Latest / Bloomberg Law / SCOTUS Gives Trump Okay to Fire Federal Workers

Transcript

SCOTUS Gives Trump Okay to Fire Federal Workers · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: After the Supreme Court term, come the statistics, which circuit
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: was reversed the most, which justice was in the majority
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: the most, how many closely divided cases were there. You
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: get the idea, and it's the Fourth Circuit that's drawing
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: attention this year. The Virginia based Court of Appeals used
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: to have the lowest rate of being reversed among the circuits,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: but this term it had the dubious distinction of a
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent reversal rate. The Supreme Court overturned its
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: decisions in eight out of eight cases, and some of
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: those were high profile cases like Mahmood versus Taylor, where
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: the Court allowed religious parents to opt their children out
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: of classes where LGBTQ friendly books are read. My guest
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: is constitutional law expert Harold Krant, a professor at the
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: Chicago Kent College of Law. So how scotis blog has
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: come out with its annual stats for the last term
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: now from two thousand and seven through twenty twenty three,
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: the Supreme Court reversed decisions from the Fourth Circuit in
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: thirty six out of fifty eight cases. That's a sixty
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: two point one percent reversal rate, so it had the
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: lowest rate of being overturned among the circuits, and now
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: in this term it went to one hundred percent reversal rate.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Any idea why.
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: I think a little bit is just uplip. These variances
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: occur from time to time. But I also think that
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: given the location of Fourth Circuit, they are centered where
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: so many federal government employees are centered, where there's a
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: lot of grants in terms of HHS offices, Social Security Administration,
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: and so forth, that there's a lot of current litigation
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: against the tough administration which is just centered geographically in
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: that district. So it's not surprising that there's a higher
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: percentage of cases from the Fourth Circuit that are reaching
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. And of course it's a little bit
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: of a blip, but it's understandable that there's going to
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: be more cases that the Supreme Court is going to
• 2:11
  Speaker 2: resolve against the Fourth Circuit. Fourth Circuit is relatively ideologically balanced,
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: so it's not considered to be either a very liberal
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: or a very republican very conservative court. But nonetheless there's
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: a lot of these cases that have arisen there and
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: so we're seeing intention between the Fourth Circuit and the
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: The reversals included some of the blockbusters of the term,
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: cases where the Court made it harder for judges to
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: issue nationwide injunctions, the case where the Court allowed parents
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: to up their children out of lessons where LGBTQ friendly
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: books were read, and the case paving the way for
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: South Carolina to exclude a planned parented affiliate from its
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: medicaid program. And all those cases were six to three
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: with the liberals dissenting. So I'm wondering if the Fourth
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Circuit is more in line with the liberals and less
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: in line with the conservatives. Is there a certain partisanship there.
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: I would frame it that the Fourth Circuit is aligned
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: with traditional conservative judicial principles. That this Court has veered
• 3:14
  Speaker 2: from those traditional conservative judicial principles, which is why we're
• 3:18
  Speaker 2: seeing the gap. I think that that Fourth Circuit is
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: cautious and it's trying to adhere to the sort of
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: judicial principles or judicial customs perspectives the way they've understood
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: them for a generation. And that's running against the current
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: Supreme Court's position, which seems to be far more solicitous
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: of both judicial power as well as presidential power.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: It used to be that the Ninth Circuit was the
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: most reviewed this term. The Ninth Circuit had fewer than
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: a third of the cases that the Court reviewed from
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit, the most conservative pellet court in the country,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: and it's sort of taken the place of the Ninth
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: in the last couple of terms. Of the sixty two
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: cases the Supreme Court decided this term, thirteen came from
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: the Fifth Circuit, more than from any other circuit, and
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: it was reversed in ten of the thirteen cases. The
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: last term, it was reversed in six of the nine cases.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: Well, the Fifth Circuit is known as the most conservative
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: but an activist conservative court. The Ninth Circuit has been
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: historically known as the most activist of progressive or liberal courts.
• 4:28
  Speaker 2: So it's not surprising that decisions from those two circuits
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: disproportionately go to the Supreme Court. And indeed, we've seen
• 4:37
  Speaker 2: an interesting switch now in the Fifth Circuit because the
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: Fifth Circuit led the charge against the Biden administration in
• 4:42
  Speaker 2: some very surprising cases, including two delegation cases in which
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court struck them down. This term and the
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: question is will they be as anti administration when it
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: comes time to review that which the Trump administration is doing.
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: And early records are mixed, so that's something to look too.
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: I think that some of the ardor of the Fifth
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: Circuit in terms of being anti administration will be damp.
• 5:04
  Speaker 2: And now with the switch politically at the top of
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: the helm.
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: Has the Fifth Circuit been trying to push the envelope,
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: so to speak, and be more aggressive in terms of
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: conservative policies or jurisprudence.
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: Well FITSIRKA has been at the cusp in terms of
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: pushing against administrative power, power of the agencies to rule.
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: I mean, for instance, in the telecommunications case, they had
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: sought to curb the power of the Communications Commission to
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: impose attacks on telecoms, and that of course was upheld.
• 5:43
  Speaker 2: I mean, the Biden administration pursued that plan, but so
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: did the Trump administration. And so the question is will
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: the fith Circuit continue its sort of skepticism about administrative
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: power given that President Trump is now a top of
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: the executive branch. So time will tell whether they'll continue,
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: But clearly they have marked in case after case, particularly
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: during the bidennistration, they challenged the legitimacy of the this
• 6:12
  Speaker 2: rap agencies, you know, in terms of the vaccine policies,
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: in terms of the student loans and more.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: When the justices take cases, they usually take them to reverse,
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: don't they. I mean, forty four out of the fifty
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: nine cases they took this term were reversed.
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: That's generally the case. But obviously more generally they take
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: cases when there's a split and the Court needs to
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: resolve a split in the circuits. So sometimes it's just
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: the matter which of the two cases they take, because
• 6:39
  Speaker 2: one case goes one way and one case goes the other.
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: So sometimes those figures are a tad misleading.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: Chief Justice John Roberts, when he talks about the Court
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: loves to talk about the number of unanimous opinions forty
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: two percent this term. But all of the controversial cases
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: involving social issues like religious rights, lgbt Q rights, they
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: all fall down ideological lines. So why does unanimity in
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: less than half the cases matter?
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: Well, begive and me, I think as a reminder to
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: us that it's still a court, and yet members of
• 7:14
  Speaker 2: the Court can't agree with each other in questions in
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: terms of you know, air review, in terms of the
• 7:20
  Speaker 2: courts with appeals making mistake, which is in terms of
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: reconciling a split in the circuits. And I think it's
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: a good reminder that the court is a court, but
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: that shouldn't obscure the fact that, as you said, in
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: socially divisive cases, there's almost inevitably a six' three split
• 7:36
  Speaker 2: with some changes around the.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Margins Adam felman has come out with his stat pack
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: for this past. Term roberts was in the majority ninety
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: five percent of the, time the most of any of the,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: justices followed By Brett kavanaugh eighty six, percent In Amy
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Cony barrett at eighty one. Percent do any of those
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: numbers surprise you or just to tell you that the
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: middle of the court.
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: Is, Ruling, no it doesn't surprise me at. All they
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: obviously those three justices do wield a lot of the
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: power on this current, court and they will do so
• 8:08
  Speaker 2: for the foreseeable. Future obviously there's some changes around the.
• 8:12
  Speaker 2: MARGIN i, mean Sometimes Justice corsic sides with majority or the,
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: minority same thing With Justice, barrett AND i think we've
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: even Seen Justice kagan occasionally trying to side with the
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: more conservative wing of the court in order TO i,
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: think in her view probably try to establish more than middle.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Ground, yeah what's gotten a lot of tension in the
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: legal press was That Justice kagan came in. Fourth she
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: was in the majority of seventy percent of the terms
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: non unanimous. Outcomes there was a thirteen percent drop in
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: agreement Between kagan And Justice Sonya Soto, mayor and the
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: agreements Between kagan and conservative justices up twenty two points
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: With Justice alito and up twenty nine points With Justice.
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: Thomas some people, say, oh, well she's getting more, Conservative
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: but is that really the case?
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: NOW i think she tries to find common ground when she,
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: can and maybe that can be criticized as bet she's
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: sort of tempering her own views to that of trying
• 9:12
  Speaker 2: to help the institution gain a middle. Ground BUT i
• 9:16
  Speaker 2: think it is perhaps a positive institution. Development is she
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: is lease in my, view and some of her decisions
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: trying to establish that there is common ground amongst the
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: so called conservatives so called liberal, justices and not in all,
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: cases but in some ways she. Can't AND i don't
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: know if that'll have any kind of long lasting impact
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: or if it will change the trajectory of the. Court
• 9:40
  Speaker 2: BUT i think that's her.
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: Goal Justice Katanji Brown jackson had the honor of being
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: in the, majority the least of all the justices at
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: seventy two, percent and she's written some biting.
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: Descents, again she is carving out her role as being
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: the most progressive justice and the one least willing to
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: compromise with the rest of the. Court voices like that
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: are important to, hear but they're not necessarily positive ways
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: to galvanize a majority of The.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Court Although Justice Antonin scalia was known for his brilliant,
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: descents and now the ideas he advanced about originalism and
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: textualism are all the rage on The.
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: COURT i, Mean scolia's legacy has been most powerful in
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: terms of raising the level of understanding about the, text
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: because all the court are, texts far more now than
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: they used to. Be but the question about originalism, STILL i,
• 10:36
  Speaker 2: think fractures The, court and we've seen that both in
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: terms of the importance of originalism but also the methodology of.
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: Originalism and so there's a lot of work to be
• 10:46
  Speaker 2: done before there's any kind of unified voice in The
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: court on that.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: Respect coming up next on The Bloomberg Lawn, Show i'll
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: continue this conversation With Professor Harold krant Other Chicago Kent
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: college Of. Law in another order on the emergency, docket
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: The Supreme court is Allowing President trump to move ahead
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: with plans to drastically reduce the size of the federal,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: government lifting a court order that had blocked nineteen federal
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: departments and agencies from slashing their. Workforces I'm June, grosso
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: and you're listening To. Bloomberg last, Month Chief Justice John,
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: roberts in a discussion of his time on the, bench
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: explained how he views criticism of The court's. Decisions what
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: they're angry about or upset about is probably not that
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: you applied the principle Of euston generous in a context
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: in which it had not been applied. Before it's that
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: they lost whatever they were looking. FOR i, mean and
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: in a sense, again it's not it would be good
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: if people appreciate. It it's not the judge's fault that
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: a correct interpretation of the law meant, that, no you
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: don't get to do. This i've been talking To Professor
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: Harold krant of The Chicago Kent college Of. Law get
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: your reaction to The chief's critique of criticism of the.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: Court is he overlooking the fact that those six to
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: three decisions mean that interpretations of the law can be
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: different depending on whether you take a conservative or a liberal.
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: Approach, YEAH i mean there is no one. Way there's
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: no perfect way to understand Whether PARTY a Or PARTY
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: b should. Prevail it's based upon a judge's view of
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: things like, originalism things like how the best to interpret a,
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: statute as well as whether there is a living constitution or.
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: Not so a party can be upset because they end
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: up with the case before justices that have a different
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: worldview in terms of interpreting The constitution more statutes than they.
• 12:47
  Speaker 2: Do so it's not a matter of venting against. Judges
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: it's a matter of feeling that it's just too bad
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: that you don't have justices who think the way you
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: do deciding your.
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: CASE a lot of the action this term has been
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: on the emergency, docket and yesterday The court ruled That
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: President trump can move ahead with plans to dramatically reduce
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: the size of the federal. Government it lifted a court
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: order that had blocked nineteen federal departments and agencies from
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: slashing their, workforce so hundreds of thousands of federal workers
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: could lose their. Jobs is this just part of the
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: trend of The court on the emergency docket lifting lower
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: court orders that blocked The trump. Agenda, Well i'm of two.
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: Minds about the most recent. DECISION i, mean what The
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: court did is removed as an injunction on the administration
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: from trying to carry out the, Rift but it did
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: not say that the riff was appropriate or consistent With congressional.
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: Direction AND i think that was made clear as well
• 13:53
  Speaker 2: because the fact That Justice kagan went along with the
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: majority in terms of allowing theministration's action to, proceed and
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: the executive order says that the ref for the Reduction
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: force must proceed according to applicable, law and the applicable,
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: law of, course Is congress's very detailed instructions for how
• 14:14
  Speaker 2: agencies should. Proceed AND i think the reason Why Justice
• 14:18
  Speaker 2: kaikin did join the majority was because we have yet
• 14:22
  Speaker 2: to see whether the administration will conform to the congressional
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: blueprint for shiding out The Reduction force or. Not and so,
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: yes The court is giving the benefit of the doubt
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: the administration and the spending would think that the administration
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: doesn't deserve the benefit of the. Doubt BUT i think
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: what the court's action is, saying, well let's wait until
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: there's a merit's decision as to whether the applicable congressional
• 14:48
  Speaker 2: rules were followed before we actually tell the administration they
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: can't move forward in that.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: Way, well all, along The court has been letting The
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: trump administration go ahead for. Now but the problem is
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: that getting to the merits of these cases take so,
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: long and by that time the damage is. Done people
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: have been.
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: Fired, sometimes the Art reing, stated and we've had instances
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: already this term where there have been governmental employees who
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: have been. Reinstated there's also questions of back pay that
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: can at least partially. Address BUT i, mean, yes from
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: a matter of the employees who have been riffed and
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: perhaps illegally, riffed there is, dislocation financial, privation and obviously
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: a lot of hardship on their side in that.
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: Case Justice Sonya, sotomayor who usually does not go along
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: with the majority Involving trump administration, actions so she joined
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: the majority in that. Case why do you think she
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: went along with? Them?
• 15:49
  Speaker 2: There, again part of the reason may have been that
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: there is no review on the marriagchat of the, rift
• 15:55
  Speaker 2: but part of the issue may be one of. Jurisdictions
• 15:57
  Speaker 2: The court did not address the jurisdictional, issue but there's
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: been a simmering dispute about whether or not federal employees
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: can go to federal court to raise Their constitutional And
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: Administrative Procedure act, claims or whether they should go to the.
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: Tribunals The congress itself has set up to hear employee,
• 16:17
  Speaker 2: disputes such as THE Neuri Assistance Protection board and The
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: Federal Labor Relations. Authority so it may be that that,
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: question which there is no definitive answer about when employees
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: can bypass those administrative. Tribunals but it may be that
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: she has doubts about whether The court even had proper
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: jurisdiction over this, case because instead those claims should have
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: followed the congressional course and been vetted first in these specialized.
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: Tribunals The court has.
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: Been making so many important decisions on the emergency.
• 16:52
  Speaker 2: Docket you're certainly right that the shadow docket has become
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: more and more, important and the number of so called
• 17:00
  Speaker 2: wins of The trump administration certainly exceed their. Losses and you,
• 17:05
  Speaker 2: know one hopes that a lot of these cases will
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: get to final judgment and so The Supreme court be
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: forced to actually weigh in on the merits of the,
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: case as opposed to just stopping the lower courts from
• 17:18
  Speaker 2: enjoining the government's actions prior to a final.
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: Decision and you, know to The trump, administration everything's in
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: emergency at some, point shouldn't The court, say, no this
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: is not an.
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: Emergency, yeah The court has been very, cavalier if you,
• 17:33
  Speaker 2: will in terms of balancing the. HARMS i think the
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: reduction in forced case that we talked about is a
• 17:39
  Speaker 2: good illustration of, that, because, yes the government wants to
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: save money and restructure the federal, government and there is
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: a loss if they can't do that to what they
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: consider to be the public. Good but on the other,
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: hand the dislocation and financial deprivations that these employees may
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: face should be, counted perhaps even more, greatly and the
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: court's not doing that.
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: ALSO i, mean they're doing this on the emergency, docket
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: without full, briefing without oral, arguments and then sometimes you,
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: know there's not even an opinion to explain what they.
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: Decided it doesn't leave much guidance for the lower. Courts.
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: No in a greed illustration of that is the birthright citizenship,
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: case because The court ignored the very question of birthright.
• 18:25
  Speaker 2: Citizenship both in terms of the balance of hardships somebody
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: who might be supported who otherwise could claim birthright citizenship is,
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: enormous and in terms of the merits of the. Question
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: it seems like it's almost a well god conclusion that
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: The trump position will be. Reversed and yet The court
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: chose not even to address those kinds of harms in
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: deciding that the universal injunction was. Inappropriate so what the
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: court picks and chooses in the shadow docket to ADDRESS
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: i think should be open to.
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: Criticism it certainly has been, criticized even by some of
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: the justices. Themselves thanks so, Much. Hal That's Professor Harold
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: krent of The Chicago Kent college Of. Law and that's
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: it for this edition Of The Bloomberg Law. Show remember
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on Our
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg law. Podcasts you can find them On Apple, Podcasts,
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: spotify and at www Dot bloomberg dot, Com slash Podcast Slash.
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: Law and remember to tune Into The Bloomberg Law show
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: every weeknight at ten. Pm Wall Street. Time I'm June
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: grosso and you're listening To bloomberg