WEBVTT - SCOTUS Repeated Rulings for Trump

0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:08.800 --> 0:00:12.000
<v Speaker 2>And it sounds strange, doesn't it. Department of Education. We're

0:00:12.000 --> 0:00:14.960
<v Speaker 2>going to eliminate it, and everybody knows it's right.

0:00:15.240 --> 0:00:19.280
<v Speaker 3>In March, President Trump signed an executive order to dissolve

0:00:19.320 --> 0:00:23.000
<v Speaker 3>the Department of Education, which oversees billions of dollars in

0:00:23.120 --> 0:00:27.240
<v Speaker 3>funding for everything from student loans to special needs and

0:00:27.360 --> 0:00:32.120
<v Speaker 3>nutritional programs. Trump said that the essential services provided by

0:00:32.159 --> 0:00:35.919
<v Speaker 3>the department will be picked up by other agencies and

0:00:36.000 --> 0:00:36.800
<v Speaker 3>guess who else.

0:00:37.280 --> 0:00:39.239
<v Speaker 2>All we have to do is get the students to

0:00:39.880 --> 0:00:43.440
<v Speaker 2>get guidance from the people that love them and cherish them,

0:00:43.640 --> 0:00:46.400
<v Speaker 2>including their parents, by the way, who will be totally

0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:48.640
<v Speaker 2>involved in their education along with the boards.

0:00:48.840 --> 0:00:53.479
<v Speaker 3>Well. Twenty Democratic state attorneys general sued, arguing that the

0:00:53.520 --> 0:00:59.600
<v Speaker 3>administration's actions to dismantle the DOE are illegal and unconstitutional.

0:01:00.040 --> 0:01:03.720
<v Speaker 3>UCA's only Congress has the authority to eliminate the department.

0:01:04.120 --> 0:01:06.800
<v Speaker 3>Here's New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin.

0:01:07.240 --> 0:01:09.720
<v Speaker 1>They're hurting our kids to score cheap political points.

0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:12.320
<v Speaker 4>And I think for the eighty five percent of families

0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:15.000
<v Speaker 4>in this country that rely on public education, this is

0:01:15.040 --> 0:01:16.399
<v Speaker 4>an affront to all of us.

0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:19.760
<v Speaker 3>A federal judge in Boston agreed and said that the

0:01:19.800 --> 0:01:23.640
<v Speaker 3>Trump purge would leave the department unable to perform duties

0:01:23.800 --> 0:01:27.720
<v Speaker 3>required by the law. He usued a preliminary injunction in May,

0:01:28.040 --> 0:01:32.840
<v Speaker 3>blocking the administration from downsizing the department, But yesterday a

0:01:32.920 --> 0:01:37.640
<v Speaker 3>divided Supreme Court lifted that judge's order and allowed Trump

0:01:37.720 --> 0:01:42.679
<v Speaker 3>to resume dismantling the DOE over a blistering dissent by

0:01:42.720 --> 0:01:46.720
<v Speaker 3>the court's three liberals joining me is constitutional law expert

0:01:46.800 --> 0:01:51.920
<v Speaker 3>David super, a professor at Georgetown Law. Trump can't officially

0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:56.400
<v Speaker 3>eliminate the Department of Education, or any department, but can

0:01:56.440 --> 0:01:58.680
<v Speaker 3>he effectively dismantle it?

0:01:59.080 --> 0:02:02.760
<v Speaker 4>He is dumb, so with the Department of Education. I

0:02:02.800 --> 0:02:07.200
<v Speaker 4>don't think it's lawful. I don't even understand a plausible

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:10.560
<v Speaker 4>legal theory why it might be lawful. But he has

0:02:10.560 --> 0:02:11.320
<v Speaker 4>certainly done that.

0:02:11.680 --> 0:02:15.919
<v Speaker 3>Given the Court's previous rulings for Trump, especially last week's

0:02:16.000 --> 0:02:20.040
<v Speaker 3>ruling that allowed the administration to begin mass firings at

0:02:20.280 --> 0:02:24.840
<v Speaker 3>federal agencies, did this decision come as any surprise At

0:02:24.840 --> 0:02:26.720
<v Speaker 3>this decision about the Department of Education?

0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:30.839
<v Speaker 4>This one did for several reasons. One is it came

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:34.600
<v Speaker 4>without any explanation at all. What the Court's done in

0:02:34.720 --> 0:02:39.440
<v Speaker 4>prior cases upholding the administration is nitpick the challengers to death,

0:02:39.760 --> 0:02:45.600
<v Speaker 4>finding small, often semantic defect in what they've done. It's

0:02:45.639 --> 0:02:51.760
<v Speaker 4>truing jurisdiction extraordinarily strictly. But in this case they simply

0:02:51.800 --> 0:02:55.520
<v Speaker 4>allowed the president to go forward with activities that seem

0:02:55.639 --> 0:02:59.800
<v Speaker 4>patently illegal without giving any explanation as to why it

0:02:59.840 --> 0:03:00.680
<v Speaker 4>was acceptable.

0:03:01.160 --> 0:03:06.360
<v Speaker 3>Are the Supreme Courts conservatives just ignoring the decisions of

0:03:06.400 --> 0:03:10.560
<v Speaker 3>the lower courts because here the Boston Federal judge said

0:03:10.600 --> 0:03:14.239
<v Speaker 3>the purge would lead the Department unable to perform duties

0:03:14.360 --> 0:03:19.000
<v Speaker 3>required under US law. Are the conservatives just ignoring what

0:03:19.080 --> 0:03:21.440
<v Speaker 3>the district court judges find.

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:25.200
<v Speaker 4>They seem to be which is inappropriate because on questions

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:29.680
<v Speaker 4>of fact, appellate courts are supposed to be highly deferential

0:03:29.760 --> 0:03:32.880
<v Speaker 4>to the lower courts. That's true now, that was true

0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:35.000
<v Speaker 4>at the time of the founding, So that should not

0:03:35.040 --> 0:03:38.000
<v Speaker 4>be a difficult proposition for originalists in this case.

0:03:38.040 --> 0:03:41.000
<v Speaker 3>As you said, there's no opinion, so we don't know

0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:45.320
<v Speaker 3>what they based this on. But can we assume that

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:47.880
<v Speaker 3>they found the government would win on the.

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:53.920
<v Speaker 4>Merits that's really the only plausible explanation. The lower court's

0:03:54.280 --> 0:03:59.240
<v Speaker 4>decision seems to have met all procedural requirements. The lower

0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:03.120
<v Speaker 4>court was observing the status quo, which is a traditional

0:04:03.280 --> 0:04:07.600
<v Speaker 4>form of an injunction. And clearly there is irreparable injury

0:04:07.640 --> 0:04:12.680
<v Speaker 4>alleged by the plaintiffs that would be impossible to address

0:04:12.920 --> 0:04:17.719
<v Speaker 4>if the department is in fact collapsed. So the court

0:04:17.839 --> 0:04:21.520
<v Speaker 4>must be concluding that plaintiffs will ultimately lose on the merits,

0:04:21.560 --> 0:04:24.400
<v Speaker 4>But it doesn't tell us how, and I can't guess.

0:04:24.880 --> 0:04:29.000
<v Speaker 3>Jessic Sonya Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent on behalf of

0:04:29.040 --> 0:04:34.679
<v Speaker 3>the three liberal justices, said the decision was indefensible, handing

0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:38.279
<v Speaker 3>the president the power to repeal statutes by firing all

0:04:38.320 --> 0:04:41.800
<v Speaker 3>those necessary to carry them out. Do you agree with

0:04:41.839 --> 0:04:42.640
<v Speaker 3>her dissent.

0:04:43.520 --> 0:04:49.000
<v Speaker 4>I'm afraid I do. The Supreme Court has talked in

0:04:49.200 --> 0:04:54.640
<v Speaker 4>other settings about the effects of actions. When it found

0:04:54.640 --> 0:05:01.080
<v Speaker 4>the president couldn't be criminally prosecuted for actions taken in office,

0:05:01.760 --> 0:05:05.360
<v Speaker 4>the Court couldn't find anything in a constitution or statute

0:05:05.440 --> 0:05:08.760
<v Speaker 4>that supports that. What the Court said is the effect

0:05:08.839 --> 0:05:11.640
<v Speaker 4>of this who would be to weaken the president too much? Well,

0:05:11.680 --> 0:05:15.560
<v Speaker 4>the effect of what the President has done to the

0:05:15.600 --> 0:05:21.040
<v Speaker 4>Department of Education is to collapse the department. And there's

0:05:21.080 --> 0:05:24.400
<v Speaker 4>a lower court that heard a great deal of evidence

0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:28.920
<v Speaker 4>that has reached that conclusion. It's disturbing that the Supreme

0:05:28.960 --> 0:05:33.960
<v Speaker 4>Court is not recognizing those effects when it was so

0:05:34.080 --> 0:05:35.840
<v Speaker 4>eager to do so in other cases.

0:05:36.360 --> 0:05:40.360
<v Speaker 3>Since April, the Supreme Court has signed with Trump every

0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:45.040
<v Speaker 3>time he made an emergency request. That's fifteen times, on

0:05:45.279 --> 0:05:50.080
<v Speaker 3>issues ranging from immigration and the firing of federal workers

0:05:50.560 --> 0:05:55.000
<v Speaker 3>to dismissing transgender service members from the military. Is that

0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:58.400
<v Speaker 3>a contrast to the way the Supreme Court treated President Biden.

0:05:59.040 --> 0:06:02.240
<v Speaker 4>It's a contrast the way they treated President Biden, who

0:06:02.360 --> 0:06:06.919
<v Speaker 4>had many of his most important policies and joined from

0:06:07.400 --> 0:06:11.159
<v Speaker 4>day one, including policies that would have been much easier

0:06:11.480 --> 0:06:16.560
<v Speaker 4>to unwind if they were ultimately found unlawful than, for example,

0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:21.359
<v Speaker 4>destroying the Education Department or destroying USAID. This is also

0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:26.280
<v Speaker 4>more deferential than we saw in the first few months

0:06:26.320 --> 0:06:29.680
<v Speaker 4>of this administration, which is even more disturbing.

0:06:30.400 --> 0:06:34.240
<v Speaker 3>I mean, two years ago, the same six Conservatives kept

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:38.760
<v Speaker 3>President Biden's cancelation of student loans on hold while they

0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:41.560
<v Speaker 3>considered it on the merits docket and then found he

0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:45.120
<v Speaker 3>overstepped his authority. Can you hazard a guess as to

0:06:45.720 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 3>why they're giving Trump everything he wants? Are they just

0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:51.920
<v Speaker 3>throwing up their hands and saying he's the president?

0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:56.880
<v Speaker 4>Well, the Chief Justice has long been known for wanting

0:06:57.040 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 4>to present as united a cord as possible, and the

0:07:02.640 --> 0:07:08.240
<v Speaker 4>Chief Justice in the first month of the administration was

0:07:08.600 --> 0:07:13.560
<v Speaker 4>able to get some of his conservative colleagues to join

0:07:13.680 --> 0:07:17.400
<v Speaker 4>him in the liberals in reigning in the excesses of

0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:22.560
<v Speaker 4>this administration. I'm guessing that the Chief Justice has reached

0:07:22.600 --> 0:07:27.000
<v Speaker 4>the point of despairing of getting his colleagues to join

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:32.520
<v Speaker 4>him and is not eager to override the administration on

0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:35.000
<v Speaker 4>bear five four or six three votes.

0:07:35.800 --> 0:07:40.160
<v Speaker 3>Chump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon have repeatedly said that

0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:44.840
<v Speaker 3>this is going to return responsibility for education to the States.

0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:48.239
<v Speaker 3>But don't the states already have you know the brunt

0:07:48.280 --> 0:07:50.120
<v Speaker 3>of responsibility for education?

0:07:51.240 --> 0:07:55.520
<v Speaker 4>Of course they do. Education in this country's overwhelmingly state funded,

0:07:55.640 --> 0:08:01.000
<v Speaker 4>even more overwhelmingly state controlled. The Department of Education has

0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:05.840
<v Speaker 4>been limited to providing additional funds where state and local

0:08:05.880 --> 0:08:11.000
<v Speaker 4>resources are insufficient and providing things that are more efficiently

0:08:11.240 --> 0:08:15.680
<v Speaker 4>purchased on the national level, such as curriculums such as

0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:20.160
<v Speaker 4>guidance and sharing of best practices. The Department of Education

0:08:20.280 --> 0:08:23.520
<v Speaker 4>is alaw of the least intrusive federal agencies, so the

0:08:23.600 --> 0:08:25.360
<v Speaker 4>statement doesn't make very much them.

0:08:26.160 --> 0:08:29.520
<v Speaker 3>The Trump administration says they want to return education to

0:08:29.600 --> 0:08:34.040
<v Speaker 3>the States, but yesterday, twenty four states and the District

0:08:34.080 --> 0:08:39.000
<v Speaker 3>of Columbia sued the administration forholding close to seven billion

0:08:39.080 --> 0:08:44.680
<v Speaker 3>dollars in federal funding for education programs. North Carolina Attorney

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:48.880
<v Speaker 3>General Jeff Jackson said the consequences could be dire for

0:08:49.000 --> 0:08:50.360
<v Speaker 3>American students.

0:08:50.640 --> 0:08:52.560
<v Speaker 1>The effect is going to be massive, and it's going

0:08:52.640 --> 0:08:55.160
<v Speaker 1>to be immediate. We estimate it's roughly one hundred and

0:08:55.200 --> 0:08:58.000
<v Speaker 1>sixty five million dollars to the state. It's going to

0:08:58.040 --> 0:09:02.600
<v Speaker 1>result in roughly one thousand educators being laid off. This

0:09:02.720 --> 0:09:06.240
<v Speaker 1>is plainly against the laws, against the Constitutions, against the

0:09:06.240 --> 0:09:08.800
<v Speaker 1>Impoundment Act. From a legal standpoint, this is not a

0:09:08.840 --> 0:09:09.439
<v Speaker 1>hard case.

0:09:09.800 --> 0:09:14.600
<v Speaker 3>So the Trump administration's actions seem to be a little contradictory.

0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:17.280
<v Speaker 4>Yes, which suggests that this is more of a nuilist

0:09:17.360 --> 0:09:20.840
<v Speaker 4>approach than a different philosophy. You willlect a different president.

0:09:21.320 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 4>You should expect that they'll pursue a different philosophy. But

0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:27.840
<v Speaker 4>so far what we're seeing here is or wrecking ball.

0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:30.920
<v Speaker 4>We know they're against lots and lots of things, it's

0:09:30.960 --> 0:09:31.920
<v Speaker 4>not clear what they're for.

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:36.640
<v Speaker 3>I've been talking to Georgetown law professor David super Trump

0:09:36.679 --> 0:09:39.520
<v Speaker 3>has argued in the past that, you know, the Education

0:09:39.760 --> 0:09:44.480
<v Speaker 3>Department is unnecessary and also a tool of woke culture.

0:09:45.000 --> 0:09:49.680
<v Speaker 3>And the agency is charged with enforcing civil rights laws

0:09:49.720 --> 0:09:54.080
<v Speaker 3>that bar discrimination and federally funded schools, and that office

0:09:54.120 --> 0:09:57.120
<v Speaker 3>is going to be hit particularly hard by this. It's

0:09:57.120 --> 0:10:00.120
<v Speaker 3>going to lose about half its staff and seven of

0:10:00.360 --> 0:10:03.720
<v Speaker 3>eleven regional offices. I mean, do you think that's part

0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:06.920
<v Speaker 3>of the goal here to eliminate that.

0:10:07.720 --> 0:10:12.320
<v Speaker 4>It's hard to know because this administration has used civil

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:17.439
<v Speaker 4>rights allegations to buttress its attack on colleges and universities.

0:10:17.920 --> 0:10:22.240
<v Speaker 4>So it's clearly interested in using the Education Department as

0:10:22.320 --> 0:10:25.920
<v Speaker 4>a club. If you want to talk about limiting the

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:30.600
<v Speaker 4>role of federal government, having it try to micromanage how

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:35.320
<v Speaker 4>a university makes faculty appointments and selects people for tenure.

0:10:35.559 --> 0:10:39.640
<v Speaker 4>It's a huge overreach beyond the traditional role of federal government.

0:10:39.720 --> 0:10:42.600
<v Speaker 4>And that was not done under Joe Biden or Barack Obama.

0:10:42.840 --> 0:10:46.840
<v Speaker 4>That's something that this administration has innovated. So they're not

0:10:47.040 --> 0:10:49.680
<v Speaker 4>very consistent about whether they want a strong or a

0:10:49.679 --> 0:10:51.080
<v Speaker 4>weak education department.

0:10:51.440 --> 0:10:54.040
<v Speaker 3>There are still cases being litigated about the cuts to

0:10:54.200 --> 0:10:59.600
<v Speaker 3>staff at various agencies. Does this Supreme Court decision have

0:10:59.760 --> 0:11:04.600
<v Speaker 3>any effect on other litigation against the administration.

0:11:04.480 --> 0:11:07.079
<v Speaker 4>Well, it's not going to be precedent in other cases

0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:09.800
<v Speaker 4>because we have no idea what the ruling is. So

0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:14.120
<v Speaker 4>the immediate effect is just on the Department of Education.

0:11:14.960 --> 0:11:17.240
<v Speaker 4>If I was a lawyer litigating one of the other

0:11:17.320 --> 0:11:20.120
<v Speaker 4>cases or a judge deciding one of the other cases,

0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:22.440
<v Speaker 4>I would just shrug my shoulders and keep doing what

0:11:22.559 --> 0:11:26.040
<v Speaker 4>I'm doing, because the Court hasn't told us what it

0:11:26.080 --> 0:11:30.319
<v Speaker 4>does and does not. Like the ruling earlier in which

0:11:30.480 --> 0:11:36.440
<v Speaker 4>it overturned injunctions against mass firings at the Department of

0:11:36.480 --> 0:11:40.800
<v Speaker 4>State and various other agencies did provide a little bit

0:11:40.840 --> 0:11:45.120
<v Speaker 4>of a reasing. They said, you can't invalidate an executive

0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:50.679
<v Speaker 4>order that purports to require all laws to be followed

0:11:51.280 --> 0:11:55.520
<v Speaker 4>on its face. You can take action if the actual

0:11:55.559 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 4>implementation of that executive order violates law. So it's found

0:12:00.880 --> 0:12:05.120
<v Speaker 4>that the lower court had acted prematurely. That will certainly

0:12:05.160 --> 0:12:09.040
<v Speaker 4>shape how these other cases proceed and will direct the

0:12:09.120 --> 0:12:13.440
<v Speaker 4>parties and the courts to focus on implementation rather than

0:12:13.520 --> 0:12:17.079
<v Speaker 4>the plain language of the executive orders. I've been urging

0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:20.760
<v Speaker 4>people who are questioning the administration's actions to look beyond

0:12:20.760 --> 0:12:24.680
<v Speaker 4>the executive orders to the actual implementation, and the Court

0:12:24.840 --> 0:12:27.640
<v Speaker 4>is giving people a strong nudge in that same direction.

0:12:28.320 --> 0:12:32.080
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, because his executive order here said to the maximum

0:12:32.080 --> 0:12:35.320
<v Speaker 3>extent appropriate and permitted by law. I guess they put

0:12:35.360 --> 0:12:38.400
<v Speaker 3>in permitted by law on all these executive orders just

0:12:38.480 --> 0:12:39.760
<v Speaker 3>as a hedge.

0:12:40.320 --> 0:12:42.920
<v Speaker 4>Not quite all of them. That's certainly not in his

0:12:43.040 --> 0:12:46.440
<v Speaker 4>executive order about birthright citizenship, it's not in a few

0:12:46.440 --> 0:12:48.719
<v Speaker 4>of the others, but in the bulk of them, they

0:12:48.720 --> 0:12:52.880
<v Speaker 4>do have this boilerplate about the extent allowed by appropriate law.

0:12:53.200 --> 0:12:58.600
<v Speaker 4>Even its executive order against THEI only forbids illegal DEI programs.

0:12:59.160 --> 0:13:02.040
<v Speaker 3>So all these case is the Supreme Court is ruling

0:13:02.559 --> 0:13:06.679
<v Speaker 3>this way as the litigation is proceeding. But in a

0:13:06.760 --> 0:13:11.320
<v Speaker 3>lot of these cases, once the litigation is over, the

0:13:11.320 --> 0:13:13.599
<v Speaker 3>Department may already have been dismantled.

0:13:14.360 --> 0:13:20.440
<v Speaker 4>The rationale, I suppose is that the people could be

0:13:20.559 --> 0:13:24.880
<v Speaker 4>hired back to perform those functions. The likelihood is that

0:13:24.960 --> 0:13:29.120
<v Speaker 4>if you hire people off the street without institutional knowledge

0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:32.720
<v Speaker 4>and experience, the new workers won't be nearly as good

0:13:32.720 --> 0:13:37.600
<v Speaker 4>as the old workers you lost. But the ideas that

0:13:37.600 --> 0:13:40.360
<v Speaker 4>there will be someone performing these functions, even if they're

0:13:40.400 --> 0:13:41.400
<v Speaker 4>not very good at it.

0:13:42.040 --> 0:13:46.240
<v Speaker 3>Any final thoughts, any lessons to be learned from history

0:13:46.440 --> 0:13:47.160
<v Speaker 3>relating to this.

0:13:47.480 --> 0:13:50.440
<v Speaker 4>There's one thing that strikes me about this that we

0:13:50.480 --> 0:13:53.800
<v Speaker 4>didn't talk about, which is that this court has told

0:13:53.840 --> 0:13:58.240
<v Speaker 4>us again and again that it's originalist. The fourth law

0:13:58.400 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 4>that Congress passed after the ratification of the Constitution was

0:14:03.160 --> 0:14:09.160
<v Speaker 4>to start creating cabinet departments. So the first Congress understood

0:14:09.200 --> 0:14:13.120
<v Speaker 4>that it got to choose what cabinet departments we would have.

0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:17.160
<v Speaker 4>And you would think an Originals court would pay special

0:14:17.200 --> 0:14:21.040
<v Speaker 4>attention to that and not allow a president to make

0:14:21.080 --> 0:14:25.040
<v Speaker 4>these decisions. If George Washington couldn't decide what cabinet departments

0:14:25.080 --> 0:14:27.440
<v Speaker 4>we would have, Shirley Donald Trump can't.

0:14:27.640 --> 0:14:30.600
<v Speaker 3>Thanks so much for joining me, David. That's Professor David

0:14:30.680 --> 0:14:34.200
<v Speaker 3>super of Georgetown Law. And that's it for this edition

0:14:34.240 --> 0:14:36.880
<v Speaker 3>of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get

0:14:36.880 --> 0:14:40.040
<v Speaker 3>the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You

0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:44.160
<v Speaker 3>can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www

0:14:44.320 --> 0:14:48.600
<v Speaker 3>dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and remember

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:51.560
<v Speaker 3>to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at

0:14:51.600 --> 0:14:55.080
<v Speaker 3>ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're

0:14:55.160 --> 0:14:56.359
<v Speaker 3>listening to Bloomberg