Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Loses on Mail Ballots & Kennedy Center

Transcript

Trump Loses on Mail Ballots & Kennedy Center · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:09
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has refused to allow the Postal Service
0:12
Speaker 1: to enforce new restrictions on mail-in ballots for the midterms.
0:17
Speaker 1: The justices' decision on Monday night came after North Carolina
0:21
Speaker 1: and Alabama already began mailing thousands of ballots to voters
0:26
Speaker 1: and after election officials warned that late-breaking changes would inject
0:31
Speaker 1: chaos into the elections. The court held that the Trump
0:34
Speaker 1: administration was unlikely to win the merits of its challenge
0:38
Speaker 1: to a lower court's injunction and that officials failed to
0:42
Speaker 1: show they had a stronger case for immediately reviving the
0:46
Speaker 1: rules ahead of the midterms. It was a brief unsigned order,
0:50
Speaker 1: with Justice Brett Kavanaugh writing a concurrence and Justices Samuel
0:55
Speaker 1: Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting. President Donald Trump denounced the
1:01
Speaker 1: decision in a social media post, calling it a horrible,
1:04
Speaker 1: highly political ruling, but praising Alito and Thomas as legends.
1:11
Speaker 1: My guest is an expert in election law, Richard Brafault,
1:14
Speaker 1: a professor at Columbia Law School. So this is an
1:17
Speaker 1: unsigned three-sentence order. Tell us what the justices decided.
1:23
Speaker 2: The majority rejected the government's effort to lift the state.
1:29
Speaker 2: that the district court in Massachusetts had imposed on the
1:33
Speaker 2: postal services implementing its new mail ballot regulation. As you know,
1:40
Speaker 2: driven by the president, the postal services proposed to adopt
1:42
Speaker 2: new and very restrictive rules, very burdensome rules on the
1:46
Speaker 2: use of mail-in ballots that were supposed to take effect
1:49
Speaker 2: for this current midterm election. Various groups of states and
1:54
Speaker 2: voting groups, including the League of Women Voters, tried to
1:57
Speaker 2: block that process. Supreme Court ultimately said they came too early.
2:00
Speaker 2: The Postal Service should be allowed to finish its rulemaking.
2:03
Speaker 2: As soon as they issued the rule, the same groups
2:05
Speaker 2: went back to court. The district court in Massachusetts issued
2:11
Speaker 2: first a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction,
2:14
Speaker 2: which was sustained by the First Circuit, the appeals court
2:18
Speaker 2: that oversees Massachusetts, partly on the theory that they're really
2:22
Speaker 2: on the merits of the law could not be sustained,
2:25
Speaker 2: that it was inconsistent. It was really beyond the authority
2:28
Speaker 2: of the Postal Service to do anything like this. And
2:31
Speaker 2: also on the equities, on the fairness that it's so
2:34
Speaker 2: close to the election that it would be highly unlikely
2:38
Speaker 2: the Postal Service could effectively and efficiently implement this rule
2:42
Speaker 2: in less than 60 days before the election. And as
2:45
Speaker 2: a result, it would result in the denial of the
2:47
Speaker 2: vote of potentially millions of people. And so that's where
2:50
Speaker 2: things stood. of the administration brought this matter to the
2:55
Speaker 2: Supreme Court last week, I think right after, right around
2:58
Speaker 2: Labor Day. The court's order basically very briefly said deny
3:03
Speaker 2: the administration's effort to undo the stay in a brief,
3:07
Speaker 2: very short opinion, but in a brief phrase of the
3:10
Speaker 2: court's opinion suggesting that they thought that even on the merits,
3:14
Speaker 2: the government would lose. They didn't give a reason. They
3:17
Speaker 2: didn't give a justification. They didn't say whether it was
3:19
Speaker 2: a statutory problem or an administrative procedure problem or a
3:23
Speaker 2: constitutional problem, all of which had been raised in the litigation.
3:27
Speaker 2: Arguments had been raised that the Postal Service didn't go
3:29
Speaker 2: through a proper process, that it was beyond the scope
3:32
Speaker 2: of its authority under the statutes, and that as a
3:35
Speaker 2: matter of federalism and of the right to vote, this
3:37
Speaker 2: would be unconstitutional. Basically, three different levels of arguments had
3:40
Speaker 2: been raised. The courts just said that on the merits,
3:43
Speaker 2: the case against it was strong, but that in any event,
3:46
Speaker 2: as a matter of equity, given the closeness to the election,
3:49
Speaker 2: they would not lift the stay There was a brief
3:52
Speaker 2: concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh saying he thought there was
3:56
Speaker 2: a plausible case on the merits for the Postal Service rule,
4:01
Speaker 2: but that he agreed that it would be, in his language,
4:03
Speaker 2: arbitrary and capricious to allow that rule to go forward,
4:06
Speaker 2: given that it's so close to the election.
4:08
Speaker 1: I was surprised that there was any dissent. The state
4:12
Speaker 1: said that they couldn't get this done in time, and
4:15
Speaker 1: ballots have already gone out in two states.
4:18
Speaker 2: It just shows you how in the tank for the
4:20
Speaker 2: Trump administration Alito and Thomas are. I agree with you.
4:24
Speaker 2: There was both on the merits and Kavanaugh's focus on
4:27
Speaker 2: the equities. It would be impossible. Alito had a kind
4:30
Speaker 2: of a snarky line that the reason it would be
4:32
Speaker 2: so hard is if the states had fought this for
4:34
Speaker 2: so long that it had delayed the Postal Service's ability
4:36
Speaker 2: to get the rule out. But as some of the
4:38
Speaker 2: briefing noted on this matter, the Postal Service still has
4:43
Speaker 2: not opened the portal that it would be necessary for
4:46
Speaker 2: the states to send their their ballots or their ballot
4:49
Speaker 2: envelopes to, which the Postal Service said we would have
4:52
Speaker 2: to review what you're doing before we can handle them.
4:55
Speaker 2: They hadn't even opened the portal that would allow them
4:57
Speaker 2: to do that reviewing. So as of, I mean, now
5:01
Speaker 2: there's no rush, but as of close of business yesterday,
5:05
Speaker 2: at that point, we were within, what, seven weeks of
5:08
Speaker 2: the election? It would have been impossible. And indeed, some
5:10
Speaker 2: of the states had already begun to send their ballots out.
5:13
Speaker 1: And if the Supreme Court had decided this issue on
5:16
Speaker 1: the merits when it first came to them, instead of
5:20
Speaker 1: taking the off-ramp of a procedural issue, it wouldn't be
5:25
Speaker 1: this late.
5:26
Speaker 2: Alito also blamed the Supreme Court for taking so long
5:29
Speaker 2: on the earlier case. I mean, I think he was
5:32
Speaker 2: digging at his colleagues for taking until late August to
5:35
Speaker 2: dismissing the challenge by the states opposed to this. And
5:38
Speaker 2: so he basically says the court wasn't responsible for this
5:41
Speaker 2: and the states were responsible. And it was a kind
5:44
Speaker 2: of that still doesn't get around the fact that it
5:46
Speaker 2: would have been impossible for this for the states to comply.
5:49
Speaker 2: And millions of voters would have been unable to vote
5:52
Speaker 2: by mail. Millions of registered lawful citizen voters would have
5:56
Speaker 2: been unable to vote. So it's really quite a kind
5:59
Speaker 2: of a shocking opinion.
6:00
Speaker 1: And this isn't the end. This is going back to
6:02
Speaker 1: a lower court.
6:03
Speaker 2: I think it's the end for 2026. Basically, I think
6:08
Speaker 2: there's no way that the new postal regulations can be
6:11
Speaker 2: in effect for 2026. It is not the end of
6:14
Speaker 2: a proposal. My guess is there will need to be
6:16
Speaker 2: a full-fledged trial now. I mean, all of the action
6:19
Speaker 2: until now has been on an emergency basis. I think
6:22
Speaker 2: that there will need to be a full-fledged trial going forward,
6:28
Speaker 2: given the assumption that now the Postal Service and the
6:30
Speaker 2: states would have until basically until 2028. Although, I mean,
6:34
Speaker 2: it's not just for federal elections, I think. So presumably
6:37
Speaker 2: there'll be elections in 2020. but it'll have some time.
6:39
Speaker 2: And then presumably this may be back in the Supreme
6:42
Speaker 2: Court on the merits. Although the court signaled, it was
6:46
Speaker 2: very brief, but they seemed to signal on the merits,
6:49
Speaker 2: although without saying what about the merits, they found troublesome.
6:53
Speaker 2: They seemed to signal on the merits that they were
6:54
Speaker 2: not likely to support this, but you don't know. There's
6:57
Speaker 2: at least three justices who have signaled they are willing
7:00
Speaker 2: to support some kind of postal service regulation. And we
7:03
Speaker 2: don't know of the six who did not write How
7:08
Speaker 2: many of them would be willing to go forward if
7:11
Speaker 2: there was more time? We just don't know that.
7:14
Speaker 1: You know, the signaling support for the Postal Service. How
7:16
Speaker 1: did they get around the constitutional provisions about elections and
7:19
Speaker 1: allowing the Postal Service to impose these rules?
7:24
Speaker 2: You know, there are a bunch of questions. And, you know,
7:27
Speaker 2: one question is, are these election rules or postal rules?
7:30
Speaker 2: I mean, I think it's clearly going to impact how
7:32
Speaker 2: an election is run. But one argument might be their
7:35
Speaker 2: Postal Service rules. A second question that was relevant to
7:38
Speaker 2: this and Alito spent some time on is, you know,
7:41
Speaker 2: what's the procedural vehicle for challenging this? Because the Postal
7:46
Speaker 2: Service is, for the most part, is not under the
7:48
Speaker 2: Administrative Procedure Act. The Postal Reorganization Law provided special procedures
7:53
Speaker 2: for challenging new postal rules and going through a postal
7:57
Speaker 2: regulatory commission, which was sidestepped in all this because Judge
8:01
Speaker 2: Telani in Massachusetts basically said this was so beyond the
8:04
Speaker 2: scope of what the Postal Service is allowed to do.
8:06
Speaker 2: It was ultra vires, totally outside their authority that the
8:10
Speaker 2: courts could hear that. Alito basically said, we hardly ever
8:13
Speaker 2: do that. And that was a good part of his
8:15
Speaker 2: argument was that this was kind of procedurally irregular. That
8:19
Speaker 2: question may get more attention later, but I think all
8:22
Speaker 2: of this has gone very quickly. And I do think
8:24
Speaker 2: now we'll have a slower, more deliberate rule. I mean, there's,
8:28
Speaker 2: you know, I think there's a serious question before we
8:30
Speaker 2: even get to the constitutional question of the federal government
8:33
Speaker 2: of the states is whether this falls within the Congress's
8:35
Speaker 2: grant of authority. I mean, Congress does have the power
8:39
Speaker 2: under the Elections Clause of the Constitution to change the rules,
8:42
Speaker 2: to write the rules for how federal elections are run,
8:45
Speaker 2: not state elections, but how federal elections are run. And
8:48
Speaker 2: Congress could authorize something like this. And since the SAVE Act,
8:51
Speaker 2: which didn't pass, would have done something like that, that
8:54
Speaker 2: would have been the way to do this. The question is,
8:57
Speaker 2: has Congress given the Postal Service the authority to do this?
9:01
Speaker 2: And that just strikes me, if there was ever a
9:03
Speaker 2: use for the major questions doctrine, that's this. But in
9:06
Speaker 2: any event, though, The legislation that the Postal Service has
9:08
Speaker 2: been given to write rules for mail, for carrying mail,
9:12
Speaker 2: I think that there's just no basis in their current authority.
9:15
Speaker 2: So I think, you know, if you look at it,
9:17
Speaker 2: I think before we even get to the constitutional question,
9:21
Speaker 2: I think the statutory question is really real and would
9:24
Speaker 2: have to ultimately be addressed by the Supreme Court, which
9:27
Speaker 2: is maybe they were hinting at that. Maybe they were
9:30
Speaker 2: hinting at problems with the process by which the Postal
9:32
Speaker 2: Service did this. It was very cryptic, but it did
9:35
Speaker 2: use the word, you know, merits, as well as the
9:38
Speaker 2: timing issue in terms of rejecting the Postal Service rule.
9:41
Speaker 1: So many times on the shadow docket, you get brief
9:44
Speaker 1: opinions or no opinions. But here, why do you think
9:47
Speaker 1: they didn't give a more fulsome explanation? Could there be
9:52
Speaker 1: justices besides the three that we know about who have
9:55
Speaker 1: problems with the challenger's position here?
9:58
Speaker 2: It's certainly... possible. It's certainly possible. And also, you know,
10:03
Speaker 2: as a matter of kind of small C judicial conservatism,
10:07
Speaker 2: there are hard issues there. And I think a full-fledged
10:10
Speaker 2: opinion would have taken longer. And I think it was
10:12
Speaker 2: important to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. Once
10:15
Speaker 2: we got past Labor Day, it seemed just incredibly unlikely
10:20
Speaker 2: that they would allow this rule to go forward this year.
10:22
Speaker 2: Just the timing issues were in Super Bowl. And I
10:24
Speaker 2: think even you see that in Kavanaugh's opinion. But, you know,
10:27
Speaker 2: although I think many of us think that the case
10:30
Speaker 2: against Postal Service intervention here is incredibly strong, you know,
10:35
Speaker 2: there are arguments on the other side that the government
10:37
Speaker 2: was raising. And we may ultimately get a full-fledged opinion
10:41
Speaker 2: on this in another year. But, you know, there's very
10:44
Speaker 2: little case law on the powers of the Postal Service
10:47
Speaker 2: and its rulemaking authority. It's also possible, you know, even
10:51
Speaker 2: if the Democrats do well in the elections, what am
10:53
Speaker 2: I going to imagine Congress trying to adopt legislation barring
10:56
Speaker 2: this rule? Although it's unlikely we would get past the precedent. But, yeah,
11:00
Speaker 2: I think the arguments that the Postal Service just lacks
11:02
Speaker 2: statutory authority for this are just really powerful and probably
11:06
Speaker 2: need to be more fully addressed than in a quick opinion.
11:09
Speaker 2: I think the court was right to try and get
11:10
Speaker 2: this out and done as fast as possible.
11:12
Speaker 1: And now that this is over, we wait for the
11:15
Speaker 1: next election controversy. Thanks so much, Rich. That's Professor Richard
11:20
Speaker 1: Brafault of Columbia Law School. Coming up next on the
11:23
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show, President Trump threatens to stop efforts to
11:28
Speaker 1: repair the Kennedy Center unless his name is added to
11:31
Speaker 1: the building. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
11:38
Speaker 1: President Trump's fight to get his name on the Kennedy
11:41
Speaker 1: Center continued today in court and at a meeting of
11:45
Speaker 1: the center's board of directors. This afternoon, a federal judge
11:50
Speaker 1: ruled for a second time that Trump's name cannot be
11:54
Speaker 1: added to the building, rebuking the board of directors for
11:57
Speaker 1: trying to circumvent an earlier order. Federal Judge Christopher Cooper said,
12:03
Speaker 1: simply put, the board cannot install memorials for President Trump
12:08
Speaker 1: or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy Center, without
12:12
Speaker 1: Congress's blessing. After the judge's decision, the board, which was
12:17
Speaker 1: handpicked by Trump, voted to close the Kennedy Center for renovations.
12:22
Speaker 1: But Trump posted that the Justice Department will appeal the
12:26
Speaker 1: decision and, quote, if the ruling is a negative one,
12:30
Speaker 1: which it should not be, and is not overturned by
12:33
Speaker 1: the U.S. Supreme Court, the reconstruction and the renovation of
12:37
Speaker 1: the Kennedy Center will not take place. Joining me is
12:41
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Moniak, who has been covering the
12:45
Speaker 1: Kennedy Center controversy since the beginning. Start with what is
12:50
Speaker 1: the state of play right now? Tell us what the
12:53
Speaker 1: latest is on the Kennedy Center.
12:55
Speaker 3: The latest is that the Kennedy Center's board, whose members
12:58
Speaker 3: have been handpicked by President Donald Trump, are not going
13:01
Speaker 3: to be allowed to put his name back on the
13:03
Speaker 3: exterior of the building. This is the second attempt that
13:05
Speaker 3: they've made to do this. The first was to rename
13:08
Speaker 3: the center for him. This is now a stated effort
13:10
Speaker 3: to acknowledge Trump's contributions to the performing arts venue. But again,
13:15
Speaker 3: they'd wanted to acknowledge it in lettering on the outside
13:17
Speaker 3: of the building. And a judge today has said, no,
13:20
Speaker 3: they cannot do that.
13:22
Speaker 1: The board had suggested various phrases that could be used
13:26
Speaker 1: to show Trump's contribution to the Kennedy Center. And the
13:31
Speaker 1: judge just said that no way, there's no way that
13:34
Speaker 1: he's going to be allowed to add his name to
13:37
Speaker 1: the building.
13:38
Speaker 4: That's right. Judge Casey Cooper here in D.C.
13:41
Speaker 3: Made clear that the federal law that created the Kennedy
13:44
Speaker 3: Center as a memorial to assassinated President John F. Kennedy
13:48
Speaker 3: does not allow the building to have any other public
13:51
Speaker 3: memorials for other people. So not only can it not
13:54
Speaker 3: be fully renamed, there can't be any other memorial for
13:58
Speaker 3: a different person as part of the institution.
14:00
Speaker 1: They also wanted to rename the plaza there for Trump.
14:05
Speaker 4: That's right.
14:05
Speaker 3: There were a couple of different pieces to the attempted renaming.
14:09
Speaker 3: On this latest attempt, they had wanted to say that
14:12
Speaker 3: essentially introduced some kind of recognition of Trump's contributions to
14:17
Speaker 3: renovations in the building. They had also wanted to add
14:20
Speaker 3: a second line once they reached a $ 100 million fundraising goal,
14:24
Speaker 3: indicating that it was endowed by the Trump-Kennedy Fund. And thirdly,
14:28
Speaker 3: they wanted to rename the grounds of the Kennedy Center facility,
14:32
Speaker 3: the Donald J.
14:33
Speaker 4: Trump Plaza.
14:34
Speaker 3: And so what happened here today is that the D.C.
14:37
Speaker 3: judge blocked one in three of those. Number two, acknowledging
14:42
Speaker 3: a fundraising goal in the future from the endowment, he's
14:45
Speaker 3: not ruled on yet, but only because he said that
14:47
Speaker 3: that issue is premature right now, given that zero dollars
14:50
Speaker 3: have been raised, according to the government's representations in court.
14:54
Speaker 3: So that may be decided at a later date. I
14:56
Speaker 3: wouldn't expect the judge to necessarily allow it. He already
14:59
Speaker 3: indicated that he saw it as legally dubious in today's decision.
15:02
Speaker 1: What does the board say the state of the Kennedy
15:04
Speaker 1: Center is?
15:05
Speaker 3: The board has said that the Kennedy Center is currently
15:08
Speaker 3: headed toward certain fiscal collapse, quote, and materials circulated ahead
15:13
Speaker 3: of a meeting that happened today as well after today's
15:16
Speaker 3: court decision. And the facility has not been having performances
15:20
Speaker 3: ahead of an anticipated closure of the center for renovations.
15:24
Speaker 3: And that's because the Kennedy Center's board has now been
15:26
Speaker 3: voting kind of separate but related to the renaming attempts.
15:31
Speaker 3: The board is also trying to close the facility for
15:33
Speaker 3: two years for what they're saying are needed repairs for
15:36
Speaker 3: the safety of the facility. Judge Cooper here in D.C.
15:39
Speaker 3: has previously blocked the board from closing the facility after
15:43
Speaker 3: finding that a vote earlier this year that the board
15:45
Speaker 3: just didn't rely on enough information, that they relied on
15:48
Speaker 3: a one-sided presentation. And so he blocked the outcome of
15:51
Speaker 3: that vote trying to close the facility. But the board
15:54
Speaker 3: voted again in August to do so and again today.
15:57
Speaker 3: So the next steps on that aspect of the case
15:59
Speaker 3: are that the government's going to be moving to undo
16:02
Speaker 3: that part of the court's earlier ruling blocking the closure
16:05
Speaker 3: so they can close it again. So, you know, we'll
16:07
Speaker 3: see further proceedings on that issue too.
16:09
Speaker 1: And how many times has the judge said they couldn't
16:11
Speaker 1: close it?
16:12
Speaker 3: In May, the judge issued a temporary order saying that
16:15
Speaker 3: they can't close it, but he did very explicitly leave
16:17
Speaker 3: room in that decision for the board to come back
16:20
Speaker 3: to consider maybe a more fulsome presentation of information and
16:23
Speaker 3: should they decide to close it again. they could come
16:25
Speaker 3: back to court. And so that's where we're at now.
16:28
Speaker 3: They have decided to close it again based on what
16:30
Speaker 3: they will, I'm sure, represent is a more fulsome amount
16:34
Speaker 3: of information. We haven't heard from the plaintiffs yet. That's
16:37
Speaker 3: Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democratic congresswoman from Ohio who's an
16:41
Speaker 3: ex-officio trustee of the Kennedy Center. But I wouldn't be
16:44
Speaker 3: surprised if we were to hear that the challengers are, again,
16:48
Speaker 3: arguing that they see this as pretextual.
16:50
Speaker 4: Again, that was indicated at today's hearing.
16:53
Speaker 1: Before today, there was a threat that if they didn't
16:56
Speaker 1: allow his name to be on the building, that he
17:00
Speaker 1: wouldn't help with fundraising efforts.
17:03
Speaker 3: There's been a few threats of those kind regarding the
17:06
Speaker 3: impact of not allowing Trump to put his name on
17:08
Speaker 3: the building. Essentially, the position of the Kennedy Center board
17:12
Speaker 3: has been that it's necessary, you know, Trump's prestige and
17:15
Speaker 3: his prominence is required for the building to be able
17:18
Speaker 3: to fundraise. And without his help, they'll never be able
17:20
Speaker 3: to avoid financial insolvency. Latest in court, we saw a
17:26
Speaker 3: warning that perhaps the trust, the Kennedy Center could be
17:29
Speaker 3: headed toward bankruptcy and that having Trump's name would be
17:33
Speaker 3: enough to save it because Trump would be unlikely to
17:36
Speaker 3: do so if he were not appropriately recognized.
17:39
Speaker 4: This actually came up at today's court hearing.
17:41
Speaker 3: The judge asked the Justice Department lawyer point blank, can
17:44
Speaker 3: a public charitable trust like the Kennedy Center actually declare bankruptcy?
17:48
Speaker 3: And the government lawyer replied that he was not prepared
17:51
Speaker 3: to answer that question. So unclear if that is actually
17:54
Speaker 3: going to be happening. But certainly there is concern raised
17:58
Speaker 3: by the Kennedy Center board about the institution's finances. And
18:01
Speaker 3: of course, as we discussed, they haven't been holding performances
18:03
Speaker 3: for a long time. And so those concerns may not
18:06
Speaker 3: be unfounded.
18:07
Speaker 1: I mean, did the judge bring up the fact that
18:09
Speaker 1: the reason the Kennedy Center is in this situation is
18:13
Speaker 1: because Trump took it over and Suddenly artists didn't want
18:16
Speaker 1: to appear there and lots of people didn't want to
18:19
Speaker 1: go there.
18:20
Speaker 3: That's certainly the challenger's position, that this is a self-inflicted injury.
18:24
Speaker 3: And that, you know, they've argued that the Kennedy Center's board,
18:26
Speaker 3: which is led by President Donald Trump as the chair,
18:28
Speaker 3: that they have been the ones to be driving this
18:31
Speaker 3: institution into the ground.
18:32
Speaker 4: The board sees it differently.
18:34
Speaker 3: The judge himself isn't one to show too many of
18:36
Speaker 3: his cards at these hearings. So we've yet to hear
18:38
Speaker 3: from the judge explicitly on that one.
18:39
Speaker 1: So when they say they want to close the Kennedy Center,
18:42
Speaker 1: is it for renovations or just to sit there?
18:46
Speaker 3: Well, no, they have said that they want to close
18:48
Speaker 3: it for renovations. They've made the case that they believe
18:51
Speaker 3: that closing it is necessary for full renovations to be
18:54
Speaker 3: done safely. That's sort of what's at dispute here on
18:57
Speaker 3: the closure vote back earlier this year. The judge had
19:00
Speaker 3: found when they voted at the beginning of the year
19:02
Speaker 3: to close it for renovations that they just really hadn't
19:05
Speaker 3: considered other options like say, partially closing it during repairs?
19:10
Speaker 3: You know, maybe you do repairs on part of the
19:11
Speaker 3: building and keep the other half open. Or, you know,
19:14
Speaker 3: what if we only closed it for a shorter period
19:16
Speaker 3: of time for certain repairs? You know, just other options
19:18
Speaker 3: that one could do outside of a full-scale two-year closure. So,
19:22
Speaker 3: you know, in theory, they are supposed to have considered
19:24
Speaker 3: those other options. Now, for this latest vote, and I
19:27
Speaker 3: believe that they said they had, they've brought on a
19:29
Speaker 3: third-party consulting group and submitted some reports on that. The
19:33
Speaker 3: other side here, lawyers for Representative Beatty have disputed some
19:37
Speaker 3: of that evidence and they're really pushing to see more
19:39
Speaker 3: discovery in this case because they want to see, you know,
19:42
Speaker 3: just like more information on what the board is relying
19:44
Speaker 3: on to make these representations.
19:46
Speaker 1: And if Trump is not going to contribute in any way,
19:49
Speaker 1: where would the money come from? from for the renovations?
19:52
Speaker 3: Well, Congress has already appropriated about $ 250 million for.
19:56
Speaker 4: Repairs for the Kennedy Center.
19:57
Speaker 3: It's really undisputed that some repairs are necessary for this building.
20:01
Speaker 4: It's an old building. It's been around a while.
20:02
Speaker 3: We've seen the executive directors testified in court as to
20:05
Speaker 3: some of the problems, water damage, etc., So I think
20:08
Speaker 3: that element of things isn't necessarily in dispute. And the
20:11
Speaker 3: judge himself has made a point in multiple hearings to note, hey,
20:14
Speaker 3: I'm not blocking you from making repairs. I'm just blocking
20:17
Speaker 3: you from closing the facility based on the vote that
20:20
Speaker 3: you did at the beginning of the year.
20:22
Speaker 4: So I think that's an important distinction as well.
20:24
Speaker 1: And is the judge going to oversee any renovations so
20:29
Speaker 1: that you don't end up with what happened at the
20:32
Speaker 1: East Wing, you know, tearing things down before anyone could
20:35
Speaker 1: even object?
20:37
Speaker 3: I think that'll be rooming to be seen how that
20:38
Speaker 3: process is going to work. I sense this judge does
20:41
Speaker 3: not want to be a construction manager, nor does he
20:43
Speaker 3: think that's the court's role here. But certainly there's been
20:47
Speaker 3: interest in, the judge has been interested in knowing the
20:50
Speaker 3: scope of renovation. So there's been testimony on that. I'm
20:52
Speaker 3: sure that'll come up in discovery as well. And I
20:55
Speaker 3: think the plaintiffs would, we could expect them to return
20:57
Speaker 3: to court should they believe the renovations are exceeding the
21:00
Speaker 3: scope that was initially represented.
21:03
Speaker 1: And Suzanne, what's the status of the challenges to some
21:07
Speaker 1: of Trump's other projects in D.C.? There.
21:12
Speaker 3: Have been a number of legal challenges to other efforts
21:15
Speaker 3: by Trump to change parts of D.C.
21:17
Speaker 4: And its historic landmarks.
21:18
Speaker 3: We've seen a proposal to put up a triumphal arch
21:22
Speaker 3: that may have worked starting imminently and then We've also
21:26
Speaker 3: seen proposals to paint the exterior of an Eisenhower executive
21:29
Speaker 3: office building, a 19th century building located near the White House.
21:33
Speaker 3: In that one, a federal judge has allowed the administration
21:37
Speaker 3: to do some testing of paint on the granite exterior,
21:41
Speaker 3: but that litigation is still ongoing. There's a lawsuit filed
21:44
Speaker 3: by historic preservationists in the Eisenhower.
21:47
Speaker 1: And just to mention that the D.C. Court of Appeals
21:51
Speaker 1: hasn't ruled yet on whether Trump's name can be restored
21:55
Speaker 1: to the Kennedy Center. And in his post today, Trump
21:58
Speaker 1: said that, quote, the renovation and reconstruction, which is a
22:03
Speaker 1: very large and complex job, cannot begin until such time
22:07
Speaker 1: as the D.C. Circuit rules on the board's approved name.
22:12
Speaker 1: He went on to say that if the ruling's a
22:14
Speaker 1: negative one, he's going to take it to the Supreme
22:16
Speaker 1: Court and then threaten to stop the renovation if the
22:20
Speaker 1: courts don't give him the answer that he wants, which
22:22
Speaker 1: is to put his name on the building. Thanks so much, Suzanne.
22:27
Speaker 1: That's Bloomberg Law Reporter Suzanne Moniak. And that's it for
22:30
Speaker 1: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember, you can
22:33
Speaker 1: always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.
22:37
Speaker 1: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at
22:40
Speaker 1: www.bloomberg.com slash podcast slash law. And remember to tune into
22:46
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at 10 p.m. Wall
22:49
Speaker 1: Street time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.