Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: Trump Tariffs, Religion Case & Dua Lipa Win

Transcript

Weekend Law: Trump Tariffs, Religion Case & Dua Lipa Win · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: My fellow Americans, this is Liberation Day Wednesday.
• 0:13
  Speaker 3: On so called Liberation Day, President Donald Trump announced the
• 0:17
  Speaker 3: steepest American tariffs in more than a century.
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: So sixty seven percent. So we're going to be charging
• 0:24
  Speaker 2: a discounted reciprocal tariff of thirty four percent. I think,
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: in other words, they charge us, we charge them, we
• 0:30
  Speaker 2: charge them lest So how can anybody be upset?
• 0:33
  Speaker 3: But obviously plenty of people were upset. In every corner
• 0:37
  Speaker 3: of the financial markets, from stocks to bonds to commodities,
• 0:41
  Speaker 3: investors were sending Trump a message about the trade war
• 0:45
  Speaker 3: he unleashed. Trump imposed the tariffs by invoking a law
• 0:49
  Speaker 3: that gives presidents sweeping powers during an economic emergency. But
• 0:54
  Speaker 3: no president has ever used that law to impose tariffs
• 0:58
  Speaker 3: until now. And now the first law lawsuit has been
• 1:00
  Speaker 3: filed saying that the president overstepped his authority and challenging
• 1:05
  Speaker 3: the legal justification he used. Joining me is an expert
• 1:08
  Speaker 3: in international trade, David Townsend, a partner at Dorsey and Whitney.
• 1:13
  Speaker 3: Dave tell us about the law President Trump is using
• 1:16
  Speaker 3: to impose these tariffs.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: So these tariffs are imposed under the International Emergency Economic
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: Powers Act, or AIPA. AEPA allows the President to declare
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: a national emergency with respect to a variety of things
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: that the president believes undermine US national security and has
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: its basis and origin outside of the United States. Once
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: the President declares that national emergency, it provides a legal
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: basis for the President to take a number of restrictive
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: actions with respect to commerce between the United States and
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: the target of the AIPA Executive Order.
• 1:53
  Speaker 3: Trump says the emergency is the US trade deficit with
• 1:57
  Speaker 3: other nations, which the order describes as an unusual and
• 2:01
  Speaker 3: extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the
• 2:04
  Speaker 3: United States. Many, perhaps most people wouldn't see the deficit
• 2:09
  Speaker 3: that way. Is it Trump's decision alone?
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: Well, Under AEPA, the President is provided by Congress broad
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: authority to define what is or is not a national emergency.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Under AEPA, presidents have declared a wide variety of topics
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: to constitute a national emergency, and today there's not been
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: any judicial decisions that have reversed a president in how
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: they define a national emergency under AEPA, But the use
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: of AEPA to impose tariffs is a new use of AEPA.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: President Trump is the first president to use IEPA as
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: a basis for increasing tariffs. Previously, IEPA has been used
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: for targeting terrorist organizations or foreign countries that are deemed
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: to be taking actions to undermine US national security. Trump
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: is using IEPA as a basis to change teri frates
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: on imports into the United States.
• 3:05
  Speaker 3: On Thursday, what appears to be the first legal challenge
• 3:08
  Speaker 3: to the tariffs was found by a conservative backed legal
• 3:12
  Speaker 3: group in Florida. Tell us about the suit.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: The lawsuit is on behalf of a US importer of
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: merchandise from China. The plaintiff in the case alleges that
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: the first round of Trump administration tariffs that were imposed
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: under AEPA are illegal, that AEPA doesn't authorize the imposition
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: of tariffs, and even if it does, that tariffs aren't
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: necessary for addressing the national emergency that President Trump declared
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: with respect to China, which relates to drug trafficking and
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: fentanyl imports into the United States.
• 3:47
  Speaker 3: So this suit is about the first set of tariffs
• 3:50
  Speaker 3: Trump imposed on Chinese goods leading up to the sweeping
• 3:55
  Speaker 3: tariffs announced on Wednesday.
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: To use IEPA as a basis to impose ten percent
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: tariffs on goods from China and subsequently bumped that up
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: to twenty percent tariffs on goods from China. Under AEPA
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: also declared national emergencies with respect to Canada and Mexico
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: and deferred tariffs, and then ultimately allowed Canadian and Mexican
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: goods to be imported into the United States without tariffs
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: if they qualify under the US Mexico Canada Agreement USMCA.
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah, the tariff on and off situation has been confusing,
• 4:26
  Speaker 3: But then the same theory would work for the so
• 4:29
  Speaker 3: called Liberation Day tariffs.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: Well, yes, because the lawsuit alleges that AEPA doesn't authorize
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: the president to impose tariffs, and so these reciprocal tariffs
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: that were announced on Wednesday would be likewise invalid if
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: the plaintiff's theory is correct.
• 4:46
  Speaker 3: Is this an uphill battle? Have courts given deference to
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: the president in these situations?
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: There have been lawsuits under AEPA, But because President Trump
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: is the first to use AIPA to impose tariff, there's
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: never been a question before a court as to whether
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: AEPA authorizes tariffs and so I think it remains to
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: be seen how a court would handle the issue. It's
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: really one of statutory interpretation and whether the EYEPA statute
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: actually permits the president imposed tariff.
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: Another thing this lawsuit argues is that Trump is usurping
• 5:24
  Speaker 3: Congress's right to control tariffs. I mean, the Constitution does
• 5:28
  Speaker 3: give Congress the power to levy tariffs and to regulate
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: commerce with foreign nations, not the president right.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: AIPA is a statutory authority that Congress created to delegate
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: their constitutional authority to regulate foreign commerce and impose tariff
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: to the President. Now, one legal question that remains and
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: is unknown at this time is whether APA was ever
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: intended to allow the president and does allow the president
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: to increase tariff rates. As I noted before, traditionally I
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: was used as a basis for economic sanctions against the
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: target organizations, individuals, and foreign governments.
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: Four Republican senators voted alongside all forty four Democrats and
• 6:13
  Speaker 3: two independents on Wednesday to pass a measure that would
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: block Trump's tariffs on Canadian imports, and on Thursday, a
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: bipartisan Senate bill was introduced that would give Congress final
• 6:26
  Speaker 3: approval on tariffs imposed by a president. I don't know.
• 6:29
  Speaker 3: It seems like too little, too late.
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: I think that's a new development that there is some
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: momentum in Congress, including on a bipartisan basis, to reassert
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: congressional authority and their constitutional authority to establish tariffs. Congress,
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: because they have that constitutional authority, can step in at
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: any time. They could reverse the reciprocal tariffs that President
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Trump announced, and they could reverse the Section three one
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: tariffs that have been in place since twenty eighteen. They've
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: chosen thus far not to do that, but I do
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: think what you're seeing now is because these tariffs are
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: reaching new countries, including our neighbors such as Canada and Mexico,
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: there is some momentum in Congress to re examine and
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: potentially check what the president is doing in the tariff space.
• 7:17
  Speaker 3: Explain specifically what Congress could do.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Congress could pass a statute establishing tariff rates for individual countries,
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: and that wouldn't take precedents over the executive orders issued
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: under AJIPA. Congress also can introduce resolutions terminating a national emergency,
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: so in theory, Congress could take action to withdraw the
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: legal basis for the reciprocal tariffs that President Trump announced,
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: they have not to date done that. And again i'd
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: go back to the twenty eighteen tariffs against China. You know,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: that's an example where Congress has the authority to do
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: something and to reverse it, but todate has not done.
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: So I think the main point, you know, is that
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: Congress has a variety of tools they could use here
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: to to modify, to reverse, to change what the executive
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: branch is doing with prospect to tariffs.
• 8:07
  Speaker 3: So it seems unlikely that any bill or resolution opposing
• 8:10
  Speaker 3: Trump's tariffs would get through the House. Going beyond American
• 8:14
  Speaker 3: law for a moment, do these tariffs violate the rules
• 8:18
  Speaker 3: of the World Trade Organization?
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: Well, one thing I think is interesting about the Executive
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: Order is that it talks about the creation of the
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: World Trade Organization and frames some of the issues here
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: as the United States allowing other countries to get away
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: with breaches of what they promised to do under the WTO.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: So that's the US perspective, I think. On the foreign perspective,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: they'll say, also pointing to the WTO, that we had
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: a deal and the United States agreed to keep its
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: tariffs low and so they can't just sit by as
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: the United States acts and violation of that commitment, and
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: thus that becomes a basis for retaliation. And so it's
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: hard to have that crystal ball to see whether this
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: is going to create a spiraling effect of retaliation or
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: counter retaliation or if finstead, we could get to some
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: sort of equilibrium or these rates actually come down as
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: a result of agreements between the US and trading partners.
• 9:18
  Speaker 3: And under the WTO, is there a mechanism if one
• 9:22
  Speaker 3: member violates the trade rules.
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: Yes, and that would be the complaint of the US
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: trading partners. Here is that you could make a good
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: argument that the WTO's entire purpose was to help countries
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: define when another country is breaching it's WTO obligations through
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: the dispute settlement process. There have been a lot of
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: complaints from Democrats and Republicans alike about the WTO dispute
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: settlement process, but I think the reality is that foreign
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: countries view this as the United States walking away from
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: that dispute settlement process and going completely to a sort
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: of bilateral negotiating process for resolving trade disputes rather than
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: multilaterally through the WTO.
• 10:10
  Speaker 3: I know you advise companies on tariffs. What are some
• 10:13
  Speaker 3: of the concerns that your clients have or perhaps should have.
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: A lot of companies realize that the compliance stakes are
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: significantly increased when the tariff goes up this much, right,
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: because if your compliance practices don't get the country of
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: origin correct or the valuation correct, that now translates into
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: a fairly significant change in revenue that should have gone
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: to the US government if you're getting it incorrect. So
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: from a compliance standpoint, it's riskier now than it was
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: on Monday. With respect to declarations to US customs. One
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: thing that I think is going to generate a lot
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: of questions is because the tariff rates differ by different countries.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: If you have product lines that make multiple stops prior
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: to be importing into the United States to further assembly,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: are manufacturing, then the country of origin question becomes vitally
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: important because you may have a teriff rate down to
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: ten percent against the teriff frate that goes up to
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: forty nine percent on these reciprocal tariffs, and a lot
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: of terif liabilities at stake in applying the rule of
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: origin correctly. So I think that's going to be one
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: area where companies are examining carefully. The other thing is,
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: if you're stuck paying the tariff, the amount of tariff
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: you pay is going to be determined on how you
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: value the import as it comes into the United States.
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: And so a lot of companies who may not have
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: thought very hard about valuation because teriff rates or zero
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: are very low are looking at that question to make
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: sure they're not under or overvaluing the merchandise as it
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: comes into the United States.
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: It's a complex and evolving situation. Thanks for taking us
• 11:48
  Speaker 3: through it. That's David Townsend, a partner at Dorsey and Whitney.
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: Coming up next, Catholic Charities appears headed for a win
• 11:56
  Speaker 3: at the Supreme Court. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: to Bloomberg.
• 12:01
  Speaker 4: I thought it was pretty fundamental that we don't treat
• 12:06
  Speaker 4: some religions better than other religions, and we certainly don't
• 12:10
  Speaker 4: do it based on the content of the religious doctrine
• 12:14
  Speaker 4: that those religions preach.
• 12:17
  Speaker 5: Isn't it a fundamental premise of our First Amendment that
• 12:21
  Speaker 5: the state shouldn't be picking and choosing between religions, between
• 12:25
  Speaker 5: certain evangelical sects and Judaism, and Catholicism on the other
• 12:30
  Speaker 5: for example, And doesn't it entangle the state tremendously when
• 12:36
  Speaker 5: it has to go into a soup kitchen. Send an
• 12:39
  Speaker 5: inspector in to see how much prayer is going on.
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: Justices across the ideological spectrum suggested that Wisconsin was discriminating
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: against Catholic Charities by denying it a religious exemption from
• 12:53
  Speaker 3: the state's unemployment tax program. The state argues that Catholic
• 12:57
  Speaker 3: Charities doesn't qualify for the tax exemption because the day
• 13:01
  Speaker 3: to day services it provides don't involve religious teachings. But
• 13:06
  Speaker 3: many of the justices seemed concerned about Wisconsin's contention that
• 13:11
  Speaker 3: one way organizations can get the exemption is by actively proselytizing.
• 13:16
  Speaker 3: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice is Amy Cony Barrett
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: and Neil Gorsuch question just what that means in practice?
• 13:25
  Speaker 6: What is the simplest thing that the Catholic Charities would
• 13:30
  Speaker 6: have to do to qualify for the religious exemption in Wisconsin?
• 13:34
  Speaker 7: I think?
• 13:34
  Speaker 6: Were they sure they have one sign in the dining
• 13:37
  Speaker 6: hall saying this meal provided by Catholic Charities. If you
• 13:40
  Speaker 6: want to find out about the church, here's a brochure, and.
• 13:44
  Speaker 7: I mean, are they playing like hymn's on the radio
• 13:47
  Speaker 7: or like Christian rock at the evangelical soup kitchen on
• 13:50
  Speaker 7: the radio? You know, is that proselytization or not? Because
• 13:54
  Speaker 7: you're forced to sit there and listen to it.
• 13:57
  Speaker 5: I just want to know what the test is, So
• 13:59
  Speaker 5: repent sins, you get the exemption, not requiring you to
• 14:04
  Speaker 5: repent your sins, you don't. I guess you don't get
• 14:07
  Speaker 5: the exception.
• 14:08
  Speaker 3: Catholic Charities argues this state is violating its religious freedoms
• 14:13
  Speaker 3: protected by the First Amendment by making determinations about what
• 14:17
  Speaker 3: work qualifies as religious. My guest is Richard Garnett, a
• 14:20
  Speaker 3: professor at Notre Dame Law School and founding director of
• 14:24
  Speaker 3: the school's Program on Church, State and Society. He was
• 14:28
  Speaker 3: part of a group of law and religion professors who
• 14:31
  Speaker 3: submitted a brief in support of Catholic Charities. Rick, this
• 14:34
  Speaker 3: is an appeal from a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
• 14:38
  Speaker 3: Tell us about the issue before the justices.
• 14:41
  Speaker 8: So the justices are being asked to evaluate a ruling
• 14:45
  Speaker 8: by a Wisconsin court, and that ruling had to do
• 14:48
  Speaker 8: with an exemption that was in place in Wisconsin law,
• 14:52
  Speaker 8: it's an exemption from otherwise applicable requirement about providing unemployment insurance.
• 14:58
  Speaker 8: So Wisconsin, like a lot of states, has a religious exemption.
• 15:03
  Speaker 8: So some employers were exempt from this particular requirement if
• 15:06
  Speaker 8: they were religious. And the precise terminology of the exemption
• 15:11
  Speaker 8: was that organizations that are operated primarily for religious purposes
• 15:16
  Speaker 8: are entitled to the exemption. And Catholic charities, which is
• 15:20
  Speaker 8: what it sounds like, a Catholic organization that provides a
• 15:24
  Speaker 8: variety of social services, was denied the exemption on the
• 15:28
  Speaker 8: theory that, you know, although it's got the word Catholic
• 15:31
  Speaker 8: in it, and although it's probably motivated by Catholic concerns,
• 15:35
  Speaker 8: that a lot of the things it was doing they
• 15:37
  Speaker 8: weren't really religious. They weren't primarily religious. They were the
• 15:40
  Speaker 8: same kinds of things that secular organizations do. And so that,
• 15:44
  Speaker 8: you know, the Wisconsant Court kind of empsizes, Look, they
• 15:46
  Speaker 8: hire some people who aren't Catholic, they serve people regardless
• 15:49
  Speaker 8: of their faith, they don't engage in proselytism, they don't
• 15:53
  Speaker 8: require people to attend church, so they're not really religious.
• 15:56
  Speaker 8: And the Supreme Court took up the case to decide.
• 15:59
  Speaker 8: I think whether there wisconsint Court's definition of who gets
• 16:03
  Speaker 8: this exemption was in a way discriminatory, that it distinguished
• 16:07
  Speaker 8: between religions that engage in kind of overt evangelism when
• 16:12
  Speaker 8: they provide services and those that live out their religious
• 16:17
  Speaker 8: mission by providing social services to a broad range of people.
• 16:20
  Speaker 3: Both liberal Justice Elina Kagan and conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch
• 16:25
  Speaker 3: seemed to be on the same page, saying that we
• 16:28
  Speaker 3: don't treat some religions better than others.
• 16:31
  Speaker 8: Yeah. So we have a well established principle in American
• 16:35
  Speaker 8: law that legislatures are permitted to have exemptions for religious
• 16:41
  Speaker 8: believers or religious institutions from their laws. These happen all
• 16:44
  Speaker 8: the time, right, But one of the important qualifications is
• 16:47
  Speaker 8: that legislators aren't allowed to discriminate among religions when they
• 16:52
  Speaker 8: are granting these exemptions. So, you know, you couldn't have
• 16:54
  Speaker 8: an exemption for Baptist organizations but deny it to Presbyterian ones,
• 17:00
  Speaker 8: or an exemption for Buddhist ones but deny it to
• 17:02
  Speaker 8: Hindu ones. You're allowed to have religious exemptions, but the
• 17:05
  Speaker 8: exemptions themselves can't discriminate among religions. And I think Justice
• 17:09
  Speaker 8: Kagan's concern was that the Wisconsant Court in effect had said,
• 17:13
  Speaker 8: to count as religious, you have to be religious in
• 17:17
  Speaker 8: a certain way. You have to be religious in a
• 17:20
  Speaker 8: way that's kind of evangelical. Right where you're serving your
• 17:23
  Speaker 8: own you're engaging in evangelization and proselytism. Maybe you know
• 17:28
  Speaker 8: you're giving out food at the end of a church service,
• 17:31
  Speaker 8: but you're requiring people to attend church beforehand. There was
• 17:33
  Speaker 8: constant Court had a premise that I think all the
• 17:35
  Speaker 8: justices were uneasy with, namely that it was appropriate for
• 17:39
  Speaker 8: a secular court to say, you know, if you're not
• 17:42
  Speaker 8: engaging in proselytism, then you're just doing secular stuff. But
• 17:46
  Speaker 8: from the perspective of Catholic Charities, you know, when it's
• 17:49
  Speaker 8: feeding the hungry, or clothing the naked, or housing the unsheltered,
• 17:53
  Speaker 8: it's still engaging in religious activity. And to be clear,
• 17:56
  Speaker 8: the Catholic Charities position is not that any time institution
• 18:01
  Speaker 8: claims it's religious, it should get an exemption. Everybody acknowledges
• 18:04
  Speaker 8: that courts are allowed to ask whether the religious claims
• 18:07
  Speaker 8: are sincere, and everyone agrees that it is permissible to
• 18:12
  Speaker 8: distinguish between religious organizations on the one hand and secular
• 18:16
  Speaker 8: ones on the other. But where the justices got nervous
• 18:19
  Speaker 8: was the way the Wisconstant courts seemed to almost engage
• 18:22
  Speaker 8: in a little bit of armchair theology when it decided
• 18:25
  Speaker 8: that in order to be i think the word to
• 18:28
  Speaker 8: use was typically religious, you had to exercise your religion
• 18:31
  Speaker 8: in a certain way. And so Justice Kagan, for example, says, well,
• 18:34
  Speaker 8: you know, look, in Judaism, a lot of what we
• 18:37
  Speaker 8: do when we're active in the world is not engage
• 18:40
  Speaker 8: in proselytism. That's not one of the things that we do.
• 18:42
  Speaker 8: But we still do exercise our religion when we're providing
• 18:45
  Speaker 8: various social services. So that was clearly a theme that
• 18:47
  Speaker 8: she was focusing on. And there was also a theme
• 18:49
  Speaker 8: in the argument not quite as prominent as this discrimination theme,
• 18:52
  Speaker 8: I think, but it was still there that Wisconsin's rule
• 18:56
  Speaker 8: had kind of a coercive effect of basically pressuring religious
• 19:00
  Speaker 8: institutions to organize themselves in a certain way, because the
• 19:04
  Speaker 8: Wisconsin rule was one that said, if a charity is
• 19:07
  Speaker 8: separately incorporated from the church itself, then it's going to
• 19:10
  Speaker 8: be treated differently than if it's kind of integrated into
• 19:13
  Speaker 8: the religious institution, and so the concern was that that
• 19:16
  Speaker 8: regime would kind of pressure religious organizations to change their structures.
• 19:20
  Speaker 8: But I think the most straightforward part of the case,
• 19:22
  Speaker 8: and I think this is what the lawyer for Catholic
• 19:24
  Speaker 8: Charity was really leaning on, is that it's a straight
• 19:27
  Speaker 8: up black letter rule that governments can't discriminate among religions
• 19:31
  Speaker 8: when they are crafting their accommodations. And the Wisconsin Supreme
• 19:35
  Speaker 8: Court adopted an interpretation that appears to treat some religions
• 19:39
  Speaker 8: as being more authentically religious than others. So I suspect
• 19:42
  Speaker 8: the Supreme Court's going to reverse that.
• 19:44
  Speaker 3: What was the best argument you think the state put
• 19:47
  Speaker 3: forward to defend its claim?
• 19:49
  Speaker 8: Maybe two things are worth emphasizing. That one claim the
• 19:52
  Speaker 8: state made, but I don't think the justices were moved
• 19:54
  Speaker 8: by it was that, look, the language in the Wisconsin
• 19:57
  Speaker 8: statute is a lot like the language that appears in
• 20:00
  Speaker 8: a whole bunch of other religious exemptions, and so the
• 20:03
  Speaker 8: concern that the state was raising was like, if you
• 20:06
  Speaker 8: interpret this language really broadly, that's going to have all
• 20:08
  Speaker 8: kinds of sweeping effects. And the justices didn't seem as
• 20:11
  Speaker 8: moved by that. Another argument the state made, which is
• 20:13
  Speaker 8: completely reasonable, is that you know, in order for the
• 20:16
  Speaker 8: state to accommodate religion, it has to have some limits
• 20:19
  Speaker 8: on that accommodation. Otherwise that reduces the incentive of the
• 20:23
  Speaker 8: state to accommodate religion at all, which would be a
• 20:25
  Speaker 8: perverse effect. But I think the justices were able to
• 20:27
  Speaker 8: respond to that by saying, we agree with you. There
• 20:29
  Speaker 8: can be limits on the exemptions. Again, you can make
• 20:32
  Speaker 8: sure that the claimants are sincere, and you can make
• 20:34
  Speaker 8: sure that they are religious as opposed to secular or
• 20:38
  Speaker 8: philosophical or what have you. But what you can't do
• 20:41
  Speaker 8: is adopt the definition of religion, which in effect picks
• 20:45
  Speaker 8: and chooses among different religions, and I suspect will get
• 20:49
  Speaker 8: a pretty consensus ruling from the justices on that point.
• 20:53
  Speaker 3: Justice Barrett raised the question of how far the exemptions
• 20:57
  Speaker 3: would go, saying, one of the problems here is figuring
• 20:59
  Speaker 3: out what the line is. Some say there could be
• 21:02
  Speaker 3: broad ramifications if the Justice's side with Catholic charities here.
• 21:08
  Speaker 8: I mean, I think she was raising that issue and
• 21:10
  Speaker 8: was right to, because anytime you have an exemption from
• 21:13
  Speaker 8: a law, there's going to be questions about how far
• 21:15
  Speaker 8: the exemption goes. And it is true that in American law,
• 21:19
  Speaker 8: you know, we don't really have a clear definition of
• 21:22
  Speaker 8: what is or is not religion. But I think that
• 21:25
  Speaker 8: the lawyer for Catholic Charities was able to respond just
• 21:29
  Speaker 8: by assuring Justice Barrett that in this particular case, in
• 21:33
  Speaker 8: order to correct the error that there wis constant court made,
• 21:37
  Speaker 8: you don't actually have to issue a very broad ruling.
• 21:39
  Speaker 8: You don't have to say again that this religious exemption
• 21:42
  Speaker 8: covers any entity that conceivably claims to be religious. It's
• 21:47
  Speaker 8: a more narrowed and precise argument than that. It's that
• 21:51
  Speaker 8: when the state is engaging in crafting an exemption, it
• 21:55
  Speaker 8: can't do so in a way that discriminates among religions.
• 21:58
  Speaker 8: So that non discrimination rule, which is the key to
• 22:01
  Speaker 8: this case, that would prevent this case from going off
• 22:04
  Speaker 8: into some of the concerns that the state raised about
• 22:07
  Speaker 8: how you know the exemption, would swallow the rule itself.
• 22:09
  Speaker 8: It is possible to accommodate religion and to draw boundaries
• 22:12
  Speaker 8: around religion without doing so in a way that discriminates
• 22:16
  Speaker 8: among different religions.
• 22:18
  Speaker 3: I think most people who listen to the oral arguments
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: came to the same conclusion that the justices would rule
• 22:25
  Speaker 3: in favor of Catholic Charities. What's your take.
• 22:29
  Speaker 8: It seems like most, perhaps even all of the justices
• 22:33
  Speaker 8: were pretty skeptical of what the Wisconsin Court had done.
• 22:37
  Speaker 8: So it does seem pretty likely that the Catholic Charities
• 22:39
  Speaker 8: position is going to win out here. You know, people
• 22:42
  Speaker 8: sometimes forget that in the Supreme Court, whatever else they
• 22:45
  Speaker 8: might be divided by a lot of these religious freedom
• 22:48
  Speaker 8: cases are not divided red versus Blue, Republican versus Democrat.
• 22:53
  Speaker 8: There are a fair number of cases that are you know,
• 22:55
  Speaker 8: unanimous or close to it. And this might be another
• 22:57
  Speaker 8: one is that because.
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: There are seven Catholic on the Court. I asked that facetiously,
• 23:02
  Speaker 3: but that number of justices of one religion seems unusual.
• 23:06
  Speaker 8: I've written a few things about that and how that happened. Yeah,
• 23:09
  Speaker 8: especially when one thinks back that, you know, there were
• 23:12
  Speaker 8: zero for the first seventy years or so, and then
• 23:15
  Speaker 8: I don't think we had a situation where we had
• 23:17
  Speaker 8: more than one on the court until you know, the
• 23:19
  Speaker 8: nineteen eighties. Perhaps, so that is a change. But America's demographics,
• 23:23
  Speaker 8: religious demographics educational demographics have changed a lot, so maybe
• 23:26
  Speaker 8: that's part of the story.
• 23:28
  Speaker 3: This is the first case involving religion that the Court
• 23:30
  Speaker 3: has heard in about two years, and this term there
• 23:33
  Speaker 3: are three religion cases. Do you see a trend or
• 23:37
  Speaker 3: any explanation for why those three in particular?
• 23:41
  Speaker 8: It's hard to say. I mean, so much of the
• 23:42
  Speaker 8: court stock, as you know, is a function of kind
• 23:45
  Speaker 8: of accident, you know what happened in the courts below.
• 23:48
  Speaker 8: But you're right that there's this case which involves a
• 23:51
  Speaker 8: particular question that arises in the religious accommodation's context is
• 23:54
  Speaker 8: one coming out of Maryland, which involves some parents who
• 23:57
  Speaker 8: wanted to be able to opt their kids out of
• 23:59
  Speaker 8: some curricular matters that had to do with sexual orientation
• 24:02
  Speaker 8: and gender identity and so on, so they're seeking an
• 24:05
  Speaker 8: accommodation that was denied to them. And then of course
• 24:07
  Speaker 8: there's the Oklahoma case about the virtual Catholic School and
• 24:11
  Speaker 8: whether it can participate in that state's charter program. That
• 24:14
  Speaker 8: one's not really an accommodation case. It's it's more of
• 24:17
  Speaker 8: what I call a cooperation case. So certainly, you know,
• 24:20
  Speaker 8: an interesting year for law and religion at the Court.
• 24:23
  Speaker 8: But whether the fact that there are three tells us
• 24:25
  Speaker 8: anything deeper, I'm not sure, and those.
• 24:28
  Speaker 3: Other cases will be heard in the last two weeks
• 24:30
  Speaker 3: of April. Thanks so much, Rick, That's Professor Richard Garnett
• 24:34
  Speaker 3: of Notre Dame Law School coming up next. How do
• 24:38
  Speaker 3: Alipa and Mariah Carey won their copyright infringement lawsuits? I'm
• 24:43
  Speaker 3: June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 24:51
  Speaker 6: With Glitter.
• 25:04
  Speaker 3: International pop star Dua Lipa has won a second lawsuit
• 25:08
  Speaker 3: accusing her of copying her twenty twenty mega hit Levitating.
• 25:13
  Speaker 3: Two songwriters said she plagiarized their disco era songs Wiggling,
• 25:18
  Speaker 3: Giggle All Night and Don Diablo, claiming that the opening
• 25:22
  Speaker 3: melody in Levitating was a duplicate of the melody in
• 25:25
  Speaker 3: their songs.
• 25:28
  Speaker 9: I was walking down the street when I saw all
• 25:29
  Speaker 9: the times of Soldier Boy A week a week in
• 25:31
  Speaker 9: atne He said, I'd like.
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: To make a date.
• 25:33
  Speaker 9: I said, so sorry about his lady said, a free,
• 25:38
  Speaker 9: free to me the love of my life, he said,
• 25:40
  Speaker 9: another way you wiggle in I look the way you
• 25:42
  Speaker 9: giggle in it love to give you just a little
• 25:44
  Speaker 9: kiss son your lips today light. So we giggled all night.
• 25:48
  Speaker 3: But a Manhattan federal judge gave Dua Lipa an early victory,
• 25:53
  Speaker 3: dismissing the lawsuit. The judge found that the shared melody
• 25:57
  Speaker 3: was generic and not protectable under copy right law. Having
• 26:01
  Speaker 3: appeared in Mozart and Rassini operas, Gilbert and Sullivan operettas,
• 26:06
  Speaker 3: and Staying Alive by the Begs, Joining Me is music
• 26:09
  Speaker 3: attorney Ron Beanstock, a partner at Scarency Holland Beck Ron
• 26:13
  Speaker 3: tell us about the first copyright lawsuit that du A
• 26:16
  Speaker 3: Lipa one over, Levitating where a reggae group suit her.
• 26:21
  Speaker 10: There's a twenty seventeen song by a relatively and I
• 26:24
  Speaker 10: don't want to result anybody. It's relatively unknown reggae group
• 26:28
  Speaker 10: in Florida. You got to prove access, as you know
• 26:30
  Speaker 10: on all of these cases through step process. The giant
• 26:33
  Speaker 10: hurdle is access. Then you've got substantial similarity. If you
• 26:36
  Speaker 10: don't have access and you can't really prove it, you
• 26:39
  Speaker 10: can't say somebody heard of this, or it was a hit,
• 26:41
  Speaker 10: someone should have heard of it, or you're on tour
• 26:43
  Speaker 10: with them, or you shared the same manager, or you've
• 26:45
  Speaker 10: shared the same producers, or all those different check the box.
• 26:49
  Speaker 10: For access. Then you've got to have some striking similarity
• 26:51
  Speaker 10: to go further, and that's where the subtle courts usually go. Okay,
• 26:54
  Speaker 10: there's your bar, right, and this doesn't striking similar So
• 26:58
  Speaker 10: back to our reggae claim. You've got effectively a four
• 27:01
  Speaker 10: chord pattern that is in minor key. The song Levitating
• 27:05
  Speaker 10: can be viner and the chord sort of match up.
• 27:08
  Speaker 10: But that's not how this works musically. If you don't
• 27:10
  Speaker 10: mind me singing, I hope I don't ruin. Everybody's go ahead.
• 27:13
  Speaker 10: But there are two things that are very clear in
• 27:16
  Speaker 10: both cases involving this song Levitating. It's this pattern Da
• 27:19
  Speaker 10: da da da da da da da da da da
• 27:21
  Speaker 10: da da da da da defending chromatic across the four chords.
• 27:26
  Speaker 10: Here you go da da da da da da da
• 27:27
  Speaker 10: da da da da da da da. And that's going
• 27:29
  Speaker 10: to be what somebody's got to hang their legal hat
• 27:32
  Speaker 10: on and say that is not a common element. You
• 27:34
  Speaker 10: don't hear that very often. And these things match up
• 27:36
  Speaker 10: when you use this analysis the way we do with chords.
• 27:39
  Speaker 10: When we take these melodies and we put them into
• 27:42
  Speaker 10: the TSC or you mask them up in the relative key,
• 27:45
  Speaker 10: those notes are in a match up, and then they
• 27:47
  Speaker 10: talk about harmonic diling and all these well, that's staying alive.
• 27:50
  Speaker 10: Da da da da da da da da da da
• 27:52
  Speaker 10: da da da da da da. Right, we've heard that before.
• 27:54
  Speaker 10: So immediately when you start singing, the judge saying Mozart
• 27:59
  Speaker 10: and Gilbert in Sullivan and mentions the beg's, you know,
• 28:03
  Speaker 10: that's a pretty common element. So when people say, hey,
• 28:08
  Speaker 10: i've heard that before, Sure you did. You heard it
• 28:10
  Speaker 10: probably six centuries ago, and the beg's da da da
• 28:14
  Speaker 10: da da da da da da da da da da
• 28:15
  Speaker 10: ay statalized. You know, these are sort of common elements.
• 28:19
  Speaker 10: So the first part is that the planets in the
• 28:22
  Speaker 10: first case involving the Regaevan couldn't prove access. And then
• 28:26
  Speaker 10: it really fell apart once you start talking about common
• 28:29
  Speaker 10: element and it got dismissed. And to give you one
• 28:31
  Speaker 10: more pop culture reference, the chords are the same things
• 28:35
  Speaker 10: to ELO's Evil Woman. These are common and four chord
• 28:39
  Speaker 10: patterns and songs. We could be here all day. I mean,
• 28:42
  Speaker 10: they're really common. So the first case dismissal rested upon
• 28:46
  Speaker 10: the idea that you had no access and they're not
• 28:47
  Speaker 10: striking a clar So we.
• 28:49
  Speaker 3: Go from reggae to the second case, which involves two
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: disco songs.
• 28:54
  Speaker 10: The second case is interesting because I think this was
• 28:58
  Speaker 10: a slightly more sophisticated approach to it, right they so
• 29:01
  Speaker 10: it kind of didn't work on the first matter that
• 29:03
  Speaker 10: they have that precedence, So now you can kind of
• 29:05
  Speaker 10: roll into what what should we do that's different? Here,
• 29:07
  Speaker 10: still the same issues. It's in B minor, and now
• 29:10
  Speaker 10: you have this nineteen seventy nine wiggle and giggle in
• 29:14
  Speaker 10: E flat major, and then this don diablo only in
• 29:19
  Speaker 10: Spanish Stung in Spanish, also in a major case B
• 29:22
  Speaker 10: flat major. So you already start with some variations. The
• 29:26
  Speaker 10: other thing that the lay person generally when they discussed
• 29:28
  Speaker 10: this with me, and I'm sure discussed this with you,
• 29:31
  Speaker 10: is it's about publishers. This is not about dualalipa. This
• 29:35
  Speaker 10: is about the publishers, the lawsuits involved. Who controls the copyright.
• 29:38
  Speaker 10: So these are major publishers, you know, Warners, Sony, Universal Music.
• 29:43
  Speaker 10: So they're going to get some really powerful teams of
• 29:47
  Speaker 10: really experienced copyright lawyers. I know some of these people.
• 29:50
  Speaker 10: They're great at what they do. They've enters before. So
• 29:53
  Speaker 10: you start already with the concept of all right, where's
• 29:56
  Speaker 10: our access. Where's that giant hurdle you've got to get
• 29:59
  Speaker 10: over a Men nine disco tune called Wiggle and Giggle,
• 30:03
  Speaker 10: And then you have the Spanish only don diablo. When
• 30:06
  Speaker 10: would these writers? Is support writers, it's not just do aliva?
• 30:09
  Speaker 10: When would these people have access to that song? So
• 30:11
  Speaker 10: that's a huge hurdle. If you don't prove back, you're
• 30:15
  Speaker 10: right back to this what's strikingly similar? So the plaintiff
• 30:19
  Speaker 10: said the opening melody was duplicated throughout the song and
• 30:22
  Speaker 10: gave a retro field. Well, okay, that doesn't count. Retro
• 30:26
  Speaker 10: feel is not substantive. Again, we're not talking about the
• 30:31
  Speaker 10: copyright and the sound recording. We're talking only about the composition,
• 30:35
  Speaker 10: the idea that things may sound similar because they are
• 30:37
  Speaker 10: of the same beat, and other elements not controlling here,
• 30:41
  Speaker 10: it's the song. So you had this claim that the
• 30:43
  Speaker 10: opening melody was duplicated, and then the defense was, well,
• 30:47
  Speaker 10: wait a second, these are non copyrightable elements, just like
• 30:50
  Speaker 10: our last case, right, common elements common for a chords
• 30:54
  Speaker 10: and that common descending pattern of da da da da
• 30:56
  Speaker 10: da da da da da da da da da da
• 30:58
  Speaker 10: da da, and so these are not enough to prove
• 31:01
  Speaker 10: it strikingly similar. And the judge dismissed and said, no,
• 31:05
  Speaker 10: I'm giving you some rejudgment to defendant. And I took
• 31:09
  Speaker 10: a look at the experts, and we had the Delbert
• 31:11
  Speaker 10: claims about whether they were acting as experts in their opinion.
• 31:14
  Speaker 10: You know, all the infighting will go on in federal
• 31:17
  Speaker 10: court about experts popyright. But ultimately the judge said, hey,
• 31:20
  Speaker 10: these are common elements. I can't let this case proceed
• 31:23
  Speaker 10: and keep the sensed.
• 31:24
  Speaker 3: The case seemed to have benefited from the Ed Sheeran case,
• 31:27
  Speaker 3: where it was found that sheeron song Thinking Out Loud
• 31:31
  Speaker 3: and Marvin Gaye's song Let's Get It On only shared
• 31:35
  Speaker 3: commonly used elements that are not copyrightable.
• 31:38
  Speaker 10: All right, So the Ed Sheering case, it's win a verdict, right.
• 31:42
  Speaker 10: It was not decided in a summary rejudgment or dismissal.
• 31:46
  Speaker 10: The jury got to hear Ed Sheeran play his song
• 31:51
  Speaker 10: in his version live. Then he got to interpret any
• 31:54
  Speaker 10: way he wanted how he would present that song. That
• 31:57
  Speaker 10: to me was an error by the flinker. So that's
• 32:00
  Speaker 10: a problem with just the presentation of evidence. The second
• 32:03
  Speaker 10: part was throughout his case, they said, there are some
• 32:07
  Speaker 10: common elements in music, right, there are common patterns and
• 32:10
  Speaker 10: common things. You don't own an idea for a song,
• 32:14
  Speaker 10: and that runs two ways. One it's the sound recording.
• 32:17
  Speaker 10: The problematic cases always have the idea that someone got
• 32:21
  Speaker 10: to hear it. That's not what we're talking about. They
• 32:23
  Speaker 10: get through that only talking about the song. So if
• 32:26
  Speaker 10: you have a song that has common elements, we're not
• 32:28
  Speaker 10: talking about other audio similarities. It's just talking about the
• 32:31
  Speaker 10: common elements in the composition. And yet you can't prove
• 32:35
  Speaker 10: that these common elements are listed right, they're not protectable.
• 32:40
  Speaker 10: Then that you get the same results that you had
• 32:41
  Speaker 10: with as Sharon right, they're not protectable. He has the
• 32:44
  Speaker 10: own interpretation of that does not match up to your claim,
• 32:48
  Speaker 10: and so eventually that case went its way. So the
• 32:50
  Speaker 10: common element scene comes to play in all three of
• 32:53
  Speaker 10: these to some extent. The first one really is just
• 32:55
  Speaker 10: based upon no access at all. So we kind of
• 32:58
  Speaker 10: get that running through all these cases. Those are all
• 33:02
  Speaker 10: southern districts, are all here in New York seas you
• 33:05
  Speaker 10: can get the same circus decisions to get some unanimity
• 33:08
  Speaker 10: as to the decision making.
• 33:10
  Speaker 3: I'm always surprised that the judges can break down the
• 33:13
  Speaker 3: musical elements in their opinions.
• 33:16
  Speaker 10: You're going to rely on the musicologists, right, because the
• 33:20
  Speaker 10: judges are going to make the decision based upon their
• 33:23
  Speaker 10: own Even though judges in the past go back to
• 33:25
  Speaker 10: the George Harrison case with he still find my street
• 33:28
  Speaker 10: Lord way way back, the judge kind of said, hey,
• 33:30
  Speaker 10: I'm a musician, I get this. And I've had judges
• 33:33
  Speaker 10: in federal court who, you know, kind of made reference
• 33:36
  Speaker 10: to the fact that they played an instrument. There's always
• 33:39
  Speaker 10: this idea that what the judges listening to are battling experts. Right,
• 33:45
  Speaker 10: in this particular case, the judge gave credence to both
• 33:47
  Speaker 10: sides and waited and said, look, your plaintiffs experts. They're
• 33:52
  Speaker 10: making some good points here, but not carrying the day
• 33:55
  Speaker 10: that they didn't get over the common elements of these
• 33:57
  Speaker 10: two things. And the expert on the other side has said, look,
• 34:00
  Speaker 10: these are really common and was pointing to Mozarts and
• 34:03
  Speaker 10: I have in my amazing singing voice that it's da
• 34:06
  Speaker 10: da da da da da da da da da da
• 34:07
  Speaker 10: da da da data, right, And that's ultimately what it
• 34:11
  Speaker 10: came down to, is that piece of common element.
• 34:13
  Speaker 3: What does it say about the song if you have
• 34:15
  Speaker 3: two different copyright suits.
• 34:17
  Speaker 10: It says that the song made a lot of money,
• 34:21
  Speaker 10: and no one would care unless it's made a lot
• 34:24
  Speaker 10: of money. So this is a popular artist and everybody
• 34:29
  Speaker 10: wants a piece of a hit. And you know, all
• 34:33
  Speaker 10: we got to do is talk about the Mariah Carey lawsuit,
• 34:35
  Speaker 10: and we're rolling right into that series. But these lawsuits
• 34:38
  Speaker 10: just don't happen unless there's money, and real money involved.
• 34:42
  Speaker 3: And while we're talking about real money, Mariah Carey also
• 34:58
  Speaker 3: want to copyright loss suit over her mega Christmas hit
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: All I Want for Christmas Is You, which makes mega money,
• 35:06
  Speaker 3: topping the Billboard Hot one hundred chart every holiday season
• 35:10
  Speaker 3: since twenty nineteen, earning Carrie two point five to three
• 35:14
  Speaker 3: million dollars every year in royalties. A songwriter accused her
• 35:19
  Speaker 3: of infringing a song he recorded with the same title
• 35:23
  Speaker 3: in nineteen eighty nine. Was this lawsuit not based on
• 35:28
  Speaker 3: the music but on the words of the song?
• 35:31
  Speaker 10: Probably the best question anyone's asked about that, because everybody
• 35:34
  Speaker 10: kind of lifts the wrong page in that result. First,
• 35:37
  Speaker 10: I don't often get to say someone's taking a hit,
• 35:39
  Speaker 10: had an evergreen hit, evergreen hit. My pun there it's
• 35:44
  Speaker 10: a Christmas hits and you can't protect the title. First
• 35:47
  Speaker 10: level of analysis. I'm not sure what people are thinking.
• 35:50
  Speaker 10: We have the same title. Okay, that's not protectable. So
• 35:54
  Speaker 10: they were to restart and then the common element melody
• 35:58
  Speaker 10: and other we're not here back to your lyric question,
• 36:01
  Speaker 10: want to hear it's the common lyrics were not at
• 36:03
  Speaker 10: the bust out laugh and on this get ready here
• 36:05
  Speaker 10: the common lyrics missiletow, Santa stocking, snow, and Christmas. Oh
• 36:12
  Speaker 10: ooh when you put it like that, ooh, that's not
• 36:16
  Speaker 10: going very far. That is just just not going to
• 36:20
  Speaker 10: carry the day. You can't protect the title. You've got
• 36:22
  Speaker 10: common elements and lyrics. You've got no question that you're
• 36:26
  Speaker 10: claiming with the melodies are exactly the same. And here's
• 36:29
  Speaker 10: sort of a sidebar moment. They claimed access and got
• 36:33
  Speaker 10: the case rolling through the process in the closest because
• 36:36
  Speaker 10: they claimed access if it had been a big hit
• 36:40
  Speaker 10: in the country chart, a kid or not. Their song
• 36:43
  Speaker 10: called well I Want for Christmas View was a country
• 36:46
  Speaker 10: hit roughly the same time, so their access was based
• 36:49
  Speaker 10: upon Yeah, it was a charting song. Whether a country
• 36:53
  Speaker 10: hit gets listened to by a pop star and her
• 36:56
  Speaker 10: co writer don't know. But this one fell down the
• 37:00
  Speaker 10: shares pretty quickly in the ninth toorkeit in California because
• 37:04
  Speaker 10: it wasn't provable. And I want to add also cut
• 37:06
  Speaker 10: sanctions and partial attorney sees were granted against the flankiffs
• 37:11
  Speaker 10: on them. It fell really short, and I think that
• 37:13
  Speaker 10: judge clearly said, wait a second, you should never apply
• 37:16
  Speaker 10: you Roscoe.
• 37:17
  Speaker 3: I believe the judge did refer to them as Christmas cliches.
• 37:21
  Speaker 3: Thanks Ron. That's Ron Beanstock of Scurrency, Holland Beck. And
• 37:26
  Speaker 3: that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.
• 37:28
  Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
• 37:31
  Speaker 3: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 37:35
  Speaker 3: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast slash Law,
• 37:41
  Speaker 3: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
• 37:43
  Speaker 3: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm Jim Grosso,
• 37:47
  Speaker 3: and you're listening to Bloomberg