15:29,960
Speaker 1: There are two groups, as I read it, Some they're

234
00:15:30,120 --> 00:15:33,040
Speaker 1: they seem to be pretty sure about and some they're

235
00:15:33,160 --> 00:15:36,240
Speaker 1: not sure whether their needs blind or not, but have

236
00:15:36,360 --> 00:15:38,520
Speaker 1: been part of the group, so they say they're really

237
00:15:38,640 --> 00:15:42,000
Speaker 1: part of the conspiracy. Well, first of all, discovery makes

238
00:15:42,600 --> 00:15:47,280
Speaker 1: may surmount this question, because presumably they'll find out more

239
00:15:47,360 --> 00:15:50,960
Speaker 1: about the admission processes at those other schools to see

240
00:15:51,000 --> 00:15:53,800
Speaker 1: whether they are needs blind. But if they're not, the

241
00:15:53,960 --> 00:15:57,560
Speaker 1: question whether some of the members can use the exemption

242
00:15:57,680 --> 00:16:02,560
Speaker 1: and some cannot is an interesting one. So I don't

243
00:16:02,600 --> 00:16:07,200
Speaker 1: really have a direct answer for that. And conspiracies. Normally,

244
00:16:07,760 --> 00:16:11,720
Speaker 1: every party of the conspiracy is liable for the accident

245
00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:14,760
Speaker 1: of their co conspirators, but this isn't quite that. The

246
00:16:14,880 --> 00:16:18,640
Speaker 1: question is, you know, who's incitled to the exemption? So

247
00:16:19,200 --> 00:16:21,960
Speaker 1: it may be that they won't be able to sue

248
00:16:22,120 --> 00:16:26,080
Speaker 1: all of these descendants, or maybe there are other reasons

249
00:16:26,160 --> 00:16:29,320
Speaker 1: why they won't be entitled to the exemptions. Does that

250
00:16:29,560 --> 00:16:34,520
Speaker 1: surprise you that you have these premier institutions that they

251
00:16:34,560 --> 00:16:42,360
Speaker 1: don't have antitrust advisors making sure they don't make missteps. No, UM,

252
00:16:43,560 --> 00:16:45,440
Speaker 1: I that's a hard question for me to answer. I

253
00:16:45,560 --> 00:16:49,520
Speaker 1: don't really know, UM, the extent to which these universities,

254
00:16:49,600 --> 00:16:54,400
Speaker 1: with their outside council include UM anti trust advice, so

255
00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:57,640
Speaker 1: I really can't I can't be sure of that. You know,

256
00:16:57,880 --> 00:17:02,280
Speaker 1: in in part out of these universities don't quite consider

257
00:17:02,360 --> 00:17:07,479
Speaker 1: themselves businesses in the way businesses do, so that they

258
00:17:07,600 --> 00:17:11,119
Speaker 1: might not pay the same attention to any trust issues

259
00:17:11,280 --> 00:17:15,320
Speaker 1: that business he manages the business firms do wouldn't surprise

260
00:17:15,440 --> 00:17:21,240
Speaker 1: me and UM. But other than that, UM, hubrits from

261
00:17:21,280 --> 00:17:25,639
Speaker 1: major institutions should never be surprising, So maybe some of that,

262
00:17:26,080 --> 00:17:28,800
Speaker 1: Thanks Harry, that's Professor Harry First of m y U

263
00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:32,680
Speaker 1: Law School. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear it

264
00:17:32,720 --> 00:17:35,639
Speaker 1: appeal from a football coach who lost his job at

265
00:17:35,680 --> 00:17:39,560
Speaker 1: a public high school in Washington State after repeatedly praying

266
00:17:39,640 --> 00:17:42,760
Speaker 1: with his players on the fifty yard line after games.

267
00:17:43,480 --> 00:17:46,960
Speaker 1: The case gives the courts conservative majority a new chance

268
00:17:47,080 --> 00:17:51,159
Speaker 1: to bolster individual religious rights and relax the separation of

269
00:17:51,280 --> 00:17:54,680
Speaker 1: church and state. Joining me is Caroline Malla Corbin, a

270
00:17:54,760 --> 00:17:58,160
Speaker 1: professor at the University of Miami Law School. So tell

271
00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:03,200
Speaker 1: us about coach Joseph Keny. So basically what happened was

272
00:18:03,520 --> 00:18:07,439
Speaker 1: the coach got into the habit of praying out loud

273
00:18:07,760 --> 00:18:12,560
Speaker 1: immediately after football game in the middle of the field,

274
00:18:12,800 --> 00:18:15,920
Speaker 1: surrounded by his students and the other team, and with

275
00:18:16,040 --> 00:18:20,399
Speaker 1: the crowd still there. And this public school worried about

276
00:18:20,600 --> 00:18:25,200
Speaker 1: an establishment clause. Suit asked him to stop, and they said,

277
00:18:25,920 --> 00:18:29,800
Speaker 1: you can pray quietly on the sideline, we can find

278
00:18:29,880 --> 00:18:32,560
Speaker 1: you with spot, or if it's really important for you

279
00:18:32,760 --> 00:18:36,359
Speaker 1: to pray at the fifty yards line, please wait until

280
00:18:36,400 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 1: the field is empty. So they tried to accommodate his

281
00:18:39,760 --> 00:18:46,760
Speaker 1: religious practices, but he insisted on praying publicly in front

282
00:18:46,800 --> 00:18:50,040
Speaker 1: of everybody. When the school refused. He brought a lawsuit,

283
00:18:50,800 --> 00:18:53,400
Speaker 1: and some of the students said some of the players

284
00:18:53,520 --> 00:18:58,440
Speaker 1: said they felt pressured to pray even though they didn't

285
00:18:58,480 --> 00:19:02,320
Speaker 1: want to, and some of them were as absolutely. There

286
00:19:02,480 --> 00:19:06,280
Speaker 1: was one student, an atheist student who had no interest

287
00:19:06,400 --> 00:19:09,320
Speaker 1: in praying, but he was worried that if he did not,

288
00:19:10,400 --> 00:19:13,200
Speaker 1: then the coach would punish him by giving him less

289
00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:17,600
Speaker 1: playing time. So one of the reasons why there are

290
00:19:17,840 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 1: Establishment clause protections in places like public school is to

291
00:19:22,160 --> 00:19:27,520
Speaker 1: prevent exactly that, the government pressuring others to violate their

292
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:33,000
Speaker 1: conscience and feeling forced to participate in religious exercises against

293
00:19:33,080 --> 00:19:36,320
Speaker 1: their will. So tell us what the Ninth Circuits said

294
00:19:36,400 --> 00:19:39,960
Speaker 1: in turning down his appeal. So he thought both a

295
00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:44,480
Speaker 1: free speech claim and a free exercise claim. So he

296
00:19:45,000 --> 00:19:49,160
Speaker 1: argued that being denied the opportunity to pray in front

297
00:19:49,200 --> 00:19:52,000
Speaker 1: of the students, in front of the crowds, violated both

298
00:19:52,080 --> 00:19:55,040
Speaker 1: his speech rights and religious rights, and the Ninth Circuit

299
00:19:55,119 --> 00:19:59,240
Speaker 1: rejected that based on the Establishment clause. As I said,

300
00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:03,040
Speaker 1: the establishment clause, it's the one that requires some separation

301
00:20:03,200 --> 00:20:07,560
Speaker 1: between church and state. And one arena where it's still

302
00:20:07,840 --> 00:20:11,680
Speaker 1: pretty vital is in the public schools to make sure

303
00:20:11,960 --> 00:20:15,119
Speaker 1: that the state, the school, or people who work for

304
00:20:15,200 --> 00:20:22,680
Speaker 1: the school don't force students into uncomfortable religious exercises. And

305
00:20:23,080 --> 00:20:26,840
Speaker 1: the school said, if we allowed you to continue, and

306
00:20:26,960 --> 00:20:30,160
Speaker 1: the court agreed, if we allowed you to continue these prayers,

307
00:20:30,880 --> 00:20:33,920
Speaker 1: you would be basically violating the Establishment clause. And so

308
00:20:34,119 --> 00:20:38,479
Speaker 1: that is a compelling reason for the government to limit

309
00:20:38,880 --> 00:20:42,920
Speaker 1: your own free exercise. This is the second time he

310
00:20:43,080 --> 00:20:47,840
Speaker 1: appealed to the Supreme Court. Certainly he's getting another bite

311
00:20:47,880 --> 00:20:51,040
Speaker 1: at the apple. And the difference now is we have

312
00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:56,959
Speaker 1: a much more conservative court that seems like they may

313
00:20:57,040 --> 00:21:01,960
Speaker 1: be more sympathetic to his claim, and so that maybe

314
00:21:02,040 --> 00:21:06,640
Speaker 1: the reason why they granted hurts last time. Justice Samuel

315
00:21:06,640 --> 00:21:11,520
Speaker 1: Alito said the Ninth Circuit ruling was quote troubling. What

316
00:21:11,760 --> 00:21:16,560
Speaker 1: was the last case the Supreme Court decided involving public prayer?

317
00:21:16,640 --> 00:21:22,000
Speaker 1: Do you recall, well, there is public prayer outside the

318
00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:27,280
Speaker 1: school context and public prayer inside the school context. And ironically,

319
00:21:27,359 --> 00:21:32,800
Speaker 1: the last public prayer at schools also involved football games.

320
00:21:34,080 --> 00:21:36,840
Speaker 1: And in that case, there had been a school with

321
00:21:36,920 --> 00:21:40,360
Speaker 1: a long history of selecting a student to give prayers

322
00:21:40,440 --> 00:21:43,760
Speaker 1: at school. And when the school district was told that

323
00:21:44,840 --> 00:21:48,320
Speaker 1: the school sponsoring a student to say prayers violated the

324
00:21:48,520 --> 00:21:54,040
Speaker 1: establishment clause. They change their program to allow a students

325
00:21:54,080 --> 00:21:57,160
Speaker 1: to be elected and to give some kind of benediction.

326
00:21:57,840 --> 00:22:01,200
Speaker 1: So thought they had sort of dissociate aided themselves from

327
00:22:01,280 --> 00:22:04,880
Speaker 1: the prayer. But in the end all this, the students

328
00:22:05,000 --> 00:22:08,760
Speaker 1: chosen would continue to give prayers. And someone said, this

329
00:22:09,000 --> 00:22:13,720
Speaker 1: is still the school sponsoring someone giving Christian prayers and

330
00:22:13,920 --> 00:22:18,600
Speaker 1: violation of the establishment clause. And the Supreme Court agreed.

331
00:22:19,000 --> 00:22:23,359
Speaker 1: It said the student was still closely associated with the

332
00:22:23,480 --> 00:22:27,080
Speaker 1: school such that the prayer could be attributed to the school.

333
00:22:27,640 --> 00:22:29,800
Speaker 1: And again school should not be in the business but

334
00:22:29,920 --> 00:22:34,080
Speaker 1: praying that violates the establishment clause. Because there is so

335
00:22:34,240 --> 00:22:37,879
Speaker 1: much coercion on students, right. Not only are students required

336
00:22:38,000 --> 00:22:40,600
Speaker 1: to be at school, are required to go to school

337
00:22:40,640 --> 00:22:43,440
Speaker 1: events like football games if you're a band member of

338
00:22:43,480 --> 00:22:47,480
Speaker 1: football player. But students are young and impressionable, and they're

339
00:22:47,560 --> 00:22:50,720
Speaker 1: very susceptible to peer pressure, and all these reasons really

340
00:22:50,920 --> 00:22:55,320
Speaker 1: creates a lot of pressure on students to conform, and

341
00:22:56,119 --> 00:22:58,959
Speaker 1: with the case of prayer, conform in ways that might

342
00:22:59,119 --> 00:23:02,480
Speaker 1: violate their own religious belief And so in that lack case,

343
00:23:02,560 --> 00:23:07,320
Speaker 1: the Court was very protective of students in school and

344
00:23:07,720 --> 00:23:13,040
Speaker 1: really insisted that the school cannot sponsor prayers or school

345
00:23:13,080 --> 00:23:16,880
Speaker 1: officials should not be giving prayers, that it clearly violated

346
00:23:16,920 --> 00:23:20,680
Speaker 1: the Establishment Clause. This means that for Justices want to

347
00:23:20,760 --> 00:23:24,399
Speaker 1: hear this case perhaps more. Does it seem like they

348
00:23:24,440 --> 00:23:27,680
Speaker 1: would be only taking this case in order to reverse

349
00:23:27,760 --> 00:23:32,840
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit. Unfortunately, I fear that might be the case.

350
00:23:33,240 --> 00:23:39,760
Speaker 1: This Supreme Court has been steadily eroding, if not eviscerating

351
00:23:40,359 --> 00:23:45,359
Speaker 1: Establishment Clause protections. The one area where they still survived

352
00:23:46,000 --> 00:23:49,200
Speaker 1: was in the school context, and I fear they took

353
00:23:49,359 --> 00:23:54,000
Speaker 1: this case as a vehicle for eliminating those strong Establishment

354
00:23:54,040 --> 00:23:58,080
Speaker 1: Clause protections in public schools as well. This case seems

355
00:23:58,520 --> 00:24:03,359
Speaker 1: rather blatant because of the pressure on the students to pray,

356
00:24:03,440 --> 00:24:06,440
Speaker 1: and because he was making it into an event. So

357
00:24:06,800 --> 00:24:11,240
Speaker 1: if they decide that this was within his rights, what's

358
00:24:11,359 --> 00:24:16,040
Speaker 1: left exactly and under existing law, this should have been

359
00:24:16,280 --> 00:24:20,840
Speaker 1: a very easy case and he should lose, which he

360
00:24:20,920 --> 00:24:24,080
Speaker 1: did in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, And so

361
00:24:24,560 --> 00:24:28,280
Speaker 1: it is worrisome that the Supreme Court has decided to

362
00:24:28,440 --> 00:24:32,440
Speaker 1: take this case. Now. This case also involves speech as

363
00:24:32,520 --> 00:24:38,800
Speaker 1: well as religion. So maybe they're thinking about clarifying the

364
00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:42,639
Speaker 1: speech issue because he also bought a free speech claim,

365
00:24:42,720 --> 00:24:46,399
Speaker 1: and his free speech claim is complicated by the fact

366
00:24:46,520 --> 00:24:52,280
Speaker 1: that the free speech rights of public officials are much

367
00:24:52,359 --> 00:24:56,199
Speaker 1: more limited when they're on their job. So maybe they

368
00:24:56,280 --> 00:24:59,040
Speaker 1: want to rule based on free speech rather than free exercise.

369
00:24:59,160 --> 00:25:02,440
Speaker 1: I don't know. Today the court did decide not to

370
00:25:02,600 --> 00:25:07,480
Speaker 1: take a religion case involving who gets to decide who's

371
00:25:07,520 --> 00:25:11,560
Speaker 1: a minister? For tax purposes, yeah, I think they get

372
00:25:11,640 --> 00:25:17,199
Speaker 1: a special benefit for ministers, special tax release for ministers.

373
00:25:17,800 --> 00:25:20,960
Speaker 1: And of course the question there is who counts as

374
00:25:21,000 --> 00:25:25,119
Speaker 1: a minister, and that actually also involves the establishment clause

375
00:25:25,560 --> 00:25:27,879
Speaker 1: in that the secular court should not be in the

376
00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:30,399
Speaker 1: business of deciding who's a minister or not. On the

377
00:25:30,520 --> 00:25:35,040
Speaker 1: one hand, right if you don't have the court making

378
00:25:35,160 --> 00:25:38,439
Speaker 1: some determinations about who is or who is not a minister,

379
00:25:38,680 --> 00:25:42,159
Speaker 1: a church can declare everybody as a minister. On the

380
00:25:42,280 --> 00:25:48,560
Speaker 1: other hand, if the court does decide make determinations, they

381
00:25:48,640 --> 00:25:52,360
Speaker 1: may become entangled in religious theology in a way that's

382
00:25:52,400 --> 00:25:56,520
Speaker 1: not appropriate. And so there is a real question about

383
00:25:56,920 --> 00:25:59,720
Speaker 1: how the decision about who's a minister or not gets

384
00:25:59,800 --> 00:26:04,200
Speaker 1: made aid, but they turned that down. But Justice scur

385
00:26:04,280 --> 00:26:09,119
Speaker 1: Such dissented from that. He said that bureaucratic efforts to

386
00:26:09,240 --> 00:26:13,600
Speaker 1: subject religious beliefs to verification have no place in a

387
00:26:13,760 --> 00:26:18,159
Speaker 1: free country. It seems that in every case in recent years,

388
00:26:18,280 --> 00:26:23,160
Speaker 1: this Court has been bolstering and individuals religious rights over

389
00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:28,080
Speaker 1: other rights, for example, gay rights or reproductive rights. The

390
00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:35,040
Speaker 1: Court has been very sympathetic two claims of religious discrimination,

391
00:26:35,359 --> 00:26:38,400
Speaker 1: and so much so that I really think they're emboldening

392
00:26:38,560 --> 00:26:42,840
Speaker 1: people to make claims of religious discrimination that would be

393
00:26:43,160 --> 00:26:48,440
Speaker 1: considered utterly outlandish in earlier times. Like the coaches case.

394
00:26:48,720 --> 00:26:52,640
Speaker 1: He's so clearly a school representative, and he was given

395
00:26:52,760 --> 00:26:57,280
Speaker 1: so many other options in which to honor his own

396
00:26:57,359 --> 00:27:04,240
Speaker 1: belief that his assistance I'm praying out loud with your

397
00:27:04,320 --> 00:27:08,040
Speaker 1: students and the other team in front of everybody, does

398
00:27:08,240 --> 00:27:11,920
Speaker 1: seem like he is really asking for a lot and

399
00:27:12,400 --> 00:27:16,600
Speaker 1: asking perhaps not in vain. Has there been another court

400
00:27:16,680 --> 00:27:21,040
Speaker 1: that you can recall in our history that was so

401
00:27:21,720 --> 00:27:26,400
Speaker 1: let's say, protective of religious rights. I can only speak

402
00:27:26,440 --> 00:27:29,040
Speaker 1: to modern courts because I think if you'd go far

403
00:27:29,240 --> 00:27:32,119
Speaker 1: back enough, I mean, it hasn't been so long that

404
00:27:32,240 --> 00:27:34,960
Speaker 1: we've even been up in the religion clauses to the

405
00:27:35,040 --> 00:27:39,960
Speaker 1: States and really had them active. But certainly, as long

406
00:27:40,040 --> 00:27:43,400
Speaker 1: as I've been keeping my eye on these things, there

407
00:27:43,440 --> 00:27:48,240
Speaker 1: has never been a court so willing to privilege religion,

408
00:27:49,280 --> 00:27:52,440
Speaker 1: the religion of some even over others. So it's not

409
00:27:52,600 --> 00:27:57,400
Speaker 1: just religion over reproductive rights, religion over lgbt Q rights,

410
00:27:58,000 --> 00:28:02,560
Speaker 1: religion over establishment cause, but the religion of this coach

411
00:28:03,280 --> 00:28:05,960
Speaker 1: over the religion of others. Because again it's not just

412
00:28:06,160 --> 00:28:10,280
Speaker 1: the coaches rights that issues, it's also the student's religious

413
00:28:10,359 --> 00:28:13,880
Speaker 1: rights at issues, because it's the violation of their religious

414
00:28:13,960 --> 00:28:18,640
Speaker 1: rights too to be forced to participate. So I think

415
00:28:18,720 --> 00:28:25,800
Speaker 1: this court is unusually receptive to Christian religious claims of discrimination.

416
00:28:26,480 --> 00:28:29,320
Speaker 1: And in the case from Maine that's before them, it

417
00:28:29,440 --> 00:28:33,280
Speaker 1: seems that they're also going towards the use of public

418
00:28:33,400 --> 00:28:38,480
Speaker 1: dollars for religious schools. Exactly. It used to be the

419
00:28:38,600 --> 00:28:43,560
Speaker 1: case when you were talking about government funding and religious schools,

420
00:28:43,880 --> 00:28:47,600
Speaker 1: the question was would it violate the establishment clause because

421
00:28:47,880 --> 00:28:54,000
Speaker 1: historically the government was was not supposed to directly aid religion.

422
00:28:54,360 --> 00:28:58,040
Speaker 1: That's part of what the establishment clause forbid. But this

423
00:28:58,160 --> 00:29:02,600
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has so turnal law upside down that they

424
00:29:02,720 --> 00:29:06,080
Speaker 1: now have held that it violates the free exercise clause

425
00:29:06,240 --> 00:29:09,640
Speaker 1: if the government doesn't give money to religious schools, and

426
00:29:09,800 --> 00:29:13,040
Speaker 1: let's be honest, the main beneficiaries will be Christian schools.

427
00:29:13,560 --> 00:29:16,080
Speaker 1: So I think it's important to note that the religion

428
00:29:16,280 --> 00:29:21,520
Speaker 1: that benefits is not religion large, it's mostly the majority

429
00:29:21,600 --> 00:29:25,720
Speaker 1: religion in this country, which is Christianity. Really, we should

430
00:29:25,760 --> 00:29:29,920
Speaker 1: be focusing much more on religious minorities and how the

431
00:29:30,040 --> 00:29:35,120
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decisions are affecting them, because, you know, imagine

432
00:29:35,120 --> 00:29:37,480
Speaker 1: all the students on the team who are not Christians,

433
00:29:37,800 --> 00:29:40,040
Speaker 1: not just the Athean students, but the Jewish students or

434
00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:43,280
Speaker 1: the Buddhist situdent or other students whose beliefs don't align

435
00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:46,360
Speaker 1: with the coaches. Imagine how they feel each and every

436
00:29:46,440 --> 00:29:49,840
Speaker 1: time their coach has a prayer before the game and

437
00:29:49,920 --> 00:29:53,040
Speaker 1: then has prayers at the game, with the whole school

438
00:29:53,120 --> 00:29:56,840
Speaker 1: district watching, how do they feel. One of the interesting

439
00:29:57,000 --> 00:30:01,040
Speaker 1: twists in this case is that there is a secular

440
00:30:01,120 --> 00:30:04,920
Speaker 1: group called the Satanic Temple who don't actually worship Satan,

441
00:30:05,000 --> 00:30:08,520
Speaker 1: they just feel strongly about secular values. When they heard

442
00:30:08,560 --> 00:30:11,880
Speaker 1: about the Christian prayers occurring on the field, they made

443
00:30:11,920 --> 00:30:14,520
Speaker 1: an argument, well, if you're allowing prayers on the field,

444
00:30:14,720 --> 00:30:17,560
Speaker 1: we two would like to participate, and we two would

445
00:30:17,600 --> 00:30:20,120
Speaker 1: like to give prayers on the field. If you're gonna

446
00:30:20,160 --> 00:30:23,840
Speaker 1: have prayers, you should allow prayers tomorrow. Religion and part

447
00:30:23,920 --> 00:30:26,800
Speaker 1: of the school's responsive coaches. If we allow you to

448
00:30:26,920 --> 00:30:30,200
Speaker 1: have prayers and not allow them because they didn't, it's

449
00:30:30,240 --> 00:30:34,160
Speaker 1: gonna look like the school is endorcing Christianity. And again

450
00:30:34,280 --> 00:30:36,960
Speaker 1: that is something the establishment clause is the post of bar,

451
00:30:37,360 --> 00:30:40,200
Speaker 1: so there really was an actual issue with religious minorities

452
00:30:40,320 --> 00:30:44,720
Speaker 1: in this case. Thanks Caroline. That's Caroline malac Corbin of

453
00:30:44,800 --> 00:30:47,920
Speaker 1: the University of Miami Law School. And that's it for

454
00:30:48,000 --> 00:30:50,440
Speaker 1: the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you could

455
00:30:50,440 --> 00:30:53,240
Speaker 1: always at the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

456
00:30:53,480 --> 00:30:56,960
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and www

457
00:30:57,200 --> 00:31:01,120
Speaker 1: dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law. I'm due

458
00:31:01,160 --> 00:31:07,040
Speaker 1: to Grosso and you're listening to Lubergh