Latest / Bloomberg Law / Sarah Palin Loses Libel Lawsuit & Harvard Sues Trump

Transcript

Sarah Palin Loses Libel Lawsuit & Harvard Sues Trump · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin became well known back in
0:12
Speaker 2: two thousand and eight as the late John McCain's vice
0:15
Speaker 2: presidential running mate. She also became well known for a
0:19
Speaker 2: series of verbal slips, gaffes, and generally cringeworthy moments.
0:24
Speaker 3: There are next door neighbors, and you can actually see
0:27
Speaker 3: Russia from land here in Alaska. Obviously got to.
0:31
Speaker 1: Stand with arden North Korean allies.
0:33
Speaker 4: We're bound to by trees, bound by Yeah.
0:37
Speaker 3: I told Congress, thanks, but no thanks for that bridge
0:40
Speaker 3: to nowhere up in Alaska.
0:42
Speaker 2: Since then, Palin's star has gradually faded, although the spotlight
0:46
Speaker 2: returned in twenty seventeen when she sued The New York
0:50
Speaker 2: Times for defamation. But this week, for the second time,
0:54
Speaker 2: a Manhattan jury found that the Times did not defame Palin.
0:59
Speaker 2: Joining me is an expert in First Amendment law. Samantha Barbis,
1:03
Speaker 2: a professor of law at the University of Iowa College
1:06
Speaker 2: of Law, tell us why Pale ensued the Times.
1:09
Speaker 4: So this story goes back to twenty eleven, when there
1:14
Speaker 4: was a tragic shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords in Arizona,
1:19
Speaker 4: and six years later there was another tragic shooting at
1:25
Speaker 4: a baseball game in which various Republican politicians were participating
1:30
Speaker 4: and the congressman was hit. And the day after that,
1:34
Speaker 4: The New York Times ran an editorial in which it
1:38
Speaker 4: suggested that there was a link between kind of violent
1:44
Speaker 4: political environment that various people were promoting and these tragic
1:49
Speaker 4: mass shootings. In particular, it pointed to a digital graphic
1:54
Speaker 4: that had been produced by Sarah Palin's Political Action Committee
1:58
Speaker 4: I think back in two thousand eleves than around the
2:00
Speaker 4: time of the Arizona shooting, and that graphic used crosshairs
2:05
Speaker 4: to target various congressional districts that I guess Palin was
2:11
Speaker 4: interested in focusing on, interested in having her campaign focus
2:15
Speaker 4: on these democratic political districts. But The New York Times
2:18
Speaker 4: suggested that that was actually kind of an incitement to violence,
2:22
Speaker 4: the use of crosshairs and kind of inciting people to
2:27
Speaker 4: take dicious action against their political enemies. And so the
2:32
Speaker 4: Times effectively linked that graphics to the shooting of Gavin
2:36
Speaker 4: Gifford in Arizona, and Sarah Palin said that this was false,
2:41
Speaker 4: that her Political Action Committee had nothing to do with
2:45
Speaker 4: the shooting, and that her reputation was injured, she was defamed,
2:49
Speaker 4: and that's the origin of her libel claim against The
2:52
Speaker 4: New York Times.
2:53
Speaker 2: This legal fight has been going on for eight years now,
2:56
Speaker 2: and this is the second time that a jury has
2:59
Speaker 2: heard the case and ruled against her. What happened the first.
3:03
Speaker 4: Time, so the first time this was in twenty twenty two.
3:08
Speaker 4: And importantly, the standard here is actual malice. So because
3:14
Speaker 4: Sarah Palin is a public figure, she had to show
3:18
Speaker 4: that the false statement was made with reckless disregarding the truth,
3:23
Speaker 4: so that the Times either knew the statement was false
3:25
Speaker 4: and published in any way, or had really strong reason
3:28
Speaker 4: to believe that the statement was untrue. And during the
3:32
Speaker 4: trial the evidence was presented about what the Time opinion
3:36
Speaker 4: page editor knew and did not know when this editorial
3:40
Speaker 4: was issued. And the judge, Judge Raycoff, at the close
3:46
Speaker 4: of the trial suggested that even if the jury found
3:51
Speaker 4: for Sarah Palin, he would set aside the decision. And
3:57
Speaker 4: while the jury was deliberating currently, they were notified of
4:02
Speaker 4: Judge Bracoff's pronouncement that he would satisfy the verdict, and
4:06
Speaker 4: some of them even got push notifications on their phones
4:09
Speaker 4: about this. They obviously found in favor of the Times,
4:12
Speaker 4: and Sarah Palin appealed, suggesting that these procedural irregularities narrated
4:20
Speaker 4: a new trial, and that's why we had the trial
4:23
Speaker 4: that concluded a couple of days ago.
4:26
Speaker 2: The person in charge of the Times opinion section admitted
4:29
Speaker 2: he'd made a mistake, said he acted quickly to rectify it.
4:33
Speaker 2: So was the main question for the jury whether he
4:37
Speaker 2: acted with reckless disregard for the truth?
4:40
Speaker 4: Yeah, So, again the issue was what did the Times
4:45
Speaker 4: editor know at the time he made the decision to
4:49
Speaker 4: publish this editorial? Did he know that these statements were false,
4:53
Speaker 4: connecting Palin to the shooting? Did he have strong reason
4:58
Speaker 4: to believe that the statements were fall and nevertheless allow
5:01
Speaker 4: them to be issued. And so it's the Times argument
5:05
Speaker 4: that you know, we were careless right, We made a mistake.
5:08
Speaker 4: We apologized our journalism was sloppy here, but we attempted
5:13
Speaker 4: to correct that as quickly as possible. And what we
5:16
Speaker 4: did didn't rise to the level of reckless disregard to
5:18
Speaker 4: the truth. It was merely negligent, and that's not sufficient
5:22
Speaker 4: in a libel case. Involving a public figure.
5:25
Speaker 2: So did Palin's testimony relate at all to that question
5:28
Speaker 2: or was it just about damages?
5:31
Speaker 4: So Palin's testimony was about the harm that she alleged
5:36
Speaker 4: that she'd suffered. She said things like, you know, it
5:40
Speaker 4: kicked the oomph out of you. I guess the language
5:42
Speaker 4: she used right to describe how injurious these statements were
5:46
Speaker 4: to her sense of self, her emotional states. But interestingly,
5:50
Speaker 4: I don't think she was able to demonstrate that she'd
5:53
Speaker 4: actually suffered reputational harm. I don't think she lost any
5:57
Speaker 4: speaking engagements or book deals or anything tangible as a
6:02
Speaker 4: result of this allegation. But yes, her testimony was mainly
6:06
Speaker 4: on the harm that she had suffered.
6:08
Speaker 2: So what do you think the message is after a
6:10
Speaker 2: second jury, basically with the same set of facts, comes
6:14
Speaker 2: to the conclusion that The Times didn't defame her.
6:18
Speaker 4: Yeah, well, I think the conclusion is that actual malice
6:22
Speaker 4: is a very high barred clear and that it does
6:27
Speaker 4: a good job of protecting the press in situations where
6:31
Speaker 4: there may be an honest mistake, a mistake that a
6:35
Speaker 4: responsible news publication goes out of his way to attempt
6:38
Speaker 4: to correct. And you know, actual malice says that that's
6:43
Speaker 4: not punishable. So now there's the question of whether or
6:47
Speaker 4: not Palin will attempt to appeal this, and whether this
6:52
Speaker 4: win for The Times will sort of fuel the momentum
6:55
Speaker 4: that's out there to get the Supreme Court to reconsider
6:59
Speaker 4: the actual malice standard that's kind of lurking in the
7:01
Speaker 4: background of this.
7:03
Speaker 2: I think Palin's lawyers said that they wanted to use
7:06
Speaker 2: this to attack the precedent the landmark New York Times
7:10
Speaker 2: the Sullivan case explain how that case has come under
7:14
Speaker 2: fire recently.
7:16
Speaker 4: So the attack on New York Times versus Sullivan really
7:20
Speaker 4: started in earnest I think back in twenty sixteen when
7:24
Speaker 4: Trump announced that he wanted to open up libel laws
7:28
Speaker 4: to make it easier for him than his allies to
7:30
Speaker 4: sue the press for libel, and I think what he
7:33
Speaker 4: was referring to was getting the Supreme Court to overworld
7:38
Speaker 4: New York Times versus Sullivan. So Ever since then, there
7:42
Speaker 4: have been a number of conservative lawyers and activist groups
7:46
Speaker 4: and pundits who have been making this case, arguing that
7:50
Speaker 4: Sullivan is outdated, that it doesn't protect reputation enough, that
7:56
Speaker 4: it protects the lying press, and that it needs to go.
8:02
Speaker 4: And these pundits and lawyers have been focusing in particular
8:07
Speaker 4: on some cases decided by the Supreme Court after Sullivan
8:11
Speaker 4: in nineteen sixty seven, when it extended the Sullivan actual
8:15
Speaker 4: malice standard of public figures. The Sullivan dealt only with
8:19
Speaker 4: public officials, and so the extension, sometimes called the progeny
8:25
Speaker 4: of Sullivan, really create a broad protection for the past
8:28
Speaker 4: against libel suits. But that has really been a target
8:32
Speaker 4: of these opponents. They want the court to get rid
8:35
Speaker 4: of that public figure standard or to limit the definition
8:38
Speaker 4: of who is a public figure. And you know, we
8:41
Speaker 4: may see that having increasing traction in the coming years.
8:45
Speaker 2: You've written a best selling book on the subject, called
8:48
Speaker 2: Actual Malice. Do you think that the standard is too
8:52
Speaker 2: high or unfair?
8:54
Speaker 4: No, I think that the New York Times versus Sullivan's
8:58
Speaker 4: standard and the extent the public figures really strikes an
9:02
Speaker 4: appropriate balance between the protection of reputation and protections for
9:07
Speaker 4: freedom of speech and press. It is possible to recover
9:12
Speaker 4: for injury your reputation under our constitutional regime. Right if
9:16
Speaker 4: you can show this reckless disregard to the truth, you
9:19
Speaker 4: will be able to prevail. So it's not that libel
9:22
Speaker 4: law is dead. As some have said, it's just very
9:25
Speaker 4: difficult to meet the standard, and that's because we need
9:29
Speaker 4: to have a press that is free and robust. The
9:33
Speaker 4: Court said in Sullivan, press that can make an honest
9:37
Speaker 4: mistake in the course of gathering the news when procedures
9:42
Speaker 4: may be time pressured. So I think we have a
9:46
Speaker 4: system that's worked very well for the past sixty years,
9:49
Speaker 4: that it's really allowed a lot of important journalism to flourish,
9:53
Speaker 4: but still allows the same people to recover when they
9:56
Speaker 4: can meet that standard.
9:57
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm not sure how many people really followed
10:00
Speaker 2: this case. It did get a lot of publicity. Do
10:03
Speaker 2: you think the loss here encourages the movement to get
10:07
Speaker 2: rid of the New York Times v. Sullivan's standard? What's
10:11
Speaker 2: the impact of a loss in a case like this.
10:14
Speaker 4: Yeah, so I think they could point to this and say,
10:17
Speaker 4: you know, there was clearly wrongdoing on the part of
10:19
Speaker 4: the Times. The Times admitted its mistake. Nevertheless, under our
10:25
Speaker 4: current constitutional regime, the plaintiffs Palin could not recover, and
10:29
Speaker 4: they would say that's unfair and that we need to
10:32
Speaker 4: kind of lower the bar to make it easier for
10:35
Speaker 4: public figures to recover when news media have been careless.
10:40
Speaker 4: So I can see this sort of playing into that
10:43
Speaker 4: campaign that argues actual malice is just too stringent a standard.
10:48
Speaker 4: It doesn't permit people who have been injured to get
10:51
Speaker 4: the compensation that they feel they deserve.
10:54
Speaker 2: The press has been under attack lately the media, especially
11:00
Speaker 2: since Donald Trump has returned to office. Is it a
11:03
Speaker 2: surprise in any respect that the jury came back with
11:06
Speaker 2: this verdict for The New York Times or is it
11:10
Speaker 2: not because we're talking about a jury in Manhattan.
11:14
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think it was a little bit of a surprise.
11:18
Speaker 4: I mean, again, we have this trial taking place against
11:22
Speaker 4: a cultural and political backdrop that has not been very
11:27
Speaker 4: favorable to the press. The press is increasingly accused of
11:31
Speaker 4: nodding objective trustworthiness is questioned, and so I would not
11:36
Speaker 4: have been surprised to have seen a jury go for Palin.
11:41
Speaker 4: I think today in libel cases, even when there's weak
11:45
Speaker 4: evidence of actual malice, the jury might be motivated to
11:50
Speaker 4: be reckless disregard to the truth, just because of this
11:54
Speaker 4: distrust of the press that's so pervasive.
11:56
Speaker 2: Any final thoughts, I.
11:57
Speaker 4: Mean, I think that this could add of the momentum
12:01
Speaker 4: to overwhelm near times or sus Sullivan and the progeny cases.
12:04
Speaker 4: And so I think those of us who are concerned
12:07
Speaker 4: with press freedoms are going to be watching as closely
12:10
Speaker 4: to see what happens.
12:11
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me on the show. Today's Samantha.
12:14
Speaker 2: That's Professor Samantha Barbas of the University of Iowa College
12:17
Speaker 2: of Law. President Donald Trump's campaign to pressure elite universities
12:24
Speaker 2: into making a wide range of policy changes consistent with
12:28
Speaker 2: the administration's agenda met its first major resistance this week,
12:33
Speaker 2: when Harvard University sued the government for freezing billions of
12:37
Speaker 2: dollars in federal funding. America's oldest and richest university rejected
12:42
Speaker 2: the administration's broad demands to overhaul governance, discipline, hiring, and
12:48
Speaker 2: admissions policies that are inconsistent with the Trump agenda. The
12:53
Speaker 2: administration has framed its efforts as an initiative to fight
12:56
Speaker 2: campus anti semitism. Harvard's president Alan Garber said no government,
13:02
Speaker 2: regardless of which parties in power, should dictate what private
13:06
Speaker 2: universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and
13:10
Speaker 2: which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. Joining
13:15
Speaker 2: me is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis tell us about
13:19
Speaker 2: the demands that the Trump administration made on Harvard. In
13:24
Speaker 2: that I think five page letter.
13:27
Speaker 5: The Trump administration wanted Harvard to overhaul its governance, discipline,
13:34
Speaker 5: and hiring policies, as well as in its diversity, equity
13:38
Speaker 5: and inclusion programs, and Harvard rejected that.
13:43
Speaker 2: I mean, some of the demands were like auditing professors
13:46
Speaker 2: for plagiarism, appointing an outside overseer to make sure that
13:51
Speaker 2: academic departments were viewpoint diverse, federal government oversight of things
13:57
Speaker 2: like admissions. I mean, they were very extensive demands on
14:02
Speaker 2: Harvard that really would intrude on the way it runs
14:05
Speaker 2: its university, and many had nothing to do with anti semitism.
14:11
Speaker 5: Well, Harvard says that it would intrude on the way
14:13
Speaker 5: it runs its university, and there were demands that had
14:17
Speaker 5: to do with anti semitism. But this moment is one
14:21
Speaker 5: in which the Trump administration is pushing for a number
14:25
Speaker 5: of other changes at the university relating to hiring, discipline, governance,
14:33
Speaker 5: and so they're taking the controversy over anti semitism and
14:38
Speaker 5: trying to push Harvard and other universities to make much
14:42
Speaker 5: more sweeping changes than merely beefing up its efforts to
14:47
Speaker 5: protect Jewish students against anti semitism.
14:50
Speaker 2: The funding cuts go basically to medical research. It's not
14:54
Speaker 2: about what's happening at the university itself. It's about funding
14:58
Speaker 2: cuts to things like research on childhood cancer, multiple scroses,
15:03
Speaker 2: Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's.
15:05
Speaker 5: At the moment, they're funding freezes, and the freeze would
15:09
Speaker 5: also impact the education of thousands of graduate students and
15:14
Speaker 5: postdoctorate fellows in science, technology, medicine, and public health. According
15:20
Speaker 5: to the Harvard lawsuit that's in federal court in Boston.
15:24
Speaker 2: In the lawsuit says that the government can't identify any
15:29
Speaker 2: rational connection between anti semitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological,
15:35
Speaker 2: and other research it has frozen. What's the administration's response
15:39
Speaker 2: to that?
15:40
Speaker 5: The Trump administration would essentially say that, I guess the
15:46
Speaker 5: entire university and its hospitals and research divisions are infected
15:52
Speaker 5: by this anti semitism and DEI push at the university.
15:58
Speaker 5: Under the law, the the Civil Rights Act of nineteen
16:02
Speaker 5: sixty four, Title six says that an institution cannot discriminate
16:09
Speaker 5: based on race, color, or national origin. And Harvard says
16:16
Speaker 5: that the only way the government can punish a university
16:20
Speaker 5: under that law is to withhold funds in the specific
16:25
Speaker 5: program or area of the school that's affected by whatever
16:30
Speaker 5: the discrimination is, so that if there's say a department
16:35
Speaker 5: where there is anti semitism, it would be funding for
16:40
Speaker 5: that department or some area of research, say that's affected
16:44
Speaker 5: by anti semitism. That should be the area that should
16:47
Speaker 5: be punished, not the entire university.
16:50
Speaker 2: And Harvard is also claiming that the funding can be
16:54
Speaker 2: withheld only after there's proper procedure. The administration has to
17:00
Speaker 2: tell the school exactly what it's doing that violates the
17:04
Speaker 2: Civil Rights Act, and there has to be an opportunity
17:07
Speaker 2: for the school to respond, and there's been none of
17:10
Speaker 2: that here.
17:12
Speaker 5: Right. Harvard says that they have to have a chance
17:14
Speaker 5: to correct whatever their failures are, and they did not
17:17
Speaker 5: get that chance. I would say that the administration has
17:22
Speaker 5: said that its demands were part of a negotiation process,
17:29
Speaker 5: but Harvard didn't see it that way. They saw it
17:32
Speaker 5: as a much more extreme measure. And so now that
17:38
Speaker 5: they've filed a lawsuit in federal court, it doesn't necessarily
17:42
Speaker 5: mean that any negotiations will stop. Civil lawsuits often end
17:47
Speaker 5: through negotiated settlements.
17:49
Speaker 2: There's also a First Amendment claim in the lawsuit tell
17:52
Speaker 2: us about that.
17:53
Speaker 5: Well, Harvard is a private institution, and it is arguing
17:59
Speaker 5: that the government cannot dictate what the mix of speech
18:06
Speaker 5: and ideology is at the university, That as a university,
18:11
Speaker 5: it tries to promote a diverse array of viewpoints and
18:16
Speaker 5: ideology among its faculty and students and programs, and that
18:25
Speaker 5: that right to do so is protected by the First
18:28
Speaker 5: Amendment on free speech grounds, and that the government cannot
18:33
Speaker 5: dictate to a private university what the proper mix of
18:37
Speaker 5: speech and ideology must be.
18:39
Speaker 2: The administration is reportedly planning to freeze another one billion
18:44
Speaker 2: dollars in research funding, and it's weighing revoking Harvard's tax
18:49
Speaker 2: exem status right.
18:51
Speaker 5: These are all threats that have been published or floated,
18:56
Speaker 5: and they have not happened yet. But these are concerns
19:00
Speaker 5: that Harvard has raised in its lawsuit, and presumably by
19:06
Speaker 5: taking it into court, it can block future actions in
19:11
Speaker 5: the near term, at least by the administration until the
19:14
Speaker 5: case is resolved.
19:15
Speaker 2: Has Harvard taken steps to address anti Semitism on campus.
19:19
Speaker 5: Harvard has taken a number of steps its disciplined faculty
19:24
Speaker 5: and students. It has a task force on anti Semitism
19:30
Speaker 5: that's done work and is about to produce a report,
19:33
Speaker 5: and it has tried to change the tone on campus
19:38
Speaker 5: from the initial days and weeks after the October twenty
19:43
Speaker 5: twenty three attacked by Hamas on Israel and the protests
19:50
Speaker 5: on campus and nationwide over Israel's response in Gaza is
19:56
Speaker 5: what led to many Jewish students saying that they were
20:02
Speaker 5: targeted by antisemitic behavior.
20:05
Speaker 2: So now let's talk about the legal team that Harvard
20:08
Speaker 2: has hired. Two conservative lawyers with connections to the Trump administration.
20:13
Speaker 5: One of them is Bill Burke of Quinn Emmanuel, and
20:16
Speaker 5: he is a conservative lawyer who actually works as the
20:22
Speaker 5: outside ethics advisor for the Trump Organization for the president's
20:27
Speaker 5: private business, and he's also represented a number of billionaires
20:32
Speaker 5: and conservative causes in his career. He is said to
20:37
Speaker 5: have a very engaging manner and formidable courtroom skills, and
20:42
Speaker 5: is in some ways ideologically aligned with Trump. He's represented,
20:47
Speaker 5: for instance, Ken Griffin in his lawsuit against the Irs.
20:52
Speaker 5: Griffin's tax returns were stolen by an IRS contractor and
20:57
Speaker 5: leaked to the media. He helped to extract an apology
21:00
Speaker 5: from the IRS, and he represented a number of Trump
21:05
Speaker 5: insiders in the Mueller investigation in the first term. His
21:09
Speaker 5: co counsel in this case is Robert Herr, who is
21:15
Speaker 5: also a conservative lawyer of King and Spalding, and he
21:19
Speaker 5: investigated Joe Biden's handling of classified documents. His report was
21:25
Speaker 5: notable because he described Biden as a well meaning elderly
21:30
Speaker 5: man with a poor memory.
21:32
Speaker 2: During the congressional testimony of her Burke represented her. So,
21:36
Speaker 2: I think that's interesting. But just today President Trump on
21:40
Speaker 2: truth Social said Harvard is a threat to democracy with
21:44
Speaker 2: a lawyer who represents me and who should therefore be
21:47
Speaker 2: forced to resign immediately or be fired. He's not that
21:50
Speaker 2: good anyway, and I hope that my very big and
21:53
Speaker 2: beautiful company now run by my sons gets rid of
21:56
Speaker 2: him asap. And just like that, asap, the Trump organization
22:03
Speaker 2: fired Burke. Eric Trump said in an email's statement to
22:07
Speaker 2: Bloomberg News, I view it as conflict and I will
22:10
Speaker 2: be moving in a different direction. Burke declined to comment.
22:15
Speaker 2: Let's turn now to someone Trump can't fire. The judge
22:19
Speaker 2: in the case. Federal judge Allison Burrows, who was a
22:23
Speaker 2: prosecutor and a private lawyer before becoming a judge, and
22:28
Speaker 2: who has been involved in a lot of high profile cases,
22:31
Speaker 2: including some that involve Harvard right.
22:35
Speaker 5: She handled the affirmative Action case a few years ago,
22:40
Speaker 5: in which she upheld Harvard's position, but was later overturned
22:46
Speaker 5: by the Supreme Court, which ruled that race could not
22:51
Speaker 5: be a factor in admissions. She also recently blocked the
22:56
Speaker 5: Trump administration from capping overhead and an administrative costs for
23:02
Speaker 5: government funded research at nine universities, including Princeton and MIT.
23:08
Speaker 2: This attack on Harvard is part of the Trump administration's
23:11
Speaker 2: attack on elite universities. Why an attack on elite universities?
23:17
Speaker 2: What does Trump have against them? He went to the
23:19
Speaker 2: University of Pennsylvania.
23:21
Speaker 5: I can't get into the mind of the president. I
23:24
Speaker 5: know that he believes that there's group think at these universities,
23:30
Speaker 5: that they have a liberal bias that is unfair to
23:35
Speaker 5: him and his supporters and the worldview that he espouses.
23:40
Speaker 5: And I believe that he thinks they've placed too much
23:44
Speaker 5: emphasis on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and that has
23:51
Speaker 5: made them weaker as institutions. He also is very strongly
23:57
Speaker 5: supportive of Israel and believes that they're been far too
24:02
Speaker 5: many anti Semitic attacks and protests on campuses. Since October
24:07
Speaker 5: twenty twenty.
24:08
Speaker 2: Three, Trump has already canceled four hundred million dollars in
24:12
Speaker 2: federal money to Columbia and issued freezes on funding at Columbia, Cornell,
24:18
Speaker 2: Northwestern Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania. But Harvard is
24:22
Speaker 2: the only one that has fought back and file suit.
24:25
Speaker 2: Columbia caved.
24:27
Speaker 5: That makes the Harvard lawsuit a significant milestone in this
24:31
Speaker 5: attack on higher education. Until this moment, when Harvard sued,
24:37
Speaker 5: universities were trying to essentially cut deals on their own,
24:40
Speaker 5: which is what many of the biggest law firms did
24:43
Speaker 5: as well. There have been several law firms that have sued,
24:46
Speaker 5: and the common thread is that they believe they have
24:50
Speaker 5: free speech rights that they're defending and it allows them
24:54
Speaker 5: to express themselves through their business activities or their educational
24:59
Speaker 5: activity as they see fit, and that the government cannot
25:02
Speaker 5: intrude on that. Against that, Trump is threatening the loss
25:06
Speaker 5: of federal business or contracts or funding, and he brings
25:11
Speaker 5: a great deal of political firepower to this fight that
25:17
Speaker 5: these institutions, the universities, and the law firms are acutely
25:21
Speaker 5: aware of and have to navigate at this moment.
25:24
Speaker 2: And Harvard is asking the judge to expedite its lawsuit
25:28
Speaker 2: through some rey judgment. So we'll see where that goes.
25:31
Speaker 2: Thanks David. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis. This is Bloomberg.
25:37
Speaker 2: President Trump has been turning to the Supreme Court over
25:41
Speaker 2: and over again as lower court judges reign in his
25:44
Speaker 2: efforts to push the limits of executive power, asking the
25:48
Speaker 2: Court to intervene immediately on an emergency basis to overrule
25:53
Speaker 2: lower court judges. And again today, for the tenth time
25:58
Speaker 2: in the three months since he took office, the Trump
26:00
Speaker 2: administration is asking the Supreme Court to block a federal
26:04
Speaker 2: judges ruling that put the new ban on transgender service
26:08
Speaker 2: members on hold while the legal challenge by a group
26:12
Speaker 2: of service members proceeds. Ten times so far, that's more
26:17
Speaker 2: than the total number of such emergency request during the
26:20
Speaker 2: sixteen years of the presidencies of Barack Obama and George W. Bush.
26:26
Speaker 2: And it puts a new test of LGBTQ rights and
26:30
Speaker 2: presidential power before the justices. The Supreme Court allowed Trump's
26:34
Speaker 2: transgender military ban during his first term in office, but
26:38
Speaker 2: the new policy goes further. It would mean the expulsion
26:42
Speaker 2: of potentially thousands of members of the armed forces, including
26:46
Speaker 2: people who have served openly for years. Joining me is Bloomberg.
26:50
Speaker 2: Supreme Court reporter Greg Store Greg tell us about the
26:53
Speaker 2: latest emergency request by the Trump administration.
26:57
Speaker 1: The administration is asking the Supreme Court to let it
26:59
Speaker 1: ban transgender service members. The President issued the executive order
27:04
Speaker 1: on January twenty seventh, thing all transgender service members, with
27:10
Speaker 1: very few exceptions, has to leave the military, and we're
27:12
Speaker 1: not going to allow other people to enlist. A lower
27:16
Speaker 1: court block that, and the administration is asking the Supreme
27:21
Speaker 1: Court to lift that hold.
27:22
Speaker 2: Yeah, So the lower court judge said that the government's
27:26
Speaker 2: arguments are not persuasive and it's not an especially close question.
27:32
Speaker 2: And there are two cases involving the transgender military ban
27:36
Speaker 2: making their way through the system, one where the Ninth
27:41
Speaker 2: Circuit refused to hear the appeal and another one where
27:45
Speaker 2: the DC's Circuit heard arguments.
27:48
Speaker 1: So what's that the Supreme Court right now is just
27:51
Speaker 1: one case out of the federal judge and to come
27:54
Speaker 1: in Washington, where the judge blocked the policy nationwide. The
27:59
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit refused to intervene there. There's also a second
28:02
Speaker 1: case that is currently at the Federal Appeals Court here
28:05
Speaker 1: in Washington, similar issues, but at the moment there's not
28:08
Speaker 1: a nationwide injunction there.
28:10
Speaker 2: I mean, usually the Supreme Court, you know, like the
28:12
Speaker 2: lower courts to look at things before they take it.
28:16
Speaker 1: Yeah, and we'll see that the Supreme Court could well
28:18
Speaker 1: wait for the DC Circuit Fiederal Appeals Court here in
28:21
Speaker 1: Washington to act before doing anything. On the other hand,
28:26
Speaker 1: this is a topic that the Court is familiar with,
28:29
Speaker 1: at least most of the numbers, because the Trump administration
28:33
Speaker 1: the first time around had a policy that didn't go
28:36
Speaker 1: quite as far. But the Supreme Court let the Trump
28:39
Speaker 1: administration ban transgender people from serving back the first time around.
28:44
Speaker 1: The difference is whether a couple differences. One, this would
28:48
Speaker 1: actually force people who are openly transgender to leave the military.
28:54
Speaker 1: And secondly, there's been an awful lot of experience with
28:57
Speaker 1: transgender people in the military, and one of the arguments
29:00
Speaker 1: in this case is that the administration didn't even look
29:03
Speaker 1: at what the experience was and whether or not those
29:06
Speaker 1: folks were serving successfully.
29:08
Speaker 2: During the first administration when it allowed the band to
29:11
Speaker 2: go forward, Was that just on a temporary basis as
29:13
Speaker 2: the cases made their way through the courts.
29:16
Speaker 1: It was, but that ultimately ended up going into effect
29:21
Speaker 1: more permanently, or at least throughout the rest of that
29:25
Speaker 1: first Trump administration before President Joe Biden came into office
29:29
Speaker 1: and reversed it.
29:30
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court asked the challengers to file a response
29:35
Speaker 2: by May first. What does that mean? Does that mean
29:37
Speaker 2: the Court's going to consider it, is going to take it,
29:40
Speaker 2: or nothing at all?
29:41
Speaker 1: Nothing at all. That's a pretty standard step. And it
29:44
Speaker 1: was actually Justice Alaina Kagan, who's the justices assigned to
29:47
Speaker 1: handle matters out of the Ninth Circuit. That was her
29:50
Speaker 1: asking for it. And that's a pretty standard step whenever
29:53
Speaker 1: you get an emergency application like this, and a week
29:56
Speaker 1: is kind of a standard period of time. If there's
29:59
Speaker 1: no impelling reasons that do it more quickly than that
30:03
Speaker 1: doesn't mean they're going to take it. In fact, the
30:04
Speaker 1: Trump administration hasn't asked them to take the case, hasn't
30:07
Speaker 1: asked them to grant sert to use legalise there. The
30:12
Speaker 1: only thing the administration is asking for is let us
30:14
Speaker 1: go ahead and start implementing this ban while the litigation
30:18
Speaker 1: goes forward. Now, I say, just that could mean that
30:21
Speaker 1: people are actually expelled from the military during the course
30:24
Speaker 1: of the litigation.
30:25
Speaker 2: So this is the tenth time the Trump administration has
30:29
Speaker 2: filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court. I'm sure
30:34
Speaker 2: no other administration has filed so many emergency applications at
30:39
Speaker 2: the beginning of an administration. I mean under President Biden,
30:44
Speaker 2: the government sought emergency relief nineteen times in four years.
30:50
Speaker 2: So Greg and how many of these cases has the
30:52
Speaker 2: Supreme Court granted the Trump application?
30:55
Speaker 1: In roughly half. But in some cases the Court has
31:00
Speaker 1: has sort of split the difference or given a little
31:02
Speaker 1: bit to each side. So for example, there was the
31:05
Speaker 1: case where they lifted the nationwide order that had blocked
31:11
Speaker 1: deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. But in that same decision,
31:16
Speaker 1: the court also said, but hey, people are entitled to
31:19
Speaker 1: an opportunity to appear before and judge before they are
31:23
Speaker 1: deported under the Alien Enemies Act. There's another one where
31:26
Speaker 1: they're going to hear arguments. It's still at the emergency stage.
31:29
Speaker 1: But the birthright citizenship case. They're going to hear arguments there,
31:33
Speaker 1: and then there's still another one that is, as we speak,
31:36
Speaker 1: pending involving whether the president can fire the heads of
31:41
Speaker 1: independent federal agencies.
31:43
Speaker 2: So, speaking of the birthright citizenship where they set a
31:47
Speaker 2: special argument session in May, why do you think they
31:51
Speaker 2: did that. I think it's narrowed to nationwide injunctions. I mean,
31:55
Speaker 2: what's the emergency there.
31:57
Speaker 1: I'm going to be speculating here because we don't know sure.
32:00
Speaker 1: All we know is that they agreed to hear arguments
32:02
Speaker 1: that said, this issue that you alluded to, involving nationwide
32:06
Speaker 1: injunctions is something that the justices have been clear they're
32:10
Speaker 1: really interested in. Members of both parties have complained about
32:13
Speaker 1: nationwide injunctions, mostly at least certainly these days Republicans, And
32:17
Speaker 1: the idea is, the argument is that a single judge
32:20
Speaker 1: shouldn't have the authority to block a policy nationwide, and
32:24
Speaker 1: that judge should limit whatever he or she does to
32:27
Speaker 1: the parties before them in that case. And it's an
32:31
Speaker 1: issue that the Court, at least on the face of it,
32:35
Speaker 1: just wanted to think about a little bit more. Now
32:38
Speaker 1: in the context of birthright citizenship, This is a case
32:42
Speaker 1: where the President has announced a policy to limit birthright
32:47
Speaker 1: citizenship to the people who are born of either a
32:51
Speaker 1: citizen or somebody who has a green card, and that
32:55
Speaker 1: would be a massive change in the way the Constitution's
32:59
Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment has been understood for the last one hundred
33:02
Speaker 1: plus years. And if the Court were to use this
33:06
Speaker 1: issue of nationwide injunctions to say, oh, the judges who
33:10
Speaker 1: blocked that new Trump policy can only do so for
33:13
Speaker 1: the people in front of them, that would have a
33:16
Speaker 1: tremendous practical effect because it would mean that the President
33:19
Speaker 1: could implement that policy restricting birthright citizenship in most or
33:26
Speaker 1: depending on how exactly the Court does it, maybe maybe
33:28
Speaker 1: just half, but a big part of the country. And
33:30
Speaker 1: that would obviously be a very huge decision from a
33:34
Speaker 1: practical standpoint, Even if technically it's only about that issue
33:39
Speaker 1: of nationwide injunctions.
33:40
Speaker 2: There should be interesting arguments in mid May. Thanks so much, Greg.
33:45
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg store. In other legal
33:49
Speaker 2: news today, grieving relatives and survivors of a mass shooting
33:54
Speaker 2: at a July fourth parade in twenty twenty two in
33:58
Speaker 2: Highland Park, Illinois, recounted howering details for hours in a
34:02
Speaker 2: pack courtroom this week, telling a judge that the attack
34:06
Speaker 2: has done long lasting damage, while the man who admitted
34:10
Speaker 2: to carefully planning the shooting remained out of sight in
34:14
Speaker 2: his jail cell. The long awaited sentencing hearing for Robert
34:18
Speaker 2: Crimo the third brought together dozens of people whose lives
34:22
Speaker 2: were torn apart by the shooting in the Lake Michigan
34:25
Speaker 2: suburb north of Chicago. Even as they were accustomed to
34:29
Speaker 2: Grimau's erratic behavior, skipping hearings, backing out of a deal
34:34
Speaker 2: with prosecutors, changing his flea, and firing attorneys, survivors said
34:39
Speaker 2: his absence set off a range of emotions, including relief, anger,
34:43
Speaker 2: and closure. Here's Liz Turnip Speed, who was seriously injured
34:48
Speaker 2: in the shooting and now has to rely on a cane.
34:52
Speaker 3: I don't have to think about him anymore. I don't
34:54
Speaker 3: have to worry about him anymore, and me and my
34:59
Speaker 3: husband and my daughter can continue to move forward and
35:05
Speaker 3: I can continue to heal.
35:07
Speaker 2: Judge Victoria Rosetti gave Cremo seven sentences of life in prison,
35:13
Speaker 2: one for each of the people he killed, and fifty
35:17
Speaker 2: years in prison for each of the people he injured.
35:20
Speaker 2: There's no possibility of parole.
35:23
Speaker 3: I was able to hear Judge Zetti sentence him. I'm
35:29
Speaker 3: not going to use his name to fifty years for
35:33
Speaker 3: my attempted murder. And while I don't have closure, it's
35:40
Speaker 3: closing a chapter on this part of our lives.
35:46
Speaker 2: The judge said that there were no words that could
35:49
Speaker 2: adequately describe and capture the horror and pain that was
35:53
Speaker 2: inflicted on that July fourth. She added that Cremo is quote,
35:58
Speaker 2: irretrievably depraved, permanently incorrigible, irreparably corrupt, and beyond any rehabilitation.
36:06
Speaker 2: Prosecutors say Cremo didn't show any regret, and that's it
36:11
Speaker 2: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
36:13
Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
36:16
Speaker 2: Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
36:20
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law,
36:25
Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
36:28
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
36:32
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg