1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:03,280 Speaker 1: Well. The Supreme Court returns today after a four week 2 00:00:03,400 --> 00:00:07,120 Speaker 1: break with a new round of arguments and thirty two 3 00:00:07,240 --> 00:00:13,200 Speaker 1: page list of orders, and they can be characterized as denied, denied, denied. 4 00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:17,759 Speaker 1: Our co host and a Supreme Court reporter for Bloomberg News, 5 00:00:17,760 --> 00:00:20,680 Speaker 1: Greg's store was there to read the list and now 6 00:00:20,720 --> 00:00:23,799 Speaker 1: easier to tell us about it. Greg, let's discuss some 7 00:00:23,880 --> 00:00:28,560 Speaker 1: of the more prominent denials, one involving banks and banks 8 00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:32,440 Speaker 1: from credit suites, Deutsche Bank and Wells Fargo. Tell us 9 00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:36,360 Speaker 1: about that, Hi, June. Yeah, the Court, as you said, 10 00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:38,680 Speaker 1: um denied a lot of cases. I cut it about 11 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:41,440 Speaker 1: five and fifty. I didn't didn't h I sort of 12 00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:44,239 Speaker 1: estimated here and yes, one of the big cases they 13 00:00:44,280 --> 00:00:48,199 Speaker 1: decided not here was an appeal by a group of banks, 14 00:00:48,479 --> 00:00:50,760 Speaker 1: and the issue there is that the f d i 15 00:00:50,920 --> 00:00:54,960 Speaker 1: C had sued them in its capacity as the receiver 16 00:00:55,160 --> 00:00:58,320 Speaker 1: of a failed Alabama bank, and it was claiming that 17 00:00:58,360 --> 00:01:02,040 Speaker 1: they had issued her underwritten mortgage back mortgage backed securities. 18 00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:05,440 Speaker 1: Um uh turned out to be not not worth what 19 00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:08,759 Speaker 1: what the people have thought. So the issue was whether 20 00:01:09,440 --> 00:01:13,520 Speaker 1: um uh. There's there's a statute of limitations to a 21 00:01:13,560 --> 00:01:16,600 Speaker 1: statute of repose actually uh, in federal law. And the 22 00:01:16,720 --> 00:01:19,760 Speaker 1: question was whether U when when Congress bailed out the 23 00:01:19,840 --> 00:01:22,640 Speaker 1: SML industry back in the late nineteen eighties, whether Congress 24 00:01:23,120 --> 00:01:25,840 Speaker 1: over overrode that and gave the fd i S more 25 00:01:25,880 --> 00:01:28,680 Speaker 1: time to sue. The lower courts said, yes, more time 26 00:01:28,720 --> 00:01:31,760 Speaker 1: to sue. Supreme Court refused to consider that ruling in 27 00:01:31,800 --> 00:01:34,520 Speaker 1: the bank say, Uh, this is an issue that affects 28 00:01:34,560 --> 00:01:37,479 Speaker 1: about a dozen pending lawsuits and potentially more than thirty 29 00:01:37,520 --> 00:01:41,000 Speaker 1: billion dollars in similar claims. So it is a very 30 00:01:41,040 --> 00:01:45,760 Speaker 1: significant denial of this this petition. So Greg, what what happens? Now? 31 00:01:45,800 --> 00:01:48,920 Speaker 1: These cases just all proceed and the banks are facing 32 00:01:48,920 --> 00:01:51,560 Speaker 1: more liability than they would have otherwise, in to the 33 00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:55,279 Speaker 1: tune of billions of dollars. Yeah, that that that that's right, Michael, Um, 34 00:01:55,720 --> 00:01:58,200 Speaker 1: It's it's uh. You know, this is not really a 35 00:01:58,280 --> 00:02:00,520 Speaker 1: change in the law in the sense that the lower 36 00:02:00,600 --> 00:02:04,480 Speaker 1: courts had uniformly said that federal agencies like the f 37 00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:07,040 Speaker 1: d i C do have more time to sue. Here, 38 00:02:07,320 --> 00:02:10,240 Speaker 1: So it doesn't change things, but at least, uh, it's 39 00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:14,000 Speaker 1: a missed opportunity for the banks to limit what their 40 00:02:14,000 --> 00:02:18,160 Speaker 1: liability might be. Greg. There is also a case where 41 00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:21,760 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court said it won't revive a sex trafficking 42 00:02:21,880 --> 00:02:25,480 Speaker 1: suit against back Page. Tell us about that. Yeah, so 43 00:02:25,560 --> 00:02:29,280 Speaker 1: back Pages this this service that's similar to Craig's List, 44 00:02:29,280 --> 00:02:32,720 Speaker 1: except that it's best known for sex ads, and the 45 00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:35,960 Speaker 1: CEO has even faced criminal charges which have since been 46 00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:39,560 Speaker 1: thrown out out in California. So back Page was being 47 00:02:39,720 --> 00:02:43,080 Speaker 1: sued by three women who say they were victims of 48 00:02:43,160 --> 00:02:46,960 Speaker 1: sex trafficking that when they were minors. They blame Backpage 49 00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:50,800 Speaker 1: for setting up this this UH site that is designed 50 00:02:50,840 --> 00:02:54,600 Speaker 1: to facilitate sex trafficking. The lower court of Federal Appeals 51 00:02:54,600 --> 00:02:57,600 Speaker 1: Court said, there's a law called the Communications Decency Act 52 00:02:57,639 --> 00:03:01,320 Speaker 1: that gives UH Internet service provider is broad immunity from 53 00:03:01,360 --> 00:03:04,200 Speaker 1: this type of of lawsuit. Um, if all they're really 54 00:03:04,200 --> 00:03:07,880 Speaker 1: doing is being passive entities and third parties are the 55 00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:12,440 Speaker 1: ones that are UH doing the allegedly illegal conduct. And 56 00:03:12,440 --> 00:03:15,160 Speaker 1: and the First Circuit said, this is actually a very 57 00:03:15,160 --> 00:03:19,440 Speaker 1: broad law. Um, it protects back Page in this situation, 58 00:03:19,480 --> 00:03:22,720 Speaker 1: and that it's not enough if back Page allegedly tailored 59 00:03:22,720 --> 00:03:26,480 Speaker 1: its business model to make sex sex trafficking easier. Even 60 00:03:26,520 --> 00:03:29,120 Speaker 1: if it did that, it can't be sued. Well, this 61 00:03:29,200 --> 00:03:31,480 Speaker 1: is a subject that's come up on a in a 62 00:03:31,560 --> 00:03:34,360 Speaker 1: number of different jurisdictions that a lot of people are 63 00:03:34,400 --> 00:03:36,960 Speaker 1: suing now and this kind of thing where somebody's publishing 64 00:03:37,040 --> 00:03:39,520 Speaker 1: something on the Internet and the internet service provider is saying, hey, 65 00:03:39,600 --> 00:03:41,480 Speaker 1: I'm not the publisher, I just put it up and 66 00:03:41,520 --> 00:03:44,520 Speaker 1: you can't sue me. Um and they also they mostly 67 00:03:44,520 --> 00:03:46,320 Speaker 1: seem to be winning. So this kind of seems kind 68 00:03:46,320 --> 00:03:49,400 Speaker 1: of consistent with with that approach. But is this is 69 00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:52,160 Speaker 1: this This isn't really a free speech issue at this point, right, 70 00:03:52,200 --> 00:03:54,960 Speaker 1: We're just talking about whether Congress ought to do something 71 00:03:55,000 --> 00:03:59,000 Speaker 1: to address this issue and put some responsibility on the 72 00:03:59,040 --> 00:04:01,800 Speaker 1: service providers. That's That's exactly right, Michael. This is a 73 00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:05,440 Speaker 1: statutory question. The First Amendment amendment is there in the background. Uh, 74 00:04:05,520 --> 00:04:08,440 Speaker 1: there're certainly speech speech issues that that could come up, 75 00:04:08,520 --> 00:04:11,520 Speaker 1: But in terms of of what this case was about, 76 00:04:11,520 --> 00:04:14,240 Speaker 1: and generally, as I understand that, what the legal debate 77 00:04:14,520 --> 00:04:17,200 Speaker 1: has been in the courts is much more focused on 78 00:04:17,240 --> 00:04:19,440 Speaker 1: what Congress has done and as you said, what Congress 79 00:04:19,480 --> 00:04:21,880 Speaker 1: could do in the future. So, Greg, you have a 80 00:04:21,920 --> 00:04:25,039 Speaker 1: list of cases that you follow and the ones that 81 00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:30,880 Speaker 1: are most important to our listeners and to the law. Now, 82 00:04:31,040 --> 00:04:34,560 Speaker 1: So what cases are coming up that we expect the 83 00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:37,520 Speaker 1: Supreme Court to say, I'll take the case or I 84 00:04:37,560 --> 00:04:40,040 Speaker 1: won't take the case. Yes, So June, there are several 85 00:04:40,040 --> 00:04:44,080 Speaker 1: cases that the Court could have acted on today but 86 00:04:44,080 --> 00:04:47,080 Speaker 1: but didn't. And what that means is that, uh, it 87 00:04:47,160 --> 00:04:50,240 Speaker 1: makes it slightly more likely are somewhat more likely that 88 00:04:50,279 --> 00:04:52,160 Speaker 1: they will agree to hear these cases, so they're worth 89 00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:56,919 Speaker 1: talking about. One has to do with employee class action waivers. 90 00:04:56,920 --> 00:04:59,720 Speaker 1: In other words, you're an employee, your employer says, to 91 00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:02,880 Speaker 1: work here, you have to agree not to press a 92 00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:05,599 Speaker 1: class action suit. You have to take any claims against 93 00:05:05,720 --> 00:05:09,520 Speaker 1: us to arbitration as an individual by yourself. Um. And 94 00:05:09,560 --> 00:05:13,800 Speaker 1: some federal appeals courts have said, uh, those provisions are 95 00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:18,960 Speaker 1: not those agreements are not binding because the National Labor 96 00:05:19,040 --> 00:05:22,839 Speaker 1: Relations Act gives workers a right to press at least 97 00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:26,440 Speaker 1: wage in our claims as a group. Other federal appeals 98 00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:30,720 Speaker 1: courts disagree with that and say that the arbitration agreements 99 00:05:30,920 --> 00:05:34,640 Speaker 1: have to be enforced by their terms. The Supreme Court 100 00:05:34,680 --> 00:05:37,920 Speaker 1: probably will agree to take up an appeal there. There's 101 00:05:37,960 --> 00:05:41,960 Speaker 1: a bit of a wild card uh here in that Uh, 102 00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:43,720 Speaker 1: some of these cases come out or at least one 103 00:05:43,720 --> 00:05:46,240 Speaker 1: of these cases comes out of the National Labor Relations Board, 104 00:05:46,240 --> 00:05:49,840 Speaker 1: which right now has a majority of Democratic appointees. When 105 00:05:49,880 --> 00:05:53,000 Speaker 1: Donald Trump becomes presidential of the right to to appoint 106 00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:56,120 Speaker 1: to people to fill fill vacancies, so that body will 107 00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:58,839 Speaker 1: become Republican dominated. It may change its stance, and it 108 00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:01,640 Speaker 1: may change the the status of the case. But one 109 00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:03,240 Speaker 1: way or another, this is an issue of the Court 110 00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:06,400 Speaker 1: will be getting involved in, I would suspect quite soon. Well, 111 00:06:06,400 --> 00:06:10,000 Speaker 1: now that the Court is back after this four weeks, 112 00:06:10,240 --> 00:06:12,560 Speaker 1: the Court will be hearing argument in some in some 113 00:06:12,680 --> 00:06:15,200 Speaker 1: major cases. And there's a big credit card case coming up, 114 00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:17,520 Speaker 1: isn't there? Can you preview that for us? Yeah, that's 115 00:06:17,560 --> 00:06:20,320 Speaker 1: that's an argument that the Court's going to hear tomorrow. 116 00:06:20,360 --> 00:06:22,280 Speaker 1: It has to do with the New York law and 117 00:06:22,279 --> 00:06:24,160 Speaker 1: and it's one of ten states with laws like this 118 00:06:24,760 --> 00:06:27,640 Speaker 1: that says, um, if you're a retailer and you want 119 00:06:27,640 --> 00:06:31,800 Speaker 1: to charge different prices for credit card transactions and cash transactions. 120 00:06:31,800 --> 00:06:35,120 Speaker 1: In other words, charge more for credit card transactions. You 121 00:06:35,200 --> 00:06:38,760 Speaker 1: can't do it as a searcharge. You can't say my 122 00:06:38,839 --> 00:06:42,480 Speaker 1: prices is ten dollars for this item. But if you 123 00:06:42,839 --> 00:06:44,480 Speaker 1: pay with a credit card. It's going to cost ten 124 00:06:44,520 --> 00:06:48,080 Speaker 1: dollars and fifty cents. The merchants, a group of merchants, 125 00:06:48,080 --> 00:06:50,880 Speaker 1: say that is a free speech violation. We have a 126 00:06:51,000 --> 00:06:53,839 Speaker 1: right to portray these things, that search charges because actually 127 00:06:53,880 --> 00:06:57,800 Speaker 1: what they are is charges to UH to compensate us 128 00:06:57,839 --> 00:07:00,240 Speaker 1: for what we're having to pay the credit card company means. 129 00:07:00,279 --> 00:07:02,880 Speaker 1: And so the question is whether this is this is 130 00:07:03,080 --> 00:07:05,760 Speaker 1: free speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment, or 131 00:07:05,960 --> 00:07:10,200 Speaker 1: conduct and therefore UH with limited protection, and therefore the 132 00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:12,720 Speaker 1: New York law, as well as laws in California and 133 00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:17,880 Speaker 1: Texas and Florida are probably constitutional. The very interesting argument, 134 00:07:18,120 --> 00:07:21,120 Speaker 1: and we will be talking about that with you tomorrow 135 00:07:21,160 --> 00:07:25,200 Speaker 1: on the show after you attend that oral arguments in 136 00:07:25,240 --> 00:07:28,000 Speaker 1: that case. Thanks so much, Greg for telling us what's 137 00:07:28,040 --> 00:07:29,640 Speaker 1: happening at the Supreme Court.