1
00:00:02,920 --> 00:00:06,240
Speaker 1: With its last two terms bringing down significant rulings on

2
00:00:06,360 --> 00:00:10,520
Speaker 1: issues like abortion, student loan forgiveness, and affirmative action. More

3
00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:12,680
Speaker 1: eyes than ever are on the U. S. Supreme Court,

4
00:00:12,920 --> 00:00:15,920
Speaker 1: which has shown its power to shape important policy issues

5
00:00:15,960 --> 00:00:20,240
Speaker 1: that affect all Americans. Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store

6
00:00:20,400 --> 00:00:22,680
Speaker 1: looks ahead at which cases are likely to be of

7
00:00:22,720 --> 00:00:26,439
Speaker 1: greatest consequence this term, some of which involve gun rights,

8
00:00:26,640 --> 00:00:30,120
Speaker 1: speech on social media and how much power federal agencies

9
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:33,600
Speaker 1: should have. And later we look at former President Donald

10
00:00:33,640 --> 00:00:37,120
Speaker 1: Trump's legal woes already before the Supreme Court thanks to

11
00:00:37,159 --> 00:00:46,560
Speaker 1: an extraordinary request from one of the prosecutors. I'm Craig

12
00:00:46,600 --> 00:00:50,000
Speaker 1: Gordon today on the big take another pivotal year for

13
00:00:50,080 --> 00:01:00,360
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court, Greg, The US is a roaching

14
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:02,280
Speaker 1: a record for the number of mass shootings that have

15
00:01:02,320 --> 00:01:04,480
Speaker 1: occurred within the space of a single year, and the

16
00:01:04,520 --> 00:01:07,319
Speaker 1: Supreme Court will be taking up several cases around the

17
00:01:07,360 --> 00:01:10,200
Speaker 1: issue of gun rights. Let's start by taking a look

18
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:13,160
Speaker 1: at the case involving a Trump era ban on bump stocks.

19
00:01:13,800 --> 00:01:16,360
Speaker 1: What is a bumpstock and why are they currently banned?

20
00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:20,240
Speaker 2: A bump stock is a device that lets a semi

21
00:01:20,280 --> 00:01:23,440
Speaker 2: automatic rifle fire a little bit like a machine gun.

22
00:01:23,920 --> 00:01:27,960
Speaker 2: And the Trump administration banned bumpstocks. It made it a

23
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:31,960
Speaker 2: criminal offense after that horrific twenty seventeen shooting in Las

24
00:01:32,040 --> 00:01:35,240
Speaker 2: Vegas that killed about sixty people where the shooter used

25
00:01:35,240 --> 00:01:39,080
Speaker 2: bump stocks, and the question for the Supreme Court is

26
00:01:39,319 --> 00:01:42,880
Speaker 2: whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms had the

27
00:01:42,920 --> 00:01:46,920
Speaker 2: authority to do that, Whether within this law that gives

28
00:01:47,000 --> 00:01:52,120
Speaker 2: ATF some discretion to ban things, whether this device makes

29
00:01:52,160 --> 00:01:54,920
Speaker 2: a semi automatic weapon into something similar enough to a

30
00:01:54,960 --> 00:01:58,200
Speaker 2: machine gun that they have the ability to say that

31
00:01:58,360 --> 00:02:00,840
Speaker 2: is illegal and it's a criminal offense to possess one.

32
00:02:02,960 --> 00:02:06,000
Speaker 1: Another gun case, we're watching concerns of ban on quote

33
00:02:06,080 --> 00:02:09,320
Speaker 1: dangerous people owning firearms. Tell us about this case.

34
00:02:10,000 --> 00:02:12,960
Speaker 2: This is a second Amendment case and it's potentially very

35
00:02:13,080 --> 00:02:15,760
Speaker 2: very important. If you recall a year and a half ago,

36
00:02:15,800 --> 00:02:19,120
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court said there's a constitutional right to carry

37
00:02:19,120 --> 00:02:21,760
Speaker 2: a handgun in public, and as part of that, the

38
00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:24,720
Speaker 2: Court set up a really tough legal test where they said,

39
00:02:24,960 --> 00:02:27,000
Speaker 2: we're going to look to history and unless you can

40
00:02:27,040 --> 00:02:31,600
Speaker 2: point to a regulation, a law within our history that

41
00:02:31,720 --> 00:02:34,840
Speaker 2: shows there's a tradition of regulating this type of behavior

42
00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:38,040
Speaker 2: this type of firearm, then it violates the Second Amendment.

43
00:02:38,160 --> 00:02:41,360
Speaker 2: And so the question here is a federal law that says,

44
00:02:41,480 --> 00:02:44,880
Speaker 2: if you're subject to a domestic violence restraining order, you

45
00:02:44,919 --> 00:02:47,680
Speaker 2: can lose your gun rights. And so what the Justice

46
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:50,280
Speaker 2: is explored in arguments in November and are going to

47
00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:53,440
Speaker 2: rule on sometime next year is whether there's enough of

48
00:02:53,440 --> 00:02:57,600
Speaker 2: a tradition there of taking weapons away from people like

49
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:00,320
Speaker 2: the man in question in this case, who is subject

50
00:03:00,360 --> 00:03:03,240
Speaker 2: to a domestic violence restraining order for that to pass

51
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:04,320
Speaker 2: Second Amendment muster.

52
00:03:04,720 --> 00:03:06,240
Speaker 3: The arguments seem to go.

53
00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:09,480
Speaker 2: Pretty well from the standpoint of gun control advocates in

54
00:03:09,520 --> 00:03:12,639
Speaker 2: the Biden administration, the Court didn't seem like they wanted

55
00:03:12,639 --> 00:03:15,720
Speaker 2: to go quite that far to say, no, you can't

56
00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:18,680
Speaker 2: impose this type of gun restriction. But we'll see what

57
00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:19,640
Speaker 2: happens when they rule.

58
00:03:20,560 --> 00:03:23,480
Speaker 1: So what sorts of other Second Amendment cases could this

59
00:03:23,639 --> 00:03:26,160
Speaker 1: case be a prelude to if the Justice were to

60
00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:27,000
Speaker 1: rule one way.

61
00:03:26,919 --> 00:03:27,320
Speaker 3: Or the other.

62
00:03:28,040 --> 00:03:30,560
Speaker 2: Well, certainly there are a lot of cases kicking around

63
00:03:30,560 --> 00:03:34,880
Speaker 2: about things like restrictions on so called assault weapons and

64
00:03:35,000 --> 00:03:38,480
Speaker 2: large capacity magazines. Those are the kinds of restrictions that

65
00:03:38,520 --> 00:03:40,680
Speaker 2: a lot of states and local governments had in place

66
00:03:40,720 --> 00:03:44,560
Speaker 2: even before the recent wave of mass shootings. There are

67
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:48,400
Speaker 2: questions about whether those will survive constitutional muster. There are

68
00:03:48,480 --> 00:03:51,800
Speaker 2: questions about whether somebody who is convicted of a non

69
00:03:51,920 --> 00:03:55,280
Speaker 2: violent felony can have their gun rights taken away. That's

70
00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:57,280
Speaker 2: the kind of thing that was very much at issue

71
00:03:57,280 --> 00:04:00,560
Speaker 2: in the arguments in the domestic violence case, question of

72
00:04:00,800 --> 00:04:03,720
Speaker 2: who has a Second Amendment right even if they've done

73
00:04:03,760 --> 00:04:07,280
Speaker 2: something violent or non violent, something to evade the law

74
00:04:07,440 --> 00:04:09,600
Speaker 2: previously in their life.

75
00:04:09,720 --> 00:04:12,760
Speaker 1: The National Rifle Association, often known as the NRA, is

76
00:04:12,840 --> 00:04:15,600
Speaker 1: also involved in one of these gun cases. They are

77
00:04:15,640 --> 00:04:19,160
Speaker 1: claiming that a New York State official blacklisted the organization,

78
00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:22,760
Speaker 1: violating its free speech rights. What is the root of

79
00:04:22,800 --> 00:04:24,400
Speaker 1: the NRA's complaint in this case?

80
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:27,200
Speaker 3: So this is a first Amendment case.

81
00:04:27,680 --> 00:04:32,240
Speaker 2: They're saying the New York officials violated our rights. They

82
00:04:32,480 --> 00:04:36,320
Speaker 2: discriminated against us because they don't like our viewpoint when

83
00:04:36,360 --> 00:04:39,640
Speaker 2: they pressured insurance companies not to do business with us.

84
00:04:40,480 --> 00:04:42,839
Speaker 1: So the NRA is essentially claiming they are allowed to

85
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:45,960
Speaker 1: exist as an organization and carry out a position that

86
00:04:46,000 --> 00:04:48,039
Speaker 1: some people might agree with and might disagree with, and

87
00:04:48,279 --> 00:04:51,160
Speaker 1: New York State has no right to squelch that activity.

88
00:04:51,920 --> 00:04:55,360
Speaker 2: Essentially, they're arguing that regulators don't have a free reign

89
00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:57,480
Speaker 2: to target us because they don't like what we do,

90
00:04:57,960 --> 00:05:02,159
Speaker 2: and that that is a quintessential First Amendment violation because

91
00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:06,479
Speaker 2: the government is supposed to treat private individuals and organizations

92
00:05:06,720 --> 00:05:09,560
Speaker 2: the same, regardless of what their viewpoints are. If the

93
00:05:09,600 --> 00:05:11,719
Speaker 2: government wants to express its own views on a matter,

94
00:05:11,960 --> 00:05:15,440
Speaker 2: it's allowed to do that, but it can't punish us

95
00:05:15,440 --> 00:05:18,360
Speaker 2: for expressing what we want to express and doing that

96
00:05:18,400 --> 00:05:23,200
Speaker 2: by pressuring others, in this case, insurance companies to disfavor us.

97
00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:29,359
Speaker 1: Greg you mentioned several First Amendment cases on this year's docket,

98
00:05:29,480 --> 00:05:33,560
Speaker 1: and some in particular, including social media and misinformation. Three

99
00:05:33,600 --> 00:05:36,279
Speaker 1: of these cases deal with the ability of federal entities

100
00:05:36,400 --> 00:05:39,320
Speaker 1: and the platforms themselves to police misinformation.

101
00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:40,440
Speaker 3: Tell us what's at stake.

102
00:05:41,320 --> 00:05:45,719
Speaker 2: There are three different buckets of social media cases this term.

103
00:05:46,200 --> 00:05:49,719
Speaker 2: One has to do with Biden administration efforts to take

104
00:05:49,800 --> 00:05:54,360
Speaker 2: down misleading posts about COVID during the head of the pandemic,

105
00:05:54,839 --> 00:05:59,000
Speaker 2: and a lower court said the Biden deministration violated the

106
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:02,520
Speaker 2: First Amendment by being too heavy handed there and restricted

107
00:06:02,800 --> 00:06:05,520
Speaker 2: the context that the Biden administration could have with social

108
00:06:05,600 --> 00:06:08,839
Speaker 2: media companies going forward, and that could have big implications

109
00:06:08,839 --> 00:06:11,359
Speaker 2: for the election. Now that ruling is on hold, but

110
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:13,680
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court is going to take up the underlying

111
00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 2: question of whether the Biden administration could be restricted in

112
00:06:17,440 --> 00:06:20,840
Speaker 2: that way. Another set of cases has to do with

113
00:06:21,080 --> 00:06:25,520
Speaker 2: state laws, one Texas one in Florida that restrict what

114
00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:29,279
Speaker 2: social media companies can do to moderate the content on

115
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:33,279
Speaker 2: their site. So, in both cases, those states say social

116
00:06:33,279 --> 00:06:37,560
Speaker 2: media companies are disfavoring conservative viewpoints, and so they've set

117
00:06:37,600 --> 00:06:40,640
Speaker 2: up all these rules to make sure that in their mind,

118
00:06:40,720 --> 00:06:44,279
Speaker 2: conservative viewpoints aren't disfavored. And so there are a variety

119
00:06:44,279 --> 00:06:47,400
Speaker 2: of First Amendment attacks that the social media companies are

120
00:06:47,440 --> 00:06:50,760
Speaker 2: pressing against those two laws. And then the final bucket

121
00:06:50,760 --> 00:06:53,400
Speaker 2: of cases has to do with a variation of if

122
00:06:53,440 --> 00:06:56,080
Speaker 2: you remember back when Donald Trump was president and he

123
00:06:56,120 --> 00:06:59,239
Speaker 2: would block people from his Twitter account. These are cases

124
00:06:59,240 --> 00:07:02,320
Speaker 2: where officials at lower levels did something similar to that.

125
00:07:02,360 --> 00:07:04,799
Speaker 2: They have private social media accounts where they talk about

126
00:07:04,800 --> 00:07:08,599
Speaker 2: public events, public affairs, public issues. The question is do

127
00:07:08,640 --> 00:07:11,120
Speaker 2: they have the right to block people from posting comments

128
00:07:11,160 --> 00:07:13,680
Speaker 2: on their social media sites if they're using them for

129
00:07:13,880 --> 00:07:15,640
Speaker 2: at least quasi official purposes.

130
00:07:16,800 --> 00:07:18,600
Speaker 1: All three of these cases would seem to have a

131
00:07:18,600 --> 00:07:21,200
Speaker 1: great bearing on what kind of posts can be made

132
00:07:21,280 --> 00:07:23,960
Speaker 1: during the twenty twenty four election. How do you see

133
00:07:24,000 --> 00:07:26,640
Speaker 1: this shaking out in terms of the election speech that

134
00:07:26,800 --> 00:07:28,600
Speaker 1: both sides are going to be trying to engage in,

135
00:07:28,640 --> 00:07:31,680
Speaker 1: whether that's Biden and Tromp, Republicans and Democrats. Are we

136
00:07:31,760 --> 00:07:34,080
Speaker 1: going to see a kind of a wild West approach

137
00:07:34,120 --> 00:07:35,760
Speaker 1: where things are wide open or do you think there

138
00:07:35,800 --> 00:07:38,880
Speaker 1: will be limitations put on it? Especially after the twenty

139
00:07:38,880 --> 00:07:41,880
Speaker 1: sixteen election, when Facebook and other companies played a pretty

140
00:07:41,880 --> 00:07:44,600
Speaker 1: major role in some of the campaigns.

141
00:07:44,280 --> 00:07:47,640
Speaker 2: I would say that cases like these might have seemed

142
00:07:47,680 --> 00:07:51,480
Speaker 2: more important before the social media companies started scaling back

143
00:07:51,520 --> 00:07:53,400
Speaker 2: on their own how much they want to do to

144
00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:57,920
Speaker 2: moderate content. For example, the case about the Biden administration,

145
00:07:58,480 --> 00:08:01,160
Speaker 2: that will be very important in the election going forward.

146
00:08:01,240 --> 00:08:04,400
Speaker 2: It will restrict the ability of the Biden administration if

147
00:08:04,400 --> 00:08:07,320
Speaker 2: they lose to go to X or Facebook or whoever

148
00:08:07,640 --> 00:08:11,280
Speaker 2: and say, hey, somebody is posting false information there.

149
00:08:11,520 --> 00:08:13,480
Speaker 3: You might want to take a look at that. But

150
00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:14,360
Speaker 3: to the extent that.

151
00:08:14,280 --> 00:08:17,040
Speaker 2: The social media companies aren't as interested in taking down

152
00:08:17,120 --> 00:08:21,120
Speaker 2: misleading content, the effect will be a little less now

153
00:08:21,160 --> 00:08:24,440
Speaker 2: the Texas and Florida laws. They could still have a

154
00:08:24,520 --> 00:08:28,840
Speaker 2: pretty big effect if social media companies are affirmatively required

155
00:08:29,000 --> 00:08:33,439
Speaker 2: to take steps to make sure that conservative content isn't disfavored,

156
00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:38,320
Speaker 2: isn't disproportionately taken down, but probably more at the margins

157
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:40,240
Speaker 2: than it might have been if we were having this

158
00:08:40,360 --> 00:08:42,400
Speaker 2: debate before, say the twenty twenty election.

159
00:08:43,880 --> 00:08:46,320
Speaker 1: Greg The ruling against the Sackler family, of course, they

160
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:49,280
Speaker 1: are the owners of Purdue Pharma that manufactured oxy content

161
00:08:49,600 --> 00:08:52,720
Speaker 1: is also being challenged, the central question there being whether

162
00:08:53,000 --> 00:08:55,600
Speaker 1: or not the Sackler family could get a legal shield

163
00:08:55,640 --> 00:08:59,120
Speaker 1: from future litigation through their settlement. What arguments are being

164
00:08:59,120 --> 00:08:59,840
Speaker 1: made in this case.

165
00:09:00,640 --> 00:09:03,560
Speaker 2: So, this is a case where the Biden administration and

166
00:09:03,840 --> 00:09:06,160
Speaker 2: a guy in within the Justice Department known as the

167
00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:10,120
Speaker 2: US Trustee is challenging the settlement on the grounds that

168
00:09:10,320 --> 00:09:15,360
Speaker 2: federal bankruptcy law doesn't let bankruptcy judges approve so called

169
00:09:15,640 --> 00:09:19,360
Speaker 2: non consenting third party releases. And to unpack that a

170
00:09:19,360 --> 00:09:22,120
Speaker 2: little bit, the idea is people who might want to

171
00:09:22,160 --> 00:09:25,880
Speaker 2: sue the Sacklers because they blame them for the opioid

172
00:09:25,920 --> 00:09:28,880
Speaker 2: crisis can no longer sue them. Under the settlement, the

173
00:09:28,920 --> 00:09:33,800
Speaker 2: Sacklers are shielded to a large degree from any additional liability.

174
00:09:34,240 --> 00:09:37,719
Speaker 2: In this case, the settlement as a whole requires them

175
00:09:37,760 --> 00:09:40,840
Speaker 2: to put in something like six billion dollars into the

176
00:09:40,840 --> 00:09:45,080
Speaker 2: pot for victims and the fund opioid addiction programs. Some

177
00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:47,240
Speaker 2: folks would like them to pay more. The Sacklers took

178
00:09:47,280 --> 00:09:49,320
Speaker 2: a lot of money out of the company. A lot

179
00:09:49,320 --> 00:09:53,040
Speaker 2: of that money is now offshore, and the question is

180
00:09:53,080 --> 00:09:56,280
Speaker 2: whether the settlement is going to go forward and wipe

181
00:09:56,320 --> 00:09:58,920
Speaker 2: out the ability of victims to keep trying to go

182
00:09:59,040 --> 00:10:03,199
Speaker 2: after the Sacklers for their involvement in the opioid crisis.

183
00:10:03,880 --> 00:10:08,959
Speaker 1: What would ruling against that plan change in current bankruptcy law, It.

184
00:10:08,880 --> 00:10:09,760
Speaker 3: Would change a lot.

185
00:10:10,160 --> 00:10:14,080
Speaker 2: These third party releases are a pretty common feature. So

186
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:19,440
Speaker 2: for example, the settlements involving the Catholic dioceses involving sexual

187
00:10:19,440 --> 00:10:23,600
Speaker 2: abuse and the Boy Scouts, they have provisions like these,

188
00:10:23,720 --> 00:10:26,480
Speaker 2: and the arguments for them is that's the only way

189
00:10:26,480 --> 00:10:29,240
Speaker 2: we're going to achieve this sort of global pieces. If

190
00:10:29,240 --> 00:10:32,480
Speaker 2: we say we're settling everything, there's this big pot of

191
00:10:32,520 --> 00:10:37,040
Speaker 2: money that will now be available for victims. And without

192
00:10:37,080 --> 00:10:40,400
Speaker 2: this sort of tool, a lot of people think that

193
00:10:41,120 --> 00:10:44,959
Speaker 2: big overarching settlements like that will no longer be possible,

194
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:48,800
Speaker 2: or at least not as easy to achieve after the break.

195
00:10:49,120 --> 00:10:52,720
Speaker 1: Will the Court limit the power and reach of federal agencies?

196
00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:03,760
Speaker 1: Greg The Supreme Court is also reving several cases regarding

197
00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:07,360
Speaker 1: the reach and power of some federal agencies. The Consumer

198
00:11:07,440 --> 00:11:11,600
Speaker 1: Financial Protection Bureau CFPB as it's known, is under scrutiny

199
00:11:11,640 --> 00:11:14,240
Speaker 1: for the way Congress delivers its funding. What is the

200
00:11:14,280 --> 00:11:16,240
Speaker 1: criticism about the current funding model?

201
00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:20,079
Speaker 2: So the argument is, and a federal appeals court found

202
00:11:20,280 --> 00:11:24,440
Speaker 2: that the bureau's funding system is unconstitutional because the money

203
00:11:24,559 --> 00:11:29,960
Speaker 2: it uses wasn't appropriated by Congress. The CFPB gets its

204
00:11:30,040 --> 00:11:34,000
Speaker 2: money from the Federal Reserve. In fact, the CFPB sort

205
00:11:34,000 --> 00:11:35,960
Speaker 2: of gets to set its own budget. It tells the

206
00:11:36,000 --> 00:11:38,320
Speaker 2: Federal Reserve, here's how much we think we need and

207
00:11:38,720 --> 00:11:41,560
Speaker 2: up to a certain cap. And that amount has always

208
00:11:41,559 --> 00:11:44,400
Speaker 2: been approved. It's always gotten that amount of money. And

209
00:11:44,440 --> 00:11:48,280
Speaker 2: so very conservative appeals court, the Fifth Circuit, said, the

210
00:11:48,320 --> 00:11:52,520
Speaker 2: Constitution says that you can't spend money unless it's appropriated

211
00:11:52,559 --> 00:11:55,480
Speaker 2: by Congress, and that hasn't happened here. And one of

212
00:11:55,480 --> 00:11:59,120
Speaker 2: the issues in the case is this appropriation's clause until

213
00:11:59,120 --> 00:12:02,280
Speaker 2: now has only been used as a restriction on the

214
00:12:02,360 --> 00:12:05,680
Speaker 2: executive branch. So the idea behind it, a lot of

215
00:12:05,679 --> 00:12:08,280
Speaker 2: people will argue is that you know, you don't want

216
00:12:08,320 --> 00:12:11,080
Speaker 2: the president or some agency spending money unless Congress says

217
00:12:11,080 --> 00:12:13,320
Speaker 2: it's okay, because Congress has the power of the purse.

218
00:12:13,720 --> 00:12:16,000
Speaker 2: In this case, this is more of an argument that

219
00:12:16,280 --> 00:12:19,080
Speaker 2: it actually restricts Congress, and it restricts its ability to

220
00:12:19,080 --> 00:12:20,920
Speaker 2: set up this agency the way it wants with the

221
00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:23,640
Speaker 2: level of independence that it wants. The Court heard our

222
00:12:23,679 --> 00:12:27,440
Speaker 2: arguments back in October. In this case, they were perhaps

223
00:12:27,480 --> 00:12:30,520
Speaker 2: surprisingly pretty skeptical of the argument that this is an

224
00:12:30,559 --> 00:12:34,600
Speaker 2: unconstitutional system. It's a novel argument, and it didn't really

225
00:12:34,640 --> 00:12:37,000
Speaker 2: seem to gain a whole lot of traction. So at

226
00:12:37,120 --> 00:12:39,320
Speaker 2: least coming out of that, it felt like the Court

227
00:12:39,520 --> 00:12:43,320
Speaker 2: was going to uphold the CFPB's funding system and let

228
00:12:43,320 --> 00:12:45,520
Speaker 2: the agency continue as.

229
00:12:45,360 --> 00:12:49,360
Speaker 1: It has greg the CFPV is actually a relatively new

230
00:12:49,400 --> 00:12:53,200
Speaker 1: agency meant to be a consumer protection agency at the

231
00:12:53,400 --> 00:12:56,800
Speaker 1: level of the federal government, with federal powers. Why did

232
00:12:56,800 --> 00:12:59,640
Speaker 1: they create this rather unusual funding structure where it does

233
00:12:59,640 --> 00:13:01,160
Speaker 1: seem to do a little bit of and then run

234
00:13:01,200 --> 00:13:03,320
Speaker 1: around the congressional appropriation process.

235
00:13:04,080 --> 00:13:05,839
Speaker 2: Well, this was set up in the aftermath of the

236
00:13:05,880 --> 00:13:09,000
Speaker 2: two thousand and eight financial crisis, and Congress really wanted

237
00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:12,280
Speaker 2: to give it independence and have it be shielded from

238
00:13:12,520 --> 00:13:14,600
Speaker 2: political pressures so that they could do the work of

239
00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:19,280
Speaker 2: protecting consumers. And so ever, since then, opponents of the

240
00:13:19,320 --> 00:13:23,120
Speaker 2: CFPB had been challenging various aspects of it. One issue

241
00:13:23,120 --> 00:13:25,800
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court dealt with a few years ago was

242
00:13:25,920 --> 00:13:27,800
Speaker 2: the notion that it was too hard to fire the

243
00:13:27,840 --> 00:13:30,680
Speaker 2: director of the CFPB, and in fact, the way it

244
00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:33,440
Speaker 2: was set up when Donald Trump was president, for the

245
00:13:33,480 --> 00:13:36,080
Speaker 2: first couple of years, he had a director of the

246
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:39,720
Speaker 2: CFPB who was appointed by President Obama, and the Supreme

247
00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:43,079
Speaker 2: Court in that case ruled that the president had to

248
00:13:43,160 --> 00:13:45,680
Speaker 2: have the ability under the Constitution to fire the director

249
00:13:45,679 --> 00:13:48,360
Speaker 2: for any reason. And since then the director has been

250
00:13:48,520 --> 00:13:50,280
Speaker 2: somebody who was appointed by the President.

251
00:13:52,000 --> 00:13:54,320
Speaker 1: Greg an agency that's been around a lot longer than that,

252
00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:57,520
Speaker 1: the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC obviously regulates a

253
00:13:57,600 --> 00:14:00,319
Speaker 1: Wall Street is also having the breadth of its already

254
00:14:00,320 --> 00:14:03,880
Speaker 1: scrutinized by the Supreme Court Justice is this term, what

255
00:14:04,040 --> 00:14:06,360
Speaker 1: is the key enforcement tool that is under fire.

256
00:14:07,160 --> 00:14:09,120
Speaker 2: This is the case, and there are multiple arguments, but

257
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:11,000
Speaker 2: it's all focused on the use of what are known

258
00:14:11,040 --> 00:14:15,400
Speaker 2: as administrative law judges. They're in house judges, and the SEC,

259
00:14:15,640 --> 00:14:18,960
Speaker 2: like some other agencies, when it presses an enforcement action,

260
00:14:19,360 --> 00:14:22,880
Speaker 2: say somebody violated or some company violated the securities fraud laws,

261
00:14:23,400 --> 00:14:25,840
Speaker 2: they can choose to go before one of their in

262
00:14:25,920 --> 00:14:28,840
Speaker 2: house judges or they can go to federal court. And

263
00:14:28,880 --> 00:14:31,360
Speaker 2: the argument, the main argument that's being made in this

264
00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:33,320
Speaker 2: case is when you go to one of your in

265
00:14:33,400 --> 00:14:37,560
Speaker 2: house judges, you violate the constitutional right to a jury trial.

266
00:14:37,640 --> 00:14:39,720
Speaker 2: So this is a case of a hedge fund manager

267
00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:42,480
Speaker 2: who is accused of to frauding investors and he says

268
00:14:42,520 --> 00:14:46,120
Speaker 2: I have a constitutional right to make my defense to

269
00:14:46,400 --> 00:14:49,960
Speaker 2: a jury. And there are a couple other arguments too,

270
00:14:50,040 --> 00:14:52,280
Speaker 2: also having to do with how easy it is for

271
00:14:52,560 --> 00:14:55,520
Speaker 2: administrative law judges to lose their jobs to be fired.

272
00:14:56,040 --> 00:14:58,320
Speaker 2: But the main argument they've focused on at the court

273
00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:00,800
Speaker 2: was that jury trial right, and it did seem to

274
00:15:00,800 --> 00:15:04,200
Speaker 2: get some traction. There's certainly a possibility that the court

275
00:15:04,240 --> 00:15:07,480
Speaker 2: will say, at least when you are the SEC is

276
00:15:07,520 --> 00:15:11,040
Speaker 2: trying to get money from somebody seeking civil penalties from somebody,

277
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:14,480
Speaker 2: the Constitution's Seventh Amendment guarantees them the right to have

278
00:15:14,520 --> 00:15:15,160
Speaker 2: a jury trial.

279
00:15:16,400 --> 00:15:19,200
Speaker 1: There are two cases coming up the challenge something called

280
00:15:19,200 --> 00:15:22,200
Speaker 1: the Chevron doctrine. What is that exactly and how is

281
00:15:22,240 --> 00:15:23,040
Speaker 1: it being challenged?

282
00:15:23,720 --> 00:15:27,000
Speaker 2: That is a really really important doctrine for the field

283
00:15:27,000 --> 00:15:31,480
Speaker 2: of administrative law. This case called NRDC versus Chevron from

284
00:15:31,520 --> 00:15:34,480
Speaker 2: back in the nineteen eighties probably the most cited case

285
00:15:34,560 --> 00:15:37,360
Speaker 2: when you're talking about fights over regulations, and what it

286
00:15:37,400 --> 00:15:40,600
Speaker 2: says is basically, if there's a statute and the statute

287
00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:44,080
Speaker 2: is unclear, like how much an agency can do, for example,

288
00:15:44,120 --> 00:15:48,000
Speaker 2: how much power it has if the agency interprets a

289
00:15:48,040 --> 00:15:52,040
Speaker 2: statute says it means X, the courts will defer to

290
00:15:52,120 --> 00:15:55,040
Speaker 2: the agency, let it decide what its authorities are as

291
00:15:55,040 --> 00:15:58,960
Speaker 2: long as that interpretation is reasonable. And over the years

292
00:15:59,000 --> 00:16:01,320
Speaker 2: that has given to agency is a fair amount of

293
00:16:01,360 --> 00:16:04,400
Speaker 2: power to kind of define the scope of their missions. Now,

294
00:16:04,560 --> 00:16:06,960
Speaker 2: when the Chevron doctrine was put into place, it was

295
00:16:07,000 --> 00:16:10,480
Speaker 2: something that tended to help conservatives and republicans. Justice Inton

296
00:16:10,560 --> 00:16:13,040
Speaker 2: and Scalia was a big fan of the Chevron doctrine,

297
00:16:13,080 --> 00:16:16,120
Speaker 2: But over time it's become something that is anathma to

298
00:16:16,160 --> 00:16:20,000
Speaker 2: conservatives and folks who don't like big government. So this

299
00:16:20,160 --> 00:16:23,760
Speaker 2: is a case Oral said, actually two cases where the

300
00:16:23,800 --> 00:16:26,560
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, which has sort of been wheedling down Chevron

301
00:16:26,600 --> 00:16:30,080
Speaker 2: over the years, is going to consider overturning the Chevron

302
00:16:30,160 --> 00:16:33,800
Speaker 2: doctrine and saying Nope, the agency doesn't get any special difference.

303
00:16:33,880 --> 00:16:36,400
Speaker 2: We're just going to interpret the statute and if we

304
00:16:36,520 --> 00:16:39,040
Speaker 2: think it means why, it doesn't matter whether the agency

305
00:16:39,080 --> 00:16:42,400
Speaker 2: thinks it actually means X. If the Court goes there,

306
00:16:42,840 --> 00:16:45,560
Speaker 2: it certainly has the potential to make it much harder

307
00:16:45,560 --> 00:16:50,360
Speaker 2: for agencies to issue broad regulations and do other things

308
00:16:50,440 --> 00:16:51,960
Speaker 2: that affect American business.

309
00:16:53,920 --> 00:16:56,840
Speaker 1: Right, this strikes me as having enormous implications. As you say,

310
00:16:56,840 --> 00:16:59,720
Speaker 1: in other words, every time it agency makes a regulation,

311
00:17:00,040 --> 00:17:03,240
Speaker 1: court could come along and second guess the agency doesn't

312
00:17:03,280 --> 00:17:05,760
Speaker 1: that completely disempower the federal agencies.

313
00:17:06,480 --> 00:17:09,200
Speaker 2: I would maybe not say completely, but it certainly would

314
00:17:09,280 --> 00:17:12,320
Speaker 2: take a lot of power away from them. There are

315
00:17:12,480 --> 00:17:15,880
Speaker 2: narrow ways that the Court can decide this case. They

316
00:17:15,880 --> 00:17:18,600
Speaker 2: don't have to go all the way to overturning Chevron,

317
00:17:18,960 --> 00:17:21,800
Speaker 2: but certainly if the Court were to overturn it, you

318
00:17:21,920 --> 00:17:24,919
Speaker 2: add on to it, there's a ruling from two terms

319
00:17:24,920 --> 00:17:28,680
Speaker 2: ago involving the Environmental Protection Agency, where the Court said, hey,

320
00:17:28,720 --> 00:17:31,480
Speaker 2: if we're talking about whether Congress has given an agency

321
00:17:31,800 --> 00:17:35,680
Speaker 2: a major power, this is known as the major questions doctrine.

322
00:17:35,800 --> 00:17:38,600
Speaker 2: If we're talking about something that has a major political

323
00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:42,520
Speaker 2: or economic impact, like say, climate change regulations, the Supreme

324
00:17:42,600 --> 00:17:45,680
Speaker 2: Court said, we're going to require Congress to be very clear,

325
00:17:45,880 --> 00:17:48,720
Speaker 2: very explicit, that it did mean to give the EPA

326
00:17:48,960 --> 00:17:52,320
Speaker 2: or some other agency that power. And in that case,

327
00:17:52,359 --> 00:17:54,080
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court said they hadn't done that.

328
00:17:55,400 --> 00:17:59,119
Speaker 1: When we return, the case against former President Donald Trump

329
00:17:59,400 --> 00:18:01,399
Speaker 1: makes its way to the US Supreme Court.

330
00:18:10,240 --> 00:18:13,679
Speaker 4: Special counsel Jack Smith is asking the Supreme Court to

331
00:18:13,720 --> 00:18:17,520
Speaker 4: decide whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution for

332
00:18:17,600 --> 00:18:20,400
Speaker 4: alleged crimes he committed while in office.

333
00:18:22,320 --> 00:18:25,680
Speaker 1: Greg The cases against former President Donald Trump also continued

334
00:18:25,680 --> 00:18:29,119
Speaker 1: to move forward. Notably this week we saw Special counsel

335
00:18:29,240 --> 00:18:32,479
Speaker 1: Jack Smith ask the Supreme Court to rule on Trump's

336
00:18:32,600 --> 00:18:36,280
Speaker 1: argument that he's immune from prosecution. How is this unusual?

337
00:18:37,160 --> 00:18:41,080
Speaker 2: It's unusual because the last thing that happened on this

338
00:18:41,160 --> 00:18:44,879
Speaker 2: issue was that a federal trial judge ruled against Trump,

339
00:18:45,160 --> 00:18:48,040
Speaker 2: said you don't have the absolute immunity that you're claiming.

340
00:18:48,320 --> 00:18:51,760
Speaker 2: Trump then appealed to the Federal Appeals Court, the DC Circuit,

341
00:18:52,320 --> 00:18:55,520
Speaker 2: and the Special Council. Jack Smith is now asking the

342
00:18:55,520 --> 00:18:59,000
Speaker 2: Supreme Court to bypass the appeals court level, go ahead

343
00:18:59,000 --> 00:19:01,879
Speaker 2: and decide this issue itself, rather than having it go

344
00:19:01,920 --> 00:19:04,320
Speaker 2: through the normal course of an appeals court decision and

345
00:19:04,359 --> 00:19:07,280
Speaker 2: then the losing side appeal up to the Supreme Court.

346
00:19:08,040 --> 00:19:10,840
Speaker 1: What are the implications that a Supreme Court ruling one

347
00:19:10,880 --> 00:19:12,639
Speaker 1: way or the other could have on this case.

348
00:19:13,359 --> 00:19:15,520
Speaker 2: It could kill the case if the Supreme Court rules

349
00:19:15,560 --> 00:19:18,840
Speaker 2: against jack Smith. This is pretty much an argument that

350
00:19:18,840 --> 00:19:21,560
Speaker 2: Trump can't be prosecuted for anything stemming from efforts to

351
00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:26,240
Speaker 2: overturn the election or January the sixth. Right Now, trial

352
00:19:26,320 --> 00:19:29,720
Speaker 2: is scheduled from March fourth, and part of the reason

353
00:19:29,800 --> 00:19:32,240
Speaker 2: Jack Smith that he went straight to the Supreme Court

354
00:19:32,680 --> 00:19:36,359
Speaker 2: was that waiting for the DC Circuit to decide the

355
00:19:36,359 --> 00:19:38,680
Speaker 2: case and then going to the Supreme Court could take

356
00:19:38,720 --> 00:19:42,560
Speaker 2: many months, and he wants to move very quickly. Donald

357
00:19:42,600 --> 00:19:45,399
Speaker 2: Trump wants to delay things. He's tried to get the

358
00:19:45,440 --> 00:19:48,480
Speaker 2: trial pushed to after the election, and Jack Smith wants

359
00:19:48,480 --> 00:19:51,320
Speaker 2: to have a trial as soon as possible and with

360
00:19:51,520 --> 00:19:55,119
Speaker 2: the election looming in November. He's making the argument that

361
00:19:55,160 --> 00:19:57,959
Speaker 2: it's in everybody's interests for us to have certainty on

362
00:19:58,040 --> 00:19:59,840
Speaker 2: this issue as soon as possible.

363
00:20:00,880 --> 00:20:04,200
Speaker 1: What are the historical precedents here? Is it common or

364
00:20:04,280 --> 00:20:06,280
Speaker 1: uncommon for the Supreme Court to sort of jump the

365
00:20:06,320 --> 00:20:08,439
Speaker 1: line and take a case before it sort of made

366
00:20:08,480 --> 00:20:10,919
Speaker 1: its way through all the different levels of appeals courts?

367
00:20:11,640 --> 00:20:14,960
Speaker 2: Historically it's uncommon, although it's happened a lot more in

368
00:20:15,000 --> 00:20:17,440
Speaker 2: the last few years for various reasons, in both the

369
00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:18,680
Speaker 2: Trump years and now.

370
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:19,480
Speaker 3: The Biden years.

371
00:20:20,160 --> 00:20:23,800
Speaker 2: Probably the best precedent for it, though, is back in

372
00:20:23,840 --> 00:20:26,520
Speaker 2: the Nixon tapes case in the nineteen seventies.

373
00:20:27,040 --> 00:20:28,119
Speaker 3: That was a case.

374
00:20:27,880 --> 00:20:32,879
Speaker 2: Where the Supreme Court reviewed a federal district judge's conclusion directly,

375
00:20:33,560 --> 00:20:35,720
Speaker 2: and there was a criminal trial that was going to

376
00:20:35,720 --> 00:20:38,240
Speaker 2: be on hold depending on what the Court did with

377
00:20:38,280 --> 00:20:41,000
Speaker 2: regard to requiring the Nixon tapes to be turned over,

378
00:20:41,400 --> 00:20:44,440
Speaker 2: and the Court ruled in a matter of a couple

379
00:20:44,600 --> 00:20:47,600
Speaker 2: months it agreed to take up the case skip over

380
00:20:47,640 --> 00:20:49,760
Speaker 2: the appeals court and issued a ruling that let the

381
00:20:49,760 --> 00:20:50,600
Speaker 2: trial go forward.

382
00:20:52,560 --> 00:20:55,159
Speaker 1: Greg in that same case in the DC Court did

383
00:20:55,240 --> 00:20:57,199
Speaker 1: judge put down a pretty tough gag order on the

384
00:20:57,200 --> 00:21:00,639
Speaker 1: former president, barring him from commenting about the process and

385
00:21:00,680 --> 00:21:03,760
Speaker 1: the personnel in the court. Trump is obviously fighting this,

386
00:21:04,200 --> 00:21:06,320
Speaker 1: saying that he's essentially in the middle of a presidential

387
00:21:06,359 --> 00:21:08,399
Speaker 1: campaign and he should be allowed to say what he

388
00:21:08,480 --> 00:21:11,200
Speaker 1: wants to say as he seeks to return to the presidency.

389
00:21:11,200 --> 00:21:13,719
Speaker 1: What are the chances that this particular issue could make

390
00:21:13,760 --> 00:21:15,160
Speaker 1: it all the way to the Supreme Court.

391
00:21:16,119 --> 00:21:17,640
Speaker 3: There's certainly a significant chance.

392
00:21:17,680 --> 00:21:19,800
Speaker 2: Where at the point now where we're waiting to see

393
00:21:19,840 --> 00:21:22,560
Speaker 2: if Donald Trump will appeal to the Supreme Court. The

394
00:21:22,680 --> 00:21:26,840
Speaker 2: DC Circuit in that case largely upheld Judge Tuckkins gag

395
00:21:26,960 --> 00:21:28,120
Speaker 2: order against Trump.

396
00:21:28,560 --> 00:21:32,480
Speaker 5: The judge overseeing former president Donald Trump's January sixth case,

397
00:21:32,640 --> 00:21:36,439
Speaker 5: has reinstated a gag order. The judge temporarily halted it

398
00:21:36,560 --> 00:21:40,240
Speaker 5: earlier this month after his appeal. Prosecutor save Trump has

399
00:21:40,280 --> 00:21:45,399
Speaker 5: published intimidating posts on social media about prosecutors and potential witnesses.

400
00:21:45,760 --> 00:21:48,600
Speaker 5: Trump has said that the gag order violates his right

401
00:21:48,640 --> 00:21:49,480
Speaker 5: to free speech.

402
00:21:50,400 --> 00:21:53,760
Speaker 2: The gag order as it stands now restricts what he

403
00:21:53,800 --> 00:21:56,440
Speaker 2: can say about witnesses. It gives him a free hand

404
00:21:56,480 --> 00:21:58,960
Speaker 2: to criticize the judge gives him a free hand to

405
00:21:59,000 --> 00:22:03,400
Speaker 2: criticize Jack Smith, and there are some things he can

406
00:22:03,440 --> 00:22:07,119
Speaker 2: talk about with regard to the case, but as you indicated,

407
00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:09,280
Speaker 2: still seems to think that goes way too far in

408
00:22:09,400 --> 00:22:12,280
Speaker 2: terms of restricting his First Amendment rights, particularly since he.

409
00:22:12,240 --> 00:22:12,880
Speaker 3: Is a candidate.

410
00:22:12,960 --> 00:22:15,080
Speaker 2: So the next thing that could happen there is he

411
00:22:15,160 --> 00:22:16,399
Speaker 2: appeals to the Supreme Court.

412
00:22:17,480 --> 00:22:20,480
Speaker 1: Greg in Colorado, one of a series of Fourteenth Amendment

413
00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:23,919
Speaker 1: cases looking to keep Trump off ballast is still underway.

414
00:22:24,440 --> 00:22:27,520
Speaker 1: What would happen if the Colorado Supreme Court ruled against Trump?

415
00:22:28,240 --> 00:22:30,840
Speaker 2: That almost certainly would go up to the Supreme Court.

416
00:22:31,080 --> 00:22:34,639
Speaker 2: The question there is this insurrection clause. It's in the

417
00:22:34,640 --> 00:22:38,760
Speaker 2: Fourteenth Amendment, put in there after the Civil War, largely

418
00:22:38,960 --> 00:22:42,480
Speaker 2: thinking about people who are involved in the Confederacy. And

419
00:22:42,600 --> 00:22:46,040
Speaker 2: the question is can it be applied to Donald Trump

420
00:22:46,040 --> 00:22:49,600
Speaker 2: with regard to his actions on January the sixth, And

421
00:22:49,760 --> 00:22:52,480
Speaker 2: if it can be, who makes that decision? How does

422
00:22:52,520 --> 00:22:54,719
Speaker 2: that happen? Do you need like a criminal conviction before

423
00:22:55,040 --> 00:22:57,280
Speaker 2: it kicks in? So there are a lot of questions there,

424
00:22:57,640 --> 00:22:59,720
Speaker 2: And as you said, there are a number of cases

425
00:22:59,720 --> 00:23:02,840
Speaker 2: out there. There are four significant ones out there where

426
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:05,640
Speaker 2: folks are trying to keep Donald Trump off the ballot.

427
00:23:06,160 --> 00:23:09,280
Speaker 2: Not entirely clear the Supreme Court is going to need

428
00:23:09,320 --> 00:23:11,320
Speaker 2: to jump in or decide it wants to jump in.

429
00:23:11,840 --> 00:23:16,200
Speaker 2: But almost certainly if a state court, say the Colorado

430
00:23:16,320 --> 00:23:19,560
Speaker 2: Supreme Court says Donald Trump cannot appear on our ballot

431
00:23:19,600 --> 00:23:22,840
Speaker 2: because of the insurrection clause, that would almost guarantee the

432
00:23:22,880 --> 00:23:24,560
Speaker 2: Supreme Court would have to take that up.

433
00:23:25,440 --> 00:23:28,359
Speaker 1: And finally, Greg turning to the Supreme Court itself, after

434
00:23:28,480 --> 00:23:32,320
Speaker 1: a series of ethics controversies, the Court adopted a code

435
00:23:32,359 --> 00:23:34,800
Speaker 1: of ethics for itself for the very first time.

436
00:23:35,119 --> 00:23:36,040
Speaker 3: What does that entail?

437
00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:40,679
Speaker 2: It entails essentially putting in a different form the rules

438
00:23:40,680 --> 00:23:43,359
Speaker 2: that the Court says it's always abided by. The Court

439
00:23:43,400 --> 00:23:45,879
Speaker 2: was very clear when it did this that it's not

440
00:23:46,080 --> 00:23:48,600
Speaker 2: changing anything, and in fact, it led it with a

441
00:23:48,600 --> 00:23:52,000
Speaker 2: statement that said that we're dispelling the misunderstanding that we

442
00:23:52,520 --> 00:23:55,320
Speaker 2: act as though were unrestricted by any ethics rules. So

443
00:23:55,720 --> 00:23:57,360
Speaker 2: it put them all in a form of a code

444
00:23:57,359 --> 00:23:59,639
Speaker 2: of conduct that said a judge should do this, and this,

445
00:24:00,240 --> 00:24:03,719
Speaker 2: do that, and all the justices signed it agreed to

446
00:24:03,760 --> 00:24:08,840
Speaker 2: abide by it. There is importantly no real enforcement mechanism

447
00:24:09,040 --> 00:24:12,119
Speaker 2: for it. So one thing that some folks were hoping

448
00:24:12,200 --> 00:24:15,240
Speaker 2: for was that there would at least be a panel

449
00:24:15,240 --> 00:24:18,760
Speaker 2: of outside judges, at least an office within the Supreme

450
00:24:18,840 --> 00:24:23,280
Speaker 2: Court that would vet complaints about the justices.

451
00:24:23,520 --> 00:24:25,479
Speaker 3: And there isn't any of that.

452
00:24:25,760 --> 00:24:28,560
Speaker 2: It remains up to the justices and really up to

453
00:24:28,600 --> 00:24:33,000
Speaker 2: the individual justices to decide their own course of conduct.

454
00:24:33,440 --> 00:24:33,639
Speaker 3: You know.

455
00:24:33,640 --> 00:24:36,159
Speaker 2: One of the issues with say like recusals, where you

456
00:24:36,160 --> 00:24:38,040
Speaker 2: know you have questions, you know, should to go back

457
00:24:38,040 --> 00:24:41,240
Speaker 2: to January six? Should Clarence Thomas recuse from the January

458
00:24:41,240 --> 00:24:45,080
Speaker 2: six cases because his wife was involved in encouraging efforts

459
00:24:45,080 --> 00:24:48,439
Speaker 2: to overturn the election? And that decision, based on the

460
00:24:48,440 --> 00:24:50,720
Speaker 2: Court's current practice, is going to be made by Justice

461
00:24:50,760 --> 00:24:54,879
Speaker 2: Thomas himself. There's no mechanism for the Court as a

462
00:24:54,920 --> 00:24:58,880
Speaker 2: whole to make that decision about the activities of one

463
00:24:58,880 --> 00:25:02,080
Speaker 2: of the members. So it did address one thing that

464
00:25:02,119 --> 00:25:04,480
Speaker 2: people said the Court should do. They now have a

465
00:25:04,600 --> 00:25:07,600
Speaker 2: code of conduct, But in terms of actually changing any

466
00:25:07,760 --> 00:25:10,840
Speaker 2: behavior on the court, not at all clear that's going

467
00:25:10,880 --> 00:25:11,240
Speaker 2: to happen.

468
00:25:13,280 --> 00:25:15,400
Speaker 1: Is there any chance that the existence of this quote

469
00:25:15,400 --> 00:25:18,560
Speaker 1: of contact would lead to investigations or probes of some

470
00:25:18,640 --> 00:25:22,479
Speaker 1: of the justices activity you mentioned, particularly Clarence Thomas, who's

471
00:25:22,520 --> 00:25:25,360
Speaker 1: there's been some articles written about gifts he's taken from

472
00:25:25,440 --> 00:25:28,640
Speaker 1: various wealthy folks. You mentioned his wife, Jenny Thomas, of course,

473
00:25:28,720 --> 00:25:31,600
Speaker 1: was heavily involved in some of the conversations around overturning

474
00:25:31,600 --> 00:25:34,240
Speaker 1: the election. Any reason to think this quote of conduct

475
00:25:34,240 --> 00:25:37,040
Speaker 1: would lead to investigations into that conduct.

476
00:25:37,600 --> 00:25:40,440
Speaker 2: Craig, There's just not a mechanism in here for that

477
00:25:40,480 --> 00:25:43,080
Speaker 2: sort of investigation. So I think the answer to that

478
00:25:43,280 --> 00:25:46,400
Speaker 2: has to be no. Now, will this have some sort

479
00:25:46,440 --> 00:25:49,439
Speaker 2: of prophylactic effect? That might some of the criticism of

480
00:25:49,640 --> 00:25:52,439
Speaker 2: things justices that have done have some sort of effect

481
00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:55,080
Speaker 2: on them. Do they sort of accept that maybe some

482
00:25:55,160 --> 00:25:57,040
Speaker 2: of the things they've done have cast the court in

483
00:25:57,080 --> 00:25:59,800
Speaker 2: a bad light. Maybe it's hard to say, and I

484
00:25:59,840 --> 00:26:01,840
Speaker 2: think kind of the proof will be in the pudding

485
00:26:01,880 --> 00:26:03,840
Speaker 2: in the next year or two, as we sort of

486
00:26:03,880 --> 00:26:07,200
Speaker 2: see whether or not justices are materially changing the way

487
00:26:07,240 --> 00:26:10,399
Speaker 2: they're going about doing things. And with regard to what

488
00:26:10,440 --> 00:26:13,320
Speaker 2: you're saying with Justice Thomas and his wife, no sign

489
00:26:13,440 --> 00:26:15,480
Speaker 2: that either of them are backing down from the positions

490
00:26:15,480 --> 00:26:19,160
Speaker 2: they've taken. But who knows, Maybe things will change. Thank

491
00:26:19,200 --> 00:26:23,359
Speaker 2: you very much, Greg, my pleasure. Thanks for listening to

492
00:26:23,440 --> 00:26:26,320
Speaker 2: us here at the Big Take. It's a daily podcast

493
00:26:26,359 --> 00:26:31,000
Speaker 2: from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For more shows from iHeartRadio, visit

494
00:26:31,080 --> 00:26:35,840
Speaker 2: the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, Bloomberg car Play, or wherever

495
00:26:35,880 --> 00:26:37,600
Speaker 2: you listen, and we'd love to.

496
00:26:37,520 --> 00:26:38,040
Speaker 3: Hear from you.

497
00:26:38,359 --> 00:26:41,800
Speaker 1: Email us questions or comments at Big Take at Bloomberg

498
00:26:41,880 --> 00:26:46,080
Speaker 1: dot net. This episode was produced by Sam Gabauer, with

499
00:26:46,200 --> 00:26:51,560
Speaker 1: production assistants from Michael Falero and Federica Romaniello. Hilda Garcia

500
00:26:51,720 --> 00:26:55,640
Speaker 1: is our engineer. Our original music was composed by Leo Sidron.

501
00:26:56,119 --> 00:26:59,440
Speaker 1: I'm Craig Gordon. Will be back Monday with another Big Take.

502
00:27:00,040 --> 00:27:02,119
Speaker 1: Great Weekend, b

503
00:27:08,720 --> 00:27:08,960
Speaker 2: Mh