1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,080 --> 00:00:13,399
Speaker 1: It's a battle over three hundred fifty micro seconds. You know,

3
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:15,800
Speaker 1: is there a point where speed is actually detrimental? Should

4
00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:17,800
Speaker 1: we think about slowing things down? And you know, we

5
00:00:17,880 --> 00:00:21,360
Speaker 1: introduced uh an amount of time that's absolutely uh so

6
00:00:21,440 --> 00:00:25,040
Speaker 1: infantestimally small. It's irrelevant to the majority of traditional participants,

7
00:00:25,480 --> 00:00:27,720
Speaker 1: but it's absolutely critical to certain people that have bought

8
00:00:27,720 --> 00:00:32,080
Speaker 1: advantages in the market. It may be infinitesimally small, as

9
00:00:32,120 --> 00:00:35,559
Speaker 1: Brad katsu Yama, CEO of i X Group says, but

10
00:00:35,640 --> 00:00:39,760
Speaker 1: the stock exchange operator made famous by flashboys, is in

11
00:00:39,840 --> 00:00:44,400
Speaker 1: court defending those micro seconds. The electronic trading firms Citadel

12
00:00:44,520 --> 00:00:48,839
Speaker 1: Securities is suing Securities and Exchange Commission to thwart the

13
00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:51,839
Speaker 1: new order type known as D limit, which was approved

14
00:00:51,840 --> 00:00:55,200
Speaker 1: by the federal regulator last year. In arguments before the

15
00:00:55,320 --> 00:00:58,000
Speaker 1: d C Circuit Court of Appeals, a lawyer for i

16
00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:01,680
Speaker 1: e X, Katherine stetson the D limit helps blunt the

17
00:01:01,840 --> 00:01:05,400
Speaker 1: edge of high frequency traders. What we are talking about

18
00:01:05,560 --> 00:01:09,160
Speaker 1: is evidence of a huge amount of trading going on

19
00:01:09,720 --> 00:01:13,640
Speaker 1: in the couple few micro seconds before a price changes.

20
00:01:14,120 --> 00:01:17,200
Speaker 1: I just happened to blink my eyes. That blink is

21
00:01:17,240 --> 00:01:21,080
Speaker 1: about two d times longer than the couple micro seconds

22
00:01:21,080 --> 00:01:24,839
Speaker 1: that we're talking about. But the lawyer for Citadel, Jeffrey Wall,

23
00:01:25,080 --> 00:01:27,880
Speaker 1: criticized the D limit order. But this is just a

24
00:01:27,920 --> 00:01:31,679
Speaker 1: sloppy order. It takes data, it misreads the stats, it

25
00:01:31,720 --> 00:01:34,360
Speaker 1: assumes away all the costs. If you look at both

26
00:01:34,360 --> 00:01:36,120
Speaker 1: the order and their brief to this court, it reads

27
00:01:36,160 --> 00:01:38,720
Speaker 1: like it's all roses and no thorns. It doesn't have

28
00:01:38,760 --> 00:01:42,200
Speaker 1: any consideration of the costs on retail or routing. My

29
00:01:42,319 --> 00:01:45,280
Speaker 1: guest is an expert in securities law. James Cox, a

30
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:48,639
Speaker 1: professor at Duke Law School. Jim explained the D limit

31
00:01:48,800 --> 00:01:53,360
Speaker 1: or discretionary limit that was introduced by i X. It

32
00:01:53,400 --> 00:01:55,840
Speaker 1: was part of their branding which when they came on

33
00:01:55,920 --> 00:02:00,040
Speaker 1: the States initially and Michael Lewis wrote about them, and

34
00:02:00,680 --> 00:02:03,160
Speaker 1: it was putting in a speed pump. You know. The

35
00:02:03,240 --> 00:02:06,640
Speaker 1: individuals are in the bye side of the market have

36
00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:10,840
Speaker 1: been yelling for some time that they are being disadvantaged

37
00:02:11,120 --> 00:02:15,080
Speaker 1: in not just the price discovery process, but disadvantaged in

38
00:02:15,240 --> 00:02:18,519
Speaker 1: getting a good price by all kinds of mechanisms like

39
00:02:18,680 --> 00:02:23,440
Speaker 1: co location et cetera. And what the exchanges did initially

40
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:26,960
Speaker 1: was instol of speed pump to take away the edge

41
00:02:27,080 --> 00:02:32,200
Speaker 1: that the algorithmic electronic co located traders have been making

42
00:02:32,240 --> 00:02:34,520
Speaker 1: a lot of money on. The great thing right now

43
00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:38,800
Speaker 1: is that we have a chairman of the SEC joins

44
00:02:38,840 --> 00:02:41,920
Speaker 1: the list of a lot of former very experienced, knowledgeable

45
00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:46,320
Speaker 1: individuals for chairman of the SEC. But this chairman knows markets.

46
00:02:46,360 --> 00:02:48,160
Speaker 1: He came out of the market, didn't come out of

47
00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:50,720
Speaker 1: the securities markets, but now the derivative markets, which are

48
00:02:50,760 --> 00:02:55,359
Speaker 1: actually a better insight about how markets operator ought to operate,

49
00:02:55,600 --> 00:02:58,760
Speaker 1: and these committed to the idea and bringing change to

50
00:02:58,960 --> 00:03:03,280
Speaker 1: the markets. So the complaint is being made against the

51
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:06,359
Speaker 1: exchange about this speed pup is going to follow in

52
00:03:06,440 --> 00:03:09,280
Speaker 1: death ears at the SEC and should in the courts

53
00:03:09,320 --> 00:03:14,480
Speaker 1: as well. What's I x's argument before the circuit court.

54
00:03:15,120 --> 00:03:18,600
Speaker 1: This is a legitimate practice of saying, look, we have

55
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:21,920
Speaker 1: a market, here's our protocols. Nobody's going to get an

56
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:26,440
Speaker 1: advantage because their computers are located closer to the exchange.

57
00:03:26,680 --> 00:03:29,960
Speaker 1: Everybody's going to be the same level playing field. And

58
00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:32,520
Speaker 1: to the extent of that, the roads an advantage that

59
00:03:32,840 --> 00:03:36,000
Speaker 1: some of these market participants have had will so be it.

60
00:03:36,000 --> 00:03:39,440
Speaker 1: It's better to have individuals on the bi side finally

61
00:03:39,480 --> 00:03:42,480
Speaker 1: hearing their voice is raised, and having an exchange where

62
00:03:42,480 --> 00:03:45,040
Speaker 1: they can go to. What I find interesting here is

63
00:03:45,080 --> 00:03:50,200
Speaker 1: whether this changes things enough so that other exchanges will

64
00:03:50,240 --> 00:03:53,480
Speaker 1: develop and find it to be competitive, that they're going

65
00:03:53,520 --> 00:03:55,680
Speaker 1: to have to have a speed pup as well. Citadel

66
00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:59,240
Speaker 1: Securities is suing the SEC. What's the cause of action?

67
00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:02,560
Speaker 1: What are they allowed change? The alleging that the SEC

68
00:04:03,160 --> 00:04:08,080
Speaker 1: is approving a practice that is, according to them, inherently

69
00:04:08,200 --> 00:04:13,120
Speaker 1: anti competitive. Is an artificial device that is going to

70
00:04:13,280 --> 00:04:17,360
Speaker 1: slow down trading in price discovery, and therefore, the argument

71
00:04:17,400 --> 00:04:22,400
Speaker 1: would be that you're disadvantaging the public interests because you're

72
00:04:22,400 --> 00:04:25,719
Speaker 1: slowing down price movements, and what we should be doing

73
00:04:25,800 --> 00:04:29,760
Speaker 1: is trying to facilitate beating up price movements. That's the argument.

74
00:04:30,320 --> 00:04:35,040
Speaker 1: The attorney for Citadel says that the order type interferes

75
00:04:35,040 --> 00:04:38,280
Speaker 1: with the natural course of the market. The display price

76
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:42,560
Speaker 1: isn't real, it's phantom. How would you address that? I

77
00:04:42,640 --> 00:04:46,440
Speaker 1: think it's hard to say that as dhantom because the

78
00:04:46,600 --> 00:04:50,520
Speaker 1: orders are all coming in and what is actually happening

79
00:04:50,839 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 1: is Citadel is wanting to start off three feet ahead

80
00:04:53,960 --> 00:04:56,080
Speaker 1: in the race for the Finch line to determine what

81
00:04:56,120 --> 00:04:58,080
Speaker 1: the price is going to be. So essentially what the

82
00:04:58,120 --> 00:05:01,080
Speaker 1: Exchange is doing here is say starting line is the

83
00:05:01,120 --> 00:05:04,799
Speaker 1: same for everybody, so it's putting everybody on the same plane.

84
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:08,760
Speaker 1: Whereas as I read the argument, Citadel says, no, now

85
00:05:08,880 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 1: we're ahead of the starting line and we want to

86
00:05:11,040 --> 00:05:13,800
Speaker 1: preserve that position, and by doing that we can get

87
00:05:13,839 --> 00:05:17,000
Speaker 1: to the price first. It's not clear to me that

88
00:05:17,040 --> 00:05:19,839
Speaker 1: the price is going to be any different if everybody

89
00:05:19,880 --> 00:05:22,920
Speaker 1: starts off the same point. Then it is presently with

90
00:05:23,320 --> 00:05:26,120
Speaker 1: Citadelle starting off earlier, and so we're still going to

91
00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:29,320
Speaker 1: have the same sort of pricing that goes on. It's

92
00:05:29,360 --> 00:05:32,280
Speaker 1: just a question about who gets that price first. And

93
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:36,440
Speaker 1: so the current arrangements where you have co locations and

94
00:05:36,800 --> 00:05:40,239
Speaker 1: other devices that Citadel and a few other market traders

95
00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:44,960
Speaker 1: use give themselves a competitive advantage over others, and they

96
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:48,200
Speaker 1: want to preserve the competitive advance. The Exchange is proposal.

97
00:05:48,560 --> 00:05:52,400
Speaker 1: The one that's being challenged is the Exchange is saying, no,

98
00:05:52,560 --> 00:05:55,800
Speaker 1: we want to get everybody a chance to get the price,

99
00:05:56,120 --> 00:05:59,400
Speaker 1: and by doing that, if you make the market pure fairer,

100
00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:03,840
Speaker 1: we more individuals wanting to get that price, and we'll

101
00:06:03,880 --> 00:06:07,839
Speaker 1: have a deeper market and better price discovery. So the

102
00:06:07,920 --> 00:06:13,000
Speaker 1: lawyer four I X said that high frequency traders profit

103
00:06:13,080 --> 00:06:16,680
Speaker 1: by exploiting the micro second differences. Others are in the

104
00:06:16,720 --> 00:06:20,200
Speaker 1: middle of a speed war. They never signed up to fight.

105
00:06:20,520 --> 00:06:22,960
Speaker 1: Do you think that's a good description of what's happening.

106
00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:26,760
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly right. I mean, all this happening

107
00:06:26,839 --> 00:06:29,240
Speaker 1: is Toudadelle and lawyers have been able to put the

108
00:06:29,279 --> 00:06:31,920
Speaker 1: odor of money in the air so that they can

109
00:06:31,960 --> 00:06:35,479
Speaker 1: gain an advantage that others who weren't willing to pay

110
00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:39,040
Speaker 1: for co location or some other devices that give them

111
00:06:39,040 --> 00:06:42,240
Speaker 1: a competitive advantage. Not a question of somebody is saying, well,

112
00:06:42,440 --> 00:06:44,400
Speaker 1: you know, we're the first ones to lay the cable

113
00:06:44,440 --> 00:06:46,679
Speaker 1: across the Atlantic, so we should be able to charge

114
00:06:46,680 --> 00:06:49,560
Speaker 1: a fee for everybody's going to use it. Everybody's just

115
00:06:49,720 --> 00:06:54,160
Speaker 1: using the same cable. But what's happening is that the

116
00:06:54,200 --> 00:06:57,279
Speaker 1: exchanges for a payment of money by citadel and others

117
00:06:57,600 --> 00:07:01,479
Speaker 1: have allowed the Citadels of the world to have a

118
00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:05,279
Speaker 1: special entrance into their trading floor that gives them a

119
00:07:05,279 --> 00:07:08,360
Speaker 1: competitive advantage. And the result of that means that price

120
00:07:08,680 --> 00:07:10,920
Speaker 1: that's going to be out there for a nano second

121
00:07:11,400 --> 00:07:13,520
Speaker 1: is always going to be gobbled by the people who

122
00:07:13,600 --> 00:07:18,120
Speaker 1: paid for that competitive advantage, and the various other traders

123
00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:20,520
Speaker 1: who don't pay for that advantage are always going to

124
00:07:20,560 --> 00:07:24,160
Speaker 1: be disfavored. I X is actually created on the whole

125
00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:27,400
Speaker 1: idea that everybody's in the same line and they start

126
00:07:27,440 --> 00:07:30,080
Speaker 1: off at the same place. Tell me what you think

127
00:07:30,080 --> 00:07:34,880
Speaker 1: of this assertion that Judge Justin Walker made to Citadel's lawyer.

128
00:07:35,240 --> 00:07:38,360
Speaker 1: It's you who is going to a federal agency and

129
00:07:38,560 --> 00:07:44,160
Speaker 1: saying stop a private entity I e X from doing

130
00:07:44,200 --> 00:07:46,960
Speaker 1: what they want to do. You're the one who's trying

131
00:07:47,000 --> 00:07:51,760
Speaker 1: to kind of regulate your way into a market victory.

132
00:07:52,000 --> 00:07:55,800
Speaker 1: You know. The challenge to the faces is that they

133
00:07:55,880 --> 00:08:01,720
Speaker 1: are challenging a development that is very arcay market structure.

134
00:08:02,040 --> 00:08:07,240
Speaker 1: There's no crisp guidelines as to what the law expects

135
00:08:07,280 --> 00:08:11,000
Speaker 1: with respect to how markets are to operate. Therefore, you

136
00:08:11,080 --> 00:08:13,440
Speaker 1: start off the idea that it's a natural situation for

137
00:08:13,600 --> 00:08:17,880
Speaker 1: deferring to the expertise of the sec it's economists in

138
00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:22,400
Speaker 1: evaluating how these markets are operating, and that strengthens, I

139
00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:26,000
Speaker 1: think dramatically the case of the SEC sir saying look

140
00:08:26,080 --> 00:08:28,640
Speaker 1: to deceive reasonable to us is with our mandate and

141
00:08:28,680 --> 00:08:31,680
Speaker 1: the other thing that fits into this dynamics. I E

142
00:08:31,840 --> 00:08:34,679
Speaker 1: X is not the only market. If buyers and sellers

143
00:08:34,679 --> 00:08:38,000
Speaker 1: thought that what I X was doing was a bad idea,

144
00:08:38,800 --> 00:08:41,680
Speaker 1: then they can send their trade to someplace else. You know,

145
00:08:41,720 --> 00:08:47,160
Speaker 1: there's numerous market centers where trades can be crossed. And

146
00:08:47,600 --> 00:08:51,400
Speaker 1: what I feel is going on here with Citadel is

147
00:08:51,480 --> 00:08:55,280
Speaker 1: they're fearful that if I expands this market here is

148
00:08:55,320 --> 00:08:58,360
Speaker 1: going to be because of installing the speed up, and

149
00:08:58,400 --> 00:09:01,720
Speaker 1: therefore other markets made do the same thing for realizing

150
00:09:02,160 --> 00:09:06,640
Speaker 1: they have more trades as a result, making markets competitive,

151
00:09:06,880 --> 00:09:10,719
Speaker 1: and consequently that operates to the disadvantage of Citadel. So

152
00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:15,400
Speaker 1: quite frankly, what's happening with X's development and the ANTEC

153
00:09:15,559 --> 00:09:19,480
Speaker 1: going along with it, it dramatically challenges the business model

154
00:09:19,640 --> 00:09:23,240
Speaker 1: that's made pretty much what Citadel is. So how do

155
00:09:23,280 --> 00:09:26,360
Speaker 1: you think the d C circuit will rule here? I

156
00:09:26,360 --> 00:09:28,480
Speaker 1: think I X is going to win this case. I

157
00:09:28,480 --> 00:09:30,640
Speaker 1: think the SEC is going to win this case. I

158
00:09:30,640 --> 00:09:34,000
Speaker 1: think within their power to think about what the microstructure

159
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:36,520
Speaker 1: of the market is. There's a lot of intuitive appeal

160
00:09:36,600 --> 00:09:39,400
Speaker 1: to thinking that everybody should be on the same plane

161
00:09:39,520 --> 00:09:43,520
Speaker 1: the same starting line. I'd be very surprised cited otherwise.

162
00:09:44,559 --> 00:09:47,800
Speaker 1: Do you think that SEC Chair Gary Ginsler is on

163
00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:51,600
Speaker 1: a collision course with some of Wall Street's biggest names

164
00:09:52,440 --> 00:09:56,880
Speaker 1: as he absolutely, absolutely, I gave him a lot of

165
00:09:56,920 --> 00:09:59,800
Speaker 1: credit from I'm sure he's aware of that. But it's

166
00:09:59,840 --> 00:10:02,720
Speaker 1: not just the biggest Wall Street names. Those Wall Street

167
00:10:02,800 --> 00:10:05,199
Speaker 1: names all have a name associated with them, and that

168
00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:09,839
Speaker 1: is there on the dull side, and individuals, entities, pension funds,

169
00:10:09,920 --> 00:10:11,920
Speaker 1: what have you. They're on the by side, and they've

170
00:10:11,960 --> 00:10:14,400
Speaker 1: been the ones that have been disapenged for way too

171
00:10:14,440 --> 00:10:19,640
Speaker 1: long through a series of market microstructure anomalies that favors

172
00:10:19,720 --> 00:10:22,560
Speaker 1: the Citazaels of the world and doesn't do enough for

173
00:10:22,600 --> 00:10:25,680
Speaker 1: the people who actually buy the stalks have to earn

174
00:10:25,679 --> 00:10:29,920
Speaker 1: a return for their beneficiaries. Thanks for being in the show, Jim.

175
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:34,840
Speaker 1: That's Professor James Cox of Duke Law School. The state

176
00:10:34,880 --> 00:10:38,960
Speaker 1: of Oklahoma wants the Supreme Court to reverse its ruling

177
00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:43,120
Speaker 1: in MC the Oklahoma, a ruling hailed by Indian tribes

178
00:10:43,200 --> 00:10:47,040
Speaker 1: as a long overdue endorsement of their sovereignty in much

179
00:10:47,080 --> 00:10:49,839
Speaker 1: of the eastern part of the state. Joining me is

180
00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:54,800
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law reporter Jordan Ruben start by telling us about

181
00:10:55,080 --> 00:10:59,000
Speaker 1: the ruling in mcg the Oklahoma So mcgurt was a

182
00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:04,760
Speaker 1: criminal keys and they're the defendant who is a Native American.

183
00:11:04,840 --> 00:11:07,880
Speaker 1: He said the state didn't have jurisdiction to charge him

184
00:11:07,920 --> 00:11:10,400
Speaker 1: because he is an Indian and his crime took place

185
00:11:10,559 --> 00:11:13,800
Speaker 1: on Indian land. That raised the question whether the land

186
00:11:13,880 --> 00:11:16,679
Speaker 1: was still a reservation. And so even though it was

187
00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:18,480
Speaker 1: just a criminal case, that had all of these other

188
00:11:18,559 --> 00:11:23,560
Speaker 1: implications generally for whether this reservation in mcgard's case, the

189
00:11:23,760 --> 00:11:27,840
Speaker 1: Muskogee Creek Reservation still existed, and that had implications for

190
00:11:27,880 --> 00:11:31,760
Speaker 1: whether all these so called five Tribes in eastern Oklahoma's

191
00:11:31,760 --> 00:11:35,240
Speaker 1: reservations still existed. And the Supreme Court in a five

192
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:38,640
Speaker 1: four decision said that that land was still a reservation,

193
00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:42,960
Speaker 1: that Congress never disestablished it, and so that land still

194
00:11:42,960 --> 00:11:47,000
Speaker 1: stands today as a reservation. Now it was a five

195
00:11:47,080 --> 00:11:51,360
Speaker 1: to four decision. Tell us about the justices in the

196
00:11:51,400 --> 00:11:56,120
Speaker 1: majority and the justice in descent. Sure, so in these

197
00:11:56,160 --> 00:12:00,079
Speaker 1: five four cases, now six three cases, we typic he

198
00:12:00,160 --> 00:12:03,440
Speaker 1: see these divisions along party lines in terms of the

199
00:12:03,480 --> 00:12:07,320
Speaker 1: presidents who appointed the justices. And that was almost exactly

200
00:12:07,360 --> 00:12:10,560
Speaker 1: the case here we had Justice Neil Gorcich writing for

201
00:12:10,600 --> 00:12:14,360
Speaker 1: the majority, joined by the rest of the Democratic appointees

202
00:12:14,440 --> 00:12:17,720
Speaker 1: at the time, Ginsburg, Brier, Soudamior, and Kagan, and the

203
00:12:17,800 --> 00:12:21,640
Speaker 1: dissent was written by Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices

204
00:12:21,720 --> 00:12:26,400
Speaker 1: Thomas Alito and Kavanaugh. Described the reaction to the decision

205
00:12:26,600 --> 00:12:31,880
Speaker 1: from inside the state. So, starting from the perspective of

206
00:12:31,920 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 1: the tribes, it's really difficult to overstate the importance of

207
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:38,160
Speaker 1: this decision in their view. To take a step back,

208
00:12:38,760 --> 00:12:41,640
Speaker 1: tribes really had not done well at the Supreme Court

209
00:12:41,679 --> 00:12:43,960
Speaker 1: over the years, to say the least, and so they

210
00:12:44,040 --> 00:12:46,400
Speaker 1: viewed this decision, even though it was just a criminal

211
00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:50,439
Speaker 1: case involving that sort of discrete issue, as to the

212
00:12:50,480 --> 00:12:53,600
Speaker 1: part of it which affirms the reservation, they viewed that

213
00:12:53,720 --> 00:12:57,680
Speaker 1: as a long overdue affirmation of their tribal sovereignty and

214
00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:02,199
Speaker 1: a decision that they wouldn't have expected, perhaps even before

215
00:13:02,240 --> 00:13:05,000
Speaker 1: Gorst got on the court, and one that they perhaps

216
00:13:05,080 --> 00:13:08,240
Speaker 1: weren't even necessarily expecting then. And so it was widely

217
00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:11,280
Speaker 1: celebrated there from the tribe's perspective, and it was really

218
00:13:11,320 --> 00:13:16,000
Speaker 1: the opposite reaction from the state government's perspective. Ahead of

219
00:13:16,040 --> 00:13:18,160
Speaker 1: the ruling. They had warned of all of these negative

220
00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:22,400
Speaker 1: consequences if the state lacked jurisdiction in terms of criminals

221
00:13:22,480 --> 00:13:24,720
Speaker 1: running loose on the street and that sort of thing.

222
00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:28,600
Speaker 1: And the state's reaction after the ruling was, Hey, this

223
00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:32,480
Speaker 1: is happening now, and the state is essentially telling the court, now,

224
00:13:32,920 --> 00:13:36,200
Speaker 1: we told you so. So the status said that this

225
00:13:36,240 --> 00:13:40,719
Speaker 1: creates a public safety nightmare for victims and law enforcement.

226
00:13:41,280 --> 00:13:44,800
Speaker 1: It has pitched Oklahoma's criminal justice system into a state

227
00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:48,960
Speaker 1: of emergency. Is that hyperbole or has there actually been

228
00:13:49,000 --> 00:13:54,000
Speaker 1: a change in Oklahoma? So if you talk to the tribes,

229
00:13:54,400 --> 00:13:57,240
Speaker 1: as I've done recently in speaking to some of their lawyers,

230
00:13:57,800 --> 00:14:01,199
Speaker 1: it's hyperbole. The state, at least, they say that the

231
00:14:01,360 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 1: governor's claims Governor Kevin Stitt, that those claims are at

232
00:14:05,520 --> 00:14:08,839
Speaker 1: the very least misleading, if not just outright false. They

233
00:14:08,880 --> 00:14:11,040
Speaker 1: say that they're working to implement the ruling and that

234
00:14:11,400 --> 00:14:15,400
Speaker 1: even though that McGrath decision has certainly brought a change,

235
00:14:15,440 --> 00:14:19,360
Speaker 1: a huge change in how criminal justice is addressed in

236
00:14:19,480 --> 00:14:23,840
Speaker 1: terms of increased tribal responsibility and federal responsibility in place

237
00:14:23,840 --> 00:14:25,600
Speaker 1: of the states, they say that it's far from a

238
00:14:25,720 --> 00:14:29,160
Speaker 1: nightmare that they're working to implement the decision, and from

239
00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:33,000
Speaker 1: the tribes perspective, the problem, as they see it, is

240
00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:36,000
Speaker 1: the fact that the governor is trying to now overturn

241
00:14:36,080 --> 00:14:39,080
Speaker 1: the decision, and so they see having to relitigate the

242
00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:41,520
Speaker 1: issue as a waste of time when they're trying to

243
00:14:42,080 --> 00:14:46,400
Speaker 1: address real issues. So the governor is trying to get

244
00:14:46,400 --> 00:14:50,440
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to overturn a decision it just made

245
00:14:50,680 --> 00:14:56,000
Speaker 1: less term why right, So they're trying to overturn last

246
00:14:56,080 --> 00:15:00,240
Speaker 1: year's decision. Really, it's the same claims that they maid

247
00:15:00,360 --> 00:15:03,240
Speaker 1: heading into the decision, and now they're just saying, Hey,

248
00:15:03,280 --> 00:15:06,080
Speaker 1: all these bad things that we said we're going to

249
00:15:06,160 --> 00:15:08,480
Speaker 1: happen have now happened, and we think this is an

250
00:15:08,600 --> 00:15:12,600
Speaker 1: erroneous decision and you should reconsider it. That's the long

251
00:15:12,680 --> 00:15:15,520
Speaker 1: and the short of their argument. Coming back to the court.

252
00:15:16,440 --> 00:15:20,600
Speaker 1: The governor thinks that the replacement of the late Ruth

253
00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:25,760
Speaker 1: Bader Ginsburg, who ruled against Oklahoma, with any Coney Barrett,

254
00:15:26,320 --> 00:15:29,120
Speaker 1: is going to make a difference. So he's betting on

255
00:15:29,320 --> 00:15:33,360
Speaker 1: the new composition of the court. That's what he said.

256
00:15:33,400 --> 00:15:37,120
Speaker 1: I saw a radio interview that he did in Oklahoma

257
00:15:37,200 --> 00:15:40,160
Speaker 1: earlier this year where the governor said as much, and

258
00:15:40,200 --> 00:15:42,920
Speaker 1: so at least from his perspective, he's hoping that that

259
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:45,840
Speaker 1: change will help. And it's hard to see how he

260
00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:49,840
Speaker 1: wouldn't need at least that change in personnel, because, as

261
00:15:49,840 --> 00:15:53,000
Speaker 1: you mentioned, this was a decision that happened just last year.

262
00:15:53,360 --> 00:15:55,800
Speaker 1: All of the justices are the same except for that

263
00:15:56,200 --> 00:15:59,080
Speaker 1: Ginsburg to Barrett switch, and so at the very least

264
00:15:59,080 --> 00:16:02,000
Speaker 1: he would need the new justice to think differently, And

265
00:16:02,040 --> 00:16:05,440
Speaker 1: he would also still need all of the justices who

266
00:16:05,560 --> 00:16:08,960
Speaker 1: dissented to vote the same way this time around. And

267
00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:12,200
Speaker 1: I'm not so sure that, for example, Chief Justice Roberts

268
00:16:12,400 --> 00:16:14,760
Speaker 1: would want to go back on that decision, even though

269
00:16:14,800 --> 00:16:17,440
Speaker 1: he wrote the dissent and was very much against how

270
00:16:17,680 --> 00:16:22,440
Speaker 1: the majority came out. So what are Oklahoma's petitions before

271
00:16:22,480 --> 00:16:25,400
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court? How many are there and what do

272
00:16:25,480 --> 00:16:29,640
Speaker 1: they say? So there are over thirty petitions that they've

273
00:16:30,200 --> 00:16:32,480
Speaker 1: lodge in front of the court and we're waiting for

274
00:16:32,520 --> 00:16:36,280
Speaker 1: the justices to consider them in the coming weeks and months.

275
00:16:36,320 --> 00:16:39,600
Speaker 1: And there is one additional claim that they're pressing, which

276
00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:41,720
Speaker 1: is sort of a follow on issue to McGirt in

277
00:16:41,840 --> 00:16:44,960
Speaker 1: terms of how the decision applies to non Indians, and

278
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:47,480
Speaker 1: that's potentially an issue that the Court could take up.

279
00:16:47,760 --> 00:16:51,000
Speaker 1: But at the same time, they're either additionally or separately,

280
00:16:51,120 --> 00:16:54,680
Speaker 1: just straight up pressing this claim to overturn McGirt. They

281
00:16:54,720 --> 00:16:59,000
Speaker 1: point out that the Court doesn't always follow its prior decisions.

282
00:16:59,000 --> 00:17:02,560
Speaker 1: We've seen in recent years the court overturning precedence. Of course,

283
00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:05,560
Speaker 1: whenever you talk about precedent. Now we have to note

284
00:17:05,600 --> 00:17:09,160
Speaker 1: I think that the Court is considering overruling the longstanding

285
00:17:09,200 --> 00:17:12,760
Speaker 1: abortion precedence, and the state is saying that this was

286
00:17:12,840 --> 00:17:16,159
Speaker 1: an erroneous decision and they just want the Court to

287
00:17:16,680 --> 00:17:21,479
Speaker 1: change its mind. It is remarkable that state officials are

288
00:17:21,520 --> 00:17:25,640
Speaker 1: reminding the justices that they don't always follow their prior rulings.

289
00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:30,439
Speaker 1: I mean, they cited a case that led Justice Stephen

290
00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:34,080
Speaker 1: Bryer to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next,

291
00:17:34,160 --> 00:17:37,240
Speaker 1: something which some of the liberal justices have noted in

292
00:17:37,240 --> 00:17:41,280
Speaker 1: the past. Right, So it is remarkable in the sense

293
00:17:41,320 --> 00:17:44,480
Speaker 1: of seeing it so quickly after a recent decision. I

294
00:17:44,480 --> 00:17:47,440
Speaker 1: think that would be forging new ground if the Court

295
00:17:47,480 --> 00:17:51,080
Speaker 1: were to actually take up this attempts to overturn the

296
00:17:51,119 --> 00:17:54,280
Speaker 1: decision and then side with Oklahoma and change in course.

297
00:17:54,320 --> 00:17:57,760
Speaker 1: So it is certainly remarkable in one sense and another sense,

298
00:17:58,240 --> 00:18:01,199
Speaker 1: perhaps the state thinks that as a shot at doing it,

299
00:18:01,240 --> 00:18:04,960
Speaker 1: looking at how the court has acted recently and given

300
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:08,120
Speaker 1: the change in composition, I still don't think that that's

301
00:18:08,160 --> 00:18:11,600
Speaker 1: going to be successful. But perhaps the state is looking

302
00:18:11,600 --> 00:18:14,280
Speaker 1: around and seeing that it thinks it might have a shot.

303
00:18:15,359 --> 00:18:19,920
Speaker 1: Have the Indian tribes made real changes because of McGirt,

304
00:18:20,040 --> 00:18:24,400
Speaker 1: So if the court took this an overrule McGirt, would

305
00:18:24,440 --> 00:18:29,200
Speaker 1: there be a lot of reversals necessary? Yes, certainly. So

306
00:18:29,240 --> 00:18:31,480
Speaker 1: since the mcgert decision, there's been a lot of work

307
00:18:31,560 --> 00:18:35,880
Speaker 1: that's gone into implementing it. Everyone agrees that McGirt has

308
00:18:36,080 --> 00:18:39,080
Speaker 1: brought a huge change. There's been a huge increase in

309
00:18:39,520 --> 00:18:44,760
Speaker 1: tribal responsibility in terms of increasing their jurisdiction, in terms

310
00:18:44,760 --> 00:18:47,640
Speaker 1: of their caseload in terms of federal caseloads. So there's

311
00:18:47,680 --> 00:18:50,840
Speaker 1: been a ton of work that's happened, even just since

312
00:18:50,880 --> 00:18:53,879
Speaker 1: the mcgert decision came down in twenty twenties. So to

313
00:18:53,960 --> 00:18:56,919
Speaker 1: say the least reverse and course would throw a wrench

314
00:18:57,119 --> 00:19:00,000
Speaker 1: into that. The state is saying that the McGirt said

315
00:19:00,040 --> 00:19:04,040
Speaker 1: and itself up ended years of a longstanding arrangement of

316
00:19:04,080 --> 00:19:07,080
Speaker 1: how criminal justice was conducted. But there's no question that

317
00:19:07,400 --> 00:19:10,439
Speaker 1: reversing course now, even just a year or so after,

318
00:19:11,000 --> 00:19:14,520
Speaker 1: would be a huge interruption in how tribes are working

319
00:19:14,520 --> 00:19:19,439
Speaker 1: to implement the decision. So to put Oklahoma's request for

320
00:19:19,480 --> 00:19:22,520
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to hear this in context, the court

321
00:19:22,600 --> 00:19:27,640
Speaker 1: is facing historically low public approval ratings and progressives are

322
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:31,280
Speaker 1: calling for court packing. And you know, as you mentioned,

323
00:19:31,280 --> 00:19:36,080
Speaker 1: the Court will be considering overturning the abortion precedent of

324
00:19:36,200 --> 00:19:40,160
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade, So is it likely to take another

325
00:19:40,200 --> 00:19:42,639
Speaker 1: hot button issue? So I think for a lot of

326
00:19:42,720 --> 00:19:46,760
Speaker 1: reasons that the Court is not even going to take

327
00:19:46,920 --> 00:19:49,760
Speaker 1: up the question of whether to overturn the macgurt case.

328
00:19:49,800 --> 00:19:53,119
Speaker 1: Of course, the Court has discretion over its docket in

329
00:19:53,160 --> 00:19:56,480
Speaker 1: almost every situation, so it's not just that I think

330
00:19:56,520 --> 00:19:59,200
Speaker 1: the Court is not going to reverse course. I think

331
00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:02,400
Speaker 1: it would be very surprising if the Court even granted

332
00:20:02,520 --> 00:20:05,680
Speaker 1: cert and agreed to take up the question of whether

333
00:20:05,760 --> 00:20:09,080
Speaker 1: to reverse course. I think there are other questions post mcgert,

334
00:20:09,160 --> 00:20:12,080
Speaker 1: like the question of how it applies to non Indians,

335
00:20:12,160 --> 00:20:16,240
Speaker 1: whether the ruling is retroactive, other aspects besides just the

336
00:20:16,280 --> 00:20:18,919
Speaker 1: straight up question of whether to overturn it. So for

337
00:20:18,920 --> 00:20:21,479
Speaker 1: a lot of reasons, I don't think the court is

338
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:24,040
Speaker 1: going to be interested in taking up the claim. If

339
00:20:24,040 --> 00:20:26,800
Speaker 1: it does even agree to hear the case, I would

340
00:20:26,840 --> 00:20:32,119
Speaker 1: be very surprised. Lawyers for tribes say that the governor's

341
00:20:32,160 --> 00:20:36,920
Speaker 1: fixation with overturning McGirt is hampering progress. What do they

342
00:20:36,920 --> 00:20:41,840
Speaker 1: mean by that? Well, from the tribes view, they don't

343
00:20:41,880 --> 00:20:47,520
Speaker 1: see this criminal dystopia that the governor has portrayed. They

344
00:20:47,560 --> 00:20:50,840
Speaker 1: see themselves as being busy with actually implementing the ruling,

345
00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:54,720
Speaker 1: which is a significant expenditure in both time and money,

346
00:20:54,760 --> 00:20:58,440
Speaker 1: and they see the mere fact of this litigation as

347
00:20:58,480 --> 00:21:01,840
Speaker 1: being a distraction and something that's hampering progress. So from

348
00:21:01,840 --> 00:21:04,760
Speaker 1: the tribe's perspective, it's almost that the biggest problem that

349
00:21:04,880 --> 00:21:08,200
Speaker 1: they see is the mere fact of the governor now

350
00:21:08,240 --> 00:21:12,240
Speaker 1: trying to overturn the decision that they're working to implements.

351
00:21:13,160 --> 00:21:15,840
Speaker 1: And though the governor has called the case the most

352
00:21:15,880 --> 00:21:21,200
Speaker 1: pressing issue for Oklahoma, only a small percentage of Oklahoma's

353
00:21:21,240 --> 00:21:25,280
Speaker 1: registered voters agree with that. That's right. According to a

354
00:21:25,480 --> 00:21:30,639
Speaker 1: poll that I saw, only of registered voters agree with that,

355
00:21:30,720 --> 00:21:34,240
Speaker 1: and so that would bolster the tribes claim that it's

356
00:21:34,240 --> 00:21:38,520
Speaker 1: not the criminal dystopia that the state government is claiming

357
00:21:38,560 --> 00:21:43,720
Speaker 1: it to be. How much of Oklahoma's land has reverted

358
00:21:43,800 --> 00:21:49,399
Speaker 1: to Indian jurisdiction percentage wise, So we're talking about, at

359
00:21:49,480 --> 00:21:53,120
Speaker 1: least so far pretty much the eastern half of Oklahoma

360
00:21:53,160 --> 00:21:56,840
Speaker 1: where reservations have been affirmed, as courts saying not just

361
00:21:57,440 --> 00:22:00,880
Speaker 1: really that it's reverted, but technically that it's never gone

362
00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:03,600
Speaker 1: away in the first instance. So we're looking just in

363
00:22:03,640 --> 00:22:06,320
Speaker 1: the eastern half. And as I mentioned, the so called

364
00:22:06,400 --> 00:22:09,239
Speaker 1: Five Tribes, which in addition to the Creek which were

365
00:22:09,280 --> 00:22:12,720
Speaker 1: at the center of the McGirt case, the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choptaw,

366
00:22:12,840 --> 00:22:16,240
Speaker 1: and Seminole tribes, those are really the main tribes at issue.

367
00:22:16,680 --> 00:22:20,159
Speaker 1: Just recently we saw a sixth tribe that the Oklahoma

368
00:22:20,359 --> 00:22:24,480
Speaker 1: State Court added, the Clappaw Nation. So we've seen the

369
00:22:24,560 --> 00:22:28,640
Speaker 1: ripple effects of McGirt expanding even beyond the Five Tribes.

370
00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:31,920
Speaker 1: But really for now we're talking about essentially the eastern

371
00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:37,679
Speaker 1: half of Oklahoma, which is significant. Turn into another case, Jordan's,

372
00:22:37,720 --> 00:22:42,200
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court agreed to review whether double jeopardy bars

373
00:22:42,320 --> 00:22:46,520
Speaker 1: prosecuting a defendant in federal district court after he's convicted

374
00:22:46,560 --> 00:22:51,080
Speaker 1: in a court of Indian offenses. Tell us about that case. Sure, So,

375
00:22:51,160 --> 00:22:55,640
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court recently agreed to review a double jeopardy case,

376
00:22:55,640 --> 00:22:59,760
Speaker 1: and the question there is whether double jeopardy rules bar

377
00:23:00,359 --> 00:23:04,240
Speaker 1: prosecution of a defendant in federal district court after he's

378
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:07,960
Speaker 1: convicted in what's called a court of Indian offenses. And

379
00:23:08,000 --> 00:23:10,560
Speaker 1: so the question there is going to be whether this

380
00:23:10,720 --> 00:23:14,600
Speaker 1: Court of Indian Offenses counts as a tribal court or

381
00:23:14,720 --> 00:23:18,840
Speaker 1: a federal court. And that's because under double jeopardy as

382
00:23:18,840 --> 00:23:22,359
Speaker 1: it exists now, there's something called the separate sovereigns or

383
00:23:22,520 --> 00:23:26,879
Speaker 1: dual sovereignty doctrine, which says that the law doesn't barb

384
00:23:27,000 --> 00:23:30,240
Speaker 1: multiple prosecutions for the same offense so long as they're

385
00:23:30,240 --> 00:23:34,520
Speaker 1: being prosecuted by separate sovereigns, meaning the state versus the

386
00:23:34,560 --> 00:23:38,119
Speaker 1: federal or tribal versus federal. So the question here is

387
00:23:38,119 --> 00:23:41,359
Speaker 1: whether we're in fact talking about separate sovereigns when we

388
00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:44,879
Speaker 1: talk about the Federal District Court and the Court of

389
00:23:45,200 --> 00:23:50,320
Speaker 1: Indian Offenses. Just describe what the Court of Indian Offenses is. Sure, So,

390
00:23:50,440 --> 00:23:53,640
Speaker 1: these are courts that are operating in places where tribes

391
00:23:53,680 --> 00:23:59,240
Speaker 1: have jurisdiction over American Indians and states don't, but where

392
00:23:59,280 --> 00:24:02,760
Speaker 1: there haven't been tribal courts that have been established to

393
00:24:02,920 --> 00:24:07,040
Speaker 1: take on that task. So they're essentially filling a gap there.

394
00:24:07,080 --> 00:24:11,520
Speaker 1: And so that sort of quasi tribal quasi federal nature

395
00:24:11,560 --> 00:24:14,440
Speaker 1: of them is what's leading to this question of what

396
00:24:14,560 --> 00:24:17,960
Speaker 1: does the Court of Indian Offenses actually count as? Is

397
00:24:17,960 --> 00:24:22,840
Speaker 1: it federal or tribal for purposes of this double jeopardy analysis,

398
00:24:23,000 --> 00:24:27,640
Speaker 1: why would it be considered federal and not tribal? Well,

399
00:24:28,040 --> 00:24:31,119
Speaker 1: these courts are called CFR courts. They're governed by the

400
00:24:31,200 --> 00:24:34,760
Speaker 1: Code of Federal Regulations. It's in the name itself. When

401
00:24:34,800 --> 00:24:37,680
Speaker 1: we're talking about Indian law, we're talking about a lot

402
00:24:37,720 --> 00:24:41,560
Speaker 1: of its stemming from federal law. So it's easy to

403
00:24:41,720 --> 00:24:46,360
Speaker 1: understand how the state isn't involved. But the line between

404
00:24:46,359 --> 00:24:51,000
Speaker 1: whether something is happening via federal jurisdiction or tribal jurisdiction

405
00:24:51,359 --> 00:24:54,640
Speaker 1: can sometimes be blurry. This is coming from the Bureau

406
00:24:54,800 --> 00:24:58,440
Speaker 1: of Indian Affairs. We're talking about the federal government here,

407
00:24:58,480 --> 00:25:01,600
Speaker 1: and so the line can be blurred sometimes, and so

408
00:25:01,640 --> 00:25:04,800
Speaker 1: the question here is which side of the line does

409
00:25:04,840 --> 00:25:07,680
Speaker 1: it fall on at least for these double jeopardy purposes.

410
00:25:08,080 --> 00:25:10,399
Speaker 1: And tell us a little about the facts of the case.

411
00:25:11,000 --> 00:25:15,760
Speaker 1: So this case involves Mr Denesbi and he was a

412
00:25:16,000 --> 00:25:20,680
Speaker 1: Navajo tribal member. He was arrested by tribal authorities with

413
00:25:20,800 --> 00:25:24,679
Speaker 1: violating tribal assault and battery law and with Code of

414
00:25:24,720 --> 00:25:28,760
Speaker 1: Federal Regulations, violations of terroristic threats, and false imprisonment. And

415
00:25:28,800 --> 00:25:32,359
Speaker 1: he was charged in one of these CFR courts. He

416
00:25:32,560 --> 00:25:35,919
Speaker 1: entered a plea and his remaining charges were dismissed, but

417
00:25:36,000 --> 00:25:39,800
Speaker 1: he was later charged in a Colorado Federal District court

418
00:25:40,160 --> 00:25:43,800
Speaker 1: with aggravated sexual assault. He was convicted there, sentenced to

419
00:25:43,880 --> 00:25:47,320
Speaker 1: thirty years. And so he's raising a double jeopardy claim.

420
00:25:47,320 --> 00:25:49,920
Speaker 1: And you can see just from this case itself how

421
00:25:49,960 --> 00:25:53,520
Speaker 1: significant the issue is, given how we're talking about either

422
00:25:53,600 --> 00:25:56,919
Speaker 1: an added punishment of thirty years or just the hundred

423
00:25:56,960 --> 00:26:01,320
Speaker 1: forty days of incarceration that he faced through this CFR court.

424
00:26:01,400 --> 00:26:05,720
Speaker 1: So there are big implications for everyone involved. And tell

425
00:26:05,800 --> 00:26:10,639
Speaker 1: us about that case in involving double jeopardy. Sure, So

426
00:26:10,680 --> 00:26:13,520
Speaker 1: there was a case called Gamble against United States that

427
00:26:13,600 --> 00:26:15,440
Speaker 1: was pending at the court a few years ago. They

428
00:26:15,440 --> 00:26:19,560
Speaker 1: decided it in. People were looking to that case to

429
00:26:19,600 --> 00:26:23,200
Speaker 1: see whether the court was going to overturn this longstanding

430
00:26:23,280 --> 00:26:26,720
Speaker 1: dual sovereignty or separate sovereigns dropped in. A lot of

431
00:26:26,720 --> 00:26:29,639
Speaker 1: people were looking at it as something that was really unfair.

432
00:26:29,680 --> 00:26:33,200
Speaker 1: You can be prosecuted for the same offense twice, regardless

433
00:26:33,280 --> 00:26:37,080
Speaker 1: of whether it's in a separate sovereign. People don't necessarily

434
00:26:37,400 --> 00:26:39,119
Speaker 1: care about that. People are looking at the fact that

435
00:26:39,160 --> 00:26:42,119
Speaker 1: you're being prosecuted twice, regardless of whether it was in

436
00:26:42,160 --> 00:26:45,719
Speaker 1: a federal jurisdiction one time, a state jurisdiction, another tribal

437
00:26:45,800 --> 00:26:49,800
Speaker 1: jurisdiction a third time. And so people were looking at

438
00:26:49,840 --> 00:26:53,960
Speaker 1: that case. Critics of this dual sovereignty doctrine were anyway

439
00:26:54,040 --> 00:26:56,960
Speaker 1: hoping that the court might reconsider it, but the Court

440
00:26:57,040 --> 00:26:59,560
Speaker 1: declined to do so. So there's no question that this

441
00:27:00,119 --> 00:27:02,480
Speaker 1: doctrine is still alive, and now we just have a

442
00:27:02,600 --> 00:27:06,640
Speaker 1: question of how it applies in this discrete situation involving

443
00:27:06,640 --> 00:27:10,359
Speaker 1: these courts of Indian offenses. Thanks for being on the show.

444
00:27:10,520 --> 00:27:14,560
Speaker 1: Jordan's that's Jordan Reuben of Bloomberg Law and that's it

445
00:27:14,640 --> 00:27:17,280
Speaker 1: for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

446
00:27:17,280 --> 00:27:20,639
Speaker 1: can always get the latest legal news. Honor Bloomberg Law Podcast.

447
00:27:21,040 --> 00:27:24,200
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or at

448
00:27:24,320 --> 00:27:29,520
Speaker 1: www dot bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law, and

449
00:27:29,560 --> 00:27:32,400
Speaker 1: don't forget to catch The Bloomberg Law Show every week

450
00:27:32,520 --> 00:27:35,159
Speaker 1: night at ten pm Wall Street Time, right here on

451
00:27:35,200 --> 00:27:39,280
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Radio. I'm joom Bolso and you're listening to Bloomberg