1 00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:10,200 --> 00:00:13,520 Speaker 2: What about the idea that we should think about democracy, 3 00:00:14,200 --> 00:00:18,079 Speaker 2: think about the right of the people to elect candidates 4 00:00:18,120 --> 00:00:22,640 Speaker 2: of their choice of letting the people decide, because your 5 00:00:22,640 --> 00:00:29,080 Speaker 2: position has the effect of disenfranchising voters to a significant degree. 6 00:00:29,360 --> 00:00:33,000 Speaker 3: At the Supreme Court today, Justice Brett Cavanaugh expressed a 7 00:00:33,040 --> 00:00:37,400 Speaker 3: concern that seemed to underlie the oral arguments over Colorado's 8 00:00:37,440 --> 00:00:41,360 Speaker 3: effort to disqualify Donald Trump from this year's presidential election 9 00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:45,880 Speaker 3: ballot for engaging in an insurrection. Liberal and conservative justice 10 00:00:45,920 --> 00:00:49,199 Speaker 3: is alike question whether the Colorado Supreme Court has the 11 00:00:49,280 --> 00:00:52,240 Speaker 3: power to kick Trump off the ballot. Chief Justice John 12 00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:55,920 Speaker 3: Roberts and Justice Elaina Kagan voice doubts that a single 13 00:00:55,960 --> 00:00:58,720 Speaker 3: state should have the power to make a decision with 14 00:00:58,800 --> 00:01:00,440 Speaker 3: such national implications. 15 00:01:01,120 --> 00:01:03,480 Speaker 4: I think that the question that you have to confront 16 00:01:03,920 --> 00:01:06,560 Speaker 4: is why a single state should decide who gets to 17 00:01:06,560 --> 00:01:09,680 Speaker 4: be president of the United States. In other words, you know, 18 00:01:09,800 --> 00:01:13,000 Speaker 4: this question of whether a former president is disqualified for 19 00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:18,319 Speaker 4: insurrection to be president again is just say it. It 20 00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:22,199 Speaker 4: sounds awfully national to me in very. 21 00:01:22,120 --> 00:01:26,440 Speaker 5: Quick order, I would expect, although my predictions have never 22 00:01:26,520 --> 00:01:31,320 Speaker 5: been correct, I would expect that a goodly number of 23 00:01:31,400 --> 00:01:35,080 Speaker 5: states will say, whoever the Democratic candidate is, you're off 24 00:01:35,120 --> 00:01:39,080 Speaker 5: the ballot, and others for the Republican candidate, you're off 25 00:01:39,120 --> 00:01:41,520 Speaker 5: the ballot, and it'll come down to just a handful 26 00:01:41,520 --> 00:01:43,959 Speaker 5: of states that are going to decide the presidential election. 27 00:01:44,080 --> 00:01:47,120 Speaker 5: That's a pretty daunting consequence. 28 00:01:47,880 --> 00:01:50,880 Speaker 3: As to the question of whether Donald Trump had engaged 29 00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:55,080 Speaker 3: in an insurrection, in two hours of oral arguments, only 30 00:01:55,160 --> 00:01:59,520 Speaker 3: one Justice, Katanji Brown Jackson posed that question to Trump's 31 00:01:59,560 --> 00:02:01,040 Speaker 3: attorney Jonathan Mitchell. 32 00:02:01,240 --> 00:02:03,840 Speaker 1: For an insurrection, there needs to be an organized, concerted 33 00:02:03,880 --> 00:02:07,160 Speaker 1: effort to overthrow the government of the United States through violence. 34 00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:10,880 Speaker 3: And this point is that a chaotic effort to overthrow 35 00:02:10,919 --> 00:02:12,280 Speaker 3: the government is not an insurrection. 36 00:02:12,400 --> 00:02:13,760 Speaker 1: Well, we didn't con see that it's an effort to 37 00:02:13,760 --> 00:02:16,600 Speaker 1: overthrow the government either. Justice Jackson right. None of these 38 00:02:16,639 --> 00:02:18,960 Speaker 1: criteria were met. This was a riot, It was not 39 00:02:19,000 --> 00:02:21,880 Speaker 1: an insurrection. The events were shameful, criminal, violent, all of 40 00:02:21,880 --> 00:02:24,680 Speaker 1: those things, but did not qualify as insurrection as that 41 00:02:24,760 --> 00:02:26,240 Speaker 1: term is used in section three. 42 00:02:26,440 --> 00:02:29,560 Speaker 3: My guest is election law expert Derek Muller, a professor 43 00:02:29,560 --> 00:02:33,600 Speaker 3: at Notre Dame Law School. Broad question First, does it 44 00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:37,480 Speaker 3: appear that the justices are going to rule that Colorado 45 00:02:37,720 --> 00:02:42,160 Speaker 3: can't disqualify Trump from the ballot, perhaps even unanimously. 46 00:02:42,800 --> 00:02:44,639 Speaker 6: Yeah, I think it's going to be an unanimous or 47 00:02:44,720 --> 00:02:48,119 Speaker 6: near unanimous decision reversed in the Colorado Supreme Court. Here, 48 00:02:48,320 --> 00:02:52,040 Speaker 6: the justices across the ideological spectrum seemed concerned about the 49 00:02:52,080 --> 00:02:55,399 Speaker 6: notion that one state could have such an outsized influence 50 00:02:55,480 --> 00:02:58,560 Speaker 6: and the presidential election, to have such an influence on 51 00:02:58,639 --> 00:03:01,799 Speaker 6: the rest of the process, and to do so without 52 00:03:01,880 --> 00:03:06,240 Speaker 6: any guidance from Congress. The presidency's unique office. It's not 53 00:03:06,320 --> 00:03:08,800 Speaker 6: just an office out of one state, but an office 54 00:03:08,840 --> 00:03:11,760 Speaker 6: that comes from the choices of many states making the decision. 55 00:03:12,040 --> 00:03:14,720 Speaker 6: I think the notion that the Supreme Court would be 56 00:03:14,720 --> 00:03:17,880 Speaker 6: expected to clean up those messes if different states reached 57 00:03:17,960 --> 00:03:20,160 Speaker 6: different resolutions, so that every time there was a challenge 58 00:03:20,160 --> 00:03:22,080 Speaker 6: it would end up at the Supreme Court store was 59 00:03:22,120 --> 00:03:24,440 Speaker 6: certainly unattractive to them. So I think there's a lot 60 00:03:24,480 --> 00:03:26,760 Speaker 6: of consensus that Trump's name will appear on the ballot. 61 00:03:27,360 --> 00:03:30,960 Speaker 3: Let's discuss some of the arguments that Trump raised. He'd 62 00:03:31,040 --> 00:03:34,640 Speaker 3: argue that the president isn't covered by the insurrection clause 63 00:03:35,160 --> 00:03:38,240 Speaker 3: because the president is not an officer of the United 64 00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:41,560 Speaker 3: States as defined in that clause, And there was a 65 00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:44,760 Speaker 3: lot of discussion of what is an officer does a 66 00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:48,640 Speaker 3: president qualify? And Justice Neil Gorsich basically gave a history 67 00:03:48,680 --> 00:03:51,880 Speaker 3: lesson at one point, don the term officer versus office. 68 00:03:51,920 --> 00:03:54,160 Speaker 6: So tell us about that, Yeah, I mean, I think 69 00:03:54,280 --> 00:03:56,680 Speaker 6: Justice Corsich was worried about some of what I describe 70 00:03:56,680 --> 00:04:00,600 Speaker 6: as pedantic originalism. We're worried about parsing these terms of 71 00:04:00,640 --> 00:04:03,720 Speaker 6: such fine precision. So I think that argument was the 72 00:04:03,800 --> 00:04:06,960 Speaker 6: lead argument from Trump's attorneys, but they didn't end up 73 00:04:07,000 --> 00:04:09,360 Speaker 6: relying on it too heavily. To oral argument. Now that's said, 74 00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:12,600 Speaker 6: Justice Jackson spent a significant amount of time at argument 75 00:04:12,920 --> 00:04:16,960 Speaker 6: suggests that the history at the time shows that the 76 00:04:17,000 --> 00:04:21,599 Speaker 6: Reconstruction Congress was really worried about state offices and about 77 00:04:21,720 --> 00:04:26,599 Speaker 6: state factions of ex Confederates gathering together and retaking parts 78 00:04:26,600 --> 00:04:29,240 Speaker 6: of the government. And if that's the case, the fact 79 00:04:29,240 --> 00:04:32,480 Speaker 6: that the word president is not listed among those offices 80 00:04:32,560 --> 00:04:37,000 Speaker 6: suggest that the Framers were not terribly worried about the 81 00:04:37,040 --> 00:04:39,440 Speaker 6: presidency at all. And if that's the case, the inference 82 00:04:39,480 --> 00:04:41,920 Speaker 6: should be the presidency was just not of their concern 83 00:04:41,960 --> 00:04:44,599 Speaker 6: and therefore not one of those offices covered. So while 84 00:04:44,640 --> 00:04:46,800 Speaker 6: she spoke up about that proposition, it's not clear how 85 00:04:46,800 --> 00:04:48,920 Speaker 6: many other justices would agree with her, and it didn't 86 00:04:48,920 --> 00:04:50,720 Speaker 6: get as much attention as some of the other issues 87 00:04:50,720 --> 00:04:51,240 Speaker 6: at argument. 88 00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:54,520 Speaker 3: What about kicking this over to Congress and saying that 89 00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:58,120 Speaker 3: Congress has to enforce Section three? 90 00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:01,720 Speaker 6: Yeah, there were versions of the congressional enforcement question that 91 00:05:01,800 --> 00:05:04,120 Speaker 6: came up, and there's Justice Kavanaugh seemed to lean most 92 00:05:04,240 --> 00:05:08,279 Speaker 6: strongly into an eighteen sixty nine decision called Griffin's Case, 93 00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:13,440 Speaker 6: which involved then Chief Justice Chase, who was riding circuit 94 00:05:13,480 --> 00:05:16,960 Speaker 6: at the lower court, issuing a decision effectively saying Congress 95 00:05:17,000 --> 00:05:19,320 Speaker 6: needs to do this, and nobody else can do this 96 00:05:19,400 --> 00:05:21,760 Speaker 6: without congressional involvement. It's not clear there was a lot 97 00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:23,960 Speaker 6: of support for that. Justicet of my own particular pushed 98 00:05:24,040 --> 00:05:26,960 Speaker 6: back on that argument, but there was broad consensus on 99 00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:31,120 Speaker 6: a different dimension, and several justices expressed concern that one 100 00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:34,919 Speaker 6: state could enforce this in a presidential election without some 101 00:05:35,000 --> 00:05:38,400 Speaker 6: kind of federal guidance or federal oversight. That's not necessarily 102 00:05:38,480 --> 00:05:40,440 Speaker 6: clear what that would look like, but I think the 103 00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:42,799 Speaker 6: concern that states could go about this on their own 104 00:05:42,839 --> 00:05:45,359 Speaker 6: in a presidential election, to keep a candidate off and 105 00:05:45,400 --> 00:05:48,880 Speaker 6: again have an effective exclusion that could carry over to 106 00:05:48,920 --> 00:05:52,279 Speaker 6: other states was problematic and a reason why the uniquely 107 00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:56,960 Speaker 6: national office the presidency required perhaps unique congressional legislation to 108 00:05:57,040 --> 00:05:58,280 Speaker 6: implement it in such a case. 109 00:05:58,920 --> 00:06:01,640 Speaker 3: Just as Kavanaugh gave of what I'll call a little 110 00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:07,960 Speaker 3: speech about democracy and the importance of not disenfranchising voters, 111 00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:11,560 Speaker 3: do you think that underlies all this and it's really 112 00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:15,840 Speaker 3: more a political consideration that the Court doesn't want to 113 00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:19,359 Speaker 3: be the one to say, no, this person can't be 114 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:20,080 Speaker 3: on the ballot. 115 00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:22,880 Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, there are some radiations of this to 116 00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:26,000 Speaker 6: think about. There's one level, which is, in the case 117 00:06:26,040 --> 00:06:29,880 Speaker 6: of ambiguity or uncertainty, how confident do we have to 118 00:06:29,880 --> 00:06:32,359 Speaker 6: be about this result before we're going to exclude somebody, 119 00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:34,920 Speaker 6: And I think somebody like Justice Jackson was leaning into 120 00:06:34,920 --> 00:06:37,120 Speaker 6: that argument with this office at the United States point. 121 00:06:37,279 --> 00:06:40,600 Speaker 6: If the concerns were about state offices, the presidency is 122 00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:42,880 Speaker 6: not listed in that way in favor of allowing the 123 00:06:42,920 --> 00:06:45,760 Speaker 6: candidate's name on the ballot. Sousa's course, such and some others. Yeah, 124 00:06:45,800 --> 00:06:49,599 Speaker 6: tod question a little bit more broadly about the consequences 125 00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:52,600 Speaker 6: of this decision, And I think the consequences could be 126 00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:55,240 Speaker 6: viewed in those terms of the people making a decision 127 00:06:55,320 --> 00:06:57,680 Speaker 6: that people voting, but also in terms of the very 128 00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:00,880 Speaker 6: real concerns about the Court's involvement in the case. And 129 00:07:01,200 --> 00:07:04,400 Speaker 6: while it wasn't as overt in these terms, I think 130 00:07:04,440 --> 00:07:06,520 Speaker 6: there is a concern from the Court that if it's 131 00:07:06,560 --> 00:07:10,080 Speaker 6: asked on a regular basis to adjudicate the qualifications and 132 00:07:10,160 --> 00:07:13,280 Speaker 6: candidacies of presidential candidates, it puts itself in a very 133 00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:16,080 Speaker 6: difficult spot and it finds its healthy arbiter of decisions 134 00:07:16,080 --> 00:07:18,240 Speaker 6: that we typically think are left to the political process. 135 00:07:18,360 --> 00:07:22,480 Speaker 6: So there was an undercurrent of allowing the political process 136 00:07:22,560 --> 00:07:24,200 Speaker 6: to play out. But I think part of that was 137 00:07:24,760 --> 00:07:27,960 Speaker 6: more skepticism that these states had done the right thing 138 00:07:28,160 --> 00:07:30,080 Speaker 6: or that the Supreme Court was the right place to 139 00:07:30,120 --> 00:07:33,080 Speaker 6: do it, rather than maybe just some affirmation that states 140 00:07:33,080 --> 00:07:33,720 Speaker 6: should be able to do. 141 00:07:33,760 --> 00:07:34,480 Speaker 7: What they want. 142 00:07:34,680 --> 00:07:37,360 Speaker 3: Do you think there's a fear sort of like echoes 143 00:07:37,400 --> 00:07:39,440 Speaker 3: of Bush v. Gore, we don't want to be in 144 00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:40,160 Speaker 3: that position. 145 00:07:40,640 --> 00:07:42,240 Speaker 6: Yeah, I think there are echoes of that. I think, 146 00:07:42,280 --> 00:07:44,680 Speaker 6: to be sure, I think the Court, since Bush Versus 147 00:07:45,040 --> 00:07:49,720 Speaker 6: was certainly acutely aware of the consequences of being involved 148 00:07:49,760 --> 00:07:53,720 Speaker 6: in decisions like this now Prolroda Supreme Court's decision puts 149 00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:56,360 Speaker 6: the United States Supreme Court in a difficult place, right 150 00:07:56,520 --> 00:07:59,720 Speaker 6: if it acts or if it doesn't act, it finds 151 00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:02,360 Speaker 6: it so on one side of a political question or another. 152 00:08:02,720 --> 00:08:04,440 Speaker 6: So that's why I think I was somewhat heartened to 153 00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:07,720 Speaker 6: see the Supreme Court justices coalescing around arguments with one 154 00:08:07,760 --> 00:08:11,520 Speaker 6: another and supporting a sort of singular output. So I 155 00:08:11,520 --> 00:08:13,160 Speaker 6: think there's going to be a lot of effort to 156 00:08:13,240 --> 00:08:17,120 Speaker 6: coalesce around a clear decision from the Court the percurium, 157 00:08:17,480 --> 00:08:21,000 Speaker 6: ideally unanimous decision that resolves the issue at least for 158 00:08:21,200 --> 00:08:25,160 Speaker 6: presidential candidates or some set of federal candidates, and moves 159 00:08:25,200 --> 00:08:27,800 Speaker 6: on to say that the political process needs to resolve it. 160 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:30,280 Speaker 6: And that might be unsatisfying to some, but I think 161 00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:32,400 Speaker 6: at the top level, I think the Court is aware 162 00:08:32,559 --> 00:08:35,280 Speaker 6: that it doesn't want to be viewed as overtly partisan, 163 00:08:35,600 --> 00:08:37,440 Speaker 6: and whatever it can do to mitigate that, it will 164 00:08:37,440 --> 00:08:38,200 Speaker 6: definitely try to do. 165 00:08:38,520 --> 00:08:41,520 Speaker 3: So do you have any idea what path they'll choose 166 00:08:41,559 --> 00:08:42,199 Speaker 3: to get there? 167 00:08:42,440 --> 00:08:45,640 Speaker 6: Yeah, I think the goal will probably be something along 168 00:08:45,679 --> 00:08:48,880 Speaker 6: the lines of this notion that the presidency is a 169 00:08:49,000 --> 00:08:53,200 Speaker 6: unique national office. The Court has its precedence saying that 170 00:08:53,280 --> 00:08:56,080 Speaker 6: states have less of an interest in patrolling the ballot 171 00:08:56,360 --> 00:08:59,520 Speaker 6: for those kinds of candidacies because it is a unique 172 00:08:59,600 --> 00:09:04,160 Speaker 6: national office. That there are concerns about how states administer 173 00:09:04,280 --> 00:09:08,440 Speaker 6: this inconsistently, or that if there's one state that moves first, 174 00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:12,040 Speaker 6: how does that affect other states? And those practical consequences 175 00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:15,520 Speaker 6: are significant enough to suggest that Congress needs to be 176 00:09:15,600 --> 00:09:18,439 Speaker 6: the one to provide guidance and rules in this context. 177 00:09:18,440 --> 00:09:20,920 Speaker 6: At least it comes to Section three at the fourteenth Amendment. 178 00:09:21,160 --> 00:09:23,400 Speaker 6: So it will be I think something that is a 179 00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:27,120 Speaker 6: little bit more election law heavy than Section three heavy, 180 00:09:27,280 --> 00:09:30,160 Speaker 6: as the case has been mostly litigated, but something that 181 00:09:30,200 --> 00:09:33,920 Speaker 6: reflects these concerns that presidential elections are unique and require 182 00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:36,960 Speaker 6: some kind of federal guidance before they can be regulated 183 00:09:36,960 --> 00:09:38,760 Speaker 6: in the way that Colorado tried to do here. 184 00:09:39,520 --> 00:09:43,120 Speaker 3: I think there was only one question about what's at 185 00:09:43,120 --> 00:09:47,680 Speaker 3: the heart of this Colorado case. Did Donald Trump engage 186 00:09:47,880 --> 00:09:51,559 Speaker 3: in an insurrection? And after an hour, Justice Katanji Brown 187 00:09:51,960 --> 00:09:55,679 Speaker 3: Jackson pose that question, and then it sort of disappeared, 188 00:09:55,720 --> 00:09:57,120 Speaker 3: never more to be heard. 189 00:09:57,559 --> 00:10:00,040 Speaker 6: Yes, I think there was very little appetite on the 190 00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:03,680 Speaker 6: court today to be talking about engaging in insurrection about 191 00:10:03,720 --> 00:10:07,240 Speaker 6: the First Amendment issues. There was almost no discussion about 192 00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:11,400 Speaker 6: those topics. There was some brief discussions about what insurrection was. 193 00:10:11,840 --> 00:10:14,080 Speaker 6: Trump's attorney did mention that, you know, it was enous 194 00:10:14,160 --> 00:10:16,839 Speaker 6: acts from an ale acts committed that day. So some 195 00:10:16,880 --> 00:10:20,520 Speaker 6: condemnation there about whether it was an insurrection, and they 196 00:10:20,640 --> 00:10:22,640 Speaker 6: kind of stipulated admitted that they were willing to say 197 00:10:22,679 --> 00:10:25,320 Speaker 6: that at least for purposes of argument today. And so 198 00:10:25,400 --> 00:10:28,200 Speaker 6: the court did avoid some of those really thorny in 199 00:10:28,240 --> 00:10:32,640 Speaker 6: the weeds fact intensive or disputed questions, focusing instead on 200 00:10:33,000 --> 00:10:35,760 Speaker 6: a variety of other topics that they could coalesce around. 201 00:10:35,840 --> 00:10:38,000 Speaker 6: And so while it might have surprised people that they 202 00:10:38,040 --> 00:10:40,480 Speaker 6: think a lot more attention, it was not terribly surprising 203 00:10:40,520 --> 00:10:42,080 Speaker 6: to me. I think that was the issue that they 204 00:10:42,080 --> 00:10:44,360 Speaker 6: wanted to avoid the most of all messy facts with 205 00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:48,080 Speaker 6: deep political consequences. If they can decide on pure law, 206 00:10:48,120 --> 00:10:49,000 Speaker 6: all the better for them. 207 00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:52,000 Speaker 3: There was a sort of a warning from the attorney 208 00:10:52,040 --> 00:10:56,440 Speaker 3: for the Colorado voters. He said, if Colorado loses this case, 209 00:10:56,880 --> 00:10:59,680 Speaker 3: the issue could come back with a vengeance. If Trump 210 00:10:59,720 --> 00:11:02,920 Speaker 3: was a left president and then members of Congress have 211 00:11:03,000 --> 00:11:05,800 Speaker 3: to decide whether to let him take office. Did the 212 00:11:05,840 --> 00:11:09,080 Speaker 3: Supreme Court is it going to leave that open that question? 213 00:11:10,240 --> 00:11:12,640 Speaker 6: It seems like they might. You know, the question of 214 00:11:12,640 --> 00:11:15,000 Speaker 6: whether or not Congress on January sixth, twenty twenty five 215 00:11:15,040 --> 00:11:17,760 Speaker 6: will count electoral votes or try to object to them 216 00:11:17,760 --> 00:11:20,000 Speaker 6: and refuse to count them is certainly an open one. 217 00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:22,880 Speaker 6: And then there's the separate question about what happens after 218 00:11:22,920 --> 00:11:25,560 Speaker 6: Trump takes office. Will there be lawsuits to challenge his 219 00:11:25,640 --> 00:11:29,360 Speaker 6: official action? And if so, what did those challenges look like? So, 220 00:11:29,840 --> 00:11:32,280 Speaker 6: if the court moves in the direction that we anticipate 221 00:11:32,320 --> 00:11:35,920 Speaker 6: it's moving, it seems that it's more a valid access 222 00:11:35,960 --> 00:11:40,280 Speaker 6: issue and less an issue of disqualification Intersection three. But 223 00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:42,679 Speaker 6: it does leave the door open for another day the 224 00:11:42,760 --> 00:11:47,119 Speaker 6: resolve these questions. Now that said, there are significant challenges 225 00:11:47,520 --> 00:11:49,320 Speaker 6: in the future. For one, Trump has to win the 226 00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:51,880 Speaker 6: election and that might not happen. And if he does, 227 00:11:52,440 --> 00:11:54,600 Speaker 6: you know, are there other vehicles or means to challenge 228 00:11:54,640 --> 00:11:56,840 Speaker 6: this issue and set it up? Then, depending on how 229 00:11:56,840 --> 00:11:59,280 Speaker 6: the Supreme Court writes the opinion, if it puts the 230 00:11:59,320 --> 00:12:02,920 Speaker 6: ball much more more clearly in Congress's court, there might 231 00:12:02,920 --> 00:12:05,160 Speaker 6: not be other avenues to do it without some affirmative 232 00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:07,840 Speaker 6: Congressional action. And of course, if he is the president, 233 00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:10,120 Speaker 6: I doubt he would sign a new legislation that would 234 00:12:10,160 --> 00:12:14,679 Speaker 6: authorize additional investigation or inquiry into his conduct. So there 235 00:12:14,720 --> 00:12:17,199 Speaker 6: are some open questions that arise, and I think we'll 236 00:12:17,200 --> 00:12:20,240 Speaker 6: see how much risk the Supreme Court is willing to 237 00:12:20,240 --> 00:12:21,959 Speaker 6: tolerate in this case after. 238 00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:26,360 Speaker 3: This argument, and how the justices seem to be fleeing 239 00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:30,240 Speaker 3: for the exits. In my opinion, do you think that 240 00:12:30,600 --> 00:12:34,160 Speaker 3: when Trump makes a request for sirchiai from the DC 241 00:12:34,480 --> 00:12:38,840 Speaker 3: Circuit Court decision rejecting his claims of presidential immunity, do 242 00:12:38,880 --> 00:12:41,480 Speaker 3: you think that they'll refuse to take that case or 243 00:12:41,480 --> 00:12:45,520 Speaker 3: they'll be four hardy souls who want to address that issue. 244 00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:48,600 Speaker 6: Yeah, I don't know, you know if I'm thinking what 245 00:12:48,640 --> 00:12:50,600 Speaker 6: the court might do here, and maybe I'm wrong, But 246 00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:53,439 Speaker 6: you issue a decision in a couple of weeks on 247 00:12:53,679 --> 00:12:55,559 Speaker 6: this case saying Trump can appear on the ballot, and 248 00:12:55,640 --> 00:12:58,400 Speaker 6: the same day you deny sircerari in the community case 249 00:12:58,440 --> 00:13:01,960 Speaker 6: and essentially say the Circuit opinion stands and he can 250 00:13:02,000 --> 00:13:05,480 Speaker 6: be subject to criminal prosecution. So in both cases, the 251 00:13:05,520 --> 00:13:08,400 Speaker 6: court would be letting the political and legal process play 252 00:13:08,400 --> 00:13:11,079 Speaker 6: out without needing to step in. Now, I don't know 253 00:13:11,120 --> 00:13:12,920 Speaker 6: if they're going to do that. There might be some 254 00:13:13,000 --> 00:13:16,760 Speaker 6: interest in addressing the immunity issues at some level from 255 00:13:16,840 --> 00:13:19,240 Speaker 6: some justices in the court, but that is kind of 256 00:13:19,240 --> 00:13:21,719 Speaker 6: a wait and see approach. We don't quite know how 257 00:13:21,720 --> 00:13:23,679 Speaker 6: these two cases might relate to one another, but there 258 00:13:23,679 --> 00:13:26,040 Speaker 6: definitely seem to be linked to some degree, and at. 259 00:13:26,040 --> 00:13:29,240 Speaker 3: Least we'll find out pretty quickly in Supreme Court time. 260 00:13:29,280 --> 00:13:32,040 Speaker 3: That is Thanks so much for your insights, Derek. That's 261 00:13:32,080 --> 00:13:35,439 Speaker 3: Professor Derek Muller of Notre Dame Law School. Coming up next, 262 00:13:35,559 --> 00:13:42,200 Speaker 3: more analysis of the arguments. This is Bloomberg. This is 263 00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:47,880 Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. The Supreme 264 00:13:47,920 --> 00:13:51,480 Speaker 3: Court seems poised to reject attempts to kick former President 265 00:13:51,559 --> 00:13:55,600 Speaker 3: Donald Trump off the twenty twenty four presidential ballot, with 266 00:13:55,800 --> 00:13:59,559 Speaker 3: conservative and liberal justices in a parent agreement in a 267 00:13:59,640 --> 00:14:02,480 Speaker 3: case it puts them at the heart of a presidential election. 268 00:14:03,200 --> 00:14:06,000 Speaker 3: Joining me to discuss the oral arguments today is Professor 269 00:14:06,000 --> 00:14:09,040 Speaker 3: Harold Krant of the Chicago Kent College of Law. After 270 00:14:09,040 --> 00:14:11,600 Speaker 3: hearing the oral arguments, do you have any doubt that 271 00:14:11,640 --> 00:14:15,000 Speaker 3: the justices are going to rule against Colorado? Here? 272 00:14:15,559 --> 00:14:18,680 Speaker 8: The Justices will rule against Colorado. The only question is 273 00:14:18,720 --> 00:14:21,640 Speaker 8: on which ground. And obviously the two and a half 274 00:14:21,720 --> 00:14:24,600 Speaker 8: hour argument covered a great deal of territory. But I 275 00:14:24,600 --> 00:14:27,200 Speaker 8: think at the end of the day, justices on both 276 00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:31,120 Speaker 8: sides of the I convinced that they wanted no part 277 00:14:31,120 --> 00:14:33,680 Speaker 8: of this case in terms of trying to figure out 278 00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:37,080 Speaker 8: what Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment means through its 279 00:14:37,080 --> 00:14:41,480 Speaker 8: disqualification for insurrection, and they will definitely find a way 280 00:14:41,880 --> 00:14:45,160 Speaker 8: so as to keep Trump on the ballot for now. 281 00:14:45,200 --> 00:14:48,040 Speaker 3: Do you think they want no part of it? Because 282 00:14:48,320 --> 00:14:51,240 Speaker 3: there's been a lot of controversy around the court, and 283 00:14:51,480 --> 00:14:54,560 Speaker 3: with the Bush vy Gore decision, people are still criticizing 284 00:14:54,560 --> 00:14:56,080 Speaker 3: the Court about that. I mean, do you think that 285 00:14:56,160 --> 00:14:58,480 Speaker 3: they just want to stay away from this even if 286 00:14:58,560 --> 00:15:00,840 Speaker 3: it is a decision that O when the Supreme Court 287 00:15:00,880 --> 00:15:01,240 Speaker 3: can make. 288 00:15:01,440 --> 00:15:04,760 Speaker 8: It may be a little bit of the residual concern 289 00:15:05,000 --> 00:15:07,800 Speaker 8: of the court reputation that foundered in the wake of 290 00:15:07,840 --> 00:15:10,680 Speaker 8: bushbersus Core, But I think there's a different concern here, 291 00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:14,120 Speaker 8: and that is Section three to fourteenth amendment doesn't really 292 00:15:14,560 --> 00:15:17,400 Speaker 8: clarify what's supposed to happen, what is the process that's 293 00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:22,680 Speaker 8: supposed to take place? And justices kept hammering Colorado's attorneys 294 00:15:22,920 --> 00:15:26,720 Speaker 8: by saying, you know, how much process is due. Shouldn't 295 00:15:26,760 --> 00:15:29,600 Speaker 8: be the voters who get to decide who remains on 296 00:15:29,640 --> 00:15:34,520 Speaker 8: the ballot. What if there's a retaliation and people try 297 00:15:34,560 --> 00:15:37,880 Speaker 8: to throw up Democrats off the ballots as well, And 298 00:15:38,080 --> 00:15:40,920 Speaker 8: at the end of the day, one state could have 299 00:15:41,120 --> 00:15:45,920 Speaker 8: the power to wreck the mechanism for a fair vote 300 00:15:45,960 --> 00:15:48,800 Speaker 8: amongst the entire nation. So at the end of the day, 301 00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:52,720 Speaker 8: the court was saying, look, maybe Congress needs to suggest 302 00:15:52,760 --> 00:15:55,560 Speaker 8: what the procedure is, but we don't want one or 303 00:15:55,600 --> 00:15:59,000 Speaker 8: two or three states to take away a vote from 304 00:15:59,040 --> 00:16:02,920 Speaker 8: the entire country. For a national office, state office, that's different, 305 00:16:03,160 --> 00:16:05,640 Speaker 8: But for a national office, we need some kind of 306 00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:10,160 Speaker 8: orally mechanism to determine who remains on the ballot. 307 00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:13,560 Speaker 3: I mean that seems not like a legal argument. That 308 00:16:13,680 --> 00:16:16,920 Speaker 3: seems like a political argument. You know, we don't want 309 00:16:16,960 --> 00:16:18,800 Speaker 3: to take this away from the people. We don't want 310 00:16:18,920 --> 00:16:21,760 Speaker 3: chaos at the ballot. I mean, that's what it sounds like. 311 00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:27,680 Speaker 8: It is partially a policy slash political argument, but it's 312 00:16:27,680 --> 00:16:31,239 Speaker 8: also grounded in what they called the kind of implicit 313 00:16:31,400 --> 00:16:36,840 Speaker 8: preclusion of the Section three of fourteenth, meaning that Congress 314 00:16:36,880 --> 00:16:39,920 Speaker 8: really has to set the ground rules. And the one 315 00:16:40,360 --> 00:16:43,800 Speaker 8: way to sort of see this more legally is that 316 00:16:43,920 --> 00:16:50,040 Speaker 8: in Section three, Congress has the power to reinstate someone 317 00:16:50,080 --> 00:16:53,640 Speaker 8: who's disqualified by a two thirds vote. How could they 318 00:16:53,760 --> 00:16:59,000 Speaker 8: exercise this power if a state would bar the individual 319 00:16:59,080 --> 00:17:01,600 Speaker 8: from the ballot first, because then the issue would never 320 00:17:01,640 --> 00:17:05,720 Speaker 8: arise and Congress wouldn't have this power to in fact 321 00:17:05,720 --> 00:17:10,440 Speaker 8: give a pardon or to allow someone who committed insurrections. 322 00:17:09,880 --> 00:17:10,840 Speaker 7: To still be seated. 323 00:17:11,320 --> 00:17:15,240 Speaker 8: So it's in their view section three years about giving 324 00:17:15,280 --> 00:17:18,639 Speaker 8: Congress the ultimate authority. And so I didn't want a 325 00:17:18,680 --> 00:17:21,680 Speaker 8: particular state, or two states or four states to take 326 00:17:21,760 --> 00:17:25,199 Speaker 8: actions that would deprive Congress of this ultimate power of 327 00:17:25,240 --> 00:17:28,679 Speaker 8: seating somebody who otherwise would be excluded because of the 328 00:17:28,840 --> 00:17:30,520 Speaker 8: participation in the insurrection. 329 00:17:31,160 --> 00:17:34,000 Speaker 3: We know that the Special Councils is not trying him 330 00:17:34,000 --> 00:17:34,680 Speaker 3: for insurrection. 331 00:17:35,200 --> 00:17:39,440 Speaker 8: No he's not, and which suggests under the theory of 332 00:17:39,480 --> 00:17:45,360 Speaker 8: the court that this case should not ever ridden because 333 00:17:45,720 --> 00:17:51,240 Speaker 8: the only mechanism currently in place for disqualifying a candidate 334 00:17:51,320 --> 00:17:57,240 Speaker 8: other than age and residency and so forth is being 335 00:17:57,800 --> 00:18:01,159 Speaker 8: tried and convicted for insurrection, and that's not going to happen. 336 00:18:01,600 --> 00:18:01,840 Speaker 2: I know. 337 00:18:01,920 --> 00:18:05,440 Speaker 3: This is the first time they're interpreting this provision. They 338 00:18:05,480 --> 00:18:09,119 Speaker 3: refer to a case from eighteen sixty nine, Griffin's case, 339 00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:11,919 Speaker 3: and that was from a federal court in Virginia, not 340 00:18:12,000 --> 00:18:15,160 Speaker 3: even the Supreme Court. Is that the best they could. 341 00:18:14,920 --> 00:18:20,120 Speaker 8: Do so that case was by Chase would become the 342 00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:24,159 Speaker 8: Chief Justice. And it was right in the aftermath of 343 00:18:24,200 --> 00:18:28,399 Speaker 8: the fourteenth Amendment. And so the idea being that this 344 00:18:28,520 --> 00:18:32,480 Speaker 8: is the contemporary original meaning of the fourteenth Amendment somehow 345 00:18:33,119 --> 00:18:36,040 Speaker 8: flowed into that case. Of course, it's even more ironic 346 00:18:36,119 --> 00:18:39,199 Speaker 8: because then the Chief Justice changed his mind later in 347 00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:41,639 Speaker 8: the subsequent decision. I don't think at the end of 348 00:18:41,680 --> 00:18:44,000 Speaker 8: the day that's going to be dispositive, though there was 349 00:18:44,119 --> 00:18:47,679 Speaker 8: clearly a lot of discussion of the case, because it 350 00:18:47,720 --> 00:18:51,160 Speaker 8: gives the tone of the assumption that Congress will set 351 00:18:51,200 --> 00:18:53,399 Speaker 8: the rules, and Congress did for years. Congress had a 352 00:18:53,400 --> 00:18:57,040 Speaker 8: provision that an Enforcement Acts that was in place from 353 00:18:57,080 --> 00:19:00,560 Speaker 8: eighteen seventy to nineteen forty eight, which did provide mechanism 354 00:19:00,640 --> 00:19:04,760 Speaker 8: for challenging the legitimacy of someone who was elected but 355 00:19:04,840 --> 00:19:08,280 Speaker 8: get an insurrectionist. No one knew and no one suggested 356 00:19:08,320 --> 00:19:10,359 Speaker 8: that or a argument why that was repealed in nineteen 357 00:19:10,400 --> 00:19:14,760 Speaker 8: forty eight, So it remains a mystery. But again I 358 00:19:14,760 --> 00:19:17,880 Speaker 8: think that that's the mechanism that the Court was searching for. 359 00:19:18,280 --> 00:19:22,439 Speaker 8: That is, it's too dangerous to allow fifty states to 360 00:19:22,440 --> 00:19:25,840 Speaker 8: come up with different views, and what's the Court supposed 361 00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:28,399 Speaker 8: to do with that? Rather, instead there should be an 362 00:19:28,480 --> 00:19:31,479 Speaker 8: orderly determination. Some people think there there already was an 363 00:19:31,520 --> 00:19:36,480 Speaker 8: orderly determination if Congress did that through the January sixth hearings, 364 00:19:36,680 --> 00:19:39,400 Speaker 8: but to the Court that it was not a determination 365 00:19:39,880 --> 00:19:44,000 Speaker 8: per se that President Trump engation insurrection and therefore should 366 00:19:44,000 --> 00:19:44,720 Speaker 8: be disqualified. 367 00:19:45,119 --> 00:19:47,920 Speaker 3: Do you have any idea what likely route they'll take 368 00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:49,160 Speaker 3: to get to their decision. 369 00:19:49,480 --> 00:19:52,840 Speaker 8: From listening from the case, there are some justices who 370 00:19:52,880 --> 00:19:57,000 Speaker 8: were concerned about whether the president was even covered under 371 00:19:57,040 --> 00:19:59,359 Speaker 8: the Section three or fourteenth Mendment. I think the strong 372 00:19:59,440 --> 00:20:02,640 Speaker 8: argument is that he is covered, but there was discussion 373 00:20:02,680 --> 00:20:02,879 Speaker 8: of that. 374 00:20:02,960 --> 00:20:04,800 Speaker 7: I think more than justices. 375 00:20:04,400 --> 00:20:08,119 Speaker 8: Seem to agree, however, that it's up to Congress. You 376 00:20:08,160 --> 00:20:11,080 Speaker 8: can call it a implicit preemption. You can call it 377 00:20:11,400 --> 00:20:16,160 Speaker 8: a kind of decision that the amendment is not self executing, 378 00:20:16,200 --> 00:20:19,000 Speaker 8: at least not by the states, and some kind of 379 00:20:19,040 --> 00:20:22,120 Speaker 8: theory along those lines will, I think, attract a majority 380 00:20:22,160 --> 00:20:22,639 Speaker 8: in the case. 381 00:20:23,400 --> 00:20:26,840 Speaker 3: Do you think that a majority is what the chief 382 00:20:26,880 --> 00:20:29,879 Speaker 3: wants or the chief wants unanimity. 383 00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:34,680 Speaker 8: Certainly the chief wants unanimity. It's possible that there will 384 00:20:34,720 --> 00:20:38,399 Speaker 8: be unanimity, not on whether the president is covered. I 385 00:20:38,440 --> 00:20:40,040 Speaker 8: think there certainly is going to be a split on 386 00:20:40,080 --> 00:20:42,639 Speaker 8: that issue, but there may be unanimity on the idea 387 00:20:42,680 --> 00:20:46,960 Speaker 8: that the states are not the place in which this 388 00:20:47,119 --> 00:20:50,119 Speaker 8: qualification should start. Rather, it has to be a different 389 00:20:50,200 --> 00:20:53,560 Speaker 8: kind of process, one that is only so far been 390 00:20:54,080 --> 00:20:58,960 Speaker 8: delineated by the criminal statute that still remains, which punishes insurrection. 391 00:20:59,240 --> 00:21:01,400 Speaker 3: So what do you think about a more than two 392 00:21:01,520 --> 00:21:06,320 Speaker 3: hour argument about Donald Trump being an insurrectionist at least 393 00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:11,119 Speaker 3: under Colorado's Supreme Court, and yet only one question on 394 00:21:11,160 --> 00:21:12,920 Speaker 3: whether he was an insurrectionist. 395 00:21:13,520 --> 00:21:16,679 Speaker 8: I didn't think the court wanted to touch the question 396 00:21:16,720 --> 00:21:19,399 Speaker 8: of whether exident Trump was an insurrectionist or not, and 397 00:21:19,440 --> 00:21:23,920 Speaker 8: they certainly steered clear from that throughout almost the entire argument. 398 00:21:24,080 --> 00:21:24,440 Speaker 2: You know, that. 399 00:21:24,440 --> 00:21:28,080 Speaker 8: Obviously has been the issue that has attracted tension nationally. 400 00:21:28,920 --> 00:21:32,560 Speaker 8: But I think the really the more important determination here 401 00:21:32,800 --> 00:21:34,959 Speaker 8: is what about that process? 402 00:21:35,160 --> 00:21:36,120 Speaker 7: You know, how is. 403 00:21:36,080 --> 00:21:39,400 Speaker 8: It that one state confines he's an insurrectionist, another state 404 00:21:39,440 --> 00:21:42,359 Speaker 8: confined that he's not. And then even more so, we 405 00:21:42,480 --> 00:21:45,399 Speaker 8: do have at least a definition of what insurrection is, 406 00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:48,040 Speaker 8: but we have no definition of what giving aid and 407 00:21:48,080 --> 00:21:50,800 Speaker 8: comfort to the enemy is, which is also in Section 408 00:21:51,000 --> 00:21:53,320 Speaker 8: three of the fourteenth Amendment. And so how would the 409 00:21:53,359 --> 00:21:56,720 Speaker 8: court had the tools to figure out whether someone has 410 00:21:56,760 --> 00:21:59,439 Speaker 8: given aid or comfort to the enemies? It truly is, 411 00:22:00,440 --> 00:22:03,760 Speaker 8: And I think the recognition is the Amendments just not 412 00:22:03,880 --> 00:22:07,560 Speaker 8: very well written. And what do you do to try 413 00:22:07,600 --> 00:22:10,879 Speaker 8: to have a functioning government when you have part of 414 00:22:10,880 --> 00:22:14,440 Speaker 8: the fourteenth Amendment which is cryptic and probably not thought 415 00:22:14,480 --> 00:22:17,440 Speaker 8: out very well. We know everybody needed it to get 416 00:22:17,520 --> 00:22:21,240 Speaker 8: rid of those Confederates who remained in state offices, but 417 00:22:21,400 --> 00:22:24,040 Speaker 8: beyond that, it's a little difficult to know what the 418 00:22:24,200 --> 00:22:26,720 Speaker 8: entire picture was or design, and maybe it was just 419 00:22:26,760 --> 00:22:29,320 Speaker 8: a faulty designed, you know, at the get go, And 420 00:22:29,359 --> 00:22:31,960 Speaker 8: then put that puts the court in the difficult situation 421 00:22:32,000 --> 00:22:36,280 Speaker 8: of either trying to salvage it section three or putting 422 00:22:36,280 --> 00:22:39,160 Speaker 8: it in Congress's lap, and it seems that what they're 423 00:22:39,160 --> 00:22:41,440 Speaker 8: going to do is put the issue in Congress's lap 424 00:22:41,640 --> 00:22:45,520 Speaker 8: as opposed to trying to create an interpretation of the 425 00:22:45,560 --> 00:22:47,280 Speaker 8: amendment that is workable. 426 00:22:48,080 --> 00:22:51,800 Speaker 3: There's a theory that the court may try to balance 427 00:22:51,920 --> 00:22:56,800 Speaker 3: things out by really against Colorado here, but then not 428 00:22:56,920 --> 00:23:02,960 Speaker 3: taking on the case on President Trump's claims of presidential immunity, 429 00:23:03,200 --> 00:23:04,840 Speaker 3: sort of balancing it out. 430 00:23:05,000 --> 00:23:06,919 Speaker 8: I don't know if the Court's going to take that will. 431 00:23:07,280 --> 00:23:09,520 Speaker 8: I assume there'll be a certain petition filed within a 432 00:23:09,560 --> 00:23:12,840 Speaker 8: matter of days, as the DC Circuit indicated in the 433 00:23:12,920 --> 00:23:16,040 Speaker 8: roadmap that it gave to President Trump's lawyers. But I 434 00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:19,719 Speaker 8: do predict that if they do grant Sir serai, they 435 00:23:19,760 --> 00:23:24,359 Speaker 8: would rule against the president. Presidential immunity should exist from 436 00:23:24,480 --> 00:23:27,840 Speaker 8: some crimes, but not for the charges, at least of 437 00:23:28,440 --> 00:23:32,720 Speaker 8: sedition conspiring to overthrow the government. There needs to be 438 00:23:32,760 --> 00:23:37,680 Speaker 8: a balance there between where the president should maintain his 439 00:23:37,840 --> 00:23:40,879 Speaker 8: freedom from judicial second guessing. But I think the court 440 00:23:41,200 --> 00:23:45,880 Speaker 8: perhaps didn't reason it adequately, but clearly stated that any 441 00:23:45,960 --> 00:23:48,840 Speaker 8: kind of balancing tests would suggest it's more important to 442 00:23:48,840 --> 00:23:53,240 Speaker 8: have criminal process here than to claim immunity. And I 443 00:23:53,320 --> 00:23:56,240 Speaker 8: think the court would agree with that. They'll probably slightly 444 00:23:56,240 --> 00:23:57,040 Speaker 8: different reasoning. 445 00:23:57,560 --> 00:23:59,280 Speaker 3: So before I let you go, I have to mention 446 00:23:59,440 --> 00:24:04,200 Speaker 3: one thing. Justice Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself even 447 00:24:04,200 --> 00:24:08,679 Speaker 3: though his wife has been connected in many ways to January. 448 00:24:08,160 --> 00:24:11,760 Speaker 8: Sixth, and he was actually very active in the questioning 449 00:24:12,000 --> 00:24:16,639 Speaker 8: today as well. He's maintained and fantastically that whatever his 450 00:24:17,480 --> 00:24:20,359 Speaker 8: wife did is not a reflection of his views and 451 00:24:20,400 --> 00:24:24,879 Speaker 8: that he can maintain an unbiased perspective despite the fact 452 00:24:24,920 --> 00:24:28,679 Speaker 8: that she participated in events that led to January sixth, 453 00:24:29,000 --> 00:24:32,639 Speaker 8: and his presence says a testamitude the firmness of his belief. 454 00:24:33,160 --> 00:24:35,360 Speaker 3: Thanks so much for being on the show. Hal that's 455 00:24:35,359 --> 00:24:38,320 Speaker 3: Professor Harold Krent of a Chicago Kent College of Law. 456 00:24:38,840 --> 00:24:41,480 Speaker 3: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll take 457 00:24:41,520 --> 00:24:44,359 Speaker 3: a close look at the historic verdict in Michigan, the 458 00:24:44,400 --> 00:24:46,639 Speaker 3: first time a mother has been found guilty of a 459 00:24:46,680 --> 00:24:50,359 Speaker 3: mass school shooting committed by her son. Will that verdict 460 00:24:50,440 --> 00:24:54,439 Speaker 3: open the floodgates to other parents being prosecuted for the 461 00:24:54,480 --> 00:24:57,640 Speaker 3: criminal acts their children commit. I'm June Grosso and you're 462 00:24:57,640 --> 00:25:01,600 Speaker 3: listening to Bloomberg. It was an unpreced dented verdict in Michigan. 463 00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:04,560 Speaker 3: For the first time, a mother was found guilty of 464 00:25:04,560 --> 00:25:08,280 Speaker 3: the maschool shooting committed by her son. A jury convicted 465 00:25:08,359 --> 00:25:12,560 Speaker 3: Jennifer Crumbley of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for each 466 00:25:12,600 --> 00:25:15,720 Speaker 3: of the students her teenage son murdered in a shooting 467 00:25:15,800 --> 00:25:20,119 Speaker 3: rampage at Oxford High School in twenty twenty one. The 468 00:25:20,240 --> 00:25:23,439 Speaker 3: question now is does this case provide a blueprint for 469 00:25:23,520 --> 00:25:28,040 Speaker 3: other prosecutors to bring criminal charges against parents for the 470 00:25:28,119 --> 00:25:31,520 Speaker 3: crimes their children commit. Joining me is Echo Yanka, a 471 00:25:31,560 --> 00:25:34,840 Speaker 3: professor at the University of Michigan Law School. In a 472 00:25:34,880 --> 00:25:39,080 Speaker 3: real sense, was it Jennifer Crumbley's parenting that was on 473 00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:39,840 Speaker 3: trial here? 474 00:25:40,240 --> 00:25:42,560 Speaker 7: I think the prosecution painted a picture of her as 475 00:25:42,600 --> 00:25:47,240 Speaker 7: an indifferent, callous parent, one who is more interested in 476 00:25:47,280 --> 00:25:52,320 Speaker 7: her courses and hobbies, her extramarital affairs than getting her 477 00:25:52,400 --> 00:25:55,680 Speaker 7: child to help that he explicitly seemed to be seeking. 478 00:25:56,040 --> 00:25:58,840 Speaker 7: But of course the prosecution knew that being a bad 479 00:25:58,880 --> 00:26:02,159 Speaker 7: parent is not by itself illegal, and having that be 480 00:26:02,240 --> 00:26:06,159 Speaker 7: the only line of argument would be not just legally insufficient, 481 00:26:06,240 --> 00:26:10,399 Speaker 7: but probably unpalatable, And so they really made a point 482 00:26:10,400 --> 00:26:12,560 Speaker 7: that it's not just that she is a bad parent. 483 00:26:12,600 --> 00:26:16,280 Speaker 7: It's that she had opportunity after opportunity to do something 484 00:26:16,320 --> 00:26:19,560 Speaker 7: to avoid these killings, and that even given a million 485 00:26:19,880 --> 00:26:22,760 Speaker 7: little moments where she could have saved those lives, she 486 00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:23,399 Speaker 7: did nothing. 487 00:26:24,040 --> 00:26:28,080 Speaker 3: The prosecution had so much evidence against Crumbly, from her 488 00:26:28,200 --> 00:26:31,760 Speaker 3: son's text that she didn't answer, to journal entries, to 489 00:26:31,920 --> 00:26:34,480 Speaker 3: videos of her at the shooting range with her son. 490 00:26:35,119 --> 00:26:37,840 Speaker 3: What was the best evidence in your mind? 491 00:26:38,560 --> 00:26:40,680 Speaker 7: I think you put your finger exactly on it that. 492 00:26:40,840 --> 00:26:43,439 Speaker 7: As the prosecution tried to hammer home, it just seems 493 00:26:43,480 --> 00:26:45,639 Speaker 7: like there were a million moments where she could have 494 00:26:45,800 --> 00:26:48,840 Speaker 7: done something given him the help he needs. There's a moment, 495 00:26:48,840 --> 00:26:53,359 Speaker 7: for example, when he is caught searching online about ammunition 496 00:26:53,520 --> 00:26:55,359 Speaker 7: and she texts back, you know, I don't care if 497 00:26:55,359 --> 00:26:57,760 Speaker 7: you do this, just don't get caught laugh out loud, 498 00:26:57,800 --> 00:27:00,959 Speaker 7: you know, Lol. But if you ask me the single moment, 499 00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:04,159 Speaker 7: the single moment that was the most powerful, when I 500 00:27:04,200 --> 00:27:07,240 Speaker 7: talked to friends, when I debate with legal colleagues, and 501 00:27:07,280 --> 00:27:10,399 Speaker 7: frankly just around the dinner table, I would say the 502 00:27:10,480 --> 00:27:13,440 Speaker 7: fact that the school called her in that very day 503 00:27:13,840 --> 00:27:17,600 Speaker 7: when Ethan is drawing pictures of violence and death, and 504 00:27:17,640 --> 00:27:21,439 Speaker 7: they asked the Crumbleys to take even home, and depending 505 00:27:21,480 --> 00:27:24,080 Speaker 7: on who you believe, they either refuse or together they 506 00:27:24,119 --> 00:27:26,520 Speaker 7: decide not to do it, but in any case they 507 00:27:26,560 --> 00:27:29,320 Speaker 7: walk out of their knowing that he had a weapon. 508 00:27:29,640 --> 00:27:33,200 Speaker 3: The four person told NBC that she was swayed by 509 00:27:33,200 --> 00:27:36,560 Speaker 3: the belief that Crumbley was the last person who had 510 00:27:36,640 --> 00:27:41,080 Speaker 3: custody of the gun and that therefore she was responsible 511 00:27:41,160 --> 00:27:43,520 Speaker 3: for it. And she said the picture of her handling 512 00:27:43,600 --> 00:27:46,880 Speaker 3: the gun last was pretty damning for me. And I'm 513 00:27:46,920 --> 00:27:50,359 Speaker 3: wondering if that is faulty reasoning. I mean, can you 514 00:27:50,440 --> 00:27:53,480 Speaker 3: really draw a conclusion of guilt from the last information 515 00:27:53,560 --> 00:27:55,000 Speaker 3: that the prosecution has? 516 00:27:55,600 --> 00:27:58,399 Speaker 7: So I feel torn about that. I'll say why. On 517 00:27:58,520 --> 00:28:03,080 Speaker 7: the one hand, part of the background of because part 518 00:28:03,119 --> 00:28:06,760 Speaker 7: of the overall theory of her involunteer manslaughter rest on 519 00:28:06,800 --> 00:28:10,080 Speaker 7: her negligence, and that rests on the idea that an 520 00:28:10,160 --> 00:28:12,879 Speaker 7: ordinary person would have known that it was going to 521 00:28:12,880 --> 00:28:15,840 Speaker 7: do this, An ordinary person should have seen that this 522 00:28:15,960 --> 00:28:19,480 Speaker 7: danger existed. And so the fact that the parents knew 523 00:28:19,480 --> 00:28:21,440 Speaker 7: that there was a weapon, that the parents didn't tell 524 00:28:21,480 --> 00:28:24,760 Speaker 7: the school, that the parents, as you say, in some sense, 525 00:28:24,800 --> 00:28:27,280 Speaker 7: could have for example, locked up the guns. All those 526 00:28:27,280 --> 00:28:30,280 Speaker 7: things are in the mix, But I do worry about 527 00:28:30,680 --> 00:28:33,920 Speaker 7: a jury foreman. You know, if I were a defense 528 00:28:33,960 --> 00:28:38,360 Speaker 7: were on appeal, you might think such reasoning assumes evidence 529 00:28:38,440 --> 00:28:40,640 Speaker 7: not in fact, and it's not clear that it is 530 00:28:40,680 --> 00:28:44,960 Speaker 7: the legally relevant standard. So I think I understand the 531 00:28:45,520 --> 00:28:49,000 Speaker 7: feeling behind it, but I worry that if that sentence 532 00:28:49,080 --> 00:28:51,920 Speaker 7: is literally true, you know, it's going to give the 533 00:28:51,960 --> 00:28:53,120 Speaker 7: defense something to hold on. 534 00:28:53,360 --> 00:28:56,239 Speaker 3: Crumbly took the stand in her own defense. As you know, 535 00:28:56,720 --> 00:28:59,520 Speaker 3: often when that happens, the whole focus of the jury 536 00:28:59,640 --> 00:29:03,680 Speaker 3: is on the credibility of the defendant, and she didn't 537 00:29:03,720 --> 00:29:06,719 Speaker 3: come across well on the stand. The jury for person said, 538 00:29:07,000 --> 00:29:09,480 Speaker 3: once we went into deliberation, it became clear that she 539 00:29:09,640 --> 00:29:12,760 Speaker 3: was not a super reliable witness in this case. 540 00:29:13,480 --> 00:29:17,760 Speaker 7: Look, her testimony was not great. I thought the worst 541 00:29:17,800 --> 00:29:20,040 Speaker 7: moment was when she was asked what she would do 542 00:29:20,120 --> 00:29:24,160 Speaker 7: differently today, and her answer was nothing right. I understand 543 00:29:24,200 --> 00:29:26,320 Speaker 7: the impulse for her answers, I just didn't do anything wrong, 544 00:29:26,840 --> 00:29:30,440 Speaker 7: But when you're staring at a day where four children 545 00:29:30,480 --> 00:29:34,120 Speaker 7: were killed and seven more were injured, that answer just 546 00:29:34,280 --> 00:29:39,080 Speaker 7: feels callous. So I definitely worried about that. That being said, look, 547 00:29:39,280 --> 00:29:41,360 Speaker 7: the defense had a great legal principle on which they 548 00:29:41,360 --> 00:29:44,160 Speaker 7: were lying, but they had a really tough task because 549 00:29:44,160 --> 00:29:48,800 Speaker 7: the prosecution had really painted her is callous, bordering on monstrous, 550 00:29:48,880 --> 00:29:51,560 Speaker 7: and I think the defense felt a lot of pressure 551 00:29:51,600 --> 00:29:55,120 Speaker 7: to humanize her. The only image that the jurors had 552 00:29:55,120 --> 00:29:57,200 Speaker 7: in their minds was of a parent who just didn't 553 00:29:57,240 --> 00:29:59,920 Speaker 7: care about her son and her son's danger to others, 554 00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:03,880 Speaker 7: and so I understand why they felt strategically like they 555 00:30:03,920 --> 00:30:06,400 Speaker 7: had to do something to claw back an image of 556 00:30:06,440 --> 00:30:08,480 Speaker 7: a human mother who is doing her best. 557 00:30:08,720 --> 00:30:11,560 Speaker 3: He said, the defense had a good theory. Tell me 558 00:30:11,600 --> 00:30:12,320 Speaker 3: what the theory is. 559 00:30:13,320 --> 00:30:16,280 Speaker 7: Well, the defense I think had two prongs. The second 560 00:30:16,320 --> 00:30:18,760 Speaker 7: wave just talked about that look, I mean, there's a 561 00:30:18,840 --> 00:30:21,320 Speaker 7: kind of human instinct. This is a mother doing our best. 562 00:30:21,360 --> 00:30:24,760 Speaker 7: And moreover, you're saying a reasonable person could have foreseen this. 563 00:30:24,920 --> 00:30:28,320 Speaker 7: You're asking a mother to foresee something that mothers might 564 00:30:28,360 --> 00:30:31,200 Speaker 7: think is bordering on unthinkable. You're asking a mom to 565 00:30:31,200 --> 00:30:34,680 Speaker 7: foresee that her son will be monstrous, will be a 566 00:30:34,680 --> 00:30:37,560 Speaker 7: mass shooter. And so that has a kind of I 567 00:30:37,560 --> 00:30:39,600 Speaker 7: wouldn't say it's the very point of the legal theory, 568 00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:41,840 Speaker 7: but it has a kind of diffuse tug on a 569 00:30:41,920 --> 00:30:44,760 Speaker 7: juror's heart that suly requiring a mother to see that 570 00:30:45,360 --> 00:30:48,400 Speaker 7: is a strain. But the core of the defense theory 571 00:30:48,560 --> 00:30:52,320 Speaker 7: really is the first year legal principle, the one that 572 00:30:52,400 --> 00:30:55,400 Speaker 7: you learn when you're starting law school that you are 573 00:30:55,520 --> 00:30:58,560 Speaker 7: just not responsible for the actions of another that when 574 00:30:58,640 --> 00:31:02,280 Speaker 7: somebody who's a responsible acts it severs the causal change. 575 00:31:02,600 --> 00:31:04,840 Speaker 7: And I think the defense really thought at the end 576 00:31:04,840 --> 00:31:07,960 Speaker 7: of the day that not only as a legal matter, 577 00:31:08,160 --> 00:31:10,719 Speaker 7: but as a social and moral matter that has a 578 00:31:10,760 --> 00:31:12,400 Speaker 7: lot of weight in people's minds. 579 00:31:12,840 --> 00:31:15,800 Speaker 3: Do you think that this case provides a blueprint to 580 00:31:15,880 --> 00:31:20,000 Speaker 3: other prosecutors and we'll see more parents being charged for 581 00:31:20,160 --> 00:31:21,840 Speaker 3: the criminal acts of their children. 582 00:31:23,080 --> 00:31:24,760 Speaker 7: Yeah, this is a question I've been asked a lot, 583 00:31:24,800 --> 00:31:27,720 Speaker 7: and I, you know, I struggle to answer it well. 584 00:31:28,240 --> 00:31:30,880 Speaker 7: On the one hand, as we've discussed, this case has 585 00:31:30,960 --> 00:31:35,400 Speaker 7: such degregious facts, such heartrending facts where moment after moment, 586 00:31:36,000 --> 00:31:39,600 Speaker 7: things were going wrong, and to be honest, you know, 587 00:31:40,200 --> 00:31:44,040 Speaker 7: perhaps perhaps it's just an extraordinary case of extraordinary facts, 588 00:31:44,320 --> 00:31:46,280 Speaker 7: you know, as lawyers say, the kind of case that 589 00:31:46,320 --> 00:31:49,640 Speaker 7: should be confined to its facts. On the other hand, 590 00:31:49,800 --> 00:31:52,959 Speaker 7: you know the life of the law's precedent, lawyers argue 591 00:31:52,960 --> 00:31:56,160 Speaker 7: by analogy, and prosecutors certainly do too. And once a 592 00:31:56,200 --> 00:31:59,560 Speaker 7: prosecutor has this precedent in the world, it's impossible to 593 00:31:59,600 --> 00:32:02,160 Speaker 7: imagine that they won't use it. And further, as I've said, 594 00:32:02,280 --> 00:32:04,120 Speaker 7: as I've said before, and I think is really important, 595 00:32:04,600 --> 00:32:07,440 Speaker 7: prosecutors can use these things in ways that are much 596 00:32:07,520 --> 00:32:11,320 Speaker 7: less spectacular and visible than a Crumbley case. Right, So 597 00:32:11,360 --> 00:32:14,440 Speaker 7: in the Crumbley case, the whole nation, indeed the whole 598 00:32:14,480 --> 00:32:16,920 Speaker 7: world is interesting because the facts are so visceral, but 599 00:32:17,000 --> 00:32:19,000 Speaker 7: we won't see the case. Or the prosecutor has a 600 00:32:19,080 --> 00:32:22,840 Speaker 7: parent who thinks they have a legal defense and says, look, 601 00:32:23,120 --> 00:32:25,160 Speaker 7: I'm going to offer you three years, but if you 602 00:32:25,360 --> 00:32:28,440 Speaker 7: don't accept this flea bargain, I'm going to prosecute you 603 00:32:28,480 --> 00:32:31,640 Speaker 7: for fifteen or twenty. And if that person pleads out, 604 00:32:31,960 --> 00:32:35,160 Speaker 7: they may be giving up on their legal defenses. They 605 00:32:35,200 --> 00:32:37,880 Speaker 7: may serve many years in jail, and it will be 606 00:32:38,000 --> 00:32:40,560 Speaker 7: quite invisible, it will be quite under the radar. And 607 00:32:40,600 --> 00:32:41,920 Speaker 7: I worry about those cases. 608 00:32:42,120 --> 00:32:45,440 Speaker 3: As far as appellate issues, you mentioned one, do you 609 00:32:45,440 --> 00:32:47,920 Speaker 3: see any you know, obvious appellet issues. 610 00:32:48,240 --> 00:32:50,360 Speaker 7: There are going to be some, right, I mean, I 611 00:32:50,440 --> 00:32:54,440 Speaker 7: do think the format of the jury speaking. You know, 612 00:32:54,960 --> 00:32:58,320 Speaker 7: there's a reason injuries deliberate in secret, so you know 613 00:32:58,560 --> 00:33:01,840 Speaker 7: that that statement that she thought Jennifer Tumbling was last 614 00:33:01,840 --> 00:33:05,280 Speaker 7: to handle the gun might be worrying. They're always going 615 00:33:05,320 --> 00:33:08,600 Speaker 7: to be issues on which the judge ruled, in particular 616 00:33:08,640 --> 00:33:10,840 Speaker 7: some of the evidence the judge let in, some of 617 00:33:10,840 --> 00:33:14,800 Speaker 7: the really really gut wrenching photographic evidence. Truly, some part 618 00:33:14,840 --> 00:33:16,719 Speaker 7: of the appeal will be that bad evidence was more 619 00:33:16,800 --> 00:33:19,760 Speaker 7: prejudicial than broken. You know, the argument will be something like, 620 00:33:19,920 --> 00:33:23,160 Speaker 7: everybody knows that Ethan committed this horrible act. There was 621 00:33:23,200 --> 00:33:26,719 Speaker 7: no need to see the result of it, right, There 622 00:33:26,760 --> 00:33:30,160 Speaker 7: was no there's no real addition by seeing the pictures. 623 00:33:30,160 --> 00:33:33,200 Speaker 7: It just emotionally, it's like the jurors. But I think 624 00:33:33,280 --> 00:33:37,200 Speaker 7: ultimately the thing on which you appeal is the legal principle. 625 00:33:37,320 --> 00:33:39,000 Speaker 7: I mean, if this goes all the way up to 626 00:33:39,000 --> 00:33:41,200 Speaker 7: the Michigan Supreme Court, what you're going to be doing 627 00:33:41,280 --> 00:33:45,160 Speaker 7: is asking the Supreme Court to reinforce the legal norm 628 00:33:45,840 --> 00:33:49,160 Speaker 7: that one just can't be responsible for another person's act. 629 00:33:49,240 --> 00:33:52,680 Speaker 7: That parents who are you know, the hypothetic will be 630 00:33:52,720 --> 00:33:54,680 Speaker 7: parents who are doing their best but are afraid that 631 00:33:54,720 --> 00:33:58,560 Speaker 7: their children are tempted to violence. At some point they 632 00:33:58,560 --> 00:34:01,640 Speaker 7: get to say I've done what I can. His actions 633 00:34:01,640 --> 00:34:01,920 Speaker 7: are his. 634 00:34:02,120 --> 00:34:05,720 Speaker 3: Now, what about the judge let in a broad range 635 00:34:05,720 --> 00:34:09,080 Speaker 3: of evidence, from the time she spent with her horses 636 00:34:09,160 --> 00:34:11,120 Speaker 3: to an extramarital affair. 637 00:34:11,719 --> 00:34:14,640 Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean some of that I do think will 638 00:34:14,680 --> 00:34:16,680 Speaker 7: be taken up on appeal, in particular, as I said, 639 00:34:16,680 --> 00:34:19,440 Speaker 7: the photos of the killing will be taken up on appeal, 640 00:34:19,840 --> 00:34:23,279 Speaker 7: maybe the horses, although that stuff doesn't seem you know, 641 00:34:23,400 --> 00:34:25,480 Speaker 7: the question is there is It's sort of just a 642 00:34:25,520 --> 00:34:29,160 Speaker 7: diffuse character assassination. The extra manal affair is an interesting one. 643 00:34:29,239 --> 00:34:32,160 Speaker 7: The judge actually initially ruled that it could not come in, 644 00:34:32,640 --> 00:34:35,359 Speaker 7: but it was the defense counsel that eventually decided they 645 00:34:35,360 --> 00:34:39,480 Speaker 7: wanted to push the questioning. And even though perhaps that 646 00:34:39,560 --> 00:34:41,840 Speaker 7: conversation should have been had outside of the earshot of 647 00:34:41,880 --> 00:34:45,560 Speaker 7: the jury, the defense council ultimately invited that evidence in. 648 00:34:45,680 --> 00:34:49,400 Speaker 7: So I don't see any real problematic issue there. The 649 00:34:49,480 --> 00:34:50,840 Speaker 7: defense council waived the ejection. 650 00:34:51,520 --> 00:34:54,960 Speaker 3: The father's trial is coming up. Will he learn from 651 00:34:54,960 --> 00:34:58,920 Speaker 3: what happened here? Can he use different strategies, you know, 652 00:34:59,120 --> 00:35:02,160 Speaker 3: change things up or his trial, or maybe even try 653 00:35:02,200 --> 00:35:02,799 Speaker 3: to plead out. 654 00:35:03,160 --> 00:35:05,880 Speaker 7: Yeah, it's a great question, and I'm you know, my 655 00:35:06,000 --> 00:35:09,680 Speaker 7: mind is spinning about that too. Obviously, the parents are 656 00:35:09,719 --> 00:35:13,480 Speaker 7: the ones in the most pain, and Jennifer Crumley was convicted, 657 00:35:13,960 --> 00:35:16,520 Speaker 7: but other than those people, nobody had a worse day 658 00:35:16,520 --> 00:35:19,319 Speaker 7: than James Crumley. Right now, I would say every case 659 00:35:19,440 --> 00:35:21,840 Speaker 7: is different. You know, this case was supposed to be 660 00:35:21,840 --> 00:35:25,839 Speaker 7: tried together until really almost the last minute where they 661 00:35:25,880 --> 00:35:29,640 Speaker 7: decided to separate the cases. And presumably that's because each 662 00:35:29,680 --> 00:35:32,000 Speaker 7: of them thinks that or at least one of them 663 00:35:32,000 --> 00:35:34,719 Speaker 7: thought that there were more damning facts towards the other. Right, 664 00:35:34,760 --> 00:35:38,280 Speaker 7: So you saw Jennifer argue that it was the father, James, 665 00:35:38,320 --> 00:35:39,880 Speaker 7: who bought the god and he is the one in 666 00:35:39,960 --> 00:35:42,399 Speaker 7: charge of blocking it up. And presumably his team will 667 00:35:42,440 --> 00:35:45,600 Speaker 7: have arguments about why she's more culpable, and most importantly, 668 00:35:45,600 --> 00:35:48,480 Speaker 7: every jury is different. Right, So, but it seems to 669 00:35:48,480 --> 00:35:50,720 Speaker 7: me the most obviously that will happened given a conviction 670 00:35:50,880 --> 00:35:53,520 Speaker 7: is that his team will move or change up venue. 671 00:35:53,560 --> 00:35:56,880 Speaker 7: They'll just think this poisons It was already such an 672 00:35:56,920 --> 00:36:00,960 Speaker 7: emotional and difficult case, so visible that the conviction is 673 00:36:01,080 --> 00:36:03,560 Speaker 7: just too poisonous for them. And then a part of 674 00:36:03,560 --> 00:36:06,520 Speaker 7: me really does wonder if, at this late hour, if 675 00:36:06,680 --> 00:36:09,000 Speaker 7: they really would reach out for a plea bargain, and 676 00:36:09,040 --> 00:36:11,359 Speaker 7: if Franklin's the prosecution would think there's anything to gain 677 00:36:11,440 --> 00:36:13,600 Speaker 7: after they've already done all the work to take the 678 00:36:13,680 --> 00:36:14,640 Speaker 7: case to trial. 679 00:36:14,719 --> 00:36:18,360 Speaker 3: Once thanks so much for being on the show. That's echo, Yanka, 680 00:36:18,400 --> 00:36:21,400 Speaker 3: a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law. 681 00:36:21,760 --> 00:36:25,439 Speaker 3: Jennifer Crombley will be sentenced in April. Her husband will 682 00:36:25,440 --> 00:36:28,920 Speaker 3: go on trial later this month. Ethan Cromblee is serving 683 00:36:28,920 --> 00:36:32,560 Speaker 3: a sentence of life in prison after pleading guilty in 684 00:36:32,600 --> 00:36:35,080 Speaker 3: the case. And that's it for this edition of the 685 00:36:35,120 --> 00:36:38,440 Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest 686 00:36:38,480 --> 00:36:41,359 Speaker 3: legal news by subscribing and listening to the show on 687 00:36:41,440 --> 00:36:45,719 Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, 688 00:36:45,840 --> 00:36:49,719 Speaker 3: slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg