WEBVTT - GENIUS Act, Texas v. BlackRock, DOJ v. Visa

0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:18.320
<v Speaker 1>Hello, and welcome to the Votes and Verdicts podcast, hosted

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:21.759
<v Speaker 1>by the Litigation and Policy team at Bloomberg Intelligence, the

0:00:21.840 --> 0:00:25.280
<v Speaker 1>investment research platform of Bloomberg LP on the Bloomberg Terminal.

0:00:25.800 --> 0:00:29.760
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Intelligence has five hundred analysts and strategists working across

0:00:29.840 --> 0:00:33.440
<v Speaker 1>the globe and focused on all major markets. Our coverage

0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:36.239
<v Speaker 1>includes over two thousand equities and credits, and we have

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:40.120
<v Speaker 1>outlooks on more than ninety industries and one hundred market industries,

0:00:40.159 --> 0:00:44.680
<v Speaker 1>currencies and commodities. This podcast series examines the intersection of

0:00:44.760 --> 0:00:48.599
<v Speaker 1>business policy and law, and today's our weekly check in

0:00:48.680 --> 0:00:52.519
<v Speaker 1>on the litigation and policy catalysts that we're watching and

0:00:52.520 --> 0:00:57.040
<v Speaker 1>that we think will impact companies and markets and sectors

0:00:57.080 --> 0:01:00.480
<v Speaker 1>and industries. My name is Elliot Stein. I'm in analysts

0:01:00.480 --> 0:01:04.240
<v Speaker 1>with Bloomberg Intelligence covering litigation in the financial sector. I'm

0:01:04.240 --> 0:01:06.800
<v Speaker 1>delighted as always to be joined by a handful of

0:01:06.840 --> 0:01:10.080
<v Speaker 1>my colleagues from the Litigation and policy team here at BI.

0:01:10.600 --> 0:01:12.600
<v Speaker 1>As a reminder, you can find all of our research

0:01:12.720 --> 0:01:16.440
<v Speaker 1>on the Bloomberg terminal at BI go, and you can

0:01:16.440 --> 0:01:19.600
<v Speaker 1>find all of our litigation and policy research on our

0:01:20.240 --> 0:01:25.280
<v Speaker 1>dashboard which is available at BI laws Go. Today is

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:30.800
<v Speaker 1>June twelfth. It's about one pm. And we always timestamp

0:01:30.840 --> 0:01:35.000
<v Speaker 1>things because inevitably things happen quickly, and sometimes they happen

0:01:35.080 --> 0:01:39.720
<v Speaker 1>as we're talking on this podcast. All right, So Nathan Dean,

0:01:39.920 --> 0:01:43.000
<v Speaker 1>let's bring you in. Nathan is our chief policy analyst

0:01:43.040 --> 0:01:48.559
<v Speaker 1>down in Washington, DC. He's been following the stable coin

0:01:48.680 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 1>bill that seems like it's about to pass the Senate

0:01:55.520 --> 0:01:58.800
<v Speaker 1>and eventually get to the President's desk. I guess pretty soon.

0:01:59.240 --> 0:02:01.440
<v Speaker 1>Why don't you tell us what the latest is and

0:02:01.680 --> 0:02:02.600
<v Speaker 1>what happens next.

0:02:03.440 --> 0:02:07.320
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So last night, so Thursday night, Senator John Thune

0:02:07.720 --> 0:02:11.600
<v Speaker 2>filed cloture, which means that's the first vote of several

0:02:11.680 --> 0:02:15.280
<v Speaker 2>votes that ultimately ends up with this bill passing the Senate.

0:02:15.320 --> 0:02:17.800
<v Speaker 2>And that vote went sixty eight to thirty. And just

0:02:17.840 --> 0:02:21.079
<v Speaker 2>as a reminder, you need sixty to get past the filibuster.

0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:25.080
<v Speaker 2>There were significant number of Democrats who came on board

0:02:25.080 --> 0:02:27.600
<v Speaker 2>to vote for this, and so when the bill does

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:30.760
<v Speaker 2>come up for vote on Monday, we do think this

0:02:30.760 --> 0:02:32.800
<v Speaker 2>bill is going to pass. And just as a reminder,

0:02:32.840 --> 0:02:35.760
<v Speaker 2>this is called the Genius Act. This bill would require

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.919
<v Speaker 2>stable coin issuers like Circle that have a greater ten

0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 2>billion dollar the market capitalization to register with either the

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:45.840
<v Speaker 2>Federal Reserve or the Office of the Control or the Currency.

0:02:46.080 --> 0:02:48.080
<v Speaker 2>If you're under ten billion, you have to register with

0:02:48.240 --> 0:02:50.960
<v Speaker 2>a state regulator, and you're required to have one hundred

0:02:50.960 --> 0:02:53.919
<v Speaker 2>percent high quality liquid assets backing up your stable coin,

0:02:54.000 --> 0:02:56.400
<v Speaker 2>and you're not allowed to pay yield. And so you know,

0:02:56.440 --> 0:02:58.639
<v Speaker 2>there was a lot of discussion in the stable coin

0:02:58.639 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 2>community about whether or not they could pay interest. Under

0:03:01.520 --> 0:03:04.240
<v Speaker 2>this bill, you were prohibited from paying yield. Now, I

0:03:04.240 --> 0:03:05.920
<v Speaker 2>do think this is going to pass the Senate on

0:03:06.000 --> 0:03:08.519
<v Speaker 2>Monday night. Then it goes to the House, and while

0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:11.080
<v Speaker 2>the House could tinker with it, I don't think they will.

0:03:11.120 --> 0:03:13.120
<v Speaker 2>I think they more likely than not just want to

0:03:13.160 --> 0:03:15.840
<v Speaker 2>get this over the line, and the question on whether

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:16.880
<v Speaker 2>or not passes the House.

0:03:16.919 --> 0:03:18.639
<v Speaker 3>It should pass the House fairly easily.

0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:21.120
<v Speaker 2>The biggest issue has always been to pass the Senate,

0:03:21.480 --> 0:03:23.680
<v Speaker 2>and that's something that I think you know now that

0:03:23.760 --> 0:03:25.880
<v Speaker 2>it's the culture votes, and this is the second culture

0:03:25.919 --> 0:03:28.519
<v Speaker 2>vote for what it's worth that has attracted enough Democrats

0:03:28.919 --> 0:03:30.880
<v Speaker 2>to get above that sixty vote threshold.

0:03:31.200 --> 0:03:32.960
<v Speaker 3>So I think this passes probably.

0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:35.280
<v Speaker 2>Late June, but more likely early July, and then it

0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:39.920
<v Speaker 2>goes to the regulators to implement their proposals. That would then,

0:03:40.080 --> 0:03:42.600
<v Speaker 2>you know, for those of you with Bloomberg terminals come back.

0:03:42.720 --> 0:03:45.200
<v Speaker 2>You know, we'll be writing about how that rulemaking process

0:03:45.200 --> 0:03:47.280
<v Speaker 2>plays out. But if you're a stable cooid issue or

0:03:47.320 --> 0:03:49.040
<v Speaker 2>you should be feeling pretty good right now. But the

0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:52.280
<v Speaker 2>regulatory clarity that's coming down the line.

0:03:52.440 --> 0:03:55.360
<v Speaker 1>Did the House pass its own version before the Senate

0:03:55.760 --> 0:03:56.440
<v Speaker 1>worked on theirs?

0:03:56.840 --> 0:03:59.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, so the House has their own version and that

0:03:59.480 --> 0:04:02.800
<v Speaker 2>had a lit a little bit more technical differences between

0:04:02.800 --> 0:04:04.880
<v Speaker 2>that and the Senate version, and I think for the

0:04:04.920 --> 0:04:07.240
<v Speaker 2>sake of speed, and one of the bigger questions is

0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:10.040
<v Speaker 2>this idea to pay yield. You know, there are some

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 2>folks in Congress that think stable coin issuers can pay yield.

0:04:13.440 --> 0:04:16.320
<v Speaker 2>But the problem is is that you'll then if stable

0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:18.640
<v Speaker 2>cooin issuers are paying yield, the banks aren't gonna like that,

0:04:19.279 --> 0:04:20.880
<v Speaker 2>and then the banks all of a sudden start to

0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:23.359
<v Speaker 2>get upset. And you know, that's the other major hiccup

0:04:23.360 --> 0:04:26.280
<v Speaker 2>that I should have said earlier is there is an

0:04:26.279 --> 0:04:29.040
<v Speaker 2>amendment process that was playing out behind the scenes that

0:04:29.080 --> 0:04:30.200
<v Speaker 2>potentially could.

0:04:29.920 --> 0:04:31.039
<v Speaker 3>Have derailed this bill.

0:04:31.560 --> 0:04:33.440
<v Speaker 2>And that comes to the form of this bill called

0:04:33.480 --> 0:04:35.760
<v Speaker 2>the credit card Competition Act. So if you've flown through

0:04:35.920 --> 0:04:39.800
<v Speaker 2>LaGuardia or Rayan or hair, keep your eyes out and

0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:41.599
<v Speaker 2>I think over in the Guardia, it's over in the

0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:44.280
<v Speaker 2>new Delta or not Delta. It's probably what's the new

0:04:44.360 --> 0:04:47.720
<v Speaker 2>terminal the New Yorkers or Guardia.

0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:50.760
<v Speaker 1>I'd never find I title avoid LaGuardia. There's so many

0:04:50.800 --> 0:04:52.080
<v Speaker 1>Jersey guy. I just got into work.

0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 2>There's this new terminal, and I the New Yorkers listening

0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:57.200
<v Speaker 2>to this podcast and to be like, yep, I know

0:04:57.240 --> 0:04:59.400
<v Speaker 2>exactly what you're talking about. It's not the Delta terminal.

0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:01.880
<v Speaker 2>Last time I was in the ne La Guardia, keep

0:05:01.880 --> 0:05:03.719
<v Speaker 2>your eyes out, because I did see the advert there.

0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:09.320
<v Speaker 2>And this advertisement is because Senator Marshall of Kansas, Roger

0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:12.200
<v Speaker 2>Marshall is teamed up with Senator Dick Durban of Illinois,

0:05:12.200 --> 0:05:15.080
<v Speaker 2>a Republican and a Democrat, to come together and they

0:05:15.160 --> 0:05:18.200
<v Speaker 2>want to put forth this bill that increases competition for

0:05:18.320 --> 0:05:21.480
<v Speaker 2>Visa MasterCard. Now, without getting into the great details, what

0:05:21.520 --> 0:05:23.719
<v Speaker 2>you need to know is is that the airlines think

0:05:24.000 --> 0:05:26.359
<v Speaker 2>that's going to kill the credit card rewards programs for

0:05:26.480 --> 0:05:29.400
<v Speaker 2>these airlines. So you've got an issue that has banks

0:05:29.480 --> 0:05:33.640
<v Speaker 2>versus retailers versus airlines. And when you have that, all

0:05:33.680 --> 0:05:36.320
<v Speaker 2>the senators are just like, I can't vote for this.

0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:40.719
<v Speaker 2>This is too dangerous. And had Senator Marshall gotten amendment's

0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:44.679
<v Speaker 2>vote on this bill, it could have derailed the stablequin invote.

0:05:44.720 --> 0:05:46.000
<v Speaker 1>So why did he even try to put it in there?

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:48.480
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it seems sort of like so random.

0:05:48.320 --> 0:05:52.039
<v Speaker 2>It Well, it's the easiest way to get passage, and

0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:55.320
<v Speaker 2>you avoid committee, and you avoid the ability of having

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:58.360
<v Speaker 2>tough votes, and you put it through at the final hour,

0:05:58.480 --> 0:06:00.800
<v Speaker 2>and so you only need one vote to get it

0:06:00.880 --> 0:06:03.480
<v Speaker 2>over across the line. And when you have something that

0:06:03.560 --> 0:06:08.240
<v Speaker 2>has like luke warm bipartisan support but has a lot

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:11.520
<v Speaker 2>of detractors and not it's a way of jamming up

0:06:11.560 --> 0:06:12.359
<v Speaker 2>the final bill.

0:06:12.200 --> 0:06:13.880
<v Speaker 3>And trying to force passage.

0:06:14.000 --> 0:06:16.200
<v Speaker 2>There's been other instances of where this has worked over

0:06:16.200 --> 0:06:19.240
<v Speaker 2>the last fifteen twenty years that I've covered Washington. But

0:06:19.320 --> 0:06:21.440
<v Speaker 2>the problem with this one is that everybody knows it's coming,

0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:26.360
<v Speaker 2>and also Senator Thune had so the funny thing that

0:06:26.400 --> 0:06:28.800
<v Speaker 2>happened here is that Senator Marshall put this amendment on.

0:06:29.640 --> 0:06:32.839
<v Speaker 2>The next thing that happened Senator Holly Republican from Missouri

0:06:32.880 --> 0:06:35.440
<v Speaker 2>said no, no, no, no, no, I'm gonna put my amendments

0:06:36.000 --> 0:06:38.960
<v Speaker 2>that caps all credit card interest rates at ten percent.

0:06:39.400 --> 0:06:42.320
<v Speaker 2>That he's teamed up with Senator Bernie Sanders. He's like, no, no, no,

0:06:42.360 --> 0:06:44.720
<v Speaker 2>I'm putting my amendment on there. And next thing, you know,

0:06:44.839 --> 0:06:48.320
<v Speaker 2>everybody had amendments. So Senator John Thune on Monday night

0:06:48.400 --> 0:06:51.159
<v Speaker 2>of earlier this week came said, no, we're done.

0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:55.240
<v Speaker 3>We tried it. I'm actually devoiding all the amendments. Called

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:57.960
<v Speaker 3>an amendment tree, he invoided all the amendments.

0:06:57.960 --> 0:07:00.599
<v Speaker 2>He brought forth a new amendment tree that only was

0:07:00.640 --> 0:07:03.000
<v Speaker 2>really related to the stable coin bill and.

0:07:02.960 --> 0:07:04.600
<v Speaker 3>Said that's what we're going forward with.

0:07:04.800 --> 0:07:09.000
<v Speaker 2>So that process does it and could potentially play out

0:07:09.000 --> 0:07:10.360
<v Speaker 2>in the House, but I don't think it will.

0:07:11.120 --> 0:07:12.720
<v Speaker 3>I think the House will just pass it and be

0:07:12.760 --> 0:07:13.080
<v Speaker 3>done with it.

0:07:13.360 --> 0:07:15.720
<v Speaker 1>And so what happens to those credit card amendments. I mean,

0:07:15.720 --> 0:07:18.400
<v Speaker 1>it's two different bills. I assume they're going to try

0:07:18.440 --> 0:07:20.760
<v Speaker 1>to raise them later this time.

0:07:20.960 --> 0:07:24.360
<v Speaker 2>So I think watch out for the September Continuing Resolution

0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:28.120
<v Speaker 2>period just because I think that's where they'll try and

0:07:28.120 --> 0:07:31.360
<v Speaker 2>attach it next. Senator Durbin tried this with the NDAA

0:07:31.480 --> 0:07:35.880
<v Speaker 2>last year, the National Defense Authorization Act. So between now

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:38.440
<v Speaker 2>and the end of the congressional term, if there's any

0:07:38.560 --> 0:07:42.280
<v Speaker 2>must pass piece of legislation, watch out probably about three

0:07:42.280 --> 0:07:44.880
<v Speaker 2>to four weeks in advance. Senator Marshall and Senator Durbin

0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:47.720
<v Speaker 2>will try and attach it. I still think it's not

0:07:47.760 --> 0:07:50.080
<v Speaker 2>going to happen. I still think a forty percent chance.

0:07:50.560 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 1>Both of that, both bills. I mean, it sounds like

0:07:52.480 --> 0:07:55.760
<v Speaker 1>the credit card competition maybe might be able to get

0:07:55.800 --> 0:07:59.000
<v Speaker 1>more bipartisan support than capping credit card f viesa ten percent.

0:07:59.080 --> 0:08:02.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, our Holly's build the cap credit card fees that

0:08:02.080 --> 0:08:05.160
<v Speaker 2>that we're at a twenty percent chance of that. But this,

0:08:05.160 --> 0:08:08.400
<v Speaker 2>this Credit Card Competition Act, it's one of those things.

0:08:08.200 --> 0:08:09.920
<v Speaker 3>Where I think it's like, you know, I call it

0:08:09.960 --> 0:08:11.000
<v Speaker 3>bipartisan warmth.

0:08:11.640 --> 0:08:15.120
<v Speaker 2>Because there was a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee

0:08:15.160 --> 0:08:17.480
<v Speaker 2>hearing last December, it was like novembery December, and they

0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:20.720
<v Speaker 2>had it was about Visa MasterCard, and I was surprised

0:08:20.720 --> 0:08:24.200
<v Speaker 2>at the amount of Republicans who came out against Visa MasterCard.

0:08:24.680 --> 0:08:26.840
<v Speaker 2>And what this bill does is it requires banks to

0:08:27.000 --> 0:08:33.560
<v Speaker 2>issue their retailers so their merchants. Requires these banks to say, Okay,

0:08:33.720 --> 0:08:36.680
<v Speaker 2>we're going to offer you Visa and somebody else or

0:08:36.760 --> 0:08:40.000
<v Speaker 2>MasterCard and somebody else. And the way the bills written,

0:08:40.080 --> 0:08:42.480
<v Speaker 2>it can't be Visa and MasterCard. It either has to

0:08:42.480 --> 0:08:47.200
<v Speaker 2>be Visa, an American Express or MasterCard. And Discover still Discover,

0:08:47.320 --> 0:08:49.760
<v Speaker 2>even though it Discovers taken over by Capital One, it's

0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:53.440
<v Speaker 2>still the Discovered network according to our greater according to

0:08:53.480 --> 0:08:56.400
<v Speaker 2>our great equity animals, Benelliot, they're keeping the Discovered network

0:08:56.440 --> 0:08:59.280
<v Speaker 2>as is right now, but until they change it, it's

0:08:59.320 --> 0:09:00.160
<v Speaker 2>the Discover Net.

0:09:00.400 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 3>Okay, interesting and so, but you know this bill.

0:09:05.720 --> 0:09:08.160
<v Speaker 2>The reason why the banks hate it is because it

0:09:08.280 --> 0:09:10.239
<v Speaker 2>lowers the fees that they get from the retailers.

0:09:10.640 --> 0:09:11.719
<v Speaker 3>The retailers love it.

0:09:11.800 --> 0:09:15.200
<v Speaker 2>So now you have Walmart and Target and Home Depot

0:09:15.240 --> 0:09:18.000
<v Speaker 2>lobbying their folks saying we want this. And you've got

0:09:18.040 --> 0:09:20.480
<v Speaker 2>Bank of America and JP Morgan in the United Airlines

0:09:20.480 --> 0:09:22.600
<v Speaker 2>and American Airlines telling their folks, we hate this.

0:09:23.400 --> 0:09:25.640
<v Speaker 3>And from a senatorial perspective.

0:09:25.160 --> 0:09:28.000
<v Speaker 2>They're like, I got two of my kids fighting here, right,

0:09:28.240 --> 0:09:29.760
<v Speaker 2>go and get out of the room.

0:09:29.920 --> 0:09:34.440
<v Speaker 1>So wow, yeah, that's like battle of a heavyweight lobbyists exactly.

0:09:34.559 --> 0:09:35.880
<v Speaker 1>That's gonna be fascinating.

0:09:35.920 --> 0:09:38.160
<v Speaker 3>But that's why we can definitely do another podcast on

0:09:38.200 --> 0:09:40.240
<v Speaker 3>this one. But yeah, that's what we will.

0:09:40.520 --> 0:09:42.560
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that's why it didn't you know, that's why the

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:44.600
<v Speaker 2>Senators were like, no, no, no, you can't attach into

0:09:44.679 --> 0:09:45.400
<v Speaker 2>the Genius Act.

0:09:45.880 --> 0:09:48.120
<v Speaker 3>Let's get the stable Coin Bill without the other.

0:09:48.320 --> 0:09:51.240
<v Speaker 1>So here's a stupid question. Why are they calling the

0:09:51.240 --> 0:09:54.640
<v Speaker 1>stable Coin Bill the Genius Act and not the Stable Act?

0:09:54.760 --> 0:09:56.920
<v Speaker 1>Or what there was a Stable Act? What did that

0:09:57.000 --> 0:09:57.480
<v Speaker 1>refer to?

0:09:57.679 --> 0:10:01.360
<v Speaker 2>So the Stable Act was from the last Congressional I'm sorry,

0:10:01.720 --> 0:10:04.240
<v Speaker 2>the Stable Act was taken by the House.

0:10:05.080 --> 0:10:07.480
<v Speaker 1>Oh, so you have this Stable Act and the Genius Act,

0:10:07.480 --> 0:10:08.400
<v Speaker 1>the Stable Genius Acts.

0:10:08.440 --> 0:10:11.120
<v Speaker 2>So the Genius Acting, if you give me about two

0:10:11.160 --> 0:10:14.760
<v Speaker 2>seconds to look up what the Genius stands for, it's

0:10:14.800 --> 0:10:18.760
<v Speaker 2>the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US stable Coins

0:10:18.760 --> 0:10:21.480
<v Speaker 2>of twenty twenty five or the Genius Act of twenty

0:10:21.520 --> 0:10:22.040
<v Speaker 2>twenty five.

0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:27.600
<v Speaker 1>All right, good stuff, Nathan. Let's move over to antitrust

0:10:27.640 --> 0:10:33.880
<v Speaker 1>and bring in one of our anti trust analysts, Justin Tesi. So, Justin,

0:10:33.960 --> 0:10:38.440
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about this case brought by the State of

0:10:38.480 --> 0:10:43.240
<v Speaker 1>Texas and a dozen other Red states against Black Rock,

0:10:43.520 --> 0:10:47.680
<v Speaker 1>Vanguard and State Street accusing these companies of colluding to

0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:51.760
<v Speaker 1>reduce coal output. You've been following this case since it

0:10:51.880 --> 0:10:54.800
<v Speaker 1>was filed, and even before that when it was threatened

0:10:54.840 --> 0:10:57.400
<v Speaker 1>and discussed. I guess you know, why don't you come

0:10:57.440 --> 0:11:00.600
<v Speaker 1>in tell us about the case, give us your thoughts

0:11:00.960 --> 0:11:02.720
<v Speaker 1>on the strengths and the weaknesses of it.

0:11:02.840 --> 0:11:06.000
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, yeah, definitely, But really important before I jump into this, Nathan,

0:11:06.040 --> 0:11:08.719
<v Speaker 4>the name of the new terminal quaritia is Terminal B.

0:11:09.040 --> 0:11:11.680
<v Speaker 4>They really went for the stars, the stars in the

0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:14.880
<v Speaker 4>moon on that one. That is it, Big Fountain, great

0:11:14.920 --> 0:11:17.560
<v Speaker 4>food Cork, food court, terminal be that that's what they

0:11:17.559 --> 0:11:18.160
<v Speaker 4>got there for you.

0:11:18.320 --> 0:11:20.520
<v Speaker 3>I was really impressed with the food court, Like, yeah,

0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:22.600
<v Speaker 3>I mean I loved it.

0:11:22.960 --> 0:11:25.400
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, yeah, No, It's definitely a step in the right direction,

0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:28.199
<v Speaker 4>I think. But all right, back back to business as

0:11:28.280 --> 0:11:32.440
<v Speaker 4>usual here. But yeah, this case that we saw file

0:11:32.720 --> 0:11:35.679
<v Speaker 4>last year right around Thanksgiving in Texas was brought by

0:11:36.000 --> 0:11:38.920
<v Speaker 4>Attorney General Ken pax And representing Texas and a whole

0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:42.080
<v Speaker 4>host of Red states, and it really was the first

0:11:42.440 --> 0:11:44.840
<v Speaker 4>of I think what we're probably about to see a

0:11:44.880 --> 0:11:48.560
<v Speaker 4>wave of new anti trust litigation kind of directing the

0:11:48.600 --> 0:11:52.080
<v Speaker 4>anti trust laws at things like ESG initiatives or other

0:11:52.160 --> 0:11:55.320
<v Speaker 4>corners of anti trust worty. Maybe haven't seen these kinds

0:11:55.360 --> 0:11:58.400
<v Speaker 4>of cases brought before, but in a nutshell, what's been

0:11:58.440 --> 0:12:01.400
<v Speaker 4>a last year is that these really large asset managers,

0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:04.240
<v Speaker 4>so think black Rock, Vanguard and State Street in this

0:12:04.320 --> 0:12:07.120
<v Speaker 4>case many of times, who are holding index funds right

0:12:07.160 --> 0:12:10.320
<v Speaker 4>and by virtue of holding funds in these kind of

0:12:10.320 --> 0:12:14.240
<v Speaker 4>index you know, mutual funds have really large shareholder ownership

0:12:14.480 --> 0:12:17.520
<v Speaker 4>in a wide array of companies, including in this case

0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:22.640
<v Speaker 4>coal companies, coal mining and core production companies. So what's

0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:26.080
<v Speaker 4>the issue. The issue is that you know, these banks

0:12:25.880 --> 0:12:29.320
<v Speaker 4>and several others have joined on to these climate change initiatives,

0:12:29.600 --> 0:12:32.840
<v Speaker 4>in this case net zero and Climate Action one hundred plus.

0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:35.080
<v Speaker 4>Those the two kinds of climate initiatives that are that

0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:39.000
<v Speaker 4>are issue in this case, these ESG initiatives and further

0:12:39.080 --> 0:12:43.040
<v Speaker 4>participation in these initiatives. You know, what's alleged here is

0:12:43.080 --> 0:12:46.160
<v Speaker 4>that those agreements that participate in these these kinds of

0:12:46.200 --> 0:12:50.280
<v Speaker 4>accords basically are an anti trust violation and that these

0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:53.560
<v Speaker 4>these managers have come together and agreed to kind of

0:12:53.600 --> 0:12:56.960
<v Speaker 4>act in a way that limits coal production and turn

0:12:57.120 --> 0:13:01.600
<v Speaker 4>raises coal prices for consumers and turned electricity process or whatever,

0:13:01.640 --> 0:13:04.439
<v Speaker 4>and all these different things were coals coming into play.

0:13:04.720 --> 0:13:07.520
<v Speaker 4>That's the kind of novel theory behind this case, that

0:13:07.600 --> 0:13:10.440
<v Speaker 4>the participation in those climate accords just.

0:13:10.280 --> 0:13:14.760
<v Speaker 1>A participation, not even like some yeah, agreement to morrow.

0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:16.760
<v Speaker 4>Right right, you know. And that's the interesting thing that

0:13:16.840 --> 0:13:18.839
<v Speaker 4>was kind of a hanging chat, if you will, as

0:13:18.920 --> 0:13:20.839
<v Speaker 4>as to whether or not they were they were hanging

0:13:20.880 --> 0:13:24.920
<v Speaker 4>their hat on those kinds of agreements being the subject matter,

0:13:25.320 --> 0:13:27.760
<v Speaker 4>you know, that forms the anti trust violation itself. But

0:13:27.800 --> 0:13:31.280
<v Speaker 4>if there was any question, really in Attorney General Paxton's case,

0:13:31.640 --> 0:13:33.920
<v Speaker 4>there was a statement of interest file by the Department

0:13:33.920 --> 0:13:36.360
<v Speaker 4>of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission that really said

0:13:36.480 --> 0:13:39.040
<v Speaker 4>or it took the position that that participation in and

0:13:39.080 --> 0:13:42.600
<v Speaker 4>of itself can be the foundation for an anti trust violation.

0:13:42.760 --> 0:13:45.840
<v Speaker 4>So whether or not, you know, the complaint itself actually

0:13:45.840 --> 0:13:48.959
<v Speaker 4>made that allegation, the federal agencies that filed that statement

0:13:49.000 --> 0:13:51.600
<v Speaker 4>of interest in the case and support really took it

0:13:51.640 --> 0:13:54.360
<v Speaker 4>a step further and said, yes, that participation in and

0:13:54.400 --> 0:13:56.600
<v Speaker 4>of itself can can really lay the found word for

0:13:56.679 --> 0:14:01.080
<v Speaker 4>liability from an anti trust perspective. So that's interesting, you know,

0:14:01.160 --> 0:14:03.400
<v Speaker 4>I think our view is that look there's still really

0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:06.000
<v Speaker 4>is that this whole aspect of an agreement here, a

0:14:06.080 --> 0:14:09.640
<v Speaker 4>specific agreement to really step in and somehow limit coal

0:14:09.679 --> 0:14:12.280
<v Speaker 4>production that at the end of the day, probably hampers

0:14:12.280 --> 0:14:14.760
<v Speaker 4>this case from getting too much further than the motion

0:14:14.840 --> 0:14:18.319
<v Speaker 4>to dismiss where it's at now. But there's that issue

0:14:18.440 --> 0:14:19.920
<v Speaker 4>and also just one of causation.

0:14:20.080 --> 0:14:20.240
<v Speaker 3>Right.

0:14:20.400 --> 0:14:23.240
<v Speaker 4>Did these companies, you know, these independent companies like Peabody

0:14:23.240 --> 0:14:26.000
<v Speaker 4>Coal and our Tree Sources, did they limit coal production

0:14:26.160 --> 0:14:31.160
<v Speaker 4>because these asset managers were exerting their pressure, you know,

0:14:31.680 --> 0:14:34.920
<v Speaker 4>via other participation in these accords? Were there real external

0:14:34.960 --> 0:14:38.200
<v Speaker 4>factors involved in lowering coal production? Perhaps there was a

0:14:38.240 --> 0:14:41.560
<v Speaker 4>decline in demand for coal, Perhaps there were countervailing kind

0:14:41.560 --> 0:14:44.280
<v Speaker 4>of political realities, good decline and coal you know, coming

0:14:44.320 --> 0:14:47.680
<v Speaker 4>from Ukraine? Did that somehow affect the price of coal worldwide?

0:14:47.800 --> 0:14:47.960
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:14:48.000 --> 0:14:51.000
<v Speaker 4>So those kinds of things seem to be missing from

0:14:51.040 --> 0:14:53.360
<v Speaker 4>the complaint, and I think for that reason it runs

0:14:53.360 --> 0:14:55.880
<v Speaker 4>into semantic trust issues, you know, in terms of liability

0:14:55.880 --> 0:14:56.600
<v Speaker 4>down the road.

0:14:56.400 --> 0:14:59.800
<v Speaker 1>Here, although some of those things could be factual questions. Right,

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:03.200
<v Speaker 1>the judge sort of uses to let the case get

0:15:03.480 --> 0:15:05.760
<v Speaker 1>pass this initial motion to dismiss.

0:15:05.920 --> 0:15:07.760
<v Speaker 4>I think that's right. And I think I think between

0:15:07.800 --> 0:15:11.000
<v Speaker 4>the fact questions and the if quite frankly, the political

0:15:11.360 --> 0:15:14.320
<v Speaker 4>the political players involved here. You know, the case is

0:15:14.360 --> 0:15:17.400
<v Speaker 4>filed in federal just recording Tyler, Texas. We're talking about

0:15:17.400 --> 0:15:20.280
<v Speaker 4>a conservative forum in the Fifth Circuit, you know, and

0:15:20.320 --> 0:15:22.440
<v Speaker 4>I think, you know, with with the fact questions being

0:15:22.440 --> 0:15:24.600
<v Speaker 4>what they are and with the political actors involved, I

0:15:24.600 --> 0:15:27.040
<v Speaker 4>would imagine it's really hard press to shut this thing

0:15:27.080 --> 0:15:28.560
<v Speaker 4>down at a motion to the Smiths phase.

0:15:28.800 --> 0:15:31.080
<v Speaker 1>Speaking of the Fifth Circuit, it was interesting that I

0:15:31.080 --> 0:15:36.240
<v Speaker 1>think it was black Rocks. The lawyer representing black Rock,

0:15:36.280 --> 0:15:38.360
<v Speaker 1>I think in this case was Greg Costa, who's a

0:15:38.360 --> 0:15:42.640
<v Speaker 1>former Fifth Circuit judge the point of my democrat, I believe,

0:15:42.960 --> 0:15:46.640
<v Speaker 1>so not not not the traditional conservative Fifth Circuit judge,

0:15:46.640 --> 0:15:49.040
<v Speaker 1>but still you know, obviously know it's the Circuit.

0:15:49.960 --> 0:15:52.560
<v Speaker 4>I would imagine quite intentional on the part of black Rock.

0:15:52.720 --> 0:15:53.440
<v Speaker 3>Yes, exactly.

0:15:53.480 --> 0:15:58.840
<v Speaker 1>Also interesting to see Gibson Done you know, representing the

0:15:58.840 --> 0:16:02.120
<v Speaker 1>companies in this case, because in so many cases that

0:16:02.120 --> 0:16:05.120
<v Speaker 1>we follow, Gibson Gun represents you know, the trade groups

0:16:05.200 --> 0:16:10.080
<v Speaker 1>challenging uh, you know, a government policy. So just going

0:16:10.120 --> 0:16:13.600
<v Speaker 1>back to the statement of interest by DOJ and the FTC,

0:16:14.560 --> 0:16:16.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, how how common is that and have you

0:16:16.760 --> 0:16:17.680
<v Speaker 1>seen that in other cases?

0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:20.000
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, you know, we have. You know, the one that

0:16:20.040 --> 0:16:22.640
<v Speaker 4>comes to mind, you know, most recently is that DJ

0:16:22.800 --> 0:16:25.760
<v Speaker 4>stepped in in terms of these real page algorithm cases

0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:28.160
<v Speaker 4>that where we're kind of saying, hey, you know, this

0:16:28.360 --> 0:16:32.440
<v Speaker 4>kind of sharing through an independent AI algorithm by by landlords,

0:16:32.480 --> 0:16:34.880
<v Speaker 4>you know, about what the rental prices or vacancy rates

0:16:34.960 --> 0:16:36.840
<v Speaker 4>might be. You know, there was a big question whether

0:16:36.880 --> 0:16:38.840
<v Speaker 4>or not that itself could be this kind of anti

0:16:38.880 --> 0:16:41.400
<v Speaker 4>trust you know, violation in terms that it's this hub

0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:44.800
<v Speaker 4>and spoke agreement between the software provider and the landlords

0:16:44.840 --> 0:16:47.440
<v Speaker 4>all working together to kind of you know, uh collude

0:16:47.480 --> 0:16:50.600
<v Speaker 4>to price fixed rental prices and for apartments nationwide. Right,

0:16:51.520 --> 0:16:53.680
<v Speaker 4>DOJ stepped into that case of file the statement of

0:16:53.720 --> 0:16:56.200
<v Speaker 4>interest there, so that you know, these things are fairly common.

0:16:56.520 --> 0:16:58.800
<v Speaker 4>What wasn't you know, really common about this is that

0:16:58.840 --> 0:17:01.400
<v Speaker 4>typically it's DOJ that steps in and does that on

0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:03.440
<v Speaker 4>its own, to have the FDC and do o J

0:17:03.680 --> 0:17:06.840
<v Speaker 4>kind of jointly filing this statement of interest here, especially

0:17:06.840 --> 0:17:09.040
<v Speaker 4>at a time where the FDC is anti trust authority,

0:17:09.080 --> 0:17:10.920
<v Speaker 4>you know, and of itself has been under attack by

0:17:10.960 --> 0:17:14.399
<v Speaker 4>some Congressional Republicans. Well, that was a really interesting, uh

0:17:14.440 --> 0:17:16.000
<v Speaker 4>you know wrinkle on all of this too, to see

0:17:16.080 --> 0:17:17.880
<v Speaker 4>kind of a joint statement that both of those those

0:17:17.920 --> 0:17:18.640
<v Speaker 4>agencies here.

0:17:18.680 --> 0:17:19.480
<v Speaker 1>What do you think that means?

0:17:19.560 --> 0:17:22.080
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, I think there's a probably a real effort here,

0:17:22.200 --> 0:17:25.280
<v Speaker 4>no surprise by by FDC share Ferguson, to really cement

0:17:25.640 --> 0:17:28.080
<v Speaker 4>the anti trust authority at the FTC that you know,

0:17:28.359 --> 0:17:31.640
<v Speaker 4>that goes part and parcel with its actual consert protection authority.

0:17:32.560 --> 0:17:35.640
<v Speaker 4>You know, it's interesting from from that angle, I think

0:17:35.680 --> 0:17:38.720
<v Speaker 4>we're we're we're seeing a very strong FTC in terms

0:17:38.760 --> 0:17:41.960
<v Speaker 4>of anti trust enforcement here, and I think probably you know,

0:17:42.000 --> 0:17:44.919
<v Speaker 4>a push to really maintain that authority, uh, you know,

0:17:44.960 --> 0:17:47.080
<v Speaker 4>in the face of some questioning, you know, for folks

0:17:47.160 --> 0:17:48.560
<v Speaker 4>on the hill whether or not there should be this

0:17:48.640 --> 0:17:50.800
<v Speaker 4>dual enforcement regime between the two agencies.

0:17:52.480 --> 0:17:55.679
<v Speaker 1>And you know, I mean what another interesting rinkle in

0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:57.840
<v Speaker 1>that case is that a lot of these companies have

0:17:58.400 --> 0:18:02.680
<v Speaker 1>left these climate accords right sort of to avoid the

0:18:02.720 --> 0:18:07.680
<v Speaker 1>anti trust issues. You know, does that matter in this

0:18:07.800 --> 0:18:11.080
<v Speaker 1>case and does it matter for potential future cases?

0:18:11.160 --> 0:18:13.879
<v Speaker 4>Yeah? You know, I think in this case, you know,

0:18:14.240 --> 0:18:16.960
<v Speaker 4>so you've seen folks like State Street and JP Morgan

0:18:17.000 --> 0:18:19.800
<v Speaker 4>completely leave clevi At Action one hundred plus for example.

0:18:19.920 --> 0:18:22.280
<v Speaker 4>As you know, I would say likely as a result

0:18:22.359 --> 0:18:25.439
<v Speaker 4>of wanting to avoid litigation like this in the future,

0:18:25.440 --> 0:18:27.440
<v Speaker 4>if not just you know, this case in and of itself,

0:18:27.680 --> 0:18:30.560
<v Speaker 4>but Black Rocks still you know, it's cons curtailed, it's involvement.

0:18:30.880 --> 0:18:33.040
<v Speaker 4>You know, there's still this tangential kind of involvement in

0:18:33.720 --> 0:18:36.080
<v Speaker 4>ESG agreements or coords like this. So I don't think

0:18:36.080 --> 0:18:38.760
<v Speaker 4>it means the end of this case, you know, I think,

0:18:39.240 --> 0:18:41.720
<v Speaker 4>by by and large, I think the goal of the case,

0:18:41.760 --> 0:18:44.119
<v Speaker 4>if it was to get folks to leave these initiatives,

0:18:44.320 --> 0:18:47.280
<v Speaker 4>that's been successful. But I think there's also this desire

0:18:47.359 --> 0:18:49.439
<v Speaker 4>probably to scare of folks from joining them again in

0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:52.560
<v Speaker 4>the future. You know, I think the creation of precedent

0:18:52.600 --> 0:18:55.480
<v Speaker 4>around that is probably something that Paxson and the plaintiffs

0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:57.199
<v Speaker 4>here are are interested in doing. And we're kind of

0:18:57.200 --> 0:19:00.000
<v Speaker 4>seeing the same thing in relation to this advertising book

0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:02.560
<v Speaker 4>co question right with the the X case. And you

0:19:02.600 --> 0:19:04.320
<v Speaker 4>know what, you know, can you this whole idea of

0:19:04.320 --> 0:19:07.280
<v Speaker 4>a group of boycott by advertisers, you know, not placing

0:19:07.280 --> 0:19:11.160
<v Speaker 4>adds on X. Yeah, the trust liability there is really

0:19:11.280 --> 0:19:13.360
<v Speaker 4>dubious in my mind, that's a tough case.

0:19:13.200 --> 0:19:13.880
<v Speaker 3>To really prove.

0:19:14.160 --> 0:19:15.680
<v Speaker 4>I don't know that the facts line up with the

0:19:15.800 --> 0:19:17.840
<v Speaker 4>with the with the assertions of the complaint in terms

0:19:17.840 --> 0:19:20.119
<v Speaker 4>of what the counts that have been alleged. But you know,

0:19:20.200 --> 0:19:22.960
<v Speaker 4>it's it's seemed to be getting folks to buy advertising

0:19:23.000 --> 0:19:25.320
<v Speaker 4>on X right. So I think the goal of these cases,

0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:27.520
<v Speaker 4>the goals of these cases, you know, they're kind of

0:19:27.520 --> 0:19:29.560
<v Speaker 4>coming to fruition whell or not the case that kicks

0:19:29.680 --> 0:19:30.960
<v Speaker 4>gritting across the finicial line.

0:19:31.640 --> 0:19:34.639
<v Speaker 1>Got it? All? Right, let's pivot slightly. We'll stick with

0:19:34.680 --> 0:19:37.960
<v Speaker 1>anti trust, but we'll pivot to Visa and the Justice

0:19:38.000 --> 0:19:42.800
<v Speaker 1>Environments monopolization case against Visa leging a series of anti

0:19:42.840 --> 0:19:47.240
<v Speaker 1>competitive contracts with merchants and would be rivals that you know,

0:19:47.600 --> 0:19:52.240
<v Speaker 1>allegedly would exclude competition from from the debit transaction processing market.

0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:55.000
<v Speaker 1>I know you've been following this case. You went to

0:19:55.080 --> 0:19:57.440
<v Speaker 1>the motion to dismiss hearing I think on May twenty nine.

0:19:57.520 --> 0:20:00.760
<v Speaker 4>Yes, that's right, right right after the royal It was

0:20:00.960 --> 0:20:02.000
<v Speaker 4>a great time right after.

0:20:02.520 --> 0:20:06.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so what's the latest in that case?

0:20:06.440 --> 0:20:09.440
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, So, you know, this case really zeros in on

0:20:09.800 --> 0:20:13.399
<v Speaker 4>you know, Visa's behavior following the implementation of Dodd Frank

0:20:13.440 --> 0:20:16.480
<v Speaker 4>and rolls around debit transactions that came out of that

0:20:16.480 --> 0:20:18.920
<v Speaker 4>that bill when it was past twenty ten, right, And

0:20:19.520 --> 0:20:23.160
<v Speaker 4>really what Don Frank did was create the situation where

0:20:23.240 --> 0:20:25.840
<v Speaker 4>debit cards had to be able to be processed over

0:20:25.920 --> 0:20:27.160
<v Speaker 4>more than one network.

0:20:27.280 --> 0:20:27.399
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:20:27.440 --> 0:20:29.119
<v Speaker 4>So let's say you've got Visa on the front of

0:20:29.160 --> 0:20:32.200
<v Speaker 4>the card. Sometimes you'll see a secondary network like Pulse

0:20:32.280 --> 0:20:34.040
<v Speaker 4>or Plus on the back of your card, which is

0:20:34.080 --> 0:20:38.080
<v Speaker 4>another network that those debit transactions can be processed over,

0:20:38.320 --> 0:20:41.000
<v Speaker 4>typically at a lower fee than whatever Visa would charge

0:20:41.000 --> 0:20:43.560
<v Speaker 4>for that transaction to go over its network. Now, I

0:20:43.600 --> 0:20:46.440
<v Speaker 4>think seeing the thread of competition here, what DOJ's alleging

0:20:46.520 --> 0:20:49.280
<v Speaker 4>Visa did in response to this is they created all

0:20:49.359 --> 0:20:52.160
<v Speaker 4>these kind of new fees, if you will, following Dodd

0:20:52.200 --> 0:20:55.560
<v Speaker 4>Frank and then Visa said, hey, will either reduce or

0:20:55.560 --> 0:20:58.040
<v Speaker 4>eliminate the fee that we charge you if you promise

0:20:58.119 --> 0:21:01.120
<v Speaker 4>to send a certain percentage of your debit transactions over

0:21:01.119 --> 0:21:03.600
<v Speaker 4>in our network instead of the cheaper networks that might

0:21:03.640 --> 0:21:06.359
<v Speaker 4>appear on the back of a cart. Who loses in

0:21:06.440 --> 0:21:08.800
<v Speaker 4>that are the merchants, right? Do end up paying these fees,

0:21:08.840 --> 0:21:12.320
<v Speaker 4>so that that's the central allegation of the case. There's that,

0:21:12.400 --> 0:21:15.080
<v Speaker 4>and then there's also some other allegations, you know, claiming

0:21:15.080 --> 0:21:18.640
<v Speaker 4>that Visa basically paid off Apple and others from developing

0:21:18.720 --> 0:21:21.920
<v Speaker 4>their own kind of debit networks, you know, and by

0:21:22.080 --> 0:21:24.160
<v Speaker 4>kind of you know, giving them fee concessions and things

0:21:24.280 --> 0:21:26.400
<v Speaker 4>of that of that sort too, right, are saying, hey,

0:21:26.440 --> 0:21:28.399
<v Speaker 4>we don't have to work with you in the future

0:21:28.440 --> 0:21:30.960
<v Speaker 4>if you develop your own network. Right, So, those are

0:21:31.000 --> 0:21:34.240
<v Speaker 4>the two central themes of this this case. You know,

0:21:34.280 --> 0:21:37.000
<v Speaker 4>I think the second the second set of allegations against

0:21:37.000 --> 0:21:41.439
<v Speaker 4>Apple and you know, regarding Visa's behavior with Apple, PayPal, others,

0:21:41.520 --> 0:21:43.800
<v Speaker 4>you know, to stop them from building a competitor's network,

0:21:44.040 --> 0:21:46.760
<v Speaker 4>those seem a little bit more questionable. There's you know,

0:21:46.800 --> 0:21:50.680
<v Speaker 4>there there have been heavily redacted but versions of contracts

0:21:50.680 --> 0:21:53.200
<v Speaker 4>between Visa and those entities that were submitted to the court.

0:21:53.800 --> 0:21:56.000
<v Speaker 4>The argument seems to be that those contracts are what

0:21:56.080 --> 0:21:57.720
<v Speaker 4>they are, and they don't really spell out the kind

0:21:57.720 --> 0:22:01.359
<v Speaker 4>of antitrust violation in those documents that DJ is saying,

0:22:01.480 --> 0:22:03.560
<v Speaker 4>you know, actually happened, so that one seems a little

0:22:03.560 --> 0:22:06.320
<v Speaker 4>bit more shaky. But regardless of that, the judge certainly

0:22:06.520 --> 0:22:09.680
<v Speaker 4>is saying these are all facts questions, and there's certainly

0:22:09.680 --> 0:22:11.920
<v Speaker 4>not issues that I'm willing to set aside right now

0:22:11.920 --> 0:22:13.800
<v Speaker 4>in a motion to dismiss hearing. So I think we

0:22:13.920 --> 0:22:18.520
<v Speaker 4>probably see that denied, you know, relatively soon, and then

0:22:18.600 --> 0:22:20.360
<v Speaker 4>you know what rolls up through discovery does.

0:22:20.480 --> 0:22:25.120
<v Speaker 1>But yeah, right, right, yeah, so that's still pretty early stages.

0:22:25.680 --> 0:22:29.119
<v Speaker 1>So is this similar to the interchange feed litigation that's

0:22:29.160 --> 0:22:30.240
<v Speaker 1>been going on for twenty years now?

0:22:30.520 --> 0:22:32.760
<v Speaker 4>You know, it's not related to it, but in an

0:22:32.800 --> 0:22:35.600
<v Speaker 4>interesting wrinkle, I think, you know, Visa is trying to

0:22:35.640 --> 0:22:38.240
<v Speaker 4>say that the fees that are covered that were covered

0:22:38.880 --> 0:22:41.239
<v Speaker 4>as part of its class settlement with merchants and the

0:22:41.240 --> 0:22:44.520
<v Speaker 4>interser change fee litigation, that it also covers the debit

0:22:44.520 --> 0:22:47.359
<v Speaker 4>fees that are at issue here in private suits that

0:22:47.400 --> 0:22:49.840
<v Speaker 4>are brought kind of as a copycats the DJ case.

0:22:50.200 --> 0:22:52.400
<v Speaker 4>You know, whether or not that's going to be successful,

0:22:52.440 --> 0:22:54.600
<v Speaker 4>I really question that because there's been of a different

0:22:54.600 --> 0:22:57.920
<v Speaker 4>factual nexus here in terms of, you know, the case

0:22:57.920 --> 0:22:59.879
<v Speaker 4>that is being brought here versus what was brought you know,

0:23:00.080 --> 0:23:02.439
<v Speaker 4>twenty years ago now, right, things are a bit different,

0:23:02.440 --> 0:23:05.320
<v Speaker 4>and the thing the behavior being alleged, the bad behavior

0:23:05.359 --> 0:23:07.480
<v Speaker 4>being alleged on the part of VISA here wasn't even

0:23:07.480 --> 0:23:09.800
<v Speaker 4>occurring right at the time that the interchange fee case

0:23:09.880 --> 0:23:12.239
<v Speaker 4>was brought originally in two thousand and five, allegedly, So

0:23:13.119 --> 0:23:15.080
<v Speaker 4>I think that's a bit of a stretch, but certainly

0:23:15.080 --> 0:23:17.600
<v Speaker 4>a different case, same kind of you know, network fees

0:23:17.640 --> 0:23:20.760
<v Speaker 4>we're talking about in some ways, but different kind of

0:23:20.760 --> 0:23:23.080
<v Speaker 4>set of allegations and facts altogether, and.

0:23:23.359 --> 0:23:26.679
<v Speaker 1>Trying to fold it into I guess the settlement with

0:23:27.200 --> 0:23:31.639
<v Speaker 1>the merchants case that would have affected this DOJ case anyways.

0:23:31.840 --> 0:23:34.960
<v Speaker 4>No, No, I think absolutely not. You know, a DOJ. You know,

0:23:35.040 --> 0:23:39.400
<v Speaker 4>the previous deals made between VISA and DUJ and merchants

0:23:39.440 --> 0:23:42.000
<v Speaker 4>all really, you know, I think are kind of especially DJ.

0:23:42.119 --> 0:23:42.920
<v Speaker 3>It's just it's.

0:23:42.720 --> 0:23:46.280
<v Speaker 4>Separate factual predicates altogether. So I think we're separate apart

0:23:46.320 --> 0:23:49.120
<v Speaker 4>from that, definitely don't affect the DOJ litigation, got it.

0:23:49.119 --> 0:23:51.960
<v Speaker 1>All right, So you're waiting for some emotion decisions. Emotions

0:23:51.960 --> 0:23:55.040
<v Speaker 1>are dismissing this case and in the cultivation they come after.

0:23:54.840 --> 0:24:00.440
<v Speaker 4>Summer Relli'll absolutely that's the rule.

0:24:00.560 --> 0:24:04.360
<v Speaker 1>So all right, good stuff, justin thanks, all right, let's

0:24:04.400 --> 0:24:07.280
<v Speaker 1>bring in Holly from Holly has been doing a ton

0:24:07.280 --> 0:24:12.399
<v Speaker 1>of work on tariffs, both in terms of the lawsuits

0:24:12.480 --> 0:24:17.880
<v Speaker 1>challenging them. She also spearheads our deep dive reports here

0:24:17.880 --> 0:24:21.560
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg Intelligence related to tariffs, which are like huge

0:24:21.600 --> 0:24:24.240
<v Speaker 1>collaborative efforts where she has to heard like fifty different

0:24:24.240 --> 0:24:28.240
<v Speaker 1>analysts into one report. But it's really great content, which

0:24:28.280 --> 0:24:31.120
<v Speaker 1>I highly recommend. If you have a terminal, you can

0:24:31.119 --> 0:24:36.119
<v Speaker 1>find it all at BI space. Tariffs Go. All right, Holly,

0:24:36.240 --> 0:24:39.520
<v Speaker 1>let's bring you in for an update on where these

0:24:39.600 --> 0:24:42.680
<v Speaker 1>lawsuits are. When we had you on last a couple

0:24:42.680 --> 0:24:44.879
<v Speaker 1>of weeks ago, it was I think the day after

0:24:46.200 --> 0:24:50.680
<v Speaker 1>the Court of International Trade ruled. Then the following morning

0:24:50.760 --> 0:24:55.920
<v Speaker 1>we got a decision from a judge in Federal Court

0:24:55.920 --> 0:25:01.000
<v Speaker 1>in Washington, d C. Both those courts essentially found the terriffs,

0:25:01.000 --> 0:25:05.359
<v Speaker 1>the AIPA tariffs to be unlawful. And then while we

0:25:05.359 --> 0:25:07.919
<v Speaker 1>were recording the podcast two weeks ago, the Federal Circuit

0:25:08.200 --> 0:25:12.600
<v Speaker 1>put an administrative stay on the Court of International Trades decision.

0:25:14.280 --> 0:25:16.159
<v Speaker 1>Why don't you come in and tell us, you know

0:25:16.280 --> 0:25:19.159
<v Speaker 1>what's happened since then and sort of what the latest is.

0:25:20.400 --> 0:25:24.240
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, So the ucit the Court of International Trade issue

0:25:24.240 --> 0:25:27.480
<v Speaker 5>it's ruling. On May twenty eighth, the District Court's decision

0:25:27.520 --> 0:25:30.400
<v Speaker 5>was me twenty ninth, and the District Court on its

0:25:30.440 --> 0:25:35.679
<v Speaker 5>own stated decision pending appeal. The May twenty decision by

0:25:35.680 --> 0:25:39.520
<v Speaker 5>the International Trade Court was immediately stayed by the Federal well,

0:25:39.680 --> 0:25:41.640
<v Speaker 5>not immediately, but the next day, on May twenty ninth,

0:25:41.640 --> 0:25:49.520
<v Speaker 5>was stayed pending the appellate court's consideration of whether it

0:25:49.560 --> 0:25:52.720
<v Speaker 5>would stay the the ruling pending appeal, so whether the

0:25:52.800 --> 0:25:57.919
<v Speaker 5>terriffs would be kept in place while it considers the appeal,

0:25:57.960 --> 0:26:03.919
<v Speaker 5>and so. On June tenth, the Federal Circuit decided that

0:26:04.119 --> 0:26:08.080
<v Speaker 5>it would keep the tariffs in place, it would grant

0:26:08.119 --> 0:26:11.600
<v Speaker 5>the government a stay of that ruling until it issues

0:26:11.640 --> 0:26:14.359
<v Speaker 5>a decision on the appeal. So I don't expect a

0:26:14.359 --> 0:26:19.760
<v Speaker 5>decision from the Federal Circuit until three Q because they

0:26:20.320 --> 0:26:23.120
<v Speaker 5>they said that be put in it at an order

0:26:23.240 --> 0:26:27.720
<v Speaker 5>saying you know, we intend to hold or a argument

0:26:27.760 --> 0:26:31.920
<v Speaker 5>on July thirty first, So I don't expect a decision

0:26:32.000 --> 0:26:34.120
<v Speaker 5>until you know, earliest to August.

0:26:35.680 --> 0:26:38.640
<v Speaker 1>So in that same decision where they put the Court

0:26:38.640 --> 0:26:42.840
<v Speaker 1>of International Trade decision on hold, that effectively let the

0:26:42.880 --> 0:26:45.119
<v Speaker 1>tariffs stay in place while the appeal plays out. But

0:26:45.160 --> 0:26:48.679
<v Speaker 1>at the same time they said they would expedite the

0:26:48.720 --> 0:26:52.479
<v Speaker 1>proceedings on appeal, right, so, like you said, or an

0:26:52.520 --> 0:26:54.840
<v Speaker 1>argument will be July thirty first out. That'll be fun.

0:26:55.080 --> 0:26:57.240
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, And it's also going to be bank caring. So

0:26:58.480 --> 0:27:02.280
<v Speaker 5>the entire panel is going to be deciding this appeal.

0:27:02.119 --> 0:27:05.719
<v Speaker 1>Which is pretty unusual. Right, Usually in the initial instance

0:27:05.720 --> 0:27:08.760
<v Speaker 1>it's three judges and then you know, whichever party loses

0:27:08.800 --> 0:27:11.800
<v Speaker 1>can ask for the full and bank hearing. So obviously

0:27:11.840 --> 0:27:14.560
<v Speaker 1>the Federal Circuit I guess has taken this very seriously.

0:27:14.800 --> 0:27:16.480
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I mean they said in the order that due

0:27:16.520 --> 0:27:21.480
<v Speaker 5>to like the importance of this decision, that the entire

0:27:21.520 --> 0:27:23.200
<v Speaker 5>panel is going to be on it, and also truncates

0:27:23.200 --> 0:27:26.600
<v Speaker 5>the process so they don't take to wait for, you know,

0:27:26.640 --> 0:27:28.480
<v Speaker 5>a ruling from the three member panel and then on

0:27:28.560 --> 0:27:30.480
<v Speaker 5>bank they could just go straight to on bank.

0:27:31.080 --> 0:27:33.879
<v Speaker 1>And so what do you make of them? I mean,

0:27:33.880 --> 0:27:37.960
<v Speaker 1>how much would we read into them put in the

0:27:38.040 --> 0:27:41.280
<v Speaker 1>lower courts decision on hold and allowing the tariffs to

0:27:41.280 --> 0:27:44.239
<v Speaker 1>play out, because you know, I mean, one of the

0:27:44.240 --> 0:27:47.960
<v Speaker 1>factors is likelihood of success on the merits, but then

0:27:48.480 --> 0:27:51.520
<v Speaker 1>you know it's also a reparable harm and the equities

0:27:51.560 --> 0:27:55.880
<v Speaker 1>and like public interest, you know, and I mean, their

0:27:55.880 --> 0:27:58.360
<v Speaker 1>decision like did not give any details, right, it was like, oh,

0:27:58.359 --> 0:28:01.080
<v Speaker 1>we just considered the factors, but what do you make

0:28:01.119 --> 0:28:01.360
<v Speaker 1>of it?

0:28:02.240 --> 0:28:02.440
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:28:02.560 --> 0:28:04.880
<v Speaker 5>Well, I mean they did say that, you know, we're

0:28:04.920 --> 0:28:07.959
<v Speaker 5>considering the equities. This is not a ruling on the merits.

0:28:09.640 --> 0:28:14.240
<v Speaker 5>So I think they're implying that they're you know, that

0:28:14.240 --> 0:28:16.440
<v Speaker 5>that this is not based on the you know, the merits,

0:28:17.359 --> 0:28:19.600
<v Speaker 5>not that factor of you know, because when when you

0:28:19.640 --> 0:28:21.200
<v Speaker 5>do try to get a stay, you have to show

0:28:21.200 --> 0:28:23.600
<v Speaker 5>these four different factors in one of them is, as

0:28:23.600 --> 0:28:25.359
<v Speaker 5>you said, likelihood of success on the merits, and I

0:28:25.400 --> 0:28:28.040
<v Speaker 5>don't think that was the you know, determining factor in

0:28:28.080 --> 0:28:31.000
<v Speaker 5>this case. I think they probably didn't want to be

0:28:31.520 --> 0:28:34.920
<v Speaker 5>you know, they probably don't know how they're going to

0:28:35.040 --> 0:28:39.400
<v Speaker 5>rule yet, even though it's sort of everybody knows about

0:28:39.400 --> 0:28:42.240
<v Speaker 5>this case, but they haven't written any decisions and they

0:28:42.240 --> 0:28:44.320
<v Speaker 5>have the full panel that they have to confer with,

0:28:44.400 --> 0:28:47.800
<v Speaker 5>so they probably you know, to be on the more

0:28:47.840 --> 0:28:49.880
<v Speaker 5>cautious side. They said, we're going to keep these terrors

0:28:49.920 --> 0:28:52.360
<v Speaker 5>in place. We're going to preserve the status quo until

0:28:52.400 --> 0:28:56.360
<v Speaker 5>we you know, render a final ruling with a written decision.

0:28:56.840 --> 0:28:59.080
<v Speaker 5>And so that's why I think they kept it in

0:28:59.080 --> 0:29:02.120
<v Speaker 5>place and not not because they plan to. So I

0:29:02.320 --> 0:29:04.720
<v Speaker 5>don't read anything into it. I don't think that that

0:29:04.840 --> 0:29:06.960
<v Speaker 5>means that they're going to reverse.

0:29:08.080 --> 0:29:10.040
<v Speaker 1>Right, And and in some ways it might be easier

0:29:10.040 --> 0:29:12.960
<v Speaker 1>to keep the teriffs in place, and if the government

0:29:14.800 --> 0:29:20.440
<v Speaker 1>then loses, right, it's easier for the government to sort

0:29:20.480 --> 0:29:23.680
<v Speaker 1>of pay a refund to the companies that have paid

0:29:23.720 --> 0:29:27.000
<v Speaker 1>terriffs than if the government then if you like remove

0:29:27.040 --> 0:29:29.360
<v Speaker 1>the tariffs for now and then the government wins, the

0:29:29.360 --> 0:29:34.800
<v Speaker 1>government can't then go back and like collect terriffs from importers, right, So.

0:29:34.760 --> 0:29:37.959
<v Speaker 5>They can't the government can't go back and collect, but

0:29:38.000 --> 0:29:40.840
<v Speaker 5>they can issue refunds. But I'm hearing that it's not

0:29:40.880 --> 0:29:43.680
<v Speaker 5>as easy as you think, you know, so the people

0:29:43.680 --> 0:29:45.640
<v Speaker 5>are people are going to have to file lawsuits to

0:29:45.640 --> 0:29:47.080
<v Speaker 5>probably get the refa oh really.

0:29:46.960 --> 0:29:50.320
<v Speaker 1>Oh yeah, well full time ter Litigation Employment Act.

0:29:50.280 --> 0:29:55.280
<v Speaker 5>Right, right, But but it you know, you would if

0:29:55.920 --> 0:29:59.120
<v Speaker 5>if the Trade Court is wrong, then you're right, the

0:29:59.160 --> 0:30:01.640
<v Speaker 5>government would not be able to collect all those terraffs

0:30:01.680 --> 0:30:04.719
<v Speaker 5>and in the meantime that they lost. So that's you know,

0:30:04.800 --> 0:30:06.800
<v Speaker 5>probably one of the factors that the court considered.

0:30:07.000 --> 0:30:09.000
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, so what's your sort of base case as to

0:30:09.760 --> 0:30:12.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, the ultimate outcome of these cases.

0:30:13.480 --> 0:30:17.800
<v Speaker 5>So I think it's close because I don't think that

0:30:18.800 --> 0:30:22.120
<v Speaker 5>you know, any this is an emergency statute, and the

0:30:22.120 --> 0:30:24.680
<v Speaker 5>President has declared emergencies, and I don't the courts have

0:30:24.760 --> 0:30:28.520
<v Speaker 5>been very reluctant to you know, second guests the president

0:30:28.600 --> 0:30:33.280
<v Speaker 5>when he's declaring an emergency. But I don't think that

0:30:33.360 --> 0:30:38.800
<v Speaker 5>the trade deficit constitutes an emergency under APA. I don't

0:30:38.800 --> 0:30:41.920
<v Speaker 5>know that the Supreme Court would rule on that specific issue.

0:30:41.960 --> 0:30:44.400
<v Speaker 5>But because of that, I think that they're going to

0:30:44.480 --> 0:30:47.320
<v Speaker 5>reverse and so they may use other doctrines to try

0:30:47.320 --> 0:30:52.600
<v Speaker 5>to get to the result that reciprocal tariffs are you know, unlawful,

0:30:53.640 --> 0:30:55.959
<v Speaker 5>like people have been saying, they may use major questions

0:30:55.960 --> 0:30:59.200
<v Speaker 5>and that was you know, something that the International Trade

0:30:59.240 --> 0:31:02.000
<v Speaker 5>Court raised and it's it's decision, although it wasn't you know,

0:31:02.400 --> 0:31:06.520
<v Speaker 5>they didn't really explain this in a lot of detail.

0:31:06.600 --> 0:31:10.720
<v Speaker 5>But commentators, I'm saying that the Supreme Court may use

0:31:11.280 --> 0:31:15.120
<v Speaker 5>the major questions doctrine or the non delegation doctrine to

0:31:15.200 --> 0:31:19.160
<v Speaker 5>get to the result the reciprocal terrifts are not lawful,

0:31:19.640 --> 0:31:24.360
<v Speaker 5>but the sentinal trafficing tariffs are closer call because they're

0:31:24.560 --> 0:31:29.080
<v Speaker 5>you know, the the sentinel emergency is emergency, and so

0:31:29.120 --> 0:31:31.640
<v Speaker 5>no one's going to say that that's not an emergency.

0:31:31.680 --> 0:31:33.680
<v Speaker 5>And in fact, the challenger has never even said that

0:31:33.680 --> 0:31:37.400
<v Speaker 5>that's not an emergency. But I think that the Supreme

0:31:37.400 --> 0:31:39.920
<v Speaker 5>Court is going to be very reluctant to allow lower

0:31:39.920 --> 0:31:44.200
<v Speaker 5>courts and even itself to say that the president is

0:31:44.200 --> 0:31:47.400
<v Speaker 5>not addressing an emergency properly as a as an international

0:31:47.480 --> 0:31:51.520
<v Speaker 5>Trade court did when it said that the tariffs weren't

0:31:51.560 --> 0:31:56.080
<v Speaker 5>related to the emergency and that pressure on countries to

0:31:56.120 --> 0:32:01.280
<v Speaker 5>address the crisis is not dealing with the emergency. I

0:32:01.320 --> 0:32:02.760
<v Speaker 5>think that they're going to have a hard time with

0:32:02.800 --> 0:32:07.640
<v Speaker 5>that reasoning. So I think that those may be affirmed.

0:32:07.960 --> 0:32:10.080
<v Speaker 5>I'm sorry, I think those they may be kept in place,

0:32:10.200 --> 0:32:12.640
<v Speaker 5>and I think that they the court may say that

0:32:12.680 --> 0:32:15.840
<v Speaker 5>the president has parachu impose those terriffts, but not with

0:32:15.880 --> 0:32:18.600
<v Speaker 5>respect to reciprocal terrats. But again, the issue is very

0:32:18.600 --> 0:32:21.240
<v Speaker 5>close on the reciprocal terrats as well.

0:32:22.080 --> 0:32:24.520
<v Speaker 1>Okay, great, so you so we so in the Federal

0:32:24.600 --> 0:32:27.560
<v Speaker 1>circuit we have an argument. So I thirty first and

0:32:27.640 --> 0:32:30.000
<v Speaker 1>you expect a decision what in August?

0:32:30.680 --> 0:32:33.000
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I mean, I think that are well, obviously the

0:32:33.080 --> 0:32:36.000
<v Speaker 5>earliest would be August, but yeah, I think because of

0:32:36.040 --> 0:32:38.400
<v Speaker 5>the import of this, they're probably not going to wait

0:32:38.400 --> 0:32:41.160
<v Speaker 5>too long. Remember that the International Trade Court rendered this

0:32:41.280 --> 0:32:44.000
<v Speaker 5>decision within a week of its last rural argument, So

0:32:44.040 --> 0:32:45.080
<v Speaker 5>that's how important this is.

0:32:45.240 --> 0:32:47.280
<v Speaker 1>Oh, there's more more judges here that we'll have to

0:32:47.920 --> 0:32:50.240
<v Speaker 1>that is true, come to an agreement or right opinions.

0:32:50.280 --> 0:32:55.719
<v Speaker 1>But that's true, and then from there, presumably whoever loses

0:32:56.320 --> 0:32:58.040
<v Speaker 1>or if it's a split opinion, both sides may gout

0:32:58.080 --> 0:32:58.760
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court.

0:32:59.520 --> 0:33:01.560
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I think this will go to the Supreme Court.

0:33:01.960 --> 0:33:05.040
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, yeah, And I mean they could take it up

0:33:05.600 --> 0:33:10.840
<v Speaker 1>probably as soon as October yep, I think, yeah, yep,

0:33:10.920 --> 0:33:13.600
<v Speaker 1>and then maybe maybe a decision by your end. I think,

0:33:13.640 --> 0:33:15.320
<v Speaker 1>so it would have to be pretty quickly, but.

0:33:15.560 --> 0:33:19.840
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, I think I think that's possible. And you know,

0:33:19.880 --> 0:33:22.200
<v Speaker 5>that's what I think is the likely out come. Then

0:33:22.240 --> 0:33:22.920
<v Speaker 5>it will be four.

0:33:22.840 --> 0:33:24.520
<v Speaker 3>Q got it?

0:33:24.560 --> 0:33:28.640
<v Speaker 1>And what about the case in GDC the Federal District

0:33:28.640 --> 0:33:30.520
<v Speaker 1>Court in Washington, So that one.

0:33:30.400 --> 0:33:33.520
<v Speaker 5>Was interesting because the judge stayed his own ruling pending appeal,

0:33:34.960 --> 0:33:37.120
<v Speaker 5>So that one is sort of following what the Fed

0:33:37.240 --> 0:33:40.720
<v Speaker 5>Circuit decides to do, so, they don't have a briefing

0:33:40.720 --> 0:33:45.080
<v Speaker 5>schedule yet the court asked yesterday the court or the

0:33:45.080 --> 0:33:49.160
<v Speaker 5>parties to within fourteen days, you know, tell them about

0:33:49.160 --> 0:33:51.120
<v Speaker 5>the status of the case and how they should move forward.

0:33:51.320 --> 0:33:53.160
<v Speaker 5>So I think that the party and and the parties

0:33:53.200 --> 0:33:55.640
<v Speaker 5>had previously said that they would, you know, follow the

0:33:55.680 --> 0:33:59.560
<v Speaker 5>briefing schedule that set fourth that the Fed Circuit uses.

0:33:59.600 --> 0:34:01.080
<v Speaker 5>So I think that those two are going to be

0:34:01.160 --> 0:34:04.080
<v Speaker 5>on like, very similar tracks in terms of timing.

0:34:05.080 --> 0:34:07.880
<v Speaker 1>Got it. And I mean so in addition to sort

0:34:07.880 --> 0:34:09.960
<v Speaker 1>of the substance of the case, we have this issue

0:34:09.960 --> 0:34:13.040
<v Speaker 1>of like, which is the proper court for these cases

0:34:13.080 --> 0:34:13.680
<v Speaker 1>to even.

0:34:14.960 --> 0:34:15.600
<v Speaker 3>These cases.

0:34:15.719 --> 0:34:17.799
<v Speaker 5>Yeah, and that's an issue that's making its way around

0:34:17.880 --> 0:34:20.120
<v Speaker 5>various circuits. So it's an issue that's going to be

0:34:20.520 --> 0:34:24.040
<v Speaker 5>presented on appeal at the DC Circuit. And it's also

0:34:24.080 --> 0:34:26.560
<v Speaker 5>an issue that's being presented on appeal in the Ninth

0:34:26.600 --> 0:34:30.400
<v Speaker 5>Circuit because the case is brought there that was dismissed

0:34:30.680 --> 0:34:33.160
<v Speaker 5>because the court there said, the lower court said there

0:34:33.200 --> 0:34:38.760
<v Speaker 5>was no jurisdiction, that only the Trade Court has exclusive jurisdiction.

0:34:39.120 --> 0:34:41.919
<v Speaker 5>So so that's on appeal now.

0:34:42.480 --> 0:34:45.560
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and it's an issue in the Federal Circuit case too.

0:34:46.680 --> 0:34:50.719
<v Speaker 5>That's right, right, Well, no, actually the Federal Circuit case, no,

0:34:50.800 --> 0:34:52.520
<v Speaker 5>I mean, it's not an issue because no one can

0:34:52.560 --> 0:34:56.399
<v Speaker 5>tested it there. But but they're going to decide whether

0:34:56.480 --> 0:35:00.120
<v Speaker 5>i EVA authorize this tariffs at all, So it's a law. Well,

0:35:01.840 --> 0:35:05.120
<v Speaker 5>there are various grounds on which the International Trade Court

0:35:05.160 --> 0:35:07.279
<v Speaker 5>said they had jurisdiction. But one of the grounds is

0:35:07.320 --> 0:35:12.960
<v Speaker 5>that they said AIPA must authorize some TIFFs. And if

0:35:13.040 --> 0:35:17.879
<v Speaker 5>the if AIPA authorizes tariffs at all, then it would

0:35:17.920 --> 0:35:20.760
<v Speaker 5>go to the International Trade Court. They would have exclusive jurisdiction.

0:35:20.920 --> 0:35:25.240
<v Speaker 5>But if the Fed Circuit says there's no that AIPA

0:35:25.280 --> 0:35:29.440
<v Speaker 5>does not authorized tariffs at all, then then the the

0:35:29.440 --> 0:35:35.320
<v Speaker 5>International Trade Court court did not have jurisdiction and and

0:35:35.560 --> 0:35:38.360
<v Speaker 5>but that's a ruling, So the Fed Circuit will say

0:35:38.440 --> 0:35:41.239
<v Speaker 5>there's no jurisdiction before the Trade Court, and then I

0:35:41.239 --> 0:35:43.880
<v Speaker 5>guess you'd have a bunch of other courts saying, you know,

0:35:43.920 --> 0:35:49.240
<v Speaker 5>in different circuits, saying whatever they determine, right, and because

0:35:49.280 --> 0:35:53.279
<v Speaker 5>now they have jurisdiction. But then ultimately LEA will go

0:35:53.360 --> 0:35:55.600
<v Speaker 5>up to the Supreme Court. So I don't think you

0:35:55.640 --> 0:35:57.920
<v Speaker 5>need a whole bunch of these decisions from the circuit

0:35:57.920 --> 0:36:00.279
<v Speaker 5>courts in order for the Supreme Court to decide death.

0:36:00.840 --> 0:36:03.840
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, they're gonna take it regardless, and they're gonna have

0:36:03.880 --> 0:36:09.200
<v Speaker 1>both the jurisdictional and substantive issue presumably to decide. All right, well,

0:36:09.239 --> 0:36:10.879
<v Speaker 1>it should be a fun second half of the year.

0:36:11.920 --> 0:36:14.000
<v Speaker 1>All right, I think we're gonna leave it there. Thanks, Holly,

0:36:14.360 --> 0:36:17.560
<v Speaker 1>I think we'll wrap up this episode of Votes and Verdicts.

0:36:17.640 --> 0:36:20.960
<v Speaker 1>As always, thank you to the listener for listening. If

0:36:21.000 --> 0:36:23.319
<v Speaker 1>you have any questions about anything we've talked about today,

0:36:23.320 --> 0:36:25.359
<v Speaker 1>please don't hesitate to reach out to us at your

0:36:25.360 --> 0:36:28.879
<v Speaker 1>convenience with questions. As a reminder, again, you can find

0:36:28.880 --> 0:36:31.040
<v Speaker 1>all of our research on the Bloomberg terminal at BI

0:36:31.400 --> 0:36:34.560
<v Speaker 1>go or on our litigation and policy dashboard at BI

0:36:34.880 --> 0:36:37.840
<v Speaker 1>laws go. Thank you again for listening, and have a

0:36:37.840 --> 0:36:40.560
<v Speaker 1>great day.