1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,240 --> 00:00:13,200
Speaker 1: Remember when Donald Trump said that as president, he could

3
00:00:13,240 --> 00:00:16,760
Speaker 1: declassify documents just by thinking about it.

4
00:00:17,120 --> 00:00:19,120
Speaker 2: If you're the president of the United States, you can

5
00:00:19,160 --> 00:00:22,760
Speaker 2: declassify just by saying it's de classified, even by thinking

6
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:26,200
Speaker 2: about it, because you're sending it to mar A Lago

7
00:00:26,320 --> 00:00:30,120
Speaker 2: or to wherever you're sending it, and there doesn't have

8
00:00:30,200 --> 00:00:32,839
Speaker 2: to be a process. There can be a process, but

9
00:00:32,880 --> 00:00:34,959
Speaker 2: there doesn't have to be you're the president. You make

10
00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:38,960
Speaker 2: that decision, so when you send it, it's stake lesswood.

11
00:00:38,960 --> 00:00:42,960
Speaker 1: Well, the federal judge handling the criminal classified documents case

12
00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:46,559
Speaker 1: against the former president, seems to be buying into that

13
00:00:46,800 --> 00:00:52,159
Speaker 1: unsupported theory that Trump's possession of highly classified materials was

14
00:00:52,240 --> 00:00:56,200
Speaker 1: covered by the Presidential Records Act, and Special Counsel Jack

15
00:00:56,280 --> 00:01:00,040
Speaker 1: Smith has vented his frustration with Judge Eileen Cannon and

16
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:03,560
Speaker 1: taking the Trump appointee to task for her request for

17
00:01:03,720 --> 00:01:06,920
Speaker 1: jury instructions on the matter and threatening to go to

18
00:01:06,959 --> 00:01:11,440
Speaker 1: the Eleventh Circuit, which has already reversed Canon twice. Joining

19
00:01:11,440 --> 00:01:14,880
Speaker 1: me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner McCarter

20
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:18,440
Speaker 1: and English Bob. A ruling by Judge Cannon seems to

21
00:01:18,480 --> 00:01:21,480
Speaker 1: have moved the ball forward. But before we get to that,

22
00:01:21,959 --> 00:01:25,160
Speaker 1: we need some background. Will you explain why the Special

23
00:01:25,240 --> 00:01:28,559
Speaker 1: Council is so incensed? I think it's fair to say

24
00:01:29,040 --> 00:01:32,560
Speaker 1: with Judge Cannon considering what I think is one of

25
00:01:32,640 --> 00:01:35,959
Speaker 1: the most off the wall claims by Trump that he

26
00:01:36,319 --> 00:01:42,319
Speaker 1: transformed national security documents into his own personal property under

27
00:01:42,319 --> 00:01:44,360
Speaker 1: the Presidential Records Act.

28
00:01:44,560 --> 00:01:48,760
Speaker 3: So what has prosecutors so incensed here is that the

29
00:01:48,880 --> 00:01:53,160
Speaker 3: judge is fixating on the Presidential Records Act, which is,

30
00:01:53,200 --> 00:01:57,440
Speaker 3: according to prosecutors, a law that has absolutely nothing whatsoever

31
00:01:57,840 --> 00:02:00,920
Speaker 3: to do with this case. And what they're concerned about

32
00:02:01,200 --> 00:02:04,640
Speaker 3: is that if the judge gives an instruction about the

33
00:02:04,680 --> 00:02:09,200
Speaker 3: Presidential Records Act to a curate it essentially nugging him

34
00:02:09,520 --> 00:02:13,280
Speaker 3: potentially towards an acquittal or possibly even leaving the door

35
00:02:13,400 --> 00:02:17,079
Speaker 3: open for the judge herself to acquit the former president

36
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:19,480
Speaker 3: at the end of the proceeding by declaring that the

37
00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:21,600
Speaker 3: government had failed to prove its case.

38
00:02:22,200 --> 00:02:26,520
Speaker 1: So, in this scathing response, the Special Council called this

39
00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:31,120
Speaker 1: Trump theory pure fiction and flatly said several times that

40
00:02:31,200 --> 00:02:35,200
Speaker 1: the judge's legal reasoning is just wrong, asking her to

41
00:02:35,440 --> 00:02:38,440
Speaker 1: rule quickly so that he can appeal to the Eleventh

42
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:40,079
Speaker 1: Circuit if she rules against him.

43
00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:43,520
Speaker 3: Well, what prosecutors have done is essentially argues that this

44
00:02:43,720 --> 00:02:46,800
Speaker 3: is a last minute argument and that there's no factual

45
00:02:46,880 --> 00:02:51,160
Speaker 3: basis in the record whatsoever to even support a claim

46
00:02:51,280 --> 00:02:55,080
Speaker 3: that these records were protected by the Presidential Records Act.

47
00:02:55,360 --> 00:03:00,000
Speaker 3: The Presidential Records Act was enacted post Watergates to clarify

48
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,120
Speaker 3: what records belong to the president and what records belong

49
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:06,079
Speaker 3: to the public, and the Presidential Records Acts make very

50
00:03:06,120 --> 00:03:10,880
Speaker 3: clear that only purely personal records, records relating to the

51
00:03:10,960 --> 00:03:16,240
Speaker 3: president's personal activities, health records, family records, those types of

52
00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:20,400
Speaker 3: personal records, those could be removed. But any records relating

53
00:03:20,400 --> 00:03:25,359
Speaker 3: to the public, such as national security, national policy, anything

54
00:03:25,480 --> 00:03:28,840
Speaker 3: related to the function of the president acting as president,

55
00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:32,560
Speaker 3: those records belong to the White House and were not

56
00:03:32,600 --> 00:03:36,080
Speaker 3: permitted to be removed under the Presidential Records Act. What

57
00:03:36,200 --> 00:03:39,360
Speaker 3: the defense here is trying to argue is that former

58
00:03:39,400 --> 00:03:44,440
Speaker 3: President Trump transformed those records, which are clearly public in nature,

59
00:03:44,960 --> 00:03:48,840
Speaker 3: into personal records merely by removing them and taking them

60
00:03:48,920 --> 00:03:51,680
Speaker 3: to mar A Lago they're not even suggesting that at

61
00:03:51,720 --> 00:03:54,880
Speaker 3: any point in time former President Trump has designated them

62
00:03:55,160 --> 00:03:58,920
Speaker 3: as personal under the Presidential Records Acts. And prosecutors pointed

63
00:03:58,960 --> 00:04:01,000
Speaker 3: to the fact that they inter vi all of the

64
00:04:01,040 --> 00:04:03,280
Speaker 3: people who were involved in those records in the White

65
00:04:03,280 --> 00:04:05,800
Speaker 3: House at the time, and none of them recall any

66
00:04:05,840 --> 00:04:09,360
Speaker 3: reference to those records being related to the Presidential Records Act.

67
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:13,320
Speaker 3: So the defense argument goes that simply because they were

68
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 3: removed and brought to Mura Lago, they were transformed into

69
00:04:17,000 --> 00:04:21,040
Speaker 3: personal records. That's something that the prostitution think is absurd

70
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:25,120
Speaker 3: on his face, and even injecting that question into the

71
00:04:25,160 --> 00:04:27,440
Speaker 3: trial and getting in front of the jury would be

72
00:04:27,520 --> 00:04:29,280
Speaker 3: highly prejudicial to prosecutors.

73
00:04:29,760 --> 00:04:31,919
Speaker 1: Jack Smith just seems to be at the end of

74
00:04:31,960 --> 00:04:33,560
Speaker 1: his robe with Judge Cannon.

75
00:04:34,279 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 3: Yeah, prosecutors are taking a very aggressive approach with the

76
00:04:37,760 --> 00:04:40,200
Speaker 3: judge here, but I think in their minds they have

77
00:04:40,360 --> 00:04:42,680
Speaker 3: no choice because the judge has yet to make a

78
00:04:42,720 --> 00:04:45,719
Speaker 3: decision on so many important motions that are still pending

79
00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:49,760
Speaker 3: before her, and those could affect the trial going forward.

80
00:04:50,360 --> 00:04:54,480
Speaker 1: The Special counsel also gave the judge a little nudge, saying, oh,

81
00:04:54,520 --> 00:04:57,400
Speaker 1: and you should rule on Trump's motion to dismiss the

82
00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:01,760
Speaker 1: case based on the Presidential Records Act and lo and behold.

83
00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:04,920
Speaker 1: Two days later, she ruled on that motion, which has

84
00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:08,880
Speaker 1: been sitting on her desk since February, denying Trump's motion

85
00:05:09,000 --> 00:05:11,719
Speaker 1: to dismiss, but leaving the door open.

86
00:05:12,320 --> 00:05:14,600
Speaker 3: So what the Trump defense team had asked the Jects

87
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:17,480
Speaker 3: to do is to throw out the indictment all together

88
00:05:18,000 --> 00:05:22,680
Speaker 3: based upon the Presidential Records Act. This ruling is very limited.

89
00:05:22,800 --> 00:05:25,240
Speaker 3: What it does is it says there will be a trial.

90
00:05:25,640 --> 00:05:28,679
Speaker 3: It says, at least as far as the Presidential Records

91
00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:32,560
Speaker 3: Act goes, that is not a basis to dismiss this indictment.

92
00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:36,719
Speaker 3: But she does leave open the door to dealing with

93
00:05:36,760 --> 00:05:39,719
Speaker 3: this issue at some point later down the road. She

94
00:05:39,800 --> 00:05:43,840
Speaker 3: simply says the Presidential Records Act is not a basis

95
00:05:43,880 --> 00:05:47,880
Speaker 3: to dismiss this indictment pre trial, but it leaves the

96
00:05:47,920 --> 00:05:51,599
Speaker 3: possibility that the defense will raise this issue at some

97
00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:55,119
Speaker 3: point during the trial. And this whole question about whether

98
00:05:55,279 --> 00:05:58,960
Speaker 3: the jury will be instructed on the Presidential Records Act

99
00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:02,440
Speaker 3: and whether or not has any relevance whatsoever to the

100
00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:06,520
Speaker 3: trial has been left open to be decided on another day.

101
00:06:07,160 --> 00:06:11,240
Speaker 1: Judge Canon call the Special Council's request or really demand

102
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:16,360
Speaker 1: for the issue to be resolved before trial unprecedented and unjust.

103
00:06:16,960 --> 00:06:19,880
Speaker 1: Is it unprecedented for a prosecutor to want to know

104
00:06:20,040 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 1: before trial whether a judge is going to allow a

105
00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:25,960
Speaker 1: defendant to pursue a wild theory at trial?

106
00:06:26,440 --> 00:06:29,160
Speaker 3: Well, what Jackspaths trying to do is to smoke the

107
00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:32,039
Speaker 3: judge out on this issue and get a decision one

108
00:06:32,080 --> 00:06:35,160
Speaker 3: way or the other, because of what prosecutors don't want

109
00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:38,279
Speaker 3: to have happened is that the jury gets in pandled,

110
00:06:38,360 --> 00:06:42,479
Speaker 3: the trial begins, and then this issue is decided because

111
00:06:42,520 --> 00:06:46,960
Speaker 3: at that point, once the jury is impaneled, double jeopardy attacks,

112
00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:50,560
Speaker 3: and prosecutors will not be able to appeal that decision.

113
00:06:50,920 --> 00:06:54,600
Speaker 3: If ultimately Judge Cannon decides that the Presidential record deck

114
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:58,599
Speaker 3: is a viable defense, prosecutors know that that would be

115
00:06:58,680 --> 00:07:01,360
Speaker 3: the death knell for their case because it would essentially

116
00:07:01,640 --> 00:07:06,520
Speaker 3: tell yours that simply designating records as personal is enough

117
00:07:06,920 --> 00:07:10,320
Speaker 3: to avoid the Espionage Act, and it would entirely get

118
00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:13,320
Speaker 3: the prosecution. So prosecutors are trying to get the judge

119
00:07:13,360 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 3: to go on record one way or the other on

120
00:07:15,760 --> 00:07:18,520
Speaker 3: this issue, and all she's done so far is to

121
00:07:18,520 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 3: say it is not something that will prevent this trial

122
00:07:21,760 --> 00:07:25,040
Speaker 3: from going forward, but she's leaving the possibility that the

123
00:07:25,080 --> 00:07:28,320
Speaker 3: Presidential Records Act will still be an issue down the road,

124
00:07:28,560 --> 00:07:31,920
Speaker 3: and that's something that is going to have prosecutors very concerned.

125
00:07:32,320 --> 00:07:36,520
Speaker 1: The Special Counsel can't appeal this decision because he want it,

126
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:40,560
Speaker 1: but is it time for him to take the nuclear options?

127
00:07:40,560 --> 00:07:43,840
Speaker 1: So to speak. It's not only this decision of Canons,

128
00:07:43,840 --> 00:07:49,160
Speaker 1: but others that have confounded legal experts. She's moving so slowly,

129
00:07:49,360 --> 00:07:52,520
Speaker 1: and the motions that she hasn't decided are piling up,

130
00:07:52,640 --> 00:07:55,480
Speaker 1: and there seems to be no method to her madness,

131
00:07:55,480 --> 00:07:58,480
Speaker 1: if you will. She hasn't even said a trial date yet,

132
00:07:58,520 --> 00:08:02,560
Speaker 1: she's requesting jurors instructions. Is it time for the Special

133
00:08:02,640 --> 00:08:06,440
Speaker 1: Counsel to take that drastic step and ask the Eleventh

134
00:08:06,480 --> 00:08:09,040
Speaker 1: Circuit to remove Judge Cannon from the case.

135
00:08:09,880 --> 00:08:12,640
Speaker 3: Well, I think prosecutors are going back to the war

136
00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:15,760
Speaker 3: room right now and trying to decide how to respond

137
00:08:15,760 --> 00:08:18,560
Speaker 3: to this decision because they got a ruling, but they

138
00:08:18,560 --> 00:08:21,880
Speaker 3: didn't get the ruling they want because it's only preliminary

139
00:08:21,920 --> 00:08:25,480
Speaker 3: and it doesn't really ultimately decide the question of presidential

140
00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:27,840
Speaker 3: records acting whether or not it will be a part

141
00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:30,520
Speaker 3: of this trial, and I think prosecutors have to come

142
00:08:30,600 --> 00:08:33,000
Speaker 3: up with a way to try to bring this issue

143
00:08:33,280 --> 00:08:35,800
Speaker 3: to the Court of Appeals if they can, or to

144
00:08:35,880 --> 00:08:38,600
Speaker 3: force the judge to make that decision at some point

145
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:41,360
Speaker 3: prior to the trial. As long as she makes the

146
00:08:41,400 --> 00:08:45,679
Speaker 3: decision before the jury's enchantled, that gives prosecutors the opportunity

147
00:08:45,840 --> 00:08:48,520
Speaker 3: to immediately appeal that case up to the Eleventh Circuit.

148
00:08:48,760 --> 00:08:52,439
Speaker 3: That still, however, does raise the prospect if she waits

149
00:08:52,520 --> 00:08:55,800
Speaker 3: until just prior to trial to address this issue, that

150
00:08:55,880 --> 00:08:58,600
Speaker 3: the trial will be delayed, and then that could push

151
00:08:58,600 --> 00:09:01,960
Speaker 3: the trial back after November or so. Prosecutors are dealing

152
00:09:02,040 --> 00:09:06,440
Speaker 3: not only was trying to get this decision piified, but

153
00:09:06,520 --> 00:09:09,040
Speaker 3: they also want to get this decision clarified as soon

154
00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:12,120
Speaker 3: as possible so that they don't have an appellate delay

155
00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:14,800
Speaker 3: that ultimately pushes the trial after November.

156
00:09:15,120 --> 00:09:17,679
Speaker 1: Let's turn down to the hush money case in Manhattan,

157
00:09:17,960 --> 00:09:21,520
Speaker 1: which now appears like it will be Trump's first criminal trial,

158
00:09:21,640 --> 00:09:24,200
Speaker 1: despite the fact that he's trying to get it delayed

159
00:09:24,400 --> 00:09:29,240
Speaker 1: eight times, and on Wednesday, Judge Juan Mershaan rejected Trump's

160
00:09:29,280 --> 00:09:33,320
Speaker 1: motion to postpone the trial until after the Supreme Court

161
00:09:33,400 --> 00:09:38,160
Speaker 1: determines whether Trump has immunity from prosecution in a separate

162
00:09:38,200 --> 00:09:39,000
Speaker 1: criminal trial.

163
00:09:39,360 --> 00:09:41,199
Speaker 3: What we're seeing here is a motion by the Trump

164
00:09:41,240 --> 00:09:43,360
Speaker 3: defense team to try to delay the trial for yet

165
00:09:43,400 --> 00:09:47,280
Speaker 3: another reason, arguing that it ought to be delayed until

166
00:09:47,480 --> 00:09:50,440
Speaker 3: a decision is made by the Supreme Court. In connect

167
00:09:50,440 --> 00:09:54,080
Speaker 3: you with the January sixth insurrection case, which has to

168
00:09:54,120 --> 00:09:57,160
Speaker 3: do with a question of presidential immunity. What the judge

169
00:09:57,160 --> 00:10:00,000
Speaker 3: in the New York case decided was that that issue

170
00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:02,640
Speaker 3: you could have been raised a long time ago, and

171
00:10:02,760 --> 00:10:05,680
Speaker 3: to raise it now only days before the trial is

172
00:10:05,760 --> 00:10:08,559
Speaker 3: simply too late, and so he rejected that out of hands.

173
00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:12,120
Speaker 1: Trump is also asking to delay the trial due to

174
00:10:12,200 --> 00:10:16,840
Speaker 1: pre trial publicity, which the Manhattan DA points out is

175
00:10:16,920 --> 00:10:21,000
Speaker 1: of his own making. Also, pre trial publicity, isn't that

176
00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:24,000
Speaker 1: something that judges normally say, we can handle that in

177
00:10:24,200 --> 00:10:25,400
Speaker 1: the wader.

178
00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:29,120
Speaker 3: Yeah, whenever you have a high profile case involving a

179
00:10:29,200 --> 00:10:32,760
Speaker 3: high profile defendant, and certainly this case fits the bill

180
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:36,880
Speaker 3: in every respect. In that regard, you always have jurors

181
00:10:36,880 --> 00:10:39,480
Speaker 3: who have read about the case, who have formed an

182
00:10:39,520 --> 00:10:42,800
Speaker 3: opinion about the defendant, who may have prejudged the case.

183
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,400
Speaker 3: That's going to happen in every high profile case where

184
00:10:46,600 --> 00:10:48,680
Speaker 3: all of the pre trial proceedings and all of the

185
00:10:48,760 --> 00:10:52,360
Speaker 3: charges have been in the media for months, perhaps even years,

186
00:10:52,640 --> 00:10:56,240
Speaker 3: and so the vuasdir process which is the opportunity for

187
00:10:56,679 --> 00:11:00,480
Speaker 3: lawyers for both the defense and the prosecution to screen outs,

188
00:11:00,520 --> 00:11:03,160
Speaker 3: because in order to sit on that jury, the jurors

189
00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:05,800
Speaker 3: has to say that they have not formed any opinion

190
00:11:05,840 --> 00:11:08,240
Speaker 3: after the guilt or innocence of the defendant, that they

191
00:11:08,280 --> 00:11:11,760
Speaker 3: will be able to make a decision based solely upon

192
00:11:11,800 --> 00:11:15,640
Speaker 3: the evidence that's presented during the trial. And that process

193
00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:19,720
Speaker 3: may take some time given the high degree of publicity

194
00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:23,640
Speaker 3: that has predated this trial, but eventually they will find

195
00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:26,960
Speaker 3: a set of jurors who meet that criteria, as.

196
00:11:26,840 --> 00:11:30,000
Speaker 1: They always do. Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mins

197
00:11:30,040 --> 00:11:34,000
Speaker 1: of McCarter and English And in Georgia. On Thursday, Trump

198
00:11:34,080 --> 00:11:38,080
Speaker 1: lost another motion to dismiss charges against him when Judge

199
00:11:38,080 --> 00:11:42,880
Speaker 1: Scott McAfee rejected his argument that his efforts to overturn

200
00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:46,359
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election were protected by the first Amendment.

201
00:11:46,760 --> 00:11:50,280
Speaker 1: Coming up next, who will pay for the Baltimore bridge collapse.

202
00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:56,319
Speaker 1: I'm June gross when you're listening to Bloomberg. Divers, welders, engineers,

203
00:11:56,360 --> 00:12:00,360
Speaker 1: and salvage crews are working around the clock to clear

204
00:12:00,400 --> 00:12:03,800
Speaker 1: the wreckage of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore

205
00:12:04,200 --> 00:12:07,800
Speaker 1: that collapse when a massive container ship crashed into it

206
00:12:07,880 --> 00:12:12,439
Speaker 1: last Tuesday. Maryland Governor Wes Moore says it's an extremely

207
00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:16,360
Speaker 1: dangerous and painstaking task, as crews have to cut through

208
00:12:16,400 --> 00:12:20,480
Speaker 1: the mangled steel piece by piece before cranes can lift

209
00:12:20,480 --> 00:12:21,319
Speaker 1: them out of the water.

210
00:12:22,160 --> 00:12:25,080
Speaker 4: We're talking about water that is so murky and so

211
00:12:25,280 --> 00:12:28,760
Speaker 4: filled with debris that divers cannot see any more than

212
00:12:28,800 --> 00:12:31,160
Speaker 4: a foot or two in front of them. We're talking

213
00:12:31,200 --> 00:12:34,080
Speaker 4: about a situation where a portion of the bridge beneath

214
00:12:34,120 --> 00:12:39,840
Speaker 4: the water has been described by Unified Command as chaotic wreckage.

215
00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:44,400
Speaker 1: Industry experts predict the damages could reach four billion dollars,

216
00:12:44,679 --> 00:12:47,040
Speaker 1: but the owner of the ship filed a petition in

217
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:50,640
Speaker 1: Maryland federal Court on Monday seeking to limit its legal

218
00:12:50,679 --> 00:12:54,840
Speaker 1: liability to about forty three point seven million dollars, invoking

219
00:12:54,840 --> 00:12:57,920
Speaker 1: a nineteenth century law once used by the owners of

220
00:12:57,920 --> 00:13:01,920
Speaker 1: the Titanic. Joining me is Marria time law expert Martin Davies,

221
00:13:02,080 --> 00:13:06,280
Speaker 1: the director of Tulane University's Maritime Law Center. The owner

222
00:13:06,320 --> 00:13:09,400
Speaker 1: and the operator of the ship filed a petition saying

223
00:13:09,440 --> 00:13:12,280
Speaker 1: the collapse of the bridge was not due to any

224
00:13:12,320 --> 00:13:15,960
Speaker 1: fault of theirs, but even if they're found libel, it

225
00:13:16,000 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 1: shouldn't be for more than the current value of the

226
00:13:18,679 --> 00:13:21,280
Speaker 1: ship and cargo. Tell us about that petition.

227
00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:25,240
Speaker 5: The law in question dates from eighteen fifty one. There

228
00:13:25,280 --> 00:13:30,160
Speaker 5: are international equivalents based on international conventions, so limitation of

229
00:13:30,240 --> 00:13:33,520
Speaker 5: liability is a very typical thing that occurs in the

230
00:13:33,559 --> 00:13:38,120
Speaker 5: wake of any maritime casualty, and what the law allows

231
00:13:38,240 --> 00:13:41,679
Speaker 5: is for a ship owner to petition to limit its

232
00:13:41,800 --> 00:13:45,560
Speaker 5: total liability for any claims arising out of a single

233
00:13:45,600 --> 00:13:48,520
Speaker 5: incident to the value of the vessel at the end

234
00:13:48,559 --> 00:13:52,120
Speaker 5: of the voyage, plus any pending freight any sums owed

235
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:54,880
Speaker 5: to it for carriage of cargo or passenger. The other

236
00:13:55,000 --> 00:13:59,720
Speaker 5: main advantage of limitation proceedings is that it enables the

237
00:13:59,720 --> 00:14:04,320
Speaker 5: ship boner to litigate the case in a single forum

238
00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:06,960
Speaker 5: in a single court of its own choosing, Because what

239
00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:10,800
Speaker 5: happens is that once the shipowner has petitioned, the federal

240
00:14:10,800 --> 00:14:14,760
Speaker 5: court for limitation of liability, it must pay into court

241
00:14:15,280 --> 00:14:18,600
Speaker 5: or give security for the amount of the value of

242
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:20,600
Speaker 5: the vessel at the end of the voyage. And then

243
00:14:20,640 --> 00:14:23,000
Speaker 5: once that fund has been constituted, and it will be

244
00:14:23,080 --> 00:14:26,920
Speaker 5: constituted by the ship's liability insurer, the P and I Club.

245
00:14:27,040 --> 00:14:30,080
Speaker 5: But once the fund has been constituted, the federal court

246
00:14:30,120 --> 00:14:33,520
Speaker 5: will then issue an order saying that no claimant can

247
00:14:33,560 --> 00:14:38,080
Speaker 5: bring a claim in any other court except that federal court. So,

248
00:14:38,200 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 5: for example, the claimants could not bring a claim in

249
00:14:41,360 --> 00:14:44,880
Speaker 5: Maryland State court or New York State Court or California

250
00:14:44,960 --> 00:14:48,680
Speaker 5: State court anywhere. All claims must be brought against the

251
00:14:49,160 --> 00:14:52,680
Speaker 5: fund that has been constituted in the court. So the

252
00:14:52,760 --> 00:14:55,400
Speaker 5: two main advantages from the shipowner's point of view is

253
00:14:55,480 --> 00:14:59,000
Speaker 5: one it has at least a chance of limiting its liability.

254
00:14:59,280 --> 00:15:03,360
Speaker 5: But secondly, it can marshal all the claims into one place,

255
00:15:03,880 --> 00:15:06,000
Speaker 5: the court of its own choosing, which in this case

256
00:15:06,080 --> 00:15:08,040
Speaker 5: is the Federal District Court in Maryland.

257
00:15:08,200 --> 00:15:10,600
Speaker 1: I take it the judge is going to decide whether

258
00:15:10,720 --> 00:15:13,480
Speaker 1: or not to limit liability. So what happens is it

259
00:15:13,520 --> 00:15:16,040
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs who have to come up with reasons why

260
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:18,800
Speaker 1: the liability should not be limited.

261
00:15:18,960 --> 00:15:21,760
Speaker 5: It's a little confusing in terms of terminology because the

262
00:15:21,760 --> 00:15:24,280
Speaker 5: plaintiff is the shipowner, and the shipowner must show that

263
00:15:24,360 --> 00:15:27,880
Speaker 5: it was not guilty of what is called privity or

264
00:15:27,920 --> 00:15:31,360
Speaker 5: knowledge that's the expression in the statute, because it's only

265
00:15:31,560 --> 00:15:35,400
Speaker 5: entitled to limit its liability if it itself the shipowner

266
00:15:35,560 --> 00:15:38,240
Speaker 5: was not at fault, and it does have the burden

267
00:15:38,320 --> 00:15:42,040
Speaker 5: of showing that it was not at fault. But it's

268
00:15:42,080 --> 00:15:45,640
Speaker 5: the plaintiff. So the liability claimants, which in this case

269
00:15:45,680 --> 00:15:49,000
Speaker 5: will be the families of those who died, the personal

270
00:15:49,000 --> 00:15:52,560
Speaker 5: injury claimants, and also the cost of the bridge, they

271
00:15:52,560 --> 00:15:55,800
Speaker 5: are not actually the plaintiff in this limitation proceeding the

272
00:15:55,840 --> 00:15:58,520
Speaker 5: procedure feels a little bit upside down or back to

273
00:15:58,560 --> 00:16:01,960
Speaker 5: front or whatever, because the shipowner must show that it

274
00:16:02,000 --> 00:16:03,920
Speaker 5: was not guilty or fault or privity.

275
00:16:04,200 --> 00:16:06,920
Speaker 1: Well, how does mechanical failure fit in?

276
00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:11,120
Speaker 5: Yes, mechanical failure will be a significant issue in this case,

277
00:16:11,160 --> 00:16:14,840
Speaker 5: I think, because if the incident had occurred because of

278
00:16:14,840 --> 00:16:18,400
Speaker 5: a pure sailing mistake on the part of those navigating

279
00:16:18,400 --> 00:16:21,200
Speaker 5: the vessel, then the shipowner probably would be entitled to

280
00:16:21,200 --> 00:16:25,280
Speaker 5: limit its liability. That was the example that everybody has

281
00:16:25,280 --> 00:16:28,040
Speaker 5: been talking about in relation to the Titanic. The Titanic

282
00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:32,320
Speaker 5: was a perfectly seaworthy, brand new vessel sank because of

283
00:16:32,640 --> 00:16:36,440
Speaker 5: sailing errors. There the shipowner was held to be able

284
00:16:36,520 --> 00:16:39,720
Speaker 5: to limit its liability. But if the incident occurred because

285
00:16:39,720 --> 00:16:43,160
Speaker 5: of some defect in the vessel, that looks much more

286
00:16:43,480 --> 00:16:47,239
Speaker 5: like it might be the responsibility of the shipowner itself.

287
00:16:47,640 --> 00:16:50,920
Speaker 5: It has to be personal fault of the shipowner or manager.

288
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:55,200
Speaker 5: And well, it's too early to say, but there clearly

289
00:16:55,240 --> 00:16:58,800
Speaker 5: seem to have been some physical problems with the vessel itself,

290
00:16:58,880 --> 00:17:01,600
Speaker 5: which I think will be front and center in the

291
00:17:01,880 --> 00:17:03,000
Speaker 5: limitation proceeding.

292
00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:05,600
Speaker 1: What physical problems have you heard about.

293
00:17:05,640 --> 00:17:09,119
Speaker 5: Well, the engine, the power failed more than once, I believe,

294
00:17:09,400 --> 00:17:13,000
Speaker 5: before the vessel struck the bridge. And also questions have

295
00:17:13,040 --> 00:17:16,680
Speaker 5: been raised about the quality of the fuel that's been used.

296
00:17:17,040 --> 00:17:19,600
Speaker 5: Most of that, I must say speculation, because none of

297
00:17:19,600 --> 00:17:22,879
Speaker 5: that has been recorded yet. But if the ship's power failed,

298
00:17:22,880 --> 00:17:25,840
Speaker 5: which it seems clearly that it did, that's going to

299
00:17:25,960 --> 00:17:30,840
Speaker 5: raise questions of whether the shipowner is responsible for the

300
00:17:30,840 --> 00:17:33,399
Speaker 5: condition of the vessel that caused the power to fail.

301
00:17:33,560 --> 00:17:37,160
Speaker 1: So this law has been used in the most notable

302
00:17:37,200 --> 00:17:41,320
Speaker 1: maritime disasters. How often has it worked? Does it work

303
00:17:41,400 --> 00:17:42,280
Speaker 1: more often than not?

304
00:17:42,960 --> 00:17:46,119
Speaker 5: No, it fails more often than not. The statistics show

305
00:17:46,400 --> 00:17:50,960
Speaker 5: that the shipowner's petition to limit its liability succeeds in

306
00:17:51,080 --> 00:17:54,439
Speaker 5: only about thirty two percent of the cases, so it

307
00:17:54,480 --> 00:17:57,040
Speaker 5: fails most of the time under US law, as in

308
00:17:57,560 --> 00:18:00,320
Speaker 5: sixty eight percent of the time it fails. But that

309
00:18:00,359 --> 00:18:04,520
Speaker 5: doesn't stop shipowners from petitioning in the event of a casualty,

310
00:18:04,720 --> 00:18:08,960
Speaker 5: because the other benefit of the limitation proceedings, as I've said,

311
00:18:09,040 --> 00:18:12,000
Speaker 5: is to bring all the claims together in one place,

312
00:18:12,400 --> 00:18:15,080
Speaker 5: so that the shipowner then doesn't have to fight lots

313
00:18:15,080 --> 00:18:19,000
Speaker 5: of different lawsuits about the same incident in different jurisdictions.

314
00:18:19,840 --> 00:18:23,240
Speaker 1: Within hours of the bridge's collapse, President Biden said that

315
00:18:23,320 --> 00:18:26,479
Speaker 1: the federal government will pay for the entire cost of

316
00:18:26,560 --> 00:18:29,920
Speaker 1: rebuilding the bridge. Is that something the federal government should

317
00:18:29,920 --> 00:18:32,240
Speaker 1: be paying for or should the insurance be paying for that?

318
00:18:32,880 --> 00:18:36,560
Speaker 5: Well, that's an interesting question because I believe that the

319
00:18:36,920 --> 00:18:39,560
Speaker 5: bridge did carry an interstate highway, which would be a

320
00:18:39,560 --> 00:18:42,760
Speaker 5: reason for the federal government participating, if you like, in

321
00:18:43,080 --> 00:18:46,280
Speaker 5: the cost of the repairs. But what the maritime law

322
00:18:46,359 --> 00:18:50,200
Speaker 5: says is that only those who have suffered physical damage

323
00:18:50,440 --> 00:18:54,080
Speaker 5: to their property can claim against the vessel. So the

324
00:18:54,160 --> 00:18:58,199
Speaker 5: question will be like who actually owned the bridge, And

325
00:18:58,240 --> 00:19:01,080
Speaker 5: now if it's the State of Maryland, then the State

326
00:19:01,119 --> 00:19:06,040
Speaker 5: of Maryland is the proper claimant and the federal government

327
00:19:06,200 --> 00:19:10,800
Speaker 5: choosing to pay looks much more like an economic loss.

328
00:19:11,280 --> 00:19:14,600
Speaker 5: And there's a Supreme Court decision that says that purely

329
00:19:14,680 --> 00:19:19,040
Speaker 5: economic losses are not recoverable from the ship itself. So

330
00:19:19,119 --> 00:19:21,680
Speaker 5: all of the economic losses that I'm sure are already

331
00:19:21,720 --> 00:19:25,640
Speaker 5: being suffered in the city of Baltimore are not recoverable

332
00:19:25,960 --> 00:19:28,719
Speaker 5: from the ship. And I think that will come as

333
00:19:28,760 --> 00:19:31,560
Speaker 5: a surprise to people that they're not allowed to recover

334
00:19:31,920 --> 00:19:36,040
Speaker 5: purely economic loss claims. But that rule is sometimes called

335
00:19:36,080 --> 00:19:39,600
Speaker 5: the bright line rule because it's very clear cut, unlike

336
00:19:39,760 --> 00:19:43,400
Speaker 5: many legal rules. If you've suffered physical damage to your property,

337
00:19:43,480 --> 00:19:47,000
Speaker 5: you can recover economic losses from the ship. If you haven't,

338
00:19:47,400 --> 00:19:47,919
Speaker 5: you can't.

339
00:19:48,440 --> 00:19:52,679
Speaker 1: How long does a claim like this take to play out?

340
00:19:53,000 --> 00:19:57,960
Speaker 5: Oh gosh, years. It will be years to work out

341
00:19:58,080 --> 00:20:01,960
Speaker 5: exactly what happened and the responsibility for it. Litigation of

342
00:20:02,040 --> 00:20:05,240
Speaker 5: this complexity doesn't move very quickly. Plus it's going to

343
00:20:05,240 --> 00:20:08,000
Speaker 5: be a long time before it's even known how much

344
00:20:08,080 --> 00:20:11,680
Speaker 5: it costs to replace the bridge, so you know, the

345
00:20:11,720 --> 00:20:15,199
Speaker 5: magnitude of the claim will not be clear for years,

346
00:20:15,560 --> 00:20:19,719
Speaker 5: and litigation of this kind generally does not move very quickly.

347
00:20:20,400 --> 00:20:23,479
Speaker 1: Is there anyone besides the owner of the ship and

348
00:20:23,520 --> 00:20:26,000
Speaker 1: the manager that can be sued here?

349
00:20:26,640 --> 00:20:28,760
Speaker 5: Well, there are lots of people that can be sued,

350
00:20:29,000 --> 00:20:32,879
Speaker 5: but I don't think there's anybody other than the owner

351
00:20:32,880 --> 00:20:37,160
Speaker 5: and manager. It seemed to be plausible candidates for litigation

352
00:20:37,520 --> 00:20:41,639
Speaker 5: because the charter of the vessel Nersk is merely the

353
00:20:41,840 --> 00:20:47,360
Speaker 5: commercial operator. It's not responsible for navigational operation, and whatever

354
00:20:47,400 --> 00:20:51,520
Speaker 5: happened here seems to have been a navigational problem, not

355
00:20:51,640 --> 00:20:56,199
Speaker 5: a commercial problem. There is a possibility, I think that

356
00:20:56,240 --> 00:21:00,480
Speaker 5: if the problem is with deficient fuel, than there might

357
00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:04,480
Speaker 5: be the possibility of a cross claim against Musk, but

358
00:21:04,640 --> 00:21:08,320
Speaker 5: the principal responsibility will lie with the shipowner.

359
00:21:08,800 --> 00:21:13,040
Speaker 1: So insurance. The insurance is about three billion dollars.

360
00:21:13,119 --> 00:21:15,720
Speaker 5: Three point one billion, thank you what it is right?

361
00:21:16,160 --> 00:21:20,200
Speaker 1: So will the insurance definitely cover this? Let's say it's

362
00:21:20,280 --> 00:21:23,480
Speaker 1: found that they can't limit their legal liability. Does the

363
00:21:23,520 --> 00:21:26,359
Speaker 1: insurance cover it, whether it's negligence or not.

364
00:21:26,880 --> 00:21:30,439
Speaker 5: Yes, most definitely. The insurers are what are called a

365
00:21:30,480 --> 00:21:33,520
Speaker 5: p and I club Protection and Indemnity club, and they

366
00:21:33,520 --> 00:21:38,560
Speaker 5: are mutual self insurance associations of shipowners and they don't

367
00:21:38,600 --> 00:21:43,800
Speaker 5: operate like commercial insurers. Their instinct is to pay because

368
00:21:43,840 --> 00:21:46,840
Speaker 5: they are all shipowners. And so every ship owner that's

369
00:21:46,880 --> 00:21:48,920
Speaker 5: a member of the club, that has got a ship

370
00:21:49,040 --> 00:21:51,360
Speaker 5: entered in the club is both an insurer and an

371
00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:55,520
Speaker 5: assured and so the coverage offered by P and I

372
00:21:55,640 --> 00:22:00,280
Speaker 5: clubs is very comprehensive and has very few exceptions. It's

373
00:22:00,320 --> 00:22:02,920
Speaker 5: not like a commercial insurer where there are all sorts

374
00:22:02,920 --> 00:22:06,280
Speaker 5: of exclusions in the contract, and so the club will

375
00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:09,280
Speaker 5: cover this even if it turns out to be negligence

376
00:22:09,320 --> 00:22:11,679
Speaker 5: on the part of the shipowner, it will definitely be

377
00:22:11,720 --> 00:22:14,439
Speaker 5: covered by the club. And then what happens is the club.

378
00:22:14,560 --> 00:22:18,160
Speaker 5: The particular club that Dali re entered in is Britannia,

379
00:22:18,240 --> 00:22:21,440
Speaker 5: which is one of twelve P and I clubs forming

380
00:22:21,600 --> 00:22:25,280
Speaker 5: something called the International Group, which covers over ninety percent

381
00:22:25,320 --> 00:22:27,919
Speaker 5: of the ships in the world, and they have this

382
00:22:28,240 --> 00:22:33,040
Speaker 5: complicated pooling arrangement. If claims exceed a certain level, which

383
00:22:33,280 --> 00:22:36,720
Speaker 5: they most certainly will in this case, the individual club

384
00:22:36,800 --> 00:22:39,960
Speaker 5: no longer bears it itself. It's pooled among all the

385
00:22:40,040 --> 00:22:44,640
Speaker 5: twelve clubs in the International Group. They have commercial reinsurance,

386
00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:49,080
Speaker 5: and it's a complicated scheme, but the total pool of

387
00:22:49,160 --> 00:22:52,480
Speaker 5: insurance sitting behind the shipowner is at present three point

388
00:22:52,560 --> 00:22:53,760
Speaker 5: one billion dollars.

389
00:22:54,240 --> 00:22:58,359
Speaker 1: So there's no reason for plaintiffs to rush to file claims.

390
00:22:58,800 --> 00:22:59,520
Speaker 1: There's enough there.

391
00:23:00,160 --> 00:23:04,320
Speaker 5: Well no, because now that the shipowners filed its limitation suit,

392
00:23:04,359 --> 00:23:08,160
Speaker 5: they will have to file suit in those limitation proceedings.

393
00:23:08,280 --> 00:23:11,440
Speaker 5: They'll have to bring claims against the limitation fund. What

394
00:23:11,480 --> 00:23:13,840
Speaker 5: they will want to do is to try and argue

395
00:23:13,840 --> 00:23:16,400
Speaker 5: that the shipowner itself was a fall from therefore it's

396
00:23:16,480 --> 00:23:19,400
Speaker 5: not entitled to limit its liability, which then gives them

397
00:23:19,400 --> 00:23:23,400
Speaker 5: access to this sort of huge ocean of insurance funds.

398
00:23:23,800 --> 00:23:26,800
Speaker 1: Many are saying that this could be the most expensive

399
00:23:27,240 --> 00:23:31,760
Speaker 1: marine disaster in history. Is there anything to be learned

400
00:23:31,800 --> 00:23:32,359
Speaker 1: from these?

401
00:23:33,119 --> 00:23:36,280
Speaker 5: Well, yes, I mean it's it's a very unusual case

402
00:23:36,320 --> 00:23:39,679
Speaker 5: obviously in some respects not unique. I mean ships have

403
00:23:39,760 --> 00:23:43,760
Speaker 5: knocked down bridges before. What is so spectacular about this

404
00:23:43,800 --> 00:23:47,640
Speaker 5: one is that the bridge completely fell down and needs

405
00:23:47,680 --> 00:23:51,280
Speaker 5: to be completely replaced. So in terms of the amount

406
00:23:51,520 --> 00:23:54,960
Speaker 5: of money at stake. Yes, it will be more expensive

407
00:23:55,119 --> 00:23:59,200
Speaker 5: than perhaps any other but in other respects, the way

408
00:23:59,280 --> 00:24:03,760
Speaker 5: that maritime casualties work is fairly clear and well settled. Now,

409
00:24:03,760 --> 00:24:07,160
Speaker 5: I mean, there's always a limitation suit, and there's always

410
00:24:07,160 --> 00:24:09,720
Speaker 5: the question of whether the ship owner wasard fault. There's

411
00:24:09,800 --> 00:24:13,000
Speaker 5: always the question of the extent to which the club

412
00:24:13,040 --> 00:24:16,399
Speaker 5: will respond. I mean, it sounds glib, but we know

413
00:24:16,520 --> 00:24:19,240
Speaker 5: how this works. And I don't think there's any new

414
00:24:19,320 --> 00:24:21,120
Speaker 5: law likely to be made here.

415
00:24:21,320 --> 00:24:24,080
Speaker 1: It seems like such a specialized area of the law.

416
00:24:24,200 --> 00:24:27,800
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us. That's Martin Davies, director

417
00:24:27,800 --> 00:24:32,120
Speaker 1: of Tulane University's Maritime Law Center. Coming up next. Why

418
00:24:32,280 --> 00:24:36,600
Speaker 1: South Carolina will be using a map declared unconstitutional for

419
00:24:36,640 --> 00:24:39,600
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty four elections. I'm June Grosso and you're

420
00:24:39,640 --> 00:24:40,639
Speaker 1: listening to Bloomberg.

421
00:24:41,680 --> 00:24:45,320
Speaker 6: Is this gerrymander based on politics or is it a

422
00:24:45,359 --> 00:24:48,800
Speaker 6: way to get to an ultimate goal? An ultimate political goal?

423
00:24:49,119 --> 00:24:51,600
Speaker 6: But the gerrymandarin is based on race, And what the

424
00:24:51,600 --> 00:24:54,200
Speaker 6: two of them do is that they show that black

425
00:24:54,240 --> 00:24:58,960
Speaker 6: Democrats are excluded from District one at a far greater

426
00:24:59,119 --> 00:25:02,280
Speaker 6: percentage than white Democrats are.

427
00:25:02,600 --> 00:25:06,359
Speaker 1: That was Justice Elena Kagan back in October of last year,

428
00:25:06,600 --> 00:25:10,480
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments about South Carolina's

429
00:25:10,560 --> 00:25:15,080
Speaker 1: map and whether Republicans were motivated by race or politics

430
00:25:15,320 --> 00:25:18,399
Speaker 1: when they shifted thirty thousand black voters out of the

431
00:25:18,440 --> 00:25:22,000
Speaker 1: state's first district to ensure that Republicans would have a

432
00:25:22,080 --> 00:25:26,880
Speaker 1: comfortable majority in that district, represented by Nancy Mace. The

433
00:25:27,040 --> 00:25:31,800
Speaker 1: justices were considering a three judge panel's unanimous conclusion that

434
00:25:31,880 --> 00:25:36,240
Speaker 1: the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander drawn with a

435
00:25:36,320 --> 00:25:40,640
Speaker 1: discriminatory purpose. Six months later, and the Supreme Court has

436
00:25:40,720 --> 00:25:43,760
Speaker 1: yet to make its decision. So with time running out

437
00:25:43,800 --> 00:25:48,160
Speaker 1: ahead of voting deadlines and the South Carolina Legislature's failure

438
00:25:48,240 --> 00:25:51,520
Speaker 1: to withdraw the map as ordered, the three judge panel

439
00:25:51,560 --> 00:25:55,399
Speaker 1: has decided that the unconstitutional map will be used in

440
00:25:55,440 --> 00:25:59,240
Speaker 1: the state's congressional elections this year. Joining me is elections

441
00:25:59,320 --> 00:26:03,679
Speaker 1: law expert, a professor at Columbia Law School, Rich tell

442
00:26:03,760 --> 00:26:06,720
Speaker 1: us about the long and winding legal road to the

443
00:26:06,840 --> 00:26:08,040
Speaker 1: South Carolina map.

444
00:26:08,400 --> 00:26:12,200
Speaker 7: Following the twenty twenty census, the Republican legislature of South

445
00:26:12,200 --> 00:26:14,800
Speaker 7: Carolina redistricted. It didn't need to change the number of seats,

446
00:26:14,800 --> 00:26:17,320
Speaker 7: but they moved from around in order to improve the

447
00:26:17,400 --> 00:26:20,200
Speaker 7: prospects for the Republican actually its Congress from the Nancy

448
00:26:20,200 --> 00:26:23,200
Speaker 7: Mays who represents District one near Charleston, and what they

449
00:26:23,240 --> 00:26:26,879
Speaker 7: did is they basically made her district more Republican and

450
00:26:26,960 --> 00:26:30,160
Speaker 7: an adjacent district more democratic, and so doing, they moved

451
00:26:30,160 --> 00:26:32,960
Speaker 7: a significant number of black voters from her district to

452
00:26:33,040 --> 00:26:36,120
Speaker 7: the adjacent district, District six. That led to a lawsuit

453
00:26:36,160 --> 00:26:38,520
Speaker 7: that this was a form of racial gerrymandering, that the

454
00:26:38,600 --> 00:26:41,760
Speaker 7: voters were being moved because of their race. That lawsuit

455
00:26:41,840 --> 00:26:44,760
Speaker 7: was brought and the plaintiffs won that case before a

456
00:26:44,840 --> 00:26:48,000
Speaker 7: three judge court in early twenty twenty three. The judge

457
00:26:48,040 --> 00:26:51,199
Speaker 7: director of the legislature's redistrict. Legislature has been resisting that

458
00:26:51,280 --> 00:26:53,720
Speaker 7: ever since and has taken appeals, and the case was

459
00:26:53,840 --> 00:26:57,280
Speaker 7: actually argued before the Supreme Court in October, six months ago.

460
00:26:57,320 --> 00:27:00,520
Speaker 7: Now Supreme Court had yet to rule on South Carolina appeal.

461
00:27:00,800 --> 00:27:03,000
Speaker 7: Many thoughts that that would be decided much earlier, since

462
00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:05,240
Speaker 7: they heard the case fairly early in the term, with

463
00:27:05,359 --> 00:27:08,000
Speaker 7: the legislature not having redistricted in this case, having been

464
00:27:08,000 --> 00:27:10,320
Speaker 7: sitting in the Supreme Court now for quite some time,

465
00:27:10,520 --> 00:27:13,760
Speaker 7: the three judge court basically decided it's too late. The

466
00:27:13,760 --> 00:27:16,440
Speaker 7: period for people filing to become candidates in the primary

467
00:27:16,520 --> 00:27:18,399
Speaker 7: had already opened. In fact, I think it's already closed

468
00:27:18,400 --> 00:27:20,920
Speaker 7: by now. There's soon going to be the deadline sometime

469
00:27:20,960 --> 00:27:24,000
Speaker 7: in April for sending out military and overseas ballots. And

470
00:27:24,040 --> 00:27:26,919
Speaker 7: the Court basically said, although the ideal would be to

471
00:27:26,920 --> 00:27:29,959
Speaker 7: go for because they did hold the current lines unlawful

472
00:27:30,320 --> 00:27:33,200
Speaker 7: going back to the start of twenty twenty three, they said,

473
00:27:33,240 --> 00:27:35,480
Speaker 7: and given the fact that the litigation hasn't been a

474
00:27:35,520 --> 00:27:38,720
Speaker 7: result to the Supreme Court, the legislature hasn't done anything yet,

475
00:27:38,880 --> 00:27:41,040
Speaker 7: it's too late for this year. So although if we

476
00:27:41,119 --> 00:27:44,040
Speaker 7: don't like it, we are going to allow the elections

477
00:27:44,040 --> 00:27:46,399
Speaker 7: to go forward under the old rules that the Court

478
00:27:46,480 --> 00:27:48,800
Speaker 7: had said, we're in constitutionalize as a racial cherry mander.

479
00:27:49,119 --> 00:27:51,760
Speaker 1: So the court said they're going to now use the

480
00:27:51,800 --> 00:27:55,879
Speaker 1: maps that were declared unconstitutional. Is there anything else this

481
00:27:56,000 --> 00:27:57,960
Speaker 1: court could have done to avoid that?

482
00:27:58,480 --> 00:28:01,119
Speaker 7: Well, I guess they could have appoint a special master

483
00:28:01,480 --> 00:28:05,320
Speaker 7: and actually drawn the lines themselves. I think their feeling was,

484
00:28:05,720 --> 00:28:08,359
Speaker 7: you know, we will know eventually from the Supreme Court

485
00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:10,080
Speaker 7: whether these are good lines or not, and it is

486
00:28:10,119 --> 00:28:12,240
Speaker 7: beginning to get close to the election. And I think

487
00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:14,600
Speaker 7: the problem is if the case began blending its way

488
00:28:14,640 --> 00:28:17,080
Speaker 7: to the Supreme Court about a year ago, the Court,

489
00:28:17,160 --> 00:28:20,520
Speaker 7: I think last spring sets the case down for oral argument.

490
00:28:20,920 --> 00:28:23,360
Speaker 7: They actually had that oral argument, as I said, six

491
00:28:23,400 --> 00:28:26,520
Speaker 7: months ago. It's just taken a huge amount of time

492
00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:29,560
Speaker 7: to move forward, and no one really quite understands why

493
00:28:29,600 --> 00:28:32,080
Speaker 7: it's been delayed so long in the Supreme Court, especially

494
00:28:32,080 --> 00:28:34,640
Speaker 7: since I think many observers felt that South Carolina actually

495
00:28:34,680 --> 00:28:36,880
Speaker 7: did reasonably well in the uralgan It's hard to tell

496
00:28:37,040 --> 00:28:38,840
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court is going to affirm the lower court

497
00:28:38,840 --> 00:28:41,160
Speaker 7: decision or not, But in any event, the state has

498
00:28:41,200 --> 00:28:43,840
Speaker 7: effectively won, at least for this year. Even if the

499
00:28:43,840 --> 00:28:46,479
Speaker 7: Supreme Court affirms the Court agrees that the lines are

500
00:28:46,520 --> 00:28:48,600
Speaker 7: un constitutional, those lines are going to be used for

501
00:28:48,720 --> 00:28:49,840
Speaker 7: the twenty twenty four election.

502
00:28:50,200 --> 00:28:52,560
Speaker 1: Both the state and the civil rights groups who were

503
00:28:52,640 --> 00:28:56,560
Speaker 1: challenging the map had asked the Supreme Court to issue

504
00:28:56,560 --> 00:28:59,800
Speaker 1: a decision by January first, so they could preparely upcoming

505
00:28:59,800 --> 00:29:02,000
Speaker 1: life elections. Is this the first time or have there

506
00:29:02,040 --> 00:29:04,960
Speaker 1: been other times when the Supreme Court has not been

507
00:29:05,360 --> 00:29:09,640
Speaker 1: acting particularly fast and has allowed maps that have been

508
00:29:09,680 --> 00:29:11,840
Speaker 1: declared unconstitutional to be used.

509
00:29:12,400 --> 00:29:15,560
Speaker 7: Well, I think that's what happened actually with the Alabama edegation,

510
00:29:15,600 --> 00:29:19,120
Speaker 7: where the Supreme Court stayed a lower court decision folding

511
00:29:19,160 --> 00:29:21,800
Speaker 7: a plan violates the voting right. Fact, the Supreme Court

512
00:29:22,000 --> 00:29:25,360
Speaker 7: stayed that and then more than a year later finally

513
00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:27,960
Speaker 7: actually decided the case and actually said that the lower

514
00:29:28,040 --> 00:29:31,120
Speaker 7: court had been correct. At that point the map was changed,

515
00:29:31,160 --> 00:29:33,360
Speaker 7: but in the meantime an election had been held under

516
00:29:33,400 --> 00:29:35,479
Speaker 7: the map, which the lower court had felt was illegal,

517
00:29:35,560 --> 00:29:38,560
Speaker 7: but the Supreme Court had stayed for considerable period of

518
00:29:38,640 --> 00:29:41,120
Speaker 7: time so that they could decide the case that effect

519
00:29:41,160 --> 00:29:42,320
Speaker 7: of the twenty twenty two election.

520
00:29:42,720 --> 00:29:45,360
Speaker 1: It just boggles the mind that in a case like

521
00:29:45,480 --> 00:29:48,680
Speaker 1: this they can't get a decision out. Although I mean

522
00:29:48,760 --> 00:29:51,680
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has been handing out decisions more slowly

523
00:29:52,360 --> 00:29:53,240
Speaker 1: as of late.

524
00:29:53,360 --> 00:29:55,400
Speaker 7: This does seem to have been one of the slowest years.

525
00:29:55,640 --> 00:29:57,360
Speaker 7: The people who keep track of this and have said

526
00:29:57,360 --> 00:29:59,880
Speaker 7: that they got up to the slowest start of any

527
00:30:00,080 --> 00:30:02,480
Speaker 7: year in a very long time, and they've still issued

528
00:30:02,520 --> 00:30:03,560
Speaker 7: relatively few opinions.

529
00:30:03,760 --> 00:30:07,280
Speaker 1: So we had the Alabama case where the Court came

530
00:30:07,360 --> 00:30:10,840
Speaker 1: out with a ruling that was favorable to the challengers.

531
00:30:11,240 --> 00:30:13,720
Speaker 1: But yet, as you say in the oral arguments in

532
00:30:13,840 --> 00:30:16,640
Speaker 1: the South Carolina case, it seemed like it was going

533
00:30:16,720 --> 00:30:20,360
Speaker 1: against the challengers. Explain the difference between the two cases.

534
00:30:20,920 --> 00:30:23,960
Speaker 7: The issue in this case really has more to do

535
00:30:24,040 --> 00:30:28,360
Speaker 7: with how do you disentangle racial jerry mandering from partisan jerrymandering.

536
00:30:28,560 --> 00:30:31,400
Speaker 7: Kind of the central issue in this case is the

537
00:30:31,480 --> 00:30:34,640
Speaker 7: publican legislature in South Carolina is happy to say that

538
00:30:34,720 --> 00:30:37,280
Speaker 7: what they did was a partisan jerry mander because given

539
00:30:37,320 --> 00:30:40,200
Speaker 7: the Supreme Court's decision a few years ago, partisan gerrymandering

540
00:30:40,240 --> 00:30:43,360
Speaker 7: cannot be challenged. It's non justiciable, it's not on constitutional

541
00:30:43,400 --> 00:30:46,040
Speaker 7: according to the Supreme Court. But racial jerry mannering is,

542
00:30:46,360 --> 00:30:48,360
Speaker 7: and all fund that two were closely connected. If you're

543
00:30:48,360 --> 00:30:50,720
Speaker 7: moving a big block of black voters who happened to

544
00:30:50,760 --> 00:30:52,920
Speaker 7: be Democrats or Democratic voters who happened to be black,

545
00:30:53,120 --> 00:30:54,960
Speaker 7: there is a debate as to what exactly the state

546
00:30:55,080 --> 00:30:57,200
Speaker 7: is doing. The Low Court here concluded that, based on

547
00:30:57,240 --> 00:30:59,520
Speaker 7: a variety of factors, it was better characterized as a

548
00:30:59,600 --> 00:31:03,040
Speaker 7: racial j remager. The issue in Alabama was differently complicated

549
00:31:03,280 --> 00:31:07,040
Speaker 7: in that there the state was using a basic configuration

550
00:31:07,120 --> 00:31:09,240
Speaker 7: of how to draw districts in the state that they've

551
00:31:09,240 --> 00:31:11,760
Speaker 7: been using for some time. They may just minor changes

552
00:31:11,960 --> 00:31:14,280
Speaker 7: from one census to the next, but was not a

553
00:31:14,480 --> 00:31:17,840
Speaker 7: conscious or an obvious effort in the twenty twenty redistrict thing.

554
00:31:17,920 --> 00:31:20,600
Speaker 7: But the plainters were able to show that the district

555
00:31:20,640 --> 00:31:22,800
Speaker 7: things structure that the state had been using for several

556
00:31:22,920 --> 00:31:25,960
Speaker 7: decades discriminated against black voters because of the way the

557
00:31:26,040 --> 00:31:28,440
Speaker 7: districts were drawn. And although you couldn't show that the

558
00:31:28,480 --> 00:31:30,760
Speaker 7: state intended to do this, they were able to present

559
00:31:30,840 --> 00:31:34,360
Speaker 7: alternative maps which were just as straightforward, you know, no

560
00:31:34,640 --> 00:31:38,360
Speaker 7: more convoluted, no more odd shapes than the map being used,

561
00:31:38,440 --> 00:31:41,480
Speaker 7: which would provide fair representation for black voters. So that

562
00:31:41,640 --> 00:31:45,280
Speaker 7: case is very much about what does fair representation require

563
00:31:45,400 --> 00:31:48,120
Speaker 7: for minority voters? And this case was really about whether

564
00:31:48,240 --> 00:31:51,120
Speaker 7: or not the discrimination going on here was racial or partisan.

565
00:31:51,400 --> 00:31:54,800
Speaker 1: This ruling came a day after a different federal court

566
00:31:55,040 --> 00:31:59,440
Speaker 1: upheld a congressional map in Florida that favors Republicans and

567
00:31:59,760 --> 00:32:02,280
Speaker 1: race is a seat held by a black Democrat.

568
00:32:02,720 --> 00:32:04,880
Speaker 7: Again, I think it was a similar question of whether

569
00:32:05,000 --> 00:32:07,320
Speaker 7: or not this was race or party, and they concluded

570
00:32:07,360 --> 00:32:09,960
Speaker 7: it was party. And when it's party, it's you know,

571
00:32:10,080 --> 00:32:12,960
Speaker 7: this may sound really weird to people. First, the whole

572
00:32:13,000 --> 00:32:16,120
Speaker 7: idea of race versus party, that they're different and that

573
00:32:16,200 --> 00:32:20,560
Speaker 7: they can be disentangled, but that partisan gerrymandering can't be

574
00:32:20,720 --> 00:32:23,720
Speaker 7: challenged and racial gerrymandering can be. And so much turns

575
00:32:23,760 --> 00:32:26,800
Speaker 7: on how you're going to characterize what exactly happened. And

576
00:32:27,120 --> 00:32:29,600
Speaker 7: you know, those can be hard questions as to whether

577
00:32:29,720 --> 00:32:33,440
Speaker 7: or not it's racer party, even that they're often connected, often.

578
00:32:33,240 --> 00:32:37,320
Speaker 1: It seems like they're inextricable. But also last Thursday, another

579
00:32:37,400 --> 00:32:41,200
Speaker 1: federal appeals court issued or ruling that all but insures

580
00:32:41,240 --> 00:32:45,160
Speaker 1: North Carolina will use state legislative maps this fall that

581
00:32:45,280 --> 00:32:46,160
Speaker 1: have been challenged.

582
00:32:46,600 --> 00:32:50,400
Speaker 7: They basically again decided, following a lower court decision, that

583
00:32:50,520 --> 00:32:53,000
Speaker 7: they would not block the maps. Those were maps that

584
00:32:53,040 --> 00:32:56,120
Speaker 7: were adopted by the Republican legislature in the fall and

585
00:32:56,640 --> 00:32:59,160
Speaker 7: a voting rights ac claim was brought. And I think

586
00:32:59,400 --> 00:33:01,760
Speaker 7: in some ways what's happened is that they basically said

587
00:33:01,800 --> 00:33:03,960
Speaker 7: that they wouldn't block it for now. You again, some

588
00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:06,200
Speaker 7: of these things come up on motions for conjunctions. In

589
00:33:06,240 --> 00:33:09,280
Speaker 7: other words, given that the election is coming soon, Flink

590
00:33:09,440 --> 00:33:11,600
Speaker 7: just want to stop the new law from taking effect

591
00:33:11,880 --> 00:33:14,760
Speaker 7: and then hold the trial. And the state is saying, well, no,

592
00:33:14,880 --> 00:33:16,160
Speaker 7: the law can go into a think you can have

593
00:33:16,200 --> 00:33:18,640
Speaker 7: a trial later. Then we can change it later if

594
00:33:18,640 --> 00:33:20,320
Speaker 7: you find it's unlawful.

595
00:33:20,480 --> 00:33:24,040
Speaker 1: And voting rights advocates say that's too late because you

596
00:33:24,120 --> 00:33:25,240
Speaker 1: can't change the vote.

597
00:33:25,600 --> 00:33:27,880
Speaker 7: There is this thing known as the per Cell principle,

598
00:33:28,200 --> 00:33:31,040
Speaker 7: the idea that you shouldn't be changing the rules governing

599
00:33:31,080 --> 00:33:33,640
Speaker 7: an election too close to the election. No one knows

600
00:33:33,760 --> 00:33:36,240
Speaker 7: when is it too close to an election, but we're

601
00:33:36,360 --> 00:33:39,160
Speaker 7: probably beginning to get there, at least for primaries, even

602
00:33:39,240 --> 00:33:41,600
Speaker 7: if some of the earlier action in a case they

603
00:33:41,640 --> 00:33:43,880
Speaker 7: have taken place months ago, you know, I think in

604
00:33:44,000 --> 00:33:46,720
Speaker 7: North Carolina case, there was a decision going back to

605
00:33:46,840 --> 00:33:49,200
Speaker 7: January twenty three. It just took, you know a long

606
00:33:49,280 --> 00:33:51,200
Speaker 7: time for it to kind of prookoly through the system.

607
00:33:51,720 --> 00:33:54,760
Speaker 1: Are states here basically trying to run out the clock?

608
00:33:55,360 --> 00:33:58,440
Speaker 7: I think they often do. I mean they often basically say, well,

609
00:33:58,800 --> 00:34:02,400
Speaker 7: no preliminary junct and no emergency motions please, And then

610
00:34:02,880 --> 00:34:05,800
Speaker 7: as they continue to bring appeals that will delay things,

611
00:34:06,360 --> 00:34:08,960
Speaker 7: there may eventually be a trial, and then there may

612
00:34:09,000 --> 00:34:11,240
Speaker 7: eventually be an appeal the trial, the appeal may actually

613
00:34:11,239 --> 00:34:13,480
Speaker 7: get decided, and that's kind of what happened in Alabama.

614
00:34:13,760 --> 00:34:16,080
Speaker 7: But just sometimes they do seem to be stretching it

615
00:34:16,160 --> 00:34:17,960
Speaker 7: all out in delay and delay and delay.

616
00:34:18,680 --> 00:34:22,520
Speaker 1: So these decisions, along with others in recent months, does

617
00:34:22,560 --> 00:34:25,960
Speaker 1: that mean that the congressional maps for twenty twenty four

618
00:34:26,160 --> 00:34:27,280
Speaker 1: are largely set?

619
00:34:27,840 --> 00:34:30,719
Speaker 7: I think that's right. I think that the litigation is

620
00:34:30,840 --> 00:34:34,439
Speaker 7: now just about done. We are into April. Many states

621
00:34:34,480 --> 00:34:37,480
Speaker 7: already had their primaries. I think there are probably no

622
00:34:37,600 --> 00:34:40,120
Speaker 7: primaries later than June, or at least not many. I

623
00:34:40,200 --> 00:34:42,359
Speaker 7: think we're getting very late in the season and we're

624
00:34:42,400 --> 00:34:42,960
Speaker 7: probably done.

625
00:34:43,280 --> 00:34:46,240
Speaker 1: I want to get your reaction to a political article

626
00:34:46,840 --> 00:34:49,880
Speaker 1: that said that Republicans came out ahead in the battle

627
00:34:49,920 --> 00:34:52,640
Speaker 1: to control the House in twenty twenty four thanks to

628
00:34:52,719 --> 00:34:57,320
Speaker 1: the redistricting aggression of North Carolina Republicans and the timidity

629
00:34:57,719 --> 00:34:59,000
Speaker 1: of New York Democrats.

630
00:34:59,680 --> 00:35:01,640
Speaker 7: Yeah. I think there's a lot to be said for that,

631
00:35:01,760 --> 00:35:03,880
Speaker 7: and maybe a little defensive of the New York Democrats.

632
00:35:03,920 --> 00:35:06,879
Speaker 7: They had a tough situation. But yes, North Carolina did

633
00:35:06,960 --> 00:35:10,000
Speaker 7: a very sharp gerry mander and basically moved three seas

634
00:35:10,000 --> 00:35:12,239
Speaker 7: from the Democratic to the Republican colm, which is huge.

635
00:35:12,480 --> 00:35:14,319
Speaker 7: The problem in New York is that New York does

636
00:35:14,400 --> 00:35:18,320
Speaker 7: have this independent redistricting Commission and this redistricting process that

637
00:35:18,480 --> 00:35:21,920
Speaker 7: the state adopted in the twenty tens and which was

638
00:35:22,040 --> 00:35:24,480
Speaker 7: used for the first time in twenty twenty two, and

639
00:35:25,080 --> 00:35:26,960
Speaker 7: the state failed to do it right according to the

640
00:35:27,040 --> 00:35:29,280
Speaker 7: New York State's highest court, leading to a the appointment

641
00:35:29,320 --> 00:35:31,040
Speaker 7: of a special Master who came up with a plan

642
00:35:31,120 --> 00:35:33,680
Speaker 7: that was fairly favorable to Republicans. The Democrats got a

643
00:35:33,719 --> 00:35:35,840
Speaker 7: second shot of this by persuading the Court of Appeals

644
00:35:35,880 --> 00:35:37,279
Speaker 7: that they had a right to try again. But I

645
00:35:37,320 --> 00:35:39,279
Speaker 7: think they were a kind of gun shy based on

646
00:35:39,440 --> 00:35:41,839
Speaker 7: what happened the first time, and they did not want

647
00:35:41,880 --> 00:35:45,200
Speaker 7: to make an aggressive move to seriously change what was

648
00:35:45,280 --> 00:35:50,120
Speaker 7: done in twenty twenty two, so they tinkered. And my

649
00:35:50,480 --> 00:35:54,520
Speaker 7: understanding of the more political people is probably it mostly

650
00:35:54,640 --> 00:35:57,480
Speaker 7: might have affected the outcome in one district. Mostly it

651
00:35:57,520 --> 00:35:59,920
Speaker 7: seems to me that they were kind of protecting Democrats

652
00:36:00,040 --> 00:36:04,120
Speaker 7: who were in vulnerable districts and may have recalculated one

653
00:36:04,120 --> 00:36:06,640
Speaker 7: of the districts that which went narrowly Republican last time

654
00:36:06,680 --> 00:36:08,839
Speaker 7: in a way that makes it even more truly even,

655
00:36:08,960 --> 00:36:11,719
Speaker 7: but it seems as though that based on redistricting, it's

656
00:36:11,760 --> 00:36:14,239
Speaker 7: not clearly with the any Democratic pickups in New York

657
00:36:14,400 --> 00:36:16,359
Speaker 7: or at most one. At one point Democrats were thinking

658
00:36:16,400 --> 00:36:18,799
Speaker 7: optimistically they could be three, four or five. So there

659
00:36:18,880 --> 00:36:21,320
Speaker 7: was definitely a loss of three seats in North Carolina.

660
00:36:21,680 --> 00:36:23,479
Speaker 7: Not clear that there was any game in New York.

661
00:36:23,880 --> 00:36:27,759
Speaker 7: The Alabama was probably a pickup because of the redistricting there. Again,

662
00:36:27,840 --> 00:36:30,800
Speaker 7: so if we're just talking about maps, I think the

663
00:36:30,920 --> 00:36:33,440
Speaker 7: remapping was marginally pro Republican.

664
00:36:33,719 --> 00:36:38,400
Speaker 1: Adam Kinkaid, the executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust,

665
00:36:38,520 --> 00:36:42,360
Speaker 1: toll Politico. It's a marginally more favorable map in twenty

666
00:36:42,440 --> 00:36:44,319
Speaker 1: four than we even had in twenty two.

667
00:36:45,040 --> 00:36:47,800
Speaker 7: That sounds about right now. Of course, twenty two is

668
00:36:47,920 --> 00:36:50,000
Speaker 7: an election where many people thought the Republicans were going

669
00:36:50,040 --> 00:36:53,000
Speaker 7: to do really well, and although they did take the House,

670
00:36:53,160 --> 00:36:55,960
Speaker 7: they took it much more narrowly than had been predicted.

671
00:36:56,239 --> 00:36:58,680
Speaker 7: Much will turn on, of course, the presidential election, you know,

672
00:36:58,719 --> 00:37:01,640
Speaker 7: where there's still six aside from that or more so,

673
00:37:01,800 --> 00:37:04,160
Speaker 7: no one knows how that's going to go, and turnout

674
00:37:04,239 --> 00:37:06,839
Speaker 7: is often different in presidential election years than in off

675
00:37:07,000 --> 00:37:09,799
Speaker 7: years so the Republicans may be slightly better off now,

676
00:37:09,960 --> 00:37:12,040
Speaker 7: but the presidential election will matter for a lot, and

677
00:37:12,200 --> 00:37:15,120
Speaker 7: maybe the kind of the messiness of the Republican Congress

678
00:37:15,120 --> 00:37:16,120
Speaker 7: will matter for something too.

679
00:37:16,400 --> 00:37:19,040
Speaker 1: It's going to be a long seven months, that's for sure.

680
00:37:19,239 --> 00:37:22,480
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, rich That's Professor Richard Rfault of Columbia

681
00:37:22,560 --> 00:37:24,680
Speaker 1: Law School. And that's it for this edition of the

682
00:37:24,719 --> 00:37:28,040
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get the latest

683
00:37:28,080 --> 00:37:30,880
Speaker 1: legal news by subscribing and listening to the show on

684
00:37:31,040 --> 00:37:35,320
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast,

685
00:37:35,440 --> 00:37:39,319
Speaker 1: Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg