1
00:00:03,480 --> 00:00:07,560
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

2
00:00:07,640 --> 00:00:10,440
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

3
00:00:10,480 --> 00:00:13,440
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more

4
00:00:13,480 --> 00:00:18,040
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

5
00:00:18,320 --> 00:00:23,720
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com Slash Podcasts. Advantage federal prosecutors

6
00:00:23,720 --> 00:00:26,439
Speaker 1: In a high stakes court battle between President Trump and

7
00:00:26,480 --> 00:00:29,840
Speaker 1: his own Justice Department, New York Federal Judge Kimba Wood

8
00:00:29,880 --> 00:00:33,560
Speaker 1: rejected Trump's request to get exclusive access to evidence seized

9
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:36,600
Speaker 1: by the FBI last week from his longtime personal lawyer

10
00:00:36,720 --> 00:00:39,839
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen. The judge did not make a final decision,

11
00:00:39,920 --> 00:00:42,600
Speaker 1: but one decision she made led to the biggest revelation

12
00:00:42,640 --> 00:00:45,919
Speaker 1: in the hearing one of Cohen's three clients with Seawan Hannity,

13
00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:48,839
Speaker 1: the Fox News commentator who's a Trump supporter and for

14
00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:52,280
Speaker 1: the last week has denounced the count Cohen raids, joining

15
00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:54,720
Speaker 1: me as former federal prosecutor Robert Mint's a partner at

16
00:00:54,760 --> 00:00:58,800
Speaker 1: McCarter and English Bob. Usually, in a case involving evidence

17
00:00:58,840 --> 00:01:02,320
Speaker 1: that might involve uch communications between an attorney and a client,

18
00:01:02,680 --> 00:01:05,520
Speaker 1: a separate team of prosecutors that's been called a taint

19
00:01:05,680 --> 00:01:09,120
Speaker 1: team reviews the evidence. First, why should the president be

20
00:01:09,280 --> 00:01:12,280
Speaker 1: treated any differently than anyone else at this stage of

21
00:01:12,280 --> 00:01:16,679
Speaker 1: the investigation. Well, at this point, we don't know whether

22
00:01:16,760 --> 00:01:19,520
Speaker 1: that actually will happen. The judge has not made a

23
00:01:19,560 --> 00:01:22,920
Speaker 1: final decision on how she intends to handle this review

24
00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:25,480
Speaker 1: as to whether the documents that were taken during the

25
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:30,479
Speaker 1: search of Mr Khan's office will we're actually privileged or not. Uh,

26
00:01:30,480 --> 00:01:33,119
Speaker 1: And so what the judges said is she is considering

27
00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:37,120
Speaker 1: either the the traditional form of review, which, as you say,

28
00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:40,640
Speaker 1: is a taint team of federal prosecutor who are unrelated

29
00:01:40,680 --> 00:01:44,880
Speaker 1: to the investigation, who will review the information to call

30
00:01:45,000 --> 00:01:48,000
Speaker 1: out anything that would be considered attorney client privilege. Or

31
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:51,680
Speaker 1: the possibility is also that she will appoint an independent lawyer,

32
00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:54,840
Speaker 1: something called a special master, someone who doesn't work for

33
00:01:54,880 --> 00:01:58,440
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, who will review the records to

34
00:01:58,680 --> 00:02:02,560
Speaker 1: try to call out any attorney client privileged information. And

35
00:02:02,600 --> 00:02:05,400
Speaker 1: I think she did. She's doing this not because she

36
00:02:05,520 --> 00:02:09,280
Speaker 1: has any concerns about the impartiality or the integrity of

37
00:02:09,320 --> 00:02:11,880
Speaker 1: the prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, but

38
00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:16,320
Speaker 1: she recognizes that appearance of any kind of unfairness is

39
00:02:16,360 --> 00:02:19,600
Speaker 1: going to be closely scrutinized given the high profile nature

40
00:02:19,639 --> 00:02:22,480
Speaker 1: of this case. She did say I have faith in

41
00:02:22,480 --> 00:02:26,119
Speaker 1: the Southern District U. S. Attorney's office, and their integrity

42
00:02:26,200 --> 00:02:29,680
Speaker 1: is unimpeachable. Is that any kind of a message to Trump,

43
00:02:29,680 --> 00:02:32,799
Speaker 1: who has made it a practice to denigrade federal judges

44
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:36,760
Speaker 1: and the Justice Department. Well, I think she's certainly setting

45
00:02:36,760 --> 00:02:40,520
Speaker 1: a clear signal that she is not buying into any

46
00:02:40,720 --> 00:02:45,800
Speaker 1: arguments that prosecutors have been corrupted in any way or

47
00:02:45,840 --> 00:02:48,480
Speaker 1: that there is some kind of political bias that is

48
00:02:48,520 --> 00:02:51,960
Speaker 1: motivating this investigation. But on the other hand, she is

49
00:02:52,040 --> 00:02:54,760
Speaker 1: sensitive to the fact that this is going to be

50
00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:58,800
Speaker 1: very closely watched and she wants to be concerned about

51
00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:02,320
Speaker 1: not only the actual bias, but appearance of bias. And

52
00:03:02,360 --> 00:03:04,839
Speaker 1: I think in the end, it's likely that we'll see

53
00:03:04,840 --> 00:03:07,640
Speaker 1: a special Master play at least some role in the

54
00:03:07,639 --> 00:03:11,800
Speaker 1: course of this document review. Bob explain what they do

55
00:03:11,840 --> 00:03:15,160
Speaker 1: when they go through these documents. And because every lawyer,

56
00:03:15,280 --> 00:03:19,519
Speaker 1: every communication between a lawyer and a client is not privileged. No,

57
00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:23,680
Speaker 1: that's right, and that's an important understanding that just because

58
00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:26,600
Speaker 1: an attorney is involved in the communication does not render

59
00:03:26,680 --> 00:03:31,239
Speaker 1: that an attorney client privileged communication. Often attorneys work as

60
00:03:31,680 --> 00:03:35,840
Speaker 1: business advisors, um they may not be communicating with an

61
00:03:35,880 --> 00:03:39,360
Speaker 1: individual in the course of seeking legal advice. All of

62
00:03:39,400 --> 00:03:42,720
Speaker 1: that would not be privileged. The classic attorney client privileged

63
00:03:42,760 --> 00:03:46,880
Speaker 1: communication as a situation where an individual provides information to

64
00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:51,080
Speaker 1: an attorney for the purpose of seeking legal advice, and

65
00:03:51,160 --> 00:03:55,440
Speaker 1: the question of whether the privileged privilege exists primarily turns

66
00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:58,800
Speaker 1: on whether the client believes that the information that they

67
00:03:58,840 --> 00:04:02,120
Speaker 1: are providing is for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

68
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:05,320
Speaker 1: and they believe that it will be treated confidential in

69
00:04:05,360 --> 00:04:08,880
Speaker 1: a confidential way by the attorney. The New York Times

70
00:04:08,920 --> 00:04:13,400
Speaker 1: reported that people in the Trump administrations say that they

71
00:04:13,440 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 1: see Cohen's the inquiry about Cohen as a more serious

72
00:04:17,279 --> 00:04:21,960
Speaker 1: threat to Trump than the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

73
00:04:22,600 --> 00:04:27,080
Speaker 1: Can you explain why they might see that, Well, it's

74
00:04:27,080 --> 00:04:30,920
Speaker 1: hard to say, not having any access to the search

75
00:04:31,000 --> 00:04:33,880
Speaker 1: war an application that the government brought before a federal

76
00:04:33,960 --> 00:04:37,280
Speaker 1: judge in order to see the records, or certainly no

77
00:04:37,360 --> 00:04:40,560
Speaker 1: idea of what might be in those records. But whenever

78
00:04:41,000 --> 00:04:45,040
Speaker 1: prosecutors get a hold of communications between an attorney and

79
00:04:46,080 --> 00:04:49,840
Speaker 1: their client, there is it is a very high bar

80
00:04:49,960 --> 00:04:51,719
Speaker 1: that has to be met, first of all, in order

81
00:04:51,760 --> 00:04:54,160
Speaker 1: to be given a search, in order to have a

82
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 1: search war and granted for that type of search, and

83
00:04:57,520 --> 00:05:01,119
Speaker 1: you never know what kind of information might be found there.

84
00:05:01,360 --> 00:05:05,000
Speaker 1: It suggests from the outset that they certainly believe that

85
00:05:05,080 --> 00:05:07,719
Speaker 1: there is a possibility that Mr Cohen might be involved

86
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 1: in some kind of criminal activity, and given his close

87
00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:15,159
Speaker 1: relationship with President Trump, there is certainly speculation that this

88
00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:18,400
Speaker 1: could pose a serious threat to President Trump. I want

89
00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:20,479
Speaker 1: to turn to to Sean Hanny for a moment. He

90
00:05:20,560 --> 00:05:23,520
Speaker 1: later released a statement saying Cohen had never represented me

91
00:05:23,520 --> 00:05:26,880
Speaker 1: in any matter, although they occasionally had brief discussions about

92
00:05:26,960 --> 00:05:31,520
Speaker 1: legal questions that he assumed. We're confidential now, so can

93
00:05:31,560 --> 00:05:33,719
Speaker 1: you I know you don't know this for a fact,

94
00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:38,760
Speaker 1: But why was he then listed as a client by Cohen? Well,

95
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:42,640
Speaker 1: that's a good question. There's been some contradictory statements about

96
00:05:43,160 --> 00:05:47,640
Speaker 1: the relationship between Sean Hannity and Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen

97
00:05:47,760 --> 00:05:50,800
Speaker 1: only had three legal law clients in the in the

98
00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:53,719
Speaker 1: last eighteen months, so it's not like he's got a

99
00:05:53,760 --> 00:05:57,760
Speaker 1: list of many clients. He obviously was operating uh much

100
00:05:57,800 --> 00:06:00,840
Speaker 1: as a business advisor and not a thing as a lawyer,

101
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:05,680
Speaker 1: and most of his interactions he identified um Mr Handy

102
00:06:05,720 --> 00:06:08,480
Speaker 1: as a client. And the reason he did so is

103
00:06:08,520 --> 00:06:12,320
Speaker 1: that when the U. S. Attorney's Office paint team, or

104
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:15,400
Speaker 1: whether the Special Master is ultimately brought in here is

105
00:06:15,440 --> 00:06:18,159
Speaker 1: going through those communications. The first thing that the court

106
00:06:18,240 --> 00:06:20,800
Speaker 1: wants to know is who are the clients. So when

107
00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:23,480
Speaker 1: they see a communication, for example, between Mr Bob, we've

108
00:06:23,480 --> 00:06:25,640
Speaker 1: gotta we've got to stop there. But I'm sure we'll

109
00:06:25,680 --> 00:06:28,479
Speaker 1: be picking up with this discussion again. That's Robert Mints,

110
00:06:28,520 --> 00:06:34,400
Speaker 1: a partner at McCarter in English. A busy day for

111
00:06:34,440 --> 00:06:37,320
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court as it handed down decisions in several

112
00:06:37,360 --> 00:06:39,800
Speaker 1: cases and heard oral arguments in one of the high

113
00:06:39,800 --> 00:06:43,280
Speaker 1: profile cases of the term. Joining us is Bloomberg, Supreme

114
00:06:43,360 --> 00:06:46,080
Speaker 1: Court reporter of Greg's store. So Greg, let's start with

115
00:06:46,120 --> 00:06:49,479
Speaker 1: news about Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She broke her right soul

116
00:06:49,720 --> 00:06:52,920
Speaker 1: shoulder in a fall at her Washington home yesterday. Why

117
00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:55,560
Speaker 1: she had oral arguments today? She was at the oral

118
00:06:55,640 --> 00:06:58,960
Speaker 1: argument today and yesterdays. UM had her fact apparently before

119
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:02,840
Speaker 1: they had gotten diagnosis that it was indeed broken. Um,

120
00:07:03,040 --> 00:07:04,760
Speaker 1: she looked like she might have had a sling on

121
00:07:04,920 --> 00:07:07,880
Speaker 1: underneath her robe. The Supreme Court says that she'll she'll

122
00:07:07,880 --> 00:07:10,560
Speaker 1: have a sling on for several weeks. Um, but otherwise

123
00:07:10,560 --> 00:07:13,640
Speaker 1: seemed to be functioning as normal. And we should note

124
00:07:13,720 --> 00:07:17,760
Speaker 1: that she is diabetic and in January, emergency medical personnel

125
00:07:17,800 --> 00:07:21,440
Speaker 1: treated her at her home for symptoms of low blood sugar. So,

126
00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:25,680
Speaker 1: and let's let's turn to what the court actually did today.

127
00:07:26,160 --> 00:07:29,080
Speaker 1: In a loss for the Trump administration, the court throughout

128
00:07:29,120 --> 00:07:32,360
Speaker 1: a provision in federal immigration law that made it easier

129
00:07:32,400 --> 00:07:35,320
Speaker 1: to deport immigrants who have been convicted of crimes. By

130
00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:37,880
Speaker 1: a vote of five to four. What was the reasoning

131
00:07:38,000 --> 00:07:40,800
Speaker 1: of the majority there? Yes, So, so this has to

132
00:07:40,920 --> 00:07:43,880
Speaker 1: do with people who have committed a crime and a

133
00:07:44,000 --> 00:07:46,200
Speaker 1: definition that says, if you've been convicted of a crime

134
00:07:46,320 --> 00:07:48,920
Speaker 1: of violence, Uh, it's it's a little bit easier to

135
00:07:49,080 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 1: deport you. Um. And the question for the court and

136
00:07:52,200 --> 00:07:54,680
Speaker 1: what the majority found was whether the majority found that

137
00:07:54,760 --> 00:07:59,680
Speaker 1: this provision was so vague that it's unconstitutional. Uh, it's

138
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:02,600
Speaker 1: the case. The court actually heard arguments and twice the

139
00:08:02,680 --> 00:08:06,400
Speaker 1: Trump administration has inherited the position of the Obama administration

140
00:08:06,880 --> 00:08:10,200
Speaker 1: trying to defend this provision. But last term, when the

141
00:08:10,240 --> 00:08:12,400
Speaker 1: Court only had eight justices, they couldn't come up with

142
00:08:12,440 --> 00:08:15,440
Speaker 1: a five justice majority, so they re rehearded this term

143
00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:19,200
Speaker 1: with the Trump administration defending the law. It turns out unsuccessfully,

144
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:24,160
Speaker 1: and Neil Gorcich was actually the decisive vote here. He

145
00:08:24,240 --> 00:08:27,880
Speaker 1: agreed with the liberal justices in that five to four decision.

146
00:08:28,480 --> 00:08:31,560
Speaker 1: The Court also dropped a high profile case which pitied

147
00:08:31,640 --> 00:08:35,439
Speaker 1: the Justice Department against Microsoft in a class over digital

148
00:08:35,520 --> 00:08:39,000
Speaker 1: privacy and international law. Why was that case dropped? Yes,

149
00:08:39,280 --> 00:08:44,680
Speaker 1: this was dropped because it was interpreting law that Congress

150
00:08:44,920 --> 00:08:47,760
Speaker 1: later updated. They updated it as part of part of

151
00:08:48,120 --> 00:08:51,400
Speaker 1: that omnibus spending bill that got attention for all sorts

152
00:08:51,440 --> 00:08:55,360
Speaker 1: of other reasons. UH, and in it it clarified the

153
00:08:55,480 --> 00:08:58,959
Speaker 1: rules for when U. S law enforcement officials are trying

154
00:08:59,040 --> 00:09:02,880
Speaker 1: to get data that is held by a US computer

155
00:09:03,000 --> 00:09:06,560
Speaker 1: company or some other type of telecom company being held

156
00:09:06,640 --> 00:09:09,280
Speaker 1: on an overseas server. The case before the court involved

157
00:09:09,679 --> 00:09:13,760
Speaker 1: UH Microsoft emails that are being held in UH stored

158
00:09:14,200 --> 00:09:18,200
Speaker 1: in Ireland. The question was whether the Justice Department could

159
00:09:18,480 --> 00:09:21,760
Speaker 1: get access to those emails. The new law says that

160
00:09:21,800 --> 00:09:24,560
Speaker 1: in this sort of situation, generally the US can get

161
00:09:24,600 --> 00:09:27,160
Speaker 1: access to those emails, but there are new provisions that

162
00:09:27,280 --> 00:09:30,520
Speaker 1: let both the tech companies and the foreign governments object

163
00:09:30,559 --> 00:09:33,040
Speaker 1: if there's some sort of problem. That's an easy way

164
00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:36,600
Speaker 1: to decide a case. When it's decided for you. Let's

165
00:09:36,679 --> 00:09:39,400
Speaker 1: talk about this high profile case that we spoke about

166
00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:42,559
Speaker 1: a little bit yesterday over whether states can start collecting

167
00:09:42,640 --> 00:09:46,439
Speaker 1: billions of dollars in sales taxes from internet retailers that

168
00:09:46,520 --> 00:09:50,120
Speaker 1: don't currently charge tax to their customers. Could you get

169
00:09:50,160 --> 00:09:54,320
Speaker 1: a read on how the justices were leaning? It was tough, Jude.

170
00:09:54,400 --> 00:09:55,839
Speaker 1: I have to tell you a lot of us went

171
00:09:55,880 --> 00:09:57,679
Speaker 1: in there thinking there was a really good chance the

172
00:09:57,760 --> 00:10:01,719
Speaker 1: Court was going to overturn president and free states to

173
00:10:01,920 --> 00:10:05,560
Speaker 1: tax internet reads are required internet retailers to collect sales

174
00:10:05,600 --> 00:10:08,920
Speaker 1: taxes regardless of whether they have a store warehouse in

175
00:10:09,040 --> 00:10:12,880
Speaker 1: the state. Um the South Dakota, which is trying to

176
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:16,240
Speaker 1: overturn that ruling, started with a three nothing advantage because

177
00:10:16,280 --> 00:10:18,400
Speaker 1: you have three justices who have already said that they

178
00:10:18,480 --> 00:10:20,880
Speaker 1: want to let states do this, And it was pretty

179
00:10:20,920 --> 00:10:23,160
Speaker 1: clear today to me at least, that they picked up

180
00:10:23,200 --> 00:10:26,200
Speaker 1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The question is whether they picked

181
00:10:26,280 --> 00:10:28,480
Speaker 1: up that fifth vote or not. And and there it

182
00:10:28,559 --> 00:10:30,520
Speaker 1: was a lot harder, harder to tell. You had a

183
00:10:30,559 --> 00:10:32,800
Speaker 1: lot of justices who were asking questions of both sides,

184
00:10:33,880 --> 00:10:37,280
Speaker 1: and tell me about it. Seemed as if there was

185
00:10:37,280 --> 00:10:41,680
Speaker 1: an unusual coalition Justices Sonya Soto Mayor and Samuel Alito.

186
00:10:41,840 --> 00:10:45,079
Speaker 1: Tell me about what they were asking. Yes, so, so

187
00:10:45,280 --> 00:10:48,280
Speaker 1: the two of them seemed to be the most reluctant

188
00:10:48,360 --> 00:10:53,839
Speaker 1: to overturn that president UM Justice So Mayor UH asked

189
00:10:53,880 --> 00:10:56,319
Speaker 1: the first several questions in the case of the South

190
00:10:56,400 --> 00:11:00,120
Speaker 1: Dakota lawyer, and she essentially said, um, you know, your

191
00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:03,280
Speaker 1: problem isn't with this ruling, which is called quill. Your

192
00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:06,240
Speaker 1: problem is that you need a mechanism to um to

193
00:11:07,000 --> 00:11:09,800
Speaker 1: to get the consumers who actually owe this tax to

194
00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:12,319
Speaker 1: pay it. So you need to find a method for

195
00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 1: uh for um UH for collecting it from get getting

196
00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:19,040
Speaker 1: them to collect it. So she seemed like a vote

197
00:11:19,080 --> 00:11:22,160
Speaker 1: to to leave the quill president intact. Later on, just

198
00:11:22,280 --> 00:11:25,160
Speaker 1: as Alito joined as well. I believe all his questions

199
00:11:25,200 --> 00:11:28,319
Speaker 1: were asked of South Dakota, not on the other side. Certainly,

200
00:11:28,480 --> 00:11:33,040
Speaker 1: he was very seemed very reluctant to jump into this

201
00:11:33,200 --> 00:11:36,920
Speaker 1: fray and and change the status quo, Well, what about

202
00:11:37,040 --> 00:11:41,400
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts as far as the Conservatives where they might

203
00:11:41,480 --> 00:11:43,959
Speaker 1: be able to pick up a vote, Yeah, so he

204
00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:48,000
Speaker 1: is was tough to read. He asked questions of both

205
00:11:48,080 --> 00:11:52,559
Speaker 1: sides a couple of times. He asked the lawyer for

206
00:11:52,600 --> 00:11:55,000
Speaker 1: South Dakota and the Trump administration, which is which is

207
00:11:55,040 --> 00:11:58,280
Speaker 1: on South Dakota's side, whether there was some sort of

208
00:11:58,840 --> 00:12:03,640
Speaker 1: minimum require meant for economic contact with a state. So

209
00:12:03,800 --> 00:12:06,880
Speaker 1: South South Dakota says, our law only applies you only

210
00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:10,440
Speaker 1: have to collect taxes if you make a certain amount

211
00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:13,240
Speaker 1: of sales in the state. And anyone to know is

212
00:12:13,320 --> 00:12:15,880
Speaker 1: that constitutionally or required that there be some sort of

213
00:12:15,960 --> 00:12:19,959
Speaker 1: minimum amount of sales? And neither South Dakota nor the

214
00:12:20,000 --> 00:12:22,000
Speaker 1: Trump administration was willing to say, yes, there is a

215
00:12:22,080 --> 00:12:25,160
Speaker 1: constitutional minimum, or at least not a clear constitutional minimum.

216
00:12:25,600 --> 00:12:27,800
Speaker 1: Not clear to me what the Chief Justice is going

217
00:12:27,840 --> 00:12:31,280
Speaker 1: to do with that? That answer, Uh, he seems to

218
00:12:31,360 --> 00:12:33,120
Speaker 1: be a vote, a vote that could go either way

219
00:12:33,120 --> 00:12:37,280
Speaker 1: at this point. And how Brier It's some arguments this

220
00:12:37,480 --> 00:12:41,120
Speaker 1: term has been camouflaging, is his or at least asking

221
00:12:41,240 --> 00:12:44,080
Speaker 1: questions so much of both sides. How Howard did Briar

222
00:12:44,240 --> 00:12:48,040
Speaker 1: and um and Kagan react Yes, I would say Briar

223
00:12:48,120 --> 00:12:51,280
Speaker 1: was sort of camouflaged in plain sight, as he does sometimes.

224
00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:55,400
Speaker 1: He essentially told people what his problem was, which is that, um,

225
00:12:55,440 --> 00:12:58,080
Speaker 1: there are a lot of factual problems here that one

226
00:12:58,160 --> 00:13:02,599
Speaker 1: side says, oh, alliance with with state taxation will be

227
00:13:02,720 --> 00:13:06,680
Speaker 1: really really hard for small retailers. The other side says, oh, actually,

228
00:13:06,840 --> 00:13:08,959
Speaker 1: you get the software. It takes care of everything. And

229
00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:11,760
Speaker 1: he basically said, I don't know what what the right

230
00:13:11,800 --> 00:13:15,200
Speaker 1: answer to that is, and UM, I don't know how

231
00:13:15,240 --> 00:13:17,440
Speaker 1: I'm going to figure that out. And it's the kind

232
00:13:17,480 --> 00:13:19,599
Speaker 1: of thing that Congress we have much better equipped for

233
00:13:20,200 --> 00:13:23,400
Speaker 1: for dealing with. Now, it's important that you know, regardless

234
00:13:23,440 --> 00:13:26,959
Speaker 1: how this case comes out, Congress could essentially overturn what

235
00:13:27,080 --> 00:13:29,040
Speaker 1: the Court does. This is not an area where the

236
00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:34,199
Speaker 1: court gets the final word. UM so uh, the question

237
00:13:34,280 --> 00:13:36,199
Speaker 1: is kind of what the Court's gonna create as the

238
00:13:36,280 --> 00:13:39,680
Speaker 1: default rule. What's going to be the rule going forward

239
00:13:39,920 --> 00:13:42,840
Speaker 1: unless Congress, which of course has some trouble passing legislation.

240
00:13:42,960 --> 00:13:47,040
Speaker 1: Unless Congress passes UH legislation to deal with us. So, Greg,

241
00:13:47,240 --> 00:13:48,959
Speaker 1: we've only a minute here. I'm gonna ask you a

242
00:13:49,040 --> 00:13:52,079
Speaker 1: big question. You know you're there all the time. So

243
00:13:52,200 --> 00:13:54,640
Speaker 1: we see this, you know, from time to time, and

244
00:13:54,720 --> 00:13:57,280
Speaker 1: it seems as if there might be some unusual alliances

245
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:01,200
Speaker 1: forming a different of these arguments. Um, is that true

246
00:14:01,360 --> 00:14:04,720
Speaker 1: or is it basically still liberals versus the Conservatives. Well,

247
00:14:04,800 --> 00:14:08,280
Speaker 1: so this case today involves something called the dormant commerce cause,

248
00:14:08,360 --> 00:14:11,200
Speaker 1: and that is an area where it comma defies ideological

249
00:14:11,920 --> 00:14:15,199
Speaker 1: uh description. So that's not that much of a surprise.

250
00:14:15,440 --> 00:14:17,920
Speaker 1: The Gorsets. The first case we talked about today with

251
00:14:18,000 --> 00:14:22,360
Speaker 1: the deportation case with Gorset's joined the liberals, was definitely noteworthy. Um,

252
00:14:22,720 --> 00:14:25,560
Speaker 1: and that's something to watch going forward. Um that there

253
00:14:25,640 --> 00:14:28,640
Speaker 1: might be occasions when he sort of goes against type

254
00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:31,480
Speaker 1: and votes with the liberals. Well, it's always nice to

255
00:14:31,480 --> 00:14:35,680
Speaker 1: seem see crossing of those lines anyway, Thanks so much, Greg.

256
00:14:36,000 --> 00:14:39,600
Speaker 1: As always, that's Bloomberg Supreme Court Report at Greg's store,

257
00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:43,360
Speaker 1: and he'll be of course following the arguments again tomorrow.

258
00:14:43,640 --> 00:14:46,560
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

259
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:50,320
Speaker 1: subscribe and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

260
00:14:50,440 --> 00:14:54,320
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

261
00:14:54,800 --> 00:14:58,760
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg. Yeah,