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

2
00:00:10,320 --> 00:00:13,520
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso. TikTok

3
00:00:13,680 --> 00:00:17,360
Speaker 1: may disappear in the US next month after an appellate

4
00:00:17,440 --> 00:00:21,800
Speaker 1: court upholds a band. Transgender writes at a legal crossroad

5
00:00:22,120 --> 00:00:25,599
Speaker 1: as the Supreme Court's conservatives seem ready to uphold a

6
00:00:25,760 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 1: Tennessee band on gender affirming treatments for miners, and the

7
00:00:31,080 --> 00:00:35,959
Speaker 1: rap battle between superstar rappers Drake and Kendrick Lamar ends

8
00:00:36,080 --> 00:00:37,640
Speaker 1: up in court sort of.

9
00:00:38,680 --> 00:00:41,520
Speaker 2: For all of those that want to save TikTok in America,

10
00:00:41,640 --> 00:00:42,440
Speaker 2: vote for Trump.

11
00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:46,360
Speaker 3: The other side's closing it up. But I'm now a

12
00:00:46,400 --> 00:00:48,360
Speaker 3: big star on TikTok.

13
00:00:49,120 --> 00:00:53,680
Speaker 1: Present elect Donald Trump campaigned on saving TikTok as he

14
00:00:53,800 --> 00:00:57,960
Speaker 1: courted younger Americans despite trying to force its sale during

15
00:00:57,960 --> 00:01:01,640
Speaker 1: his first term. But on Friday, the DC Circuit Court

16
00:01:01,640 --> 00:01:06,560
Speaker 1: of Appeals unanimously upheld the new US law which bans

17
00:01:06,600 --> 00:01:10,880
Speaker 1: TikTok unless it divests from Chinese ownership, ruling that the

18
00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:14,759
Speaker 1: ban doesn't violate free speech rights. The ban will kick

19
00:01:14,800 --> 00:01:19,039
Speaker 1: in on January nineteenth, the day before Trump is inaugurated,

20
00:01:19,280 --> 00:01:22,600
Speaker 1: and in any event, it's unclear what Trump could do

21
00:01:22,680 --> 00:01:25,479
Speaker 1: at this point. The only hope for TikTok, and it's

22
00:01:25,560 --> 00:01:29,680
Speaker 1: more than one hundred seventy million American users, appears to

23
00:01:29,680 --> 00:01:32,520
Speaker 1: be the Supreme Court, and the company says it will

24
00:01:32,520 --> 00:01:35,920
Speaker 1: appeal the decision to the court. Joining me is Eric Goleman,

25
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:39,600
Speaker 1: a professor at Santa Clara University Law School and co

26
00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:43,000
Speaker 1: director of the High Tech Law Institute. So, Eric, this

27
00:01:43,080 --> 00:01:47,800
Speaker 1: three judge panel unanimously upheld the law banning TikTok. How

28
00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:49,280
Speaker 1: did they reach that conclusion?

29
00:01:49,640 --> 00:01:53,800
Speaker 4: The majority's view is that the TikTok band satisfied the

30
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:58,880
Speaker 4: highest levels of constitutional scrutiny, that even if it was

31
00:01:58,960 --> 00:02:03,960
Speaker 4: conceived as a restriction on speech, that the government's national

32
00:02:04,000 --> 00:02:09,919
Speaker 4: security interests were compelling enough to justify the speech restrictive effects.

33
00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:13,640
Speaker 1: Did they acknowledge the First Amendment interests at stake here?

34
00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:17,440
Speaker 4: Yes, they did. And the majority in fact applied the

35
00:02:17,560 --> 00:02:21,160
Speaker 4: highest level of protection that's available for free speech and

36
00:02:21,240 --> 00:02:23,919
Speaker 4: still said that this was a justifiable and its intervention.

37
00:02:24,120 --> 00:02:27,320
Speaker 4: And that's a rare outcome when a court says that

38
00:02:27,400 --> 00:02:30,760
Speaker 4: a law survives that highest level of scrutiny, and usually

39
00:02:30,800 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 4: it's a sign that the Court is either not actually

40
00:02:33,880 --> 00:02:37,760
Speaker 4: taking that test seriously, or that they are bending the

41
00:02:37,760 --> 00:02:40,920
Speaker 4: factors in the way that lead to a very unexpected outcome.

42
00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:44,920
Speaker 1: The US government didn't offer evidence that China had used

43
00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:49,760
Speaker 1: the app to influence US citizens or steal data. Yet

44
00:02:49,800 --> 00:02:53,040
Speaker 1: the Court wrote here the government acted solely to protect

45
00:02:53,040 --> 00:02:56,440
Speaker 1: that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit

46
00:02:56,480 --> 00:03:00,040
Speaker 1: the adversary's ability to gather data on people in the

47
00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:02,839
Speaker 1: United States. But there was no evidence of that.

48
00:03:03,440 --> 00:03:09,600
Speaker 4: The Court essentially was willing to accept the government's hypothetical

49
00:03:09,680 --> 00:03:13,880
Speaker 4: concerns that there could be some adverse outcome to US

50
00:03:13,919 --> 00:03:18,359
Speaker 4: democracy should China in the future, at some point choose

51
00:03:18,480 --> 00:03:23,120
Speaker 4: to take advantage of whatever leverage it has to manipulate

52
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:28,040
Speaker 4: the content on TikTok. Normally, that kind of hypothetical concern

53
00:03:28,639 --> 00:03:31,600
Speaker 4: is too abstract to be recognized by a court. There's

54
00:03:31,600 --> 00:03:33,160
Speaker 4: a lot of things that could happen in the future.

55
00:03:33,240 --> 00:03:37,000
Speaker 4: We can't use all of those possibilities to justify something

56
00:03:37,040 --> 00:03:40,440
Speaker 4: as serious as an incursion on our free speech rights.

57
00:03:40,800 --> 00:03:43,200
Speaker 4: So the fact that the Court was one to entertain

58
00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:46,240
Speaker 4: that hypothetical is part of how they reached a really

59
00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:50,240
Speaker 4: surprising outcome that this law survived the highest level of

60
00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:53,160
Speaker 4: the scrutiny. They should not have given as much weight

61
00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:57,520
Speaker 4: to that potential hypothetical that had not yet happened.

62
00:03:58,120 --> 00:04:02,160
Speaker 1: A part of the government's information was redacted and hidden

63
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:05,520
Speaker 1: from the public as well as the companies TikTok and

64
00:04:05,680 --> 00:04:09,000
Speaker 1: Byte Dance, so they had to fight the ban without

65
00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:09,840
Speaker 1: all the information.

66
00:04:10,520 --> 00:04:15,480
Speaker 4: So there has been a lot of discussion about confidential

67
00:04:15,680 --> 00:04:19,880
Speaker 4: or sensitive information regarding TikTok's behavior that has not seen

68
00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:23,200
Speaker 4: the light of public day. This court chose to ignore

69
00:04:23,279 --> 00:04:26,040
Speaker 4: that data, and it claimed that it was ruling solely

70
00:04:26,080 --> 00:04:30,039
Speaker 4: based on publicly available information. They were saying that what's

71
00:04:30,160 --> 00:04:34,240
Speaker 4: available in the public was enough to justify the government's intervention.

72
00:04:35,120 --> 00:04:38,680
Speaker 1: And this panel consisted of the chief judge, who's a

73
00:04:38,720 --> 00:04:43,960
Speaker 1: Barack Obama appointee, a Trump appointee, and a Ronald Reagan appointee,

74
00:04:44,040 --> 00:04:46,520
Speaker 1: so it cut across political.

75
00:04:46,120 --> 00:04:48,960
Speaker 4: Lines, that's correct. You know, I don't look at this

76
00:04:49,160 --> 00:04:54,039
Speaker 4: opinion as a partisan opinion and a deal of course,

77
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:57,680
Speaker 4: the opinions are never partisan, but we sometimes question that,

78
00:04:58,000 --> 00:05:00,839
Speaker 4: and of course the efforts to be and TikTok have

79
00:05:00,920 --> 00:05:05,240
Speaker 4: been bipartisan. That Day's come from both a Republican president,

80
00:05:05,360 --> 00:05:10,039
Speaker 4: a democratic president, and got bipartisan support in Congress, so

81
00:05:10,480 --> 00:05:13,480
Speaker 4: I don't really think that the partisan angle really helps here.

82
00:05:13,880 --> 00:05:19,200
Speaker 4: I do think that the senophobia, the ongoing relentless criticism

83
00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:22,320
Speaker 4: of the Chinese government really carry the day in a

84
00:05:22,360 --> 00:05:24,080
Speaker 4: lot of respects for all sides.

85
00:05:24,640 --> 00:05:28,320
Speaker 1: So the ban kicks in the day before President elect

86
00:05:28,400 --> 00:05:32,920
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is inaugurated, his Justice Department would have to

87
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:36,800
Speaker 1: enforce it. And even though he tried to ban TikTok

88
00:05:36,920 --> 00:05:40,839
Speaker 1: during his first term, he said during the most recent

89
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:45,120
Speaker 1: presidential campaign that he's now against a TikTok ban and

90
00:05:45,200 --> 00:05:48,920
Speaker 1: would work to save the social media platform. Where does

91
00:05:48,960 --> 00:05:49,760
Speaker 1: that all fit in?

92
00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:52,280
Speaker 4: I don't know what President Trump is going to do.

93
00:05:52,360 --> 00:05:56,160
Speaker 4: Again is statements are wildly and consistent with each other.

94
00:05:56,360 --> 00:05:58,880
Speaker 4: The last official act he has taken on this topic

95
00:05:58,960 --> 00:06:02,320
Speaker 4: he attempted to ban to so he might have had

96
00:06:02,360 --> 00:06:04,799
Speaker 4: a change of part, but we will only know based

97
00:06:04,800 --> 00:06:07,359
Speaker 4: on an action. I think the bigger question is will

98
00:06:07,480 --> 00:06:10,719
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court have a chance to weigh in before

99
00:06:10,760 --> 00:06:13,320
Speaker 4: the deadline that was set in the statute, which seems

100
00:06:13,400 --> 00:06:18,120
Speaker 4: highly unlikely, and it would be I think logical for

101
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:22,760
Speaker 4: President Biden to extend the band's implementation until the Supreme

102
00:06:22,760 --> 00:06:25,320
Speaker 4: Court has had a chance to weigh in. Of course,

103
00:06:25,360 --> 00:06:28,360
Speaker 4: if President Biden does that, then that would the issue

104
00:06:28,440 --> 00:06:31,800
Speaker 4: over to President Trump for whatever chaos am I into.

105
00:06:32,440 --> 00:06:36,160
Speaker 1: Yeah, so President Biden can grant a ninety day extension

106
00:06:36,640 --> 00:06:41,360
Speaker 1: if there's progress toward divestiture. So let's say that Biden

107
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:44,880
Speaker 1: does grant the extension and the Supreme Court does hear

108
00:06:44,960 --> 00:06:48,840
Speaker 1: the case on an emergency basis, how likely are they

109
00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:51,240
Speaker 1: to block the law at least temporarily.

110
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:53,800
Speaker 4: One of the options available to the Supreme Court will

111
00:06:53,800 --> 00:06:56,880
Speaker 4: be to delay the effectiveness of the Act until it

112
00:06:56,920 --> 00:06:59,200
Speaker 4: completes this review, And I don't know if they're going

113
00:06:59,240 --> 00:07:01,000
Speaker 4: to choose to do that or not. They might be

114
00:07:01,120 --> 00:07:04,920
Speaker 4: that is solely an executive function where the government doesn't

115
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:08,240
Speaker 4: have to pursue implementation until the Supreme Court has weighed in.

116
00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:14,560
Speaker 4: So the Supreme Court's responses to emergency requests like that

117
00:07:14,640 --> 00:07:17,400
Speaker 4: have been somewhat chaotic, and so I'm not sure what

118
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:18,600
Speaker 4: they would do this time.

119
00:07:18,680 --> 00:07:21,360
Speaker 1: If the merits question gets to them. Do you have

120
00:07:21,400 --> 00:07:23,120
Speaker 1: any feel for how they would view it?

121
00:07:23,480 --> 00:07:28,679
Speaker 4: So I do. The TikTok ban really cuts across traditional lines.

122
00:07:28,920 --> 00:07:33,760
Speaker 4: It pulls together as a coalition of adherents or supporters

123
00:07:33,800 --> 00:07:36,960
Speaker 4: who might otherwise not come together. Whether that's because of

124
00:07:36,960 --> 00:07:40,680
Speaker 4: the fears of China or the concerns about national security

125
00:07:41,320 --> 00:07:44,760
Speaker 4: or the lack of interest in free speech. The coalitions

126
00:07:44,840 --> 00:07:47,280
Speaker 4: just look different when it comes to a TikTok ban

127
00:07:47,400 --> 00:07:51,120
Speaker 4: than maybe other kinds of government restrictions. But in July,

128
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,880
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court was quite clear that if we are

129
00:07:54,920 --> 00:07:59,480
Speaker 4: concerned about bias on social media, the government does not

130
00:07:59,680 --> 00:08:03,920
Speaker 4: have right to intervene to de biased or unbiased social media.

131
00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:07,640
Speaker 4: It's very explicit in the opinion that the solution to

132
00:08:08,240 --> 00:08:12,760
Speaker 4: concerns about editorial discussion on social media is not government censorship.

133
00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 4: And the DC Circuits opinion seemed to disregard that. They

134
00:08:18,160 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 4: didn't really acknowledge that very express concern that was on

135
00:08:22,040 --> 00:08:25,239
Speaker 4: the minds of the Supreme Court. So if the Supreme

136
00:08:25,280 --> 00:08:27,840
Speaker 4: Court continues at logic, I think there's good reason to

137
00:08:27,960 --> 00:08:31,679
Speaker 4: question whether or not the TikTok ban can survive because

138
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:34,920
Speaker 4: the government is in fact trying to de biased the

139
00:08:35,040 --> 00:08:38,960
Speaker 4: social media through government intervention. But we don't know if

140
00:08:39,000 --> 00:08:41,200
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court really met we said, or they will

141
00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:45,680
Speaker 4: see this as a qualitatively different circumstance for your favorite reason.

142
00:08:45,920 --> 00:08:48,600
Speaker 4: So it's really hard to particut where the Supreme Court

143
00:08:48,679 --> 00:08:51,520
Speaker 4: might come out. And it's even more troubling if they

144
00:08:51,559 --> 00:08:53,840
Speaker 4: try to do a rush job. They're going to do

145
00:08:53,880 --> 00:08:56,720
Speaker 4: a rush job then don't have the time and flexibility

146
00:08:56,880 --> 00:08:58,719
Speaker 4: to really try to even get in sync with each

147
00:08:58,760 --> 00:09:02,560
Speaker 4: other and coordinate their statements of justifications.

148
00:09:03,040 --> 00:09:08,719
Speaker 1: So what actually happens on January nineteenth on the deadline

149
00:09:09,160 --> 00:09:10,160
Speaker 1: for TikTok?

150
00:09:10,640 --> 00:09:13,080
Speaker 4: So the main thing is that on that day we

151
00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:15,880
Speaker 4: would assume that the app stores will take TikTok out

152
00:09:15,920 --> 00:09:18,840
Speaker 4: of their offerings. The app stores are really a key

153
00:09:18,880 --> 00:09:22,040
Speaker 4: player in this conversation, and they're essentially invisible in the

154
00:09:22,080 --> 00:09:25,520
Speaker 4: court's opinion and in public discussion. The app stores didn't

155
00:09:25,559 --> 00:09:28,520
Speaker 4: weigh in, for example, on the bands. They're just sitting

156
00:09:28,559 --> 00:09:30,959
Speaker 4: silently waiting for people to tell them what to do.

157
00:09:31,240 --> 00:09:33,040
Speaker 4: So if the government tells the app stores to kick

158
00:09:33,080 --> 00:09:35,240
Speaker 4: TikTok out of its app stores, that's going to be

159
00:09:35,280 --> 00:09:40,240
Speaker 4: the first step in the shrinking of TikTok's user base.

160
00:09:40,440 --> 00:09:43,800
Speaker 4: There may be ways to get TikTok installed otherwise, and

161
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:46,280
Speaker 4: you know, I'm sure some people will try, but over time,

162
00:09:46,640 --> 00:09:48,760
Speaker 4: if it's really hard to install an app that app

163
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:51,599
Speaker 4: starts to wither away. Whether or not there will be

164
00:09:51,640 --> 00:09:55,440
Speaker 4: any further destructions to the enjoyment of TikTok by people

165
00:09:55,480 --> 00:09:58,400
Speaker 4: who have it already installed is unclear to me. We'll

166
00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:02,120
Speaker 4: have to see. But if an app isn't growing like TikTok,

167
00:10:02,559 --> 00:10:06,360
Speaker 4: you know, its futures already filed or faded. Of course,

168
00:10:06,400 --> 00:10:08,719
Speaker 4: there's a possibility TikTok will try to find some kind

169
00:10:08,720 --> 00:10:12,200
Speaker 4: of last ditch sale, and that, of course would solve

170
00:10:12,240 --> 00:10:14,480
Speaker 4: the problem, but it's something that TikTok has repeated says

171
00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:17,760
Speaker 4: that they cannot do. So we're like living in terra nova.

172
00:10:17,800 --> 00:10:19,680
Speaker 4: That way, we don't really know what the world looks

173
00:10:19,720 --> 00:10:22,880
Speaker 4: like when a government like ours decides to just.

174
00:10:22,960 --> 00:10:25,319
Speaker 1: Ban an app, an out that one hundred and seventy

175
00:10:25,440 --> 00:10:27,040
Speaker 1: million Americans.

176
00:10:26,559 --> 00:10:30,120
Speaker 4: Use, and many of them are incredibly passionate about their use.

177
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:32,120
Speaker 4: And when I talk to my students about this, and

178
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:34,200
Speaker 4: at the beginning of the semester in the Internet Law,

179
00:10:34,520 --> 00:10:37,040
Speaker 4: they were shocked about the fact that Congress had banned

180
00:10:37,080 --> 00:10:39,600
Speaker 4: the app. They can't imagine that Congress would do something

181
00:10:39,600 --> 00:10:42,360
Speaker 4: that was so contrary to their interests. And I think

182
00:10:42,760 --> 00:10:44,680
Speaker 4: many of those one hundred and seventy million users are

183
00:10:44,840 --> 00:10:48,000
Speaker 4: in for a very big surprise very soon if the

184
00:10:48,000 --> 00:10:50,120
Speaker 4: Supreme Court doesn't reach a different conclusion.

185
00:10:50,480 --> 00:10:54,960
Speaker 1: Theoretically, suppose the Trump administration decides it's not going to

186
00:10:55,080 --> 00:10:57,280
Speaker 1: enforce it, it's not going to tell the apps to

187
00:10:57,360 --> 00:10:59,600
Speaker 1: remove TikTok. I mean, is that possible.

188
00:10:59,800 --> 00:11:03,480
Speaker 4: It's possible, but it's unclear that that solves any problem.

189
00:11:03,760 --> 00:11:07,320
Speaker 4: If the US government were to issue a statement to

190
00:11:08,080 --> 00:11:11,920
Speaker 4: the app stores that they're free to continue carrying TikTok

191
00:11:12,160 --> 00:11:15,760
Speaker 4: without fear of government prosecution, you could imagine app stores

192
00:11:15,800 --> 00:11:20,240
Speaker 4: feeling like that's a sufficiently credible statement to rely upon it.

193
00:11:20,720 --> 00:11:23,320
Speaker 4: But if it comes from the Trump administration, which is

194
00:11:23,440 --> 00:11:27,360
Speaker 4: notorious for flip flopping on policy matters, I can't see

195
00:11:27,360 --> 00:11:30,240
Speaker 4: how that would give any app store any confidence. If

196
00:11:30,280 --> 00:11:34,920
Speaker 4: it were by decision, knowing that there's severe sanctions for violation,

197
00:11:35,360 --> 00:11:39,839
Speaker 4: knowing that that gives leverage to a mercurial government, I

198
00:11:39,880 --> 00:11:41,240
Speaker 4: wouldn't play by those rules.

199
00:11:41,520 --> 00:11:44,040
Speaker 1: Does it seem like Meta and Google have the most

200
00:11:44,160 --> 00:11:46,120
Speaker 1: to gain from a TikTok ban?

201
00:11:46,679 --> 00:11:50,520
Speaker 4: Well, we know that Facebook ran its own quote influence

202
00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:54,360
Speaker 4: operation painting TikTok for many years, they spent millions of

203
00:11:54,400 --> 00:11:59,200
Speaker 4: dollars trying to portray TikTok as an evil actor in Washington,

204
00:11:59,280 --> 00:12:03,000
Speaker 4: d c. And so in that respect, not only do

205
00:12:03,120 --> 00:12:06,640
Speaker 4: they seem to see some financial benefit to knocking TikTok

206
00:12:06,640 --> 00:12:08,720
Speaker 4: out of the market, but it seems like, I guess

207
00:12:08,800 --> 00:12:12,080
Speaker 4: working so far. So you know, we could certainly see

208
00:12:12,120 --> 00:12:15,400
Speaker 4: why Facebook might view this as a net win for it.

209
00:12:16,040 --> 00:12:19,240
Speaker 4: From my perspective, if the government can choose winners and

210
00:12:19,320 --> 00:12:22,839
Speaker 4: losers in the speech marketplace, there's no reasonably Facebook is

211
00:12:22,880 --> 00:12:25,480
Speaker 4: going to avoid that. So they're playing with fire. But

212
00:12:25,720 --> 00:12:28,160
Speaker 4: Facebook has chosen to play with fire, and so far

213
00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:29,360
Speaker 4: it seems to be working for them.

214
00:12:29,559 --> 00:12:31,880
Speaker 1: Well, it seemed to work. On Friday, the day of

215
00:12:31,920 --> 00:12:35,720
Speaker 1: the Court's decision, Meta shares surged as much as three

216
00:12:35,760 --> 00:12:39,680
Speaker 1: point four percent to an intra day record. Google was

217
00:12:39,760 --> 00:12:42,440
Speaker 1: up as much as one point four percent. Thanks so

218
00:12:42,520 --> 00:12:45,480
Speaker 1: much for your inside Eric. That's professor Eric Goleman of

219
00:12:45,559 --> 00:12:48,880
Speaker 1: Santa Clara University Law School, coming up next on the

220
00:12:48,880 --> 00:12:52,360
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show. It's the most high profile case of

221
00:12:52,400 --> 00:12:56,559
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court term so far, and the Court's conservative

222
00:12:56,840 --> 00:13:01,280
Speaker 1: justices seem ready to uphold a Tennessee lawn gender affirming

223
00:13:01,360 --> 00:13:05,360
Speaker 1: treatments for miners. We'll talk to counsel for the transgender

224
00:13:05,440 --> 00:13:09,160
Speaker 1: teenagers and their parents who are challenging the law. I'm

225
00:13:09,200 --> 00:13:11,600
Speaker 1: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.

226
00:13:12,920 --> 00:13:16,360
Speaker 5: Tennessee claims the sex base mind drawing is justified to

227
00:13:16,400 --> 00:13:20,520
Speaker 5: protect children, but SB one has taken away the only

228
00:13:20,600 --> 00:13:23,960
Speaker 5: treatment that relieved years of suffering for each of the

229
00:13:24,000 --> 00:13:25,200
Speaker 5: adolescent plaintiffs.

230
00:13:25,360 --> 00:13:28,800
Speaker 1: It was a historic day at the Supreme Court on Wednesday,

231
00:13:29,160 --> 00:13:34,600
Speaker 1: as ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio became the first transgender attorney

232
00:13:34,920 --> 00:13:38,559
Speaker 1: ever to argue a case at the Court. Three transgender

233
00:13:38,600 --> 00:13:42,920
Speaker 1: teenagers and their families are challenging a Tennessee law that

234
00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:47,640
Speaker 1: bans doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone treatments to

235
00:13:47,760 --> 00:13:53,160
Speaker 1: miners with gender dysphoria, arguing that the law unconstitutionally discriminates

236
00:13:53,200 --> 00:13:57,120
Speaker 1: against transgender people based on their sex. The Court's three

237
00:13:57,200 --> 00:14:01,520
Speaker 1: liberal justices, like Elena Kagan, were pointed in their criticism

238
00:14:01,559 --> 00:14:05,120
Speaker 1: of the law and Tennessee's argument that the laws bans

239
00:14:05,160 --> 00:14:08,400
Speaker 1: are based on medical purposes and not sex.

240
00:14:08,800 --> 00:14:11,000
Speaker 6: It's a dodge to say that this is not based

241
00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:11,520
Speaker 6: on sex.

242
00:14:11,559 --> 00:14:12,920
Speaker 3: It's based on medical purpose.

243
00:14:13,240 --> 00:14:17,760
Speaker 5: When the medical purpose is utterly and entirely about sex.

244
00:14:18,240 --> 00:14:22,560
Speaker 1: However, the conservative justice is, like Chief Justice John Roberts

245
00:14:22,560 --> 00:14:26,680
Speaker 1: and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, expressed reluctance to get into the

246
00:14:26,720 --> 00:14:30,000
Speaker 1: middle of the medical and policy debate and second guess

247
00:14:30,000 --> 00:14:32,160
Speaker 1: the judgments of state lawmakers.

248
00:14:32,640 --> 00:14:34,480
Speaker 2: You know, we may think that we're you know, we

249
00:14:34,520 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 2: can do just as good a job with respect to

250
00:14:38,680 --> 00:14:42,600
Speaker 2: the evidence here as you know, Tennessee or anybody else.

251
00:14:43,560 --> 00:14:46,800
Speaker 2: But my understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question

252
00:14:47,840 --> 00:14:53,520
Speaker 2: to the people's representatives rather than to nine people, none

253
00:14:53,520 --> 00:14:54,400
Speaker 2: of whom is a doctor.

254
00:14:54,960 --> 00:14:58,920
Speaker 6: If the Constitution doesn't take sides, if they're strong, forceful

255
00:14:59,320 --> 00:15:03,680
Speaker 6: scientific policy arguments on both sides, in a situation like this,

256
00:15:05,360 --> 00:15:07,960
Speaker 6: why isn't it best to leave it to the democratic process?

257
00:15:08,400 --> 00:15:13,240
Speaker 1: Liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor had the answer, noting that transgender

258
00:15:13,320 --> 00:15:17,280
Speaker 1: people make up less than one percent of the US population.

259
00:15:17,680 --> 00:15:21,680
Speaker 7: When you're one percent of the population or less, very

260
00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:23,920
Speaker 7: hard to see how the democratic.

261
00:15:23,360 --> 00:15:25,040
Speaker 2: Process is going to protect you.

262
00:15:25,600 --> 00:15:29,560
Speaker 7: Well, you, blacks were a much larger part of the population,

263
00:15:29,720 --> 00:15:33,880
Speaker 7: and it didn't protect them. It didn't protect women for

264
00:15:34,080 --> 00:15:36,520
Speaker 7: whole centuries.

265
00:15:36,520 --> 00:15:40,040
Speaker 1: An indication of how the arguments were going. Liberal Justice

266
00:15:40,120 --> 00:15:43,360
Speaker 1: Katanji Brown Jackson said she was worried that the court

267
00:15:43,400 --> 00:15:48,160
Speaker 1: would undermine bedrock principles of equal protection analysis and the

268
00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:53,160
Speaker 1: legal basis of landmark constitutional rulings like Loving versus Virginia,

269
00:15:53,440 --> 00:15:57,360
Speaker 1: which struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage in nineteen

270
00:15:57,440 --> 00:15:58,160
Speaker 1: sixty seven.

271
00:15:59,120 --> 00:16:01,640
Speaker 8: And I guess, Mike, real concern and I maybe I'll

272
00:16:01,680 --> 00:16:04,280
Speaker 8: just ask you to react to my Loving parallel, because

273
00:16:04,280 --> 00:16:08,880
Speaker 8: I'm getting kind of nervous. Is that in Loving, those

274
00:16:08,880 --> 00:16:11,400
Speaker 8: same kinds of scientific arguments were made.

275
00:16:11,880 --> 00:16:15,040
Speaker 1: Joining me is the counsel for the transgender teenagers and

276
00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:18,800
Speaker 1: their families in this case, David Cole, a professor at

277
00:16:18,840 --> 00:16:22,600
Speaker 1: Georgetown Law who was until recently the national legal director

278
00:16:22,640 --> 00:16:25,560
Speaker 1: for the American Civil Liberties Union. David, I know you're

279
00:16:25,560 --> 00:16:29,000
Speaker 1: in the courtroom with the teenagers and their families for

280
00:16:29,120 --> 00:16:32,640
Speaker 1: the oral arguments. What's your general impression of the arguments?

281
00:16:33,200 --> 00:16:36,960
Speaker 3: Well, it was a spirited argument. It was an argument

282
00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:40,280
Speaker 3: in which I think a number of the conservative justices

283
00:16:40,440 --> 00:16:45,400
Speaker 3: expressed concern about how they are supposed to review a

284
00:16:45,560 --> 00:16:52,160
Speaker 3: judgment that involves medical scientific evidence and uncertainty, but also

285
00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:55,680
Speaker 3: where you know, there was really no good response to

286
00:16:55,760 --> 00:16:59,680
Speaker 3: the contention, our contention that the law discriminates on the

287
00:16:59,720 --> 00:17:03,000
Speaker 3: base of sex. It allows medical treatment if it is

288
00:17:03,080 --> 00:17:06,119
Speaker 3: consistent with the sex that one is assigned at birth.

289
00:17:06,400 --> 00:17:11,040
Speaker 3: It bars the treatment if it is inconsistent with your

290
00:17:11,240 --> 00:17:13,959
Speaker 3: sex assigned at birth. When you tell someone that you

291
00:17:13,960 --> 00:17:16,679
Speaker 3: can do something only if it's consistent with your sex,

292
00:17:16,880 --> 00:17:19,720
Speaker 3: that is a sex based classification. If you told people

293
00:17:19,760 --> 00:17:22,600
Speaker 3: you can only pursue careers that are consistent with your sex,

294
00:17:22,680 --> 00:17:26,280
Speaker 3: everyone recognized, but that's a sex based classification. So while

295
00:17:26,320 --> 00:17:28,560
Speaker 3: some of the conservative members are concerned about the medical

296
00:17:28,600 --> 00:17:32,840
Speaker 3: issues that underlie this case, the question in the case

297
00:17:33,160 --> 00:17:36,000
Speaker 3: was simply what is the proper standard of review and

298
00:17:36,280 --> 00:17:38,320
Speaker 3: is this actually sex discrimination?

299
00:17:38,440 --> 00:17:40,920
Speaker 1: It seemed to me like the liberal justices discussed that,

300
00:17:40,960 --> 00:17:44,080
Speaker 1: but the Conservatives stayed away from that issue. The Tennessee

301
00:17:44,080 --> 00:17:47,199
Speaker 1: Attorney General argued that the law restricts the use of

302
00:17:47,280 --> 00:17:51,119
Speaker 1: drugs based on medical purpose, not based on sex.

303
00:17:51,640 --> 00:17:53,679
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what he says. But if you read the

304
00:17:53,800 --> 00:17:57,000
Speaker 3: law on its face, you can get medical treatment if

305
00:17:57,040 --> 00:18:00,360
Speaker 3: it is consistent with your sex assigned at birth. You

306
00:18:00,400 --> 00:18:03,439
Speaker 3: can't get the same treatment if it allows you to

307
00:18:03,480 --> 00:18:06,920
Speaker 3: live or identify inconsistent with your sex assign it birth,

308
00:18:07,000 --> 00:18:11,919
Speaker 3: and that is a sex classification is enforcing particular, you know,

309
00:18:11,960 --> 00:18:15,160
Speaker 3: sexual stereotypes on people. If you have a birth sex

310
00:18:15,200 --> 00:18:18,480
Speaker 3: of male, you can get treatment if you want to masculinize,

311
00:18:18,480 --> 00:18:21,240
Speaker 3: but you can't get treatment if you want to feminize.

312
00:18:21,400 --> 00:18:24,600
Speaker 3: And the opposite rule applies to birth sex female. That's

313
00:18:24,640 --> 00:18:29,679
Speaker 3: treating boys and girls differently by seeking to enforce gender conformity.

314
00:18:29,920 --> 00:18:34,320
Speaker 1: Some of the conservative justices, particularly the Chief Justice and

315
00:18:34,640 --> 00:18:38,840
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh, said that you know, we're judges, we're not doctors.

316
00:18:38,960 --> 00:18:41,680
Speaker 1: Let's leave it up to the lawmakers. They don't always

317
00:18:41,720 --> 00:18:42,840
Speaker 1: leave it up to the lawmakers.

318
00:18:43,280 --> 00:18:45,760
Speaker 3: Right, you leave certain things up to the lawmakers, But

319
00:18:45,840 --> 00:18:48,840
Speaker 3: you don't leave equal protection of the law up to

320
00:18:48,840 --> 00:18:52,879
Speaker 3: the lawmakers. You don't leave constitutional rights up to the lawmakers.

321
00:18:52,960 --> 00:18:57,720
Speaker 3: And those same conservative justices were quite willing and ready

322
00:18:57,800 --> 00:19:02,119
Speaker 3: to review COVID regulations which were imposed for public health

323
00:19:02,200 --> 00:19:05,159
Speaker 3: reasons at a time when people were dying by the

324
00:19:05,720 --> 00:19:09,760
Speaker 3: tens of thousands, and to strike down those regulations that

325
00:19:09,840 --> 00:19:13,960
Speaker 3: they felt interfered with religious free exercise rights. The same

326
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:16,720
Speaker 3: thing is true here. Yes, it's in the area of

327
00:19:16,920 --> 00:19:21,000
Speaker 3: medical regulation. Yes, that's something that judges don't ordinarily do.

328
00:19:21,080 --> 00:19:24,080
Speaker 3: But when you discriminate on the basis of sex, as

329
00:19:24,119 --> 00:19:27,119
Speaker 3: this statute does on its face, the Court's obligation is

330
00:19:27,160 --> 00:19:31,040
Speaker 3: to make sure that the state has demonstrated that this

331
00:19:31,240 --> 00:19:35,560
Speaker 3: span a categorical ban is necessary to further the interest

332
00:19:35,640 --> 00:19:39,160
Speaker 3: that they assert. That's what the Constitution demands, and there's

333
00:19:39,160 --> 00:19:43,160
Speaker 3: no exception for medical treatment that says you can discriminate

334
00:19:43,200 --> 00:19:45,760
Speaker 3: on the basis of sex when you're engaged in medical treatment.

335
00:19:45,720 --> 00:19:48,680
Speaker 1: Towards the end of the oral arguments, Justice Katanji Brown

336
00:19:48,760 --> 00:19:53,680
Speaker 1: Jackson said she was worried and nervous. I've never heard

337
00:19:53,680 --> 00:19:57,480
Speaker 1: of justice say anything like that in an oral argument before.

338
00:19:58,000 --> 00:20:01,840
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I think she was acting to many of

339
00:20:01,880 --> 00:20:06,800
Speaker 3: her conservative colleagues who seem to not want to engage

340
00:20:06,880 --> 00:20:10,679
Speaker 3: with the principal question in the case, whether it's sex discrimination,

341
00:20:11,000 --> 00:20:15,600
Speaker 3: and instead wanted to engage on whether there's medical uncertainty

342
00:20:15,880 --> 00:20:19,320
Speaker 3: and what the evidence shows, questions that are really not

343
00:20:19,520 --> 00:20:22,760
Speaker 3: before them, and with the suggestion that if it's a

344
00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:26,399
Speaker 3: hard question and if there's medical uncertainty, we ought to

345
00:20:26,760 --> 00:20:30,160
Speaker 3: accept a law that discriminates on its face as sex

346
00:20:30,200 --> 00:20:33,520
Speaker 3: base and accept it as somehow sex neutral. And you

347
00:20:33,560 --> 00:20:36,760
Speaker 3: know she was concerned because those kinds of arguments were

348
00:20:36,760 --> 00:20:40,200
Speaker 3: made by the State of Virginia in Loving versus Virginia,

349
00:20:40,320 --> 00:20:45,720
Speaker 3: in defending a law that prohibited interracial marriage. The state said,

350
00:20:45,840 --> 00:20:48,439
Speaker 3: and she quoted it in court, that there's a scientific

351
00:20:48,520 --> 00:20:53,320
Speaker 3: evidence that supports prohibiting people from marrying across races, and

352
00:20:53,400 --> 00:20:56,960
Speaker 3: this is not a race classification because it applies to

353
00:20:57,040 --> 00:21:00,840
Speaker 3: whites and blacks equally. The Court rejected that and said, no,

354
00:21:01,119 --> 00:21:03,720
Speaker 3: when it determines what you can do based on your race,

355
00:21:03,840 --> 00:21:06,800
Speaker 3: that's a race classification. Same thing here. When the law

356
00:21:07,119 --> 00:21:09,720
Speaker 3: determines what you can do based on your sex, and

357
00:21:09,760 --> 00:21:11,840
Speaker 3: whether you are acting in a way that the State

358
00:21:11,840 --> 00:21:15,439
Speaker 3: of Tennessee thinks is consistent with how it thinks people

359
00:21:15,640 --> 00:21:18,720
Speaker 3: of your sex should act, that's a sex classification.

360
00:21:19,040 --> 00:21:22,879
Speaker 1: I found it odd that Justice Neil Gorsich, who wrote

361
00:21:22,880 --> 00:21:28,600
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's landmark decision that protected LGBTQ people from

362
00:21:28,640 --> 00:21:32,920
Speaker 1: discrimination in the workplace, was silent during two and a

363
00:21:32,960 --> 00:21:35,720
Speaker 1: half hours of arguments, didn't ask one question.

364
00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:38,800
Speaker 3: Yeah, now, that was odd. And I argued the boss

365
00:21:38,800 --> 00:21:42,720
Speaker 3: Stock case, in which behalf of Amy Stevens transgender woman

366
00:21:42,800 --> 00:21:45,080
Speaker 3: who was fired from a funeral home when she came

367
00:21:45,119 --> 00:21:48,040
Speaker 3: out as transgender, and he was very active in that case.

368
00:21:48,080 --> 00:21:50,680
Speaker 3: You know, I read that as he may be uncertain

369
00:21:50,720 --> 00:21:52,720
Speaker 3: about where he is in this case, and so he

370
00:21:53,119 --> 00:21:55,640
Speaker 3: wanted to sit back and listen and hear what other

371
00:21:55,720 --> 00:22:00,000
Speaker 3: people said rather than speak up, especially because he wrote

372
00:22:00,040 --> 00:22:03,320
Speaker 3: the boss Stock decision. But you know, the Bosstock decision

373
00:22:03,400 --> 00:22:06,399
Speaker 3: said that when you discriminate against someone because they are transgender,

374
00:22:06,560 --> 00:22:10,240
Speaker 3: that is, by definition, as a matter of logic, discriminating

375
00:22:10,280 --> 00:22:13,800
Speaker 3: against them because of their sex, treating them differently because

376
00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:16,639
Speaker 3: of their sex. If that's the case, then certainly a

377
00:22:16,720 --> 00:22:19,560
Speaker 3: law that on its face says you can get treatment

378
00:22:19,600 --> 00:22:21,679
Speaker 3: if you do it consistent with your sex, and you

379
00:22:21,800 --> 00:22:24,200
Speaker 3: can't get treatment if you do it inconsistent with your

380
00:22:24,200 --> 00:22:28,480
Speaker 3: sex should also be subject to heightened scrutiny as sex discrimination.

381
00:22:28,760 --> 00:22:31,680
Speaker 3: So we'll see how he votes, but he gave no indication.

382
00:22:32,320 --> 00:22:35,840
Speaker 1: So there seems to be a consensus among the legal

383
00:22:35,880 --> 00:22:40,600
Speaker 1: pundits and Supreme Court reporters that there are five votes

384
00:22:40,960 --> 00:22:44,160
Speaker 1: to uphold Tennessee's ban. Do you agree with that?

385
00:22:44,880 --> 00:22:48,560
Speaker 3: I think the five conservatives who spoke all expressed some

386
00:22:49,200 --> 00:22:54,159
Speaker 3: unease with recognizing that this sex discrimination. You know, maybe

387
00:22:54,200 --> 00:22:57,040
Speaker 3: that when they go back into their conference and they

388
00:22:57,240 --> 00:23:01,119
Speaker 3: study the matter further, they may decide, you know, a

389
00:23:01,200 --> 00:23:03,720
Speaker 3: law that on its face defines what can be done

390
00:23:03,760 --> 00:23:05,880
Speaker 3: and what can't be done based on whether it's consistent

391
00:23:05,920 --> 00:23:08,959
Speaker 3: with sex or inconsistent with sex, is sex based, and

392
00:23:09,000 --> 00:23:12,400
Speaker 3: it would be ludicrous to suggest it's not. It may

393
00:23:12,440 --> 00:23:16,360
Speaker 3: be that the law could satisfy heightened scrutiny on remand,

394
00:23:16,400 --> 00:23:19,600
Speaker 3: and they could say, you know, that heightened scrutiny should

395
00:23:19,640 --> 00:23:22,720
Speaker 3: apply with a softer touch when you're dealing with issues

396
00:23:22,720 --> 00:23:25,960
Speaker 3: of medical uncertainty. So I don't think it's absolutely clear

397
00:23:26,080 --> 00:23:30,080
Speaker 3: that our side lost, but certainly five justices expressed some

398
00:23:30,280 --> 00:23:32,280
Speaker 3: discomfort with ruling in our favor.

399
00:23:32,720 --> 00:23:37,720
Speaker 1: This is a fraught time for transgender Americans. Donald Trump

400
00:23:37,880 --> 00:23:42,640
Speaker 1: campaigned on a pledge to roll back transgender rights. If

401
00:23:42,640 --> 00:23:46,600
Speaker 1: the Justice is affirm the Tennessee ban, what does that

402
00:23:46,640 --> 00:23:49,200
Speaker 1: mean for transgender rights in this country.

403
00:23:49,600 --> 00:23:52,520
Speaker 3: You're absolutely right that this is a time where one

404
00:23:52,600 --> 00:23:57,160
Speaker 3: side of the aisle is targeting trans people for political exploitation.

405
00:23:57,480 --> 00:24:00,480
Speaker 3: For the Court to sort of allow that to happen

406
00:24:00,680 --> 00:24:03,399
Speaker 3: and to say that a law of this type that

407
00:24:03,560 --> 00:24:07,280
Speaker 3: is facially sex based, is somehow sex neutral, and can

408
00:24:07,320 --> 00:24:12,280
Speaker 3: be upheld without any searching inquiry into whether the state

409
00:24:12,359 --> 00:24:14,800
Speaker 3: has a legitimate interest in whether it is furthering it

410
00:24:14,840 --> 00:24:18,679
Speaker 3: in the tailored way. Would just open the door to

411
00:24:18,880 --> 00:24:23,560
Speaker 3: rampant anti transdiscrimination across the country. And as was pointed

412
00:24:23,600 --> 00:24:26,199
Speaker 3: out at argument, if it's okay for Tennessee to do this,

413
00:24:26,440 --> 00:24:28,840
Speaker 3: then it would be okay for the entire country for

414
00:24:29,160 --> 00:24:33,399
Speaker 3: Congress to do this, to deny to every trans youth

415
00:24:33,560 --> 00:24:36,719
Speaker 3: and every parent of every trans youth who has determined

416
00:24:36,920 --> 00:24:41,399
Speaker 3: that this treatment is medically necessary with their doctors, to

417
00:24:41,520 --> 00:24:44,880
Speaker 3: deny them the ability to get it anywhere in this country.

418
00:24:45,040 --> 00:24:48,520
Speaker 3: There would be no bar to such a draconian policy.

419
00:24:48,640 --> 00:24:51,919
Speaker 3: So I think that would be a terrible, terrible result

420
00:24:52,160 --> 00:24:53,040
Speaker 3: for trans people.

421
00:24:53,359 --> 00:24:58,679
Speaker 1: How did your clients, particularly the three transgender teenagers, how

422
00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:00,920
Speaker 1: did they feel after these arguments?

423
00:25:01,280 --> 00:25:03,480
Speaker 3: Well, I think they look to us, but they also

424
00:25:03,560 --> 00:25:06,000
Speaker 3: can hear the concerns and I think, you know, some

425
00:25:06,040 --> 00:25:09,280
Speaker 3: of the concerns that were articulated were pretty hostile to

426
00:25:09,320 --> 00:25:12,439
Speaker 3: who they are, to the plight that they face, to

427
00:25:12,560 --> 00:25:15,520
Speaker 3: the really really difficult decisions that you know, parents and

428
00:25:15,600 --> 00:25:18,800
Speaker 3: families have to make in these situations, and to hear,

429
00:25:19,240 --> 00:25:22,320
Speaker 3: you know, the justices say, well, it's too complicated, it's

430
00:25:22,359 --> 00:25:26,520
Speaker 3: too difficult for us to address, even where a statute

431
00:25:26,560 --> 00:25:30,600
Speaker 3: on its face discriminates on the basis of sex. Very disappointing,

432
00:25:30,760 --> 00:25:31,560
Speaker 3: very disappointing.

433
00:25:32,000 --> 00:25:35,439
Speaker 1: It must be such a difficult position for teenagers to

434
00:25:35,520 --> 00:25:38,520
Speaker 1: be in. I really appreciate your coming on the show, David.

435
00:25:38,760 --> 00:25:42,200
Speaker 1: That's Professor David Cole of Georgetown Law coming up next

436
00:25:42,200 --> 00:25:45,080
Speaker 1: on the Bloomberg Law Show. A rap battle in court

437
00:25:45,600 --> 00:25:48,520
Speaker 1: sort of. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg,

438
00:25:49,840 --> 00:25:51,040
Speaker 1: I see people.

439
00:25:55,320 --> 00:25:58,840
Speaker 4: I mean I Master Hono Depot.

440
00:26:00,960 --> 00:26:05,600
Speaker 1: That's hip hop superstar Kendrick Lamar's wildly popular track. Not

441
00:26:05,880 --> 00:26:10,879
Speaker 1: like us Lamar's track. This is another hip hop superstar, Drake.

442
00:26:11,359 --> 00:26:12,680
Speaker 4: Hey Drake, I.

443
00:26:12,600 --> 00:26:14,720
Speaker 6: Hate you like I'm young. You better have a go

444
00:26:14,800 --> 00:26:15,800
Speaker 6: to sell black one.

445
00:26:16,160 --> 00:26:19,359
Speaker 1: But Drake has taken their bitter rap feud to a

446
00:26:19,359 --> 00:26:22,560
Speaker 1: new level, and it may be the first time someone

447
00:26:22,600 --> 00:26:25,560
Speaker 1: in a rap battle ran to a court for help.

448
00:26:25,880 --> 00:26:29,119
Speaker 1: Drake has filed legal actions in New York and Texas

449
00:26:29,359 --> 00:26:33,440
Speaker 1: against Universal Music Group, the parent company of the labels,

450
00:26:33,480 --> 00:26:38,000
Speaker 1: for both artists. The theory is that Universal artificially promoted

451
00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:41,199
Speaker 1: the song of one of its artists, Kendrick Lamar, that

452
00:26:41,359 --> 00:26:45,399
Speaker 1: damaged the reputation and earning potential of Drake, another of

453
00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:48,720
Speaker 1: its artists. It seems to be a rather unique approach

454
00:26:48,920 --> 00:26:52,920
Speaker 1: in the music industry. Joining me is entertainment attorney Ron Beanstock,

455
00:26:53,359 --> 00:26:57,760
Speaker 1: a partner at Scrency hollandeck Ron. These aren't lawsuits yet.

456
00:26:58,119 --> 00:27:01,280
Speaker 1: Tell us about the first filed in New York, which

457
00:27:01,320 --> 00:27:03,760
Speaker 1: is a civil rico preaction suit.

458
00:27:04,400 --> 00:27:09,080
Speaker 9: Yeah, so we've got actually parallel pre complaint filings known

459
00:27:09,080 --> 00:27:12,359
Speaker 9: as petitions, one in New York, one in Texas. The

460
00:27:12,480 --> 00:27:14,960
Speaker 9: pre complaint, if you will, in New York, is based

461
00:27:15,040 --> 00:27:20,080
Speaker 9: upon the relationship between Universal and Spotify. Spotify is the

462
00:27:20,160 --> 00:27:22,919
Speaker 9: number one streaming service in the world, where Universal is

463
00:27:23,040 --> 00:27:27,119
Speaker 9: one of the three major giant music business powerhouses, both

464
00:27:27,160 --> 00:27:31,520
Speaker 9: with records publishing interests, and have both artists Kendrick Lamar

465
00:27:31,720 --> 00:27:35,720
Speaker 9: and Drake through two different divisions signed to Universal Music Group,

466
00:27:35,760 --> 00:27:39,600
Speaker 9: which makes it even more confusing. But the petitions are

467
00:27:39,640 --> 00:27:46,240
Speaker 9: looking for depositions and information to establish a full complaint

468
00:27:46,400 --> 00:27:50,880
Speaker 9: cause of action against these defendants for in New York,

469
00:27:50,960 --> 00:27:55,720
Speaker 9: specifically payola, which is a nineteen thirty four law. I

470
00:27:55,760 --> 00:27:58,280
Speaker 9: once said payola to some people under thirty. They thought

471
00:27:58,280 --> 00:28:01,200
Speaker 9: I was making that word up. Pola is the illegal

472
00:28:01,240 --> 00:28:04,840
Speaker 9: payment to a radio station or could be any other

473
00:28:05,240 --> 00:28:08,840
Speaker 9: now in the digital age, another platform to play a

474
00:28:08,880 --> 00:28:12,400
Speaker 9: specific artist or specific piece of music. So in New

475
00:28:12,480 --> 00:28:16,280
Speaker 9: York it involves Spotify. In Texas it involves iHeart Radio.

476
00:28:16,640 --> 00:28:20,240
Speaker 9: There's some fascinating facts about this New York petition. New

477
00:28:20,359 --> 00:28:24,560
Speaker 9: Music Universal Music owns three point two seven percent of Spotify.

478
00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:27,320
Speaker 9: That would have been something we wouldn't have seen in

479
00:28:27,359 --> 00:28:29,480
Speaker 9: the past, but the majors all have an interest now

480
00:28:29,480 --> 00:28:33,960
Speaker 9: in Spotify, and that Spotify pays annually in terms of

481
00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:37,000
Speaker 9: streaming and other download income, but mostly streaming income, over

482
00:28:37,040 --> 00:28:39,760
Speaker 9: two point five billion dollars to New music. So this

483
00:28:39,840 --> 00:28:43,600
Speaker 9: is a huge relationship. When you switch to the Texas action,

484
00:28:44,080 --> 00:28:47,240
Speaker 9: that really involves iHeart Radio, the number one radio station

485
00:28:47,280 --> 00:28:50,840
Speaker 9: in the country, and there's been as a pre complaint says,

486
00:28:50,960 --> 00:28:55,520
Speaker 9: a syndiotic relationship between new music and iHeartRadio. New music

487
00:28:55,560 --> 00:28:59,360
Speaker 9: controls a vast number of hits of the last decade,

488
00:28:59,400 --> 00:29:01,240
Speaker 9: and so if you want to have access to those

489
00:29:01,320 --> 00:29:04,120
Speaker 9: h you're going to be close to the company it

490
00:29:04,200 --> 00:29:06,080
Speaker 9: supplies that content to you.

491
00:29:06,400 --> 00:29:09,000
Speaker 1: So break it down for us. What does the first

492
00:29:09,120 --> 00:29:11,080
Speaker 1: petition in New York claim?

493
00:29:11,680 --> 00:29:14,360
Speaker 9: So the first petition in New York says, effectively, hey,

494
00:29:14,800 --> 00:29:18,600
Speaker 9: you favored Kendrick Lamar in this now sort of infamous

495
00:29:18,840 --> 00:29:23,200
Speaker 9: rap beef as we would call this relatively new phenomena,

496
00:29:23,280 --> 00:29:25,479
Speaker 9: if you will, not this East coast West coast thing,

497
00:29:25,560 --> 00:29:28,920
Speaker 9: but this very specific rapper versus rapper beef, which are

498
00:29:28,960 --> 00:29:31,120
Speaker 9: both on the same label. The New York petition says,

499
00:29:31,160 --> 00:29:35,720
Speaker 9: you favored Kendrick Lamar. You boosted his song versus mine

500
00:29:36,080 --> 00:29:39,360
Speaker 9: in this dispute. We're having, this musical dispute we're having,

501
00:29:39,600 --> 00:29:42,160
Speaker 9: and you favored him on it, and you paid someone

502
00:29:42,480 --> 00:29:45,600
Speaker 9: in terms of Spotify to stream more of it, and

503
00:29:45,680 --> 00:29:48,560
Speaker 9: you took advantage of what you could take advantage of

504
00:29:48,840 --> 00:29:51,160
Speaker 9: to give this artist's favor over me.

505
00:29:51,600 --> 00:29:54,040
Speaker 1: So what's the point of a preaction suit. What are

506
00:29:54,080 --> 00:29:55,000
Speaker 1: they looking for?

507
00:29:55,320 --> 00:29:58,200
Speaker 9: They're looking for discovery. It's kind of like saying information

508
00:29:58,280 --> 00:30:01,920
Speaker 9: and belief. They're saying, Hey, we think we've got some proof,

509
00:30:01,960 --> 00:30:04,920
Speaker 9: but we don't have the exact verbiage we need. We

510
00:30:05,000 --> 00:30:07,400
Speaker 9: need some facts. So to prove our facts that we

511
00:30:07,480 --> 00:30:10,840
Speaker 9: can go and file a formal complaint with a litany

512
00:30:11,000 --> 00:30:15,600
Speaker 9: of issues. Here, we want to have pre complaint discovery

513
00:30:15,720 --> 00:30:18,760
Speaker 9: kind of like an expedited discovery, both in New York

514
00:30:19,120 --> 00:30:23,000
Speaker 9: involving Spotify and new music, and then in Texas a

515
00:30:23,080 --> 00:30:26,640
Speaker 9: very similar theory where we're saying there was Payola committed

516
00:30:26,680 --> 00:30:31,680
Speaker 9: again with the iHeart Radio station, the national chain station.

517
00:30:32,120 --> 00:30:35,240
Speaker 9: We want to have expedited discovery so we can go

518
00:30:35,280 --> 00:30:37,200
Speaker 9: find out the facts. We want to talk to people

519
00:30:37,240 --> 00:30:39,440
Speaker 9: from New Music. We want to talk to people from

520
00:30:39,480 --> 00:30:41,920
Speaker 9: iHeartRadio to get the facts so we can have a

521
00:30:42,040 --> 00:30:43,640
Speaker 9: more formal complaint file.

522
00:30:44,200 --> 00:30:46,920
Speaker 1: So just focusing on New York for a moment, do

523
00:30:47,000 --> 00:30:49,160
Speaker 1: you think that they'll be able to get that.

524
00:30:49,800 --> 00:30:53,479
Speaker 9: It's a tough hurdle to get over here saying we

525
00:30:53,520 --> 00:30:55,840
Speaker 9: don't have enough, but we want you as the core

526
00:30:56,000 --> 00:30:59,360
Speaker 9: system to provide us the right to go and do this.

527
00:30:59,600 --> 00:31:03,240
Speaker 9: I don't know they've established enough initially with this pre

528
00:31:03,280 --> 00:31:05,760
Speaker 9: complaint petition. It will be really up to the court

529
00:31:05,800 --> 00:31:08,920
Speaker 9: to allow some limited scope of discovery. Maybe they'll do that.

530
00:31:09,120 --> 00:31:10,560
Speaker 9: I don't think this is going to be some wide

531
00:31:10,560 --> 00:31:12,800
Speaker 9: open fields. Get to talk to anyone you want. I

532
00:31:12,840 --> 00:31:15,400
Speaker 9: think they're going to be very narrow to grasp some

533
00:31:15,440 --> 00:31:17,160
Speaker 9: of those facts to see if they can get to

534
00:31:17,200 --> 00:31:19,840
Speaker 9: the complaint stage. Remember, we're in state court or not

535
00:31:19,920 --> 00:31:22,560
Speaker 9: in federal court, so a lot of the dismissal issues

536
00:31:22,600 --> 00:31:25,360
Speaker 9: and the standards for dismissal are slightly different in New

537
00:31:25,440 --> 00:31:26,600
Speaker 9: York and in Texas.

538
00:31:26,680 --> 00:31:29,520
Speaker 1: Now is the Texas action about defamation.

539
00:31:30,240 --> 00:31:35,320
Speaker 9: It's a combination. It is again a Payola plane saying

540
00:31:35,360 --> 00:31:40,320
Speaker 9: you favored Kendrick Lamar versus me, Drake. You favored this artist,

541
00:31:40,560 --> 00:31:43,600
Speaker 9: and you took advantage of your relationship and the power

542
00:31:43,680 --> 00:31:49,200
Speaker 9: you yield as a powerhouse, major record company and content owner,

543
00:31:49,520 --> 00:31:52,160
Speaker 9: and you took advantage of that, and you preferred getting

544
00:31:52,160 --> 00:31:56,040
Speaker 9: this guy boosted versus me, and you did it through iHeartRadio.

545
00:31:56,480 --> 00:32:00,880
Speaker 9: Then there's this defammatory language which kind of runs through

546
00:32:00,880 --> 00:32:05,040
Speaker 9: both of the petitions, but more specifically in Texas says

547
00:32:05,440 --> 00:32:09,000
Speaker 9: you knew what he was saying could be false or

548
00:32:09,240 --> 00:32:12,440
Speaker 9: was false, and you allowed him to put that into lyrics.

549
00:32:12,640 --> 00:32:15,360
Speaker 9: This all took place this year, and you allowed him

550
00:32:15,600 --> 00:32:18,360
Speaker 9: to put this into lyrics, and you let that into

551
00:32:18,400 --> 00:32:21,240
Speaker 9: the marketplace. There's a side moment, and I wanted to

552
00:32:21,280 --> 00:32:23,720
Speaker 9: bring this one issue up. I don't have Kendrick Lamar's

553
00:32:23,720 --> 00:32:26,840
Speaker 9: recording agreement because that's going to be confidential. But generally

554
00:32:26,960 --> 00:32:31,600
Speaker 9: with record labels, the artist has a warranty and representation

555
00:32:32,200 --> 00:32:35,440
Speaker 9: that they won't the fame, that they won't infringe on

556
00:32:35,480 --> 00:32:38,320
Speaker 9: someone else's copyright and things of this nature, and if

557
00:32:38,320 --> 00:32:41,880
Speaker 9: they do, they will have to indemnify the record company. Now,

558
00:32:41,880 --> 00:32:44,080
Speaker 9: I haven't seen anybody bring this up yet because maybe

559
00:32:44,120 --> 00:32:47,760
Speaker 9: we just don't know. And this is purely speculative because

560
00:32:47,960 --> 00:32:51,920
Speaker 9: Drake has not sued Kendrick Lamar personally in either of

561
00:32:51,960 --> 00:32:56,200
Speaker 9: these pre complaint petitions. But if he's looking to get

562
00:32:56,440 --> 00:33:00,240
Speaker 9: some fiscal come up in this may be the way.

563
00:33:00,480 --> 00:33:04,000
Speaker 9: Because of Kendrick Lamar's accused of defamatory lyrics, then he

564
00:33:04,120 --> 00:33:09,600
Speaker 9: may have to defend by indemnifying your music against any

565
00:33:09,640 --> 00:33:11,040
Speaker 9: of these future lawsuits.

566
00:33:11,080 --> 00:33:14,960
Speaker 1: Why is he not suing or bringing these petitions against

567
00:33:15,080 --> 00:33:16,160
Speaker 1: Kendrick Lamar.

568
00:33:16,400 --> 00:33:20,000
Speaker 9: Question of the day is it because I mean, we're

569
00:33:20,000 --> 00:33:23,480
Speaker 9: going to speculate, Well, it's infamatory, so we're saying, hey,

570
00:33:24,000 --> 00:33:26,640
Speaker 9: you claim these things are defamatory, but truth is the

571
00:33:26,640 --> 00:33:29,920
Speaker 9: absolute defense. So if Kendrick Lamar has proof or knows

572
00:33:29,960 --> 00:33:32,200
Speaker 9: these things to be true and can show that that's

573
00:33:32,280 --> 00:33:34,320
Speaker 9: not going to carry the day. That's not a good

574
00:33:34,360 --> 00:33:37,800
Speaker 9: idea for Drake. So I think that there's a lot

575
00:33:38,040 --> 00:33:41,440
Speaker 9: of personal issues going back and forth, but in the

576
00:33:41,480 --> 00:33:45,719
Speaker 9: guise of a business petition lawsuit where we are looking

577
00:33:45,760 --> 00:33:50,200
Speaker 9: to make ourselves get even with somebody in a clear

578
00:33:50,480 --> 00:33:55,800
Speaker 9: battle of entertainment stalwarts kingpins, if you will, where one

579
00:33:55,920 --> 00:33:59,640
Speaker 9: did not get to success the other did. Perhaps there

580
00:33:59,760 --> 00:34:03,320
Speaker 9: was you played unfair as new music. The winner here

581
00:34:03,400 --> 00:34:06,080
Speaker 9: is Universal Music, unless they of course are going to

582
00:34:06,160 --> 00:34:09,000
Speaker 9: eventually have to pay out. And if there's a decision

583
00:34:09,000 --> 00:34:11,080
Speaker 9: against them, but they win both ways, you know it's

584
00:34:11,080 --> 00:34:13,759
Speaker 9: going to happen. All of these songs are boosted by

585
00:34:13,880 --> 00:34:16,439
Speaker 9: these lawsuits. People go right back and start listening again.

586
00:34:16,600 --> 00:34:18,919
Speaker 9: And there's all kinds of other issues that took place.

587
00:34:18,960 --> 00:34:21,279
Speaker 9: I mean, Drake sold a portion of this catalog this year.

588
00:34:21,320 --> 00:34:23,920
Speaker 9: There's one hundred and fifty million dollars buy up in October.

589
00:34:23,960 --> 00:34:26,640
Speaker 9: All this is taking place now, and there's also this

590
00:34:26,719 --> 00:34:30,680
Speaker 9: prior lawsuit that's copyright infringement involving Drake and the producer

591
00:34:30,760 --> 00:34:35,759
Speaker 9: Chris Brown. So Drake has some real experience here in

592
00:34:35,800 --> 00:34:39,160
Speaker 9: the courtroom in this last year, lots of filings and

593
00:34:39,200 --> 00:34:42,319
Speaker 9: lots of accusations, a lot of things going on. It's

594
00:34:42,360 --> 00:34:44,400
Speaker 9: a lot to keep track of.

595
00:34:45,040 --> 00:34:50,280
Speaker 1: There's been some speculation that Drake is using this to

596
00:34:50,320 --> 00:34:54,560
Speaker 1: get information from Universal to somehow get out of his deal.

597
00:34:55,960 --> 00:34:59,520
Speaker 9: Yeah, that seems one of the most likely outcomes of this.

598
00:35:00,080 --> 00:35:02,800
Speaker 9: We all know getting out of record deals. Now again,

599
00:35:02,920 --> 00:35:05,400
Speaker 9: I'm not privy to know the structure of his agreement.

600
00:35:05,560 --> 00:35:08,399
Speaker 9: People have called a licensed feel in the press. That's

601
00:35:08,400 --> 00:35:11,200
Speaker 9: a different relationship. That means he owns his masters and

602
00:35:11,239 --> 00:35:13,279
Speaker 9: he's licensed them. But if you have a long term

603
00:35:13,320 --> 00:35:16,279
Speaker 9: licensed deeal and you want to pull back the ownership

604
00:35:16,600 --> 00:35:20,240
Speaker 9: of those masters that you're releasing, this could be one

605
00:35:20,600 --> 00:35:22,520
Speaker 9: way of doing that. Clearly, he doesn't want to do

606
00:35:22,560 --> 00:35:25,439
Speaker 9: business with these people anymore, and I would say most

607
00:35:25,520 --> 00:35:27,759
Speaker 9: likely Universal Music doesn't want to do business with him.

608
00:35:28,000 --> 00:35:32,279
Speaker 9: So maybe that is the outcome of releases where he

609
00:35:32,320 --> 00:35:35,880
Speaker 9: can get the return or reversion of all of his masters.

610
00:35:36,120 --> 00:35:38,319
Speaker 9: That could be part of the game here. I don't

611
00:35:38,320 --> 00:35:41,000
Speaker 9: want to use the word game because it's serious civil litigation,

612
00:35:41,320 --> 00:35:43,399
Speaker 9: but that could be part of what he's looking for.

613
00:35:43,800 --> 00:35:46,319
Speaker 1: A lot of artists are problematic. Do you think that

614
00:35:46,480 --> 00:35:50,560
Speaker 1: Universal really doesn't want to deal with Drake anymore considering

615
00:35:50,640 --> 00:35:51,840
Speaker 1: his success?

616
00:35:52,239 --> 00:35:54,960
Speaker 9: It's a great question, why would you give into this

617
00:35:55,080 --> 00:35:57,359
Speaker 9: and drop it? But no judge is going to keep

618
00:35:57,400 --> 00:36:00,279
Speaker 9: two people together it don't get along anymore. Eventually, there's

619
00:36:00,320 --> 00:36:02,640
Speaker 9: going to be a decision about the ownership of these

620
00:36:02,640 --> 00:36:05,120
Speaker 9: masters and the reversion. I think that's not in these

621
00:36:05,160 --> 00:36:07,960
Speaker 9: two suits, but we know that's coming. So if you're

622
00:36:07,960 --> 00:36:10,680
Speaker 9: not getting along, and if they're just a distributor and

623
00:36:10,840 --> 00:36:14,239
Speaker 9: promo arm and you don't feel they're doing the job, yeah,

624
00:36:14,360 --> 00:36:17,880
Speaker 9: you want out. Does that mean he'll get all of

625
00:36:17,880 --> 00:36:20,439
Speaker 9: the masters back. We don't know. Doesn't mean he'll get

626
00:36:20,600 --> 00:36:23,400
Speaker 9: prior masters up until this day or the day of

627
00:36:23,440 --> 00:36:26,160
Speaker 9: the decision stay with Universal for a period of time

628
00:36:26,480 --> 00:36:28,880
Speaker 9: that remains to be seen. But it could be that

629
00:36:28,960 --> 00:36:32,080
Speaker 9: this is a methodology for Drake to get himself out

630
00:36:32,120 --> 00:36:33,520
Speaker 9: of his deal with Universal.

631
00:36:33,840 --> 00:36:37,520
Speaker 1: I have to say, this is very confusing, So tell

632
00:36:37,520 --> 00:36:38,280
Speaker 1: me what I missed.

633
00:36:38,719 --> 00:36:41,960
Speaker 9: There is so much stuff going on. Welcome to the

634
00:36:42,120 --> 00:36:47,720
Speaker 9: modern digital age, involving paola and bots and other terminology

635
00:36:48,160 --> 00:36:51,320
Speaker 9: we didn't talk about with CDs and vinyl. It's a

636
00:36:51,360 --> 00:36:54,680
Speaker 9: different world and This is the twenty twenty four version

637
00:36:54,880 --> 00:36:59,040
Speaker 9: of what the nineteen thirty four payola was when record

638
00:36:59,120 --> 00:37:01,720
Speaker 9: companies in the thies and forties put one hundred dollars

639
00:37:01,719 --> 00:37:05,360
Speaker 9: bill inside the jacket of a vital album cover and

640
00:37:05,440 --> 00:37:07,279
Speaker 9: gave it to someone at the radio station and wait,

641
00:37:07,680 --> 00:37:10,479
Speaker 9: not not, please play this, this is your new favorite song.

642
00:37:10,840 --> 00:37:13,680
Speaker 9: Now it's all done digitally, and now we have OLAI

643
00:37:14,120 --> 00:37:17,760
Speaker 9: and we have algorithmic ways of doing this, and someone's

644
00:37:17,760 --> 00:37:18,640
Speaker 9: going to have to prove that.

645
00:37:19,160 --> 00:37:22,640
Speaker 1: Also if there was, you know, the use of bots

646
00:37:22,680 --> 00:37:25,640
Speaker 1: and things, and Drake also probably benefited from that at

647
00:37:25,640 --> 00:37:26,520
Speaker 1: some point.

648
00:37:26,320 --> 00:37:30,440
Speaker 9: Right, Yeah, he did. He just didn't benefit benefit from

649
00:37:30,480 --> 00:37:33,080
Speaker 9: it the way he felt he should have. I'm reading

650
00:37:33,080 --> 00:37:38,040
Speaker 9: these complaints. He's suggesting that it was unfairly weighted against him.

651
00:37:38,200 --> 00:37:41,360
Speaker 9: That Kendrick Lamar and the numbers on that Kendrick Lamar

652
00:37:41,480 --> 00:37:44,320
Speaker 9: track is like a billion streams. That's you know, Taylor

653
00:37:44,320 --> 00:37:47,120
Speaker 9: Swift territory. I mean, Kendrick Lamar and Drake are two

654
00:37:47,160 --> 00:37:50,080
Speaker 9: of the biggest names in their specific genre in the world.

655
00:37:50,560 --> 00:37:55,480
Speaker 9: These are pop icons now, and this is real money

656
00:37:55,480 --> 00:37:59,880
Speaker 9: in the music business. You know, we're talking about substantialing

657
00:38:00,080 --> 00:38:04,399
Speaker 9: come substantial accusations that could affect other artists and how

658
00:38:04,440 --> 00:38:08,080
Speaker 9: they're dealt with. If it's true that they are committing

659
00:38:08,239 --> 00:38:11,360
Speaker 9: payola and they're doing it through the digital versions of

660
00:38:11,440 --> 00:38:14,560
Speaker 9: the one hundred dollars bill in the record sleeve, maybe

661
00:38:14,600 --> 00:38:16,960
Speaker 9: people will be less successful in the future. Maybe we

662
00:38:17,000 --> 00:38:18,200
Speaker 9: won't have the same numbers.

663
00:38:18,400 --> 00:38:21,200
Speaker 1: We may learn more very soon. A hearing is set

664
00:38:21,239 --> 00:38:25,920
Speaker 1: for December nineteenth in Texas and January sixteenth in New York.

665
00:38:26,360 --> 00:38:30,880
Speaker 1: Fascinating almost cases. Thanks so much, Ron. That's Ron Beanstock

666
00:38:30,960 --> 00:38:33,879
Speaker 1: of Scurrency, Holland Beck. And that's it for this edition

667
00:38:33,880 --> 00:38:36,920
Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can always get

668
00:38:36,960 --> 00:38:39,640
Speaker 1: the latest legal news by subscribing and listening to the

669
00:38:39,680 --> 00:38:43,760
Speaker 1: show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg dot com,

670
00:38:43,760 --> 00:38:48,000
Speaker 1: slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June Grosso and this is

671
00:38:48,040 --> 00:38:48,640
Speaker 1: Bloomberg