Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: SCOTUS 2025 & Blake Lively Legal Drama

Transcript

Weekend Law: SCOTUS 2025 & Blake Lively Legal Drama · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: The Court is minn and a crisis of ethics. These
0:12
Speaker 2: scandals of obvy the justices have caused public opinion to
0:16
Speaker 2: question the Court's fairness and independence.
0:18
Speaker 3: After a series of ethical missteps by justices and controversial
0:23
Speaker 3: decisions like overturning the right to abortion and granting broad
0:27
Speaker 3: presidential immunity, only thirty five percent of Americans have confidence
0:32
Speaker 3: in the courts, a record low and a steep drop
0:36
Speaker 3: of twenty four points over the last four years. According
0:39
Speaker 3: to a Gallop poll. The Court has more than fifty
0:42
Speaker 3: cases on its dock at this term, including some addressing
0:46
Speaker 3: contentious issues like transgender care for minors, reverse discrimination, ghost guns,
0:52
Speaker 3: and the TikTok ban. Joining me to discuss the oral
0:56
Speaker 3: arguments coming up this year is constitutional law expert Harold
0:59
Speaker 3: cr a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law.
1:03
Speaker 3: How the Court seems to love First Amendment cases, and
1:06
Speaker 3: there are three coming up this year, the ban on TikTok,
1:10
Speaker 3: age verification for pornography sites, and tax exemptions for religious organizations.
1:17
Speaker 3: Let's start with the ban on TikTok, which will be
1:20
Speaker 3: the first oral arguments of the year next Friday. The
1:23
Speaker 3: Supreme Court is hearing this on an expedited basis because
1:26
Speaker 3: the ban goes into effect on January fifteenth. Tell us
1:30
Speaker 3: about TikTok's First Amendment claims well.
1:33
Speaker 4: Congress in early twenty twenty four passed the law requiring
1:38
Speaker 4: TikTok basically to be divested from its Chinese parent Fighte
1:41
Speaker 4: Dance by January nineteenth, twenty twenty five. And the divestiture
1:47
Speaker 4: requirement has been challenged under the First Amendment and it
1:51
Speaker 4: is far from privilege, and so the Court did decide
1:54
Speaker 4: to take an emergency appeal. So it's not exactly on
1:57
Speaker 4: the merits. It would be an emergency appeal about whether
2:00
Speaker 4: or not they're so convinced that the First Amendment issues
2:03
Speaker 4: are substantial or not that they would give an injunction
2:06
Speaker 4: against the statute to get rid of the January nineteenth deadline. So, obviously,
2:12
Speaker 4: TikTok is incredibly popular in the United States, and the
2:15
Speaker 4: fear that led Congress to order the divestiture is the
2:19
Speaker 4: fact that there is not only a Chinese parent, but
2:22
Speaker 4: the Chinese parent here can collect so much information about
2:26
Speaker 4: one hundred million users or so on TikTok and then
2:29
Speaker 4: change the algorithms by which people see information and through
2:34
Speaker 4: doing that, influence America in a way that is more
2:37
Speaker 4: pro Chinese. There's been no evidence that by dancing, TikTok
2:41
Speaker 4: has done this, but it's certainly, I think well accepted
2:44
Speaker 4: that they could if they wanted to. So that's what
2:46
Speaker 4: led Congress to the divestiture. But that raises huge First
2:50
Speaker 4: Amendment questions because it is picking out one particular social
2:55
Speaker 4: media platform and saying that there can no longer be
2:58
Speaker 4: free expression in that venue because of the fear of
3:02
Speaker 4: the Chinese influence. So it really raises a very important,
3:06
Speaker 4: but a very novel First Amendment claim, and that's what
3:08
Speaker 4: will be heard January tenth in order to make sure
3:11
Speaker 4: there's enough time for the Court to act before January
3:14
Speaker 4: nineteenth if they are so inclined.
3:16
Speaker 3: During his campaign, President elect Donald Trump express support for TikTok,
3:22
Speaker 3: saying he got billions of views on the platform.
3:25
Speaker 5: They brought me a chart and it was a record,
3:28
Speaker 5: and it was so beautiful to see. And as I
3:31
Speaker 5: looked at it, I said, maybe we got to keep
3:34
Speaker 5: this sucker around a little while.
3:37
Speaker 3: And Trump put himself in the middle of this by
3:40
Speaker 3: asking the Supreme Court to stay the law without taking
3:43
Speaker 3: a stance on whether it's unconstitutional. His lawyer, John Sower,
3:48
Speaker 3: the future Uslicitor General, wrote, President Trump alone possesses the
3:53
Speaker 3: consummate deal making expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political
3:57
Speaker 3: will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while
4:01
Speaker 3: addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government. It's
4:06
Speaker 3: unprecedented to have a future president intervene in a case
4:09
Speaker 3: before the Court before he takes office to try to
4:13
Speaker 3: counteract what the current president has done.
4:17
Speaker 4: So what's even more amazing about that filing is that
4:20
Speaker 4: it raises a presidential power issue under Article two that
4:24
Speaker 4: has never been discussed in the Court before, which is
4:27
Speaker 4: what about the Article to interests of a president elect?
4:30
Speaker 4: Because what President Trump has done, in a kind of
4:32
Speaker 4: rambling filing is suggests that his progatives as a future
4:37
Speaker 4: president should be preserved under Article two by deciding to
4:41
Speaker 4: stay the divestiture date of January nineteenth. We've just never
4:45
Speaker 4: had a case on the powers of a president elect,
4:49
Speaker 4: and President Trump's filing does raise the issue. It's a
4:53
Speaker 4: can of worms that has not been opened, but it
4:55
Speaker 4: may be opened by the Supreme Court. We'll have to
4:57
Speaker 4: see the course of the Court doesn't have to reach that
5:00
Speaker 4: in deciding whether to stay the case or not. But
5:03
Speaker 4: it's a fascinating stub issue.
5:05
Speaker 3: Well, we were all surprised when the Court expanded presidential
5:09
Speaker 3: immunity from criminal prosecution. So I suppose anything is possible.
5:15
Speaker 4: Anything is possible. And you know, as a political matter,
5:18
Speaker 4: President Trump's submission makes some sense because what the Court
5:21
Speaker 4: does by delaying or not delaying the deadline on January nineteenth,
5:24
Speaker 4: will have an impact on his presidency. And so there
5:27
Speaker 4: is absolutely more than a kernel of truth in what
5:30
Speaker 4: President Trump has stated.
5:32
Speaker 3: And for once, we won't have to wait months and
5:34
Speaker 3: months for the Justices to make a decision. The Court
5:37
Speaker 3: will have to rule in one week's time to beat
5:40
Speaker 3: that January nineteenth deadline. Now, on January fifteenth, the Justices
5:45
Speaker 3: are going to hear arguments in a case challenging a
5:48
Speaker 3: Texas law that requires porn sites to verify the ages
5:52
Speaker 3: of users. Industry trade groups contend that the law violates
5:56
Speaker 3: the constitutional rights of adults. Tell us about their challenge.
6:00
Speaker 4: They have two general First Amendment claims. I think they're
6:04
Speaker 4: quite substantial. The first is more of a doctrinal one.
6:08
Speaker 4: The court below used a kind of rational basis test
6:12
Speaker 4: in order to assess the legitimacy of this statute in
6:17
Speaker 4: terms of protecting minors as opposed to a more demanding
6:21
Speaker 4: scrutiny test, and if their strict scrutiny had been afforded
6:24
Speaker 4: as it has been afforded to other similar kinds of
6:28
Speaker 4: age restrictions in statutes on first amendment grounds, that then
6:32
Speaker 4: statute probably would be struck down. So the first challenge
6:35
Speaker 4: is simply did the court below use the wrong standard
6:38
Speaker 4: of scrutiny, in which case the court might then just
6:42
Speaker 4: remanded back for another go round with the fifth circuit.
6:46
Speaker 4: But the second issue is more predictable, which is, if
6:50
Speaker 4: you have age verification on a statute and you require
6:54
Speaker 4: adults to put in you know, whether it's driver's licenses
6:58
Speaker 4: or other proof of age, you will ter people from
7:01
Speaker 4: going to that site for fear of privacy, invasions, for
7:04
Speaker 4: fear of manipulation, et cetera. So there will be a
7:08
Speaker 4: diminution in free expression by having an age verification on
7:13
Speaker 4: this kind of site. And you know, the way the
7:15
Speaker 4: statute is crafted, it applies to any site which has
7:19
Speaker 4: at least a third of its material which may be
7:21
Speaker 4: distasteful or have sexual content which is inappropriate for children. Well,
7:25
Speaker 4: how do you determine that if you have artworks on display,
7:29
Speaker 4: or if you have some kind of erotic poetry, And
7:31
Speaker 4: so there may be just a deterrence of speech by
7:36
Speaker 4: websites having to self edit for fear of reaching this
7:40
Speaker 4: one third threshold, which is very hard to ascertain. So
7:44
Speaker 4: there is a Supreme Court case almost on point of
7:47
Speaker 4: about twenty years ago. It looked at the Shot Online
7:50
Speaker 4: Privacy Act and it had an age verification in it,
7:53
Speaker 4: and it was struck down as unconstitutional and never reenacted
7:56
Speaker 4: by Congress. And I would predict that the Texas stato
8:00
Speaker 4: will be held to be on a constitutional as well,
8:02
Speaker 4: particularly if the Heidens standard of scrutiny is required by
8:06
Speaker 4: the court.
8:07
Speaker 3: As you mentioned, this is an appeal from a Fifth
8:09
Speaker 3: Circuit decision, the Fifth Circuit being the most conservative federal
8:13
Speaker 3: appellate court in the country, and every other court that
8:17
Speaker 3: reviewed similar laws has uphel the laws. Texas, of course,
8:21
Speaker 3: has defended the law, with the ag pointing to a
8:25
Speaker 3: nineteen sixty eight Supreme Court decision that said states could
8:29
Speaker 3: bar the dissemination of pornographic magazines to minors. Is that compelling?
8:34
Speaker 4: Well, the difference is the websites. Right, Once, we have
8:37
Speaker 4: a whole kind of different world that can't be cordoned
8:41
Speaker 4: off into magazines delivered or magazines non delivered. We have
8:45
Speaker 4: a new First Amendment dimension that has been added to it.
8:48
Speaker 3: Next, let's turn to a case involving the First Amendment's
8:51
Speaker 3: religion clauses. The justices will review a Wisconsin Supreme Court
8:56
Speaker 3: decision that said Catholic charities didn't qull for a religious
9:01
Speaker 3: exemption from the state's unemployment tax.
9:05
Speaker 4: The question here is whether you can deny a tax
9:09
Speaker 4: exemption to an arm of a religious institution even though
9:13
Speaker 4: you couldn't deny it to the religious institution itself. So
9:17
Speaker 4: the states that have these exemptions, they say religious organizations
9:21
Speaker 4: are exempt, but how do you tell if it's really
9:24
Speaker 4: a religious organization? And the language in the Wisconsin statute
9:29
Speaker 4: itself basically has to be the organizations that are operated
9:32
Speaker 4: primarily for religious purposes, and they use a test to
9:36
Speaker 4: determine not just the motivation underlying the arm of the
9:42
Speaker 4: religious entity, but also their activities. So in this case,
9:46
Speaker 4: the court said, yes, there can be great religious motivations
9:50
Speaker 4: for operating charities, and they allotted the efforts of the
9:54
Speaker 4: Catholic Church to help out people with disabilities, but they
9:56
Speaker 4: said that the actions of the religious group are secular.
10:01
Speaker 4: It's nothing about imbuing people with religious sense or devotion
10:06
Speaker 4: or anything along those lines. And the court therefore made
10:09
Speaker 4: a distinction between a motivation to create a school, for instance,
10:15
Speaker 4: or a hospital as opposed to trying to encourage religious doctrine.
10:19
Speaker 4: So that is a difficult line drawing issue, and that's
10:22
Speaker 4: the argument here of why it's unconstitutional that will mesh
10:26
Speaker 4: the courts in determining whether these activities are really religious
10:30
Speaker 4: or not. But on the other hand, as the Coupreme
10:32
Speaker 4: Court said more than twenty years ago in the Walks case,
10:35
Speaker 4: sometimes this wine drawing for tax resumption is just inevitable.
10:39
Speaker 4: You can't really get around it. You have to have
10:41
Speaker 4: some kind of test in this instance. So that's the
10:45
Speaker 4: test of motivations and activities separations. And we'll see if
10:49
Speaker 4: the court and stuff like that. It's really unclear.
10:52
Speaker 3: So, but the Roberts Court has expanded religious rights over
10:56
Speaker 3: and over again. Is this another chance for them to
10:59
Speaker 3: expect and religious rights?
11:01
Speaker 4: It is a chance, and it certainly it wouldn't be
11:03
Speaker 4: shocking for the Court to do that, but it is
11:06
Speaker 4: I think only fair to note that if the Court
11:09
Speaker 4: decides that Wisconnting cannot make a distinction between Catholic charities
11:14
Speaker 4: and the Catholic Church, that this will give a huge
11:18
Speaker 4: advantage to religious based organizations that are in healthcare and education,
11:23
Speaker 4: who then don't have to pay the same taxes that
11:26
Speaker 4: secular hospitals and secular universities would.
11:30
Speaker 3: And the effect of a Supreme Court decision upholding this
11:32
Speaker 3: religious exemption would be widespread because almost all the states
11:37
Speaker 3: have laws similar to Wisconsins. Coming up next on the
11:40
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Harold Krant.
11:45
Speaker 3: We'll discuss whether agency power will take another hit at
11:48
Speaker 3: the Court this term, and a warning from the Chief Justice.
11:52
Speaker 3: I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
11:55
Speaker 6: Change happens because people care about moving the arc of
12:01
Speaker 6: the universe towards justice, and it can take time, and
12:07
Speaker 6: it can take frustration. I live in frustration, and as
12:13
Speaker 6: you heard, every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach
12:19
Speaker 6: and in my heart.
12:20
Speaker 3: Justice Sonya so To. Mayor and the other liberal justices
12:24
Speaker 3: have been on the losing side of most of the
12:26
Speaker 3: controversial cases at the Supreme Court in the last few years,
12:31
Speaker 3: with the six conservative justices on the winning side, as
12:35
Speaker 3: the Court decided to overturn the right to abortion, expand
12:39
Speaker 3: gun rights, eliminate affirmative action, broaden presidential immunity, and roll
12:45
Speaker 3: back the power of federal agencies. Last term, the Conservative
12:49
Speaker 3: majority overturned a forty year old legal precedent in their
12:54
Speaker 3: attack on the administrative state. And there's a case on
12:57
Speaker 3: the dock at this term involving the Federal Communications Commission
13:01
Speaker 3: that could open a new avenue for a tax on
13:04
Speaker 3: administrative power. I've been talking to constitutional law expert Harold Krant,
13:09
Speaker 3: a professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law, how
13:12
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court is going to consider a challenge to
13:15
Speaker 3: the Universal Service Fund, which uses a charge imposed on
13:19
Speaker 3: monthly phone bills to help more than eight million people
13:23
Speaker 3: afford telephone and broadband service. The challenges are trying to
13:27
Speaker 3: revive the so called non delegation doctrine that says Congress
13:32
Speaker 3: can't delegate its legislative authority to executive agencies. Tell us
13:37
Speaker 3: a little about the issues here.
13:39
Speaker 4: This is a Federal Communications Commission rule, but it's done
13:43
Speaker 4: by delegation from Congress, and so the Congress is delegated
13:47
Speaker 4: to the SEC the power to impose this fee. And
13:50
Speaker 4: the first claim against it is that the SEC shouldn't
13:54
Speaker 4: be imposing a fee that's a tax, and only Congress
13:57
Speaker 4: can impose taxes. This would be a wild argument if
14:01
Speaker 4: the Supreme Court buys it, because agencies apply user fees
14:05
Speaker 4: all the time, and you can look at user fees
14:07
Speaker 4: as attacks, you can look at them as something else,
14:09
Speaker 4: a subsidy. How do you distinguish one from the other.
14:12
Speaker 4: So one way that the Court could just cut back
14:15
Speaker 4: again dramatically the power of agencies is to begin to
14:18
Speaker 4: say that anything that looks like attas can only come
14:21
Speaker 4: from Congress as opposed to the agencies. I don't think
14:24
Speaker 4: the Court will go there, but that's at least one possibility.
14:27
Speaker 4: And there's another one that is pretty clear, because the
14:30
Speaker 4: statue itself says that the fees should be quote sufficient
14:34
Speaker 4: to preserve and advance universal service. That admittedly is quite vague,
14:39
Speaker 4: and so this is another vehicle potentially for the Court
14:43
Speaker 4: to revive the non delegation document, and that would say
14:46
Speaker 4: that Congress, if it gives power to the SEC, has
14:49
Speaker 4: to be far more nuanced and clear than this sort
14:53
Speaker 4: of broad understanding that they set fees sufficient to preserve
14:57
Speaker 4: and advanced universal services, just not giving enough direction to
15:01
Speaker 4: the administrative agency. And there's a third side of this
15:04
Speaker 4: particular challenge which I think is going to be very
15:07
Speaker 4: close on the Supreme Court, which is that the agency
15:10
Speaker 4: has given too much power to a private group. The
15:14
Speaker 4: SEC decided to use a group in this case, which
15:18
Speaker 4: is called a Universal Service Administration Company, which is a
15:21
Speaker 4: private group of mainly people in the telecom industry. They
15:25
Speaker 4: gave that power to set the fee and provided that
15:28
Speaker 4: if the agency took no action within fourteen days, the
15:31
Speaker 4: see recommended by this private group would become binding. So
15:35
Speaker 4: the court may say that the involvement in this private
15:39
Speaker 4: group makes the delegation even more constitutional problematic and strike
15:44
Speaker 4: down the structure on that ground. Maybe it's a small point,
15:49
Speaker 4: but I think the Court might say, Look, the agency
15:52
Speaker 4: at least has to take some positive, concrete actions, such
15:56
Speaker 4: as accepting a private recommendation from the group as to
16:00
Speaker 4: the fee before it becomes binding. In the name of
16:03
Speaker 4: the United States for the Court signaled to Congress to
16:06
Speaker 4: stop giving too much authority to private parties who are
16:10
Speaker 4: not subject to close oversight by the president or heads
16:14
Speaker 4: of agencies.
16:14
Speaker 3: You refer to this as a wild argument. And this
16:17
Speaker 3: case is an appeal from the ultra conservative Fifth Circuit,
16:22
Speaker 3: which often uses novel legal reasoning, and it's split with
16:27
Speaker 3: two other appeals courts in declaring the program invalid. So
16:32
Speaker 3: does it seem like the Court took this case to overturn,
16:35
Speaker 3: to reverse the Fifth Circuit.
16:36
Speaker 4: It's unclear to me. I think that the case has
16:39
Speaker 4: a merit to it, and I think that the Court
16:42
Speaker 4: has been interested in non delegation issues, and particularly non
16:44
Speaker 4: delegation issues involving power that's shared with private parties. So
16:48
Speaker 4: I'm not surprised that the Court took this case. And
16:51
Speaker 4: there is a split in the circuits, and I don't
16:53
Speaker 4: think we can be confident that the Court's going to
16:55
Speaker 4: rebuff the Fifth Circuit in this particular case. I think
16:58
Speaker 4: they will in other cases, but none of that soil
17:00
Speaker 4: in this one.
17:01
Speaker 3: There's an interesting case involving a claim of reverse discrimination
17:06
Speaker 3: in employment and what plaintiffs have to show to support
17:10
Speaker 3: their claims under Title seven.
17:13
Speaker 4: Yes, in order to advance a Title seven case or
17:16
Speaker 4: discrimination case, you have to show kind of a prime
17:18
Speaker 4: officia case that you were treated differently than another covered group,
17:22
Speaker 4: and that because you were treated differently, it resulted in
17:25
Speaker 4: some kind of adverse employment action. So do you even
17:28
Speaker 4: get to the pleting stage. One has to allege these
17:31
Speaker 4: particular type of harms. Now, what happens if you're a
17:36
Speaker 4: member of majority religion or majority race, or if you're
17:41
Speaker 4: straight in terms of your sexuality, and if you then
17:45
Speaker 4: make a claim that even though you're straight, you were
17:48
Speaker 4: treated unfairly based on your straightness, and therefore you are
17:54
Speaker 4: claiming some kind of discrimination that's protected under the Act.
17:57
Speaker 4: And indeed, in the ohioed case, there was an individual
18:01
Speaker 4: who is straight and she didn't get a promotion, and
18:05
Speaker 4: instead the promotion went to someone who is gay and
18:07
Speaker 4: then was later demoted and someone took her old position
18:11
Speaker 4: who was gay as well. And even though someone who
18:14
Speaker 4: is straight made these employment decisions, she claimed that the
18:19
Speaker 4: decision was in violation of her statutory rights to be
18:23
Speaker 4: treated the same as everybody else based upon her sexuality,
18:27
Speaker 4: and a number of courts have held, but others have
18:29
Speaker 4: disagreed that there is an additional hurdle that somebody who
18:34
Speaker 4: is of majority religion, race, or who are straight as
18:38
Speaker 4: in this case, has to surmount before they can get
18:41
Speaker 4: into court, and they have to show background circumstances to
18:45
Speaker 4: give more of color or more oomph to their argument
18:49
Speaker 4: that they were treated unfairly based upon covered characteristics. And
18:53
Speaker 4: in some ways that requirement makes the sense because for
18:57
Speaker 4: a court they have to go into any kind of
19:01
Speaker 4: analysis that just wastes time because it's so unlikely that
19:05
Speaker 4: if you're a majority, you'll be subject to discrimination. And
19:08
Speaker 4: so those courts said, then, as a way to conserve resources,
19:11
Speaker 4: we just want to make sure that somebody who pleaded
19:14
Speaker 4: the case will show a little bit more of those
19:17
Speaker 4: background circumstances, which suggests despite the fact that their majority,
19:21
Speaker 4: they were subject to discrimination.
19:23
Speaker 3: And this decision could have ramifications for DEI initiatives. How
19:28
Speaker 3: before I let you go, let's talk a little about
19:30
Speaker 3: the Chief Justice's year end report, which he issued on Tuesday.
19:35
Speaker 3: He defended the independence of the judiciary, but said it
19:39
Speaker 3: was being threatened by violence against judges, intimidation of judges,
19:44
Speaker 3: and the prospect of federal officials defying court orders. Robert's
19:50
Speaker 3: annual reports typically ignore the current concern surrounding the justices.
19:55
Speaker 3: For example, last year, he looked at the judiciary's role
19:58
Speaker 3: in integrating public schools after Brown v. Board of Education,
20:03
Speaker 3: with no mention at all of the Court having overturned
20:07
Speaker 3: the constitutional right to abortion just a few months earlier.
20:11
Speaker 3: So what's your take on this year's report.
20:13
Speaker 4: It can be empathetic to his wish and his hope
20:16
Speaker 4: and his fervent desire that the Supreme Court retained its
20:21
Speaker 4: independence and respect in our society. And I guess, on
20:23
Speaker 4: one hand, you can be skeptical, given that a lot
20:26
Speaker 4: of the loss of support and respect for the Court
20:28
Speaker 4: has come because of this Court's decisions, most notably Chief
20:32
Speaker 4: Justice Roberts's decision in the presidential communitic case in the
20:35
Speaker 4: abortion case as well. But I mean, I think he
20:38
Speaker 4: is right that we are, in this politicized world, even
20:42
Speaker 4: more open to attacks upon judges than we were before.
20:46
Speaker 4: And there's been picketing in front of justice houses, as
20:49
Speaker 4: we know, and that's something to be probably a little
20:52
Speaker 4: bit frightened up. But there's also been other kinds of defiance.
20:55
Speaker 1: You know.
20:55
Speaker 4: Vice President Advance has suggested that certain times it's totally
21:00
Speaker 4: appropriate for the administration to ignore what the Supreme Court would hold.
21:04
Speaker 4: So there are challenges coming from various different sectors, people
21:08
Speaker 4: that just disagree with the Court as well. It was
21:11
Speaker 4: what people think that they don't have to listen to
21:13
Speaker 4: what the Court says. So there is reason for Chief
21:16
Speaker 4: Justice Roberts to decry those kinds of challenges to the
21:19
Speaker 4: Court's authority. But I think at the same time, part
21:22
Speaker 4: of the problem is the courts aren't doing.
21:24
Speaker 3: And according to the US Martial Service, the volume of
21:28
Speaker 3: threats directed at judges has more than tripled over the
21:32
Speaker 3: past decades, So certainly that's a concern. But when he
21:35
Speaker 3: talked about intimidation, and he mentioned protesters quote intent on
21:41
Speaker 3: harassing judges and public officials he said have tried to
21:45
Speaker 3: intimidate judges by suggesting political bias is behind their decisions
21:50
Speaker 3: without a credible basis. Both of those seem like First
21:54
Speaker 3: Amendment protected activities.
21:56
Speaker 4: They can be right, it's a fine line to draw
21:58
Speaker 4: between when they are harassment as opposed to when it's
22:02
Speaker 4: just criticism of the court. And the way to I
22:04
Speaker 4: think see this clash most plainly is to talk about
22:08
Speaker 4: the immunity decision, and some people can criticize it as
22:11
Speaker 4: being badly crafted. Others can say it's just illegitimate. And
22:15
Speaker 4: those are two ways of criticizing the opinion, and it's
22:20
Speaker 4: hard to say what is really the difference between saying
22:22
Speaker 4: is poorly reasoned as opposed to it's politically lawless. Those
22:27
Speaker 4: are just different perspectives if people don't accept the opinion,
22:32
Speaker 4: and so I think he's conflating one with the other
22:34
Speaker 4: to some extent. But it is notoriously very difficult to
22:38
Speaker 4: try to figure out what is legitimate dissense protests as
22:42
Speaker 4: opposed to one saying that the Supreme Court is lawless
22:46
Speaker 4: and we should have a quick overhaul of the entire
22:48
Speaker 4: judicial system.
22:49
Speaker 3: Robert specifically criticized threats to ignore federal court rulings by
22:54
Speaker 3: elected officials, which he said had come from across the
22:57
Speaker 3: political spectrum. But as you mentioned, and Vice President elect JD.
23:02
Speaker 3: Vance had said, and when the courts stop, you stand
23:05
Speaker 3: behind the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the
23:09
Speaker 3: Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.
23:13
Speaker 3: I just want to mention that not only is Vance
23:15
Speaker 3: a lawyer, but his wife clerked for the Chief Justice.
23:19
Speaker 4: Which is an odd term for sure. And the Andrew
23:22
Speaker 4: Jackson issue arose at least allegedly out of protests from
23:25
Speaker 4: a Supreme Court decision saying that the removal of Indigenous
23:29
Speaker 4: peoples from a particular reservation was illegal and ordered the
23:34
Speaker 4: administration to comply with it and by all historical measures.
23:39
Speaker 4: Andrew Jackson refused and continued to disband the indigenous communities.
23:45
Speaker 4: And you know, with the Vice president articulating that kind
23:49
Speaker 4: of issue, it's putting into play this notion that the
23:53
Speaker 4: Court is just another political arm of the country and
23:55
Speaker 4: that it should be subservient to the president vice president
23:59
Speaker 4: who will elected and given a mandate by the voters,
24:03
Speaker 4: unlike the Supreme Court itself. And that is a dangerous
24:07
Speaker 4: notion and maybe some progressives have ported with it as
24:11
Speaker 4: well in frustration with what the Court has done recently.
24:14
Speaker 4: But now the Court is being challenged by the members
24:18
Speaker 4: of its party who appointed most of them, the Republicans,
24:21
Speaker 4: So they have reasons to be nervous because they're now
24:24
Speaker 4: potentially going to be challenged by both sides of the
24:27
Speaker 4: political spectrum.
24:28
Speaker 3: It's going to be an interesting year, that's for sure.
24:31
Speaker 3: Thanks so much, Hal that's Professor Harrold Krent of the
24:34
Speaker 3: Chicago Kent College of Law coming up dueling lawsuits over
24:38
Speaker 3: Blake Lively's claims of sexual harassment on a film set.
24:42
Speaker 3: I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.
24:47
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
24:53
Speaker 7: That special connection you feel, that first kiss, but fifteen seconds,
25:06
Speaker 7: that's all it takes to completely change everything. I'm so sorry.
25:15
Speaker 3: The biggest drama in Hollywood these days is not a film,
25:19
Speaker 3: but the legal drama surrounding the hit movie It Ends
25:23
Speaker 3: with Us, starring Blake Lively and director Justin Baldoni. There
25:28
Speaker 3: are dueling lawsuits and probably more to come. Lively sued Baldoni,
25:33
Speaker 3: Wayfairer Studios, and his PR team on Tuesday, alleging sexual
25:38
Speaker 3: harassment and a coordinated campaign to undermine her reputation for
25:43
Speaker 3: coming forward about sexual misconduct on the set of the movie.
25:48
Speaker 3: This came after Baldoni and his publicist filed a two
25:51
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty million dollar defamation suit against The New
25:54
Speaker 3: York Times, claiming the newspaper to fame them in an
25:58
Speaker 3: article about Lively's allegations, which they claim was rife with inaccuracies,
26:04
Speaker 3: misrepresentations and omissions. Joining me is labor and employment lawyer
26:09
Speaker 3: Nisha Verma, a partner at Dorsey and Whitney. Nisha tell
26:13
Speaker 3: us about Lively's lawsuit.
26:15
Speaker 1: Blake Lively ultimately filed a lawsuit in federal court in
26:19
Speaker 1: New York, alleging the same allegations that she had previously
26:24
Speaker 1: indicated about ten days earlier in a complaint that was
26:28
Speaker 1: filed with the state agency in California that handles discrimination
26:32
Speaker 1: and harassment complaints. The complaint accuses Baldoni and the CEO
26:36
Speaker 1: Wayfarer of engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct on set. But
26:41
Speaker 1: that's not all. The very interesting thing about her action
26:44
Speaker 1: is that it shows text messages between Baldoni and his
26:47
Speaker 1: publicists which indicate that he hired a PR team to
26:50
Speaker 1: combat any potential negative PR if Lively goes public with
26:55
Speaker 1: what the internal messages call her grievances. Those text message
27:00
Speaker 1: between the publicists are explosive. So in one exchange, Baldoni's publicist,
27:06
Speaker 1: Jennifer Abel relates to another publicist, Melissa Nathan, that Baldoni's
27:11
Speaker 1: not satisfied with this PR plan that's been put forward,
27:15
Speaker 1: And we can see from reviewing it a pr plan
27:17
Speaker 1: that it is designed to discredit Lively, and there's a
27:22
Speaker 1: concern that's quoted by Baldoni that he doesn't feel like
27:25
Speaker 1: he's getting the protection he needs, and another publicist been
27:29
Speaker 1: responds saying we can bury anyone and we can't write
27:33
Speaker 1: that we will destroy her, noting what would happen if
27:37
Speaker 1: the communication has gone to the wrong hands. There are
27:39
Speaker 1: also texts that show that these two original publicists hired
27:43
Speaker 1: another agency to engage in some sort of social media
27:47
Speaker 1: activity on a wide scale that would shift the narrative
27:50
Speaker 1: from Baldoni to Lively. But the important thing to understand
27:53
Speaker 1: is that the core of a case is the same
27:57
Speaker 1: employment claims that we see filed by any other individual
28:02
Speaker 1: that goes through this state agency, which is sexual harassment
28:05
Speaker 1: and retaliation. And so the core of the sexual harassment
28:09
Speaker 1: complaints are that Baldoni was engaging in unnecessary sexual conduct,
28:14
Speaker 1: unnece sexual comments on text, and that Lively and her
28:18
Speaker 1: team brought forward their concerns during the writer strike in
28:23
Speaker 1: late twenty twenty three, and the studio actually agreed to
28:27
Speaker 1: meet Lively's conditions prior to resuming filming. Lively's complaint in
28:32
Speaker 1: and of itself says that filming proceeded smoothly from that point.
28:38
Speaker 1: But then there's this very specific action of Baldoni closer
28:43
Speaker 1: to the time of marketing the film after filming, hiring
28:46
Speaker 1: these pr agents to discredit Lively taking.
28:50
Speaker 3: The first part of her allegations about harassment on the set.
28:55
Speaker 3: What kinds of things specifically does she complain about.
28:59
Speaker 1: So there's an example of Baldoni's and another producer speaking
29:03
Speaker 1: about a pornography addiction. So that's something that I'm gathering
29:07
Speaker 1: is alleged to have occurred when the filming was not occurring.
29:10
Speaker 1: There's also allegations of sex scene being filmed and Valdoni
29:16
Speaker 1: going off script and engaging in things that were not
29:18
Speaker 1: previously agreed to.
29:20
Speaker 3: Baldoni has disputed Lively's claims, and in his suit against
29:24
Speaker 3: The New York Times, he claims that The Times deliberately
29:28
Speaker 3: omitted portions of text exchanges and other information that contradicted
29:34
Speaker 3: Lively's version of events. He's also claimed that Lively wanted
29:38
Speaker 3: to wait to meet with an intimacy coordinator when production started,
29:43
Speaker 3: and that she advocated for her characters closed to be sexier.
29:48
Speaker 3: I mean, if this goes to triale. Is this all
29:50
Speaker 3: going to be a jury question about whether this constitutes
29:54
Speaker 3: sexual harassment?
29:55
Speaker 1: Yeah? I think the question of whether there was sexual
29:58
Speaker 1: harassment on the set of this movie is high factual.
30:01
Speaker 1: I don't think there's a ton of interesting legal questions
30:04
Speaker 1: as to that first part of the lawsuit. I do
30:07
Speaker 1: believe that comparing Lively's complaint in Baldoni's complaint does not
30:10
Speaker 1: simply answer the question with respect to Lively's allegation. For example,
30:16
Speaker 1: the text that Baldoni shared in his complaint, as you
30:19
Speaker 1: mentioned against The New York Times, I believe it shows
30:22
Speaker 1: that Lively did not need to meet with the intimacy
30:25
Speaker 1: coordinator in advance of starting filming. Altogether, Lively's allegations about
30:31
Speaker 1: the intimacy coordinator is that during the actor strike, before
30:36
Speaker 1: they resumed filming, So this is several months after probably
30:39
Speaker 1: that first text. Lively required an intimacy coordinator on set
30:44
Speaker 1: at all times. So while Baldoni's complaint appears to go
30:48
Speaker 1: to the content of an intimacy coordinator, it doesn't in
30:51
Speaker 1: and of itself answer the question as to whether Lively's
30:54
Speaker 1: allegation is accurate.
30:56
Speaker 3: Let's talk about the retaliation claim he hired a PR team.
31:01
Speaker 3: Lots of high profile people and even companies hire crisis
31:06
Speaker 3: PR teams. What does she allege that makes that actionable?
31:10
Speaker 1: Interestingly, like any other employee that brings a retaliation claim,
31:15
Speaker 1: Lively is, at her core asserting that she was subject
31:19
Speaker 1: to sexual harassment, she brought a valid complaint against that,
31:21
Speaker 1: and then she was subject to an adverse employment action
31:25
Speaker 1: as it relates to her complaint. Those are the elements
31:28
Speaker 1: of the Elisa California and federal claims that she's bringing. Now,
31:33
Speaker 1: that is what I think raises the most interesting legal
31:36
Speaker 1: issue here is that her argument is not that she
31:39
Speaker 1: was fired from the movie. Her argument isn't that she
31:41
Speaker 1: was demoted. Her argument is that her employer hired outside
31:46
Speaker 1: professionals to discredit her in connection with the marketing of
31:51
Speaker 1: the movie, in anticipation that Lively would ultimately come forward
31:57
Speaker 1: with her complaints, which Lively maintains are protected. And so
32:02
Speaker 1: I think there's a couple preliminary questions. There was Lively
32:05
Speaker 1: an employee of some of these people this entire time?
32:09
Speaker 1: Did her employment start and end during the filming of
32:11
Speaker 1: the movie, or did she continue to be an employee
32:13
Speaker 1: during the marketing? Can there be an adverse employment action
32:17
Speaker 1: to someone who maybe is no longer your employee. That's
32:19
Speaker 1: an interesting question. And then two, does this conduct of
32:24
Speaker 1: hiring publicists to discredit Lively in anticipation of her coming
32:30
Speaker 1: forward with her grievances constitute an adverse employment action? Where
32:34
Speaker 1: Lively's complaint in and of itself speaks to that damage
32:38
Speaker 1: of the adverse employment action being done to other brands
32:41
Speaker 1: that are unrelated to her employment on this movie and
32:45
Speaker 1: employment with Wayfarer, her beverages brand, her haircare brand, obviously,
32:51
Speaker 1: her ability to appear in additional TV shows and on
32:55
Speaker 1: Saturday Night Live. There's an interesting and serious question as
32:59
Speaker 1: to whether making action that might interfere with her ability
33:02
Speaker 1: to essentially work other jobs is an adverse employment action
33:05
Speaker 1: in this job.
33:07
Speaker 3: If his conduct on set didn't rise to the level
33:09
Speaker 3: of sexual harassment, what happens with the retaliation suited?
33:13
Speaker 1: The question for the retaliation suit isn't necessarily was she
33:17
Speaker 1: actually subject to retaliation under the elements of the law.
33:20
Speaker 1: It's did she have a good faith belief to believe
33:23
Speaker 1: she was subject to sexual harassment? And did she raise
33:27
Speaker 1: a complaint about that? And she did the documentation during
33:30
Speaker 1: the actor strike indicates that she did raise that complaint
33:34
Speaker 1: and the root of the retaliation action is based on
33:38
Speaker 1: her complaint, whether it was one hundred percent true or not.
33:42
Speaker 1: Did her employer act in a way adversely to her employment?
33:46
Speaker 1: That brings us to the separate tricky question, which is
33:51
Speaker 1: hiring publicists in this manner pant him out to an
33:55
Speaker 1: adverse employment action when perhaps the person's employment is over.
34:00
Speaker 3: It seems like there's a lot having to do with
34:03
Speaker 3: the press tour and that Baldoni stepped away from the
34:07
Speaker 3: plan that the team originally agreed upon and was focusing
34:11
Speaker 3: on female trauma rather than female triumph, and that Lively
34:16
Speaker 3: and just about everyone else went in one direction and
34:21
Speaker 3: he went in another. Also that they were vague about
34:24
Speaker 3: their comments on Baldoni's performances and directing, So it seems
34:29
Speaker 3: like the camps divided there. So wouldn't he have a
34:33
Speaker 3: rite at that point to try to defend himself And
34:35
Speaker 3: you might call it retaliation, but he might call it
34:38
Speaker 3: defending himself.
34:39
Speaker 1: And he uses those words in the longer texts that
34:42
Speaker 1: are included and Baldoni's complain against The New York Times
34:46
Speaker 1: Following the portions of the text that I read to
34:50
Speaker 1: you with the very salacious and explosive comments of we
34:54
Speaker 1: can bury anyone, and we can't write that we will
34:58
Speaker 1: destroy her. There is further context where the publicist is
35:04
Speaker 1: indicating that this is all an effort to defend you
35:07
Speaker 1: because you deserve defense. I think that is going to
35:10
Speaker 1: be a highly factual question in the case. I don't
35:13
Speaker 1: know that it's going to be determinive because Baldoni's materials
35:17
Speaker 1: that he includes in the New York Times complaint don't
35:21
Speaker 1: dispute the core allegation by Lively that these individuals were
35:25
Speaker 1: hired to discredit Lively, and one of those reasons is
35:28
Speaker 1: because there was an anticipation that Lively was going to
35:31
Speaker 1: bring forward her grievances, as stated in their materials, and
35:37
Speaker 1: it cannot be separated that one of those grievances is
35:41
Speaker 1: Lively's allegations of sexual harassment, which should constitute protected activity
35:47
Speaker 1: under the laws she's suing. Under the fact that there
35:50
Speaker 1: was an underlying sexual harassment complaint here makes some of
35:54
Speaker 1: the later motivations I think potentially less relevant when we
35:58
Speaker 1: come to the legal analysis of what Lively is alleging.
36:02
Speaker 3: He filed a defamation action against the New York Times
36:04
Speaker 3: for two hundred and fifty million dollars. He hasn't yet
36:08
Speaker 3: filed the lawsuit against Lively. What do you think the
36:11
Speaker 3: strategy is here? On his side?
36:14
Speaker 1: I believe he filed the lawsuit against The New York
36:15
Speaker 1: Times because he knows his ability to file a lawsuit
36:18
Speaker 1: against Lively during those ten days was incredibly limited. The
36:23
Speaker 1: first legal action to be filed in this, we'll call
36:26
Speaker 1: it a controversy, was Lively's agency complaint with the California
36:30
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Division. Filing a defamation lawsuit based on somebody's
36:34
Speaker 1: submission to that agency or filing some sort of countersuit
36:39
Speaker 1: would not go very far at all. It would be
36:41
Speaker 1: subject potentially to an anti slat motion, and against filing
36:45
Speaker 1: something with the state agency like that is considered privileged
36:49
Speaker 1: if there was a defamation action. So in order for
36:52
Speaker 1: Baldoni to get essentially his side of the story out,
36:56
Speaker 1: I believe the lawsuit against the New York Times was
37:00
Speaker 1: his available avenue to do so.
37:02
Speaker 3: So she filed that complaint in California, and hours after
37:07
Speaker 3: you sued the New York Times, she sued him in
37:10
Speaker 3: New York. What's her strategy?
37:13
Speaker 1: Well, I'll speak to the states first. So I understand
37:16
Speaker 1: from her original contract, which is alleged in her New
37:20
Speaker 1: York complaint, I understand that there was a California choice
37:24
Speaker 1: of law provision. Therefore, that does explain the submission of
37:29
Speaker 1: the civil rights complaint to the California State Agency and
37:33
Speaker 1: invoking California employment laws simultaneously. Lively's complaint, which is filed
37:38
Speaker 1: in New York, does allege that much of the conduct
37:41
Speaker 1: between the parties occurred in New York. Lively and her husband,
37:45
Speaker 1: Ryan Reynolds, have a residence in New York, and I
37:47
Speaker 1: believe a lot of the business transactions occurred in New York.
37:51
Speaker 3: How do you think this goes down? What happens next?
37:54
Speaker 1: All these people who are soon have to respond to
37:56
Speaker 1: their complaints, right, that's a lot of people. Another fascinating
37:59
Speaker 1: as aspect of this case is that we've talked about
38:02
Speaker 1: essentially three legal complaints. There were actually four legal complaints
38:05
Speaker 1: in ten days because the original PR firm that Baldoni
38:10
Speaker 1: was engaged with, the owner of that firm has sued
38:14
Speaker 1: her former employee, who is one of the publicists we've
38:17
Speaker 1: been speaking about, for breach of contract, and she's also
38:20
Speaker 1: sued Baldoni. So, like I said, all of these individuals
38:23
Speaker 1: that have been served with lawsuits have to respond, taking
38:26
Speaker 1: them one at a time. I think the lawsuit against
38:29
Speaker 1: The New York Times is going to be one that's
38:32
Speaker 1: more likely to be handled on a procedural basis. The
38:35
Speaker 1: New York Times can bring an anti slap action, and
38:37
Speaker 1: it has successfully done so with respect to other similar lawsuits,
38:43
Speaker 1: including one by Donald Trump. They also have defenses with
38:47
Speaker 1: respect to the defamation action because there is a requirement
38:51
Speaker 1: that Baldonis show malice, and there's a serious question as
38:56
Speaker 1: to whether his complaint even attempts to do that. For example,
39:01
Speaker 1: there's numerous times where Baldoni presents a longer version of
39:06
Speaker 1: a text message that Lively had produced in her complaint.
39:09
Speaker 1: But the longer version of the text message doesn't necessarily
39:12
Speaker 1: contradict what it is Lively is at her core alleging
39:16
Speaker 1: in her complaint. It just provides more context as to
39:19
Speaker 1: what these people were talking about. Really briefly, there's an
39:22
Speaker 1: example of Lively producing a text message between the publicists
39:28
Speaker 1: that does not include an emoji, which we can see
39:31
Speaker 1: is because these were forensically pulled, and Baldoni producing a
39:35
Speaker 1: separate version that includes an upside down emoji and indicating
39:39
Speaker 1: that that upside down emoji indicates the text message was
39:42
Speaker 1: sarcastic and that The New York Times should have noted
39:46
Speaker 1: that that is going to be challenging to parlay into
39:50
Speaker 1: actual malice, which is necessary to bring a defamation suit
39:54
Speaker 1: on a public matter like this.
39:56
Speaker 3: Do you think a settlement is likely here?
39:58
Speaker 1: No? I don't think so. I believe these complaints were
40:01
Speaker 1: in part filed because each of these parties needed to
40:05
Speaker 1: tell their story in light of the other content about
40:08
Speaker 1: them out there, and now that that's happened, I see
40:12
Speaker 1: an expectation that that process continue. I don't know anybody's motivations,
40:17
Speaker 1: but the overall story does not indicate that any of
40:20
Speaker 1: these actors primarily file their lawsuits for money, and settlement
40:24
Speaker 1: typically only gets you money. They can't change the public perception.
40:28
Speaker 3: So then a lot more to come in this particular
40:30
Speaker 3: Hollywood drama. Thanks so much, Nishe. That's nische Verma of
40:35
Speaker 3: Dorsey and Whitney. In other legal news today, President elect
40:38
Speaker 3: Donald Trump has lost his bid to get his conviction
40:42
Speaker 3: in the New York hush money case thrown out before
40:45
Speaker 3: his inauguration later this month. On Friday, Judge Juan Mrshon
40:49
Speaker 3: refused to toss the jury verdict, joining me is Bloomberg
40:52
Speaker 3: Legal reporter Eric Larson. Eric tell us why the judge
40:56
Speaker 3: made this decision.
40:58
Speaker 8: Judge Marshawan said that Trump was essentially requesting to expand
41:03
Speaker 8: what we already know of its presidential immunity from criminal
41:07
Speaker 8: prosecution to extend that to president elect, and the judge
41:12
Speaker 8: indicated this, you know, was unprecedented. There has never been
41:15
Speaker 8: a case like this before, and that the established presidential
41:19
Speaker 8: immunity for a sitting president has never been extended to
41:23
Speaker 8: a president elect. And the judge that there was no
41:25
Speaker 8: reason to do that. Now, did you.
41:27
Speaker 3: Find any of Trump's arguments to have a jury verdict
41:30
Speaker 3: thrown out persuasive?
41:32
Speaker 8: Trump's lawyer essentially disappointed to the established president for a
41:38
Speaker 8: sitting president being protected from criminal prosecution, you know, saying
41:43
Speaker 8: that previous Supreme Court president and the Justice Department's own
41:47
Speaker 8: internal policies on prosecuting a sitting president that they relate
41:52
Speaker 8: to the imposition of a criminal sentence essentially being a
41:56
Speaker 8: bad look for a president because of the stigma associated
42:00
Speaker 8: with it and also the mental and physical demands associated
42:04
Speaker 8: with the defendant helping prepare for their defense, that all
42:07
Speaker 8: of that would interfere with the president's duties. And I
42:11
Speaker 8: think that in Trump's view, he's saying that while he's
42:14
Speaker 8: not a sitting president, that he has so much work
42:17
Speaker 8: to do and that he has so much responsibilities as
42:20
Speaker 8: a president elect, that essentially the same protection should be
42:24
Speaker 8: extended to him for the same reason. But Judge Marson
42:29
Speaker 8: just wasn't having that and said that he was forbidden.
42:33
Speaker 8: The judge that he was forbidden from recognizing any the
42:36
Speaker 8: presidential elect community, saying that that would essentially be a
42:40
Speaker 8: retroactive dismissal of criminal charges against a defendant who happened
42:45
Speaker 8: to be elected president after they were convicted, and that
42:48
Speaker 8: he just wasn't going to do that.
42:50
Speaker 3: And the judge set a sentencing date for next Friday,
42:53
Speaker 3: and he also.
42:55
Speaker 8: Took the unusual step of indicating in this ruling that
42:59
Speaker 8: he has no intention of sentencing Trump to any period
43:03
Speaker 8: of time behind bars, and as we know, for the
43:05
Speaker 8: crimes that Trump was convicted of, he faces as long
43:08
Speaker 8: as four years behind bars. Many legal experts, even before
43:12
Speaker 8: Trump won the election, predicted that all things being equal,
43:16
Speaker 8: he probably would get far less time behind bars than that,
43:19
Speaker 8: or probably more likely no time, and it would just
43:22
Speaker 8: be probation. So it's not a huge surprise that the
43:26
Speaker 8: judge is saying he's not going to sentence him to
43:29
Speaker 8: time behind bars, but he did take the unusual step
43:32
Speaker 8: of signaling that just so everyone is aware that he's not,
43:35
Speaker 8: on January tenth, going to be sentencing Trump to prison.
43:39
Speaker 8: But of course that leads up in the air what
43:41
Speaker 8: the sentence will be, if it could be a period
43:43
Speaker 8: of probation or something like that. All of that would
43:46
Speaker 8: also be unprecedented for Trump to have a sentence of
43:49
Speaker 8: any kind handed down, you know, ten days before his inauguration,
43:53
Speaker 8: So we can expect, probably I would think, a very
43:57
Speaker 8: quick attempt at appealing, but it's uncle exactly how that's
44:01
Speaker 8: playing your work. You can't appeal the verdict itself properly
44:04
Speaker 8: until he is sentenced. He may be able to appeal disruling,
44:09
Speaker 8: so we'll have to wait and see on that. And
44:11
Speaker 8: by the way, that judge gave Trump until January fifth
44:14
Speaker 8: to decide whether or not he wanted to appear in
44:17
Speaker 8: court for the sentencing or appear virtually.
44:19
Speaker 3: I know you'll be there, Eric, thanks so much. That's
44:22
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Legal reporter Eric Larson, and that's it for this
44:25
Speaker 3: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always
44:28
Speaker 3: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
44:31
Speaker 3: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
44:34
Speaker 3: www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, And
44:39
Speaker 3: remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight
44:42
Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and
44:46
Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg