Latest / Masters in Business / Special Edition: Neal Katyal on Challenging Trump's Global Tariffs

Transcript

Special Edition: Neal Katyal on Challenging Trump's Global Tariffs · Masters in Business

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. This is Masters in
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Business with Barry Ritholt on Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:16
  Speaker 2: I know I say it every week, but this week
• 0:19
  Speaker 2: I have an extra extra special guest. Neil Kadial is
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: the former Solicitor General of the United States, where he
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: focused on appellate and complex litigation on behalf of the
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: Department of Justice. He has argued more than fifty cases
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: before the Supreme Court. He is the recipient of the
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: highest civilian award by the US Department of Justice, the
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: Edmund Randolph Award, which he received in twenty eleven. The
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court appointed him
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: to the Advisory Committee on Federal Appellate Rules. He has
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: won every accolade that an attorney can win, Litigator of
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: the Year, Top one hundred Lawyers, five hundred leaving Lawyers
• 1:05
  Speaker 2: in DC, the most financially innovative lawyer, on and on
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: the list goes. He just has a CV that is
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: really not to be believed. I reached out to Neil
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: because he was representing the Plainiffs in the big tariff
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: case Vos Selections versus Donald Trump, President, which he took
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: over after the Plainiffs won at the International Court of
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: Trade in DC. He argued the case in front of
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: a full on bank hearing all eleven judges in the
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: DC Court of Appeals. We recorded this on Wednesday, August
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: twenty seventh, a few days before Labor Day weekend. We
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: finished the recording and lo and behold. Two days later,
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: the decision comes down. He wins a resounding victory, seven
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: to four. The court very much bought into his arguments
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: that the tariffs and any sort of taxes, duties, levies
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: requires authorization from Congress. It is not within the purview
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: of the executive branch of the President. So once we
• 2:20
  Speaker 2: got that decision, I reached out to Neil again, and
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: on Sunday, over the holiday weekends, I hopped off the beach.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: We got on the phone call for a half hour
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: and recorded what he thought of the results, what he
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: thought about the opinion, where the case is likely to
• 2:34
  Speaker 2: go from here, how things look in terms of the
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: odds that the Supreme Court are going to hear this.
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: I thought the entire conversation was absolutely fascinating, not just
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: because hey, this is news right now, and because he
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: won the case two days later. He's just such a thoughtful,
• 2:55
  Speaker 2: intelligent lawyer who really takes his role as an officer
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: of the court and helping to define the jurisprunes of
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: American law very very seriously. Just such a bright, thoughtful
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: guy who just wants us to respect the Constitution. I
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: thought the conversation was fascinating. I think you will also.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: We'll start out with our PostScript the conversation after we
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: found out that Katiel's clients won at the appellate level,
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: and then we'll go to the entire our conversation we
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: had while we still didn't know what the outcome of
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: the case was, with no further ado, my discussion with
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: Appellet attorney Neil Kadial. First off, Neil, congratulations, you just
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: won a major repellate case in Vos Selections versus Donald Trump.
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: So congrats, Thank you so much.
• 3:56
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think I saw you and we had our
• 3:58
  Speaker 3: interview the day before the decision came down. The way
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: the Court of Appeals works like the US Supreme Court,
• 4:04
  Speaker 3: they never tell you in advance when a decision's coming down.
• 4:08
  Speaker 3: And indeed it was a little I think past five
• 4:10
  Speaker 3: o'clock on Friday, right before Labor Day, and I was
• 4:12
  Speaker 3: about to leave the office, and then I heard my
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: email ding and I look at it and I'm like, well,
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: I might as well see what this is. I assumed
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: it was just some you know, minor thing, and they're like, whoa,
• 4:23
  Speaker 3: it's the decision. And you know, Barry, they let me
• 4:27
  Speaker 3: know the decision at the very same time. They let
• 4:30
  Speaker 3: the world know, because otherwise, if they let me know
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: in advance, you know, that's private information. This is the
• 4:36
  Speaker 3: kind of information that does move markets. And so they
• 4:39
  Speaker 3: let the entire world know, including me, at the very
• 4:42
  Speaker 3: same time.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: So let's put this into a little timeline. We had
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: our recording Wednesday, August twenty seventh. The decision dropped around
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: five o'clock on Friday, August twenty ninth. Today is Sunday,
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: August thirty. First, everybody else is on the beach. I
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: know you're leaving for Europe in a couple of days,
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: but I wanted to just touch base with you and
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: try and figure out where this goes from here. So
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: let's start out with the decision. I thought the majority
• 5:17
  Speaker 2: decision seven to four your way. I thought it was
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: a pretty powerful refutation of the executive's ability to just
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: impose tariffs I don't want to say on a whim,
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: but lacking the specific following of the AIBA rules and
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: what an emergency actually is, can you address that a
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: little bit?
• 5:42
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that the seven judges and the majority
• 5:45
  Speaker 3: were saying exactly what we've said all along, which is,
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: maybe these terrifts are a good idea, maybe they're a
• 5:52
  Speaker 3: bad idea, but they can't be imposed by the president's
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: pen alone. You got to go to Congress and get
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: that author as a that that's our constitutional system. And
• 6:02
  Speaker 3: what the seven judges said is that's exactly right. That
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: the Congress has never given the president such a sweeping
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: power to just do it on his own, and if
• 6:11
  Speaker 3: they did, they said it'd be unconstitutional. But they said
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: that isn't what's going on here. And the president has
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: an easy fix if he wants to. He could go
• 6:20
  Speaker 3: to Congress and seek approval for the tariffs that he wants.
• 6:24
  Speaker 3: That's what he did the first time around, as we
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: talked about last week. You know, that's something that failed
• 6:29
  Speaker 3: in Congress, and so maybe that's why he doesn't want
• 6:32
  Speaker 3: to do it. Obviously, these tariffs are highly unpopular, but nonetheless,
• 6:36
  Speaker 3: you know, the Congress is controlled by his party, and
• 6:39
  Speaker 3: you know that's the place to start. Don't run to
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: the federal courts to do what you can't do in Congress.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: So I want to talk about the dissent in a bid,
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: but let's just talk about what the appellate court did,
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: which I was somewhat confused by, and maybe you can
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: clarify this. They remand it back to the International Court
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: of Trade in d State, which is a US court
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: for findings about who this applies to. Like, it seems
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: sort of odd to say, well, and only might apply
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: to the litigants. What are we going to have seven
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: million cases on this tariffs? It would seem that either
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: it's constitutional or unconstitutional and that applies to everybody. Or
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: am I being naive?
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: I think that's basically right Berry that I think ultimately
• 7:26
  Speaker 3: the question is are these tariffs legal or illegal? If,
• 7:29
  Speaker 3: as the Court of Appeals said, they're illegal, then the
• 7:32
  Speaker 3: vast vast majority of Trump's tariffs are unconstitutional, illegal, can't
• 7:37
  Speaker 3: be imposed, and people who've have them imposed, you know,
• 7:40
  Speaker 3: may have remedies and recourses. What the court also did, though,
• 7:44
  Speaker 3: and you're referring to a fairly technical part of the decision,
• 7:47
  Speaker 3: is it sent it case back to the lower court
• 7:50
  Speaker 3: to evaluate the scope of the remedies. And that's because
• 7:53
  Speaker 3: the US Supreme Court, just very recently, in the birthright
• 7:56
  Speaker 3: citizenship case, has announced some new ways of thinking about
• 8:00
  Speaker 3: relief on parties, in particular in class actions and things
• 8:04
  Speaker 3: like that. And so I think the court Federal Circuit
• 8:06
  Speaker 3: did the prudent thing here by just saying with respect
• 8:09
  Speaker 3: to that, i'd like we'd like the lower court to
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: evaluate it. I think that's pretty much a sideshow at
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: this point. My strong hunch is that the federal government
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: has a strong interest in resolving this question. After all,
• 8:21
  Speaker 3: this is a really you know, initiative of President Trump's.
• 8:25
  Speaker 3: It's been declared unconstitutional. So I think they're going to
• 8:27
  Speaker 3: go to the Supreme Court. I mean, again, I wish
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: that weren't the case. I wish they'd go to Congress,
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: which is the way that our constitution commands things. But
• 8:36
  Speaker 3: you know, according to the President's tweets and the like,
• 8:39
  Speaker 3: they want to go to the Supreme Court.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: So what is the process like for this to go
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: up to Scotus first, the remand back to the district
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: court not relevant, that's just a very specific remedy question.
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: Assuming the petition for sociari is filed by the government,
• 9:03
  Speaker 2: what are the options? What might the Supreme Court do?
• 9:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think you're right to say that the
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: lower court proceedings on relief are relevant here. Indeed, the
• 9:12
  Speaker 3: Federal Circuit said that lower court has no role at
• 9:17
  Speaker 3: least until October fourteenth, because they wanted to give the
• 9:20
  Speaker 3: government time to file what's called a petition for cucuare,
• 9:23
  Speaker 3: which is a formal request to the US Supreme Court
• 9:26
  Speaker 3: to hear the case. The government is saying that in
• 9:31
  Speaker 3: these tweets by President the President and others, that they
• 9:34
  Speaker 3: will file that petition for cuchuari, ask the Supreme Court
• 9:37
  Speaker 3: to hear the case, and then it's obviously up to
• 9:39
  Speaker 3: the Supreme Court to decide. Statistically, when the government asks
• 9:43
  Speaker 3: them to hear a case, particularly one that has important consequences,
• 9:48
  Speaker 3: the court does hear the case. So the court very
• 9:52
  Speaker 3: well may set the case for oral argument, and then
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: there'll be the argument from the two sides as to
• 9:57
  Speaker 3: whether or not this lower court decision that we want
• 10:01
  Speaker 3: declaring President Trump's Taristan constitutional, whether that will be upheld
• 10:05
  Speaker 3: by the US Supreme Court.
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: So I was kind of intrigued by the descent, which
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: I'm not a practicing attorney anymore, so I'm not up
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: to date in what is the latest thinking in terms
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: of art. But it sort of seemed like one of
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: the descents suggested that it's an emergency. If the president
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: declares in an emergency, kind of makes that word meaningless.
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: How did you read the significance of the descent and
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: what might it mean to the hearing if this ultimately
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: goes to the Supreme Court.
• 10:44
  Speaker 3: I think that's exactly right on what you're saying, which is,
• 10:47
  Speaker 3: if the descent were right, it basically reads the word
• 10:49
  Speaker 3: emergency out of the statute. It gives carte blanche deference
• 10:53
  Speaker 3: to the president, and the Supreme Court in an earlier
• 10:56
  Speaker 3: case back in nineteen eleven, said you can't do that
• 10:58
  Speaker 3: with the word emergency, And here, I think Verry, the
• 11:02
  Speaker 3: other really important point is that the law that the
• 11:05
  Speaker 3: President is citing AIPA doesn't just talk about emergency. It
• 11:09
  Speaker 3: requires it to be unusual and extraordinary. And the president's
• 11:14
  Speaker 3: own executive order when he imposed these tariffs, said that
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: the trade deficits were persistent and gone on for fifty years,
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: and the opposite of the unusual and extraordinary. And look,
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: of course you want the president, in a genuine, true
• 11:28
  Speaker 3: emergency that's unusual and extraordinary, to have extra powers, because
• 11:33
  Speaker 3: if Congress can't meet to repel some threat or something
• 11:37
  Speaker 3: like that, you want the president to have some gap
• 11:39
  Speaker 3: billing power. This is the opposite of that. I mean,
• 11:42
  Speaker 3: Congress is in session, they're passing bill after bill and
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: the like, and of course they're controlled by the same
• 11:47
  Speaker 3: political party as the president. So the idea that Congress
• 11:50
  Speaker 3: can't act is you know, to use the technical legal
• 11:53
  Speaker 3: term poppycock.
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: Coming up, we continue our conversation with a pellet litigator.
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: Neil Tu. I'm Barry Ridults. You're listening to Masters in
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: Business on Bloomberg Radio. Let's broaden this out a little bit.
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: I think this is an important case because I'm a
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: market participant and tariffs are attacks. They're a headwind to
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: consumer spending and other economic activities. But stepping back and
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: looking at this from a constitutional standard, how much of
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: this is focusing on how much authority the executive branch
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: of the US government has. Is this an attempt to
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: rebalance the three parts of government by this particular president,
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: or is this just no we want our tariffs, and
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: we want to stop all these bad things that the
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: tariffs will cure.
• 12:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I view this decision not as a rebalancing of
• 12:56
  Speaker 3: our constitutional separation of powers up but rather a return
• 12:59
  Speaker 3: to our founder's original concept was, which was Congress makes
• 13:04
  Speaker 3: the laws, the president enforces them, the courts decide whether
• 13:08
  Speaker 3: those laws are legal or not. And here what happened
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: is you had a president who colored well outside of
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: the lines, and you know, asserted an extraordinary power that
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: no president in American history has ever asserted on his own.
• 13:24
  Speaker 3: And I think the court is doing here what the
• 13:27
  Speaker 3: courts have done time immemorial in other cases, whether it
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: was the seizure of the steel mills by President Truman
• 13:34
  Speaker 3: in nineteen fifty two, whether it was President Bush's law
• 13:38
  Speaker 3: free zone at Guantanamo after the horrific nine to eleven attacks,
• 13:43
  Speaker 3: whether it was you know, President Biden's student loan initiative programs.
• 13:48
  Speaker 3: In all of these cases, you've had presidents that try
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: and ascertain muscular powers and the court pushes back on them.
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: And this is I think a pretty extreme illustration of
• 13:59
  Speaker 3: a president and whose asserting powers that he has no
• 14:02
  Speaker 3: business asserting.
• 14:04
  Speaker 2: So at the appellate level. It was seven to four
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: of the dissent was written by justice appointed by President Obama.
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: It's kind of a little bit surprising to me when
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: you look at the lay of the Supreme Court. I
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: know a lot of people tend to look at that
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: as Democrats versus Republicans. But the appallate attorneys, I know,
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: and the people who are constitutional lawyers tend to look
• 14:32
  Speaker 2: at it as originalists versus more modern interpreters. How are
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: you looking at this case when it gets now, assuming
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: it goes up to the Supreme Court, how are you
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: looking at the context of this case?
• 14:45
  Speaker 3: I love the question because you know, oftentimes people say
• 14:49
  Speaker 3: things like, well, the Supreme Court is appointed by Republicans,
• 14:52
  Speaker 3: so they only wrote republican or nonsense like that. This
• 14:56
  Speaker 3: is not my experience. I mean, I've been lucky to
• 14:59
  Speaker 3: argue fifty two K is there, and I just don't
• 15:01
  Speaker 3: see it in the same way as those kind of
• 15:04
  Speaker 3: pundits see it. And you know, I think you're right
• 15:07
  Speaker 3: to say the decision by the seven to four courts
• 15:09
  Speaker 3: a good illustration of that. The dissent written by a
• 15:13
  Speaker 3: judge who was appointed by a democratic president. Our majority opinion,
• 15:17
  Speaker 3: the senior most judge, and the majority is Judge Lourie,
• 15:20
  Speaker 3: who was appointed by President Bush, but says that these
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: terrorists are unconstitutional. So I don't think it's the right
• 15:26
  Speaker 3: way to think about it. I think that there are
• 15:29
  Speaker 3: people who take constitutional limits more seriously and others who
• 15:33
  Speaker 3: want to defer and avoid getting the courts in the
• 15:37
  Speaker 3: middle of something. And so maybe that's one axis that
• 15:40
  Speaker 3: sometimes could be used to predict outcomes. But here I think,
• 15:44
  Speaker 3: no matter which way you look at it, the president
• 15:47
  Speaker 3: doesn't have this power. You know, we might wish he
• 15:50
  Speaker 3: had this power. It might be a good idea for
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: him to have this power. But our founders were as
• 15:55
  Speaker 3: clear as day in Article one, Section eight they said specifically,
• 15:59
  Speaker 3: the hour over duties is one given to the Congress,
• 16:03
  Speaker 3: not to the president.
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: So there are a couple of key issues. This is
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: going to turn on the Constitutionality article on section eight,
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: the i EPO laws, and what is an emergency? Any
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: other factors that might drive this that we should be
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: aware of.
• 16:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I think there's a couple. One is that the
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court in recent years has announced something called the
• 16:27
  Speaker 3: Major Questions Doctrine, and the idea of that doctrine is
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: to say, if Congress is giving the president some sort
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: of power, they don't hide it in vague terms. They
• 16:37
  Speaker 3: say it really expressly and clearly. You know Justice Scalia's
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: phrases that Congress doesn't hide elephants and mouseholes. And at
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: the oral argument, I took that to even further. I said,
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: you know, this isn't just an elephant in a mousehole,
• 16:51
  Speaker 3: it's a galaxy in a key hole. It's an extraordinary
• 16:54
  Speaker 3: set of powers given to the president that claimed by
• 16:59
  Speaker 3: the president. And you know, this doctrine Major Questions doctrine
• 17:03
  Speaker 3: has been used very by the US Supreme Court repeatedly
• 17:06
  Speaker 3: to strike down President Biden's initiatives, whether it's over greenhouse gases,
• 17:10
  Speaker 3: or whether it's over student loans, or whether it was
• 17:13
  Speaker 3: over COVID eviction moratoriums and things like that. And I
• 17:17
  Speaker 3: think that you know what the majority said in this
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: opinion that we won just a couple of days ago,
• 17:23
  Speaker 3: is hey, what's sauce for the goose? The sauce for
• 17:25
  Speaker 3: the gander. This applies to other presidential initiatives and including
• 17:30
  Speaker 3: of course this one here, and that it would be
• 17:32
  Speaker 3: a violation of the Major Questions doctrine for Congress who
• 17:36
  Speaker 3: have not even used the word tariff for duty or
• 17:39
  Speaker 3: anything like that in APA, and then to have a
• 17:42
  Speaker 3: president come along and say, ha, I can now do
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: whatever I want.
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: So let's expand this a bit. How creative was it
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: of the administration to try and get tariffs imposed on RYEPA?
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: Is this something that's just wildly outside of what AEPA
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: originally was designed about.
• 18:07
  Speaker 3: One hundred percent. Nobody, and I've read the legislative history
• 18:10
  Speaker 3: behind AEPA so very carefully, nobody thought that this was
• 18:14
  Speaker 3: about the tariff power. And so yes, they get a
• 18:18
  Speaker 3: a plus plus for creativity the Trump administration and coming
• 18:23
  Speaker 3: up with an argument that not only no one in
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: Congress thought, no president for fifty years has thought. Now,
• 18:30
  Speaker 3: creativity only gets you so far, because you have to
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: be at least somewhat faithful and accurate to the original
• 18:35
  Speaker 3: text and meaning of the law. And that's where I
• 18:39
  Speaker 3: think unfortunately they get n f and they fall down
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: on the job.
• 18:43
  Speaker 2: So I have a pretty solid recollection of sitting in
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: constitutional law classes and occasionally seeing a decision that was
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: just perplexing. Although when you're looking at something that's a
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: century old, a dread Scott or a separate but equal
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: type of decision. Obviously, you're bringing a modern perspective. It's
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: very hard to see outside of that. I had the
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: same You and I spoke before we had the decision
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: come down. I was kind of perplexed that this was
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: even like a debate. It seems pretty obvious. None of
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: the normal rules for enacting tariffs, none of the procedures, policies,
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: or allocation of powers amongst branches of government was followed.
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: So what do you imagine the government's argument is going
• 19:40
  Speaker 2: to be at the Supreme Court level.
• 19:43
  Speaker 3: It's very I think the secret about Supreme Court and
• 19:46
  Speaker 3: presidential power advocacy is that, I mean, no matter how
• 19:50
  Speaker 3: creative and ridiculous the argument is, if the president voices it,
• 19:55
  Speaker 3: it's a court case and it's going to be taken
• 19:57
  Speaker 3: seriously by everyone, because it's after all, the press. And
• 20:00
  Speaker 3: that's why, you know, when I was the president's top lawyer,
• 20:03
  Speaker 3: courtroom lawyer, I was very careful to only make the
• 20:09
  Speaker 3: arguments that I thought had very strong basis behind them,
• 20:12
  Speaker 3: because you don't want to diminish that credibility that the
• 20:16
  Speaker 3: government has with the US Supreme Court. Here, I do
• 20:21
  Speaker 3: think that the arguments are quite a stretch for the
• 20:24
  Speaker 3: administration to be making. And I think, you know, that's
• 20:28
  Speaker 3: what you saw reflected in the seven to four opinion.
• 20:32
  Speaker 3: So what do I think that the Solicitor General is
• 20:34
  Speaker 3: going to say to the Supreme Court. I think he's
• 20:36
  Speaker 3: going to say what he's been saying all along. The
• 20:39
  Speaker 3: President says he needs this power. It'd be dangerous to
• 20:42
  Speaker 3: unwind all of these deals and present it as a
• 20:45
  Speaker 3: fade to complete. And I just think that's the wrong
• 20:49
  Speaker 3: way to think about constitutional law, to allow a president
• 20:54
  Speaker 3: to do what he wants in the interim and then say, oh,
• 20:56
  Speaker 3: it would be too dangerous to unwind it. You know,
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: I think it's better to get the constitutional rules right
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: the first time.
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: So some of the arguments I've seen from the administration
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: is not only are the tariffs complicated, and then we've
• 21:11
  Speaker 2: spent all this time and effort negotiating them, which this
• 21:14
  Speaker 2: would negate, but it would be a negative for the
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: global economy. You will cause economic distress around the world
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: if you throw these tariffs out. Seems like seems like
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: a little bit of a history onic claim.
• 21:29
  Speaker 3: Well, I have two things to say about that, And
• 21:31
  Speaker 3: you know, and you know, we can defer to the
• 21:33
  Speaker 3: president about whether the claim is right or wrong, whether
• 21:36
  Speaker 3: it's histrionic or the like. Let's just say it's right.
• 21:38
  Speaker 3: Two things. One, If that's right, it walks right into
• 21:42
  Speaker 3: the constitutional problem, which is the major questions doctrine. Right
• 21:45
  Speaker 3: if the administration is saying, oh, the economy is going
• 21:49
  Speaker 3: to collapse without these things, that's exactly the kind of
• 21:52
  Speaker 3: major question that you think Congress has to decide, not
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: the president. Number one and number two, If it isn't histrionic,
• 21:59
  Speaker 3: if it's really right that the economy is going to collapse,
• 22:02
  Speaker 3: then it's the easiest thing in the world for the
• 22:04
  Speaker 3: President to go to Congress and seek authorization. I mean,
• 22:08
  Speaker 3: I don't know the Congress wants the US economy to
• 22:10
  Speaker 3: collapse in there, of course, members of his own political
• 22:13
  Speaker 3: party that are running Congress, so there's not even a
• 22:17
  Speaker 3: politics barrier or anything like that.
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: So what are we missing? It seems like this doesn't
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: survive on a constitutional basis. AIBA doesn't authorize it. If
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: it's a major decision, take it to Congress. What else
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: is going on other than I want these tariffs and
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: I don't care how they get and acted what am
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: I missing here?
• 22:41
  Speaker 3: I'm not sure you're missing anything very I think you've
• 22:43
  Speaker 3: got a president who's taken an incredibly muscular view of
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: his authority and has done all of this stuff to
• 22:51
  Speaker 3: the international economy and is now saying, oh too late,
• 22:54
  Speaker 3: tone wind it. I'm already done. And you know that
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: isn't the way constitutional law works.
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: Let's just play this out so by the time people
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: hear this, I don't think we'll find out if the
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court is going to grant soshiiari immediately, but relatively
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: soon if they're interested, sometime in the next few weeks.
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: Is that is that a fair timeline.
• 23:17
  Speaker 3: It's possible. It requires the government to file a cchuared petition,
• 23:21
  Speaker 3: and you know, in other big cases, you know, like
• 23:25
  Speaker 3: Guantanamo or healthcare or the like, there are those cecuary
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: petitions filed by the government almost immediately. So we will
• 23:32
  Speaker 3: see what the government does here. But certainly it's possible
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: that they file soon, in which case the Supreme Court
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: could give us guidance as to whether they're going to
• 23:41
  Speaker 3: hear the case in a matter of a couple of weeks.
• 23:44
  Speaker 2: So let's say that happens and the case is heard
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: end of September. How soon do we get a decision?
• 23:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I do think they'd hear the case in the
• 23:52
  Speaker 3: end of September, because there's time for briefing, for writing
• 23:55
  Speaker 3: the legal papers, and also for friends of the court
• 23:58
  Speaker 3: to weigh in and write their own legal papers. So
• 24:01
  Speaker 3: I think realistically we'd be talking about a court hearing
• 24:05
  Speaker 3: and probably earliest November December, and you know, maybe as
• 24:08
  Speaker 3: late as February or March something like that. So it's
• 24:12
  Speaker 3: going to take a little while, and it should take
• 24:13
  Speaker 3: a little while. Bary. These are really important momentous questions,
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: and you know, not just momentus for right now, but
• 24:21
  Speaker 3: momentous for American history and the role of the president,
• 24:25
  Speaker 3: because what the court says here will govern you know,
• 24:28
  Speaker 3: maybe just the case at hand, but it may govern
• 24:31
  Speaker 3: other things as well. And so I think the court
• 24:33
  Speaker 3: is going to want to proceed with some caution and
• 24:36
  Speaker 3: have time for adequate briefing from the parties. That's my gun.
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: So what are the state of tariffs presently? The plaintiffs
• 24:44
  Speaker 2: in the original case had said, Hey, there's only so
• 24:48
  Speaker 2: long we could stay in business with these tariffs, and
• 24:51
  Speaker 2: we want a decision as rapidly as possible since they
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: were found illegal by the appeals court. Do you have tariffs?
• 25:00
  Speaker 2: Do we not have tariffs? What is going on?
• 25:03
  Speaker 3: So what the Federal Circuit did is it kind of
• 25:06
  Speaker 3: split the baby. It said that the terrorifts will be on.
• 25:10
  Speaker 3: The terifts will be permitted, but only for forty five
• 25:13
  Speaker 3: days while the government goes and government may go and
• 25:17
  Speaker 3: ask the US Supreme Court to hear the case, and
• 25:19
  Speaker 3: if they don't hear the case, then the tariffs will
• 25:21
  Speaker 3: be declared illegal and unconstitutional and void.
• 25:24
  Speaker 2: What are the odds that the Supreme Court chooses to
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: not hear the case.
• 25:29
  Speaker 3: I'm not going to predict what the Supreme Court is
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: going to do. That's just you know, that's that's there.
• 25:34
  Speaker 3: I have to leave that for them, and I'm just
• 25:37
  Speaker 3: an observer on the outside. But I did want to
• 25:39
  Speaker 3: say that what happened with the Federal Circuit did by
• 25:42
  Speaker 3: saying forty five days, is it cut the government's time
• 25:46
  Speaker 3: and half to file a cerciar I petition. Normally they
• 25:48
  Speaker 3: have ninety days to do so. And what the court
• 25:51
  Speaker 3: here said is basically, Nope, this is too important. You've
• 25:54
  Speaker 3: got to if you want to hear have the Supreme
• 25:56
  Speaker 3: Court hear the case, then you've got to do it
• 25:59
  Speaker 3: in the next forty five days, otherwise these tariffs will
• 26:01
  Speaker 3: be declared illegal.
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: So there seems to be a judicial recognition of exactly
• 26:07
  Speaker 2: how pressing this is. The Liberation Day was April second.
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: The lower court case I think was filed April fourteenth,
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: and then there was the decision in May was heard
• 26:19
  Speaker 2: pretty rapidly. The on Bank case was heard in July
• 26:24
  Speaker 2: of July thirty first, I believe, right, and then a
• 26:27
  Speaker 2: month later we just about a month later, we get
• 26:30
  Speaker 2: the decision. So it seems like, you know, I traditionally
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: think of corporate litigation as a game of delay, delay, delay.
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: This really seems to be moving quite rapidly.
• 26:43
  Speaker 3: It is moving rapidly, and that's common in presidential power
• 26:46
  Speaker 3: cases because there's so much at stake, and so, you know,
• 26:50
  Speaker 3: I've been hardened to work with the government attorneys, the
• 26:53
  Speaker 3: Trump administration attorneys on a fast time schedule. I think
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: that's been you know, beneficial to try and move this
• 27:00
  Speaker 3: case and as ultimate resolution along. But I think, you know,
• 27:04
  Speaker 3: I think the bottom line for what happened just on Friday,
• 27:07
  Speaker 3: for all your viewers and listeners is the Trump tariffs
• 27:10
  Speaker 3: were declared unconstitutional and illegal by a seven to four
• 27:15
  Speaker 3: vote of our nation's second highest court, the US Court
• 27:17
  Speaker 3: of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. And now the question
• 27:20
  Speaker 3: is will the Trump administration go to the Supreme Court?
• 27:24
  Speaker 3: And then, of course what will the Supreme Court do?
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: And the clock is thinking they have forty five days,
• 27:29
  Speaker 2: which by my calculation is around October fifteenth or so.
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: Is that about right?
• 27:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah? I think it's the fourteenth, fourteenth.
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: Wow, all right, so six weeks ago we'll be watching
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: this really closely. Again, Neil, congratulations on your appellate victory.
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: If this goes up, are you going to be the
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: one making the argument in front of the Supreme Court?
• 27:52
  Speaker 3: No, that's all to be determined. Who knows.
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: So that was my conversation over the Labor Day weekend,
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: right after we found out that he and his clients
• 28:04
  Speaker 2: had won the appeal. Now let's jump to the entire
• 28:07
  Speaker 2: conversation that we had a week ago while the outcome
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: of the case was still up in the air. My
• 28:14
  Speaker 2: Master's in business conversation with a Palette attorney Neil Tatiall,
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: let's spend a little time just talking about your background
• 28:25
  Speaker 2: and career Dartmouth undergrad jd from Yelle. What was the
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: original career plan.
• 28:31
  Speaker 3: The original plan was for me to be a professor
• 28:34
  Speaker 3: of history, and yeah, I had gone. I went to
• 28:37
  Speaker 3: Dartmouth College. As you noted, I probably was one of
• 28:40
  Speaker 3: the last kids admitted to Dartmouth. I was not a
• 28:42
  Speaker 3: particularly great high school student. And I had this professor,
• 28:46
  Speaker 3: Doug Haynes in history at Dartmouth who basically taught me
• 28:50
  Speaker 3: to write and taught me how to think. And I
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: was so grateful to him, and I felt like I
• 28:56
  Speaker 3: should do that with my life as go and give
• 28:59
  Speaker 3: back in the way that Doug had given me this
• 29:01
  Speaker 3: incredible gift. And so in my senior year I say
• 29:04
  Speaker 3: to Doug, I was like, you know, ask him to
• 29:06
  Speaker 3: have lunch with me, and I say, I'd really like
• 29:09
  Speaker 3: to be a history professor. And you know, frankly, you're
• 29:13
  Speaker 3: the one who inspired me and I want to do this.
• 29:16
  Speaker 3: And he thought about it and he said, honestly, Neil,
• 29:19
  Speaker 3: I don't think you should be a history professor because
• 29:22
  Speaker 3: it's really tough, and it's hard to get tenure, and
• 29:25
  Speaker 3: you'll have to start in some you know, small town
• 29:28
  Speaker 3: in the middle of nowhere. It's hard to meet a
• 29:30
  Speaker 3: spouse and so on. He said, look, you're at that
• 29:34
  Speaker 3: point I was a national champion debater, and he said,
• 29:37
  Speaker 3: my advice to you is to go to law school.
• 29:39
  Speaker 3: And in particular, he said, go to Yale Law School,
• 29:41
  Speaker 3: which is known for creating law professors, and you can
• 29:43
  Speaker 3: do all the same stuff you want to do. But
• 29:46
  Speaker 3: as a law professor, where you would get paid three times,
• 29:49
  Speaker 3: it's easier to get tenure, your life is a lot easier.
• 29:53
  Speaker 3: So I did that. I applied to Yale Law School.
• 29:55
  Speaker 3: I got in again, probably one of the last kids admitted.
• 30:00
  Speaker 3: And at the law school I had these incredible professors
• 30:03
  Speaker 3: who did the same thing that Doug Haynes did for
• 30:05
  Speaker 3: me in history, in other areas constitutional law and criminal
• 30:10
  Speaker 3: law and the like, and these incredible professors who taught
• 30:14
  Speaker 3: me again how to think and how to write, and
• 30:17
  Speaker 3: so I was committed to being a law professor. I
• 30:21
  Speaker 3: clerked first for Guido Calibrazy, who was the dean of
• 30:24
  Speaker 3: the ill Law School, who was put on the Court
• 30:26
  Speaker 3: of Appeals, and then for Justice Stephen Bryer. But all
• 30:29
  Speaker 3: through that time I knew I wanted to be a
• 30:31
  Speaker 3: law professor. So I applied while I was clerking to teach,
• 30:34
  Speaker 3: and at the age of I think twenty six years old,
• 30:37
  Speaker 3: I took a job teaching at Georgetown Law and that
• 30:39
  Speaker 3: was the plan for my life, to be a law professor,
• 30:42
  Speaker 3: and nothing but a law professor.
• 30:43
  Speaker 2: Do you still do any teaching these days?
• 30:46
  Speaker 3: I do, and I love it, and in many ways
• 30:48
  Speaker 3: it's my favorite job I've ever had. But there's a
• 30:52
  Speaker 3: lot else going on in the world these days, and so,
• 30:56
  Speaker 3: you know, it was a little bit by accident that
• 30:58
  Speaker 3: I fell into this litigation and thing. Yes, I was
• 31:00
  Speaker 3: a national champion debater, and so it was comfortable being
• 31:04
  Speaker 3: on my feet, but I was really, you know, dominated
• 31:08
  Speaker 3: My dominant thinking was be a law professor, write these
• 31:10
  Speaker 3: theoretical articles that change the way people think about the law,
• 31:14
  Speaker 3: and teach students. So that's what I thought I was
• 31:16
  Speaker 3: going to do. And then something happened, which was we
• 31:21
  Speaker 3: had the horrific attacks on September eleventh, and I was
• 31:25
  Speaker 3: bumbling around trying to figure out what to do. I
• 31:26
  Speaker 3: was teaching at Yale Law School that year, and and
• 31:31
  Speaker 3: you know, my students and I we decided to try
• 31:33
  Speaker 3: and help first responders get benefits and stuff, and you know,
• 31:36
  Speaker 3: we weren't particularly good at it, but it was something.
• 31:38
  Speaker 3: And then President Bush announced that he was going to
• 31:42
  Speaker 3: have these military trials at Guantanamo Bay for suspected terrorists.
• 31:48
  Speaker 3: And I looked at that. I had served in the
• 31:50
  Speaker 3: Justice Department briefly, and we had the embassy bombings of
• 31:53
  Speaker 3: al Qaeda at the time, and so I looked into
• 31:55
  Speaker 3: could we have military trials? And we concluded they were
• 31:58
  Speaker 3: obviously unconstitutioned. So I went and looked up what's President
• 32:02
  Speaker 3: Bush doing here? What's the source of authority for this?
• 32:05
  Speaker 3: And you know, it wasn't particularly compelling. In fact, it
• 32:09
  Speaker 3: was really weak because the President was saying he was
• 32:12
  Speaker 3: going to set up these trials from scratch. He's going
• 32:15
  Speaker 3: to pick the prosecutors, pick the defense attorneys. Right. All
• 32:18
  Speaker 3: the rules for the criminal trials defined the punishments and offenses,
• 32:22
  Speaker 3: including the death pennel.
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: Even handed and fair. What's your objection? Yeah?
• 32:25
  Speaker 3: And you know, even the last lines of the executive
• 32:27
  Speaker 3: orders said the courts have no business reviewing what I'm doing.
• 32:31
  Speaker 3: No rid of habeas corpus. So I went into my
• 32:34
  Speaker 3: constitutional law class and said, you guys always tease me
• 32:37
  Speaker 3: because I think the President should have such strong powers,
• 32:39
  Speaker 3: and nothing the president does is unconstitutional. Well, here's something
• 32:42
  Speaker 3: that's obviously unconstitutional. And in the class was a senator.
• 32:46
  Speaker 3: It was a staffer for Senator Lahy, who was then
• 32:49
  Speaker 3: the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And so she
• 32:53
  Speaker 3: told him about me, and he had a hearing, and
• 32:56
  Speaker 3: I testified and said, look, I don't know if you
• 32:58
  Speaker 3: want to have these military trials or not, but the
• 33:00
  Speaker 3: one thing I'm sure of is that it can't be
• 33:02
  Speaker 3: done with the president's stroke of his pen. You need
• 33:05
  Speaker 3: Congress to approve it. And this is of course going
• 33:07
  Speaker 3: to be relevant as we talk about tariffs later. It's
• 33:10
  Speaker 3: the exact same architecture over the argument. And so that's
• 33:13
  Speaker 3: how I testified. Nobody listened. So then I go and
• 33:17
  Speaker 3: I write a lare of your article with Lawrence Tribe,
• 33:19
  Speaker 3: the nation's most most pre eminent constitutional.
• 33:22
  Speaker 2: Law Lawrence Private Harvard.
• 33:24
  Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. And so we write this article in the
• 33:26
  Speaker 3: Yale Law Journal. We race it to print, saying what's
• 33:29
  Speaker 3: going on is unconstitutional. Nobody reads the article.
• 33:32
  Speaker 2: My mom.
• 33:32
  Speaker 3: Maybe my mom read it, but you know, I don't know.
• 33:35
  Speaker 3: So then I said to myself, you know, you got
• 33:39
  Speaker 3: this piece of paper, neil a law degree, you could
• 33:42
  Speaker 3: actually sue the president, and that's what it is exactly.
• 33:47
  Speaker 3: So that was the hard question because a bunch of
• 33:50
  Speaker 3: different interest groups had sued on Guantanamo, but they didn't
• 33:53
  Speaker 3: have standing, they had no reason. And so I had
• 33:56
  Speaker 3: a friend very high up at the Pentagon who got
• 33:58
  Speaker 3: me the email address of a Pentagon lawyer who was
• 34:02
  Speaker 3: representing the detainees, and I basically got a letter snuck
• 34:05
  Speaker 3: to Guantanamo and it wound up in the hands of
• 34:09
  Speaker 3: Asama bin Laden's driver, and that became my client. And
• 34:15
  Speaker 3: so I go from being a theoretical law professor to
• 34:18
  Speaker 3: like a real, like hard nosed litigator, all in the
• 34:22
  Speaker 3: span of a few months. I filed the case. Nobody
• 34:26
  Speaker 3: thinks we're going to win.
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: How far are you from law school now?
• 34:28
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm like six years out.
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: So still relatively green.
• 34:32
  Speaker 3: Yeah, very green, and never filed a lawsuit, you know.
• 34:34
  Speaker 3: And so and by the way, I don't have any
• 34:36
  Speaker 3: help except four law students who are helping me. I
• 34:40
  Speaker 3: tried with law firms and initially I couldn't get them,
• 34:42
  Speaker 3: but then ultimately Perkins Cooy, a Seattle firm, decided to
• 34:46
  Speaker 3: help me, and that was phenomenal. So we filed this thing.
• 34:49
  Speaker 3: Nobody thinks we're going to win, and we win it
• 34:52
  Speaker 3: in the trial court. We lose it in the Court
• 34:54
  Speaker 3: of Appeals with a guy named John Roberts on the
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: descit panel. Three days later, he's nominated the Supreme Court
• 35:01
  Speaker 3: and then to the Chief Justiceship. So I have to
• 35:03
  Speaker 3: ask the Supreme Court to hear this Guantanamo case. It's
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: the most important case their new Chief Justice has ever decided.
• 35:11
  Speaker 3: And I'm going to say, I'm trying to tell the
• 35:13
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court the Chief Justice is wrong about this. Nobody
• 35:16
  Speaker 3: thinks we're going to win. It's my first Supreme Court argument.
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: I'm arguing against President Bush's legendary solicitor general. It's his
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: thirty fifth argument. I work my tail off and we win,
• 35:27
  Speaker 3: and then my life changes, and then companies want to
• 35:30
  Speaker 3: hire me, and I meet a young senator named Barack
• 35:33
  Speaker 3: Obama who heard me interviewed on an interview just like
• 35:35
  Speaker 3: this one, and he calls me into the Senate and says,
• 35:39
  Speaker 3: you know, ask me to advise him on some things
• 35:41
  Speaker 3: on Guantanamo, and tells me he's thinking of running for president,
• 35:45
  Speaker 3: And then started working with him and then my life changes.
• 35:49
  Speaker 2: Mass. Wow, that's amazing. You know. I want to talk
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: about a couple of the other cases that you argued.
• 35:56
  Speaker 2: One was More versus Harper, which former judge Michael Luddick
• 36:01
  Speaker 2: called the most important case for American democracy ever. Tell
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: us about that, kiss.
• 36:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so that's a pretty recent one. I already it,
• 36:10
  Speaker 3: I think about three years ago, and it involved something
• 36:13
  Speaker 3: called the independent state legislature theory, which at that point
• 36:16
  Speaker 3: was the greatest threat to democracy. I think when when
• 36:20
  Speaker 3: Judge Ludig was writing those remarks, We've now had some
• 36:23
  Speaker 3: things which you know are arguably worse. But it was
• 36:26
  Speaker 3: a significant one because if you think back to the
• 36:28
  Speaker 3: twenty twenty election, one of the things that President Trump
• 36:32
  Speaker 3: tried to do then was to say that state legislatures
• 36:36
  Speaker 3: can control elections, and you can even throw out the
• 36:39
  Speaker 3: popular vote and just have state legislatures decide where the
• 36:44
  Speaker 3: electoral votes will go to which candidate. And this became
• 36:49
  Speaker 3: part of the rnc's playbook, and they invested heavily in
• 36:52
  Speaker 3: state legislatures to try and develop, excuse me, this theory.
• 36:57
  Speaker 3: So we challenge that again, this is one in which
• 37:02
  Speaker 3: nobody thought we could win because if the Republicans won,
• 37:06
  Speaker 3: they would entrench control over presidential elections for decades probably,
• 37:12
  Speaker 3: And a lot of people think, oh, this Supreme Court,
• 37:14
  Speaker 3: they're appointed by Republicans, they're very conservative, they're just going
• 37:18
  Speaker 3: to do the Republican party's bidding. And I looked at
• 37:22
  Speaker 3: it and I said, I don't think that's right. I mean,
• 37:23
  Speaker 3: this is a court that does have fidelity to the
• 37:26
  Speaker 3: original understanding of the Constitution. And I thought, if we
• 37:30
  Speaker 3: could make the argument in that way, and this is
• 37:32
  Speaker 3: what my scholarship is all about, the original understanding of
• 37:34
  Speaker 3: the Constitution, I said, I thought we could win. And
• 37:38
  Speaker 3: so that's what I developed as the strategy. And indeed
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: I knew that Justice Thomas, Clarence Thomas would ask the
• 37:46
  Speaker 3: first question at oral argument that's been happening now for
• 37:49
  Speaker 3: the last few years.
• 37:50
  Speaker 2: Just out a habit or like, how does that well.
• 37:53
  Speaker 3: He's one of the more senior justices, and during COVID,
• 37:58
  Speaker 3: when we had to argue cases on speaker phones and
• 38:01
  Speaker 3: we couldn't see each other, it went in order of seniority,
• 38:04
  Speaker 3: and so Justice Thomas was right at the top. After COVID,
• 38:08
  Speaker 3: that's tradition continued in what Justice Thomas would ask the
• 38:12
  Speaker 3: first question. And so I've been thinking, how do I
• 38:14
  Speaker 3: use that knowledge to my advantage? Justice Thomas going to
• 38:18
  Speaker 3: ask the first question. And what I did was, I
• 38:19
  Speaker 3: said to myself, Okay, I can develop a set play.
• 38:23
  Speaker 3: Justice Thomas is going to ask me a question. Doesn't
• 38:25
  Speaker 3: matter what the question is. I'm then going to say,
• 38:27
  Speaker 3: and this is what I do. Just Thomas asked me
• 38:29
  Speaker 3: a question at the argument. I don't remember what the
• 38:31
  Speaker 3: question was. I answer it, and then I say, Justice Thomas,
• 38:34
  Speaker 3: may I say, in nearly three decades of arguing before you,
• 38:38
  Speaker 3: I've been waiting for this case because it speaks to
• 38:40
  Speaker 3: your method of constitutional interpretation, the original understanding, And here
• 38:44
  Speaker 3: are the four things you need to know about more
• 38:46
  Speaker 3: versus Harper in the original understanding of the Constitution. And
• 38:50
  Speaker 3: I get to talk about Madison and Hamilton and Jefferson
• 38:52
  Speaker 3: and so on, and it totally changes the dynamic in
• 38:56
  Speaker 3: the courtroom, and sure enough, we win six to three.
• 39:00
  Speaker 3: This case in the Republican theory is thrown out. I
• 39:04
  Speaker 3: didn't win Justice Thomas's vote, but I won a bunch
• 39:07
  Speaker 3: of others.
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: Huh, that's amazing. Let's quickly talk about the Voting Rights
• 39:12
  Speaker 2: Act that you successfully defend it instead of trying to
• 39:16
  Speaker 2: overturn it. Tell us how different is to be playing
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: defense or is it not? You're just arguing constitutional law
• 39:24
  Speaker 2: and this is the outcome that should come about.
• 39:28
  Speaker 3: It is different. But I would say even back then,
• 39:30
  Speaker 3: I felt like I was playing defense. So this is
• 39:32
  Speaker 3: a case I argued in maybe twenty ten. The Voting
• 39:36
  Speaker 3: Rights Active and passed in nineteen sixty five. It literally
• 39:39
  Speaker 3: has the blood of patriots on it. It is what
• 39:41
  Speaker 3: Selma and the Bridge Potatos Bridge is all about. And
• 39:46
  Speaker 3: so you know, in the case, basically it was right
• 39:50
  Speaker 3: after President Obama had been elected and Southern States said, look,
• 39:54
  Speaker 3: we don't need the Voting Rights Act anymore. Look you
• 39:56
  Speaker 3: have an African American president, Like that's proof that we
• 39:59
  Speaker 3: don't need it. And I stood up in court and said, no,
• 40:04
  Speaker 3: we do need it. And it's like, you know, the
• 40:07
  Speaker 3: very fact that we've been able to have an African
• 40:09
  Speaker 3: American president isn't alone enough to to say there isn't
• 40:12
  Speaker 3: discrimination in voting, particularly in particular areas, you know, even
• 40:16
  Speaker 3: if the overall national result is one thing. And the
• 40:20
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court at that point accepted that argument. And four
• 40:25
  Speaker 3: years later, however, in a case called Shelby County, they
• 40:28
  Speaker 3: reversed that position and struck down that part of the
• 40:30
  Speaker 3: Voting Rights Act. And now there's only one part of
• 40:33
  Speaker 3: the Voting Rights Act that remains, Section two, and the
• 40:36
  Speaker 3: Supreme Court's agreed to hear a case to challenge that
• 40:40
  Speaker 3: this fall. And so we very well may have a
• 40:43
  Speaker 3: world in which there is no Voting Rights Act left whatsoever,
• 40:46
  Speaker 3: which is a very dangerous thing. And yes, I do
• 40:49
  Speaker 3: think the Court has become more conservative over my lifetime.
• 40:54
  Speaker 3: I mean, the Court has always been a point majority
• 40:56
  Speaker 3: Republican appointees since things.
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: This isn't just too hard in ship. This is an
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: ideological tilt, not necessarily party tilts.
• 41:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so I would say, you know that the presidents
• 41:08
  Speaker 3: now of both parties are sending to the Supreme Court
• 41:11
  Speaker 3: more sure things that you know than which the track
• 41:16
  Speaker 3: record is really known. You know, the Republicans had this
• 41:18
  Speaker 3: mantra no more suitors because David Sudor, nominated by Republican
• 41:23
  Speaker 3: President Bush upheld things like abortion rights and so on.
• 41:26
  Speaker 3: And the Democrats, I think, have had their own version
• 41:29
  Speaker 3: of this for some time as well. And so we
• 41:32
  Speaker 3: get we don't tend to get justices without very defined
• 41:37
  Speaker 3: positions anymore. Like when I started arguing, Justice Kennedy was
• 41:41
  Speaker 3: on the court and you could see Barry every time
• 41:44
  Speaker 3: you argued. He was struggling with which is the right view?
• 41:48
  Speaker 3: Which is the right view of the law. And he's
• 41:50
  Speaker 3: a very smart man. It wasn't that he wasn't smart.
• 41:53
  Speaker 3: When I say struggling, it's not that he was struggling intellectually.
• 41:56
  Speaker 2: They were pretty even handed argument yeah, and he really.
• 41:59
  Speaker 3: Took the arguments so seriously without caricaturing him and just
• 42:03
  Speaker 3: tried to make the right decision. And certainly that still
• 42:05
  Speaker 3: happens today. I don't mean to overclaim it, but I
• 42:08
  Speaker 3: would say in particularly some of the big cases, they're
• 42:10
  Speaker 3: coming in a bit more with their minds made up
• 42:14
  Speaker 3: than when I first started.
• 42:15
  Speaker 2: Really interesting. Coming up, we continue our conversation with a
• 42:19
  Speaker 2: Pellet litigator, Neil Kadil, talking about the tariff litigation winding
• 42:25
  Speaker 2: its way through the courts. Today. I'm Barry Ridults. You're
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I'm Barry Ridults.
• 42:33
  Speaker 2: You're listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My
• 42:37
  Speaker 2: extra special guest this week is Neil Kadial. He is
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: the former Solicitor General under President Obama. He is an
• 42:45
  Speaker 2: appellet attorney who's argued in front of the Supreme Court
• 42:50
  Speaker 2: pretty much more than any living or at least any
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: active attorney fifty two times something more.
• 42:57
  Speaker 3: There are people who have more. But I'm doing okay.
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: You're doing okay. I want to talk about the Vos
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: Selections Trump tariff litigation that, as we're recording this right
• 43:10
  Speaker 2: before Labor Day, continues to perplex me how little coverage
• 43:16
  Speaker 2: this has gotten from media, and not just political media,
• 43:22
  Speaker 2: but financial and markets and economics media, because this case
• 43:27
  Speaker 2: has enormous potential to impact the broader economy. So first,
• 43:33
  Speaker 2: let's start with Vos Selections and other planiffs. April fourteenth,
• 43:39
  Speaker 2: after Liberation Day sued the President, saying you don't have
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: the authority to issue tariffs on your own without meaning Well,
• 43:49
  Speaker 2: these checklists which you fail to do. How did you
• 43:52
  Speaker 2: get involved in this case? Tell us a little bit
• 43:54
  Speaker 2: about what makes this case different than other challenges to
• 43:58
  Speaker 2: presidential authority.
• 44:00
  Speaker 3: So right after President Trump took office and started talking
• 44:04
  Speaker 3: about this tariff position, I was reminded of the Guantanamo case.
• 44:09
  Speaker 3: I just described to you earlier, because it's the exact
• 44:11
  Speaker 3: same problem, which is, look, a president had may, motivated
• 44:16
  Speaker 3: by any number of good reasons, has a policy that
• 44:19
  Speaker 3: he wants to implement, and instead of going to Congress,
• 44:23
  Speaker 3: he just does it on his own with the stroke
• 44:25
  Speaker 3: of his pen. And our founders thought that a very
• 44:30
  Speaker 3: dangerous proposition, particularly in core areas like tariffs, because you
• 44:35
  Speaker 3: know every King George, of course, you know every dictator,
• 44:40
  Speaker 3: every leader would like the power to tariff, to tax
• 44:44
  Speaker 3: the people in any way they see fit, without limitation.
• 44:47
  Speaker 3: And what our founder said is no Article one, section eight.
• 44:51
  Speaker 3: They gave the power to tariff expressly to the president
• 44:54
  Speaker 3: in a similar way to they gave the gave the
• 44:56
  Speaker 3: power to Congress, and in the same way as they
• 44:59
  Speaker 3: did over matter of military justice.
• 45:01
  Speaker 2: Let me ask you a question about Article one, section eight,
• 45:03
  Speaker 2: because it talks about Levy's duties and taxes, but it
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: doesn't specifically say tariffs. Does the nomenclature matter or are
• 45:12
  Speaker 2: they all the same things? Now?
• 45:13
  Speaker 3: I mean, even the Trump administration, which just made some
• 45:17
  Speaker 3: bizarre legal arguments in this case, even they're not making
• 45:19
  Speaker 3: that argument. A duty is definitely understood as a tariff,
• 45:23
  Speaker 3: and the original understanding very clear on that point.
• 45:26
  Speaker 2: And Article one, section eight says that authority lies exclusively
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: with Congress exactly. So that's the initial claim. I'm assuming
• 45:37
  Speaker 2: the president is saying, well, I was given authority by
• 45:41
  Speaker 2: Congress either through the IEPA Act, which was nineteen seventy seven,
• 45:47
  Speaker 2: or the Trade Act of nineteen seventy four. How do
• 45:50
  Speaker 2: you see these other legislations modifying the Constitution?
• 45:54
  Speaker 3: So the government is certainly so the Trump administration is
• 45:57
  Speaker 3: trying to say that in nineteen seventy seven and Congress
• 46:00
  Speaker 3: passed this International Economic Emergency Act which gave the power
• 46:05
  Speaker 3: to tariff. There's only one problem with that. The law
• 46:07
  Speaker 3: doesn't say anything about tariffs in it in nineteen seventy seven,
• 46:10
  Speaker 3: and there's nothing in the you know, history of the
• 46:13
  Speaker 3: law to say so. No president for fifty years has
• 46:17
  Speaker 3: ever thought that it includes the power to tariff. And
• 46:20
  Speaker 3: then President Trump's lawyers come along and say, ah, here,
• 46:23
  Speaker 3: that's how we're going to announce these massive tariffs. And
• 46:28
  Speaker 3: I just think our Constitution demands more from the Congress
• 46:31
  Speaker 3: than that simple thing. I mean, Congress can certainly tomorrow
• 46:35
  Speaker 3: easily authorize all of President Trump's tariffs. It would you
• 46:39
  Speaker 3: know they could just do it with an up or
• 46:41
  Speaker 3: down vote. The fact that they haven't, the fact that
• 46:44
  Speaker 3: the president is scared to even ask, I think, tells
• 46:47
  Speaker 3: you all you need to know.
• 46:48
  Speaker 2: Didn't he ask in his first term?
• 46:50
  Speaker 3: In his first term, he asked and it was rejected
• 46:52
  Speaker 3: by the Congress.
• 46:53
  Speaker 2: So it seems kind of odd to say, please give
• 46:56
  Speaker 2: me the authority to tariff. No, I can't. Okay, now
• 46:59
  Speaker 2: I'm not even going to ask. This is like a
• 47:01
  Speaker 2: teenage kid who sneaks out after curfew.
• 47:04
  Speaker 3: Right, it's it's I mean, a different way of putting
• 47:07
  Speaker 3: The point is. Look, even Donald Trump didn't believe his
• 47:09
  Speaker 3: own AEPA argument because he went to Congress back the
• 47:13
  Speaker 3: first time around and lost, And so then he comes
• 47:16
  Speaker 3: up with his backup plan, which is, oh, I have
• 47:18
  Speaker 3: the power anyway. Then I have no idea what he
• 47:21
  Speaker 3: was doing in the first term by going and asking
• 47:23
  Speaker 3: Congress for this power if he had it in the
• 47:24
  Speaker 3: first place. And it's such a dangerous thing because you know,
• 47:28
  Speaker 3: if this president does it for tariffs because he sees
• 47:32
  Speaker 3: trade imbalances, another president, and this is how I started
• 47:34
  Speaker 3: my oral argument to the Federal Circuit. Another president to
• 47:38
  Speaker 3: the Court of appeals. Another president could say, you know,
• 47:41
  Speaker 3: climate's a real emergency, and I am going to impose
• 47:45
  Speaker 3: one hundred percent tariffs or one thousand percent tariffs on
• 47:49
  Speaker 3: any goods from an oil producing country. You know, that
• 47:53
  Speaker 3: whole thing is something that Congress really needs to be deciding,
• 47:57
  Speaker 3: not the president on his own.
• 47:59
  Speaker 2: So before we get the appellate litigation, let's start with
• 48:02
  Speaker 2: the trial litigation. You're representing a group of small businesses
• 48:06
  Speaker 2: that are all saying tariffs are going to hurt their business.
• 48:09
  Speaker 2: Tell us what the this was the Court of Trade,
• 48:14
  Speaker 2: the International Court of Trade in DC. Tell us a
• 48:17
  Speaker 2: little bit about that litigation. How did that proceed?
• 48:19
  Speaker 3: Yeah, and just to be clear, I wasn't involved at
• 48:21
  Speaker 3: that stage. I mean, this happens a lot with me.
• 48:23
  Speaker 3: Is someone brings the case in the trial court, they
• 48:26
  Speaker 3: win or lose, and then they want a firepower for
• 48:30
  Speaker 3: the appeal stage and the Supreme Court. So that's what
• 48:32
  Speaker 3: happened to you.
• 48:33
  Speaker 2: Sure, So they won at the trial level, and then
• 48:35
  Speaker 2: there was a stay on the enforcement at the trial
• 48:39
  Speaker 2: level pending appeal. Right, So that's where you get involved
• 48:43
  Speaker 2: in the case. How did this go up to the
• 48:45
  Speaker 2: DC Court of Appeal? So rapidly, and why was it
• 48:49
  Speaker 2: a full on bank all eleven justices hearing the case
• 48:53
  Speaker 2: at once.
• 48:54
  Speaker 3: Yeah, So what you have is you have a trial
• 48:56
  Speaker 3: court decision from the Court of International Trade that says
• 48:59
  Speaker 3: President tree Trump's tariffs are illegal. The court then pauses
• 49:04
  Speaker 3: that ruling so that it could be decided by the
• 49:07
  Speaker 3: appeals Court and perhaps the US Supreme Court. And at
• 49:10
  Speaker 3: that point I get involved. The Federal Court of Appeals says,
• 49:14
  Speaker 3: on their own, this case is so important that we're
• 49:17
  Speaker 3: going to have all eleven of our judges here the case,
• 49:20
  Speaker 3: not just three judges, which is normally the rule.
• 49:22
  Speaker 2: How often do you get a full on bank hearing
• 49:25
  Speaker 2: like that?
• 49:25
  Speaker 3: Very rarely, I mean the Federal Circuit, which is this
• 49:28
  Speaker 3: Court of Appeals, maybe once a year, maybe once every
• 49:30
  Speaker 3: couple of years. So it's a very rare thing, and
• 49:32
  Speaker 3: I think it does demonstrate the gravity of this. And
• 49:35
  Speaker 3: to circle back to something at the start that you
• 49:37
  Speaker 3: talked about about the kind of degree of attention around
• 49:40
  Speaker 3: this case, I guess I want to push back a
• 49:42
  Speaker 3: little because I do think there's been a lot of
• 49:44
  Speaker 3: media attention around the case, a lot of jurisprudential attention
• 49:48
  Speaker 3: around the case, but perhaps the most important a lot
• 49:50
  Speaker 3: of business community interest. I mean, I think every major
• 49:53
  Speaker 3: hedge fund called me while this case was pending in
• 49:57
  Speaker 3: the trial court to ask for my views, and they
• 50:00
  Speaker 3: wanted to make financial decisions on the basis of it.
• 50:03
  Speaker 3: I obviously can't answer those questions in quite the same
• 50:05
  Speaker 3: way now that I'm involved in the case. But I
• 50:08
  Speaker 3: do think that for the markets, this is a case
• 50:12
  Speaker 3: of enormous, enormous significance, and what happens at the Court
• 50:17
  Speaker 3: of Appeals and what perhaps happens should the case go
• 50:19
  Speaker 3: to the Supreme Court is something that a lot of
• 50:22
  Speaker 3: people are thinking about.
• 50:23
  Speaker 2: So let's walk before we run. So you argue the
• 50:27
  Speaker 2: case on bank in front of the entire all lemonjustices
• 50:32
  Speaker 2: of the DC Court of Appeals. Tell us what that
• 50:35
  Speaker 2: hearing was, like, how did it go?
• 50:37
  Speaker 3: Yeah, So, I mean, I'm obviously constrained. It's a pending case,
• 50:40
  Speaker 3: so I want to just stick to the public record.
• 50:43
  Speaker 3: I'm not going to try and litigate the case on
• 50:46
  Speaker 3: your podcast or anything. I love your podcast, but I
• 50:49
  Speaker 3: have to be very mindful of those kinds of things.
• 50:52
  Speaker 3: But you know, in a big case like this, I
• 50:55
  Speaker 3: think you're always looking I'm always looking to try and
• 50:59
  Speaker 3: make sure the judges understand the implications of the government's argument,
• 51:04
  Speaker 3: because anything can look reasonable when a president does it
• 51:08
  Speaker 3: in the you know, for the immediate situation. But the
• 51:12
  Speaker 3: question and constitutional law is, if the president has this
• 51:15
  Speaker 3: power here, what's to stop him from doing the next.
• 51:18
  Speaker 2: Thing and the next thing in the next slope.
• 51:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, And that's something our founders the whole architecture
• 51:24
  Speaker 3: of our government, and Madison really talks about this in
• 51:27
  Speaker 3: Federalists ten fifty one. The whole architecture of our government
• 51:30
  Speaker 3: is to try and prevent that slippery slope through all
• 51:33
  Speaker 3: sorts of different breaks. And the obviously the most important
• 51:36
  Speaker 3: break to our founders was the role of the Congress.
• 51:39
  Speaker 3: That the Congress has to affirmatively authorize things before a
• 51:43
  Speaker 3: president can do them.
• 51:44
  Speaker 2: So if the president can levy tariff's taxes duties on
• 51:49
  Speaker 2: his own without congress, what can he do exactly?
• 51:54
  Speaker 3: And so, you know, you asked me, how did the
• 51:57
  Speaker 3: argument go? I felt like the judges were circling in
• 52:00
  Speaker 3: on that precise question, the one you just asked me.
• 52:04
  Speaker 3: And you know it's available for anyone to listen to exactly,
• 52:09
  Speaker 3: So you know, listeners can decide for themselves. But I
• 52:13
  Speaker 3: do think the government, you know, was was on the
• 52:16
  Speaker 3: defense in response to those questions. And you know, I,
• 52:21
  Speaker 3: you know, I have some sympathy for that. I was
• 52:22
  Speaker 3: the top lawyer for the federal government for a while,
• 52:25
  Speaker 3: and you know, sometimes governments, you know, have positions that
• 52:29
  Speaker 3: are tough to defend. This one I felt was particularly
• 52:32
  Speaker 3: tough to defend.
• 52:33
  Speaker 2: So what given what we've talked about with Article one,
• 52:36
  Speaker 2: Section eight and NIPA, what on earth was the government's
• 52:41
  Speaker 2: case defending the Tara faction.
• 52:44
  Speaker 3: Most of the government's case was like a fate of
• 52:47
  Speaker 3: complete which was, Oh, it's already done, the President's done it,
• 52:50
  Speaker 3: it's had all these successes. If you undo it, it's
• 52:54
  Speaker 3: going in declared illegal. Then it's going to wreck the economy.
• 52:57
  Speaker 2: I am not aware of many having gone to law
• 53:01
  Speaker 2: school and passed the bar. I don't recall a lot
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: of constitutional cases where the judges shrugged and said, well,
• 53:08
  Speaker 2: if you did it already, who are we to undo that?
• 53:11
  Speaker 3: Exactly?
• 53:12
  Speaker 2: It seems like a kind of bizarre argument to make.
• 53:15
  Speaker 3: It is, but it is one that the governments have made.
• 53:18
  Speaker 3: Prior governments have made it. President Truman made it when
• 53:20
  Speaker 3: he sees the steel mills in nineteen fifty two, and
• 53:24
  Speaker 3: that went up to the Supreme Court. Solicitor General made
• 53:26
  Speaker 3: a version of this argument, and of course there we
• 53:29
  Speaker 3: were in a war and we needed the steal. And
• 53:31
  Speaker 3: so the Solicitor General said to the Supreme Court, look,
• 53:34
  Speaker 3: you will d it gravely undermine our war fighting powers
• 53:37
  Speaker 3: in the midst of a war if you reverse the
• 53:40
  Speaker 3: president's decision to seize the steel mills. Supreme Court said,
• 53:44
  Speaker 3: that's not a good enough reason. In our constitutional system,
• 53:47
  Speaker 3: they say, it's Congress that makes the laws. And again,
• 53:51
  Speaker 3: similar architecture to the guantanam argument. Similar architecture here in
• 53:55
  Speaker 3: the tariff's case.
• 53:56
  Speaker 2: Huh, that's really fascinating. So the government's substance equently did
• 54:00
  Speaker 2: a filing pretty quickly after the hearing, asking for a
• 54:05
  Speaker 2: stay if they lose, pending Supreme Court review. That seems
• 54:11
  Speaker 2: kind of unusual. It's almost as if, hey, we didn't
• 54:14
  Speaker 2: do a great job and we think we're going to lose,
• 54:16
  Speaker 2: but we don't want you to overturn this. How often
• 54:20
  Speaker 2: does that happen this quickly after an appeal is argued.
• 54:25
  Speaker 3: I mean, it was an extraordinary letter. I don't really
• 54:28
  Speaker 3: want to say more than that people can listen to
• 54:30
  Speaker 3: people can read the letter for themselves. It was filed
• 54:32
  Speaker 3: in the court. It's a two page letter, and then
• 54:34
  Speaker 3: we filed a quick response to it. But it is
• 54:38
  Speaker 3: it is an extraordinary.
• 54:39
  Speaker 2: Letter, so typically get a this was argued in July
• 54:42
  Speaker 2: twenty twenty five. It could take six months before we
• 54:46
  Speaker 2: get a decision. Typically, my assumption is a full on
• 54:49
  Speaker 2: bank hearing. Recognizing this is a really important case, you
• 54:54
  Speaker 2: tend to get a decision faster than you would otherwise.
• 54:59
  Speaker 2: I'm assuming that this can drop sometime in September October.
• 55:03
  Speaker 2: But this isn't a February twenty twenty six.
• 55:06
  Speaker 3: I think nobody wants it to be something that's going
• 55:08
  Speaker 3: to go long, and courts of appeals generally do take
• 55:11
  Speaker 3: a while for decisions. The average time is about six
• 55:13
  Speaker 3: months in the federal system. Here, I think the judges
• 55:20
  Speaker 3: do want to try and decide this quickly. That was
• 55:23
  Speaker 3: indicated to us by the fact that they gave us
• 55:25
  Speaker 3: very little time to write our briefs. You know, they
• 55:27
  Speaker 3: wanted us to go straight to argument.
• 55:29
  Speaker 2: And really, what's that timeline? Normally they like to prep.
• 55:32
  Speaker 3: It was truncated by about half the time, and then
• 55:36
  Speaker 3: oral arguments set for right away, right after the briefs
• 55:39
  Speaker 3: came in.
• 55:40
  Speaker 2: So no falling around. We're fast tracking this exactly. This
• 55:43
  Speaker 2: isn't a Christmas decision. We're gonna we're gonna get this
• 55:46
  Speaker 2: out exactly left Lay.
• 55:48
  Speaker 3: I think the court did exactly the right and responsible
• 55:50
  Speaker 3: thing there, which is us as lawyers. We can get
• 55:52
  Speaker 3: the briefs done, we can get prepared for argument, so
• 55:55
  Speaker 3: you know, so do it more quickly because there are
• 55:58
  Speaker 3: eleven judges and they do have to reach some sort
• 56:01
  Speaker 3: of majority view. It is going to take some time,
• 56:04
  Speaker 3: in which you know, eleven people to decide. Anything takes time,
• 56:07
  Speaker 3: particularly something with this gravity and.
• 56:09
  Speaker 2: Wait, quite fascinating. Coming up, we continue our conversation with
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: Neil Kadial, who is the planeff's attorney on the appeal
• 56:17
  Speaker 2: for the Vos selections versus Trump, which is seeking to
• 56:21
  Speaker 2: overturn all of the tariffs, discussing where the case can
• 56:25
  Speaker 2: go from here. I'm Barry Ridolts. You're listening to Masters
• 56:29
  Speaker 2: in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I'm Barry Redults. You're listening
• 56:33
  Speaker 2: to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My Extra Special
• 56:37
  Speaker 2: guest today is litigation Appellet attorney Neil Kadial. He has
• 56:42
  Speaker 2: a tremendous CV former Solicitor General, dozens and dozens of
• 56:47
  Speaker 2: cases argued in front of the Supreme Court, and the
• 56:51
  Speaker 2: most recent argument he did was the Vos Selections versus Trump,
• 56:56
  Speaker 2: arguing that all of these tariffs are illegal. So let's
• 57:00
  Speaker 2: pick up where we left off. The DC Court of
• 57:04
  Speaker 2: Appeals agrees to hear the case. They expedite this. You
• 57:08
  Speaker 2: don't have a lot of time to prep for the
• 57:10
  Speaker 2: moving papers, You don't have a lot of time to
• 57:13
  Speaker 2: prep for the oral argument. What is that argument like
• 57:17
  Speaker 2: when you're in front of the court. How long does
• 57:19
  Speaker 2: it go for? I know you've done this a million times.
• 57:22
  Speaker 2: You still get those butterflies in your stomach before you
• 57:24
  Speaker 2: get up there.
• 57:25
  Speaker 3: Always get the butterflies, And you know it helps me
• 57:28
  Speaker 3: be a better lawyer. In the minute that I don't
• 57:30
  Speaker 3: have those butterflies, I'm going to go do something else.
• 57:33
  Speaker 3: John Roberts told me that I used to run his
• 57:35
  Speaker 3: practice at his law firm practice, and he said, you know,
• 57:39
  Speaker 3: every time I go up there, I got nervous. And
• 57:43
  Speaker 3: he was an extraordinary advocate. And so I've come to
• 57:47
  Speaker 3: actually appreciate the butterflies as opposed to trying to just
• 57:51
  Speaker 3: push them away. My practice schedule is the same for
• 57:55
  Speaker 3: any kind of big case, which is, I take notes
• 57:59
  Speaker 3: on the briefs that have been filed, and then I relentlessly,
• 58:03
  Speaker 3: relentlessly practice the argument in front of people both new
• 58:06
  Speaker 3: to the case like the judges will be, and people
• 58:09
  Speaker 3: are experts on the case, and they are throwing questions
• 58:12
  Speaker 3: at me one after another for hours. And I do
• 58:15
  Speaker 3: this sometimes, you know, as many as six, eight, ten times.
• 58:20
  Speaker 3: In the tirest case, I did it eight times, practicing
• 58:23
  Speaker 3: the argument in front of all these people. And I
• 58:27
  Speaker 3: then go and I listen to the arguments these practice
• 58:30
  Speaker 3: sessions on MP three, I put it on you know,
• 58:33
  Speaker 3: something that I can put on my iPhone and then
• 58:36
  Speaker 3: I'll run to it or something like that. And so
• 58:40
  Speaker 3: I'm just thinking to myself, A. Can I answer the
• 58:43
  Speaker 3: question better? B? Can I answer it more quickly? C?
• 58:49
  Speaker 3: Can I answer the question in a way that doesn't
• 58:52
  Speaker 3: invite a follow up question that I really don't want
• 58:55
  Speaker 3: to ask? And then D the most dark arts part
• 58:58
  Speaker 3: of it. Can I answer the quest question in a
• 59:00
  Speaker 3: way that leads them to ask the next question, which
• 59:03
  Speaker 3: is one I do want.
• 59:05
  Speaker 2: So there's a lot of tactical thinking and strategy beyond
• 59:09
  Speaker 2: just legal knowledge and rehearsal.
• 59:12
  Speaker 3: One hundred percent. Like I mean, you know, in a
• 59:14
  Speaker 3: big case, yes, you got to know the law, you
• 59:17
  Speaker 3: got to know the history, you got to have all
• 59:20
  Speaker 3: of the you know, finer points, you.
• 59:22
  Speaker 2: Know, memorized table mistakes though, but at the end.
• 59:25
  Speaker 3: Of it, in the big cases, what really matters is
• 59:28
  Speaker 3: can you pivot the conversation in the way you want?
• 59:32
  Speaker 3: Can you show maximum credibility with the court? Can you
• 59:36
  Speaker 3: really be a true listener to the questions and not
• 59:39
  Speaker 3: answer the question that you want asked, because they may
• 59:42
  Speaker 3: be asking you a different one and you've got to
• 59:44
  Speaker 3: answer that one. And so, uh, it is a really
• 59:49
  Speaker 3: specialized skill, which is why you know, I tend to
• 59:52
  Speaker 3: be brought in for these cases which, like you know,
• 59:54
  Speaker 3: I don't know how to do a trial. In fact,
• 59:56
  Speaker 3: I was special prosecutor in the George Floyd murder, and
• 59:59
  Speaker 3: but I handled all the appeal stuff because I mean,
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 3: you know, I have no idea how to cross examine
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 3: a witness or something, and so you know, I do
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 3: one thing, hopefully I do it kind of well, and
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 3: but the practice sessions are really I think the secret sauce.
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 2: Kind of well, kind of well, how long did the
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 2: oral arguments last? How?
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 3: I think there are a couple hours long.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 2: That's what it looked like when I saw it on YouTube.
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 2: And I'm like, I don't know how much of this
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 2: because I listened to a good chunk of it and
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 2: kept starting and stopping, and I'm like, this feels like
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 2: typical appellate arguments are not hours long, right.
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 3: You know, set for twenty minutes, except for twenty three
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 3: minutes I think for me, and I'm pretty sure I
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 3: probably went for an hour or something like that.
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, And how did opposing counsel? How much time did
• 1:00:47
  Speaker 2: they use it?
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 3: And I think they used a fair amount of time
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 3: as well. I think the court really did want to
• 1:00:52
  Speaker 3: try and ask a lot of the hard questions to
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 3: both sides, and so yeah, so I think it did
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 3: go long.
• 1:00:59
  Speaker 2: So the DC Court of Appeals recognizes how significant this
• 1:01:03
  Speaker 2: case is, they expedite it. It's a full on bank.
• 1:01:06
  Speaker 2: All eleven justices hear it. Where does it go from here?
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 2: I was trying to figure out what options So I'm
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 2: going to assume for argument's sake that the plaintiff is
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 2: successful in this case, and they affirm the lower court's
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 2: ruling against the president. Tariffs are Congress's venue, not the
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 2: president's their responsibility. What happens from here? What can the
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court do? They could say that's fine, let it
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 2: stands as far as I know. They could remand the
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 2: case for further fact finding to the trial judge and
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 2: say we want to see more specific things, or they
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 2: can take it up on a full hearing. What am
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 2: I missing? What am I forgetting from law school?
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 3: That's exactly right. So if we win, you know, the
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 3: government will try and take the case to the Supreme Court.
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 3: They've already said they would do that, and we hope
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 3: the Supreme Court at that point wouldn't hear the case.
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 3: I mean, I'm privileged to represent these plaintefs. They're small businesses.
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 3: Bos Selections is a small wine company. It's been around
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 3: for a while. And if they're saying, and they filed
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 3: briefs in the Supreme Court, in the Court of Appeals,
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 3: it's say, if we lose this case, our business may
• 1:02:21
  Speaker 3: go under, and other businesses like ours may go under.
• 1:02:24
  Speaker 3: And so you know, we think from the perspective of
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 3: small businesses in particular, it's really important that this is
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 3: you get settled and settled quickly. And if the Court
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 3: of Appeals says, I hope they will that President Trump's
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 3: tariffs are unconstitutional, we hope that's the end of it.
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 3: It might not be. Of course, Supreme Court may decide
• 1:02:42
  Speaker 3: to hear the case. Conversely, if the government wins in
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 3: the Court of Appeals and says these tariffs are okay,
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 3: then we would presumably go to the Supreme Court and
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 3: say no, they're not, and then ask the Supreme Court
• 1:02:56
  Speaker 3: to hear it. And then there is, as you say,
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 3: a third option, which the Court of Appeals might say, hey,
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 3: you know, we think that this needs to go back
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 3: to the trial court for further fact finding on something
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 3: or the other. You know, I think that's in many
• 1:03:11
  Speaker 3: ways the worst of every world because everyone needs certainty
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 3: around this, particularly the business community, and so you know,
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 3: you know, there's definitely been floated as a possibility, but
• 1:03:23
  Speaker 3: it's one that I think wouldn't be attractive to the government.
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 2: And the facts in question are pretty clear. Here's what
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 2: the president did, he is what the litigation has showed,
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 2: and here's the legislation and the constitution. The specific facts
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 2: don't seem to matter that much other than what is
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 2: pretty widely understood.
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so that's correct, That's exactly our argument.
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 2: So let's talk about remedies. Hypothetically, you win at the
• 1:03:52
  Speaker 2: appellate level. There's been a stay for the prior victory
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 2: at the district court level, at the International Court of Trade.
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 2: What sort of remedies do small businesses get? Can the
• 1:04:06
  Speaker 2: tariffs be thrown out? Can companies that have paid tariffs?
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 2: Can they get refunds? How does this work? Right?
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 3: So, I think right now, all we have asked for
• 1:04:16
  Speaker 3: in our case is is for the tariffs to be
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 3: declared unconstitutional, illegal and void. There is a question, as
• 1:04:23
  Speaker 3: you say about about companies individuals that have paid tariffs,
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 3: can they get a refund on that from the government.
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 3: That's not something that's been briefed yet or argued. I
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 3: think it is kicking around as an issue. When President
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 3: Trump issued some tariffs that were declared illegal before, there
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 3: were refund actions that were filed, and I think those
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 3: refund actions are still pending years later in the courts. Yes,
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 3: so you know, it's a long process, that refund process
• 1:04:52
  Speaker 3: to the extent it's available. We have just not gotten
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 3: into that at the time.
• 1:04:56
  Speaker 2: And I look at tariffs as of that tax on consumers.
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 2: I'm going to assume consumers are just that money's gone.
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 2: They'll never be able to see that back.
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't know if that, you know, I think
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 3: that may be the case. I think you're right to
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 3: characterize tariffs as a tax. I think you're one hundred
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 3: percent right. That's what we're talking about. We're talking about
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 3: the price because of President Trump's tariffs, the price of
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 3: everything you're hurting on Amazon or at the grocery store, whatever,
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 3: you know, increasing the cost to you, the American consumer. Indeed,
• 1:05:26
  Speaker 3: the Tax Foundation, which is a nonpartisan group, has said
• 1:05:30
  Speaker 3: that this is the largest tax increase on American consumers
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 3: since Bill Clinton in nineteen ninety three.
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 2: That's a big tax increase, isn't it. Yeah, So let's
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 2: talk about I know you don't want to speculate about
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. This court seems to have been increasingly
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 2: allowing presidential authority to expand. At what point is it
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 2: a bridge too far? This is essentially we're going to
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 2: give the president the authority to tax, which is Congress's responsibility.
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: How do you think about how the Supreme Court is
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 2: going to contextualize this. Is there a narrow keyhole that
• 1:06:13
  Speaker 2: they can sort of, you know, thread the needle and
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 2: avoid the constitutional argument. I'm trying not to put words
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 2: in your mouth and think about what are the possible
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 2: scenarios we could go down.
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 3: Yeah, so I think, you know, the Supreme Court has
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 3: probably the same three options that we talked about earlier
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 3: for the Court of Appeals, declare the tariffs illegal and unconstitutional?
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 3: Declare the tariffs constitutional and legal, or send it back
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 3: to the trial court for some fact finding. I do
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 3: think that there's a deep concern that this president is
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 3: asserting powers in very, very muscular ways, and some of
• 1:06:54
  Speaker 3: those are legitimate and others are not. This is one
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 3: that I think is pretty easy to characterizes, falling on
• 1:07:01
  Speaker 3: the latter side of that line. Others are more difficult,
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 3: and you know, and so I think there's a conversation
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 3: at the court about that question. But I think they're
• 1:07:11
  Speaker 3: going to approach this case as they do any on
• 1:07:14
  Speaker 3: its own individual facts, and the facts are I think
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 3: here that the president hasn't done what the Constitution requires,
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 3: which is to have him go to Congress and get
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 3: the authority for the things that he says he claims
• 1:07:27
  Speaker 3: he needs so desperately.
• 1:07:29
  Speaker 2: So the middle e in AIPA is emergency. Is there
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 2: an argument to be had that, hey, we're in the
• 1:07:37
  Speaker 2: middle of an emergency, although you know some of the
• 1:07:42
  Speaker 2: things that kind of surprise me about the tariffs he
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 2: negos to the president negotiated the North American Trade Group
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 2: of trade laws and now threw that out in tariff
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 2: and we have a free trade agreement with South Korea
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 2: and suddenly with tariffing them. How is it an emergency
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 2: if you're tariffing every country in the world, including those
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 2: that do not have tariffs on our goods.
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 3: It's one hundred percent right. And I would point out
• 1:08:10
  Speaker 3: that the language of this nineteen seventy seven law that
• 1:08:13
  Speaker 3: President Trump is is relying on AIPA. It doesn't just
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 3: say emergency. It says it must also be an unusual
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 3: and extraordinary threat. And yet the president's executive order imposing
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 3: these tariffs has said trade deficits have been a persistent
• 1:08:28
  Speaker 3: feature of the American economy for the last fifty years.
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 3: And so he basically pled himself out of court because
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 3: his own executive order says these trade deficits are not
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 3: unusual and extraordinary, They're commonplace and de raguer in the
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 3: American economy. So that was I think a big portion
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 3: of my oral argument before the court. And you know,
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 3: I suspect that we'll, you know, get a bunch of
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 3: attention in whatever decision the Court of Appeals will make.
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 3: So I think, look, you want a circumstance, and Founders
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 3: wanted a wanted a constitutional structure in which, if there
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 3: is a true emergency, presidents get leeway.
• 1:09:08
  Speaker 2: You're anticipating my next question, which is the Supreme Court
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 2: doesn't want to tie the president's hand in cases of
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 2: true emergencies. I'm hearing your argument. This should have nothing
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 2: to do with that there's no emergency.
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 3: Exactly. You've got time to go to Congress. Think back
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 3: to President Lincoln in the Civil War. He orders the
• 1:09:31
  Speaker 3: blockade of the South, he suspends the rid of habeas corpus,
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 3: and and yet he says, I'm going to call a
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 3: special session of Congress on July fourth to get people
• 1:09:43
  Speaker 3: back to vote and say did I do Do you
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 3: ratify what I did? I had to do it in
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 3: an emergency, And of course then you didn't have middle
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 3: of Civil War, middle of Civil War, no telecoms, no
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 3: instant email or anything like that. You know, so he
• 1:09:55
  Speaker 3: had to take certain actions in order to protect the
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 3: American Republic. And you you know, certainly I and the
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 3: small businesses and privilege to represent. We're not saying in
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 3: some true emergency in which Congress can't act, the president
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 3: can't fill the void. Of course he can. This is
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 3: the opposite of that. This is one in which Congress
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 3: is operating normally. The trade deficits have been going on
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 3: for fifty years. No president has ever sought this kind
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 3: of sweeping power. And yet he comes along and says, I,
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 3: Donald Trump get this power. That's a very dangerous thing,
• 1:10:26
  Speaker 3: not just because for some people who are concerned about
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 3: President Trump, but if you're concerned about President Mamdani or
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 3: whomever in the future. You don't want presidents to have
• 1:10:35
  Speaker 3: that kind of sweeping power on their own.
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 2: What a perfect place to leave it. Thank you, Neil
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 2: for being so generous with your time. We have been
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 2: speaking with Neil Kadial. He is the appellate litigator for
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 2: VOS Selections Versus Trump, which seeks to declare the president's
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 2: tariffs not only null and void, but unconstitutional. If you
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 2: enjoy this conversation, well, check out any of the other
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 2: five home we've done over the past twelve years. You
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 2: can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg YouTube, wherever you
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 2: find your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 2: did not thank the craft team that helps us put
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 2: these conversations together each week. Alexis Norieger is my producer.
• 1:11:17
  Speaker 2: Sage Bauman is the head of podcasts at Bloomberg. Sean
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 2: Russo is my researcher. I'm Barry Ritolts. You've been listening
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 2: to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.