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

2
00:00:09,360 --> 00:00:12,760
Speaker 1: Justice Stephen Brier, the leader of the Court's liberal justices,

3
00:00:13,039 --> 00:00:16,079
Speaker 1: will retire after more than twenty five years on the

4
00:00:16,120 --> 00:00:20,040
Speaker 1: bench today. Justice Priory Houns is his intention to step

5
00:00:20,079 --> 00:00:23,840
Speaker 1: down from active service after four decades. Four decades on

6
00:00:23,880 --> 00:00:26,639
Speaker 1: the federal Branson twenty eight years on the United States

7
00:00:26,680 --> 00:00:30,120
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. His legacy includes his work as a leading

8
00:00:30,200 --> 00:00:33,760
Speaker 1: scholar and jurist and administrative law, bringing his brilliance to

9
00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:37,680
Speaker 1: bear to make government run more efficiently and effectively. It

10
00:00:37,720 --> 00:00:41,360
Speaker 1: includes his stature as a beacon of wisdom on our

11
00:00:41,400 --> 00:00:45,200
Speaker 1: constitution and what it means. And through it all, Justice

12
00:00:45,200 --> 00:00:49,080
Speaker 1: Priors worked tirelessly to give faith to the notion that

13
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:52,000
Speaker 1: the law exists to help the people. Joining me as

14
00:00:52,080 --> 00:00:55,880
Speaker 1: judiciary expert, Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of

15
00:00:55,960 --> 00:01:00,480
Speaker 1: Richmond Law School, tell us about the timing of Justice

16
00:01:00,520 --> 00:01:04,120
Speaker 1: Briar's announcement even before the end of the term. When

17
00:01:04,400 --> 00:01:09,839
Speaker 1: justices normally retire, well, it is unusual. Usually it comes

18
00:01:10,160 --> 00:01:12,600
Speaker 1: at the last sitting or very close to the end

19
00:01:12,640 --> 00:01:15,759
Speaker 1: of the term. But it's happened in all different periods,

20
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:19,759
Speaker 1: so It's not unprecedented, but it's nice in the sense

21
00:01:19,800 --> 00:01:24,479
Speaker 1: that it provides plenty of time to replace him, and

22
00:01:24,600 --> 00:01:27,800
Speaker 1: so the White House and the Senate can move carefully

23
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:31,360
Speaker 1: to find the finest person to replace him. There was

24
00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:35,679
Speaker 1: a real push by liberals to get Justice Prior to

25
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:40,360
Speaker 1: retire before the midterms might put Republicans in charge of

26
00:01:40,400 --> 00:01:44,360
Speaker 1: the Senate. Do you think all the political considerations played

27
00:01:44,400 --> 00:01:47,200
Speaker 1: a part in Justice Briar's decision. If it were a

28
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:49,880
Speaker 1: different world, he might have stayed on the bench. That

29
00:01:49,960 --> 00:01:54,080
Speaker 1: could be. There was substantial pressure, and some of it

30
00:01:54,520 --> 00:01:58,840
Speaker 1: seemed too much, the advertisements and that type of thing.

31
00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:04,320
Speaker 1: But people for very strongly about this, and they remember, unfortunately,

32
00:02:04,320 --> 00:02:08,799
Speaker 1: what happened with Justice Ginsburg, and so there was pretty

33
00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:13,720
Speaker 1: intense pressure. How would you describe Justice Prior's jurisprudence over

34
00:02:13,760 --> 00:02:17,440
Speaker 1: the years. Well, I think he was a real student

35
00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:21,080
Speaker 1: of the branches of government. You know, he was an

36
00:02:21,120 --> 00:02:26,400
Speaker 1: administrative law professor when he was at Harvard before he

37
00:02:26,480 --> 00:02:28,440
Speaker 1: went on the First Circuit and then on to the

38
00:02:28,440 --> 00:02:31,639
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And I think he really cared about issues

39
00:02:31,760 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 1: like separation of powers and the branches of government and

40
00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:41,000
Speaker 1: how the branches worked together or an opposition, and I

41
00:02:41,000 --> 00:02:44,920
Speaker 1: think he really relished working on those kinds of issues.

42
00:02:44,960 --> 00:02:47,560
Speaker 1: He also wrote some books that were very interesting in

43
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:52,440
Speaker 1: terms of things like deregulation and other areas that interested

44
00:02:52,560 --> 00:02:56,240
Speaker 1: him so at a real roving intellect and a real

45
00:02:56,320 --> 00:03:00,440
Speaker 1: command of the history of the federal government and how

46
00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:03,640
Speaker 1: it worked. Would you say that he always voted with

47
00:03:03,680 --> 00:03:06,440
Speaker 1: the liberals. I think it depended on the issue. There

48
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:11,720
Speaker 1: were some cases where he did not always vote in

49
00:03:11,720 --> 00:03:14,639
Speaker 1: a way that was as progressive as some people might

50
00:03:14,720 --> 00:03:17,959
Speaker 1: have wanted, uh and some of his colleagues might have wanted.

51
00:03:18,280 --> 00:03:20,600
Speaker 1: But I think he took each case as it came,

52
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:23,359
Speaker 1: and on the law and of facts, tried to do

53
00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:26,480
Speaker 1: his best in terms of what he thought was the

54
00:03:26,560 --> 00:03:31,359
Speaker 1: appropriate resolution of particular cases. Would you say that he

55
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 1: was a consensus builder on the court. I think so.

56
00:03:35,400 --> 00:03:40,200
Speaker 1: He certainly had a reputation for being extremely collegial, and

57
00:03:40,640 --> 00:03:43,120
Speaker 1: I think if you were to see the way he

58
00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:47,800
Speaker 1: treated lawyers arguing before him and his colleagues and questioning,

59
00:03:48,240 --> 00:03:52,840
Speaker 1: he had incredible temperament and was very patient and always

60
00:03:52,840 --> 00:03:55,600
Speaker 1: tried to work toward what he thought would be the

61
00:03:55,640 --> 00:03:59,040
Speaker 1: best resolution of any particular case. So I think in

62
00:03:59,080 --> 00:04:01,640
Speaker 1: that way as a model old jurist. But he wasn't

63
00:04:01,640 --> 00:04:04,680
Speaker 1: afraid to dissent when he disagreed with the majority of

64
00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: the court, and in ways that we're respectful of the

65
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:12,640
Speaker 1: majority's opinion even as he criticized it. He also sometimes

66
00:04:13,160 --> 00:04:19,960
Speaker 1: introduced some wacky hypotheticals during oral arguments. Yes, I guess

67
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:22,640
Speaker 1: the law professor and him couldn't resist, But it is

68
00:04:22,680 --> 00:04:28,160
Speaker 1: true that he often did ask difficult hypotheticals, and sometimes

69
00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:31,720
Speaker 1: that would frustrate lawyers. I assume even the best who

70
00:04:31,720 --> 00:04:35,120
Speaker 1: go before the Supreme Court. One of the leading candidates

71
00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:39,000
Speaker 1: mentioned is a possible nominee to replace Justice Pryor is

72
00:04:39,080 --> 00:04:44,240
Speaker 1: Judge Katangi Brown Jackson. She was confirmed just last year

73
00:04:44,279 --> 00:04:46,960
Speaker 1: to the d C Circuit Court of Appeals, and three

74
00:04:47,040 --> 00:04:51,640
Speaker 1: Republican Senators voted for her confirmation. Might that make the

75
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:57,279
Speaker 1: confirmation process smoother? Absolutely? I also would expect those centators

76
00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:00,360
Speaker 1: to withhold how they might vote until they see how

77
00:05:00,440 --> 00:05:02,920
Speaker 1: she does in the process. If she is the nominee,

78
00:05:03,560 --> 00:05:06,279
Speaker 1: I could see them saying, and often senators do well.

79
00:05:06,320 --> 00:05:09,599
Speaker 1: I thought she was just fine for the d C Circuit,

80
00:05:09,720 --> 00:05:12,960
Speaker 1: but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.

81
00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:16,880
Speaker 1: And because I voted one way doesn't necessarily mean that

82
00:05:16,960 --> 00:05:20,080
Speaker 1: I will vote that way again. But don't forget the

83
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:25,560
Speaker 1: Democrats have not lost any votes, and none of their

84
00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:27,960
Speaker 1: members have voted no on any of the lower Federal

85
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:31,680
Speaker 1: Court nominees to date, and so if they hold together,

86
00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:35,839
Speaker 1: there shouldn't be a problem. They don't even need any

87
00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:39,240
Speaker 1: Republican votes because if they're tied fifty fifty, the Vice

88
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:43,839
Speaker 1: President can break that tie. And so we'll see how

89
00:05:43,960 --> 00:05:46,960
Speaker 1: it plays out. But I do think that Democrats are

90
00:05:47,000 --> 00:05:50,120
Speaker 1: likely to hold together, just as Republicans have very much

91
00:05:50,160 --> 00:05:54,200
Speaker 1: held together, with some exceptions like Senator Graham and sometimes

92
00:05:54,560 --> 00:05:59,440
Speaker 1: Senators Murkowski and Collins have voted for lower court nominees,

93
00:05:59,680 --> 00:06:03,039
Speaker 1: but any Republicans have voted Noah on almost every one

94
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:08,240
Speaker 1: of Biden's lower court nominees, even people who were not controversial. Finally,

95
00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:13,320
Speaker 1: how would you describe Justice Briar's legacy? Well, I think

96
00:06:13,400 --> 00:06:19,520
Speaker 1: he brought an incredible understanding of how the federal government

97
00:06:19,800 --> 00:06:24,120
Speaker 1: works in the United States to the Supreme Court and

98
00:06:24,600 --> 00:06:30,599
Speaker 1: applied his collegiality. He's intelligence is independence to every case

99
00:06:30,839 --> 00:06:34,560
Speaker 1: that came before the Court in a way that informed

100
00:06:35,040 --> 00:06:39,920
Speaker 1: the way many cases were resolved, and I think he

101
00:06:40,200 --> 00:06:43,520
Speaker 1: was always willing to dissent or to concur if need be.

102
00:06:43,960 --> 00:06:47,599
Speaker 1: And I think he leaves a really strong legacy in

103
00:06:47,640 --> 00:06:51,160
Speaker 1: the public law area. Thanks Carl, that professor called to

104
00:06:51,240 --> 00:06:56,240
Speaker 1: Bias of the University of Richmond Law School. The consideration

105
00:06:56,320 --> 00:07:00,599
Speaker 1: of race and college admissions has always been controversial and

106
00:07:00,720 --> 00:07:04,160
Speaker 1: often misunderstood, as in a scene from the movie Dear

107
00:07:04,200 --> 00:07:07,560
Speaker 1: White People. Hey, look, you guys still got affirmative action.

108
00:07:09,400 --> 00:07:12,400
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, what exactly are you doing here? All right?

109
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:18,520
Speaker 1: Obama right, leader of the free world. He gets into

110
00:07:18,680 --> 00:07:23,920
Speaker 1: Harvard based on you too late affirmative action. You know

111
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:27,600
Speaker 1: he's not president right now, No, the guy who didn't

112
00:07:27,640 --> 00:07:32,080
Speaker 1: get in. Now, more than forty years after first considering

113
00:07:32,120 --> 00:07:35,520
Speaker 1: affirmative action, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two

114
00:07:35,560 --> 00:07:38,960
Speaker 1: cases that could mean the end of race conscious admissions.

115
00:07:39,640 --> 00:07:43,200
Speaker 1: The case is challenging the admissions policies at Harvard College

116
00:07:43,200 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 1: and the University of North Carolina seek to overturn decades

117
00:07:46,960 --> 00:07:51,040
Speaker 1: of Supreme Court precedent that allow universities to consider race

118
00:07:51,120 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 1: in helping to create a diverse student body. Joining me

119
00:07:54,480 --> 00:07:57,600
Speaker 1: is Audrey Anderson, who heads the Higher Education practice at

120
00:07:57,600 --> 00:08:02,360
Speaker 1: Bassbarian sims. First, what was your reaction to the Court

121
00:08:02,480 --> 00:08:08,160
Speaker 1: taking up affirmative action where you surprised, concerned, unfazed. Well,

122
00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:12,640
Speaker 1: you know, I wasn't surprised that they granted review of

123
00:08:12,680 --> 00:08:15,160
Speaker 1: the cases because some of the steps they've taken along

124
00:08:15,200 --> 00:08:18,600
Speaker 1: the way. They asked for the views of the Solicitor General,

125
00:08:18,920 --> 00:08:21,560
Speaker 1: wanted to know the United States governments used in the case,

126
00:08:21,680 --> 00:08:25,120
Speaker 1: which is one clue that they're interested in the issue.

127
00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:28,560
Speaker 1: And then they had actually looked at the petition at

128
00:08:28,600 --> 00:08:31,360
Speaker 1: more than one of their conferences, so for two weeks

129
00:08:31,360 --> 00:08:34,679
Speaker 1: in a row they had considered the petitions. So when

130
00:08:34,720 --> 00:08:38,680
Speaker 1: they granted it, I was not at all surprised. I

131
00:08:38,720 --> 00:08:44,719
Speaker 1: am concerned for the longevity of affirmative action in college admissions,

132
00:08:44,840 --> 00:08:46,920
Speaker 1: given that they have now granted review of the case.

133
00:08:47,160 --> 00:08:51,240
Speaker 1: But we will see what happens. So the first circuit

134
00:08:51,320 --> 00:08:55,480
Speaker 1: affirmed the decision for Harvard's admissions process, and the fourth

135
00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:59,840
Speaker 1: Circuit hasn't decided the University of North Carolina case yet,

136
00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:03,360
Speaker 1: so there was no split in the circuits, which often

137
00:09:03,440 --> 00:09:06,720
Speaker 1: leads the Supreme Court to step in. Is the Supreme

138
00:09:06,760 --> 00:09:10,239
Speaker 1: Court sort of jumping the gun? This is an unusual

139
00:09:11,320 --> 00:09:16,480
Speaker 1: circumstance for them to be granting review of the case. Usually,

140
00:09:16,520 --> 00:09:19,320
Speaker 1: the Court would not grant review where there was no

141
00:09:19,520 --> 00:09:22,280
Speaker 1: split in authority, And that's one of the reasons why

142
00:09:22,320 --> 00:09:26,000
Speaker 1: I'm concerned about the longevity of affirmative action. There really

143
00:09:26,120 --> 00:09:30,800
Speaker 1: is no good reason to grant review here unless at

144
00:09:30,880 --> 00:09:34,320
Speaker 1: least four members and likely five members of the Court

145
00:09:34,840 --> 00:09:38,559
Speaker 1: I think that the decisions below are incorrect and they

146
00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:41,840
Speaker 1: want to overturn them. That's the only reason that they

147
00:09:41,880 --> 00:09:45,920
Speaker 1: would grant review of these cases. The Supreme Court has

148
00:09:45,960 --> 00:09:50,320
Speaker 1: weighed in several times on affirmative action. Where does the

149
00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:55,520
Speaker 1: Supreme Court doctrine stand now? Well, right now, it is

150
00:09:56,600 --> 00:10:02,640
Speaker 1: legal constitutional for university these too consider race in their

151
00:10:02,679 --> 00:10:06,960
Speaker 1: admissions programs, as long as they are doing so for

152
00:10:07,200 --> 00:10:12,360
Speaker 1: the purposes of diversity in their programs, to get the

153
00:10:12,480 --> 00:10:16,720
Speaker 1: educational benefits of a diverse student body, and as long

154
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:19,240
Speaker 1: as they do it in a way that is narrowly

155
00:10:19,360 --> 00:10:23,640
Speaker 1: tailored to furthering that interest. So right now, that is

156
00:10:24,000 --> 00:10:27,800
Speaker 1: legal and constitutional. The problem is that there's been a

157
00:10:27,920 --> 00:10:31,920
Speaker 1: change in the Supreme Court since the Court last looked

158
00:10:31,960 --> 00:10:36,439
Speaker 1: at that question in and the changes in the justices

159
00:10:36,480 --> 00:10:39,000
Speaker 1: on the Court lead many of us to believe that

160
00:10:39,080 --> 00:10:42,600
Speaker 1: the Court today might come to a different conclusion than

161
00:10:42,640 --> 00:10:47,199
Speaker 1: it did in so in the two thousand three decision,

162
00:10:47,760 --> 00:10:51,920
Speaker 1: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicted that racial preferences would no

163
00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:56,240
Speaker 1: longer be necessary in twenty five years. Was affirmative action

164
00:10:56,960 --> 00:11:01,040
Speaker 1: always seen as a temporary measure, a stop gap. I

165
00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:04,720
Speaker 1: think that many of us have an aspiration that there

166
00:11:04,760 --> 00:11:07,920
Speaker 1: will be a day that race is not an important

167
00:11:08,240 --> 00:11:12,880
Speaker 1: factor about people in our society, that there will be

168
00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:15,959
Speaker 1: a day when we don't need to consider race in

169
00:11:16,120 --> 00:11:20,120
Speaker 1: order to uh level the playing field. But many of

170
00:11:20,240 --> 00:11:23,160
Speaker 1: us the day that Justice O'Connor wrote that I thought

171
00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:26,160
Speaker 1: that twenty five years was a little bit optimistic, And

172
00:11:26,200 --> 00:11:29,000
Speaker 1: I think that many of us today think that it

173
00:11:29,360 --> 00:11:33,200
Speaker 1: really was overly optimistic to think that six years from

174
00:11:33,280 --> 00:11:35,400
Speaker 1: now or five years from now, race will not be

175
00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:38,640
Speaker 1: an important factor that still needs to be considered. Let's

176
00:11:38,640 --> 00:11:42,080
Speaker 1: talk about the arguments in the case. What's the argument

177
00:11:42,600 --> 00:11:45,960
Speaker 1: being made for race neutral admissions and what are the

178
00:11:46,000 --> 00:11:51,840
Speaker 1: school's arguments against it. Well, the main argument that the

179
00:11:51,920 --> 00:11:55,880
Speaker 1: people challenging a firm of action are making in their

180
00:11:55,920 --> 00:11:59,319
Speaker 1: petitions to the Supreme Court is that this law that

181
00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:03,240
Speaker 1: I just told you about that's been governing college admissions

182
00:12:03,240 --> 00:12:07,120
Speaker 1: since ninety eight, actually in the Backy decision, which came

183
00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:11,320
Speaker 1: before the two thousand three Michigan decisions. But that law

184
00:12:11,440 --> 00:12:17,960
Speaker 1: is wrong, That the Constitution requires schools to admit students

185
00:12:18,000 --> 00:12:23,079
Speaker 1: in a color blind fashion, that the Constitution requires governmental

186
00:12:23,120 --> 00:12:26,680
Speaker 1: actors and those receiving federal funds to make decisions in

187
00:12:26,720 --> 00:12:30,120
Speaker 1: a color blind way, and to do anything else really

188
00:12:30,240 --> 00:12:35,160
Speaker 1: violates the Constitution. That that is their number one argument,

189
00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:40,120
Speaker 1: and it is an argument that is very persuasive to

190
00:12:40,720 --> 00:12:44,240
Speaker 1: a number of members of the current Supreme Court from

191
00:12:44,240 --> 00:12:48,640
Speaker 1: a legal perspective. On the other side, Uh, there are

192
00:12:48,679 --> 00:12:52,560
Speaker 1: many who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment, when you look

193
00:12:52,600 --> 00:12:57,040
Speaker 1: at its history and the context of what was happening

194
00:12:57,080 --> 00:13:02,720
Speaker 1: at that time, was very much men too protect the

195
00:13:02,920 --> 00:13:08,160
Speaker 1: rights and further the rights of black people in America

196
00:13:08,240 --> 00:13:12,720
Speaker 1: who had just left the institution of slavery. And so

197
00:13:12,960 --> 00:13:17,800
Speaker 1: a color blind constitution was never, uh, the idea of

198
00:13:17,800 --> 00:13:21,200
Speaker 1: the Framers, It was never the idea of the members

199
00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 1: of Congress who passed the Fourteenth Amendment at that time.

200
00:13:25,280 --> 00:13:29,840
Speaker 1: And so there is room for a limited consideration of

201
00:13:30,040 --> 00:13:35,839
Speaker 1: race in this aspect of society and the schools here

202
00:13:37,000 --> 00:13:40,520
Speaker 1: want a diverse student body. Is that what's behind the

203
00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:43,800
Speaker 1: missions process here? Yeah, So what the schools want to

204
00:13:44,040 --> 00:13:48,199
Speaker 1: want to have is a student body that is widely

205
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:52,920
Speaker 1: diverse and diverse with all kinds of characteristics in mind.

206
00:13:53,360 --> 00:13:55,880
Speaker 1: But one of those characteristics they want to have diversity

207
00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:59,880
Speaker 1: on is race. And in order to meet the current

208
00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:04,599
Speaker 1: legal standard, they have to show that they are unable

209
00:14:04,679 --> 00:14:09,800
Speaker 1: to attain a racially diverse student body without considering race.

210
00:14:10,160 --> 00:14:15,080
Speaker 1: That they have considered and used race neutral means of

211
00:14:15,160 --> 00:14:21,520
Speaker 1: trying to get racial diversity by doing recruiting effort, by

212
00:14:21,560 --> 00:14:28,440
Speaker 1: considering socioeconomic circumstances, by other means, and that still doesn't

213
00:14:28,520 --> 00:14:32,360
Speaker 1: get them the racial diversity that they want to have

214
00:14:32,560 --> 00:14:37,080
Speaker 1: in their student bodies to give their students the educational

215
00:14:37,160 --> 00:14:43,360
Speaker 1: benefits of learning and living in a racially diverse environment.

216
00:14:44,280 --> 00:14:46,840
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the plaintiffs in the case for a moment.

217
00:14:46,960 --> 00:14:51,560
Speaker 1: Students for Fair Admissions was formed to challenge racial preferences.

218
00:14:51,600 --> 00:14:55,200
Speaker 1: What's their strategy been to get affirmative action before this

219
00:14:55,400 --> 00:15:00,000
Speaker 1: more conservative court. Yeah, Well, they have been very very

220
00:15:00,040 --> 00:15:04,600
Speaker 1: very successful um with their strategy, and their strategy has

221
00:15:04,640 --> 00:15:12,320
Speaker 1: been to bring cases against different universities in different circumstances

222
00:15:12,360 --> 00:15:16,880
Speaker 1: and in different parts of the country. So they brought

223
00:15:16,880 --> 00:15:20,560
Speaker 1: a case against the University of Texas in Austin, they

224
00:15:20,560 --> 00:15:24,560
Speaker 1: brought a case against Harvard, They brought a case against

225
00:15:24,560 --> 00:15:28,080
Speaker 1: the University of North Carolina and Chapel Hill. And their

226
00:15:28,200 --> 00:15:33,760
Speaker 1: strategy was to get decisions from courts um in those

227
00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:38,880
Speaker 1: different areas in order to ideally get a split in

228
00:15:39,000 --> 00:15:41,680
Speaker 1: authority from those courts they have those courts come out

229
00:15:41,880 --> 00:15:46,320
Speaker 1: different ways, so they could say to the Supreme Court, hey, look,

230
00:15:46,400 --> 00:15:51,600
Speaker 1: the courts are in disagreement on this. You need to decide.

231
00:15:51,720 --> 00:15:55,880
Speaker 1: You need to make a decision. It actually turns out

232
00:15:55,880 --> 00:15:58,720
Speaker 1: that they didn't even need to do that. The Supreme

233
00:15:58,760 --> 00:16:03,040
Speaker 1: Court is so int a sit in this issue that

234
00:16:03,720 --> 00:16:08,040
Speaker 1: the court decisions so far we're all in line. They

235
00:16:08,080 --> 00:16:12,600
Speaker 1: all found that the school that issue here had met

236
00:16:12,640 --> 00:16:18,400
Speaker 1: the constitutional standard. But Harvard. They took Harvard, and then

237
00:16:18,440 --> 00:16:21,640
Speaker 1: they took the really unusual step, as you noted June.

238
00:16:21,680 --> 00:16:24,520
Speaker 1: In the North Carolina case, all we have is a

239
00:16:24,720 --> 00:16:31,560
Speaker 1: decision from the trial court um. But students refer admission said, hey,

240
00:16:31,680 --> 00:16:35,920
Speaker 1: we have this Harvard case pending before you. We want

241
00:16:35,960 --> 00:16:41,920
Speaker 1: you to grant Sir Serrari before the appellate court even

242
00:16:42,040 --> 00:16:45,840
Speaker 1: has a chance to consider the trial court's opinion in

243
00:16:45,880 --> 00:16:48,880
Speaker 1: the North Carolina case, so that you can consider the

244
00:16:49,000 --> 00:16:51,800
Speaker 1: UNC case and the Harvard case at the same time.

245
00:16:53,200 --> 00:16:58,240
Speaker 1: That's really um appealing, I think to the justices because

246
00:16:58,280 --> 00:17:00,760
Speaker 1: they get to look at a p I'm at school

247
00:17:00,920 --> 00:17:05,159
Speaker 1: and a public school at the same time, and it

248
00:17:05,240 --> 00:17:09,840
Speaker 1: gives them two different back patterns to consider as they

249
00:17:09,840 --> 00:17:15,520
Speaker 1: are determining whether they're going to overturn um Affirmative Act,

250
00:17:15,600 --> 00:17:21,520
Speaker 1: the Affirmative Action laws, and what's your feeling looking at

251
00:17:21,600 --> 00:17:26,959
Speaker 1: the court and the various justices track records and viewpoints

252
00:17:27,000 --> 00:17:30,120
Speaker 1: any theory about how the Court is likely to rule here.

253
00:17:30,560 --> 00:17:33,480
Speaker 1: I know we're far away from that, but I think

254
00:17:33,480 --> 00:17:36,080
Speaker 1: going in as I said, I go in with with

255
00:17:36,160 --> 00:17:41,440
Speaker 1: the assumption that there are five justices who as of today,

256
00:17:41,600 --> 00:17:46,480
Speaker 1: would vote to overrule the president, because otherwise they would

257
00:17:46,560 --> 00:17:49,200
Speaker 1: not have taken these cases. They would not have granted

258
00:17:49,440 --> 00:17:52,119
Speaker 1: Sir Sharari, even though it only takes four votes to

259
00:17:52,200 --> 00:17:56,359
Speaker 1: grant Sir Sharrai. In this kind of a circumstance, the

260
00:17:56,480 --> 00:17:59,760
Speaker 1: justices are stavvy enough to say, well, we don't we're

261
00:17:59,800 --> 00:18:01,960
Speaker 1: not in a grant, sir ferrari, if we're only going

262
00:18:02,000 --> 00:18:06,080
Speaker 1: to lose in terms of overturning this precedent that we

263
00:18:06,160 --> 00:18:08,800
Speaker 1: want to overturn. So they talk amongst each other and

264
00:18:08,880 --> 00:18:12,600
Speaker 1: figure out, Okay, we really have five to overturn. But

265
00:18:13,680 --> 00:18:18,560
Speaker 1: there is a long road, as you're um hinting at,

266
00:18:18,960 --> 00:18:22,160
Speaker 1: between now and when the decisions are rendered, and there's

267
00:18:22,160 --> 00:18:24,320
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of work done by the

268
00:18:24,440 --> 00:18:28,240
Speaker 1: universities involved here and those that are supporting them in

269
00:18:28,359 --> 00:18:35,040
Speaker 1: order to convince ah the justices that they should maintain

270
00:18:36,040 --> 00:18:39,320
Speaker 1: affirmative action. You know, when these cases were up before

271
00:18:39,320 --> 00:18:42,760
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court um with the University of Missigon, Michigan

272
00:18:42,800 --> 00:18:49,000
Speaker 1: cases in two thousand three, really most people expected that

273
00:18:49,040 --> 00:18:51,480
Speaker 1: affirmative action would go away. At that point in time,

274
00:18:51,920 --> 00:18:54,639
Speaker 1: people were very uncertain that they would be able to

275
00:18:54,680 --> 00:18:58,800
Speaker 1: get five votes from the Supreme Court then to uphold

276
00:18:58,840 --> 00:19:02,320
Speaker 1: affirmative action. And the they only did by one vote.

277
00:19:02,320 --> 00:19:06,160
Speaker 1: It was a five four vote. So I think that

278
00:19:06,880 --> 00:19:11,280
Speaker 1: there is some hope that again by doing some very

279
00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:17,480
Speaker 1: good lawyer lawyering and making a very fact specific argument,

280
00:19:17,600 --> 00:19:21,440
Speaker 1: that you might be able to convince some of the

281
00:19:21,560 --> 00:19:25,600
Speaker 1: justices that they should keep affirm of action in place.

282
00:19:25,640 --> 00:19:28,320
Speaker 1: It's either going to if they're able to do that

283
00:19:28,600 --> 00:19:30,560
Speaker 1: right now. My guess is you'll either do it by

284
00:19:30,600 --> 00:19:35,399
Speaker 1: some very careful, careful factual lawyering or else by getting

285
00:19:35,400 --> 00:19:39,920
Speaker 1: them to agree that they shouldn't overrule the precedent. So

286
00:19:39,960 --> 00:19:43,040
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be looking very carefully whatever they say in

287
00:19:43,119 --> 00:19:47,879
Speaker 1: the Mississippi abortion case this year about how they treat precedent,

288
00:19:48,640 --> 00:19:51,160
Speaker 1: because that's going to give us some good guide posts

289
00:19:51,160 --> 00:19:54,560
Speaker 1: for how they are going to treat the precedent in

290
00:19:54,600 --> 00:19:59,440
Speaker 1: this affirmative action case, and it will um let us

291
00:19:59,480 --> 00:20:02,480
Speaker 1: know how they think they have to look at it.

292
00:20:03,240 --> 00:20:05,480
Speaker 1: So it's going to be very interesting, but that I

293
00:20:05,520 --> 00:20:08,600
Speaker 1: think that it's going to be a difficult road to

294
00:20:09,600 --> 00:20:14,560
Speaker 1: get there. This term, the Court is considering toppling as

295
00:20:14,600 --> 00:20:18,560
Speaker 1: you refer to the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision.

296
00:20:18,880 --> 00:20:22,480
Speaker 1: It's likely to expand Second Amendment gun rights and restrict

297
00:20:22,560 --> 00:20:25,120
Speaker 1: what the e p A can do against climate change.

298
00:20:25,640 --> 00:20:28,159
Speaker 1: So this case is not going to be heard until

299
00:20:28,240 --> 00:20:32,000
Speaker 1: next term. As we've discussed before, the Court might not

300
00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:34,480
Speaker 1: want to have too many at least Justice Roberts might

301
00:20:34,480 --> 00:20:37,880
Speaker 1: not want to have too many controversial decisions in one term.

302
00:20:37,920 --> 00:20:41,879
Speaker 1: So might the justices have been considering that when they

303
00:20:41,920 --> 00:20:44,840
Speaker 1: took this case not for this term but for next term.

304
00:20:44,880 --> 00:20:48,359
Speaker 1: I believe that they absolutely did that June, because they

305
00:20:48,400 --> 00:20:51,960
Speaker 1: have their meetings on Fridays, their conferences on Fridays, where

306
00:20:52,000 --> 00:20:54,720
Speaker 1: they make decisions about what they're gonna do with petitions

307
00:20:54,760 --> 00:20:59,560
Speaker 1: for Sir Frarri. Well as Friday, they announced that they

308
00:20:59,600 --> 00:21:04,080
Speaker 1: had granted sert in a different case, and they set

309
00:21:04,160 --> 00:21:07,199
Speaker 1: that case with an expedited briefing schedule and said that

310
00:21:07,320 --> 00:21:10,040
Speaker 1: argument in that case would occur in April of this year,

311
00:21:10,160 --> 00:21:14,359
Speaker 1: this term. And then on Monday they announced that they

312
00:21:14,359 --> 00:21:17,119
Speaker 1: had granted Sir Serrari in the Affirmative Action case and

313
00:21:17,160 --> 00:21:21,199
Speaker 1: several others that they will hear um next fall. So

314
00:21:21,240 --> 00:21:25,240
Speaker 1: they made a conscious decision that hey of these cases

315
00:21:25,280 --> 00:21:29,679
Speaker 1: were granting certain we definitely don't want to hear the

316
00:21:29,720 --> 00:21:34,040
Speaker 1: affirmative action case this spring. Now you could there are

317
00:21:34,040 --> 00:21:37,280
Speaker 1: other there are other um reasons you could say they

318
00:21:37,320 --> 00:21:40,439
Speaker 1: didn't want to hear the affirmative action case this spring.

319
00:21:40,480 --> 00:21:43,040
Speaker 1: They didn't want to put it on an expedited briefing

320
00:21:43,119 --> 00:21:46,359
Speaker 1: schedule because there's going to be a ton of um

321
00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:48,720
Speaker 1: amikus briefs that are going to be filed, and they

322
00:21:48,760 --> 00:21:51,720
Speaker 1: don't want to put that kind of pressure on all

323
00:21:51,800 --> 00:21:54,479
Speaker 1: the amiki. But I think that the more likely reason

324
00:21:54,720 --> 00:21:59,359
Speaker 1: is they know that they're going to be um on

325
00:21:59,520 --> 00:22:02,920
Speaker 1: doing un precedent this term, and they don't want to

326
00:22:03,000 --> 00:22:07,120
Speaker 1: undo too much precedent at one time. I just want

327
00:22:07,119 --> 00:22:11,040
Speaker 1: to ask you, eight states, including California, have banned the

328
00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:15,760
Speaker 1: consideration of race in college admissions. Isn't that contrary to

329
00:22:16,720 --> 00:22:22,480
Speaker 1: Supreme Court doctrine? Well, what the Supreme Court doctrine says

330
00:22:22,680 --> 00:22:26,000
Speaker 1: is just that universities may consider rate. Doesn't say they

331
00:22:26,080 --> 00:22:29,800
Speaker 1: must consider rate. It just allows you to do it

332
00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:34,480
Speaker 1: under the constitution. So those states where it's disallowed, there

333
00:22:34,520 --> 00:22:37,320
Speaker 1: has been a state law that says, well, in our state,

334
00:22:37,600 --> 00:22:41,840
Speaker 1: you may not do that. So it's it's not really contrary.

335
00:22:42,200 --> 00:22:45,639
Speaker 1: All the time, states disallow things that would otherwise be

336
00:22:45,680 --> 00:22:49,199
Speaker 1: allowed under the federal Constitution. And what's interesting is that

337
00:22:49,240 --> 00:22:53,960
Speaker 1: in those states, June, we see what happens when institutions

338
00:22:54,000 --> 00:22:57,840
Speaker 1: are not allowed to consider race and admissions, and what

339
00:22:57,880 --> 00:23:02,040
Speaker 1: we see is that the person images of black students

340
00:23:02,280 --> 00:23:05,720
Speaker 1: go down. That some of the universities are able to

341
00:23:05,800 --> 00:23:10,159
Speaker 1: keep their overall percentage of minority students maybe the same,

342
00:23:10,480 --> 00:23:14,680
Speaker 1: but the percentage of black students goes down. Thanks Audrey.

343
00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:20,719
Speaker 1: That's Audrey Anderson of Basparian SIMS. Some New York school

344
00:23:20,800 --> 00:23:24,920
Speaker 1: districts abandoned mask mandates after a Long Island judge declared

345
00:23:24,960 --> 00:23:28,639
Speaker 1: them unconstitutional on Monday, but by the end of Tuesday,

346
00:23:28,880 --> 00:23:31,920
Speaker 1: the school districts were told to put the requirement back

347
00:23:31,960 --> 00:23:35,480
Speaker 1: in place, as New York Governor Kathy Hokel appealed the

348
00:23:35,600 --> 00:23:39,920
Speaker 1: ruling and an appellate court judge temporarily stayed the Long

349
00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:43,960
Speaker 1: Island judges ruling. This is the latest whipsaw for parents

350
00:23:44,000 --> 00:23:48,080
Speaker 1: trying to navigate the pandemic with school aged children. State

351
00:23:48,160 --> 00:23:52,280
Speaker 1: Education Commissioner Betty Rosa acknowledged the burden and thanks school

352
00:23:52,359 --> 00:23:56,240
Speaker 1: communities for their patients during this process. Joining me is

353
00:23:56,280 --> 00:24:00,760
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob van Voris tell us about the

354
00:24:00,840 --> 00:24:05,080
Speaker 1: ruling of the Long Island judge about the governor's mask

355
00:24:05,200 --> 00:24:10,399
Speaker 1: mandate sue judan. On Monday, judge in Nassau County on

356
00:24:10,440 --> 00:24:14,760
Speaker 1: Long Island, New York named Thomas Radamaker ruled that the

357
00:24:15,119 --> 00:24:21,080
Speaker 1: States requirement for people statewide to wear masks indoors in

358
00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:25,720
Speaker 1: settings where it's impossible to socially distanced. He ruled that

359
00:24:25,720 --> 00:24:30,680
Speaker 1: that that regulation issued by the state Health Department was

360
00:24:30,920 --> 00:24:33,680
Speaker 1: basically akin to passing a law, and that's the Health

361
00:24:33,680 --> 00:24:37,159
Speaker 1: Department doesn't have the authority to pass laws that the

362
00:24:37,240 --> 00:24:43,080
Speaker 1: state legislature. So he ruled that the regulation was void.

363
00:24:43,760 --> 00:24:47,399
Speaker 1: And this came as news on late Monday, kind of

364
00:24:47,400 --> 00:24:51,359
Speaker 1: throwing school districts and and other people into a little

365
00:24:51,359 --> 00:24:53,280
Speaker 1: bit of chaos to kind of figure out what they

366
00:24:53,280 --> 00:24:55,560
Speaker 1: were going to do the next day with students reported

367
00:24:55,560 --> 00:25:00,200
Speaker 1: to school. Was this because the state legislature had had

368
00:25:00,680 --> 00:25:07,280
Speaker 1: given Governor Cuomo special authority and then took it back. Well,

369
00:25:07,280 --> 00:25:11,399
Speaker 1: that was one of the reasons the state legislature gave

370
00:25:11,720 --> 00:25:16,000
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo emergency powers, and of course Cuomo had to

371
00:25:16,080 --> 00:25:20,360
Speaker 1: leave office and his lieutenant Governor Kathy Hocol is now

372
00:25:20,400 --> 00:25:26,240
Speaker 1: the governor. In December, her administration, through the Health Department,

373
00:25:26,359 --> 00:25:32,040
Speaker 1: issued these regulations. But as you say, the legislature had

374
00:25:32,080 --> 00:25:35,520
Speaker 1: kind of scaled back the powers that it had given

375
00:25:35,560 --> 00:25:38,560
Speaker 1: Cuomo to deal with an emergency, and you know, also

376
00:25:38,760 --> 00:25:41,960
Speaker 1: for Hoco to use when she became governor, for her

377
00:25:41,960 --> 00:25:45,400
Speaker 1: to deal with an emergency. So the judge, Judge Radmaker

378
00:25:46,040 --> 00:25:49,720
Speaker 1: said the you know that HOCO didn't have authority to

379
00:25:49,960 --> 00:25:53,600
Speaker 1: issue these regulations, and that certainly the Health Department on

380
00:25:53,680 --> 00:25:58,600
Speaker 1: its own, without authority from the legislature, didn't have the

381
00:25:58,640 --> 00:26:03,760
Speaker 1: ability to institute this requirement. Redmaker told HOCAL and the

382
00:26:03,760 --> 00:26:08,639
Speaker 1: Health Department, Look, if you want to put this into place,

383
00:26:08,680 --> 00:26:10,280
Speaker 1: you've got to go to the legislature. You've got to

384
00:26:10,280 --> 00:26:13,160
Speaker 1: ask for law, and you know, sign it into law,

385
00:26:13,240 --> 00:26:16,720
Speaker 1: and then you cut your requirement. Do you know how

386
00:26:17,119 --> 00:26:21,600
Speaker 1: it's been handled in other states? Because health regulations are

387
00:26:21,720 --> 00:26:25,679
Speaker 1: usually handled at the state and local level, and with vaccines,

388
00:26:25,720 --> 00:26:28,399
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court seem to indicate that's where they should

389
00:26:28,440 --> 00:26:32,600
Speaker 1: be handled. Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, regulation of

390
00:26:32,680 --> 00:26:36,680
Speaker 1: health is a state and local uh sort of responsibility.

391
00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:40,600
Speaker 1: So we've got a real patchwork of different requirements throughout

392
00:26:40,600 --> 00:26:45,000
Speaker 1: the states. The states like New York often run by

393
00:26:45,359 --> 00:26:50,800
Speaker 1: Democrats that are imposing mass mandates vaccine mandates. There are

394
00:26:50,840 --> 00:26:56,439
Speaker 1: states like Florida and Virginia where the governors are barrowing

395
00:26:56,560 --> 00:27:01,919
Speaker 1: local governments from imposing those kind of man people. Also

396
00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:05,640
Speaker 1: in New York State, you've got localities including New York.

397
00:27:06,320 --> 00:27:08,320
Speaker 1: New York City, which is the biggest of the mall

398
00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:11,520
Speaker 1: and has the biggest school district in New York City,

399
00:27:11,520 --> 00:27:14,639
Speaker 1: has its own mass mandate already, so you know, whatever

400
00:27:14,840 --> 00:27:18,840
Speaker 1: happens at the state level is not going to displaced that,

401
00:27:19,280 --> 00:27:20,840
Speaker 1: but it is going to make a difference for the

402
00:27:21,040 --> 00:27:23,360
Speaker 1: for people in the rest of the state. Was New

403
00:27:23,440 --> 00:27:28,440
Speaker 1: York City's mask mandate challenged. New York City's mask mandate

404
00:27:28,640 --> 00:27:34,760
Speaker 1: and vaccine mandate and various requirements for for people generally

405
00:27:34,960 --> 00:27:39,200
Speaker 1: and for public servants has been challenged, and there've been

406
00:27:39,800 --> 00:27:43,119
Speaker 1: a variety of rulings. Most of the mandates remain in

407
00:27:43,240 --> 00:27:47,600
Speaker 1: place um and have been upheld by courts. But you know, it's,

408
00:27:47,840 --> 00:27:50,760
Speaker 1: as I say, it's a patchwork. You've got on the

409
00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:54,400
Speaker 1: mask mandate that the Long Island judge struck down. There's

410
00:27:54,400 --> 00:27:57,880
Speaker 1: an Almany judge that you know, view the same thing,

411
00:27:58,000 --> 00:28:01,760
Speaker 1: the same requirement and approved of that. So it may

412
00:28:01,800 --> 00:28:04,679
Speaker 1: be that it's going to you know, we're gonna have

413
00:28:04,680 --> 00:28:07,240
Speaker 1: to wait for New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals,

414
00:28:07,520 --> 00:28:10,920
Speaker 1: to rule on some of these questions before we have clarity.

415
00:28:10,960 --> 00:28:13,480
Speaker 1: So where does it stand now? The state took an

416
00:28:13,480 --> 00:28:16,760
Speaker 1: appeal where are they taken appeal to the state took

417
00:28:16,760 --> 00:28:23,000
Speaker 1: an appeal to the second Department Repellate Division, which is

418
00:28:23,000 --> 00:28:27,840
Speaker 1: accorded in Brooklyn that reviews cases from Long Island and

419
00:28:28,280 --> 00:28:33,200
Speaker 1: Brooklyn that surrounding areas. That court importantly issued a stay

420
00:28:33,760 --> 00:28:38,760
Speaker 1: blocking Judge Rata Makers ruling, so the mass mandate remains

421
00:28:38,920 --> 00:28:42,440
Speaker 1: in effect at least until Friday, when they're going to

422
00:28:42,560 --> 00:28:46,440
Speaker 1: hold a full hearing on whether to grant the longer

423
00:28:46,520 --> 00:28:49,320
Speaker 1: stay for the time it takes them to hear the case,

424
00:28:49,480 --> 00:28:52,400
Speaker 1: to read the grief and to come to a decision.

425
00:28:52,920 --> 00:28:56,760
Speaker 1: It's a decent bet since they granted the emergency stay

426
00:28:56,840 --> 00:29:00,240
Speaker 1: until Friday, that the court is going to want to

427
00:28:59,840 --> 00:29:03,440
Speaker 1: keep the status quo in place and to allow the

428
00:29:03,600 --> 00:29:07,160
Speaker 1: mass mandate to remain rather than throwing things at the chaos.

429
00:29:07,280 --> 00:29:10,760
Speaker 1: But we'll have to see how the full panel rules

430
00:29:10,840 --> 00:29:14,960
Speaker 1: on Friday. It's a decent bed and because Long Island

431
00:29:15,120 --> 00:29:20,160
Speaker 1: is generally more conservative with more conservative judges than the

432
00:29:20,160 --> 00:29:24,280
Speaker 1: Appellate Division in Brooklyn. That's right. And Judge Rumaker is

433
00:29:24,400 --> 00:29:28,600
Speaker 1: someone who has been in office on the bench on

434
00:29:28,680 --> 00:29:32,440
Speaker 1: the New York Truck Court bench for a couple of years.

435
00:29:32,840 --> 00:29:36,480
Speaker 1: He ran as a conservative, although he also ran, as

436
00:29:36,560 --> 00:29:41,360
Speaker 1: many judges do, Democrat and Republican lines as well, but

437
00:29:41,960 --> 00:29:46,280
Speaker 1: certainly Nassau County, which is on the western end of

438
00:29:46,720 --> 00:29:51,840
Speaker 1: Long Island, is known to be a Republican stronghold locally, Bob,

439
00:29:51,840 --> 00:29:54,760
Speaker 1: do you know what school districts are doing? Are they

440
00:29:55,280 --> 00:29:59,880
Speaker 1: complying with the mandate? Still? At least initially, there was

441
00:30:00,000 --> 00:30:04,120
Speaker 1: some confusion. Was unclear whether there was going to be

442
00:30:04,160 --> 00:30:08,840
Speaker 1: a stay or whether Judd Radmaker's ruling basically through the

443
00:30:08,920 --> 00:30:12,440
Speaker 1: requirement out. So they were a handful of school districts

444
00:30:12,480 --> 00:30:15,600
Speaker 1: that were inclined anyway to want to get rid of

445
00:30:15,600 --> 00:30:21,080
Speaker 1: the mandate, who told parents that their kids were allowed

446
00:30:21,120 --> 00:30:25,000
Speaker 1: to come in with or without match, that it was optional. Um.

447
00:30:25,080 --> 00:30:28,960
Speaker 1: There were other districts that we're fully behind the mandate

448
00:30:29,000 --> 00:30:32,120
Speaker 1: that said, hey, look we're going to keep this in place. Um.

449
00:30:32,240 --> 00:30:35,040
Speaker 1: And and indeed, even if the state with scraw as

450
00:30:35,040 --> 00:30:39,520
Speaker 1: the bask mandate, localities that want to impose impose it

451
00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:42,200
Speaker 1: can continue to do that. Thanks for being on the

452
00:30:42,200 --> 00:30:46,720
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show, Bob. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Bob Van Voris,

453
00:30:47,200 --> 00:30:49,480
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

454
00:30:49,840 --> 00:30:52,160
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

455
00:30:52,240 --> 00:30:56,480
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

456
00:30:56,720 --> 00:31:01,720
Speaker 1: and at www dot bloomberg dot com podcast slash Law,

457
00:31:02,160 --> 00:31:04,760
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

458
00:31:04,800 --> 00:31:08,240
Speaker 1: week night at ten BM Wall Street Time. I'm June

459
00:31:08,280 --> 00:31:10,440
Speaker 1: Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg