1 00:00:00,440 --> 00:00:05,640 Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:08,879 Speaker 1: It was a unanimous decision at the Supreme Court in 3 00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,280 Speaker 1: a case steeped in politics. The court overturned the fraud 4 00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:15,560 Speaker 1: convictions of two defendants in the Bridgegate scandal that shook 5 00:00:15,600 --> 00:00:19,480 Speaker 1: former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's administration, joining me as 6 00:00:19,520 --> 00:00:23,919 Speaker 1: Brad MOS's apartment Mark zad So brad Atlanta Kagan wrote 7 00:00:23,960 --> 00:00:27,440 Speaker 1: the majority opinion, and she said the evidence showed deception, 8 00:00:27,600 --> 00:00:31,000 Speaker 1: corruption and abuse of power. So why did the court 9 00:00:31,200 --> 00:00:35,080 Speaker 1: overturn the convictions? So what's happened here is the existing 10 00:00:35,200 --> 00:00:38,400 Speaker 1: federal statute that the Justice Fartment has been trying to 11 00:00:38,479 --> 00:00:43,280 Speaker 1: rely upon, such as wire fraud and federal bribery, never 12 00:00:43,360 --> 00:00:47,239 Speaker 1: really envisioned being applied in a situation where there was 13 00:00:47,320 --> 00:00:49,960 Speaker 1: no money at issue. So we're like, what happened here 14 00:00:50,360 --> 00:00:51,800 Speaker 1: similar to what we had a couple of years ago 15 00:00:51,840 --> 00:00:55,360 Speaker 1: with McDonald case that came out of Virginia. Was the 16 00:00:55,720 --> 00:00:59,200 Speaker 1: particular corrupt actions which everyone, even though all the justices 17 00:00:59,240 --> 00:01:03,600 Speaker 1: agreed were rup they were brazenly political. Complete retaliation didn't 18 00:01:03,640 --> 00:01:05,840 Speaker 1: fall within the scope of this type of federal statute. 19 00:01:05,920 --> 00:01:09,800 Speaker 1: They wire fraud statute required more than justice fraudulent use 20 00:01:09,840 --> 00:01:11,880 Speaker 1: of authority, but that it would be done for the 21 00:01:11,880 --> 00:01:15,080 Speaker 1: purpose of obtaining money or property. And the reason that 22 00:01:15,160 --> 00:01:19,280 Speaker 1: the justices overruled the convictions here was because despite what 23 00:01:19,400 --> 00:01:22,800 Speaker 1: actually happened, despite the admission that this was retaliation, it 24 00:01:22,920 --> 00:01:26,360 Speaker 1: was fraud. They didn't do it in order to obtain 25 00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:29,360 Speaker 1: money themselves. They were just engaging in political retaliation. And 26 00:01:29,400 --> 00:01:32,679 Speaker 1: these federal statutes don't contemplate serving as sort of a 27 00:01:33,319 --> 00:01:36,559 Speaker 1: roving federal anti corruption statute. That's not what they do. 28 00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:40,040 Speaker 1: So is it because the government had a sort of 29 00:01:40,200 --> 00:01:45,240 Speaker 1: tortured view of what government property consisted of. But that 30 00:01:45,319 --> 00:01:47,000 Speaker 1: was part of it. And so what the government tried 31 00:01:47,040 --> 00:01:50,200 Speaker 1: to claim was that because in order to cover up 32 00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:54,000 Speaker 1: their actions, the steps taken by the two criminal defendants 33 00:01:54,280 --> 00:01:57,600 Speaker 1: had been to utilize government resources to create a phony, 34 00:01:57,720 --> 00:02:00,240 Speaker 1: you know, story about a travel study, to pay off 35 00:02:00,280 --> 00:02:03,480 Speaker 1: a toll worker, to close lanes. Because they had used 36 00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:06,800 Speaker 1: funds in that way, with implicating a federally funded program, 37 00:02:06,840 --> 00:02:09,760 Speaker 1: the Port Authority, that was sufficient to meet the statute. 38 00:02:09,760 --> 00:02:13,239 Speaker 1: But what the justices concluded was because these two individuals 39 00:02:13,280 --> 00:02:17,080 Speaker 1: weren't doing it to get money for themselves that took 40 00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:20,040 Speaker 1: it outside the scope of the wire fraud statute. So, 41 00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:23,000 Speaker 1: as you mentioned, this is not the first time the 42 00:02:23,040 --> 00:02:26,720 Speaker 1: Supreme Court has reversed a case when there's a prosecution 43 00:02:26,800 --> 00:02:32,519 Speaker 1: for public corruption. Is there something about these prosecutions that 44 00:02:32,639 --> 00:02:37,440 Speaker 1: the court finds wanting. It's not so much wanting from 45 00:02:37,480 --> 00:02:41,200 Speaker 1: the facts so much as that the existing legal uh 46 00:02:41,360 --> 00:02:43,800 Speaker 1: provisions that are being relied upon by d o j. 47 00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:47,520 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has included doesn't reach this far. So 48 00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:52,040 Speaker 1: there isn't, by you know, in law, any kind of broad, 49 00:02:52,160 --> 00:02:57,000 Speaker 1: overarching anti corruption statute that applies to the official acts 50 00:02:57,040 --> 00:03:00,800 Speaker 1: of state officials. There's state laws that apply to that, 51 00:03:00,880 --> 00:03:02,640 Speaker 1: and there may have been an argument that there should 52 00:03:02,639 --> 00:03:05,359 Speaker 1: have been a state criminal business opposed to a federal one, 53 00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:09,520 Speaker 1: but the federal government hasn't ever imposed such a law 54 00:03:09,600 --> 00:03:12,239 Speaker 1: on state officials. And there'd be obvious questions, you know, 55 00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:14,519 Speaker 1: in terms of Article ten of the Constitution, whether or 56 00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:17,480 Speaker 1: not that would violate the separation of powers between the 57 00:03:17,480 --> 00:03:20,000 Speaker 1: federal government and the state if the federal government could 58 00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:23,880 Speaker 1: impose a broad anti corruption statute against state officials. So 59 00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:26,120 Speaker 1: that's the thing why they haven't done that in the past. 60 00:03:26,160 --> 00:03:28,359 Speaker 1: And probably why they won't even do that going forward. 61 00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:31,400 Speaker 1: But it does speak to whether or not the existing 62 00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:33,600 Speaker 1: statutes have been tried to be use, such as the 63 00:03:33,840 --> 00:03:35,680 Speaker 1: you know, the bribery statutes, whether or not they'd be 64 00:03:35,680 --> 00:03:39,440 Speaker 1: clarified or updated going forward, given how these state officials 65 00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:43,600 Speaker 1: have been sort of exploiting these loopholes. Let's go back 66 00:03:43,680 --> 00:03:47,240 Speaker 1: for a second to the McDonald case. Sort of a 67 00:03:47,280 --> 00:03:51,480 Speaker 1: shocking decision to most people. Yeah, and in that one, 68 00:03:51,520 --> 00:03:53,600 Speaker 1: so that was the in that case, with the federal 69 00:03:53,640 --> 00:03:56,760 Speaker 1: bribery statute that was to play, and there was things 70 00:03:56,800 --> 00:04:00,560 Speaker 1: a value of personal money received, so that element that 71 00:04:00,720 --> 00:04:04,160 Speaker 1: long of the issue was resolved and the government could 72 00:04:04,160 --> 00:04:06,400 Speaker 1: prove its case. But what they struggled with there and 73 00:04:06,440 --> 00:04:10,880 Speaker 1: why the justices overturned the conviction in that case, was 74 00:04:10,920 --> 00:04:14,640 Speaker 1: there was no actual official act by Governor McDonald that 75 00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:19,640 Speaker 1: the simple actions of taking a meeting or recommending someone 76 00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:25,039 Speaker 1: talk with the private company wasn't sufficient to implicate the 77 00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:28,040 Speaker 1: official act by a state official. And again we're getting 78 00:04:28,080 --> 00:04:31,560 Speaker 1: into the nitty gritty weeds of what doesn't does does 79 00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:35,360 Speaker 1: not qualify as official state action, what doesn't doesn't qualify 80 00:04:35,720 --> 00:04:41,159 Speaker 1: as a fraudulent effort to obtain personal moneys or property. 81 00:04:41,320 --> 00:04:45,479 Speaker 1: But this is where the vagaries of the law have 82 00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:49,200 Speaker 1: come down to and where we're still fleshing out, you know, 83 00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:51,400 Speaker 1: at this point, and even with the Supreme Court cases 84 00:04:51,440 --> 00:04:53,800 Speaker 1: these two in the last five years of exactly how 85 00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:57,200 Speaker 1: far state officials can, you know, push the boundaries and 86 00:04:57,240 --> 00:05:01,719 Speaker 1: exercise their power. So finally, will this have a chilling 87 00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:06,120 Speaker 1: effect on federal prosecutors. I think there'll be a little 88 00:05:06,120 --> 00:05:09,800 Speaker 1: bit more gun shy in terms of how they approached 89 00:05:09,839 --> 00:05:12,240 Speaker 1: some of these cases. I think there was certainly an 90 00:05:12,240 --> 00:05:15,000 Speaker 1: effort to crack down some of the corruption that they 91 00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,280 Speaker 1: thought was not being properly addressed. I think they were 92 00:05:18,480 --> 00:05:23,040 Speaker 1: legitimate and good, good faith purposes behind both prosecutions. I mean, 93 00:05:23,080 --> 00:05:25,840 Speaker 1: certainly what Governor McDonald did here in Virginia a few 94 00:05:25,880 --> 00:05:28,400 Speaker 1: years back, and then what these two individuals did in 95 00:05:28,480 --> 00:05:33,440 Speaker 1: New Jersey back was discussing it was unethical, um and 96 00:05:33,480 --> 00:05:37,840 Speaker 1: it was brazenly politically corrupt. But it raises a question 97 00:05:37,880 --> 00:05:41,640 Speaker 1: about how much the federal government is allowed to venture 98 00:05:41,640 --> 00:05:44,600 Speaker 1: into this from a criminal standpoint, given our state government 99 00:05:44,600 --> 00:05:47,719 Speaker 1: officials and not the federal government officials. Okay, thanks brad, 100 00:05:47,839 --> 00:05:51,320 Speaker 1: that's Bradley mass apartment. Mark Zade coming up next on 101 00:05:51,360 --> 00:05:55,320 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law, a controversial Trump nominee to the second highest 102 00:05:55,360 --> 00:05:58,799 Speaker 1: court in the land, gets a confirmation hearing with social 103 00:05:58,839 --> 00:06:03,400 Speaker 1: distancing MH. The Senate Judiciary Committee became one of the 104 00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:07,640 Speaker 1: first Congressional panels to embrace new procedures to work during 105 00:06:07,680 --> 00:06:12,240 Speaker 1: the coronavirus pandemic. The committee heard testimony from President Trump's 106 00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:15,480 Speaker 1: controversial pick for the d C Circuit Court of Appeals, 107 00:06:15,839 --> 00:06:20,279 Speaker 1: Judge Justin Walker, joining me as Madison Alder Bloomberg Law reporter. 108 00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:25,080 Speaker 1: So was it a teleconference, Maddie, a video conference? How 109 00:06:25,120 --> 00:06:27,200 Speaker 1: did it work? It was a little bit of both. 110 00:06:27,480 --> 00:06:30,040 Speaker 1: So the Senate Judiciary Committee was one of the first 111 00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:34,600 Speaker 1: committees on the Hill to to try, uh, to adapt 112 00:06:34,680 --> 00:06:37,120 Speaker 1: to the coronavirus pandemic. And the way they chose to 113 00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:39,599 Speaker 1: do that was to use the larger hearing room than 114 00:06:39,640 --> 00:06:42,440 Speaker 1: they typically do. So they had lawmakers who were there 115 00:06:42,480 --> 00:06:46,120 Speaker 1: in person, spread out among two levels of desks. They 116 00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:49,200 Speaker 1: had at least six feet of separation between them. And 117 00:06:49,240 --> 00:06:51,920 Speaker 1: then they had a few lawmakers who were present via 118 00:06:52,000 --> 00:06:55,200 Speaker 1: video conference. Uh, So they showed up on a video screen, 119 00:06:55,320 --> 00:06:57,880 Speaker 1: and then the nominee himself was there and would addressed 120 00:06:57,920 --> 00:07:00,919 Speaker 1: their questions on that on that video. It's great and 121 00:07:01,000 --> 00:07:04,360 Speaker 1: so um they're just in the pandemic just like everyone else. 122 00:07:04,680 --> 00:07:09,240 Speaker 1: Were there any uh hiccups, any problems. It was a 123 00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:13,240 Speaker 1: little difficult to hear a few of the speakers. Um, 124 00:07:13,480 --> 00:07:15,920 Speaker 1: when Senator Patrick lay he came on, his voice was 125 00:07:16,000 --> 00:07:18,080 Speaker 1: very booming. He sounded a bit like the Wizard of 126 00:07:18,080 --> 00:07:23,080 Speaker 1: oz Um. And then later on Senator Marsha Blackburn, she 127 00:07:23,240 --> 00:07:25,560 Speaker 1: came on and we couldn't hear her audio for a second. 128 00:07:25,600 --> 00:07:29,560 Speaker 1: But despite those those couple of hiccups, it went pretty smoothly. 129 00:07:29,680 --> 00:07:31,960 Speaker 1: I think, you know, it kind of fits with the 130 00:07:31,960 --> 00:07:34,400 Speaker 1: theme we've seen with a lot of these government institutions 131 00:07:34,440 --> 00:07:38,520 Speaker 1: that are switching over to some kind of adapted version 132 00:07:38,760 --> 00:07:42,120 Speaker 1: of their proceedings, like the Supreme Court, where despite a 133 00:07:42,120 --> 00:07:44,400 Speaker 1: few minor hiccups, that seems to be working pretty well. 134 00:07:44,760 --> 00:07:49,080 Speaker 1: The Democrats had an objection to even holding this hearing 135 00:07:49,640 --> 00:07:55,000 Speaker 1: because they're holding this hearing before Judge Griffith, whom Walker 136 00:07:55,080 --> 00:07:58,400 Speaker 1: is supposed to replace, is even scheduled to step aside, 137 00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:01,920 Speaker 1: that's in September. I have this hearing that that's correct. 138 00:08:02,120 --> 00:08:05,640 Speaker 1: So Democrats for a prose to the idea of this hearing. 139 00:08:05,920 --> 00:08:09,400 Speaker 1: Last week they sent a letter to Senator Graham one 140 00:08:09,440 --> 00:08:12,320 Speaker 1: word of this hearing came out. They said that they 141 00:08:12,320 --> 00:08:16,720 Speaker 1: should be focusing on issues within the Senatejuciary Committee jurisdiction 142 00:08:17,000 --> 00:08:20,280 Speaker 1: that are related to the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a 143 00:08:20,360 --> 00:08:24,320 Speaker 1: nominee who won't be filling this seat until September when 144 00:08:24,400 --> 00:08:28,280 Speaker 1: Judge brought this step down. But the Senate Judiciary Committee 145 00:08:28,520 --> 00:08:30,400 Speaker 1: McConnell has said that this is going to be a 146 00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:33,120 Speaker 1: priority for the Senate, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is 147 00:08:33,160 --> 00:08:37,040 Speaker 1: moving along without work. Republicans are saying that that judges 148 00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:39,120 Speaker 1: are a part of the essential work of the Senate. 149 00:08:39,360 --> 00:08:43,200 Speaker 1: Um Senator John Cornyn yesterday I reiterated that and said, 150 00:08:43,240 --> 00:08:45,000 Speaker 1: you know, this is one of the things that the 151 00:08:45,400 --> 00:08:47,640 Speaker 1: Senate should be doing during this time. So that was 152 00:08:47,679 --> 00:08:52,760 Speaker 1: definitely a consistent conversation throughout the hearing. In addition to 153 00:08:52,840 --> 00:08:55,680 Speaker 1: questioning the nominee himself, we kind of had this side 154 00:08:55,720 --> 00:08:58,560 Speaker 1: debate of whether or not they should be focusing on 155 00:08:58,600 --> 00:09:01,240 Speaker 1: this versus, you know, other things that the committee could 156 00:09:01,280 --> 00:09:05,800 Speaker 1: be doing now. Walker is a protege of Majority Leader 157 00:09:05,840 --> 00:09:09,480 Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, who has been leading the Bush to fill 158 00:09:09,520 --> 00:09:13,320 Speaker 1: the judiciary with conservatives. Tell us a little more about him. So, 159 00:09:13,520 --> 00:09:17,120 Speaker 1: Justine Walker. He is currently a judge on the Western 160 00:09:17,200 --> 00:09:20,199 Speaker 1: District of Kentucky thirty seven, which is fairly young for 161 00:09:20,240 --> 00:09:24,560 Speaker 1: an Afield Court nominee. He is a protege of Mitch McConnell. 162 00:09:24,679 --> 00:09:28,959 Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell has really championed his nomination for the DC Circuit. 163 00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:32,679 Speaker 1: Walker was first nominated to his trial court seat by 164 00:09:32,720 --> 00:09:37,000 Speaker 1: Trump UH and confirmed just six months ago, so this 165 00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:40,440 Speaker 1: is a pretty quick elevation to the DC Circuit. There 166 00:09:40,480 --> 00:09:43,080 Speaker 1: was a bit of controversy over his last nomination because 167 00:09:43,120 --> 00:09:47,880 Speaker 1: the American Bar Association, which does ratings for judicial nominees, 168 00:09:48,240 --> 00:09:51,360 Speaker 1: rating him not qualified, which is he was one of 169 00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:54,640 Speaker 1: the handful of nominees that Trump has had who has 170 00:09:54,679 --> 00:10:00,000 Speaker 1: been rated not qualified, and that was that largely characterized demo. 171 00:10:00,040 --> 00:10:03,200 Speaker 1: Perhaps concerns in the last hearing, a lot of their 172 00:10:03,200 --> 00:10:08,760 Speaker 1: comments were about his qualifications in his background. This time around, however, 173 00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:11,280 Speaker 1: the night before his hearing, the A B A gave 174 00:10:11,400 --> 00:10:14,600 Speaker 1: him a well qualified rating, which is their highest rating. 175 00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:18,480 Speaker 1: So why did the A B A change it's rating 176 00:10:18,520 --> 00:10:21,400 Speaker 1: on him? He's only been a judge for six months. 177 00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:25,360 Speaker 1: The ADA says they changed their rating because they were 178 00:10:25,360 --> 00:10:29,680 Speaker 1: looking through different lens for this for this position. Um. Yeah, 179 00:10:29,679 --> 00:10:32,520 Speaker 1: I talked to a few people who follow this process 180 00:10:32,559 --> 00:10:35,959 Speaker 1: and they said that the DC circuit had has different 181 00:10:36,080 --> 00:10:39,200 Speaker 1: types of cases than a trial court would, and also 182 00:10:39,280 --> 00:10:42,680 Speaker 1: circuit courts have different types of cases and trial court would. 183 00:10:42,920 --> 00:10:45,880 Speaker 1: So that could be part of why they changed their 184 00:10:45,960 --> 00:10:48,320 Speaker 1: their decision here is that you know, as a trial 185 00:10:48,360 --> 00:10:51,960 Speaker 1: court judge there are different um types of skills and 186 00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:55,880 Speaker 1: responsibilities that you need to um have and and attend 187 00:10:55,920 --> 00:10:58,439 Speaker 1: to then you do as an appeals court judge. So 188 00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:01,640 Speaker 1: those are the factors that could be contributing to why 189 00:11:01,640 --> 00:11:05,160 Speaker 1: they ultimately changed the rating. Did anyone talk about the 190 00:11:05,200 --> 00:11:08,440 Speaker 1: fact that he just became a district court judge not 191 00:11:08,600 --> 00:11:11,240 Speaker 1: six months ago. Yeah, I mean, it wasn't lost on 192 00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:14,160 Speaker 1: members of the committee. McConnell even made reference to that 193 00:11:14,280 --> 00:11:17,640 Speaker 1: when he gave remarks on the Senate floor yesterday during 194 00:11:17,679 --> 00:11:21,600 Speaker 1: the hearing um. It is somewhat of a quick elevation, 195 00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:24,040 Speaker 1: but this has happened in you know, in the past 196 00:11:24,120 --> 00:11:28,000 Speaker 1: and in other administrations where someone is appointed to a 197 00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:31,480 Speaker 1: lower court and is elevated to UM an appeal court. 198 00:11:32,480 --> 00:11:38,040 Speaker 1: Is Walker leap frogging over other candidates who were in line. Yeah, 199 00:11:38,160 --> 00:11:40,240 Speaker 1: so that is something else that was brought up at 200 00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:46,360 Speaker 1: the hearing yesterday. Walker was nominated amid the pandemic um. 201 00:11:46,520 --> 00:11:50,040 Speaker 1: Trump had two nominees for the appeals court seats that 202 00:11:50,080 --> 00:11:52,240 Speaker 1: he has left to still as a seat on the 203 00:11:52,240 --> 00:11:55,120 Speaker 1: fifth Circuit and as this seat on on the DC Circuit. 204 00:11:55,400 --> 00:11:57,720 Speaker 1: The fifth Circuit seat is actually vacant right now, and 205 00:11:57,760 --> 00:12:00,240 Speaker 1: it has been for quite some time. It's considered a 206 00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:04,320 Speaker 1: judicial emergency, which is a term given to seats that 207 00:12:04,520 --> 00:12:07,440 Speaker 1: kind of put a lot more pressure on the remaining 208 00:12:07,520 --> 00:12:10,920 Speaker 1: judges they have a higher workload. Uh, So that seat 209 00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:13,640 Speaker 1: is still vacant. Um. The nominee for that seat, Corey Wilson, 210 00:12:13,760 --> 00:12:17,560 Speaker 1: was nominated before Walker, so he's leap frogging another appeals 211 00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:20,280 Speaker 1: court nominee, and then of course he is leapfrogging other 212 00:12:20,679 --> 00:12:23,680 Speaker 1: district court picks who are in the pipeline. There's about 213 00:12:24,120 --> 00:12:27,400 Speaker 1: um forties four nominees currently in the pipeline. Uh. Some 214 00:12:27,480 --> 00:12:29,960 Speaker 1: of those have yet to have a hearing, So there 215 00:12:30,000 --> 00:12:32,320 Speaker 1: are a number of those nominees that that could also 216 00:12:32,360 --> 00:12:36,320 Speaker 1: have a hearing soon. So is there any explanation from 217 00:12:36,480 --> 00:12:40,480 Speaker 1: the committee chair or from McConnell as to why they're 218 00:12:40,480 --> 00:12:44,040 Speaker 1: not dealing with the vacant seat first? What is the 219 00:12:44,160 --> 00:12:48,920 Speaker 1: urgency of this? There hasn't been very much, uh in 220 00:12:49,080 --> 00:12:53,880 Speaker 1: terms of addressing why Walker's nomination was put first. But 221 00:12:54,080 --> 00:12:57,760 Speaker 1: if we look at the numbers and the past history 222 00:12:57,960 --> 00:13:03,199 Speaker 1: of the Judiciary Committee, UM and Trump and and Senator McConnell, 223 00:13:03,320 --> 00:13:08,200 Speaker 1: is that we see that they do prioritize Appeals Court 224 00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:13,240 Speaker 1: nominees over other nominees. Um. There's been some you know, 225 00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:15,520 Speaker 1: data that shows that those nominies move quicker through the 226 00:13:15,520 --> 00:13:19,480 Speaker 1: process than than other nominees. So, um, you know, it 227 00:13:19,520 --> 00:13:22,199 Speaker 1: could that is the contributing factor that the d C 228 00:13:22,360 --> 00:13:25,200 Speaker 1: Circuit is is known as the second highest court in 229 00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:28,400 Speaker 1: the land. It's a very important court. And you know, 230 00:13:28,440 --> 00:13:31,880 Speaker 1: I'm sure McConnell will like to get his his pick 231 00:13:32,040 --> 00:13:36,280 Speaker 1: into that seat as quickly as possible. Now, Democrats are 232 00:13:36,320 --> 00:13:42,320 Speaker 1: concerned about Walker's writings and remarks on Obamacare. Tell us 233 00:13:42,360 --> 00:13:47,080 Speaker 1: about their concerns. So Walker has made a few comments 234 00:13:47,080 --> 00:13:49,320 Speaker 1: over the past few years about the A c. A. 235 00:13:49,800 --> 00:13:53,760 Speaker 1: The first one was in an article defending Kavanaugh's nomination 236 00:13:53,920 --> 00:13:56,840 Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court. He was a former Kavanaugh clerk. 237 00:13:57,120 --> 00:13:59,520 Speaker 1: When Kavanat was on the DC Circuit. He also clerked 238 00:13:59,559 --> 00:14:04,320 Speaker 1: for this Anthony Kennedy. UH. And in that article he 239 00:14:04,360 --> 00:14:08,559 Speaker 1: basically said that the Supreme Court decision in n f 240 00:14:08,640 --> 00:14:12,400 Speaker 1: I B Versus Civilius, which is the decision that upheld 241 00:14:12,920 --> 00:14:15,800 Speaker 1: the individual mandate of the A C. A. He said 242 00:14:15,840 --> 00:14:18,640 Speaker 1: that that was indefensible and that was something that Democrats 243 00:14:18,679 --> 00:14:21,960 Speaker 1: took issue with. UM kind of in the context of 244 00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:24,480 Speaker 1: the pandemic. A few of them asked why they should 245 00:14:24,520 --> 00:14:29,120 Speaker 1: advance a judge who was seemingly opposed to this law, UH, 246 00:14:29,240 --> 00:14:32,760 Speaker 1: during the time of a pandemic. Another comment he made 247 00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:35,680 Speaker 1: was that his investor in march um it was a 248 00:14:35,680 --> 00:14:40,000 Speaker 1: bit of a joke. At the end of a description 249 00:14:40,080 --> 00:14:43,960 Speaker 1: of his relationship with his former boss, Anthony Kennedy, he 250 00:14:44,480 --> 00:14:48,160 Speaker 1: he made a remark that UH kind of poked fund 251 00:14:48,160 --> 00:14:51,120 Speaker 1: at the A C A UH and that particular decision again, 252 00:14:51,160 --> 00:14:53,480 Speaker 1: and Democrats also took took a shoet with that. But 253 00:14:53,960 --> 00:14:57,200 Speaker 1: you know, he said that in the article that he wrote, UM, 254 00:14:57,240 --> 00:14:59,440 Speaker 1: he was really trying to do a legal analysis. And 255 00:14:59,480 --> 00:15:01,520 Speaker 1: then he also said that you know, it really was 256 00:15:01,560 --> 00:15:04,240 Speaker 1: a joke, and he does, you know, respect Kennedy and 257 00:15:04,680 --> 00:15:08,880 Speaker 1: the Court. And I believe that not only Mitch McConnell 258 00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:15,800 Speaker 1: but Justice Kavanaugh were at his investiture ceremonies. That's correct. Um, 259 00:15:15,840 --> 00:15:18,040 Speaker 1: this was actually in March, so was at the beginning 260 00:15:18,040 --> 00:15:22,840 Speaker 1: of this pandemic. Um, McConnell and and Kavanaugh were there. 261 00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:27,560 Speaker 1: They were present when you know, he was formally added 262 00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:31,240 Speaker 1: to the Western District of Kentucky, which, um, you know, 263 00:15:31,320 --> 00:15:35,400 Speaker 1: brace some eyerows among Democrats. But both of those were 264 00:15:35,520 --> 00:15:39,040 Speaker 1: mentors of his. Um. So it's it's not a typical 265 00:15:39,080 --> 00:15:42,280 Speaker 1: to have mentors there, but um, it definitely raised some eyes, 266 00:15:42,800 --> 00:15:46,640 Speaker 1: eyebrows in the opposition. What also raised some eyebrows was 267 00:15:46,760 --> 00:15:50,440 Speaker 1: his recent ruling allowing Easter services to go forward in 268 00:15:50,520 --> 00:15:55,320 Speaker 1: Kentucky despite the virus. And it was controversial not only 269 00:15:55,360 --> 00:15:58,680 Speaker 1: because it seemed to solve an issue that really wasn't there, 270 00:15:58,760 --> 00:16:03,320 Speaker 1: but also because of its overt religious tones. Did he 271 00:16:03,400 --> 00:16:06,800 Speaker 1: talk about that, That's correct. That was another thing that 272 00:16:06,840 --> 00:16:08,920 Speaker 1: was brought up a lot. It was interesting at the hearing. 273 00:16:09,160 --> 00:16:11,760 Speaker 1: It was brought up by law makers on both sides 274 00:16:11,800 --> 00:16:16,520 Speaker 1: of the aisle. Republicans pointed to that ruling as evidence 275 00:16:16,560 --> 00:16:20,080 Speaker 1: of his understanding of the law and his you know 276 00:16:20,240 --> 00:16:23,600 Speaker 1: how he would uphold the constitution. Um. But Democrats pointed 277 00:16:23,640 --> 00:16:27,720 Speaker 1: to it as evidence of potential partisanship. UM. You know, 278 00:16:27,840 --> 00:16:31,360 Speaker 1: said that it was it was far too off topic. UM. 279 00:16:31,520 --> 00:16:36,800 Speaker 1: Another thing that came up about that particular ruling was that, um, 280 00:16:36,840 --> 00:16:41,720 Speaker 1: it was made without contacting the the mayor who had 281 00:16:41,760 --> 00:16:47,120 Speaker 1: put those restrictions in place himself. So UM. Some some 282 00:16:47,200 --> 00:16:49,720 Speaker 1: Democrats who were questioning did bring that up as as 283 00:16:49,800 --> 00:16:54,520 Speaker 1: a point um of of disagreements and Maddie, did anyone 284 00:16:54,520 --> 00:16:58,800 Speaker 1: bring up. Recently, the chief Judge of the d C Circuit, 285 00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:03,600 Speaker 1: Sri Sriniva Sin, asked the Chief Justice of the United States, 286 00:17:04,119 --> 00:17:10,800 Speaker 1: John Roberts to get another circuit to investigate allegations or 287 00:17:10,920 --> 00:17:15,080 Speaker 1: a request by Demand Justice to look into whether Mitch 288 00:17:15,160 --> 00:17:21,040 Speaker 1: McConnell influenced Judge Griffith to retire. So that's definitely in 289 00:17:21,080 --> 00:17:23,320 Speaker 1: the background of all of this. That's that's kind of 290 00:17:23,359 --> 00:17:26,040 Speaker 1: the contact for all of this. There have been um 291 00:17:26,200 --> 00:17:29,879 Speaker 1: reports that Mitch McConnell is asking judges to retire in 292 00:17:29,920 --> 00:17:33,440 Speaker 1: that this and UM. More liberal groups like Demand Justice 293 00:17:33,600 --> 00:17:36,920 Speaker 1: are taking issue with saying that it's unethical for them 294 00:17:36,960 --> 00:17:39,639 Speaker 1: to do so. Um, you know, that was something that 295 00:17:39,680 --> 00:17:44,680 Speaker 1: definitely was uh part of the context for for yesterday's hearing. 296 00:17:45,200 --> 00:17:48,720 Speaker 1: Has that moved anywhere that request to the chief Um, 297 00:17:48,760 --> 00:17:51,080 Speaker 1: not that I know of yet. The last news that 298 00:17:51,119 --> 00:17:54,639 Speaker 1: I heard was that it was just going through the 299 00:17:55,080 --> 00:17:58,359 Speaker 1: process and that they had opted for that that review. 300 00:17:59,200 --> 00:18:02,080 Speaker 1: So does it seem as if nothing is really going 301 00:18:02,160 --> 00:18:06,200 Speaker 1: to stop Judge Walker's confirmation. Mitch McConnell has the votes 302 00:18:06,240 --> 00:18:10,000 Speaker 1: as usual. You know, Walker went through last time despite 303 00:18:10,040 --> 00:18:14,240 Speaker 1: his not qualified rating. Walker was confirmed and this time 304 00:18:14,359 --> 00:18:18,439 Speaker 1: he has the well qualified rating. And the Senate is 305 00:18:18,440 --> 00:18:22,119 Speaker 1: still led by Republicans, they still have a majority, So 306 00:18:22,280 --> 00:18:25,160 Speaker 1: it does appear that his his nomination will will still 307 00:18:25,240 --> 00:18:27,679 Speaker 1: be going through. But um, that doesn't mean it's not 308 00:18:27,720 --> 00:18:30,760 Speaker 1: going through without a fight. As President Trump nominated other 309 00:18:30,840 --> 00:18:36,160 Speaker 1: judges recently for positions. Yes yesterday there was another nomination 310 00:18:36,200 --> 00:18:38,960 Speaker 1: from the White House for the Eastern District of Virginia. 311 00:18:39,280 --> 00:18:42,080 Speaker 1: And that adds to you know, the over forty nominees 312 00:18:42,080 --> 00:18:44,720 Speaker 1: that I mentioned that are in the pipeline. Um, that's 313 00:18:44,760 --> 00:18:49,680 Speaker 1: for about seventy nine vacancies right now, current future vacancies 314 00:18:49,760 --> 00:18:52,639 Speaker 1: so you know about half those vacancies have someone in 315 00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:54,920 Speaker 1: the pipeline. They're just waiting for the Senate and the 316 00:18:55,000 --> 00:19:00,480 Speaker 1: Judiciary committee. Doc. Okay, thanks Maddie. That's Madison Alder Bloomberg reporter. 317 00:19:02,400 --> 00:19:05,919 Speaker 1: College students kicked off campus by the coronavirus have a 318 00:19:05,960 --> 00:19:11,600 Speaker 1: new extracurricular activity, lawsuits. Undergraduates have sued more than fifty 319 00:19:11,680 --> 00:19:15,840 Speaker 1: schools demanding refunds for partial tuition, room and board, and 320 00:19:15,920 --> 00:19:19,440 Speaker 1: fees after the schools shut down. Joining me is Joe 321 00:19:19,440 --> 00:19:22,760 Speaker 1: brannan professor at Vermont Law School who's tracking the litigation. 322 00:19:23,280 --> 00:19:26,919 Speaker 1: What types of lawsuits are the students filing. It seems 323 00:19:26,960 --> 00:19:32,240 Speaker 1: that they're filing contract based lawsuits, speaking damages for both 324 00:19:32,720 --> 00:19:38,560 Speaker 1: contact damages and something called restitution or on just enrichment. 325 00:19:38,920 --> 00:19:42,800 Speaker 1: If it's a contract to action, do students sign anything 326 00:19:43,280 --> 00:19:47,359 Speaker 1: or do colleges have posting somewhere on a website that 327 00:19:47,840 --> 00:19:52,800 Speaker 1: says what tuition covers. It's kind of very based on 328 00:19:53,000 --> 00:19:58,440 Speaker 1: the institution um. Generally, schools, dur institutions will have something 329 00:19:59,160 --> 00:20:02,600 Speaker 1: in offer letter that they send out the students saying 330 00:20:02,640 --> 00:20:07,120 Speaker 1: that they're expecting accepting them into the program and oftentimes 331 00:20:07,119 --> 00:20:11,040 Speaker 1: saying that they're bound by the terms of any academic 332 00:20:11,119 --> 00:20:16,439 Speaker 1: or student regulation. To the extent that something on the website, 333 00:20:16,880 --> 00:20:19,960 Speaker 1: it wand into some difficulty whether that that would actually 334 00:20:20,040 --> 00:20:24,320 Speaker 1: be come part of the terms of the contract. Something 335 00:20:24,400 --> 00:20:30,399 Speaker 1: like advertising generally isn't the basis of the offer or 336 00:20:30,480 --> 00:20:35,280 Speaker 1: included in the offer. So um, that's reputtable that could 337 00:20:35,320 --> 00:20:38,200 Speaker 1: become part of the offer. Who was very specific and 338 00:20:38,200 --> 00:20:41,840 Speaker 1: and related to the terms of the agreement, But most 339 00:20:41,840 --> 00:20:44,880 Speaker 1: of the time it would just be something in an 340 00:20:44,920 --> 00:20:50,080 Speaker 1: offer letter, which generally doesn't lay out specifically what tuition 341 00:20:50,200 --> 00:20:54,680 Speaker 1: dollars are allocated to. And what would one just enrichment 342 00:20:54,840 --> 00:21:01,520 Speaker 1: claim depend on. I'm just enrichment requires three different things. 343 00:21:01,680 --> 00:21:07,000 Speaker 1: It requires a law on the part of the plaintiffs, 344 00:21:07,160 --> 00:21:11,480 Speaker 1: It requires a benefit on the part of the defendant, 345 00:21:12,280 --> 00:21:17,960 Speaker 1: and it requires some connection or causation between the two 346 00:21:17,960 --> 00:21:21,040 Speaker 1: of them. So that's a big difference between on justin 347 00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:25,040 Speaker 1: Richmond claim and a contract claim. And a contract claim 348 00:21:25,240 --> 00:21:28,639 Speaker 1: you're showing that you were hurt and you're entitled to 349 00:21:29,359 --> 00:21:33,600 Speaker 1: money or compensation. In and on justin Richmond claim, you 350 00:21:33,640 --> 00:21:37,160 Speaker 1: have to claim to show that not only were you damaged, 351 00:21:37,480 --> 00:21:41,880 Speaker 1: but also the other party was at the same time benefited. 352 00:21:42,440 --> 00:21:46,000 Speaker 1: And so that's um the recovery that we get the 353 00:21:46,000 --> 00:21:50,200 Speaker 1: amount that they were on justly benefited. So these colleges 354 00:21:50,560 --> 00:21:55,080 Speaker 1: still have to pay their professors, they have some amount 355 00:21:55,119 --> 00:21:58,879 Speaker 1: that they have to spend in transitioning to online courses. 356 00:21:59,119 --> 00:22:02,160 Speaker 1: So they are they necessarily going to come out ahead here. 357 00:22:02,920 --> 00:22:07,240 Speaker 1: Not necessarily. Um, there are some areas where you might 358 00:22:07,359 --> 00:22:11,360 Speaker 1: be more likely to get recovery than others. For instance, 359 00:22:11,440 --> 00:22:15,679 Speaker 1: many schools are refunding um real plants or women boards 360 00:22:15,760 --> 00:22:18,120 Speaker 1: because they're not now having to go out and buy 361 00:22:18,119 --> 00:22:21,000 Speaker 1: the food to serve to the students, so they are 362 00:22:21,080 --> 00:22:25,480 Speaker 1: saving a benett from from that. But schools are still 363 00:22:25,960 --> 00:22:30,200 Speaker 1: teaching the courses, they're still playing their faculty to teach 364 00:22:30,240 --> 00:22:32,840 Speaker 1: the courses that students are still getting credit for it, 365 00:22:33,400 --> 00:22:36,000 Speaker 1: and there may be additional costs that have been incurred 366 00:22:36,160 --> 00:22:41,680 Speaker 1: to support the online transition. So absolutely correct, there's not 367 00:22:41,760 --> 00:22:45,439 Speaker 1: necessarily going to be a benefit to the law school 368 00:22:45,800 --> 00:22:51,480 Speaker 1: or college or university, even if there was a detriment 369 00:22:51,600 --> 00:22:56,080 Speaker 1: that was suffered by the planet. So how are colleges 370 00:22:56,200 --> 00:23:00,280 Speaker 1: responding to these lawsuits? Are some of them say we're 371 00:23:00,280 --> 00:23:02,800 Speaker 1: going to fight this to the bitter end or others 372 00:23:02,840 --> 00:23:05,480 Speaker 1: saying well, we'll give you back this or that. I 373 00:23:05,520 --> 00:23:09,480 Speaker 1: think it's early, and I think it's varied. Many schools 374 00:23:09,720 --> 00:23:14,040 Speaker 1: have taken some steps to a funds. These that are 375 00:23:14,240 --> 00:23:19,679 Speaker 1: directly related to specific costs, such as women board is 376 00:23:19,880 --> 00:23:23,840 Speaker 1: a good example of that, or parking sees or some 377 00:23:24,080 --> 00:23:28,800 Speaker 1: see that's directly related to a service that isn't being provided. 378 00:23:29,320 --> 00:23:33,320 Speaker 1: It's still early and schools will have varied responses to this. 379 00:23:33,760 --> 00:23:37,879 Speaker 1: I'm not aware as any of that have issued refunds 380 00:23:37,920 --> 00:23:42,200 Speaker 1: of tuition to this point. Again, this is all happening 381 00:23:42,320 --> 00:23:47,760 Speaker 1: UM insence blocks right now. If this went to trial, 382 00:23:47,880 --> 00:23:52,800 Speaker 1: Let's say the students are still getting the credits towards 383 00:23:52,800 --> 00:23:55,960 Speaker 1: their diploma, so they're getting that much. How would a 384 00:23:56,040 --> 00:24:01,239 Speaker 1: court determine what the value of an online education is 385 00:24:01,520 --> 00:24:07,000 Speaker 1: versus the value of an education on campus? Right, because 386 00:24:07,040 --> 00:24:10,120 Speaker 1: that would be what the damages would be if it's 387 00:24:10,200 --> 00:24:14,560 Speaker 1: an on just Enrichmond claim or even a contract claim UM. 388 00:24:14,600 --> 00:24:17,880 Speaker 1: And so there's little precedent for this because what we're 389 00:24:17,920 --> 00:24:21,439 Speaker 1: doing right now with the shift online education, wouldn't have 390 00:24:21,480 --> 00:24:25,520 Speaker 1: been possible even UM a couple of years ago. Some 391 00:24:25,680 --> 00:24:29,520 Speaker 1: case law is instructive in UM the case of Hurricane 392 00:24:29,600 --> 00:24:33,280 Speaker 1: Katrina there worked on. Schools in New Orleans were not 393 00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:36,520 Speaker 1: able to proceed with the campus, but other schools stepped 394 00:24:36,600 --> 00:24:41,159 Speaker 1: in and let them finish out the semester at a 395 00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:44,159 Speaker 1: different institution in a different area. And there was at 396 00:24:44,240 --> 00:24:46,960 Speaker 1: least one class action related to that, and of course 397 00:24:47,480 --> 00:24:52,720 Speaker 1: did dismissed the um greek of contract and on Justin 398 00:24:52,840 --> 00:24:57,080 Speaker 1: Richmond claims because the students still did get the credit 399 00:24:57,600 --> 00:25:01,119 Speaker 1: and graduate from the ITC and that they were enrolled 400 00:25:01,119 --> 00:25:03,159 Speaker 1: in just for that's the dust, or they got it 401 00:25:03,240 --> 00:25:07,919 Speaker 1: from a different area. So it is a difficult situation 402 00:25:08,040 --> 00:25:13,040 Speaker 1: to evaluate exactly if there was a low benefit to 403 00:25:13,160 --> 00:25:16,879 Speaker 1: the students would still be getting the same number of credits, 404 00:25:16,920 --> 00:25:20,600 Speaker 1: So that would be students would have the burden is 405 00:25:20,680 --> 00:25:25,080 Speaker 1: the plaintiffs to establish those damages and would have to 406 00:25:25,160 --> 00:25:30,119 Speaker 1: bring in specific ways in which the online education and 407 00:25:30,160 --> 00:25:34,080 Speaker 1: the in person education were preciably different, such that they're 408 00:25:34,520 --> 00:25:39,040 Speaker 1: learning was not the same value as they had paid. 409 00:25:39,840 --> 00:25:45,920 Speaker 1: So lawyers are advertising on sites like college refund dot 410 00:25:46,000 --> 00:25:50,159 Speaker 1: com to sign up students because they wanted to be 411 00:25:50,400 --> 00:25:54,720 Speaker 1: a class action. So explain how that would work our plaintiffs. 412 00:25:54,800 --> 00:25:57,920 Speaker 1: Lawyers in a rush now to be the lead plaintiffinite 413 00:25:57,920 --> 00:26:03,040 Speaker 1: class action. So with class actions, you you're looking at 414 00:26:03,160 --> 00:26:05,960 Speaker 1: exactly for a lead plaintiffs. You need a names plate 415 00:26:05,960 --> 00:26:09,879 Speaker 1: TIFFs as the stars who can bring the claim. And 416 00:26:09,960 --> 00:26:12,879 Speaker 1: once you established that that plaint that has the premissation 417 00:26:13,000 --> 00:26:17,159 Speaker 1: case that they have met the elements that a jury 418 00:26:17,280 --> 00:26:20,600 Speaker 1: or fact finder could find in their favor, then you 419 00:26:20,680 --> 00:26:23,560 Speaker 1: look to see, are there lots of other people who 420 00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:29,480 Speaker 1: are similarly situated to be in UM a position where 421 00:26:29,520 --> 00:26:33,680 Speaker 1: it's efficient to have this trial all held together and 422 00:26:33,880 --> 00:26:36,640 Speaker 1: it makes sense to do so. So yes, I think 423 00:26:36,680 --> 00:26:40,919 Speaker 1: that typically when an event happens that is related to 424 00:26:40,920 --> 00:26:43,720 Speaker 1: a class action, you will find law firms looking for 425 00:26:44,000 --> 00:26:49,080 Speaker 1: those UM those names plaintiffs who would be a strong 426 00:26:49,240 --> 00:26:53,320 Speaker 1: representative for a tutitive class to be certified at a 427 00:26:53,359 --> 00:26:57,480 Speaker 1: later point. So, does this sound like it's a good 428 00:26:57,520 --> 00:27:01,040 Speaker 1: case for a class action and a judge would certify 429 00:27:01,200 --> 00:27:04,840 Speaker 1: these students as a class? I guess it depends how 430 00:27:04,960 --> 00:27:09,720 Speaker 1: broad the class is that UM the pliantists are speaking 431 00:27:09,760 --> 00:27:15,359 Speaker 1: to name here. If you're staying within one institution that 432 00:27:15,560 --> 00:27:21,280 Speaker 1: is eliminating some of the UM dissimilar mist of the 433 00:27:21,359 --> 00:27:23,920 Speaker 1: claims that wouldn't it would be brought by the various 434 00:27:23,880 --> 00:27:29,320 Speaker 1: plantifs um. For certain areas, I think class action could 435 00:27:29,400 --> 00:27:36,159 Speaker 1: be a more natural vehicle to use, such as woman 436 00:27:36,240 --> 00:27:40,320 Speaker 1: board sees. Everybody would be similarly situated with that because 437 00:27:40,359 --> 00:27:43,680 Speaker 1: they would have the same contractual agreement, they would be 438 00:27:43,800 --> 00:27:48,320 Speaker 1: paying the same sees, and they would not be um 439 00:27:48,400 --> 00:27:53,600 Speaker 1: making any differences in that. For some other areas, like tuition, 440 00:27:54,480 --> 00:27:57,840 Speaker 1: perhaps the detriment that has been suffered by each student 441 00:27:58,200 --> 00:28:01,280 Speaker 1: is varied, so there's going to be some more kurdels. 442 00:28:01,320 --> 00:28:03,800 Speaker 1: I think at the class if it gets the class 443 00:28:03,840 --> 00:28:07,879 Speaker 1: certification stage to certify a class on those types of plants. 444 00:28:08,560 --> 00:28:11,919 Speaker 1: So if this is not certified as a class, if 445 00:28:11,960 --> 00:28:16,399 Speaker 1: these are not certified as class actions, will the plaintiffs 446 00:28:16,480 --> 00:28:21,280 Speaker 1: lawyers go away? Because to represent students individually would cost 447 00:28:21,440 --> 00:28:25,160 Speaker 1: so much what would the benefit be to them? That's 448 00:28:25,160 --> 00:28:29,240 Speaker 1: exactly right. One of the big benefits to class actions 449 00:28:29,680 --> 00:28:36,040 Speaker 1: is it allows plaintiffs to bring relatively small claims that 450 00:28:36,600 --> 00:28:41,560 Speaker 1: aren't enough that it would be worthwhile for one plaintiff 451 00:28:41,640 --> 00:28:46,120 Speaker 1: to bring. It's expensive to bring litigation, and so if 452 00:28:46,160 --> 00:28:50,200 Speaker 1: there's only a couple of thousand dollars, you could easily 453 00:28:50,440 --> 00:28:55,200 Speaker 1: spend more in litigation fees than you would recover, and 454 00:28:55,280 --> 00:28:59,240 Speaker 1: in situation like this, we would have certain upper limits 455 00:28:59,440 --> 00:29:02,520 Speaker 1: on the amount that any individual student went to cover. 456 00:29:03,040 --> 00:29:06,680 Speaker 1: This isn't like a court action where someone was negligent 457 00:29:06,920 --> 00:29:10,080 Speaker 1: and you're going for medical expenses or pain and suffering. 458 00:29:10,840 --> 00:29:14,280 Speaker 1: To my noge, nobody was alleging that anyone was negligence 459 00:29:14,320 --> 00:29:17,880 Speaker 1: or did any wrongdoing. Here, um, the Internet was caused 460 00:29:17,920 --> 00:29:22,200 Speaker 1: by a global pandemic. Were argument is contract damages. So 461 00:29:22,480 --> 00:29:25,280 Speaker 1: the maximum amount you could get would be the the amount 462 00:29:25,440 --> 00:29:29,920 Speaker 1: you were benefited or the benefits you lost under that contract, 463 00:29:30,200 --> 00:29:32,480 Speaker 1: because that would be about a quarter of the year, 464 00:29:33,200 --> 00:29:35,960 Speaker 1: and even that it wouldn't be full tuition because you 465 00:29:36,000 --> 00:29:40,480 Speaker 1: are getting a some value of it by getting credits 466 00:29:40,520 --> 00:29:43,760 Speaker 1: and finishing pouse that term not having to take it again. 467 00:29:44,320 --> 00:29:49,880 Speaker 1: So there may be difficulties for an individual plaintiff to 468 00:29:49,920 --> 00:29:54,959 Speaker 1: bring a claim which could support an argument for for 469 00:29:54,960 --> 00:29:57,640 Speaker 1: for pross action. Thanks for being on Bloomberg Lade Joe. 470 00:29:58,080 --> 00:30:01,560 Speaker 1: That's Joe Brennan, a professor from law school, and that's 471 00:30:01,560 --> 00:30:04,440 Speaker 1: it for the edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm June Grosso. 472 00:30:04,640 --> 00:30:06,680 Speaker 1: Thanks for listening and remember to tune in to the 473 00:30:06,680 --> 00:30:09,880 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law show weeknights at ten pm Eastern from Bloomberg 474 00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:15,960 Speaker 1: Radio