1 00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio 2 00:00:06,680 --> 00:00:09,960 Speaker 1: New Justice Amy Coney Barrett will immediately be embroiled in 3 00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:13,000 Speaker 1: some of the nation's biggest legal battles. The Court has 4 00:00:13,039 --> 00:00:16,520 Speaker 1: already been deciding pre election skirmishes over the rules for 5 00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:20,479 Speaker 1: casting and counting ballots. Joining me as constitutional law professor 6 00:00:20,560 --> 00:00:23,880 Speaker 1: Neil Kinkoff of the Georgia State University College of Law, 7 00:00:24,640 --> 00:00:28,040 Speaker 1: Most of these emergency petitions on election law issues are 8 00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:32,400 Speaker 1: being decided by Chief Justice Robert's vote. When Barrett is 9 00:00:32,440 --> 00:00:35,200 Speaker 1: in the equation, will she then be the deciding vote. 10 00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:39,480 Speaker 1: She'll be the deciding vote in any case where Roberts 11 00:00:39,520 --> 00:00:42,080 Speaker 1: makes the vote four to four. So in a case 12 00:00:42,120 --> 00:00:45,800 Speaker 1: like the Wisconsin case from yesterday that was five to three, 13 00:00:46,320 --> 00:00:50,440 Speaker 1: her vote wouldn't affect the outcome. Speaking of the Wisconsin case, 14 00:00:51,080 --> 00:00:57,160 Speaker 1: are you reading into Justice Kavanaughs comments that he's trying 15 00:00:57,160 --> 00:01:00,080 Speaker 1: to provide a roadmap that could help Trump win in 16 00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:03,800 Speaker 1: the election if there's a contested race. Well, I guess 17 00:01:03,800 --> 00:01:06,240 Speaker 1: I would put it this way. Two years ago, we 18 00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:10,880 Speaker 1: saw Brett Kavanaugh screaming at the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now, 19 00:01:10,920 --> 00:01:15,240 Speaker 1: in his opinion, we see him screaming Donald Trump's talking 20 00:01:15,319 --> 00:01:20,000 Speaker 1: points into his concurrence. Really, the only difference between Brett 21 00:01:20,040 --> 00:01:23,880 Speaker 1: Kavanaugh's opinion in Donald Trump's Twitter feed is that Kavanaugh 22 00:01:23,959 --> 00:01:28,520 Speaker 1: doesn't use all caps. Three of the justices worked on 23 00:01:28,560 --> 00:01:32,520 Speaker 1: the Republican side on Bush v. Gore. When you're a 24 00:01:32,560 --> 00:01:36,720 Speaker 1: litigator or a lawyer, you don't necessarily believe in what 25 00:01:36,800 --> 00:01:41,600 Speaker 1: you're arguing for your client in that context, does there 26 00:01:41,920 --> 00:01:46,560 Speaker 1: being on that case signal anything? So I don't think 27 00:01:46,680 --> 00:01:50,520 Speaker 1: that being on that case was an example of just 28 00:01:50,760 --> 00:01:53,760 Speaker 1: taking your client's position, because that's what you're being paid 29 00:01:53,840 --> 00:01:56,400 Speaker 1: to do. People who were involved in that case were 30 00:01:56,560 --> 00:01:59,840 Speaker 1: very much committed to the cause they were arguing for 31 00:02:00,000 --> 00:02:03,560 Speaker 1: are so this wasn't just sort of professional lawyering, So 32 00:02:03,600 --> 00:02:06,800 Speaker 1: that I think you're quite right. In general, it's a 33 00:02:06,800 --> 00:02:11,080 Speaker 1: perilous thing to read into an advocates position what that 34 00:02:11,280 --> 00:02:14,160 Speaker 1: advocate might do on the bench. But I would say 35 00:02:14,160 --> 00:02:18,160 Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore is a real exception to that, because 36 00:02:18,200 --> 00:02:21,760 Speaker 1: the people who argued that case were very much committed 37 00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:25,600 Speaker 1: to what they were arguing for, and so and I 38 00:02:25,639 --> 00:02:28,760 Speaker 1: think it's it's you know, in that respect, it's no 39 00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:34,680 Speaker 1: accident that um that in the Wisconsin opinion yesterday, Judge 40 00:02:34,800 --> 00:02:40,480 Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh cited and discussed Bush versus Gore. Um. I 41 00:02:40,600 --> 00:02:44,200 Speaker 1: believe that's the first time as any Supreme Court justice 42 00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:47,320 Speaker 1: has done that since Bush versus Gore was decided. Right. 43 00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:51,720 Speaker 1: It contained that famous passage where um Justice Kennedy wrote 44 00:02:51,760 --> 00:02:55,760 Speaker 1: that that the the opinion was good for that day 45 00:02:55,800 --> 00:02:59,320 Speaker 1: in that train only. But I think Justice Kavana was 46 00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:02,280 Speaker 1: making it quite clear that that he regards that as 47 00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:08,800 Speaker 1: sort of normal settled law and an appropriate precedent for 48 00:03:08,880 --> 00:03:12,680 Speaker 1: how the Court should act. Justice Barrett was questioned on 49 00:03:12,840 --> 00:03:17,040 Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade repeatedly during her confirmation hearings. She said 50 00:03:17,080 --> 00:03:19,400 Speaker 1: that Roe v. Wade was not what she called a 51 00:03:19,480 --> 00:03:23,839 Speaker 1: super precedent that could not be overturned, and she may 52 00:03:23,880 --> 00:03:26,520 Speaker 1: be making a key decision on abortion in a matter 53 00:03:26,560 --> 00:03:30,640 Speaker 1: of days. The Court is considering at a private confidence 54 00:03:30,800 --> 00:03:33,800 Speaker 1: on Friday whether to hear Mississippi's defense of a law 55 00:03:33,880 --> 00:03:37,960 Speaker 1: that would ban most abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. 56 00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:41,080 Speaker 1: If the Court takes that case, can we read anything 57 00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:43,720 Speaker 1: into it? Well, I think if they take that case, 58 00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:46,880 Speaker 1: they're taking it to uphold the Mississippi law. I think 59 00:03:46,960 --> 00:03:49,920 Speaker 1: that's quite clear, and I think it's clear that the 60 00:03:50,000 --> 00:03:53,600 Speaker 1: Court is aiming to overrule Row. I just I don't 61 00:03:53,600 --> 00:03:55,880 Speaker 1: think there's any subtlety about it, and I don't think 62 00:03:55,920 --> 00:03:59,840 Speaker 1: there's anything to be mystified about. That's exactly the agenda. 63 00:04:00,600 --> 00:04:03,680 Speaker 1: And in order to uphold Mississippi's law, would they have 64 00:04:03,800 --> 00:04:08,320 Speaker 1: to overrule Row? No, No, they wouldn't in that case. 65 00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:12,000 Speaker 1: And that's you know, they could, but they wouldn't have to. 66 00:04:12,680 --> 00:04:15,840 Speaker 1: And I think that's the preference of at least some 67 00:04:16,080 --> 00:04:19,479 Speaker 1: of the justices in that group, is to move a 68 00:04:19,520 --> 00:04:24,800 Speaker 1: bit incrementally. I think that's certainly Justice Roberts's preference UM. 69 00:04:24,920 --> 00:04:28,160 Speaker 1: And I think that's serve the more credible way that 70 00:04:28,160 --> 00:04:31,520 Speaker 1: that somebody who wants to reach that result would go 71 00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:35,040 Speaker 1: about reaching it instead of reaching out to overrule Row. 72 00:04:35,800 --> 00:04:40,600 Speaker 1: Set up a few cases beforehand that that seriously undermine Row. 73 00:04:41,160 --> 00:04:44,600 Speaker 1: That then allows you when you do the starry decisive analysis. 74 00:04:45,400 --> 00:04:48,920 Speaker 1: One component of that is whether the precedent is something 75 00:04:49,000 --> 00:04:53,000 Speaker 1: that's fixed in the law, that's relied upon UM and 76 00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:56,520 Speaker 1: that is consistent with other areas of the law, or 77 00:04:56,640 --> 00:04:59,320 Speaker 1: by contrast, is it something that sort of sticks out 78 00:04:59,360 --> 00:05:02,440 Speaker 1: like a sort um. So I think the first agenda 79 00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:08,440 Speaker 1: item for UM Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, Roberts is to make 80 00:05:08,560 --> 00:05:11,440 Speaker 1: Row really stick out like a sore thumb and then 81 00:05:11,520 --> 00:05:14,600 Speaker 1: come back and overrule it. The arguments on Obamacare come 82 00:05:14,680 --> 00:05:17,440 Speaker 1: up right after the election. How is that likely to 83 00:05:17,480 --> 00:05:20,599 Speaker 1: play out? There are a couple of aspects to that case. 84 00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:24,120 Speaker 1: One is whether or not again the individual mandate as 85 00:05:24,200 --> 00:05:28,159 Speaker 1: revised recently to have no penalty associated with it, whether 86 00:05:28,200 --> 00:05:31,760 Speaker 1: that's constitutional. Because the Court ruled by a five to 87 00:05:31,839 --> 00:05:35,479 Speaker 1: four vote that it was her vote replacing the vote 88 00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,479 Speaker 1: of Justice Ginsberg, can flip that five to four in 89 00:05:38,520 --> 00:05:42,200 Speaker 1: the other direction. Then the second question is if that 90 00:05:42,240 --> 00:05:46,240 Speaker 1: provision is unconstitutional, is it severable from the rest of 91 00:05:46,279 --> 00:05:49,240 Speaker 1: the statute. And that's the kind of question on which 92 00:05:49,560 --> 00:05:53,040 Speaker 1: I would have expected Chief Justice Roberts too have sided 93 00:05:53,080 --> 00:05:56,400 Speaker 1: with the liberals to say it is severable, or even 94 00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:58,200 Speaker 1: to have sided with the liberals that have said in 95 00:05:58,200 --> 00:06:01,800 Speaker 1: the first instance, it's still not constitutional. So I think 96 00:06:01,920 --> 00:06:05,479 Speaker 1: Justice Barrett's vote is going to be decisive on both 97 00:06:05,520 --> 00:06:10,159 Speaker 1: of those questions. And the severability argument, frankly, is really weak. 98 00:06:10,279 --> 00:06:14,360 Speaker 1: And so it may be that Justice Barrett and any 99 00:06:14,480 --> 00:06:19,000 Speaker 1: number of other conservative justices will agree that the individual 100 00:06:19,080 --> 00:06:22,839 Speaker 1: mandate is severable. The Supreme Court has expedited a Trump 101 00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:28,120 Speaker 1: administration appeal on the president's did to exclude undocumented immigrants 102 00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:30,240 Speaker 1: from the census count, and they're going to hear that 103 00:06:30,279 --> 00:06:34,760 Speaker 1: on November. Is there any indication how that case might 104 00:06:34,839 --> 00:06:38,240 Speaker 1: go again? This is reading tea leaves um. I think 105 00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:41,080 Speaker 1: there's a lot of reason to be concerned, given the 106 00:06:41,120 --> 00:06:45,839 Speaker 1: way that at least four justices right there, four conservative justices, 107 00:06:46,360 --> 00:06:52,880 Speaker 1: have pretty consistently upheld the frankly partisan Republican positions with 108 00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:57,120 Speaker 1: respect of voting um, and fundamentally, that's what this census 109 00:06:57,200 --> 00:07:01,200 Speaker 1: case is about, the apportionment of seats and House of Representatives. 110 00:07:01,240 --> 00:07:03,200 Speaker 1: It also has a lot to do with the portionment 111 00:07:03,279 --> 00:07:06,680 Speaker 1: of federal funding. So it's a case that goes goes 112 00:07:06,720 --> 00:07:11,200 Speaker 1: beyond just that, but it has real political implications. And 113 00:07:11,280 --> 00:07:16,840 Speaker 1: so adding Justice Barrett to that group means that the 114 00:07:16,880 --> 00:07:21,560 Speaker 1: Court may well be poised to vindicate the Trump administration's 115 00:07:21,640 --> 00:07:27,640 Speaker 1: frankly preposterous position. For two hundred and thirty years, it 116 00:07:27,720 --> 00:07:34,600 Speaker 1: has been uniformly understood by Republicans, Democrats, pro immigration, anti immigration. 117 00:07:35,720 --> 00:07:41,400 Speaker 1: Everybody that inhabitants means inhabitants. It doesn't mean citizens and 118 00:07:41,560 --> 00:07:47,440 Speaker 1: so that this is even a question is really extraordinary. 119 00:07:47,920 --> 00:07:51,320 Speaker 1: And yes, having Justice Barrett on the court for that 120 00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:55,200 Speaker 1: I think was a big part of the impetus to 121 00:07:55,360 --> 00:08:00,400 Speaker 1: push to fill Justice Ginsburg's vacancy with some one that 122 00:08:00,720 --> 00:08:04,520 Speaker 1: the right wing felt they could rely upon. Also coming 123 00:08:04,600 --> 00:08:09,440 Speaker 1: up is a clash between gay rights and religious rights, 124 00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:13,800 Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court in recent years has been expanding 125 00:08:13,840 --> 00:08:18,000 Speaker 1: religious rights, some even by seven to two votes. Does 126 00:08:18,000 --> 00:08:21,280 Speaker 1: it seem as if that case is going to favor 127 00:08:21,360 --> 00:08:25,120 Speaker 1: religious rights. Yes, that that case is going to go 128 00:08:25,400 --> 00:08:30,600 Speaker 1: to use religious rights to establish a right to discriminate 129 00:08:30,720 --> 00:08:36,720 Speaker 1: against people because of their gender or sexual orientation. Yes, 130 00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:39,560 Speaker 1: that's very much the direction in which it's going. Let's 131 00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:43,360 Speaker 1: just say that there is a democratic House, a Democratic Senate, 132 00:08:43,520 --> 00:08:48,160 Speaker 1: and a democratic president. Can Congress pass laws to protect 133 00:08:48,640 --> 00:08:53,680 Speaker 1: gay rights? If the Supreme Court holds that the free 134 00:08:53,720 --> 00:08:59,240 Speaker 1: exercise of religion includes the right to discriminate against people 135 00:08:59,640 --> 00:09:05,960 Speaker 1: becomes of their sexual orientation. Right, so the employer's religious 136 00:09:06,000 --> 00:09:12,200 Speaker 1: belief that an employee's sexual orientation is sinful or disordered. Um, 137 00:09:12,240 --> 00:09:19,480 Speaker 1: if that's protected free exercise, that forbids Congress from overriding it, 138 00:09:20,080 --> 00:09:24,120 Speaker 1: because the right to free exercise is a fundamental First 139 00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:28,840 Speaker 1: Amendment protected constitutional right, and Congress can't infringe on that 140 00:09:29,120 --> 00:09:33,599 Speaker 1: by legislation. It is contrary to how we've always understood 141 00:09:33,600 --> 00:09:36,720 Speaker 1: free exercise in the past to say that it includes 142 00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:40,439 Speaker 1: a right to discriminate. But this Court certainly appears poised 143 00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:43,680 Speaker 1: to say exactly that. Those are the cases that have 144 00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:46,800 Speaker 1: been talked about a lot. Are there other decisions coming 145 00:09:46,880 --> 00:09:50,840 Speaker 1: up that Cony Barrett's vote may make a difference. The 146 00:09:50,920 --> 00:09:54,680 Speaker 1: other one that is immediately coming up is that the 147 00:09:54,760 --> 00:09:58,320 Speaker 1: case involving the president's tax returns, and so you know 148 00:09:58,440 --> 00:10:01,200 Speaker 1: she could end up casting at this aiding vote in 149 00:10:01,280 --> 00:10:03,680 Speaker 1: that case. And when you think about the way the 150 00:10:03,760 --> 00:10:09,080 Speaker 1: Supreme Court resolved the cases, both the one out of 151 00:10:09,120 --> 00:10:12,400 Speaker 1: New York and the cases coming out of the congressional 152 00:10:12,440 --> 00:10:16,720 Speaker 1: subpoena's it was a very complicated and frankly kind of 153 00:10:16,800 --> 00:10:23,160 Speaker 1: convoluted compromise between several factions on the Supreme Court. Right, 154 00:10:23,240 --> 00:10:27,840 Speaker 1: so they sort of spanned the gamut from the liberal 155 00:10:27,880 --> 00:10:34,000 Speaker 1: approach of allowing Congress and um Cyrus Vans the Manhattan 156 00:10:34,000 --> 00:10:38,439 Speaker 1: Prosecutor to subpoena and gain access to the president's tax 157 00:10:38,480 --> 00:10:42,040 Speaker 1: returns um At the other end, you had Justice is 158 00:10:42,120 --> 00:10:44,720 Speaker 1: Thomas and Alito who seemed to want to give the 159 00:10:44,760 --> 00:10:48,120 Speaker 1: president blanket protection um. And then in the middle you 160 00:10:48,160 --> 00:10:52,480 Speaker 1: had Justice roberts Um siding with the liberals, but in 161 00:10:52,520 --> 00:10:57,640 Speaker 1: a in a much more narrow way, holding that there 162 00:10:57,720 --> 00:11:02,200 Speaker 1: might be circumstances under which the as um could be upheld, 163 00:11:02,960 --> 00:11:06,720 Speaker 1: but really leaving enforcement of that to sort of further 164 00:11:06,880 --> 00:11:11,360 Speaker 1: judicial elaboration. Well, now it's time for that further judicial elaboration, 165 00:11:11,559 --> 00:11:15,000 Speaker 1: and when you replace Ginsburg with Barrett, that could have 166 00:11:15,080 --> 00:11:20,240 Speaker 1: a real important consequence for whether or not those tax 167 00:11:20,280 --> 00:11:23,720 Speaker 1: returns have to be have to be turned over. Now 168 00:11:23,800 --> 00:11:26,640 Speaker 1: that Cony Barrett is on the court, there's more of 169 00:11:26,679 --> 00:11:31,920 Speaker 1: a push by Democrats to pack the court, and Joe 170 00:11:31,960 --> 00:11:35,120 Speaker 1: Biden has said he's not a fan of that, but 171 00:11:35,320 --> 00:11:40,280 Speaker 1: he's going to appoint Bipartisan Presidential Commission. What's your opinion 172 00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:43,200 Speaker 1: about packing the court and whether it will, as some 173 00:11:43,240 --> 00:11:47,040 Speaker 1: people say, ruin the Supreme Court. So, I think Donald 174 00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:49,800 Speaker 1: Trump and Mitch McConnell have packed not just the Supreme 175 00:11:49,840 --> 00:11:53,360 Speaker 1: Court but the federal courts generally, right, the district court 176 00:11:53,640 --> 00:11:57,320 Speaker 1: um and the courts of Appeals um. And so I 177 00:11:57,360 --> 00:12:01,160 Speaker 1: think it's important that they be unpacked. UM. The courts 178 00:12:01,400 --> 00:12:06,160 Speaker 1: as they stand now do not have legitimacy or credibility, 179 00:12:06,320 --> 00:12:09,320 Speaker 1: And it may be that adding seats doesn't do anything 180 00:12:09,360 --> 00:12:13,599 Speaker 1: to improve their credibility, but it certainly improves their legitimacy 181 00:12:13,640 --> 00:12:16,400 Speaker 1: in terms of their balance, in terms of undoing the 182 00:12:16,480 --> 00:12:21,000 Speaker 1: manipulation that's been going on over the last years, many years, 183 00:12:21,000 --> 00:12:25,360 Speaker 1: even before Donald Trump came into office, UM, Mitch McConnell 184 00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:28,960 Speaker 1: was manipulating to make sure vacancies didn't get filled so 185 00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:32,240 Speaker 1: they could be filled during the Trump administration, most famously 186 00:12:32,280 --> 00:12:35,559 Speaker 1: with Marrick Garland, but not only UM. And so I 187 00:12:35,600 --> 00:12:39,320 Speaker 1: think responding to that is absolutely vital to the court. 188 00:12:39,800 --> 00:12:43,040 Speaker 1: Right to just lay down and accept it UM is 189 00:12:43,080 --> 00:12:48,679 Speaker 1: to accept a judiciary that lacks any kind of real legitimacy, 190 00:12:48,840 --> 00:12:53,680 Speaker 1: that's been manipulated and manipulated for obvious partisan purposes, and 191 00:12:53,800 --> 00:12:57,319 Speaker 1: that needs to be undone. I suspect what Biden is 192 00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:01,120 Speaker 1: doing is you know, pardon the pun, but he's Biden 193 00:13:01,200 --> 00:13:05,400 Speaker 1: his time, right, And so you appoint a commission UM 194 00:13:05,440 --> 00:13:08,760 Speaker 1: in order to take some time to really think about 195 00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:12,480 Speaker 1: things and see how things are going. If John Roberts 196 00:13:12,480 --> 00:13:16,000 Speaker 1: were still really the swing vote, I think he would 197 00:13:16,040 --> 00:13:18,960 Speaker 1: hold his hand on things like over ruling Row. I 198 00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:22,760 Speaker 1: think that would be his strong inclination, especially given the 199 00:13:22,800 --> 00:13:26,439 Speaker 1: threat of court packing. But with the six to three majority, 200 00:13:26,600 --> 00:13:29,120 Speaker 1: you know, even if you lose John Roberts, now it's 201 00:13:29,120 --> 00:13:33,560 Speaker 1: a five to four majority. Rowe is gone right, and 202 00:13:33,640 --> 00:13:37,280 Speaker 1: it may make political sense for Joe Biden to wait 203 00:13:37,400 --> 00:13:40,679 Speaker 1: for that to happen before coming forward with any kind 204 00:13:40,720 --> 00:13:43,800 Speaker 1: of court reform package. Thanks for being in the Bloomberg 205 00:13:43,880 --> 00:13:47,560 Speaker 1: Laws Show, Neil. That's Professor Neil Kinkoff of the Georgia's 206 00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:52,600 Speaker 1: Day University College of Law. Just as Amy Coney, Barrett 207 00:13:52,640 --> 00:13:55,520 Speaker 1: made her Supreme Court debut less than a week after 208 00:13:55,559 --> 00:13:58,800 Speaker 1: being sworn in as the newest member of the Court. Barrett, 209 00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:01,800 Speaker 1: a graduate of notre Ame Law School, is the only 210 00:14:01,840 --> 00:14:04,800 Speaker 1: current justice who did not attend law school at Harvard 211 00:14:04,880 --> 00:14:08,360 Speaker 1: or Yale. About half of Supreme Court clerks in recent 212 00:14:08,440 --> 00:14:12,120 Speaker 1: years also attended those law schools. So how did Barrett 213 00:14:12,160 --> 00:14:16,040 Speaker 1: pick her law clerks? Joining me as Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson 214 00:14:16,240 --> 00:14:20,600 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter, So Kimberly Barrett looked beyond 215 00:14:20,720 --> 00:14:23,880 Speaker 1: Harvard and Yale for her law clerks. Well, that's what 216 00:14:23,920 --> 00:14:27,200 Speaker 1: we've been seeing um with her on the Seventh Circuit, 217 00:14:27,280 --> 00:14:30,280 Speaker 1: and that is how she picked her clerks for her 218 00:14:30,360 --> 00:14:33,440 Speaker 1: first clerk class on the U. S. Supreme Court. She 219 00:14:33,560 --> 00:14:36,920 Speaker 1: announced the other day for clerks to join her in 220 00:14:37,040 --> 00:14:39,720 Speaker 1: chambers and none of none of them are from Harvard 221 00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:43,160 Speaker 1: and Yale, something that has definitely set her apart. Now. 222 00:14:43,240 --> 00:14:46,760 Speaker 1: Barrett hired two men and two women. Two were from 223 00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:50,320 Speaker 1: the University of Chicago Law School, one from George Washington 224 00:14:50,400 --> 00:14:54,000 Speaker 1: Law School, and one from Northwestern Law School, so none 225 00:14:54,000 --> 00:14:58,080 Speaker 1: from her own alma mater. Does each justice have four clerks? 226 00:14:58,800 --> 00:15:03,240 Speaker 1: Each active justice four clerks and then the retired justices 227 00:15:03,280 --> 00:15:06,480 Speaker 1: can have one and those numbers and sometimes switch around 228 00:15:06,480 --> 00:15:09,280 Speaker 1: depending on, you know, the membership of the court itself, 229 00:15:09,720 --> 00:15:13,160 Speaker 1: but typically it's just four clerks for the nine justices 230 00:15:13,160 --> 00:15:16,000 Speaker 1: sitting on the bench and have some of the clerks 231 00:15:16,040 --> 00:15:20,520 Speaker 1: that she chose work for other justices. So she she 232 00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:24,280 Speaker 1: did choose UM three clerks who had previously clerked for 233 00:15:24,320 --> 00:15:27,080 Speaker 1: other justices, and then she brought one of her clerks 234 00:15:27,080 --> 00:15:30,040 Speaker 1: from the Seventh Circuit along with her um to the 235 00:15:30,080 --> 00:15:33,080 Speaker 1: Supreme Court. And that's typical. That's typically what we see 236 00:15:33,160 --> 00:15:36,200 Speaker 1: from the justices who are just starting out on the bench. Now, 237 00:15:36,280 --> 00:15:40,480 Speaker 1: I thought that Supreme Court clerkships lasted a year. Are 238 00:15:40,560 --> 00:15:44,320 Speaker 1: some people clerking for the court for more than a year. Well, 239 00:15:44,360 --> 00:15:46,920 Speaker 1: you know, we we do occasionally see people who have 240 00:15:46,960 --> 00:15:50,120 Speaker 1: clerked for more than one justice. That could happen in ways. Um. 241 00:15:50,240 --> 00:15:53,040 Speaker 1: One they are either get selected to clerk, and then 242 00:15:53,040 --> 00:15:56,120 Speaker 1: that justice retired, and so technically they're working for the 243 00:15:56,160 --> 00:15:59,120 Speaker 1: retired justice they had one of the active justices, um. 244 00:15:59,160 --> 00:16:02,160 Speaker 1: For example, like Kennedy might have sent some of his 245 00:16:02,240 --> 00:16:06,280 Speaker 1: clerks over to Justice Gorsute. Um. But then we also 246 00:16:06,360 --> 00:16:10,440 Speaker 1: see that new justices do tend to hire clerks who 247 00:16:10,440 --> 00:16:14,840 Speaker 1: have some previous experience on the Supreme Court probably um 248 00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:17,320 Speaker 1: we're discussing, but to help them kind of learn the 249 00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:19,640 Speaker 1: ropes a little bit of how you know the ins 250 00:16:19,640 --> 00:16:22,640 Speaker 1: and outs of Supreme Court process. You know, I noticed 251 00:16:22,720 --> 00:16:28,600 Speaker 1: that her clerks clerk previously for Justice is appointed by 252 00:16:28,880 --> 00:16:33,600 Speaker 1: Republican presidents. When they're choosing clerks, are they thinking about 253 00:16:33,680 --> 00:16:39,520 Speaker 1: their political bent? Well, Justice Scalil is really the last 254 00:16:39,600 --> 00:16:44,120 Speaker 1: justice to hire quote unquote counter clerks, that is, somebody 255 00:16:44,240 --> 00:16:48,520 Speaker 1: who is ideologically opposite of him. But he stopped that 256 00:16:48,600 --> 00:16:52,960 Speaker 1: practice UM many many years ago before he passed away. 257 00:16:53,320 --> 00:16:56,400 Speaker 1: And most of the justices tend to hire clerks who 258 00:16:56,400 --> 00:17:00,000 Speaker 1: have clerked for other justices or other judges on lower 259 00:17:00,080 --> 00:17:03,040 Speaker 1: courts UM who applied the law in a similar way 260 00:17:03,080 --> 00:17:06,280 Speaker 1: as them. So it's not unusual that her clerks all 261 00:17:06,320 --> 00:17:10,720 Speaker 1: came from Republican appointed justices. What has happened to Justice 262 00:17:10,760 --> 00:17:16,560 Speaker 1: Ginsberg's clerks? So all five of Justice Ginsberg's clerks have 263 00:17:16,800 --> 00:17:21,040 Speaker 1: been distributed amongst the Democratic appointed UH justices, And I 264 00:17:21,119 --> 00:17:25,080 Speaker 1: did say five. Justice Ginsberg had agreed to take on 265 00:17:25,800 --> 00:17:29,679 Speaker 1: Justice Stevens clerk before UH he had hired before he 266 00:17:29,800 --> 00:17:32,720 Speaker 1: passed away, UM, and so that clerk is once again 267 00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:36,120 Speaker 1: redistributed to yet another justice. Are there more women clerks 268 00:17:36,119 --> 00:17:38,880 Speaker 1: and there used to be? Well, you know, Justice Barrett. 269 00:17:39,280 --> 00:17:43,359 Speaker 1: Her experience of hiring more diverse clerks, academically diverse clerks 270 00:17:43,800 --> 00:17:46,760 Speaker 1: her first term out is actually very similar to Justice Kavanaugh, 271 00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:51,040 Speaker 1: who hired the first all female UH clerk class for 272 00:17:51,119 --> 00:17:54,000 Speaker 1: his chambers and his first term as well. And so 273 00:17:54,119 --> 00:17:56,920 Speaker 1: since then we have seen the number of women rising, 274 00:17:57,280 --> 00:18:02,320 Speaker 1: largely due to Justice Kavanaugh's efforts. But Justice Ginsburg was 275 00:18:02,400 --> 00:18:05,240 Speaker 1: also one of the justices who hired a large number 276 00:18:05,359 --> 00:18:08,280 Speaker 1: of female clerks, and so we'll have to see if 277 00:18:08,320 --> 00:18:11,639 Speaker 1: Justice any Colney Barrett continues that same direction or if 278 00:18:11,680 --> 00:18:14,000 Speaker 1: we actually see the numbers follow a little bit under 279 00:18:14,040 --> 00:18:17,640 Speaker 1: her tenure on the Court. And so Justice Barrett did 280 00:18:17,720 --> 00:18:21,959 Speaker 1: not take part in some of the emergency election matters 281 00:18:22,000 --> 00:18:25,280 Speaker 1: that came before the Court even after she was sworn in, 282 00:18:25,880 --> 00:18:29,360 Speaker 1: but she did take part in the oral arguments. So 283 00:18:29,640 --> 00:18:33,400 Speaker 1: what was the case about. Well, these cases, the two 284 00:18:33,440 --> 00:18:37,240 Speaker 1: cases of the justices heard were relatively lower profile. Um. 285 00:18:37,280 --> 00:18:41,119 Speaker 1: They were about PRISM them Information Act cases UM, and 286 00:18:41,200 --> 00:18:46,520 Speaker 1: another about retirement benefits for railroad employees. UM. But of 287 00:18:46,560 --> 00:18:50,359 Speaker 1: course in the coming weeks she's gonna hear some real blockbusters, 288 00:18:50,400 --> 00:18:54,520 Speaker 1: starting on Wednesday, UH, with a dispute between religious freedom 289 00:18:54,520 --> 00:18:57,960 Speaker 1: and LGBT rights, and the next week a case regarding 290 00:18:58,200 --> 00:19:02,280 Speaker 1: the constitutionality of Bamacare or the Affordable Care Act. And 291 00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:04,679 Speaker 1: of course we could still see the election come to 292 00:19:04,720 --> 00:19:08,160 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. Um. As you know, these challenges worked 293 00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:11,600 Speaker 1: through the system. Thanks for being on the Bloomberg Law Show, Kimberly. 294 00:19:11,960 --> 00:19:17,920 Speaker 1: That's Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Bloomberg Law Supreme Court reporter, a 295 00:19:18,040 --> 00:19:22,280 Speaker 1: federal judge rejected abid by Republican activists to invalidate one 296 00:19:23,119 --> 00:19:26,679 Speaker 1: seven thousand votes that were cast using drive through voting 297 00:19:26,680 --> 00:19:30,679 Speaker 1: in the most populous county in Texas. Federal Judge Andrew 298 00:19:30,720 --> 00:19:33,439 Speaker 1: Hannan said, for lack of a nicer way of saying it, 299 00:19:33,760 --> 00:19:36,920 Speaker 1: I ain't buying it, joining me as Laurel Culkins Bloomberg 300 00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:40,000 Speaker 1: Legal reporter, there seemed to have been a lot of 301 00:19:40,440 --> 00:19:44,960 Speaker 1: court action about the election in Texas. What's been happening? 302 00:19:45,119 --> 00:19:47,879 Speaker 1: Oh gosh, I think I've got PTSD from all the 303 00:19:47,960 --> 00:19:52,040 Speaker 1: election challenges that have been filed against every single life 304 00:19:52,119 --> 00:19:55,840 Speaker 1: and dice of the changes that Harris County in particular, 305 00:19:55,880 --> 00:19:59,159 Speaker 1: which is home to Houston, UM every change the election 306 00:19:59,200 --> 00:20:01,440 Speaker 1: officials have made trying to make it easier for people 307 00:20:01,440 --> 00:20:04,320 Speaker 1: to vote during a pandemic, and they have been fought 308 00:20:04,480 --> 00:20:07,400 Speaker 1: tooth and toneil every step of the way. It's been 309 00:20:07,400 --> 00:20:11,040 Speaker 1: really hard to keep up with who's fighting what. And 310 00:20:11,080 --> 00:20:13,400 Speaker 1: it's like the challenge that we just heard a conclusion 311 00:20:13,400 --> 00:20:17,560 Speaker 1: on the same group of let's call the Radical Republicans 312 00:20:18,160 --> 00:20:21,400 Speaker 1: had brought the exact same challenge in state court um. 313 00:20:21,600 --> 00:20:24,920 Speaker 1: They were shot down Sunday by the State Supreme Court 314 00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:27,280 Speaker 1: that they had another shot at it today in front 315 00:20:27,280 --> 00:20:29,600 Speaker 1: of a federal judge who also shot them down. And 316 00:20:29,640 --> 00:20:32,600 Speaker 1: I'm talking about the drive through voting challenge, which was 317 00:20:32,640 --> 00:20:35,439 Speaker 1: one of the more unique options that Harris Canny came 318 00:20:35,480 --> 00:20:37,399 Speaker 1: up with to try to put more voters into a 319 00:20:37,520 --> 00:20:40,280 Speaker 1: voting boost. Tell us about the drive through because it 320 00:20:40,359 --> 00:20:43,359 Speaker 1: seems as if they're checking, and it's a lot like 321 00:20:44,000 --> 00:20:47,120 Speaker 1: going to vote at the polls. It's exactly like going 322 00:20:47,160 --> 00:20:48,880 Speaker 1: to vote at the polls, except you never get out 323 00:20:48,880 --> 00:20:51,840 Speaker 1: of your car, which for Houston is like the best 324 00:20:52,359 --> 00:20:55,119 Speaker 1: possible solution because everybody in Houston is like born with 325 00:20:55,200 --> 00:20:57,359 Speaker 1: car keys in their hands. At the town that lived 326 00:20:57,359 --> 00:21:01,400 Speaker 1: and dies by the car. So what is in ten 327 00:21:01,480 --> 00:21:04,919 Speaker 1: different locations around the city. The county has set up 328 00:21:04,960 --> 00:21:07,199 Speaker 1: these giant tents like you see when you go to 329 00:21:07,400 --> 00:21:10,200 Speaker 1: parties or think of the circus, but it has drive 330 00:21:10,320 --> 00:21:13,359 Speaker 1: through lane built through the center of it. And you 331 00:21:13,640 --> 00:21:16,960 Speaker 1: when the election clerk that's in that lane signals you 332 00:21:17,320 --> 00:21:20,480 Speaker 1: as the voter, you drive forward and they make you 333 00:21:20,520 --> 00:21:22,560 Speaker 1: turn off your cell phone. You have to follow all 334 00:21:22,560 --> 00:21:25,800 Speaker 1: the regular procedures, You show your I D. You sign 335 00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:28,160 Speaker 1: a voters register, just as if you had walked into 336 00:21:28,160 --> 00:21:32,480 Speaker 1: the poll, they put a sanitized electronic tablet in your hands, 337 00:21:32,520 --> 00:21:35,119 Speaker 1: You cast your vote, and you hand it back and 338 00:21:35,200 --> 00:21:37,359 Speaker 1: it's plugged into the system and your vote counts, and 339 00:21:37,440 --> 00:21:40,199 Speaker 1: away you go. At least that's theoretically how it's supposed 340 00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:44,000 Speaker 1: to happen. This was approved by the Secretary of State 341 00:21:44,800 --> 00:21:47,600 Speaker 1: and it's been in process for quite a while since 342 00:21:47,640 --> 00:21:50,560 Speaker 1: the summer. Right. Well, we actually had a test drive 343 00:21:50,600 --> 00:21:53,800 Speaker 1: of the system in the runoff election that was held 344 00:21:53,800 --> 00:21:58,200 Speaker 1: in Texas in July, and Harris County rolled out one 345 00:21:58,560 --> 00:22:01,320 Speaker 1: drive through location just to if the concept would work. 346 00:22:01,320 --> 00:22:03,879 Speaker 1: And it worked outstandingly. Everybody loved it and there were 347 00:22:03,880 --> 00:22:06,879 Speaker 1: no problems and there were no court challenges, and the 348 00:22:06,880 --> 00:22:09,879 Speaker 1: Texas Secretary of State, who is the highest ranking election 349 00:22:09,920 --> 00:22:13,480 Speaker 1: official in Texas, said hey, looks fine to me. So 350 00:22:14,040 --> 00:22:16,480 Speaker 1: Harris County said, great, we'll double down. We'll put ten 351 00:22:16,600 --> 00:22:19,320 Speaker 1: locations spread out all around the county and make it 352 00:22:19,359 --> 00:22:24,679 Speaker 1: easy for everybody. And things were going swimmingly until the 353 00:22:24,920 --> 00:22:29,399 Speaker 1: voting was well underway when this group of Republicans loalthy 354 00:22:29,480 --> 00:22:31,960 Speaker 1: could call them radicals, you can call them malcontents, you 355 00:22:31,960 --> 00:22:34,359 Speaker 1: can call them patriots. What everything you want to say. 356 00:22:34,480 --> 00:22:38,320 Speaker 1: They challenged that the county elections clerk who had come 357 00:22:38,400 --> 00:22:41,640 Speaker 1: up with drive through voting didn't technically have the authority 358 00:22:41,800 --> 00:22:44,640 Speaker 1: to do so. Their argument was that only the Texas 359 00:22:44,720 --> 00:22:49,280 Speaker 1: legislature can create new methods of voting, and so that's 360 00:22:49,320 --> 00:22:51,520 Speaker 1: the fight was on from that point as to whether 361 00:22:51,680 --> 00:22:54,440 Speaker 1: the county clerk had overstepped his bounds and creating new 362 00:22:54,480 --> 00:22:57,800 Speaker 1: methods of voting. And today the judge in federal court 363 00:22:57,840 --> 00:23:00,560 Speaker 1: in Houston essentially said, I think it's okay. At least 364 00:23:00,560 --> 00:23:03,680 Speaker 1: it's okay for early voting. On a technicality, he threw 365 00:23:03,720 --> 00:23:07,520 Speaker 1: out the lawsuit. He said the Republicans who complained don't 366 00:23:07,600 --> 00:23:10,640 Speaker 1: have an actual injury to their right to vote, so 367 00:23:10,920 --> 00:23:13,200 Speaker 1: they don't even have the right to bring this complaint, 368 00:23:13,440 --> 00:23:15,240 Speaker 1: and so he wouldn't even consider the rest of the 369 00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:17,320 Speaker 1: arguments legally, except he said, now, I know you're going 370 00:23:17,359 --> 00:23:19,720 Speaker 1: to go run over to the Fifth Circuit and appeal 371 00:23:19,760 --> 00:23:21,280 Speaker 1: my decision, So let me give you the rest of 372 00:23:21,320 --> 00:23:24,560 Speaker 1: my thinking. And he said he sort of agreed with 373 00:23:24,680 --> 00:23:28,080 Speaker 1: the people that looked at the Texas Election Code and said, well, 374 00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:30,840 Speaker 1: it says on election day you're required to cast your 375 00:23:30,880 --> 00:23:34,119 Speaker 1: vote in a building or in a structure, and he 376 00:23:34,200 --> 00:23:37,560 Speaker 1: said the tents might not qualify under that rule. So 377 00:23:38,040 --> 00:23:40,320 Speaker 1: he said on election day that might not be a 378 00:23:40,400 --> 00:23:42,600 Speaker 1: legal place to cast your vote, but it certainly has 379 00:23:42,600 --> 00:23:45,320 Speaker 1: been a legal place under the early voting rules. And 380 00:23:45,359 --> 00:23:47,520 Speaker 1: so the hundred did twenties seven thousand votes that have 381 00:23:47,600 --> 00:23:51,480 Speaker 1: been cast so far in early voting are going to 382 00:23:51,560 --> 00:23:55,280 Speaker 1: count their legally counting unless an appellate corps comes in 383 00:23:55,359 --> 00:23:59,720 Speaker 1: with a different decisions. Why we're Republicans going after these 384 00:24:00,040 --> 00:24:03,960 Speaker 1: votes in Harris County? Could there have been Republican votes 385 00:24:04,000 --> 00:24:07,320 Speaker 1: there too? Yes, In fact, they probably would have thrown 386 00:24:07,320 --> 00:24:09,800 Speaker 1: out some Republican votes because there were quite a few 387 00:24:10,280 --> 00:24:13,920 Speaker 1: elderly individuals who were voting at these drives through locations 388 00:24:13,960 --> 00:24:17,560 Speaker 1: as a way to number one easily get around without 389 00:24:17,560 --> 00:24:20,399 Speaker 1: mobility issues, but number two also avoid going into a 390 00:24:20,440 --> 00:24:24,520 Speaker 1: crowded polling location and exposing themselves to potentially correct catching 391 00:24:24,560 --> 00:24:28,199 Speaker 1: the coronavirus. So there were and older voters tend to 392 00:24:28,320 --> 00:24:31,280 Speaker 1: vote Republican in Texas, so there would have been Republican 393 00:24:31,359 --> 00:24:35,200 Speaker 1: votes that were caught up in this. But the um 394 00:24:35,280 --> 00:24:37,879 Speaker 1: the main thing is Harris County is sort of brown 395 00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:41,840 Speaker 1: zero for the Democratics effort to flip the state of 396 00:24:41,880 --> 00:24:48,119 Speaker 1: Texas from its traditional Republican stronghold to a Democratic stronghold. UM. 397 00:24:48,160 --> 00:24:51,440 Speaker 1: The state has been trending democratic in the last uh 398 00:24:51,440 --> 00:24:55,320 Speaker 1: several presidential elections, in mid term congressional elections, and all 399 00:24:55,400 --> 00:24:58,760 Speaker 1: of its largest cities are now routinely voting Democratic, with 400 00:24:59,000 --> 00:25:02,000 Speaker 1: Harris County, which is again the home of Houston, leading 401 00:25:02,000 --> 00:25:05,080 Speaker 1: the pack with the largest number of votes. So if 402 00:25:05,119 --> 00:25:09,160 Speaker 1: a hundred and twenty seven thousand early voters in drives through, 403 00:25:09,240 --> 00:25:12,920 Speaker 1: which was about ten of nearly a million and a 404 00:25:12,960 --> 00:25:16,280 Speaker 1: half votes that cast in Harris County alone in early voting, 405 00:25:16,680 --> 00:25:19,880 Speaker 1: if they could get those votes thrown out, UM, then 406 00:25:19,920 --> 00:25:22,680 Speaker 1: this group of Republicans just felt they were that much 407 00:25:22,720 --> 00:25:27,200 Speaker 1: closer to not losing to Democrats in Harris County. And 408 00:25:27,400 --> 00:25:30,119 Speaker 1: the stakes are incredibly high because Texas is a winner 409 00:25:30,119 --> 00:25:33,320 Speaker 1: take all state for Electoral College votes. It has thirty 410 00:25:33,320 --> 00:25:37,520 Speaker 1: eight states, and if Trump doesn't win those thirty eight states, 411 00:25:37,600 --> 00:25:40,119 Speaker 1: it becomes very difficult for the math to come together 412 00:25:40,240 --> 00:25:43,960 Speaker 1: for him to win the presidency. UM. Beyond the presidency, 413 00:25:44,160 --> 00:25:47,280 Speaker 1: it's also UM, this has the This election has the 414 00:25:47,320 --> 00:25:50,720 Speaker 1: ability to change the makeup of the Texas Congressional Delegation, 415 00:25:51,119 --> 00:25:54,320 Speaker 1: which right now is strongly Republican, but it could lose 416 00:25:54,359 --> 00:25:57,119 Speaker 1: some of that and become more and more tilted towards 417 00:25:57,119 --> 00:26:01,440 Speaker 1: the Democrats. And even more importantly, um the Democrats could 418 00:26:01,440 --> 00:26:05,720 Speaker 1: gain control of the Texas State Legislature, which will determine 419 00:26:05,880 --> 00:26:09,560 Speaker 1: the next set of redistricting maps. We will draw redistricting 420 00:26:09,560 --> 00:26:12,359 Speaker 1: maps for the new legislative districts all over the country 421 00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:16,080 Speaker 1: based on the census, and whoever controls the House in 422 00:26:16,160 --> 00:26:18,560 Speaker 1: Texas will draw those maps. So it's a lot of stake, 423 00:26:18,840 --> 00:26:21,000 Speaker 1: and that's why they were fighting so hard. The Texas 424 00:26:21,040 --> 00:26:26,080 Speaker 1: Supreme Court also rejected this challenge. What was their reasoning, Well, 425 00:26:26,080 --> 00:26:29,280 Speaker 1: it's funny, they gave no reason. Interestingly enough, the Texas 426 00:26:29,320 --> 00:26:33,640 Speaker 1: Supreme Court is Republican, and this challenge, this exact challenge 427 00:26:33,720 --> 00:26:37,400 Speaker 1: was presented to them three different times by essentially an 428 00:26:37,440 --> 00:26:40,320 Speaker 1: overlapping group of people, but at one point also included 429 00:26:40,440 --> 00:26:43,840 Speaker 1: the Texas Democratic Party, and they presented this challenge and 430 00:26:43,960 --> 00:26:47,440 Speaker 1: each time the Texas Supreme Court just rejected it without 431 00:26:47,480 --> 00:26:50,679 Speaker 1: any explanation. In one of the challenges, one of the 432 00:26:50,760 --> 00:26:53,400 Speaker 1: justices wroted the sending opinion where he said he would 433 00:26:53,440 --> 00:26:56,440 Speaker 1: have listened to the Republican objectors and and he would 434 00:26:56,440 --> 00:26:58,800 Speaker 1: have given some credence to what they had to say. 435 00:26:58,840 --> 00:27:00,560 Speaker 1: But he was the only one, and he was an outlier. 436 00:27:00,720 --> 00:27:03,000 Speaker 1: So we don't actually have the benefit of the of 437 00:27:03,040 --> 00:27:06,199 Speaker 1: the whole Supreme Court's ruling because they never gave us 438 00:27:06,200 --> 00:27:09,639 Speaker 1: their thinking on it. That's Laurel Calkins, Bloomberg Legal Reporter. 439 00:27:10,320 --> 00:27:12,440 Speaker 1: That's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. 440 00:27:12,720 --> 00:27:14,760 Speaker 1: Remember you can always hit the latest legal news on 441 00:27:14,760 --> 00:27:18,560 Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find them on iTunes, SoundCloud, 442 00:27:18,640 --> 00:27:22,560 Speaker 1: or at Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm 443 00:27:22,640 --> 00:27:25,720 Speaker 1: June Grasso. Thanks so much for listening, and remember to 444 00:27:25,760 --> 00:27:27,959 Speaker 1: tune to The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten 445 00:27:28,000 --> 00:27:34,119 Speaker 1: pm Eastern right here on Bloomberg Radio.