Latest / Bloomberg Law / Weekend Law: How Biden-Era Rulings Could Impact Trump Tariffs, Diddy Trial Latest

Transcript

Weekend Law: How Biden-Era Rulings Could Impact Trump Tariffs, Diddy Trial Latest · Bloomberg Law

0:00
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law. Employers frequently exploit the weaknesses in
0:04
Speaker 1: the law.
0:05
Speaker 2: Of course, are going to be asking questions about separation
0:07
Speaker 2: of powers.
0:08
Speaker 1: One by one, Google settled with all of these other plaintiffs.
0:11
Speaker 1: Interviews with prominent attorneys and Bloomberg legal experts.
0:14
Speaker 2: Joining me is immigration law expertly on Fresco, First Amendment
0:18
Speaker 2: law expert Caroline Malick.
0:19
Speaker 1: Corbin, and analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines.
0:23
Speaker 3: The trial judge may well want to hold a hearing.
0:26
Speaker 4: They have never said this case should never have been
0:29
Speaker 4: brought in the first place.
0:30
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:38
Speaker 3: Welcome to Bloomberg Law. I'm Ami Morris in for June Grosso. June.
0:42
Speaker 3: We'll be back next week. Ahead. In this hour, we
0:45
Speaker 3: look at a consolidation effort in the federal government that
0:48
Speaker 3: might leave some disabled contractors at risk, Plus the trial
0:52
Speaker 3: of Sean Diddy Coomb's We'll get into some of the
0:54
Speaker 3: legal twists in the trial of the music mogul, But
0:58
Speaker 3: first we look at how Supreme Court rulings on Biden
1:01
Speaker 3: administration policy could end up threatening President Trump's sweeping global tariffs.
1:07
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court ruled against a few key climate change
1:10
Speaker 3: and student debt initiatives of then President Joe Biden using
1:13
Speaker 3: what's called the Major Questions doctrine, and now that same
1:17
Speaker 3: doctrine could be used to challenge the legal standing of
1:20
Speaker 3: the Trump administration's tariff practices. Joining us now to discuss
1:25
Speaker 3: how this could play out, Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Greg,
1:29
Speaker 3: always a pleasure, Thanks for taking the time with us. First,
1:32
Speaker 3: let's look at the Major Questions doctrine. What does that say?
1:36
Speaker 4: Yeah?
1:36
Speaker 2: Amy, The Major Questions doctrine is something the Supreme Court
1:39
Speaker 2: had never mentioned explicitly until twenty twenty two, but in
1:43
Speaker 2: this case involving climate change, the Court's conservative majority said,
1:47
Speaker 2: when there is an issue that has major political and
1:50
Speaker 2: economic significance, like climate change, if Congress is going to
1:56
Speaker 2: tell a federal agency you have the power to do something,
1:59
Speaker 2: we expect Congress to be very explicit in doing that.
2:03
Speaker 2: Otherwise we're going to interpret the law as not giving
2:06
Speaker 2: the agency that authority. And that is something the Supreme
2:09
Speaker 2: Court has used again in restricting what the Biden deministration
2:15
Speaker 2: could do.
2:16
Speaker 3: Okay, so let's break this down. How was this used
2:20
Speaker 3: against some of those Biden administration initiatives. I know it
2:24
Speaker 3: was specifically environmental like climate change.
2:28
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I mentioned the twenty twenty two case. It
2:31
Speaker 2: actually stemmed from something Barack Obama had tried to do,
2:34
Speaker 2: his so called Clean Power Plan, which would have the
2:38
Speaker 2: EPA was going to put limits on greenhouse gas emissions
2:43
Speaker 2: from power plants, trying to basically shift energy production away
2:47
Speaker 2: from coal fired plants, and the Supreme Court in a
2:52
Speaker 2: case the procedure is kind of complicated, but not really important.
2:55
Speaker 2: The essence of it was the Supreme Court said, where
2:58
Speaker 2: even though the Clean Power Plant hadn't gone into effect,
3:01
Speaker 2: we're going to evaluate it and determine that the EPPA
3:05
Speaker 2: did not have the authority to do this. Congress in
3:08
Speaker 2: the Clean Iract wasn't specific enough and that ended up
3:11
Speaker 2: limiting what Joe Biden could try to do going forward
3:14
Speaker 2: on climate change, because, as with so many areas in
3:18
Speaker 2: this day and age, climate change is an area where
3:22
Speaker 2: Congress really hasn't said a whole lot. That the agencies
3:25
Speaker 2: had been trying to use really old statutes, decades old
3:29
Speaker 2: statutes like the Clean Air Act to do things, and
3:32
Speaker 2: in that context, the Court said, no, you don't have
3:35
Speaker 2: the authority. It meant that Congress would have to do something.
3:39
Speaker 3: Okay, so this is a matter of authority. Then how
3:42
Speaker 3: does this then apply to tariffs? It seems very different
3:45
Speaker 3: from climate change in student debt.
3:48
Speaker 2: It's very different, But the concept is certainly at least
3:54
Speaker 2: arguably applicable because Donald trum Trump's tariffs, of course, are
3:59
Speaker 2: certainly of major economic and political importance. And the fight
4:04
Speaker 2: that's been going on in the courts, primarily the Court
4:08
Speaker 2: of International Trade here in Washington and now the Federal
4:11
Speaker 2: Appeals Court the Federal Circuit, is over whether a statute
4:15
Speaker 2: Congress passed dealing with emergency situations and things the president
4:20
Speaker 2: could do in emergency situations, whether that statute gives him
4:24
Speaker 2: the authority to do what he wants to do. So
4:28
Speaker 2: it's similar to kind of how the Clean Air Act,
4:31
Speaker 2: which was enacted without thinking about climate change at the time,
4:36
Speaker 2: because it wasn't really a thing when Congress passed that.
4:39
Speaker 2: It's the same sort of thing where Congress passes statute
4:42
Speaker 2: statute and nothing in it specifically says the president would
4:47
Speaker 2: have the power to enact worldwide sort of the indefinite
4:52
Speaker 2: tariffs totaling billions or trillions of dollars, and so the
4:57
Speaker 2: argument is somewhat similar.
5:00
Speaker 3: In a situation like this, did the Biden administration or
5:03
Speaker 3: now the Trump administration, because the Court of International Trade
5:06
Speaker 3: in vote the same doctrine against those tariffs? Did either
5:10
Speaker 3: administration have a defense? Is this a case that can continue?
5:16
Speaker 2: So in both cases the administration said, Hey, if you
5:20
Speaker 2: look at the words of the statute, it's actually it's
5:24
Speaker 2: actually enough that the statute gives us the authority to.
5:28
Speaker 5: Do what we want to do.
5:30
Speaker 2: And they also, you know, the Biden administration was able
5:33
Speaker 2: to argue at the time, Hey, this notion of the
5:36
Speaker 2: major questions doctrine isn't really a thing, you know, don't
5:40
Speaker 2: superimpose this. This thing that kind of puts your thumb
5:45
Speaker 2: on the scale against us, puts your thumb on the
5:47
Speaker 2: scale against an agency being able to do something that
5:52
Speaker 2: ship has sort of sailed. The Supreme Court had said, yeah,
5:54
Speaker 2: we're going to put our thumb on.
5:56
Speaker 5: The scale in these circumstances.
5:58
Speaker 2: The other thing that Donald Trump is able to our
6:00
Speaker 2: u in this context is the clean Arac case involved
6:04
Speaker 2: the APA. It involves a federal agency and the question
6:07
Speaker 2: was whether Congress had delegated the authority.
6:09
Speaker 5: To this agency.
6:11
Speaker 2: In this case, the authority that Congress has delegated through
6:14
Speaker 2: the statute known as IEPA was directly to the president,
6:18
Speaker 2: not to an agency. And so they are arguing, among
6:21
Speaker 2: other things, in this context, Hey, this Major Questions Doctrine
6:25
Speaker 2: doesn't even apply. In fact, you should be very deferential
6:29
Speaker 2: to the president because we're dealing with an area involving
6:31
Speaker 2: foreign affairs where the president, everybody agrees, plays the leading
6:36
Speaker 2: role under a constitutional structure.
6:39
Speaker 3: Well, that kind of changes my next question. I wanted
6:42
Speaker 3: to know if the Major Questions doctrine was sort of
6:45
Speaker 3: a way to reign in the power of the executive branch.
6:47
Speaker 3: But it sounds almost like it's a way to balance
6:50
Speaker 3: the power among the different branches of government.
6:54
Speaker 2: That is certainly how the Court thinks about it. It
6:57
Speaker 2: has had the effect, certainly has had the effect in
7:00
Speaker 2: democratic administrations of reigning in those agencies. But the way
7:04
Speaker 2: the Court has articulated it, and they haven't, you know,
7:08
Speaker 2: said a whole lot.
7:09
Speaker 5: But basically the way the Court has.
7:10
Speaker 2: Looked at it is to say, this is something that
7:14
Speaker 2: enforces the constitutional separation of powers, ensures that Congress is
7:18
Speaker 2: able to do what it is trying to do, and
7:22
Speaker 2: that its words are not being taken to give the
7:26
Speaker 2: president another branch of the government more power than or
7:30
Speaker 2: an agency, at least more power than Congress intended. So
7:36
Speaker 2: it is, you know, for those proponents of the Major
7:38
Speaker 2: Questions doctrine, it is something that is designed to make
7:42
Speaker 2: sure everybody stays in their constitutional lanes.
7:46
Speaker 3: Is the Major Questions Doctrine something that is invoked frequently?
7:50
Speaker 3: Is that an archaic rule that is being trodded out
7:53
Speaker 3: as those as people feel like they need to rein
7:56
Speaker 3: in other branches of government. How archaic or how new
7:59
Speaker 3: is this?
8:01
Speaker 2: So the phrase itself is new. The Supreme Court hadn't
8:05
Speaker 2: actually used it in an opinion until twenty twenty two,
8:09
Speaker 2: and it's only used it one time since then, in
8:12
Speaker 2: the case involving that you alluded to Joe Biden's effort
8:16
Speaker 2: to slash student debt. The concepts have been there, and
8:22
Speaker 2: when the Court used the phrase ites that we're just
8:24
Speaker 2: taking the concepts and applying them. So you could look
8:28
Speaker 2: back at a couple other Biden cases involving things like
8:33
Speaker 2: his effort to require workers to either get a COVID
8:36
Speaker 2: vaccine or take weekly tests. The Court sort of use
8:40
Speaker 2: that notion that this is such a big thing that
8:43
Speaker 2: we're expecting Congress to have been a little more explicit
8:45
Speaker 2: if it was letting the federal agencies enact such a thing.
8:51
Speaker 5: In terms of going back beyond that, you know, there's.
8:53
Speaker 2: A real debate as to whether this is sort of
8:56
Speaker 2: a creation of the Court's conservative majority, or if it
8:59
Speaker 2: is actually some thing that is more steeped in decades
9:03
Speaker 2: of Supreme Court tradition.
9:06
Speaker 3: Could this argument between the Court of International Trade and
9:10
Speaker 3: the Trump administration over tariffs? Could that argument? Could that
9:14
Speaker 3: case wind up before the Supreme Court?
9:17
Speaker 5: I would certainly expect it to in some form.
9:19
Speaker 2: So, as you and I talk, we are waiting, and
9:23
Speaker 2: this probably won't happen until next week sometime. We're waiting
9:26
Speaker 2: for this federal appeals court known as the Federal Circuit
9:29
Speaker 2: here in Washington, to say whether it's going.
9:32
Speaker 5: To let the tariffs stay.
9:35
Speaker 2: In effect while the litigation goes forward potentially for several months.
9:39
Speaker 2: If that court says no, we're not going to let
9:42
Speaker 2: those tariffs be in effect, then I would expect the
9:45
Speaker 2: administration to very quickly turn to the Supreme Court. Now,
9:48
Speaker 2: this would just be an emergency application most likely where
9:52
Speaker 2: they would say, hey, you know, let us put the
9:55
Speaker 2: tariffs in effect while we fight over stuff like the
9:57
Speaker 2: major Questions doctrine. But it certainly poss that it will
10:01
Speaker 2: get escalated quickly, either by the administration or by the
10:04
Speaker 2: court and sweeping questions about whether these tariffs are legal
10:09
Speaker 2: at all.
10:10
Speaker 3: All right, we're going to shift gears now.
10:11
Speaker 5: Greg.
10:12
Speaker 3: We're talking with Bloomberg Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. And
10:15
Speaker 3: there have been some recent Supreme Court decisions just handed
10:18
Speaker 3: down this past week. Let's get into them and we'll
10:21
Speaker 3: do this kind of quickly. The gun makers that were
10:24
Speaker 3: shielded from Mexico's lawsuit based on some US laws that
10:27
Speaker 3: shield gun manufacturers. The Court ruled in favor of the
10:31
Speaker 3: gun makers. Is this more of a technicality than maybe
10:34
Speaker 3: on the merits?
10:35
Speaker 4: What say you?
10:37
Speaker 2: It's certainly a case. It's very definitive for this Mexico lawsuit.
10:41
Speaker 2: The question about how much impact it's going to have
10:44
Speaker 2: more broadly kind of remains to be seen. The Court
10:47
Speaker 2: said that Mexico did not have They were alleging that
10:51
Speaker 2: the gun industry aided an embedded drug cartel violence in Mexico,
10:56
Speaker 2: and the Supreme Court essentially said this complaint is not
10:59
Speaker 2: near specific enough for that sort of allegation to go forward.
11:05
Speaker 2: That there's another legal argument that the gunmakers were making
11:10
Speaker 2: that would have been even broader, would have thrown out
11:12
Speaker 2: even more lawsuits.
11:14
Speaker 5: So the people on the gun safety side of this
11:18
Speaker 5: argument are.
11:21
Speaker 2: Breathing a little bit of a sigh of relief that
11:23
Speaker 2: the court's ruling did not go farther than it did.
11:26
Speaker 3: And the Supreme Court also revived a straight woman's job
11:30
Speaker 3: bias lawsuit, which appears to allow more reverse discrimination cases
11:34
Speaker 3: to be brought.
11:36
Speaker 2: Yeah some parts. In some parts of the country, some
11:38
Speaker 2: federal appeals courts had said that when a straight person,
11:43
Speaker 2: a white person, a man, tries to file a lawsuit
11:46
Speaker 2: saying I was discriminated against them the job, that they
11:49
Speaker 2: had to show a little something more to get their
11:51
Speaker 2: case to the jury. They had to show something called
11:54
Speaker 2: background circumstances to support support the suspicion that the defendant
11:58
Speaker 2: is the unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. And
12:03
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court unanimously said, no, every plaintiff, whether they're whatever, race,
12:09
Speaker 2: whatever gender, has to prove the same thing.
12:12
Speaker 5: Nobody has a special requirement like that.
12:16
Speaker 3: Interesting, and we're gonna have to leave it there, Greg,
12:18
Speaker 3: thank you so much for taking the time with us.
12:20
Speaker 3: Bloomberg Supreme Court Reporter Greg Store. Now coming up, we
12:24
Speaker 3: turned to the Trump Administration's dismantling of federal agencies and
12:27
Speaker 3: how those with disabilities might wind up caught in the crossfire.
12:31
Speaker 3: I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso, and this is Bloomberg.
12:48
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
12:54
Speaker 3: I'm Amy Morris filling in for June Grosso. The Trump
12:57
Speaker 3: administration is pushing a budget proposal that would put the
13:00
Speaker 3: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in charge of policing federal contractors
13:05
Speaker 3: for bias against people with disabilities. As of right now, however,
13:09
Speaker 3: the EEOC does not have the authority to audit companies.
13:13
Speaker 3: This is a complicated situation. We welcome Bloomberg's Rebecca clar
13:17
Speaker 3: to help clear all of this up. Rebecca, thank you
13:19
Speaker 3: so much for taking the time with us.
13:22
Speaker 6: Yeah, thanks for having me.
13:23
Speaker 3: Now, first let's get a little background. We're talking about
13:26
Speaker 3: the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and we are
13:29
Speaker 3: talking about the OFCCP, a completely different agency. What does
13:34
Speaker 3: each one do?
13:36
Speaker 5: Right?
13:37
Speaker 6: So, you know, the EEOC is an agency that's very
13:41
Speaker 6: charge driven. So if you're a worker and you want
13:44
Speaker 6: to file a charge of alleging that your employer discriminated
13:48
Speaker 6: you in some way, you can go to the EEOC
13:50
Speaker 6: or to estate or local agency, and that's really where
13:54
Speaker 6: their power lies. You know, they also have some sort
13:57
Speaker 6: of guidance and policy role making abilities, but they're really
14:02
Speaker 6: charged driven, so it's more of a reactive approach to discrimination.
14:06
Speaker 6: The LOFCCP, which is or was a Department of Labor
14:12
Speaker 6: sub agency that's the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
14:16
Speaker 6: They oversaw similar you know, anti bias, anti discrimination work,
14:20
Speaker 6: but for federal contractors. So if you were a company
14:24
Speaker 6: doing business with the government with contracts of certain sizes,
14:27
Speaker 6: you have this extra level of proactive work that you
14:30
Speaker 6: had to do to ensure that you weren't discriminating against
14:34
Speaker 6: your workers. And part of what they were able to
14:36
Speaker 6: do is do these audits of companies so you know,
14:39
Speaker 6: there doesn't have to be any sort of evidence of
14:42
Speaker 6: discrimination happening. If you were a company that does business
14:45
Speaker 6: with the government, you'd have these regular audits where you
14:48
Speaker 6: could you know, they could come in look at sort
14:51
Speaker 6: of your policies and what's happening there, and then you know,
14:54
Speaker 6: take action based on that. The Trump administration, through an
14:59
Speaker 6: executive order, sought to eliminate the OFCCP in terms of
15:04
Speaker 6: most of the work that it had been doing on
15:07
Speaker 6: race and sex based discrimination because that was all established
15:10
Speaker 6: through an executive order. There were two other statutory obligations
15:15
Speaker 6: that the Office saw that they can't undo through an
15:19
Speaker 6: executive order, and one of those is Section five O
15:22
Speaker 6: three of the Rehabilitation Act, which looks at anti discrimination
15:25
Speaker 6: of disabled workers. And that's through this budget proposal. What
15:28
Speaker 6: they're proposing to have the EEOC in force now is
15:32
Speaker 6: sort of looking at this anti bias work against disabled
15:36
Speaker 6: workers at federal contractors. But again, it sort of leaves
15:40
Speaker 6: some of these potential gaps depending on how this goes through,
15:45
Speaker 6: since the EEOC doesn't necessarily have that power already.
15:49
Speaker 3: All right, let's get into all of that now. You
15:51
Speaker 3: mentioned what's left of the OFCCP. That's the Federal contractor
15:57
Speaker 3: a group that they're the ones who watch out make
16:00
Speaker 3: sure that there's no discrimination among the federal contractors. And
16:05
Speaker 3: on the surface, it looks as though they're kind of
16:09
Speaker 3: similar positions, but you talked with a former director there,
16:12
Speaker 3: Larry Laber, who says they do not have the same function.
16:16
Speaker 3: What is his take on all this.
16:19
Speaker 6: Yeah, you know, I think you know a lot of
16:21
Speaker 6: these former officials and they you know, I think from
16:25
Speaker 6: the outside, it seems like here are these two agencies
16:28
Speaker 6: that are both handling anti discrimination work. I think the
16:31
Speaker 6: core of the difference is that the work that the
16:34
Speaker 6: OCCP was doing is more proactive approach to limiting discrimination,
16:40
Speaker 6: So they're able to audit these companies without having any
16:44
Speaker 6: sort of evidence of discrimination happening and do more of
16:47
Speaker 6: that investigatory work versus the EEOC largely doesn't have the
16:52
Speaker 6: power to investigate companies unless they already have evidence or
16:57
Speaker 6: in most cases have a charge of a worker coming
16:59
Speaker 6: forward saying I've been discriminated against. And that power really
17:04
Speaker 6: allowed the CCP to look at large companies that do
17:08
Speaker 6: business with the government and try to find these, you know,
17:12
Speaker 6: spots where there might be discrimination happening, even without a
17:16
Speaker 6: work or coming forward. I know, something that I've spoken
17:19
Speaker 6: to about attorneys in this area as well as former officials,
17:23
Speaker 6: is that it often, you know, found these gaps, especially
17:26
Speaker 6: in terms of hiring or discrimination on that front, where
17:29
Speaker 6: you might as an applicant not know that you are
17:32
Speaker 6: being discriminated against. But if they're able to look at
17:35
Speaker 6: all of this data and audit these companies, those were
17:37
Speaker 6: some of the areas where they were able to find discrimination.
17:42
Speaker 3: As you mentioned, the EEOC doesn't have that authority. Do
17:46
Speaker 3: they intend to get that authority? Is there a way
17:49
Speaker 3: for the administration to grant them that authority to help
17:53
Speaker 3: fill those gaps? Or is this a congressional issue?
17:57
Speaker 4: Right?
17:57
Speaker 6: So, I think, you know, some of the appear to
18:00
Speaker 6: be some open questions where it's a little unclear exactly
18:05
Speaker 6: how this is going to go down. It seems pretty
18:07
Speaker 6: clear from most experts I spoke to you that this
18:10
Speaker 6: is something that Congress is going to have to reauthorize
18:14
Speaker 6: in order to give Section five oh three enforcement to
18:18
Speaker 6: the EEOC, beyond just approving the budget. Since statutorially it
18:23
Speaker 6: granted it to the Department of Labor and since they're
18:26
Speaker 6: moving it to this outside agency, you know, most people
18:29
Speaker 6: think this is going to take an Act of Congress
18:32
Speaker 6: to do that. Another aspect of this, though, is that
18:35
Speaker 6: the actual statute itself doesn't necessarily have that auditing power
18:41
Speaker 6: within it. That's something that came from regulations and rolemaking
18:45
Speaker 6: over time. So I think it's you know, remains to
18:48
Speaker 6: be seen if in taking over that power, if the
18:53
Speaker 6: EEOC would also intend to use the audits or not.
18:57
Speaker 6: And I think, you know, some of what I was
18:59
Speaker 6: hearing from experts and people who have worked in this
19:02
Speaker 6: field before of OCCP compliance, it seems like either if
19:06
Speaker 6: EEOC does do this, it could be a pretty significant
19:10
Speaker 6: expansion into sort of their power and sort of the
19:13
Speaker 6: scope of their enforcement, or if they choose to leave
19:17
Speaker 6: the auditing to the wayside and non enforce that aspect,
19:20
Speaker 6: then seemingly left in a similar situation where now nobody
19:24
Speaker 6: is auditing for this the way that OCCP.
19:27
Speaker 3: Was clarify something for me, you had already mentioned that
19:30
Speaker 3: hundreds of people at the OFCCP have already been laid
19:33
Speaker 3: off except for those very few who would be helping
19:36
Speaker 3: with these cases under Section five O three, and then
19:40
Speaker 3: of course they would wind up working for the other agency,
19:43
Speaker 3: the EEOC. Is this already underway? Has this already happened?
19:49
Speaker 6: So right at the same time as we're seeing this happening,
19:52
Speaker 6: you know, what's left of the statutory obligation. So there's
19:56
Speaker 6: section five O three, which is being proposed to go
19:58
Speaker 6: to EEOC, as well as as a similar statutory obligation
20:03
Speaker 6: for veterans for discrimination against veterans, which is proposed to
20:07
Speaker 6: be rehoused somewhere else within the Department of Labor. Those
20:11
Speaker 6: weren't as major of a focus of what the OCCP
20:14
Speaker 6: was doing based on sex and race discrimination, which has
20:18
Speaker 6: been rescinded through this executive order. So sort of as
20:21
Speaker 6: part of that, the OCCP has already put many workers
20:27
Speaker 6: sought to lay off, almost the entire workforce that's been
20:31
Speaker 6: held up, you know, due to a pause on broader
20:35
Speaker 6: federal layoffs. They're keeping only a small portion of staff
20:39
Speaker 6: on now. I think it remains to be seeing, you know,
20:42
Speaker 6: if they plan to move people around into these other
20:46
Speaker 6: agencies and how they plan to do that, you know.
20:49
Speaker 6: I think some of that could also be tied up
20:51
Speaker 6: in how these court cases go about the federal worker layoffs.
20:55
Speaker 6: I know that the EEOC did request in its budget
20:58
Speaker 6: a little bit more enforcement and like more money from
21:01
Speaker 6: Congress for you know, enforcing Section five O three and
21:06
Speaker 6: sort of expanding that. So I think some of this
21:08
Speaker 6: we'll come down to what budgets approved and how the
21:12
Speaker 6: EOC goes about this, as well as still some of
21:14
Speaker 6: those open questions on how these proposed layoffs are are
21:18
Speaker 6: going to go.
21:19
Speaker 3: So then what is happening now to those cases that
21:22
Speaker 3: we're already pending with the OFCCP, right.
21:26
Speaker 6: So that's another thing that I'm you know, hearing from
21:30
Speaker 6: from workers that are there, that are you know, even
21:34
Speaker 6: before the layoffs, there was a memo that went around
21:37
Speaker 6: saying because of the President's executive order, all of this
21:42
Speaker 6: work had been paused. So not just the work on
21:45
Speaker 6: race and sex discrimination that they sort of overturned by
21:49
Speaker 6: rescinding that executive order, but you know, work like the
21:52
Speaker 6: cases under Section five O three as well as those
21:55
Speaker 6: audience have all been held in a buiance. So you know,
21:58
Speaker 6: if you're someone who had filed a complaint with the office,
22:02
Speaker 6: you're basically left in this waiting period and in this
22:06
Speaker 6: limbo where you're not exactly sure what's happening with your case.
22:10
Speaker 6: You're not getting updates because you know, the workers there
22:13
Speaker 6: have been told not to do anything, and now the
22:16
Speaker 6: vast majority of them are also on administrative leave.
22:20
Speaker 3: So what recourse is there then for those workers impacted
22:23
Speaker 3: and those whose cases are affected. And if you think
22:26
Speaker 3: about it, just from the way you've described it, you
22:28
Speaker 3: have the OFCCP workers they were laid off, the EEOC
22:33
Speaker 3: workers who now have to take on an entirely new
22:35
Speaker 3: workload with which they are not only not familiar, they'd
22:37
Speaker 3: have to be retrained for plus those cases that are
22:41
Speaker 3: pending or in limbo for those other workers who are
22:44
Speaker 3: not part of either agency, but they are you know,
22:47
Speaker 3: using those agencies to help them out in their cases.
22:50
Speaker 3: So is there a way to untangle this? This seems
22:52
Speaker 3: like it effects hundreds of people, if not thousands.
22:55
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, you know, all of these cases are
22:58
Speaker 6: being held up now. I think you know, for for
23:02
Speaker 6: some cases, there are you know, circumstances where things you know,
23:06
Speaker 6: are considered dual filed between the OCCP and EEOC if
23:10
Speaker 6: there's overlap in both of these. But you know, the
23:13
Speaker 6: EEOC historically has been under resourced. They you know, have
23:19
Speaker 6: a higher case load than I think they're they're managing.
23:22
Speaker 6: So this would definitely you know, be adding to that
23:25
Speaker 6: without sort of a clear distinction on if they're going
23:28
Speaker 6: to be getting more resources in order to make up
23:32
Speaker 6: that workload, especially sort of you know, with this period
23:36
Speaker 6: in time, seemingly adding to some of that backlog.
23:39
Speaker 3: So are we bound to see some of this show
23:41
Speaker 3: up in court cases challenging the president's authority to do
23:44
Speaker 3: this or are we more likely to see this show
23:47
Speaker 3: up on Capitol Hill asking Congress for help in the
23:50
Speaker 3: president's authority to do this?
23:52
Speaker 1: Right?
23:52
Speaker 6: I mean, you know, I think it seems pretty clear
23:55
Speaker 6: from experts I talked to that the aspects that he
23:58
Speaker 6: overturned with the executive order, it was you know, made
24:03
Speaker 6: through an executive order, so there was the power to
24:06
Speaker 6: undo that. I think, you know, it remains to be
24:08
Speaker 6: seen if potentially a future administration would would try to
24:12
Speaker 6: bring that back, and if they would do that through
24:14
Speaker 6: you know, totally restoring the o OFCCP or trying to
24:18
Speaker 6: use some other agencies or elsewhere in the Department of
24:21
Speaker 6: Labor to do that. I think, you know, the next
24:24
Speaker 6: steps really are to see what Congress does in terms
24:28
Speaker 6: of if they give this authorization to the EEOC or
24:32
Speaker 6: and you know, what power they they get with that,
24:35
Speaker 6: as well as sort of through the budget process, what
24:38
Speaker 6: resources they're given for this.
24:40
Speaker 3: Okay, So at this point, Rebecca, what are you going
24:42
Speaker 3: to be watching for as this progresses.
24:45
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think a big part on this is sort
24:48
Speaker 6: of looking, you know, trying to hear from people and
24:52
Speaker 6: see what's going on with these cases that you mentioned
24:54
Speaker 6: are are sort of paused and trying to understand that
24:57
Speaker 6: that impact on this on you know, our ends on
25:00
Speaker 6: disabled workers. You know. I think another aspect to look
25:04
Speaker 6: for will be sort of in this budget process, what
25:07
Speaker 6: resources the agency is given and you know, if they're
25:11
Speaker 6: able to really take on this this workload.
25:14
Speaker 3: All right, Rebecca Klar with Bloomberg Industry, thank you so
25:17
Speaker 3: much for joining us and for trying to help clear
25:20
Speaker 3: all of this up for us. It does sound like
25:22
Speaker 3: a little bit of an alphabet soup because of all
25:24
Speaker 3: the acronyms, but it is an important issue and we're
25:27
Speaker 3: going to continue to follow it with you. Thank you,
25:29
Speaker 3: Rebecca for joining us.
25:30
Speaker 1: Thank you.
25:31
Speaker 3: Up next on Bloomberg Law, we're going to turn to
25:34
Speaker 3: the trial of Sean Diddy Colmbs. We're going to look
25:36
Speaker 3: into some of the testimony that we've already heard and
25:39
Speaker 3: what some of the defense is going to be for
25:42
Speaker 3: the music mogul. I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso.
25:45
Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg.
25:48
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
25:54
Speaker 3: I'm Amy Morris in for June Grosso.
25:56
Speaker 1: June.
25:57
Speaker 3: We'll be back next week, and we're watching the ex
26:00
Speaker 3: trial of entertainment industry mogul Sean Diddycomb's. Several people, including
26:05
Speaker 3: his former girlfriend singer Cassie Ventura, have testified in this
26:08
Speaker 3: high profile case with some disturbing testimony. Here to help
26:12
Speaker 3: us break it down, as Dave Ehrenberg, managing partner of
26:15
Speaker 3: Dave Ehrenberg Law and former Palm Beach County State Attorney
26:19
Speaker 3: David is a pleasure. Thank you for joining us. Shawn
26:22
Speaker 3: Combs faces five criminal counts, including racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking,
26:28
Speaker 3: transportation to engage in prostitution. Some witnesses have testified under oath,
26:35
Speaker 3: but they took the fifth so that they could be
26:38
Speaker 3: granted immunity. Explain how that works. Why are these witnesses
26:42
Speaker 3: looking for immunity in this case?
26:46
Speaker 4: Good to be with you, Amy, It's because they worry
26:48
Speaker 4: about their own criminal liability, whether it's someone who did drugs,
26:53
Speaker 4: sold drugs, or perhaps was a participant in the schemes themselves.
26:58
Speaker 4: They want to make sure they're not going to step
27:01
Speaker 4: on a land mine, and they all are represented by
27:04
Speaker 4: lawyers themselves, because once the Feds start calling you, you
27:08
Speaker 4: call a lawyer, and the lawyer probably told them, don't
27:10
Speaker 4: say a word unless they give you immunity. And the
27:12
Speaker 4: Feds are not interested, it seems like, in prosecuting anyone
27:15
Speaker 4: else for these crimes except for Diddy, so they were
27:18
Speaker 4: quick to give everyone immunity.
27:20
Speaker 3: That's interesting, I wondered, because one of the things he
27:23
Speaker 3: is charged with is racketeering conspiracy. Conspiracy means more than
27:27
Speaker 3: one person could culms also be taking other people down.
27:32
Speaker 3: Are we looking at other possible defendants down the line?
27:37
Speaker 4: Perhaps, but they would have to be defendants who did
27:40
Speaker 4: not get immunity, because once the Feds give you that immunity,
27:43
Speaker 4: then that pretty much is it. I mean, there are
27:47
Speaker 4: opportunities if the Feds develop a case independent of the testimony,
27:51
Speaker 4: but it looks like the Feds are not interested in others.
27:53
Speaker 4: They want to go to the top of the food
27:56
Speaker 4: chain here. And yes, you're correct in that the racketeering
27:59
Speaker 4: charge does require there to be a criminal enterprise. That
28:04
Speaker 4: means did bad Boy Records become his henchmen to commit crimes?
28:10
Speaker 4: So it's not just some legitimate record label, but rather
28:14
Speaker 4: an enterprise to commit crimes to do his bidding. That
28:17
Speaker 4: means there have to be others involved, other employees. That's
28:20
Speaker 4: why you're saying so many employees called to the stand,
28:22
Speaker 4: because that shows racketeering and it also shows that a
28:26
Speaker 4: lot of people got immunity for their conduct.
28:29
Speaker 3: Now, drug use is factoring into some of this testimony.
28:32
Speaker 3: We're hearing about everything from marijuana to cocaine, ecstasy, katamine,
28:36
Speaker 3: and as you mentioned in your first answer, there a
28:39
Speaker 3: lot of people who might have been involved in that
28:41
Speaker 3: drug use are getting immunity because of that. Could that
28:44
Speaker 3: drug use, though, be a defense for colms?
28:48
Speaker 4: Yes, it's being used right now to undermine the credibility
28:52
Speaker 4: of witnesses saying you really don't remember this right because
28:54
Speaker 4: you were under the influence of drugs, and you sold drugs,
28:58
Speaker 4: and you were involved with so much drug use, and
29:01
Speaker 4: that tarnishes the witness in front of the jury, because
29:04
Speaker 4: you have jurors who probably are not involved in the
29:06
Speaker 4: world of free coughs and rampant drug use, who are
29:09
Speaker 4: seeing this outer world that they don't understand perhaps and
29:12
Speaker 4: they may just throw up their hands and say a
29:14
Speaker 4: plague on both your houses. That's a strategy of defence team.
29:19
Speaker 3: Is that usually an effective strategy.
29:22
Speaker 4: Well, it's a strategy because defensellers are stuck with the
29:26
Speaker 4: facts that they're given, and here the facts are pretty
29:29
Speaker 4: damning against Diddy. So they're going to try to mock
29:33
Speaker 4: it up by saying that all these witnesses engaged in
29:37
Speaker 4: drug use, they were all consensual partners in this weird
29:41
Speaker 4: freak cough game, and it's all consensual. So that's the
29:45
Speaker 4: kind of stuff they're saying. Now, you could have a
29:48
Speaker 4: consensual free cough and then the consent gets revoked at
29:52
Speaker 4: some point. For Cassie at the beginning, did seem like
29:55
Speaker 4: she was interested in will a willing participant. She would
30:00
Speaker 4: say it's because she loved at least she thought she
30:02
Speaker 4: loved Diddy, and she wanted to please him, and she
30:04
Speaker 4: was scared of him. And at some point she said
30:07
Speaker 4: that she wanted to stop this, so you can revoke
30:11
Speaker 4: your earlier consent, and then it would be human trafficking,
30:14
Speaker 4: and then it could be racketeering where there are acts
30:19
Speaker 4: predicate acts that Diddy allegedly committed, like arson and intimidation
30:23
Speaker 4: of witnesses and extortion and others human trafficking that could
30:27
Speaker 4: lead to a guilty verdict here. So you know, life
30:29
Speaker 4: is complicated. This case is complicated because you have victims
30:34
Speaker 4: who at some point did seem like they were willing
30:37
Speaker 4: to go along. But doesn't mean that that consent lasts forever.
30:42
Speaker 3: Now, one thing that does keep coming out in testimony
30:45
Speaker 3: is that so many people, mostly women, were victimized but
30:49
Speaker 3: said nothing. Some women even described themselves as being brainwashed.
30:53
Speaker 3: I wonder if the defense could also seize on that
30:55
Speaker 3: and then downplay it because in some of this cross
30:58
Speaker 3: examination it clear they're trying to make the witness less
31:02
Speaker 3: credible and make them look like they're lying or just confused.
31:05
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's a good point because the defense is trying
31:08
Speaker 4: to put the witnesses and the victim on trial as well. Now,
31:13
Speaker 4: in a trial, it's only a defendant who's on trial,
31:16
Speaker 4: but the jury will look to see if they like
31:19
Speaker 4: the witnesses, if they believe the witnesses, if they believe
31:22
Speaker 4: the victim, and if they don't believe part of their testimony,
31:25
Speaker 4: they have the right to disregard their entire testimony. And
31:30
Speaker 4: that's what the defense is trying to do. They're trying
31:31
Speaker 4: to poke holes to say you don't remember this, you're
31:34
Speaker 4: on drugs there, you were engaged in voluntary prostitution, or
31:40
Speaker 4: you're a sex worker and that's your profession. And then
31:42
Speaker 4: they look at the jury they say, you see what
31:44
Speaker 4: we're dealing with here, and they're hoping that at least
31:46
Speaker 4: one juror sympathizes with the defense or at least doesn't
31:51
Speaker 4: like the witnesses or victim. And if that happens, then
31:56
Speaker 4: that's a hung jury. And if everyone has a reasonable
31:59
Speaker 4: doubt or like, well this is not yeah, it would
32:01
Speaker 4: be reasonable doubt because it's a federal criminal case, then
32:04
Speaker 4: it would be an acquittal.
32:06
Speaker 3: You've been following this so closely from the very beginning.
32:09
Speaker 3: What is the most damning evidence that the prosecution has
32:13
Speaker 3: against Sean Culmes? If it's not just his word against
32:17
Speaker 3: their word, the.
32:18
Speaker 4: Most devastating evidence is that video from the Interconninal hotel.
32:22
Speaker 4: That video has been shown multiple times at the trial,
32:25
Speaker 4: and that video speaks volumes. It shows did he engage
32:29
Speaker 4: in serious violence against Cassie? So when didty says that
32:33
Speaker 4: there was no force, fraud or coersion here? Well, what
32:37
Speaker 4: was on that video? What did we just watch? We
32:39
Speaker 4: can see with our own eyes and essentially Ditty's defenses,
32:43
Speaker 4: who you're gonna believe me are your lyon eyes. Well,
32:46
Speaker 4: that video does tell that Diddy engaged in the force
32:51
Speaker 4: or corrosion needed to establish human trafficking, and it also
32:56
Speaker 4: can lead to racketeering in showing that he to force
33:00
Speaker 4: himself to put others under his thumb to make others
33:05
Speaker 4: comply with his will. And that's why they engage allegedly
33:09
Speaker 4: in arson and witness intimidation and extortion and all these
33:13
Speaker 4: other things like human trafficking. So that video is the
33:16
Speaker 4: most powerful evidence.
33:17
Speaker 3: Now is that the summation of the defense strategy that
33:21
Speaker 3: Comb's team has is that the witnesses may be lying,
33:25
Speaker 3: they're confused, and that technically this really shouldn't be tried
33:29
Speaker 3: in this court for this venue anyway.
33:32
Speaker 4: Yes, what did he is trying to say is that
33:35
Speaker 4: he acted badly there, He was a jealous boyfriend. And
33:40
Speaker 4: perhaps this is a domestic violence case which is prosecuted
33:43
Speaker 4: in state court, non federal court. And this is not
33:46
Speaker 4: a state court case. And so that's why he's saying
33:51
Speaker 4: that this is not unlike any other basic domestic violence case.
33:55
Speaker 4: It's based on jealousy. In fact, in that video, an
33:57
Speaker 4: infamous video at the Innercana Hotel, see him grabbing for
34:01
Speaker 4: her phone. So he's saying, you see, I was jealous.
34:03
Speaker 4: I want to know what's on her phone. These are
34:06
Speaker 4: a lover's quarrel, and I admit I acted badly, but
34:09
Speaker 4: it's not human trafficking. Human trafficking is commercial sex acts
34:14
Speaker 4: involving force, fraud, a coorsion. The sex acts involved here,
34:18
Speaker 4: according to Diddy, were consensual. That fight was separate from
34:24
Speaker 4: the freak coughs. She was consenting to the free cost.
34:27
Speaker 4: But when it came to the fight, that was purely
34:29
Speaker 4: domestic violence and should be seen as such. That is
34:32
Speaker 4: a big load for the jury to have to separate
34:35
Speaker 4: the two, to have to say, yeah, you're right, he
34:38
Speaker 4: acted badly here with force and coercion, but had nothing
34:41
Speaker 4: to do with the underlying freak offs.
34:43
Speaker 1: Ah.
34:44
Speaker 4: I don't buy it. I don't think the jury will
34:45
Speaker 4: bite either.
34:46
Speaker 3: There is another witness also who testified that Comes dangled
34:50
Speaker 3: her from a balcony and it wasn't his girlfriend, it
34:53
Speaker 3: was a friend, and that she was dangled from the
34:55
Speaker 3: seventeenth floor balcony. Does that testimony help the prosecution with
35:01
Speaker 3: the weight of the video. I mean, did he can
35:04
Speaker 3: make the argument or his team can make the argument
35:06
Speaker 3: that the video shows a domestic case. But it seems
35:11
Speaker 3: like dangling your aid or your your girlfriend's friend from
35:15
Speaker 3: a balcony wouldn't necessarily be a domestic right.
35:19
Speaker 4: I'm sorry even that, because you're right. You see, this
35:21
Speaker 4: is the amount of evidence that the prosecution has here.
35:25
Speaker 4: And your racketeering was invented to go after the mafia,
35:28
Speaker 4: but it's not just for the mafia anymore. We saw
35:30
Speaker 4: it use in a variety of cases, including one against r. Kelly.
35:33
Speaker 4: So you've got a fellow, a music mogul who was
35:36
Speaker 4: taken down by racketeering. And if you don't want to
35:42
Speaker 4: be charged like a mobster, then don't dangle someone over
35:46
Speaker 4: a balcony. But that's what he's been alleged here of doing.
35:50
Speaker 4: That's what this witness said that he did to her,
35:53
Speaker 4: and they're desperately trying to poke holes in her story.
35:57
Speaker 3: Could Combs also face civil action once this criminal child's.
36:00
Speaker 4: Over oh one hundred percent, he's already facing civil action.
36:05
Speaker 4: And when you're a wealthy guy, apparently he's worth a
36:07
Speaker 4: quarter of a billion dollars. Yeah, he's going to be
36:10
Speaker 4: tied up in civil lawsuits forever, and the question is
36:14
Speaker 4: whether he'll face them from a prison cell or whether
36:17
Speaker 4: he will be living the high life again. Either way,
36:20
Speaker 4: he's not getting out of this entirely.
36:22
Speaker 3: And as we've established, you followed this case from the
36:25
Speaker 3: very beginning. You've been watching the trial, You've been keeping
36:29
Speaker 3: a close eye on all of it. Have you ever
36:31
Speaker 3: seen anything like this?
36:33
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know. I've never seen anything like this.
36:35
Speaker 4: I mean, there are Kelly allegations were somewhat similar, but
36:40
Speaker 4: to have Arson in a whole team of people around
36:44
Speaker 4: you who are trying to exert force to have you
36:49
Speaker 4: comply with their will, I think the close thing I've
36:52
Speaker 4: seen is the R. Kelly case, But this takes it
36:56
Speaker 4: to another level. I mean, no matter what happens here,
36:59
Speaker 4: the offended didty should be tard and feathered in the
37:02
Speaker 4: court of public opinion. He has acted so badly that
37:06
Speaker 4: he should not be accepted anymore in polite society where
37:11
Speaker 4: he gets invited to the met gala or gets to
37:14
Speaker 4: pretend that he didn't do all these things. And this
37:17
Speaker 4: is absolutely despicable behavior. I mean, the baby oil and
37:20
Speaker 4: the drugs and the steps that were taking to cover
37:23
Speaker 4: everything up, and the extortion allegedly, and the arson allegedly,
37:27
Speaker 4: and putting people over balconies allegedly, and just that videotape alone,
37:31
Speaker 4: the video alone, which we didn't have a video on
37:33
Speaker 4: the R. Kelly case. So the video of Ditty committing
37:38
Speaker 4: terrible violence against Cassie manhandling her, that alone should just
37:42
Speaker 4: get him canceled. And I'm not one who likes canceled culture,
37:45
Speaker 4: but this is a guy deserves to be canceled.
37:47
Speaker 3: And just finally, one big difference between Ditty and R.
37:50
Speaker 3: Kelly is R Kelly was a music artist, but Ditty
37:53
Speaker 3: was a mogul in music industry, in the food industry,
37:56
Speaker 3: in the fashion industry, and as you mentioned, worth the
38:00
Speaker 3: quarter billion dollars and go back twenty thirty years. He
38:03
Speaker 3: helped change how the music industry, the R and B
38:07
Speaker 3: industry operated, And this trial is a pretty damning.
38:14
Speaker 4: It's terrible. You know, in today's society, it seems like
38:18
Speaker 4: everyone can make a comeback and that nothing sticks to
38:21
Speaker 4: people anymore, But this should stick to him. This guy's
38:25
Speaker 4: a bad dude, and I'm hoping that they'll be just
38:28
Speaker 4: as done in this case.
38:30
Speaker 3: Our thanks to former Palm Beach County State Attorney and
38:33
Speaker 3: managing partner at Dave Arenberg Law, Dave Ehrenberg, thank you
38:37
Speaker 3: so much for joining us. That does it. For this
38:39
Speaker 3: edition of Bloomberg Law, I'm Amy Morris in for June Grasso.
38:43
Speaker 3: This is Bloomberg. Stay with us today's top stories in
38:45
Speaker 3: global business. Headlines are coming up right now